Progressives Plan To Challenge Obama In Iowa - RawStory

[WillyT]

Progressives plan to challenge Obama in Iowa
By Eric W. Dolan - RawStory
Sunday, January 1, 2012

<snip>

The group Progressive Democrats of America hope to send a message to President Barack Obama by organizing people to vote for “uncommitted” in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

“I believe we need an inside outside strategy,” Tim Carpenter, the founder of the group, said at an organizing meeting in Des Moines this week. “We’re not asking everybody in this room to vote for Barack Obama. We’re not voting for Barack Obama. We’re organizing uncommitted slates to go to the caucus on Tuesday to challenge Barack Obama because he gave up on his promise to single payer [health care]. He took too long to get troops out of Iraq. There’s still troops in Afghanistan. And we need a financial transaction tax.”

Other groups, including the recently launched “Occupy Iowa Caucus” campaign, also plan to vote for “uncommitted” as a way of expressing their disappointment with Obama.

“We are a broader movement, inside and outside the Democratic party,” Carpenter said. “So as we move the conversation today, we’re not asking you to go to any caucus to vote for Barack Obama, we’re asking you to go to challenge him both inside and outside the caucuses, I want to make that clear.”

<snip>

Link (w/Video): http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/01/progressives-plan-to-challenge-obama-in-iowa/

Or... Video Here:

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Don Quixote understands this 'strategy'

but I sure as fuck don't.

[HuckleB]

111. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. If they want those things

Their time would be better spent IMHO electing a progressive Democratic-controlled Congress to deliver those items to President Obama. If Obama doesn't get re-elected they're not going to get them and if President Obama is re-elected but with a Republican-controlled Congress, those things aren't going to happen either. Focus people, focus! Stop wasting time on symbolic measures that will accomplish nothing. Even if President Obama were to swear a blood oath this very minute to getting single-payer enacted, it would be a hollow promise without a Congress to send him the bill.

[LongTomH]

7. +1000 -- Getting Progressives elected to Congress is Job 1 for 2012

Start with Elizabeth Warren!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. I agree

She would make a wonderful Senator and replacement for Scottie!

[cstanleytech]

49. Exactly. nt

[jonthebru]

59. Yes Yes Yes YES!

[deacon]

72. +1000

[Bandit]

81. So IYO Liberals are incapable of both criticizing Obama and voting for Progressive Candidates

They can ONLY do one or the other....I get it...wink wink

[Proud Liberal Dem]

83. Organizing caucus voters to vote "uncommitted" on Obama

particularly since the things that they claim to want are not going to happen without an act of Congress, is, frankly, unproductive, particularly when they could be instead, oh, I don't know, registering new Democratic voters, finding progressive candidates to run for office, etc, lobbying office-holders. They have the freedom to express their disapproval of President Obama, sure, but, in the end, what's that going to DO for their causes? Even if he were to swear an oath to do what they want him to do as a result, it won't matter without an able and willing Congress to help enact such things, so, in the end, what will actually be accomplished? If Obama is ignoring progressives as some here (and elsewhere) like to claim, it's going to be whole lot harder for him to ignore if there's a lot more of them in Congress, right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. Did I miss it when the president "promised single payer"?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

99. If you missed it

I did too. I think he once said something to the effect that single-payer would be the best system but with a qualifier of "if starting from scratch", so no, he did not say he would be pushing for it and nobody really believed it was likely to happen this go around in Congress.

The only thing (re: HCR) that he backtracked on was the mandate but given the eventual shape of the bill, I'm not sure it can work any other way. I'm actually kind of surprised it's engendered so much opposition. I mean, I know some people have issues with private insurance companies but they're not going to just disappear overnight unless we got single-payer and, well, THAT certainly wasn't going to happen in 2009-2010, unfortunately. Having SOME coverage is better than none (or so I thought). I don't really know anybody whom simply believes in not carrying some kind of insurance. I don't understand all of the conservative heartburn over the mandates either since they CLAIM to want individuals to be more responsible (which ultimately benefits everybody collectively with lower premiums). Of course, as we know, conservatives are just big fat liars (hypocrites).

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. "Of course, as we know, conservatives are just big fat liars (hypocrites)." Agreed.

But it doesn't explain why a "liberal" would deliberately mislead with a statement like "he broke his promise for single payer". Aren't "liberals" smarter than conservatives? Shouldn't the facts speak for themselves, do we have to resort to making things up? I don't think so. Thank goodness, we live in a country where the president can be challenged from within his own party, but his challengers should come with clean hands, and from a place of honesty.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

110. I agree

If somebody wants to complain about not getting single payer, that's fine and even if they want to criticize Obama for not supporting it, that's fine too but it is unfair to accuse him of breaking a non-existent promise. I also don't like to hear him criticized (a la Politifact) for "breaking promises" on something outside of his control (ie Gitmo) and isnt technically a broken promise since he never changed his mind on the issue. When the RNC starts in on their "broken promises" strategy, I'll bet most of them can at least be partially attributable to Republican obstructionism.

[WillyT]

100. Oh... He Didn't Promise... He "Advocated"...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002106964

Or some such nonsense.

[xchrom]

3. Du rec. Nt

[girl gone mad]

4. k & r

[Siwsan]

5. What is 'progressive' about threatening to knee cap the Democratic Party/President??

Most perplexing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Nothing at all IMHO

They are aiming at the WRONG target to boot.

[RC]

36. If we had a 'progressive' Democratic Party/President.

We do not. Nothing perplexing about it. We are gearing up to occupy our government from the inside just as the conservatives have. We have already seen how conservationism works for us, now it is time for some honest people to show us how government is supposed to work.
In other words we are going to take back control of our government.

[pnorman]

41. "There's Not a dime's Worth Of Difference Between..."

n/t

[ncteechur]

98. You are not taking back control of anything without electing progressive legislators.

[RC]

108. And Presidents.

[ProSense]

6. Stop me

We’re organizing uncommitted slates to go to the caucus on Tuesday to challenge Barack Obama because he gave up on his promise to single payer (health care)...Ralph Nader has also insisted that a Democrat should challenge Obama in a primary election to force him to adopt more progressive positions.

Obama promised single payer? Who wrote this?

[DevonRex]

9. Oh, just some ignorant dumbass.

[A Simple Game]

65. Check post number 64 for your ignorant dumbass. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. Was that supposed to prove your point? "Senate" Candidate Obama agreed with the premise...

of single payer. But when did "Presidential" Candidate Obama "promise single payer"? You still didn't answer Devon's question. Did you watch the video you referred to?

[A Simple Game]

90. Did you read post number 64? You only need to read the header. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

96. You need to re-read the o.p. which clearly states that Pres. Obama "promised single payer".

Now either you, or the author, is operating from a place of dishonesty or you're just making stuff up. Either way, it's about the critics' credibility at this point.

[A Simple Game]

101. I don't know how to make this any plainer, the first five words in my header are below.

"President Obama didn't promise it". What the hell is so hard about them? They aren't very big words.

Here is the rest of the sentence, "but senate candidate Obama said he was a proponent for it." The video stands validates my statement. Also not too hard to understand.

But thanks for having me review the O.P. Did you notice that it didn't say "President" Obama promised single payer? It said Barack Obama! Not Senator, not candidate, not even President. It said Barack Obama. Prosense didn't mention President Obama either, where did you get it from?

In post number 88 you said and I quote, "You still didn't answer Devon's question." Now I reread Devon Rex's post number 9 twice, what is the question I didn't answer? "Oh, just some ignorant dumbass." doesn't look like a question, it appears to be a statement. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Tarheel_Dem]

103. You directed DevonRex to post #64. WTF was the point of that? You didn't answer the.....

issue with the original post which states "because he gave up on "his promise" to single payer. Nothing in #64 answers that deliberate untruth. This president did not run on a "promise" of single payer. As another poster said, in answer to you, 'his advocacy as a senatorial candidate was not a presidential promise'.

Now you can contort the intent of the o.p., but it's there in black & white for everyone to read for him/herself. There's so much wrong with the o.p. that it truly boggles the mind, but holding this president's feet to the fire for things he never promised is a credibility issue, and I think, deliberately misleading. Why would this group do that, and why would anyone follow these liars over a cliff, unless this is the latest iteration of "Operation Chaos"?

[A Simple Game]

109. Let's try again one more time.

You said, "As another poster said, in answer to you, 'his advocacy as a senatorial candidate was not a presidential promise' Now quote where I said President Obama ever made a "Presidential Promise" for single payer. None of the stupid misdirection, just quote me saying President Obama made a "Presidential Promise". You damn well can't because I didn't. I don't think I can improve on ""President Obama didn't promise it".

But I know I'm wasting my time because you haven't answered any of my other questions, I don't think you will, and I don't think you can.

If you have a problem with Barack Obama being a proponent of single payer and then President Obama doing a flip/flop, that's not my problem, you will just have to get over it somehow.

[Tarheel_Dem]

112. Ah, I see. You don't lie, you just mislead. "Flip-Flop"? Nice try, but no cigar.

You're still trying to "imply" that he broke a promise he never made. Nice obfuscation, and someone who doesn't know better might believe you, and that's my problem with the o.p., and your tacit support of it. What's the difference between what you're doing, and what the o.p.'s doing?

You're talking in circles, but at the nub of it, you're still trying to insinuate that this president broke a promise re: single payer. Good luck with that. See ya'!

[A Simple Game]

114. Not trying to imply he broke a promise.

If you can't understand "President Obama didn't promise it" perhaps you could find a remedial reading class to join.

He was for it before he was against it, in other words Flip/Flop.

[MH1]

32. Yeah, I sure would like a link to where Obama promised single payer

because I don't remember it.

But then, I don't remember everything, so maybe it happened. I'm thinking not, though. But I'm open to a link.

Otherwise, these people just kneecapped their own credibility. Not like it was difficult though.

[RC]

37. He DID promise the public option before he backed away from it.

[cstanleytech]

51. Any president can make promises though RC

but if enough in congress oppose it then it wont happen which is why we dont have a single payer system atm.

[A Simple Game]

64. President Obama didn't promise it, but senate candidate Obama said he was a proponent for it.

Try the following video and link.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

If you need more, try that Google thing, opens up a whole new world.

[joshcryer]

75. Massive difference between promising something and advocating something.

[A Simple Game]

91. Some might say he was for it before he was against it. n/t

[joshcryer]

92. I'd say he was against it.

His lack of mandates in his original proposal meant that getting to single payer was going to be a lot harder.

With the current lack of a public option it even risks being scuttled if we don't fight hard for it.

The single payer rhetoric was only philosophical, he was never for it as a policy position.

There's a reason Krugman (who was thrown under the bus during the primaries) was against Obama's HCR.

[RainDog]

10. the only way this will do something positive

is for this group to use their power as a voting bloc to get Obama to agree to certain issues... so this group should figure out what their most important issue is and how to present it to the democrats.

otherwise it's just a way to blow smoke.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Right

They have to also make sure that if it's legislation they want, they need to work to deliver a more progressive Congress to him as well or else it won't get done and they'll just wind up disappointed again and again and again. Our activists, like the Republican Tea Party's activists, need to focus on "the long game" and not give into despair and defeat every time things don't go their way or they don't get everything they want.

[TheKentuckian]

28. I love the prescription for Obama's ails are the same as dealing with Bush or Reagan or Nixon.

Want to stop Tricky Dick, elect a Democratic Congress.

How do we put Reagan in check? We must elect a strong Democratic Congress.

What do we do about pResident Bush? Elect a strong Democratic majority.

Upset about Obama? Elect a veto proof, Constitutional Amendment, super liberal Congress in both houses, of course.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. What's your prescription then?

Is President Obama supposed to be able to snap his finders, sign an executive order, and make single payer (for instance) the law of the land? No President can pass legislation on his/her own (you do realize this, right?). Unless you're talking about something Obama can enact into law unilaterally, he's going to need an able and willing Congress to get passed and sent to him. Is this Congress going to give him single payer? The last Democratic Congress was barely able to get incremental reforms passed/signed into law. What's the solution?

[MH1]

33. Blowing smoke is a heckuvalot easier

than actually DOING something. Like finding progressive candidates that can actually get elected to Congress. Hell, I'd take state legislatures at this point. (although that would have been best done BEFORE redistricting.)

[theaocp]

11. How sad that

many don't want to follow Obama's own advice and hold his feet to the fire. If his strategy is only to be the anti-Republican, he's only got himself and his to blame. Our "best option" should be able to weather this with no trouble. If not, is not.

[jenmito]

38. Obama's advice to "hold his feet to the fire" does NOT mean lying about his positions and

campaigning AGAIST him, saying they aren't going to vote for him.

[theaocp]

42. Uncommitted means just that, so please stop with the hyperbole.

Give me hope, not fear.

[jenmito]

52. No hyperbole:

“We’re not asking everybody in this room to vote for Barack Obama. We’re not voting for Barack Obama. We’re organizing uncommitted slates to go to the caucus on Tuesday to challenge Barack Obama because he gave up on his promise to single payer .(He NEVER promised single payer.) He took too long to get troops out of Iraq.(He got them out when he SAID he'd get them out.) There’s still troops in Afghanistan.(He SAID he'd concentrate on Afghanistan AND send MORE troops.) And we need a financial transaction tax.” (Did he campaign on that?)

My comments in parentheses).

[theaocp]

57. I read that as saying not voting for him in the caucus.

That's the whole point of this exercise. Without a challenger in the primaries, they're using uncommitted to voice what they want. Obama is going to defeat uncommitted handily, so at least they'll have their message out to him.

[jenmito]

67. They're separate things. They said they're not voting for Obama and they're also not telling

OTHERS to vote for Obama. This is about caucusing against Obama on the day Dems. should be caucusing FOR him in IA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I got my calendars mixed, so TOMORROW is the General Election?

Hey at least this nightmare is over

[joshcryer]

76. Nope, he campaigned on tax cuts.

[jenmito]

12. All of the things listed as reasons they're not voting for Obama he either didn't run on or did

exactly what he SAID he'd do. He got troops out of Iraq almost exactly when he said he would, he concentrated on Afghanistan and is now pulling them out by 2014, and he never ran on single-payer healthcare.

[TheKentuckian]

15. How is 16 or even 18 months almost exactly three years? Seems more like exactly double (or more

depending on what fake timeline you went with and when you got it.

[jenmito]

22. He said he'd have all COMBAT troops out in 16 or 18 months, and he did. n/t

[JackRiddler]

48. Hm, you think he read SOFA?

[jenmito]

54. Hm, what's your point?

[JackRiddler]

73. The occupation ended because Iraq in the end forced a withdrawal.

[joshcryer]

77. You don't think Obama knew that when he made that campaign pledge?

[JackRiddler]

80. Yes I do.

Then the administration attempted to renegotiate and extend the occupation. This failed. Then the withdrawal was conducted as under SOFA.

[joshcryer]

89. Yes, he was "being responsible." Trying to put training on SOFA. It was scrubbed.

If it was McCain you can bet it would've been pushed and extended on threats of aid removal or whatever. Obama didn't push it, he merely had a discussion. In the end the discussion did not favor it, as any future training missions could be sorted out outside of SOFA.

Note: the administration was never going to "extend the occupation." The training forces would've been small in number, several thousand troops for training purposes. And Obama, during the debates and during his campaign, never ruled that out. If training troops return to Iraq in the future you can expect similar outrage, over "occupations."

Obama's been perfectly consistent and the Iraq withdrawal was one of his easiest commitments to make.

[ProSense]

18. Isn't it interesting

"All of the things listed as reasons they're not voting for Obama he either didn't run on or did "

...complaining about imaginary positions. Where has this group been for the last three years? Have they been calling people to action to support a lot more progressives (not one or two, but dozens) running for Congress?

[jenmito]

25. Yup...

it seems like they're just making stuff up so they can have some excuse to campaign against him. Sad, really. And pathetic.

[zipplewrath]

43. He ran on change

And especially early, he ran on change in Iraq. And then once elected, he kept the Bush Sec Def, Petraeus, and the Bush negotiated SOFA. I struggle to see the "change" in that.

[Charlemagne]

69. Why, that's not change

that's more of the same.

[zipplewrath]

71. It is what it is

I do wish some one would ask him directly this question.

[Ikonoklast]

56. No, they were the ones that stayed home in 2010. "They're ALL the same!"

Let's see, load gun.
Point at foot.
Pull trigger.
Blame Obama.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Actually, it took him 16 months longer than what he promised and in the end...

he followed Bush's timeline.

And while he did not run on single-payer, he did run on the public option.

[jenmito]

58. Take it up with PolitiFact which rated it, "Promise Kept":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

[ejbr]

93. Would this be the same source you are referring to?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

if so, you might want to rethink who you hold up as arbiter of truth.

[spanone]

14. elect a democratic congress or you are pissing in the wind.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Exactly!

n/t

[TheKentuckian]

20. You are pissing in the wind in any event but it is a fair harm mitigation tactic, for now.

How many Senators to nominate, much less seat a Justice as liberal as Scallia is reactionary? Eleventy thousand and two?

An even hundred to take away an anti-trust exemption from a predatory cartel?


How many does it take not to repeatedly set up commisions to cut the saftey net?

How many not to put Arne Duncan in charge of Education?

How packed do both houses have to be to refrain from putting a state Fed Chair that did not believe he was supposed to be a regulator in charge of Treasury?

[spanone]

35. if i vote for the President....it COUNTS.

[TheKentuckian]

79. I'm glad your state isn't controlled by Republicorp unverifiable robovoting.

That is always good to hear.

[woo me with science]

78. +100000

Thank you.

[Spazito]

21. Exactly n/t

[AtomicKitten]

40. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

97. +10000

[JoePhilly]

16. I'm angry at Obama for not doing things that he didn't promise!!!!!

[treestar]

29. Obama bad Obama bad Obama bad

bad, bad, bad Obama!!!!!!

Still uncommitted! Where is the primary challenger? He or she STILL is not running, so they have to say they are uncommitted!

[JoePhilly]

34. I wonder if they'll buy NOBAMA bumper stickers like my Tea Party

neighbor ... I keep asking him when he'll put a bumper sticker on his car that SUPPORTS one of the GOP candidates.

He hates it.

I'm guessing he too is "uncommitted"

[CakeGrrl]

23. Try making CONGRESS more Progressive, geniuses.

Let's remember how laws are made.

[maximusveritas]

24. When did Obama promise single payer?

I must have missed that one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. How dare they "work within the system" as the moderates claim they want them to?

I guess "working within the system" only translates to voting for more 3rd Way Democrats.

[SidDithers]

27. That's winning strategery, for sure!...

Sid

[TheKentuckian]

39. Depends on their goal, it could be as simple as not wishing and unrepentent rubberstamp

on policies that one cannot abide while accepting the options are unacceptable and hellish.

The vote can say some as simple as I do not endorse this candidate for my party's nomination but I will accept the collect decision of the party with strong objections. That is very fair game in a primary and perhaps your show of unwaivering unity is not an objective and I only say such is your objective or you would not otherwise care. Obama beat Clinton, I think he can handle uncommited.

I really doubt "uncommited" will say that the TeaPubliKlan nominee is better prepared to take the 3am call.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. I see this has gotten the expected reactions

[boppers]

61. Yeah, I have to wonder why it keeps working, though?

Are humans really this gullible?

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Yup, some humans are

and I will leave it at that... (just to add, party independent)

[slay]

31. Good for them - Obama needs a primary challenger

to make him answer for the last 3 years and why he constantly sided with the rich, big banks, huge corporations, and republicans over progressives and the American People. too bad "uncommitted" can not challenge Obama to a debate.

[RBInMaine]

63. Purist hogwash. Find the planet. This is LeftwingTeaParty talk.

[slay]

85. Then alert on it

if you want to try and equate me with the tea party. yeah i didn't think so cause you are full of it.

[T S Justly]

44. Nice start! Go Democratic primary process! Go progressive! K&R (nt)

[killbotfactory]

46. The president should be complete uncompromising!

Nevermind getting the position requires compromising with the of numerous different factions within the democratic party itself.

Where is my "I am FED UP and DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW CHANGE WORKS!" t-shirt?

[Marnie]

47. A vote for Obama is a vote for Geithner and Bernanke

unless we convince Obama that he has to start prepresenting the people who elected him, in stead of the people who voted against him.

[Pirate Smile]

50. Good Lawd - he didn't campaign on single payer, he got the troops out of Iraq (not fast enough? That

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

is a joke line used against his constant critics - even when he accomplishes something, they just complain - "not fast enough" ), he never campaigned on getting out of Afghanistan although they are now working on a peace negotiation with the Taliban (both parties in Congress are not happy about that, of course) and providing an assist to Republicans is going to take you farther away from a Financial Transaction Tax, not closer.

They have to reach the 15% threshhold or they are gone in the Iowa Caucuses.

[TNProfessor]

55. Absurd nt

[WillyT]

60. Kick !!!

[RBInMaine]

62. More purist nonsense. Single payer COULD NOT PASS. Just what brain disease do these fools have?

[WillyT]

68. It's The Disease Known As Being/And Believing, What It Means To Be An American..

I suffer from it greatly.



And BTW... Could you please explain EXAXTCLY... what Impurities you would accept?

[slay]

86. Do you know how to say anything other than "purist nonsense" - and why do you never respond

in the message - you just type a title? lame. and saying others here on DU who disagree with you have a "brain disease" is cruel and probably against the rules - and it does nothing to show why you feel the way you do.

[1stlady]

74. SMH(shaking my head)

No wonder no one takes so called progressives seriously. The dude in the video is obviously a bitter kucinich supporter, still bitter that kucinich didn't have a chance in hell to win the nom some 4yrs later. I guarantee you, if kucinich was elected president instead of Obama, this fruitloop in the video wouldn't be so hasty to vote uncommitted, what f*cking hypocrite.

[HappyMe]

82. Wtf?

Okay then.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

84. The Dems need to be challenged as vigorously as the GOPers --

Personally, I like the idea of "uncommitted" and what PDA/Occupy are doing here, and would personally love a "none of the above" on all ballots.

[ejbr]

94. k & r !! n/t

[G_j]

95. they are simply making a statement

all power to them. They could stay home.

[MjolnirTime]

102. hahahaha I like how they have to say "he took to long on Iraq" now

Since Obama ended the Iraq War. He ended it.

[WillyT]

105. Well Not Quite... Because Of Bradley Manning's Leaks...

The Iragi Government decided NOT to give Immunity to American troops, and The CAC/POTUS decided it was a good time to bring "everybody" home.

Just to be clear.

[Robb]

107. Manning also made the sun come up this morning.

Well, it's up there, isn't it? You going to deny the sun came up?

[MjolnirTime]

113. The only thing Manning's leaks did is get him put in prison.

[unionworks]

106. K&R n/t