AMERICAblog: 'The one who primaries Obama will be the next Democratic president'

[Newsjock]

Source: AMERICAblog

During the Seventies, we had two ineffectual presidents unable to deal with the economic and other hard times that confronted them. Both were primaried and both went on to lose the general election. However, their parties had very different fates after those elections.

After Ronald Reagan lost to Gerald Ford, he did not stop campaigning and organizing. Not only did he go on to win the next time, but his 1976 campaign is basis of the Conservative Movement that has dominated American politics ever since. In retrospect, conservatives would surely say that the Regan Revolution and all that followed was worth it to suffer through four years of Carter. Additionally, what most people remember of Gerald Ford is Chevy Chase’s imitation, and no one brands his failures onto the Republican Party.

Even thirty years after Carter’s defeat, we can’t use the word Liberal because the Republicans succeeded in branding him a “Liberal.” Of course, Carter was a moderate at best and actually started the country on the road to de-regulation. But for anyone old enough, his feckless “malaise” is forever mixed up with the word “liberal” and the Democratic Brand.

The question with Obama is, can we afford not to primary him?

Read more: http://www.americablog.com/2011/04/one-who-primaries-obama-will-be-next.html

[Teaser]

1. lol. failpost

.

[XOKCowboy]

7. Why would we want 4 more years of concession to the Right?

I'd rather have someone who'll stand up to the Right instead of "celebrating" gutting Planned Parenthood and other needed social safety net programs!

[Teaser]

9. lol. concession. LOL.

.

[Bluebear]

44. lol. your posts.

[SidDithers]

53. lol, americablog...nt

Sid

[Teaser]

54. it's what I live for, baby honey.

look at my freakin' handle.

[treestar]

60. Then why did you sit back and allow a Republican Congress?

Why do you lean on the President for everything?

[Javaman]

61. Not going to get into a flame war...

why do you think our opinions still even matter?

[treestar]

84. Do other people's opinions matter?

Does reality matter?

Why do you think you can bully others?

[Javaman]

85. I think you missed what I meant.

I'm talking about politicians and their regard for us.

cheers to you.

[Scurrilous]

2. ROFL

Rahm Emanuel was right!!

:rofl:

[patrice]

3. After another 8 years of Republicans in which all of the horrible things being attributed to Obama

on this board will come to pass and then some.

[Teaser]

4. best advice I ever got: "next time, post sober"

someone should tell that to the author of that piece.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. Right. That's how Ted Kennedy got elected in '84

:crazy:

[Bluerthanblue]

16. yeah- odd

isn't it. That's not the past I lived through.

:shrug:

[Angry Dragon]

8. Obama is the only person to have declared so far

for both parties ........ the Regressive Party seems to have a lot of contenders in pick panties

[ProSense]

10. Completely moronic

The idiotic spin being advanced by the Obama can't do anything right isn't the President's actual record.

Any candidate would have to run against the Presidents actual record and have to be able to back any claims up with actual fact, not speculative bullshit like: The President is going to announce Social Security cuts in his SOTU, sources say.

This has been the driving factor behind the non-stop negative spin: create the perception that the President is weak and push a primary.

[JDPriestly]

36. ProSense, all we have with Obama is more and more of the big

grift. Obama has given the rich of Wall Street and the energy industry a license to steal from our country and each of us Americans.

I am an older person. My generation saved money to the extent it could, entrusted it to the banks, Wall Street and the government, -- and voila -- we are now told that it has disappeared.

We are supposed to ignore the fact that the people telling us that our money is gone have stolen it and put it in their pockets.

Obama has done nothing about getting our money back for us.

He has done nothing about getting the money back for the people of Greece and Portugal and Ireland and Iceland and all the countries from which the banksters and the corporate hooligans have stolen money.

He just criticizes Americans all the time. We don't work hard enough. We don't do well enough in school. We don't have good teachers. We demand too much welfare.

Obama's message is just a putdown for ordinary Americans. It is very pessimistic for people like me who have worked hard, carefully obeyed the law and followed the rules all our lives while the people who have cheated get by with stealing our money. ]

Obama promised hope, but he and his grifter friends on Wall Street have taken away what hope I and many other ordinary Americans had. That is a very personal reaction on my part, but I know it is shared by millions of other Americans who cannot get good jobs, who are afraid of losing Social Security or who are being paid far less than their parents were at the same age.

Obama has embraced the unworkable, unrealistic "free" market religion. We have been practicing that religion since 1980, maybe even since 1976. If you consider the improvements in technology over the past 30 years, then you realize that our standard of living has actually not kept pace, that it is not as great as it should be. "Free" trade is the reason that we as individuals are earning so little and enjoying actually very little benefit from the technological progress that has been made.

We need a candidate who will put the end to all the exaggerated "free-marke" propaganda and end or renegotiate the trade agreements that have placed our economy at such a disadvantage internationally.

It should be a privilege for people in other countries to be able to do business with us. Our politicians have sold that privilege for pennies with which they fill their own pockets. And after they have pocketed their compensation for selling out Americans, they tell us that we are not competitive, that we can't afford to enjoy a decent lifestyle.

They ignore the increasing numbers of homeless among us. They make a good education less and less accessible for ordinary children and young adults. They blame our increasing poverty on hardworking Americans and take no responsibility for the fact that it is their policies -- their bail-outs, their income tax injustice, their penal system, their free trade -- that cause that poverty.

That is why I do not think that Obama will be elected in 2012. He has closed his heart to the suffering of so many Americans. He has been bought by the likes of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the rest of the grifters.

The concept of righteousness, with its religious overtones, is very much a part of our American value system. Although they are seriously misguided about where they are seeking it, righteousness is what the Tea Baggers are trying to find.

Based on Obama's campaign rhetoric in 2008, voters believed that he would return our country to righteousness -- to fairness, equality and justice. He hasn't.

People will say they like him, but he will not receive the votes in the heartland in states like Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan -- the votes he needs to win in 2012 because people in those states are seeking that strange American value "righteousness" that they thought he had and that he has not shown since his inauguration.

We might as well keep hope alive with a candidate who is really liberal and has less to lose than Obama. Because Obama has already lost the 2012 election.

I know the spirit of the Midwest. That is where I am from. I campaigned for Obama, walked precincts for Obama, in 2008 in Ohio. People there voted for him because they thought he would stand tall against Wall Street and protect Social Security and pensions. He has failed on both counts, and that is why the Midwest turned against him in 2010.

So, if you have Obama's ear, or his campaign's ear, I hope you will tell them what I am telling you. Because I am a pretty smart old lady -- just a few months older than Obama's mother would have been. I have seen a lot in the world.

What Obama is doing is not right. He deserves a scolding and some time out until he stops playing with the Wall Street bullies.

[ProSense]

37. Nonsense.

Facts

[JDPriestly]

42. So, ProSense, I ask you again, as I always do, to explain your reasoning.

What precisely in my statement, point of view, argument do you think is nonsense and why?

I don't just say nonsense to your posts. I tell you why I disagree with you. I communicate with you.

Your posts read as though they could be copied from some professional source, say an Obama publicist. They don't have much complexity or original thought in them. Most DUers post spontaneously written things or articles attributed with links. And when DUers write personally composed posts, there always from time to time is a certain confusion in them. That is because the DUer is actually developing original thought and working through that process.

Your posts strike me as quite strange, unlike the posts of most other DUers.

[ProSense]

46. Trying to sound rational?

"What precisely in my statement, point of view, argument do you think is nonsense and why? "


"Because Obama has already lost the 2012 election."


It's nonsense because you don't have a crystal ball, the facts don't support it and you seem to believe that saying anything makes it a fact.


"Your posts strike me as quite strange, unlike the posts of most other DUers."

Oh my!

:rofl:

[JDPriestly]

49. Again, you don't communicate. Why not?

I am not claiming to have a crystal ball. I base my prediction on the experiences I mentioned.

Obama has to win the Midwest to prevail in 2012.

I know the mentality in the Midwest -- the practicality. Most Midwesterners are either farmers or laborers or the children or grandchildren of farmers or laborers. They look for results and think very practically.

As I explained, I walked precincts in Ohio in the weeks before the 2008 election. I talked to voters. They were concerned about the economy. This was especially true of the seniors I talked to. Obama's economic policies have favored Wall Street, not Main Street. He will pay dearly for that fact.

The Tea-Baggers are the irrational lot, but it is Obama who is viewed as irrational.

The problem with predicting the election for those who like Obama a lot is that he is personally popular. All but a crazy few "like" Obama. But likability is not going to carry him through in 2012. He has got to separate himself from the Wall Street cheats, from the crushing economic policies that he is now embracing.

The tax cut/budget cuts squeeze is really going to make Obama very vulnerable in 2012. Democrats would have been better served had he chosen to let Republicans close the government rather than accept those cuts. Those cuts will hurt ordinary Americans.

Obama has not handled the economy well, not at all. He needs more balance between liberals and Wall Streeters in his economic advisory councils.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

43. Right On Mama. n/t

[treestar]

62. who knew that electing a Democratic President would mean we

could just sit back and wait for the President to do everything for us. Sounds like a King, not a President. And a King would not have to take care of us this way.

Getting our money back for us? That we invested in Wall Street on our own? Why didn't you just put it in a savings account? Presumably you knew how corrupt Wall street was all along.

[ooglymoogly]

72. +1

[dennis4868]

11. This is too funny.....

you guys crack me up....really....hahahaha!

[Renew Deal]

12. Good luck with that.

I look forward to another Obama challenger losing.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

13. This is crazy talk.

With all due respect to the poster and all people who are mentally ill. Who does the Democratic Party have that could be elected? The MSM destroyed Howard Dean with the famous 'scream' sound bite. As a person who may not be completely Democratic (I think I'm father left than the party) there is NO WAY this would work.
Besides, it seems now that we are two years into Mr. Obama's term that most folks still haven't caught on as to how politics at this level works.
We have to stay the course unless you want to permanently eradicate what remains of the Democratic Party by running another candidate against him during the primary. It would split the party and you know what Julius Caesar always said, 'divide and conquer'
:toast:

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. In the instance cited above, Reagan LOST in 76. The movement he

started didn't really catch hold until the election in 80. So it is not a question about a successful Dem challenger to Obama, but the start of a progressive movement that would coalesce in 2016, making that candidate the kind of transformational president that Obama hoped, but failed, to be.

The analogy falls apart with the notion that there is a moderate, well-meaning but overall ineffective Republican to play the Carter part here. Everyone on the other side is bat shit. (Unless, of course, you have Obama playing both the Ford and Carter rolls - now there's bipartisanship).

[JDPriestly]

38. You are so right, RaleighNCDUer.

Obama is moving our party to the right, and of course the Tea Baggers are driving their party so far to the right that they are about to fall of a cliff. There is no alternative to the right except the extreme right at this time. Those of us who used to be considered very middle of the road Democrats are considered to be on the "left." Very strange for an old-timer like me.

Obama would have been viewed as a Republican of the Rockefeller ilk back in the day, but he masquerades as a Democrat. It's very disappointing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. So, in this scenario Obama is not Carter, but Ford.

Interesgting concept.

But then, who would be the Carter here?

[JDPriestly]

39. We will find out.

The movement to clean up our party is not centered around a personality. We found that did not work well in 2008.

We are waiting for a person who listens to us and then works with us in a democratic fashion, not some supreme, charismatic leader. We had that supreme, charismatic leader in 2008. It has not worked out well for those of us who are just ordinary, hardworking, thrifty types, not at all.

[mmonk]

15. There is a question in all this.

Will Democrats fight against the Republicans more or less if Obama wins re-election?

[Recovered Repug]

18. Lee Mercer is a Democrat running for president.

So, Lee Mercer will be the next Democratic president?

[BlueJazz]

19. Some of what you say might be true. If we truly care for this Land perhaps the..

...best thing for future generations (Not us) would be to let the Republicans have their way and completely
destroy this country.
From the ashes will be a people that will forever remember the actions that led to it's destruction and will
not repeat them.
A slow death is far worse than a quick ending....and the way it's going we're being murdered piece by piece.
I won't (probably) live to see the uprising but at least, for now, I can be content that we gave up our meager
existance for a much smarter and better world.

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. We blew our best chance at that in 2008

Before the election, had the Dems stood firm, and opposed the bailouts, Wall Street would have imploded, and the Federal Government probably would have had to default and restructure the debt. It would have been a rough few years, but in the long run, we probably all would have been better off.

[Teaser]

56. " I can be content that we gave up our meager existance (sic) ..."

give up your own meager existence,if you want. I'll make my own choice about my existence, thank you very much.

[BlueJazz]

87. I doubt if my words are going to change anything. Was more curious as to how people

..felt about such things. It's easy to construct shit in your mind when you know it's not going to happen.

[JTFrog]

57. LOL

Yes, by losing in 2012 and giving control to the GOP death party for at least eight years, we somehow end up a much better and smarter world in the long run.


/facepalm

[Safetykitten]

20. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

21. "At this point, what part of the base has Obama not disappointed and angered?"

Maybe the 87% of liberal Democrats that approve of his job performance?

The existence of small groups of both parties (that will NEVER be satisfied with any actual elected nominee from their party) does not at ALL imply that the vast majority of people in the party don't support him.

[Safetykitten]

22. Where is this 87% Is it still valid this vaunted poll?

[XOKCowboy]

24. I'd have to call BS on that 87% figure also if you're talking about real liberals

Obama is not a liberal. He's barely a Democrat! He's a moderate when what we need is someone who'll stand up for true liberal policies.

I and my true liberal friends (you know the kind who detest corporate loopholes, tax breaks for the rich, Guantanamo, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and support Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) are becoming more and more disappointed with this kind of Change. Looks like more of the same to us.

[BzaDem]

28. Think about the implications of what you are saying.

Polls generally indicate that 20% of the country is liberal.

But you are saying that such a subgroup includes a bunch of "fake liberals" -- since they (to you) couldn't possibly approve of Obama if they were a "real liberal."

But if you are correct, and a large portion of the 20% are "fake liberals," than that would just mean the number of "real liberals" would be even LESS than 20%.

In fact, the more correct you are (about people calling themselves liberal when they really aren't liberal), the less the number of real liberals in the country becomes.

[JoePhilly]

51. Logic smogic.

:-)

[BzaDem]

27. Gallup asks the question every week throughout every President's term.

All year long, his support among liberal Democrats has ranged from 84 to 89.

[JDPriestly]

40. Don't be fooled by the poll numbers.

As we saw in 2010, the big question is not Obama's popularity in the commercial polls, but whether he can get voters to go to the November polls.

He has to be perceived as something other than just a nice guy who gives in to the Republicans all the time if he wants people to bother to get in the voting booth to support him.

He is going to have to do something about the perception that he is a Wall Street, rich man's hack, that he plays footsie with Republicans, that he is not on the side of hardworking Americans.

[BzaDem]

41. But he did get liberals to go to the polls for him -- in fact, just as many as in the previous

midterm where we took back bot houses (and more than the one before that).

What changed in 2010 was the vote of most centrists -- not the vote of most liberals (or their turnout).

[JDPriestly]

47. My definition of "liberal" would probably include some you would

consider centrist.

I think that people will vote jobs and money issues in 2012. And Obama is not doing well in those areas.

Republicans can claim they have new ideas. People will fall for it.

Obama needs to distance himself from Wall Street -- really do something that clearly says he is on the side of the ordinary Main Street folks when it comes to the crimes of Wall Street.

Ordinary Americans feel that they have been robbed by Obama's friends on Wall Street. And, in fact, they have.

So, Obama has a huge hurdle to overcome if he thinks he is going to be re-elected.

[JDPriestly]

23. K&R

Absolutely right on.

Reagan won because he stood for something -- for real change.

Obama knows that -- at least he did when he was on the campaign trail.

But he has forgotten that essential truth -- and key to winning campaigns.

A Republican like Reagan may be able to lie and cheat and slogan his way to power and the opportunity to change things.

Takes an honest Democrat to win the heart of the country.

If we can just find one honest Democrat who will stand up for Americans and oppose the Taliban on Wall Street and in the energy industry -- we can get our country back.

I believe that a person with that kind of integrity and courage will win over even the most cynical in the media and Tea Party.

Obama is a nice guy, but, unfortunately, he does not have the degree of integrity, courage and independence of spirit to win in 2012. He is not the right person for our time.

I think that a lot of Democrats and a lot of DUers lack the vision to see what is going to happen in 2012. If we run with Obama, it will not be a pretty sight. He has not scared the Republicans, and to win in 2012, he would have to have them running already.

[NYC Liberal]

29. "lot of DUers lack the vision to see what is going to happen in 2012"

Yes. A lot of DUers are operating under the delusion that a) there will be a primary, b) Obama has "lost" the base, c) Obama is not heading into this election with a very strong advantage.

The Republicans know that Obama will be a formidable candidate in 2012. It's the reason they've had to push back the GOP debate to the fall because not one Republican has actually announced they are running next year. Compare that to 2007, when by this time then Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Huckabee, Ron Paul, Romney, Sam Brownback, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson had all officially declared and entered the race.

I don't know if you're really serious when you say you think there's a Democrat who could win over the media and teabaggers. The same people who right now think Obama is a radical left-wing Marxist?

[JDPriestly]

45. I think you are mistaken.

Why? Obama won swing states in the Midwest in 2008. He will have a serious problem winning them again in 2012 due to his pro-Wall Street economic policies.

I grew up in the Midwest and have family there. Obama has really let people down there. I walked precincts in Ohio in 2008. I know why people there voted for him. They thought he would rein in Wall Street, safeguard their pension and Social Security money. Obama has failed in that regard.

And a lot of very nice, hardworking people have lost their homes due to the dishonesty of the banks.

I think a challenge would be a good thing in 2012. Obama needs to see how people really feel about his pro-Wall Street policies.

[NYC Liberal]

50. "I think a challenge would be a good thing in 2012."

Who do you think would have the best chance not only to win the Democratic nomination, but also the general election next November? You run to win, not simply to make noise. Anyone who isn't serious about that needs to get out of the way and make room for serious candidates. There are plenty of ways to get your message out without risking spoiling an election.

[JDPriestly]

70. It does no good to win and election if the people you elect

do not serve you but rather only serve the grifters on Wall Street and in the energy sector.

Winning is meaningless if you get the same policies when your guy wins as you do when the other side wins. And that is the case here. The policies that have changed under Obama are inconsequential compared to the policies of the Bush administration that have continued unabated, sometimes worsened, under Obama. Obama's administration, is, I am sorry to say, a miserable failure just as was the administration of George Bush Jr.

[NYC Liberal]

73. "Obama's administration, is, I am sorry to say, a miserable failure"

Hilariously wrong in so many ways. But if you really believe it then there's probably not much more to say.

[JDPriestly]

74. Have you read Matt Taibbi's Griftopia.

I am asking everyone that question, especially those who back Obama because that book explains just what is going and Obama's role in it.

[onenote]

68. you keep forgetting that there will be a repub on the ballot against Obama

Will Obama sweep Indiana, Illinoi, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio? Hard to say not knowing who his opponent will be, but let's assume he might have a hard time in Indidana (11 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes) where his 2008 margin of victory was rather thin. Is he going to lose Illinois? No. Wisconsin? Unlikely. Minnesota? Unlikely. Why? In part because folks in those states have seen what happens when they put repubs in charge and there is a significant backlash against the repubs in those jurisdictions.

[JDPriestly]

69. I would not be so certain about Wisconsin and Minnesota.

There may be a backlash. But Obama has not yet positioned himself to take advantage of that backlash or to encourage it. He has backed down on raising taxes and backed down on the spending cuts. That makes him look like someone who is with the Republicans on these issues. That is precisely my point. Rather than positioning himself to appear as one working with the Republicans to impose these austerity measures, he needs to position himself staunchly and stubbornly with those who prefer simply to raise taxes on the rich. It is the only way he can win. Of course, he has to do more than position himself. He has to win some victories on the tax and spending front.

And so far, he has just worked himself into a corner in which he has no freedom of movement to come out on the side of ordinary people fighting to increase the tax burden on the rich and lower the cuts to the rest of us. He has really bungled his administration. I just see very little hope for him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

76. Maybe. Maybe not

The voters in those midwest states did go and elect a bunch of psychotic Republican stepdads in 2012 whom, along with their teabagging stepsons and stepdaughters, claimed a mandate to lower the tax rates for people whom do business on Wall Street, bust unions, harass teachers, and continue to demand their right to make family planning decisions for their state's female population and their uteruses instead of creating jobs and/or actually doing things to improve people's quality of life. People in those states may not be able to vote the out the stepdads in 2012 (in most cases) but they have an opportunity to vote for somebody to keep the stepdads in check at the federal level (and maybe to get rid of a lot of the psychotic stepsons and stepdaughters as well). Something tells me that people suffering Republican buyer's remorse are unlikely to turn to the Republicans for anything, at least not in 2012. :shrug:

[upi402]

25. In Isaac Asimov’s Foundation...

"In Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, a far-sighted scientist can see that the Galactic Empire is crumbling and is to be followed by a thirty-thousand-year-long dark age, but with the right steps, the darkness can be limited to only a thousand years. "

http://whatistobedone2.blogspot.com/

the elephant is in the livingroom

[grahamhgreen]

26. True.

[madamesilverspurs]

30. pppphhhhfffftttt

[Keith Bee]

32. Dumbest post I've seen thus far on DU

Congrats! :dunce:

[Teaser]

55. stick around

.

[cliffordu]

33. Kinda lame. Fail.

[Modern_Matthew]

34. Nope, because we have parties in politics (unfortunately) nt

[coalition_unwilling]

35. Ronald Reagan's 1976 campaign is NOT the ''basis of the Conservative

Movement". That distinction belongs to Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign against LBJ. Reagan was not even, properly speaking, a Conservative the way we use that term today -- true, he cut taxes on the wealthy (what's new?) but he also presided over a massive growth in government spending.

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Perhaps, but Nixon, and the Repub party, did NOT embrace the Goldwater platform

in 68 and 72. Reagan, in 76, did, and he dragged the party with him. As posited in the OP, he continued to campaign, keep his profile up, through the Carter years and created the groundwork for the "Reagan Revolution" (more technically, a coup, due to the skulduggery surrounding the holding of the hostages to kill Carter's campaign).

And since when is massive military spending NOT a part of Goldwater Republicanism?

[coalition_unwilling]

88. Yeah, I prefer to call it the "Reagan Reaction" (as opposed to a

"revolution"), in the sense that Reagan was a classic reactionary.

It is true that Nixon, Ford and the Repukes did not embrace the Goldwater platform probly because they had seen Goldwater get his clocked cleaned by LBJ. My only issue with the OP was with the statement that Reagan 'created' the Conservative Movement. Heir to, yes, creator, no.

Goldwater, a spokesperson for the Burkean Conservative legacy, had more integrity in his little finger than the opportunist and charlatan Reagan could ever dream of having.

[SidDithers]

52. Then here comes President Randall Terry!!...nt

Sid

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. As to your question:

No. There's no guarantee that a primary challenge would even be successful and there's certainly no guarantee that it won't irrevocably damage the party and help facilitate the election of another Republican to the WH, giving us another four to eight years of the worst of the worst (likely enabled by a fully Republican Congress in thrall to the teabaggers).

I know that a primary challenge (were one to actually materialize) to President Obama might sound great to progressive ears until President Obama or somebody else starts asking the following questions:

1. How would you have managed Congress differently during the last two sessions better than President Obama, specifically, what would your strategy have been to get a more progressive agenda (i.e. single payer, public option, tougher wall street reform, gitmo closed, etc.) through Congress over the objection of every single Republican and some "blue dog" Dems?
2. How will you work with Congress (if elected POTUS) to get a more progressive agenda through Congress if the House remains controlled by the GOP and/or the Senate goes Republican? Or, by the same token, if Democrats manage to retake the House by a slight margin and/or maintain a slim majority in the Senate?

If somebody seriously wants to primary President Obama, I think that we need/deserve answers to those two questions because if he/she can't come up with a reasonable answer to both of those questions, then we have absolutely no reason to believe that nominating and electing a different person, even if they themselves are the most progressive person in the country, will produce different results.

Might I kindly suggest that we instead concentrate on making sure we don't cede the WH to the Republican challenger and working like crazy to elect more progressive Democrats to the House and/or Senate next year (and to state and local offices as well)? Ultimately, it won't matter how progressive President Obama or a presumptive primary challenger is or how many progressive promises they make, they will NOT succeed in getting a progressive agenda signed into law unless they have a Congress that is able and willing to support it and get it to the President's desk. The only realistic way IMHO that we can realistically be able to put this country on a more progressive footing is to organize and elect progressives at every level of government.

[TheKentuckian]

78. Obama can't answer the questions either. I suspect starting with the correct intentions would help.

Appointing people to critical positions that support liberal policy would help to.

Operating on the same fundamental principles as the Republicans isn't going to get progressive legislation through either. Nor will backroom meetings with industry big wigs. Nor does starting from Republican prescriptions. Nor will mini policy think tanks stacked with corporatist and right wingers.

Don't forget how hard it is to elect anyone when the party apparatus joins the press to wipe them out in favor of more corporate friendly millionaires.

The more liberal Congress was the first response and was fought and belittled by the establishment and will be again. Incumbents will be protected and corporate politicians will be pressed to the front of the pack.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

86. As to your first point

Obama DOESN'T operate on the same fundamental principles as the Republicans. Increasing GOVERNMENT oversight and regulation of the the health insurance and financial industries and promoting the idea that everybody should be able to have life- and health-saving insurance are NOT "fundamental principles" of the Republican Party (or any era)- not even close.

As for your concern that progressives will inevitably lose to the establishment, well, the Tea Party managed to get a lot of candidates nominated for national office despite the fact that they weren't "establishment" candidates. Granted, few ultimately won in the general elections (because they were too far out of the mainstream) but if enough of us mobilize at the state and local levels, we COULD theoretically get more progressives nominated if not elected to Congress. I mean, if progressive policies are what the vast majority of Americans want, why should it be difficult to organize enough people to nominate and elect like-minded candidates? :shrug:

At any rate, it still makes more sense IMHO to focus on electing a more progressive Congress (or at least one more receptive to progressive concerns) than to focus on primarying a sitting President who is, by law, unable to unilaterally enact the kind of policies that the rest of us feel are necessary. Don't like Gitmo remaining open? Want single-payer or a strong PO? Elect the kind of people to Congress whom can actually make it the law of the land. That's how our system is supposed to work.

And don't sit around just banging the drum and making Obama solely responsible for getting things done and/or addressing every injustice in this country every second of every day. His attention is divided by several thousand different things every single day of the week, only some of which has to do with Congress. We need to be demanding that our members of Congress are doing their jobs as well and doing their own leading on their turf. They (and we) shouldn't be just expecting President Obama to do all of the work and make all the deals (that we all turn around grouse about afterwards). Obama isn't in Congress anymore. It's not his turf anymore. It's almost like many Congressmen (Democrats AND Republicans) seem to want Obama to be their referee and broker deals. WTF is Congress needed for anyway if most of them just want to be led by the nose? :shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

90. Congress didn't stack the cabinet with neoliberal Clinton retreads and Republicans.

Nor did Congress force ideological (and fucking stupid) bipartisanship.

Congress isn't forcing Obama to advance the right wing's education plan.

Congress did not order the President to assert the power to order extra-judicial executions on his own authority without charges, much less a trial.

No one forced a ramp up in Afghanistan.

No one in Congress gave BP an EPA veto, the ability to direct the Coast Guard, and the power to control a free press.

Obama elected to cut backroom deals to kill drug re-importation and to take a government program off the table long before Lieberman's theatrics.

I scoff at your argument of regulation of Wall Street who maintains perverse incentives and was restricted only to telling us in writing how much they are going to rape us and I have no idea what regulation of the health insurance industry you are talking about. Having to take customers that can pay isn't regulation but corporate welfare and the awarding of too big to fail status. We traded indenturtude to the insurance cartel and about a trillion and a half dollars every ten years for that "advancement". Regulation and oversight was left in the hands of captured and overwhelmed states.

The Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act is a scam to enrich the cartel and kill real reform in the crib, as it was designed by the Heritage Foundation, presented by Dole and Gingrich, and implemented by Mitt Romney.

Your comments regarding the Teabaggers is a fundamental misunderstanding that the whole deal is a corporate sponsored, Fox and corporate media powered, Republican insider organized marketing scam to re-brand their tattered label.

[treestar]

59. Where is this person?

they need to have started their campaign by now.

[Blue_Tires]

63. oh, FFS

This shit is wearing thin...I'm reading the exact same column or blog post three times a week, only with different bylines...

OK, put up or shut up time for the 'primary' crowd:


1. Do you think that in today's political climate, some hypothetical challenge to Obama would *actually* come from the left? Moderate/conservative dems are the only ones suicidal enough to contemplate it...You only THOUGHT Obama was a gutless corporate lackey playing touchy-feely with the GOP -- Wait until you hear the rhetoric from so-called Dems in the primary claiming he hasn't done enough to accept the Republicans' bold, serious proposals....

2. WHO of note is actually going to lead this primary charge' killing his/her career and incurring the wrath of the entire party organization in the process?? (I'll assume the hypothetical challenge will come from a conventional politician, and not from way outside the box, i.e., Warren Beatty)...If it's just some random unknown outsiders trying to make a statement (Kurovski/WetzelBill for President), I'd support it just to prove a point, but it wouldn't make a single ripple in the re-election campaign.

Like I said; I'm seeing these 'We MUST primary Obama' pieces posted on DU several times a week, and they all have one thing in common: Despite the dozens of kinda-reasonable arguements they present, not one has even proposed a single legit name that is willing, able, and liberal enough to do it...Until that step is taken, all these bloggers are doing is mental masturbation...

[SidDithers]

75. +1...nt

Sid

[Proud Liberal Dem]

77. +1

Thanks! I've been thinking about the "mental masturbation" aspect to these kind of threads for a LONG time but never had the gumption to actually say it. I'm glad to know that I wasn't the only one thinking it. Until or unless somebody actually announces, people are just wasting time here pointlessly bickering about this when we could be, I don't know, organizing IRL to elect more progressive Democrats to Congress so that we can actually get all of that sacred progressive legislation to the President's desk (assuming that we manage to keep a Democrat in the WH at the same time).

[onenote]

65. well, if someone says so on the Internet, it must be true

:sarcasm:

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Exactly right.

The party needs an enema. It needs fundamental change, and it's worth putting up with, in fact apparently needs, a President Bachmann to get it.

"Conservative" is not yet radioactive enough, and current democrats hope that rearranging the deck chairs at conservatives direction qualifies as audacious change.

[Motown_Johnny]

67. Because the one who primaried Carter went on to become President?!?!?

Teddy never made it, and it ruined his chances of ever getting there.


This looks like RW bullshit to me


The only hope a Republican has is if someone does primary President Obama to damage him before the general starts.

[ThomWV]

71. Any Democrat who ran against Obama in a primary would have my vote.

I won't vote for a Republican, but I won't vote for Obama either.

[Renew Deal]

81. You would vote for Zell Miller?

What about Lyndon Larouche?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

79. this is one of the stupidest notions I have ever encountered.

[rasputin1952]

83. This is ludicrous...

Want a REAL nightmare....watch the GOP march into the WH under this crackpot scheme.

Why can't people understand even the basics of the presidency?

Tweo term liomit...first term is to try to get re-elected...second term, (especially if you have Congress on your side), you make the real changes

God...that Pol 101

[dionysus]

89. oooh, primary fantasy porn!

:rofl: