It seems more likely now that any primary challenge of Obama will be FUNDED by the far right

[uponit7771]

Obama with around 50% approval rating and around 9% unemployment and 87% approval rating amongst liberal democrats in Gallup means someone hard to beat.

Some can bash all day but anyone challenging Obama in the primaries can be EASILY labeled as funded by the right if the have a HINT of conservatism.

Your take?

Regards

[The Magistrate]

1. Rightist Money Could Be Found, Sir, Behind Left Types

Republican donors have kept Green Party candidates in the field lately on numerous occasions, and could readily pass money to a challenger from the left in a Democratic primary.

[999998th word]

16. Isn't this the same divide and conquer ploy?

[Lorien]

31. And the Koch brothers have generously funded the Right Wing DLC. nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

47. That's a favored technique here in Texas

Generally the Green Party's response is they are willing to take their money if it gets their name out. Even if it keeps the Republicans in power here in Texas.

That's ideological purity for you.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

2. Primary challenges are good for the soul.

Obama can only come out stronger for it.

Even if its a tough fight, the President will come out, a lean mean fighting machine, eager to take the pukes on.

I don't think funding a challenger will help the pukes after the Wisconsin fiasco.

Now if Ralph Nader gets massive funding for a third party run...yeah. I could see the pukes splitting the party. But I won't blame a primary challenge on the pukes. Not yet.

[cliffordu]

5. Can you name one race where your posit is or has been true??

I'll wait right here.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

6. Nader took 90,000 votes in Florida 2000.

if not for a 3rd party, Gore would have won.

3rd parties can be a good investment for the pukes.

[cliffordu]

27. We're talking about primarying the Prez.

Try to keep up.

[bluestate10]

35. Nader took something like 3,500 votes. But that 3,500 elected GW Bush. nt

[Exilednight]

38. It wasn't Nader. Anyone who has looked up the facts will see that there were

three left leaning candidates in Florida who took enough votes from Gore to hand Bush the election.

It says more about Gore not being able to get a little over 600 people to vote for him than it does of Nader that me managed to get more five times as many votes that separated Bush and Gore.

People just pick on Nader because he speaks out and challenges the party.

[Shiver]

8. I'll join you.

I brought drinks, snacks and folding chairs, so we're set.

[cliffordu]

15. Good, always like some company on these expeditions.

:hi:

[msongs]

7. obama "eager to take the pukes on"? he saves that for liberals nt

[MilesColtrane]

10. I'd bet this man disagrees with your theory.

[pnwmom]

17. Good for the soul, maybe -- but would only weaken Obama in the general

election.

History has proven this time after time. Primary challenges weaken incumbents, they don't strengthen them.

If Obama has to waste time and campaign funds fighting Dems, he'll be in much worse shape for the general.

[TheKentuckian]

22. No, history shows that weak incumbents draw a challenge. The win anyway and go on to defeat as

expected.

When was there a strong incumbent who was weakened by a primary?

This weak ass reasoning is a convoluted attack on the essential thrust of democracy and piss in the eye of the system that many tout but when push comes to shove they don't believe in it.

[pnwmom]

26. Lyndon Johnson was weakened by a primary.

So was Jimmy Carter. And either of those Democrats would have been far preferable to Nixon or Reagan.

[TheKentuckian]

28. No, they were weak and drew challenges.

Preference over Nixon or St Ronnie of Ray Guns is immaterial.

LBJ weakened himself by escalating in Viet Nam and predictably making himself all but excluded from a Democratic nomination.

Carter asked for personal sacrifices, spoke too mild mannered, got held responsible for botching the hostage rescue, and got out maneuvered by Reagan/BushCo on making a deal for the release of the hostages.

You might have a point about LBJ winning if the party had just swallowed the escalation unquestionably but that would be soulless and abandonment of duty as a citizen and decency as a human. At such a point you have become a fan of a team rather than a member of a political party and a morally bankrupt fan without honor, at that.
Even that doesn't mean the primary weakened him because it is quite likely the same people or more that abandoned him during the primary season would have abandoned him in the general.

I don't get this thinking that politicians aren't responsible for their actions or lack thereof but it does allow fertile ground for simple minded reverse engineering of history and lizard brain reaction to events.

[pnwmom]

29. We were much worse off with Nixon than with LBJ.

And Carter should have been supported by other Democrats, not attacked by them.

You don't help a President who is barely hanging on by cutting him off at the knees. And we never benefit when a Democratic incumbent is replaced by a Rethug.

[TheKentuckian]

37. Better or worse is not the question being debated.

Your claim was that primaries had weakened LBJ and Carter and now it seems to be that primaries didn't help them.

Your political beliefs seem to be pick a team, go down with the ship, and ignore any and all trespasses.

Seems like nothing I signed up for when I registered and a mockery of the process and therefore the entire government. It cannot but encourage horrendous results over time and precious little different than a game of diminishing returns.

All that to the side the primary was in neither case the root cause of the losses or in Johnson's case dropping out followed be RFK being assassinated which makes it an especially poor predictive model and you still fail to even really make an argument for causation.

Why can you not accept that weak candidates are a problem? Having the sense to switch from a tired horse would save some losses. It is those who insist on anointing incumbents against the wind that are missing the picture.

Blunderfuck Christie is in a statehouse for just this reason. Any Democrat but Corzine could have held the state but we ran a fucking bankster at the most idiotic time possible with his polls in the toilet and counted on the perks of incumbency to drag him through.

Hell, there is little reason to think Kennedy would do worse than Carter once it got to a general and lines hardened.

Most importantly you disrespect the process to the point of undermining it's credibility.

[pnwmom]

39. Of course they weakened them. They took away campaign time and funds

that could have been spent attacking the Republican opponents.

[TheKentuckian]

40. How would additional attack adds have put either back in the White House?

I've never once heard complaints about not enough money to compete.

You fail to address points. You refuse to make a case. You refuse to allow incumbents any level of responsibility for their own flaws or policies. You offer nothing on how to cope with bad candidates or terrible policy. You make no defense of an ongoing effort to undermine our electoral system to mindlessly protect incumbents and to separate them from being accountable to or Representative of the people.

This isn't pulling for a sports team and the integrity of the system must transcend party.

Why do you hate democracy? Why do you wish elected officials to be unaccountable?
Why are you obsessed with running weak candidates when we have a process to replace them?

[pnwmom]

41. Why do I hate democracy? Why are you so ridiculous? n/t

[TheKentuckian]

42. Okay, the more fair question is why do you not believe in representative democracy?

I ask that because you are on here arguing against the primary process or at least exempting incumbents from it which is not our system and is at least moving toward an authoritarian system with elections for life.

[Skittles]

18. .....EAGER TO TAKE PUKES ON

OMG....maybe ONBOARD :rofl:

[Arctic Dave]

3. They would fund a third party candidate first. Nt

[gkhouston]

13. +1000. They're not going to waste their money on a "Dem" who might or might

not make it out of the primaries. Better to spend their cash getting an "independent" on the ballot.

[grahamhgreen]

4. Thae operation rescue guy is already doing it

[flvegan]

9. ...and you back your statement how, specifically?

[xiamiam]

12. the 87% approval among liberals is not true regardless of what poll says that.

liberals usually think..and this is a no brainer..

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marr]

14. My take? That's the classic right-wing Democrat strategy.

It's hardly knew. Move as far to the right as you can, so the left has no representation and the right is pushed rightward. The tactic has proven successful in the past for certain politicians, and I suspect it will work for Obama. It's proven horrible for the country, of course, but if you're only concerned about supporting an individual politician's career, then it's great.

[Hannah Bell]

19. You *must* vote for obama. you just *must*. Any other choice will bring you

union-busting, attacks on wages, attacks on benefits, attacks on the new deal, austerity & war.

oh, wait.

[JNelson6563]

20. and the far right's puppets, the far left.

[mmonk]

21. The enemy within?

[LWolf]

23. Why would a conservative Democrat challenge Obama?

That doesn't make any sense. There's no need. Conservative, and neoliberal, agendas are being served.

The only reason to challenge him is to challenge him from the liberal left.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. A primary challenger will not be allowed

by The Party Machine. The right doesn't have to lift a finger as The Party will do all the work for them.

[Shagbark Hickory]

25. Wouldn't happen. It doesn't, nor did it ever, matter what the liberal left think about obama.

All that matters is what swing voters in swing states think and they aren't going to go rogue. They're a nervous lot that doesn't like taking too many chances.

[Lorien]

30. Obama has been great for the causes of the Far Right. Why would they want

to chance running anyone to the Left of far right against him? If he doesn't have a challenger then they win no matter who gets into office.

[quaker bill]

32. There will be no challenge

unless it is entirely made up by the right. People would have been testing the waters for months now, and we would know of it.

It is not going to happen in any serious way.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. So you should offer proof of Democratic candidates being funded

by the 'far right' in the past. Please, inform us. Also, you do understand that the ethics you are putting forth here, that it would be fine to smear a Democrat with false information is so vile that rejection of those who support such trash politics is a moral priority.
Are you suggesting that Obama would label other Democrats falsely, or just you personally would do so?

[Bandit]

34. IMO it would make no difference.

Whether Obama would win a Primary or another Democrat, either one would whip any Republican that has given any indication of running..I would probably vote for another Democrat if Obama were to have a primary challenge..

[Forkboy]

36. If it's a real concern he could shore up his left flank.

[Ken Burch]

45. Obama and the party leadership would rather lose than admit we matter

In that sense, the prez is just following a self-destructive tradition that LBJ and Mayor Daley started in 1968. Why our "leaders" keep getting to lead this party when they've demonstrated, over and over, that they don't really care about getting it elected remains a bonafide mystery.

[MadHound]

43. My take?

I think that this is an obscene, underhanded attempt to try and delegitimize the honest, forthright opposition to Obama and his policies. How dare you try and use this sort of tactic, and still call yourself honest, much less a Democrat.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. Backed by the Right, and by donations from many here on DU!!!

[MadHound]

46. Are you saying that many here at DU are on the right?

Is that what you are saying with your snide, underhanded implications?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. No. I'm saying that many here at DU would support a primary opponent to run

against Obama. That's what I'm saying and it's not underhanded. It's clear.

How many threads have we seen about DU members supporting primary candidates who run against Obama? MANY!

A simple search proves my point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=primary+obama&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en