General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
Here's an interesting call to arms by John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's magazine. It seems late in the day for a contested Democratic nomination, but it may not be as late as we think. Just as Eugene McCarthy stepped forward to take on Lyndon Johnson, maybe there's a Democrat out there willing to step forward to take on Barrack Obama.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/14-6
President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
by John R. MacArthur
<edit>
By now it should be obvious that the system, and the Democratic Party, run Obama, not the other way around. Under this arrangement, the president carries out his duties as pre-eminent party functionary — fundraising being at the top of his list of responsibilities — and defers on legislation, leaving it to corrupt Democratic barons such as Sen. Max Baucus (D.-Mont.), devoted friend of the insurance, pharmaceutical, and banking crowd and sworn enemy of reform.
<edit>
And then there’s Afghanistan. Obama should be condemned for escalating this grotesquely expensive, destructive, and self-defeating war. Thoroughly discredited by analysts on both the left and the right, the Afghan madness seems to bore liberals who once would have marched against Vietnam. I suggest they watch the brilliant new documentary “Hell and Back Again” to enhance their knowledge of the war’s casualties. The pitiful story of Marine sergeant Nathan Harris ought to make them furious at our commander in chief; shouldn’t it also spark an intra-party revolt?
I urge people who haven’t given up on politics to examine the career of Allard Lowenstein. Lowenstein founded the Dump Johnson movement in 1967 and, against all odds, persuaded Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota to launch a Democratic primary challenge against the incumbent president over the issue of Vietnam. His example, I hope, might inspire someone to challenge another Democratic incumbent who has forfeited the trust of the people.
You may say it’s too late, that Obama is impregnable. Consider Gene McCarthy’s obscurity on Nov. 30, 1967, when he announced his insurgent crusade. At the time, many Americans confused him with Sen. Joe McCarthy (R.-Wis.), the notorious communist hunter, and in January 1968 a Gallup poll showed him winning just 12 percent of the votes in a presidential election. But on March12, McCarthy nearly beat Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. The opposition was galvanized, Robert Kennedy jumped into the race, LBJ announced he would not seek re-election, and American democracy was revived.
more...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GoneOffShore
(18,010 posts)And please, not an unelectable whack job like Dennis Kucinich.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)He's not perfect, but he's pretty much alone in significantly questioning that which is occurring.
That the dirty tricks squad drummed him out of the debates FIRST should speak volumes.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)This might be because he'll never have to follow through on them because he'll never get elected.
If he ever runs, I could run against him and promise twice as much, knowing the same thing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)There is only one reason why someone like Dennis Kucinich would not win, and that is because of the corruption of our political system, caused by Wall Street money.
But things are changing as the people are slowly waking up. And in a sane world, people of integrity and honesty like Kucinich, will not be kept from running by the Corporate Media, tool of the Corporate Government.
If the money was even, if Kucinich had the same money that Obama has, Kucinich would win in a landslide.
But it's always instructive to see who slams Kucinich. I've come to see it as a sort of test in a way.
If OWS is successful over the next four years, Kucinich or someone like him, WILL have a chance of winning the WH and I sincerely hope that happens, because the way we are going this country cannot last as a first world country much longer.
New7up
(19 posts)
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)One of my friends in the entertainment business is fond of the canard 'politics is show biz for ugly people'.
I know it's ridiculous but we live in a time of TV and sound bytes. Abraham Lincoln couldn't be elected today. I even doubt FDR could be elected. I wonder if Newt Gingrich with his big fat head and pugnacious underbite has a real chance of being elected?
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)He spoke so well against Bush; wish Pelosi hadn't put impeachment off the table.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Maybe there'll be people here who haven't seen your selective Dem-bashing.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)can hold the office of POTUS. Even before that, it was almost impossible. Now, it is impossible.
The banksters/1% would never permit Rep. Kucinich to become President and make the changes necessary to establish a genuine working democracy in the US.
And this is exactly why the Occupy Movement is so important. When we succeed, capable and concerned legislators like Rep. Kucinich will be able to become POTUS, and we can finally begin to heal as a nation and make the changes necessary to prevent the banksters/1% from hurting so many of us ever again.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)We had to beg for press coverage of Dennis speaking before ever-increasing crowds on four visits. Meanwhile, on the same day as DK's final visit to Minneapolis, Edwards spoke before 25 major contributors and got a big article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Disregard and ridicule are new kinder, gentler forms of assassination.
RandomKoolzip
(18,536 posts)...except Obama counted on being elected, but never realized the anger that would follow not following through on all the attractive ideas he promised.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Why are you calling him an incompetent president?
texshelters
(1,979 posts)in Tucson has been biting his tongue and avoiding criticism of Obama, but he is NOT amused by Obama's Republican courting.
PTxS
cali
(114,904 posts)critters. Dennis is by no stretch of the imagination the only one speaking out. Thankfully.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)I of course welcome any and all dissent by our elected representatives on these issues, the more vociferous, the finer!
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)no thanks
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And Wall Street of course, and the War Mongers. Iow, all the 'right' people.
I am far more suspicious now of those supported by all of the above. Not to be supported in the current corrupt system, is more and more becoming an asset.
You DO support him, I'm sure, being a Democrat and all?? Asking because one should never assume anything.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)He tried to screw the Democratic Party just this year on Libya.
Party loyalty is important. His pal, Ron Paul, is his doppelganger.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)when he ran during the Bush administration. The DLC wing of the party, the far right wing that has infiltrated the party, blocked him from participating in the process. Where are you coming up with this nonsense?
He was right about Libya. He was right about Iraq, right about Afghanistan. Why are you supporting these wars now?? They were wrong when Bush was doing it, and they are still wrong. Libya was another Colonial invasion of an oil producing country and no one in the world was fooled by the pretend support for the manufactured revolution.
Sadly he was right. Libya has descended into the hell that all Colonial invasions end up doing. Once the country with the highest literacy rate in African AND even compared to many Western countries, their education system being viewed as a right, is now being deprived of education. Half of Libya's children no longer attend the propaganda institutions their schools have been turned into by the so-called 'rebels'.
Libya's money is still under the control of the Western Imperialists, no surprise there, as Libya is Iraq 2.
The country is destroyed, a majority of the people there are terrified now, and the beginnings of an uprising are already under way. The people supported Gadaffi even if only because of what he gave them. We were lied to as always, but most of us did not fall for the lies. The murderous war crimes have yet to be prosecuted and the fake Revolutionary, unelected government is unable to control the situation. Of course it had been a popular uprising, they would not have needed NATO in the first place.
Kucinich, as always, was absolutely correct about Libya and not being a coward, stated his feelings.
I would vote for him now in a heart beat. He is one of the best Democrats we have right now. When someone turns out to be right as often as he has, he is definitely presidential material. But he is a good Democrat and would never challenge an incumbent democratic president.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)I respect that.
I just want to tell you that I do. If I ignored you I would be kind of an a-hole.
zonkers
(5,865 posts)Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #1)
Post removed
midnight
(26,624 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)You may remember him. In fact, the guy was elected once, but the Supreme Court reversed the results of the election 5-4.
BTW: Why do you call Kucinich "an unelectable whack job"? He's a good Democrat of long standing.
ThomWV
(19,841 posts)Erose999
(5,624 posts)and the neoliberals who are getting us into this mess.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)themadstork
(899 posts)lame. . .
newspeak
(4,847 posts)because the corporate media portrayed him as such? I remember that democratic debate and being asked about "if he had ever seen a UFO." He said he had seen a UFO, didn't know what it was. About a week later an article appears in our local paper that a group of military officers wanted an investigation of UFO's, that they apparently witnessed. So, tell me if that makes him a whack job?
UFO just means an unidentified flying object. And living near a major base we've seen plenty of UFO's. About twenty years ago my FIL even called the local police over a UFO. I have friends that also have seen UFOs. It doesn't make them aliens from space, but something that is not identified.
dennis is pro-labor and I believe him to be a more honest broker, unlike some of our current congresscritters.
DonCoquixote
(13,950 posts)He could have done what his friend Sherrod Brown did, and run for Senate, but he does not run for any office besides his part of Cleveland, and of course, the next logical jump, the Oval office. Of course, he did finally become pro-choice.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)We have had a President who admitted to having seen a UFO. I was a Kucinich for President guy before "they" (both parties) forced him out of the running in 2008. "They" are still after this amazing man. His district was just jerrymandered to force him to run against Marcy Kaptur. We need both of these real public servants in office. I would vote for Kucinich but I think that Bernie Sanders stands a better chance.
I had lunch with my Daughter today. She was wondering how much different America would be if Gore had not been robbed of his Presidential win. When I mentioned Bernie Sanders, she was really enthusiastic about him (me too). She is 22 and I was surprised that she is so informed and appreciative of him. I told her that I have been e-mailing him for years asking him to run for President. What a great team they would make as President and V.P.
Until OWS is successful, it is hard to imagine that we could get two real Democrats on the ticket. I would work hard for either. If this is a two-party system, there needs to be an obvious difference between the parties. I have resigned myself to the "lesser of two evils" vote, but that distinction is blurring daily.
My 22 y.o. Daughter, who is very involved and well educated, says that she "doesn't think Obama stands a chance." Like me she has prepared herself for the "lessser evil" vote.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)How about Bernie Sanders?.....Russ Feingold?....Peter DeFazio?.....Alan Grayson?
Someone to call him out on issues....not necessarily to challenge his nomination per se...although, that could be a possibility. Who knows?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)My guess is that none of the above feel they have the slightest cause to primary the president. If they do, they've stayed silent about it.
mckara
(1,708 posts)I'm sure there are many more.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)He's always on point and tough as nails
GoneOffShore
(18,010 posts)But there isn't a chance -
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)and he's not a real Dem. But he's always happy to attend Dem functions. He knows unlike the simpletons who posit primary Obama what and where the REAL threat lies.
The author of that article is just moronic.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Since reading this news last night, contemplating an Obama vs. Gingrich choice in November is about as palatable as contemplating coming down with swine flu.
Also, given the list of Democratic senators who voted for the bill, the list of serious opponents appears to be rather small and we may have to settle for Kermit the Frog. Right now, I would vote for Kermit over Obama in a Democratic primary.
The best thing to do seems to be to write off the establishment altogether and cast our lot with the protest movement. It isn't the candidate. The candidates follow the money, and guess what happens if money is as maldistributed as it is in America right now? That's right, they start acting and sounding alike.
The difference between Obama and these Brand W Republicans leading the pack among GOP voters is that Obama at least insists on an act of Congress before he wipes his feet on the Bill of Rights, while the GOP, like Bush, thinks the president has a constitutional right to just use the Constitution for toilet paper. It's fascism any way it's cut.
The truly scary thing is defining the war on terror so broadly that terror encompasses opposition to the the primacy of financial institutions that is the larvae rotting America from the core. Would Obama go that far? Maybe not. Would Gingrich? Does any one dare to risk that he wouldn't?
ooglymoogly
(9,502 posts)thescreaminghead
(37 posts)Joe Biden. In a heartbeat. Foreign policy buff with the balls of a Republican and enough in common with the "average American" to not screw them over with some shit like SOPA, PIPA or the NDAA.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)These establishment pols aren't worth a shit on a good day.
bonnieS
(224 posts)He is running Third Party.
ecoalex2
(12 posts)Why did Obama keep the bush justice dept? he could of replaced them as bush did why?Eric Holder has refused to prosecute the banksters,or Wall St ,or the Koch bros. Holder is like Obama a pawn of the 1%
I heard Rocky Anderson on Thom Hartman. I agree America needs a return to justice.Justice is at the heart of what is wrong in America now.
Rocky didn't say who would be VP.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)One of the few actually. It is against the rules here to attack Democrats personally btw.
It is fine to criticize their political positions. So, you say he is 'an unelectable whack job'.
A hilarious statement btw, considering how many times he HAS been elected. Not just to Congress either.
So, what are the issues that he supports that you think are responsible for him being 'unelectable whack job'?? What issues do you disagree with him about?
RyanPsych
(402 posts)he combines an awesome social ideology platform with a fair and democratic economic platform. Win-Win.
Of course in America, that = "fringe"
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(134,142 posts)I'm sure you know that.
ecoalex2
(12 posts)Obama had a great track record,but as soon as he got the nomination,he started to slide to the dark side,sidling with the 1% criminals on finance,banking health ins and environment. Obama cannot be trusted,he's a con man.Who then?Who could be trusted? Who would not fold like Obama,who had cred until he went to the dark side?
Senator Sanders
Ex Representative Alan Grayson
Ex Senator Feingold
With the selling out of Senator Ron Wyden today to Ryan's medicare hit job,known progressives cannot be trusted.
With the reversal of Obama on so many major issues, promises broken,the list is pages long,and trust being the main problem,a challenger to Obama would be healthy.The guy just seems too smug.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Obama should be condemned for escalating this grotesquely expensive, destructive, and self-defeating war. "
...exactly is this person surprised that the President did something he campaigned on?
The End of the Iraq War: A Timeline
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100216286
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)He didn't say he was surprised that the President escalated the war, he said he should be condemned for doing so. And he is right.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)He clearly stated that it was his priority to go after the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11. After Bush first started that he would get him, but then he abandoned going after Biin Lauden to invade Iraq for its oil. Well, Obama said he was dedicated to getting him and he did. I can only shake my head at the attacks that are being launched on Obama. What can you expect when the Republicans stated that their only concern was defeating him and the hell with the wellfare of the nation.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Maybe that was a mistake.
"He clearly stated that it was his priority to go after the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11. After Bush first started that he would get him, but then he abandoned going after Biin Lauden to invade Iraq for its oil. Well, Obama said he was dedicated to getting him and he did."
Well Osama is dead and there are still nearly twice as many troops in Afghanistan as there ever were under Bush. And it didn't 100,000 troops to kill Osama. It took a small, elite force. Yet Obama drastically increased the number of troops there and it has resulted in a significant increase in the number of troop deaths. More troops have been killed each year of Obama's presidency than the worst number under Bush.
"What can you expect when the Republicans stated that their only concern was defeating him and the hell with the wellfare of the nation. "
I expect Obama to do the right thing and forget about the politics of it. Who cares what the Republicans say? He has soldiers lives in his hands and you want him to throw them away for political points?
And the point of my post was only to point out the fallacy of ProSense's argument. It is something they seem to do a lot in their defense of Obama.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Sounds like you have more admiration for Bush than you do for an honest man who told everyone he was dedicated to taking the fight directly to our enemies. If Bush would have pursued in Afghanistan with the forces that he dedicated to slaughtering the Iranians much of threat to our safety could have been eliminated.
Saddam never posed any threat to our safety as did Bin Laden and has gang of bloodthirsty killers who murdered 3000 of our fellow citizens. I can't believe how supposedly loyal Democrats have lost their way. You are welcome to your low opinion of descent man that is doing an admirable job in the face of absolute determination by traitorous Republicans that are willing to sell the county down drain in order to eliminate the Middle Class. Yes, I believe the Republicans in many ways pose a greater threat to our Nation and its ideals than Islamic terrorists. The threat from within is far more dangerous. Believe it or not the Republican plutocrats are determined to enslave you in poverty as the did during the late 19th and early 20th century and are well on their way to achieving their goal.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)It gets confusing with so many of them, I know.
midnight
(26,624 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Yeah, that's what I thought.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Name them.
Skittles
(170,413 posts)if he's wrong it doesn't MATTER if he campaigned on it - heck, it makes it WORSE
babylonsister
(172,682 posts)
bigtree
(93,774 posts). . . the election of the republican nominee.
paulk
(11,587 posts)Nixon was a pretty formidable candidate compared to the clowncar of idiots the Republicans are currently fielding...
bigtree
(93,774 posts)he was no progressive, btw.
this convention isn't going to nominate anyone outside of the establishment
paulk
(11,587 posts)yes, I realize that - and that we all need to be pragmatic and accept that we'll have five more years of a centrist President who is beholden to the usual powers that be and will, consequently, get nothing much done and be unwilling to fight for or even discuss the real solutions to our problems...
I just think it would be a good thing to have an honest to god liberal voice in the process, something that might push the leadership of the Democratic Party back toward it's more populous/liberal/labor roots instead of the Rockefeller Republican crowd that currently controls things.
I don't know who that person is - we didn't know who it would be in '68, either.
But the point I made is that this fear that running someone against Obama or even running someone against Obama that defeats him in a primary will automatically lead to a Republican victory is not necessarily true. The republican field is the weakest I have ever seen in my life and I believe there are other Democrats beside Obama - liberal Democrats, perhaps as yet unknown - who could win this upcoming election.
In fact I think it's damn near imperative. I agree with the OP - on many levels, Obama doesn't deserve our vote. The only real reason to support him is that the alternative (a Republican President) is worse.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)saying that we must primary Obama. I know "we are the ones we have been waiting for," but there has been no attempt at all, by any one to do this. Now, again at the 11th hour this is being discussed. It absolutely needs to be done (starting last year) but if there is any way to do it now, I am ready.
ooglymoogly
(9,502 posts)Things randomly spouted by some with an obvious agenda, does not make them so; particularly when they are so obviously not.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)That sounds like you might be lecturing someone!
Bonhomme Richard
(9,506 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The obvious inaccuracies are there for no reason other than to delude weak minded readers into believing that the process which existed in 1969 still exists today, it doesn't.
It should also be pointed out that after this challenge we ended up with a President Nixon.
Nice Job!
The same way the primary challenge of Carter helped get us a President Reagan. Another brilliant move.
Then there was Ralph Nader and his insane presidential run which helped create a President G.W. Bush. Three in a row... wow, this is one hell of a way to change things for the better!
"Dumping" Obama will get us a President Gingrich.
Think about it.
John R. MacArthur is screwing with you.
The guy is a grandson of a billionaire. Maybe he just doesn't want the Bush tax cuts to go away and wants an (R) in office to help make sure they don't.
provis99
(13,062 posts)they choose Humphreys.
but god forbid that facts interfere with your aim of slurring liberals...
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)god forbid facts interfere with McCarthy losing
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(134,142 posts)Now if Robert Kennedy hadn't been assasinated that he likely would have gotten the nomination and won the general election.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:24 PM - Edit history (2)
we ended up with a President Nixon," as though Gene McCarthy's challenge somehow caused the election of Tricky Dick. With all due respect, that's like saying that, because Harry Truman instituted the Marshall Plan to contain communism and reconstruct post-war Europe, we ended up with 9-11.
Forget for a moment that almost every credible political scientist now argues that Humphrey would have defeated Nixon had he simply broken with LBJ on Vietnam sooner than he did. Forget for a moment that without McCarthy's challenge in New Hampshire, Bobby Kennedy might not have entered the race. Forget all that and you're still left with the FACT that Humphrey was the nominee in '68 without running in or winning a single primary!
BTW, Nader's candidacy did not cause Bush to become president, the Supreme Court stopping the count of the votes did. Gore won the national popular vote and the popular vote in Florida.
Whatevs
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)First of all I was just pointing out that the article in the OP is what was editing history.
Next the problem with elevating McCarthy as some wonderful liberal ignores all the good Johnson did. McCarthy was simply and anti-war candidate.
After that you imply that the primary system was the mechanism by which candidates were selected in and prior to 1968, that simply isn't true.
Lastly, it is impossible to proclaim that Gore won more votes in Florida. The results were so close that it comes down to counting or dismissing "dimpled" chads. In most counts Bush wins, in a couple others Gore wins. The truth is that because of the votes Nader siphoned off from the more liberal of the two electable candidates we ended up with W. If Gore had asked for an entire state wide recount then maybe, just maybe, your argument would make sense. The sad thing is that even if he had gotten exactly what he had asked for (the limited recount) he would have still lost. Because of this the Supreme Court stopping the count did not cost Gore the election. (and the national popular vote means nothing, that is not the system we use)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
^snip^
The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)with Nixon. I'd like to quote from DUer Ken Burch's post in a different OP I began about a progressive challenger to Obama in the 2012 New Hampshire primary:
"And, if you know anything at all about 1968, you'd realize that it was LBJ's fault that Nixon defeated Humphrey in the fall.
Nixon forced Humphrey, who probably could have won the nomination on his own merits, to stand as the "status quo" candidate and forced Humphrey to vote for an arrogantly rignt-wing and pro-keep the war going plank on Vietnam, thus making it all-but-impossible for progressives to vote for Humphrey as long as he stayed with that. This insistence on Johnson's part was what ultimately led to protests that were violently suppressed by the Chicago police.
Then, when Humphrey realized he was going to stay thirteen points behind until the end if he didn't break with Johnson at all and made his Salt Late City speech announcing his own, more independent position, Johnson froze Humphrey's access to funds from major party donors, which, even though Humphrey was able to nearly wipe out Nixon's lead on his own, guaranteed Nixon's narrow victory-and Johnson further guaranteed it when he refused to go public with the proof he had that Nixon's campaign had interfered in the Paris Peace Talks.
So no, the challenge to Johnson didn't cause Nixon's win-Johnson did."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11007
************************
I did not imply that primaries were either the primary or secondary mechanism by which candidates were nominated in 1968. But the fact remains that Humphrey ran in and won no primaries. It is far more reasonable to argue that the reason we got Nixon in '68 is that Humphrey was the Democratic machine's nominee, and thus tied almost to the last minute to the Vietnam policies of the LBJ administration, and not that McCarthy challenged those policies.
Same thing goes for Florida in 2000. The Supreme Court stopped the count of the votes. Subsequent media analysis showed that, NO MATTER WHAT METHOD IS USED TO COUNT BALLOTS NOR WHAT DEFINITIONS OF VALID BALLOTS ARE USED, Gore wins Florida. But only if ALL THE VOTES are counted. That has nothing to do with Nader and everything to do with the bloodless coup d'etat conducted by the Supreme Court that thwarted the popular will, the Gore campaign's ineptitude in initiating and managing the recount process and Gore's unwillingness to adopt the necessary degree of ruthlessness for that popular will to prevail. In other words, no one held a gun to Gore's head and forced him to concede after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bush v. Gore. Would a ruthlessness that could well have resulted in civil war have been preferable to the soft fascism we got for 8 years? I guess that's an argument that will last through the ages.
Here's the part of the Wikipedia article that your selective excerpting (like your earlier eliding of history) neglects to include:
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171
• Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
In all four categories above, GORE wins. Nader has nothing to do with it. Therefore, don't blame Nader. Blame the Supreme Court. It didn't give a shit about 'one man, one vote' or it would have tossed out Bush v. Gore, tossed out the Florida Supreme Court's decision and ordered a full manual recount of the entire state.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)that the specifics vary but the pattern remains clear
When the far left attacks the center left the right wins
McCarthy and Johnson = Nixon
Kennedy and Carter = Reagan
Nader and Gore = Shrub
We can argue the details forever but the cause and effect should be indisputable for anyone willing to take an objective look at it.
I'm tired of arguing with a closed mind. Have a nice day.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."
. . . .
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.
~ snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(134,142 posts)Facts are stubborn things for some people.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Yes, had he been more decisive earlier, the result may have been different. He just had too much of that old school loyalty from their days in the Senate when LBJ was leader (even though they didn't always get along, they were politically connected for decades).
He was starting to turn it around; another week or two and the tide may have shifted.
People forget that primaries in every state were once not the norm. It's a way for corporate media-network America to whip up a bit of froth in an election year, and a way for states to pull in a few newsman/tourist dollars, as well. New Hampshire makes a BUNDLE from their primary; which is why they so zealously guard their "first" status.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)What a stupid article.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)shall we say, tenuous.
LBJ stood no more chance of being reelected in 1968 were about the same as his being able to flap his arms and fly to the moon. Gene McCarthy just proved the point to him. Robert Kennedy would have won the presidency in a landslide had he not been murdered. Humphrey himself would have won if LBJ had let him be his own man about Vietnam after the Dem convention rather than much later. And Tricky Dick was sabotaging the potential for peace talks via back-channel communications to South Vietnam, saying that if he was elected he would get them a better deal than Humphrey would.
Those are the facts.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)but my point is that LBJ was weakened by the anti-war left
If that damage had not been done to his presidency he might have (probably would have) beat Nixon.
When you look at his domestic accomplishments the guy had a pretty strong record
Civil rights
Public Broadcasting
Medicare
Medicaid
environmental protection
aid to education
and his "War on Poverty"
When the far left attacks the center left the right wins.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)
FSogol
(47,545 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Or at least refrain from criticizing him?
If President Obama doesn't criticize Gingrich (R-Nut Job), why should you?
Erose999
(5,624 posts)surveillance programs such as warrantless wiretaps, extrajudicial assassination of US citizens, the expansion of drone war into Pakistan, continuation of GITMO, the failure to prosecute Bush Inc. for their war crimes and fixed elections, the detention of Bradley Manning... etc etc...
If Obama were the ruler of another country that had massive oil reserves, we would have invaded that country and brought them "Western style democracy" by now.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)year old disgusting "new deal coalition" between liberal and southern racist democrats. Nixon exploited the divide within the nominally democratic voting population with a thinly veiled racist campaign, his "southern strategy", and was aided in his efforts to break the Democratic grip on the south by the third party campaign of George Wallace, and that is what put him in power.
Neither McCarthy's or Robert Kennedy's primary challenges nor the police riot in Chicago are to blame for Humphrey's defeat.
ooglymoogly
(9,502 posts)It will be Norman Rockwell (Mittens) or Ron Paul....try your argument again.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)But I'd be a helluva lot unhappier with any bunch of Republicans in their place.
Obama would surely win any Dem primary, burt the primary might well damage him so badly as to cost us the General.
I'm not willing to pay that price.
boxman15
(1,033 posts)
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Do we wait until there's literally no difference between the parties? Do we allow the democratic party to move steadily toward the right and keep voting for them because republicans might be worse? I can't abide by that kind of thinking anymore. Yes, a republican in office would be awful, but at least they'd be getting the blame for whatever happens and not further tarnishing the name of the democratic party. Voting for the lesser of two evils simply hasn't been working.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)working like hell to pressure that person to the left?
Consider this--Would the actions of the Occupy movements be more effective during a Democratic or Republican regime?
That, by the way, is not a rhetorical question.
I do see the point of what you're saying, but an awful lot of perhaps avoidable pain is likely to accompany any R administration. Think about unemployment insurance, Medicare, the minor reforms that were gained in the health care legislation, and the removal of all restraints from those who want to rape the environment. Yes, Keystone is bad, but killing all environmental controls would be much worse.
I'm not so much worried about tarnishing the Dems (or allowing them to do it to themselves); I'm far more worried about the destruction of the ecosystem and of the world's economy in the interest of the rich.
I guess I don't really expect much positive change from politicians anymore. The most I hope for is to buy some time while the worldwide revolution proceeds.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And I do think that the Occupy movement is more successful because it's happening during a democratic administration, but I think that success has only cemented the fact that the two parties are pretty much the same.
I think the pain we'd receive under a republican administration is only pain that we would have felt in the future (perhaps worse) when the parties truly are one and the same.
I'd like to think of our situation in terms of the painful bandage analogy. It might hurt like hell when we rip it off, but it's better than drawing it out and postponing the inevitable.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I think all we can do now is buy time for the Tunis -> Cairo ->Madison ->Yemen -> Syria ->OWS -> Occupy Everything chain reaction to have its effects. (Don't pay much attention to the specific order I listed; you get my point.)
I think the species is in the process of shifting leadership paradigms, from a dying old hierarchical system into a leaderless network, a partnership culture, and my main concern is to see that this great change has time to wrk itself out. I think the change is the inevitable consequence of the worldwide communication network we now have, in which any person has the potential to send messages out to the whole.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #70)
Maven This message was self-deleted by its author.
unblock
(56,107 posts)i seriously cannot see a way for a democratic challenger to win in the general election.
if democrats view the current administration as a failure worth dumping, why would independents vote for the party of that failure?
i can't think of a single time in american history this sort of thing has happened.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)demosincebirth
(12,819 posts)bitch about " if only."
sad sally
(2,627 posts)The candidate (Al Gore) received the most votes nationwide but did not become president. The electorial college guarantees there is no national election for president, just separate state elections. Since state electors can thwart the popular will and vote for a candidate, the popular Democrat (Al Gore) lost. Slam dunks? Nope...
T S Justly
(884 posts)
T S Justly
(884 posts)
OhioBlue
(5,139 posts)the primary schedule is much, much earlier. there is absolutely NO possible way for a challenger to come in now and mount a campaign against Pres O and win - they would only pay lip service to weaken the Dem President in his re-election efforts. That is the truth but you probably already know that...
T S Justly
(884 posts)... and the use of police brutality in response as well as a whole range of progressive issues are what drive students, civil rights vets, people in general, and now, labor, to electoral action. I'd say a progressive Democratic nominee would sail into the White House
if the Democratic party got behind him or her.
onenote
(46,079 posts)I can only assume you weren't around in 1968. Over the previous year the number of troops deployed in Vietnam had continued to escalate, topping 1/2 million. More US soldiers died in Vietnam in 1968 than any other year. By comparison, over the past year, the number of troops in Iraq (and the number of casualties) have been dropping and the forecast is for the number of troops in Afghanistan to be reduced. Total casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the past year are a mere fraction of the casualties that occurred in 1967-1968 in Vietnam. Plus, the news in 1968 was incessantly about the war, while that is most decidedly not the case today. People don't support the war in Afghanistan, but they don't feel remotely as passionately about it (across the board) as they did about Vietnam in 1968.
Plus, if the landscape is the same as in 1968, why do you think your mythic progressive nominee would become the Democratic candidate and/or win? When LBJ dropped out, McCarthy didn't surge to the nomination and to the White House. And four years later, after a period during which dissatisfaction with the war and mass protests were at a level that makes today's Occupy gatherings look like church picnics, a progressive candidate -- George McGovern -- was obliterated in the election.
That's reality and that's history. What you are living is fantasy.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Another diatribe by someone who won't undertake any of the hard work to find an acceptable candiate. Much easier to sit at the keyboard and complain.
OhioBlue
(5,139 posts)because this primary schedule is in now way similar to '68 - all a Dem challenger would do now is help the Repub nominee.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)"I am not a crook" NIXON. Sometimes it seems like people just don't think things through to the logical conclusion.
Robert ended up dead and the country ended up with Nixon as President. Which, admittedly, in these days seems less like a national disaster than it truly was.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Nixon siphoned off some votes by promising to promptly end the war. He was lying, of course, but he still got the votes.
Humphrey had no intention to end the war, but he was too principled to lie in the same way that Nixon did.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I can only view the actual outcome in context, and the outcome was that Nixon was elected. To say that *if* Humphrey had taken a different tact *then* another outcome would have resulted is a postulate that can neither be proven nor disproven. I only know that in the two cases in my lifetime where Democrats have attempted to oust the incumbent by primary, the end result has been a devastating loss.
It seems to me that these actions create the looming perception in the minds of the general voting public that our party is a rabble of disorganized infighters. They aren't far wrong, but in an election year, a united front is *crucial*, in my mind.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)1. The word "could" (used in my post) is not equivalent to the word "would" (as used in your post). Humphrey was more interested in holding office than in representing the great majority of Americans who opposed the war. In the '64 election, LBJ won by a landslide, and Humphrey rode on his coat-tails, by opposing Goldwater, the pro-war candidate. Most Americans did not want war in 1964 or 1968. Nixon knew this to be true and included that as a major plank in his candidacy.
Tricky-Dick was smart enought to realize that he had to pay lip service to what most Americans wanted. Humphrey thought that he could continue to be in office without doing so. He did a number of good things in his lifetime, but running for the presidency without seriously opposing the war in '68 was not one of them.
2. You want a united front? Then let's unite on supporting Democratic principles. Let's unite on supporting those who support Democratic principles. Let's find some first. Let's send a message or two so that the pollsters, or whoever influences Obama and his campaign staff, will convey that back to him.
This will perform a valuable service for Obama and for us, for at least a while. He can re-adjust his campaign speeches, sermons, lectures, and interview statements to be like the old Obama. We know from his actions that he won't actually mean it, but he can make us feel better for a while.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)We haven't managed to stem the tide, let alone reverse it. And *if* Nixon had been defeated in 1968, *if* Carter had been reelected in 1980, we would have far less ground to recover. The Republican's mantra of "never criticize another Republican in public" has been incredibly effective.
The fact that I find myself supporting a politician who enacts policies to the right of Nixon as the more liberal candidate breaks my heart, but I am terrified of the acceleration of the trajectory if he doesn't win.
This conversation is academic anyway. There is no primary challenger in the offing, no Liberal Democratic party organizing to change the character of our party or to create a truly viable third party. Ron Paul has plugged into the exasperation fueling OWS and young people are listening and responding to his message. (Cue Psycho music here.)
We are living under an oligarchy and I don't see the mechanism by which we will change that in my lifetime. But still, I will exercise the power of my one vote to choose the lesser of evils because that is the choice I am afforded.
newspeak
(4,847 posts)All my family vote democratic (except one glen beck loving uncle). Kennedy's death staggered my whole family. my family was ready to cast their vote for bobby. His death "took the wind out of their sails," but, I also believe it took energy out of humphrey, also.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)He wanted to have it both ways. He wanted the financial and political support of those in the military-industrial complex and he wanted the support of voters who valued liberal values.
Some people who did not live at that time regret that he was not elected instead of Nixon. But if had won, we would still be fighting in Viet Nam. He and the MIC, and the CIA-financed media (Google "Operation Mockingbird"
, would have claimed that his victory was an endorsement for a continuation of the war. Many of us supported the courage of RFK.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)C'mon y'all, get yourselves another Clean Gene, who took down a president. Of course, it cannot be disputed that it it was actually Richard Nixon who eventually won. But that's okay. "American democracy was revived." Are you freaking kidding me? Are you KIDDING me?
Of the many things Mr. MacArthur (truly one of the 1%, living off of grandpa's billions) forgets to tell in his paean to McCarthy is how he turned around in 1980 and endorsed (yes, endorsed) the Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan, therefore bringing us two disastrous Republicans.
And you would fall for this ploy a third time?
NYC Liberal
(20,450 posts)Who, by the way, has the overwhelming support of the liberal base of the party.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)then all the statements, by all the DUers saying "do you want President Newt", are dishonest bullshit; conversely, if those concerns are real, he doesn't, in fact, have overwhelming support.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,450 posts)Facts are facts. He does have the overwhelming support of the base of the party.
I can't wait until we get closer to the convention. Then I'm guessing we'll get to hear about how someone is going to mount a challenge AT the convention and how they're going to start a floor fight for delegates.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,450 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2011, 03:21 AM - Edit history (1)
I wish we had President more like Bernie Sanders and a 2/3rds majority in both house of Congress a bit like Dennis Kucinich. If he wasn't 89-years old - I wish George McGovern could enter the race and win in a landslide. I'll even go farther I wish a new Democratic Socialist party would emerge and sweep the entire country - capturing almost all the state legislatures, both houses of Congress and the Presidency in sweeping landslides and I wish it could all happen this coming year. In fact I will even go farther than that - I wish the entire system of nation-states as well as all institutions of capital and money were abolished and we created by the end of this coming year a global community of workers democratic collectives - based on cooperation instead of competition.
But none of this is going to happen - at least not in 2012. Obama will be the nominee and the only other choice will be a tea party controlled - extremist and reactionary right-wing Republican elected to carry out the Fox News agenda.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)And that won't buy either of us a cup of coffee.
BootinUp
(51,060 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Find it highly, incredibly, unlikely to happen.
MrScorpio
(73,765 posts)With Democrats is a great way to hand the White House to the Republicans.
I can't abide.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Obama 2012!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100219885
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Increasingly, I'm seeing it, too. The most recent example:
After stating he would veto the defense bill because of its superduper anti-Bill of Rights provisions, President Obama caved and signed it. Andrew Cohen gives us a quick read on what he sees:
5 Quick Thoughts on the White House Decision Not to Veto Detainee Measure: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/5-quick-thoughts-on-the-white-house-decision-not-to-veto-detainee-measure/250019/
Question: What would cause the president to say one thing and do another, again? Russ Baker has a clue:
The Military and Those Strange Threats to Obama: http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/12/13/the-military-and-those-strange-threats-to-obama/
Thank you for the heads-up, Karmadillo. It's not just my Democratic Party or who is "electable." The nation has a major problem with who can and who can't be President and what he or maybe some day she can and cannot do once in office.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I replied that I figured the Secret Service had taken him into the basement of the White House & shown him the missing segments of the Zapruder film.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)sometimes it's fun to see what happens with no ignore list. Time to start building it back up I guess.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,740 posts)DSB
Occulus
(20,599 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,740 posts).
Occulus
(20,599 posts)That does not earn Obama my vote.
His actions have driven me away.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,740 posts)Bet your life on it.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... to a Republican, and I see very little difference.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and we will probably be stuck with Obama...
I agree with dumping him, but who else will run on the democratic ticket?
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)Won't be surprised if I'm right.
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)has been smearing the President since he took the oath of office.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-macarthur/more-and-more-obama-seems_b_394341.html
Oh, it's not "Barrack Obama." First rule of thumb: learn to spell the name of the president you hate.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)I'm, of course, referring to Al Gore. He is the only one who has the gravitas, credentials, experience, and following to beat Obama.
He has also said that he is pretty much done running for political office. So our only hope is to find candidates to elect who will be a check on the President and corporate interests.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I love that part. Maybe it's time the author is brought up to speed. The entire piece is a bunch of talking points that have been repeated despite the changing reality.
The End of the Iraq War: A Timeline
http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq
The OP is still talking about Summers and Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagall as if that has anything to do with Obama. Does he know that Wall Street reform, the opposite of deregulation, passed?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)In particular the relationship to Congress, the dissembling, obstruction, and passive-aggressive theatrics.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)The OP argument is garbage. That it can be used to bolster withdrawing support from the President is telling. I suspect that he will never get their support.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)It's just reveling in old, long-held bitterness, basically.
They even admit it's too late to supplant Obama in the first paragraph.
They just can't let go of the hate.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Response to Karmadillo (Original post)
Bunny This message was self-deleted by its author.
JGug1
(320 posts)What a bunch of CRAP. He has now gotten us out of Iraq in a manner that is difficult for the war mongers to criticize. He has gotten bin Laden dead. We have a form of national health that is slowly coming on line. We are on track to be out of Afghanistan. If we can JUST hold the White House, (likely so far) we will have the second opportunity to experience 8 years of not being in a war. Yeah, he'll consider NATO outings like Libya and using missiles and such but we won't be INVADING some country and putting the nation into an almost *10* year war. Get rea. Support him. Get him his second term. Hold the Senate and get back the House and then put pressure on him to do more liberal stuff.....How do you think that putting pressure for liberal stuff will work if we lose the White House?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Carolina
(6,960 posts)article, there is currently no other Democrat willing to run and importantly willing to buck the system!
Recall too that all went to hell in 1968. Robert Kennedy's campaign was the first poltical campaign I was old enough to work on and I well remember all the turmoil that ensued after his death and at the '68 Chicago convention. We ended up with Nixon and his political spawn – Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld ... and infamous, continuing Republican dirty tricks.
The author is right: 1968 is not 2012! Things are worse now. Our "leaders" have no spines; they are bought and paid for by the corporatocracy. The 4th estate no longer exists; all media are stenographers for the PTB. And much of the populace is lulled into idiocy and complacency by 24/7 sports and the likes of the Kardashians while the few, scattered, brave and peaceful activists are treated worse than terrorists or even criminals caught on camera in the infotainment COP shows!
We are Rome redux and declining fast
MineralMan
(150,945 posts)It'll be deleted immediately by the pro-Obama faction.
Oh...wait...
Never mind. I guess you can post it on DU3. Even if it's a stupid argument and suggests dumping a sitting Democratic President. It looks like DU3 will be open to all points of view, after all.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) MineralMan
(150,945 posts)mistertrickster
(7,062 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)mistertrickster
(7,062 posts)Besides, anyone who's voting against the war would never vote for President John Nixon Birch.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)NashVegas
(28,957 posts)T S Justly
(884 posts)
samplegirl
(13,859 posts)this at one time was a democratic forum. Your wishing there will be someone else is not going to happen................so your either with us or against us.
Efilroft Sul
(4,377 posts)
gateley
(62,683 posts)
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)texshelters
(1,979 posts)it doesn't matter who I vote for. The Republican candidate will win no matter what this time.
So I will writing whoever I want, for President.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
texshelters
(1,979 posts)speaks for me.
PTxS
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)put up some very far left candidates to draw the middle to the left knowing they will not be elected but good at getting all the talking points out to the majority because the MSM will certainly air their positions.
JohnnyRingo
(20,683 posts)The 'baggers aren't happy with the Republican field because none of them are willing to put their backs up against the absolute furthest reaches of the right wing of the party and fight with them. They call anyone to the left of Sarah Palin a "RINO" and have no tolerence for deviation.
Now I've been hearing the same call from the left, people who deny that giant slice of voters between liberal and Tea Party and think the rest of the country will mysteriosly follow them to unseat a centrist who isn't delivering 100% of the goods to us liberals. Ignoring that huge middle of America spawns losing candidates like Goldwater and McGovern. The far right or left love them, but they cede the election to the other party.
I remind that although Obama may have "overpromised" on some issues in the campaign, as all politicians are wont to do, no one except Fox News promised he would be a liberal dream once in office. He never made a speech selliing himself as a Bernie Sanders clone, and he never told the voters he was a dyed in the wool liberal. One can complain Obama hasn't delivered on this or that promise, but overall he's on other side of the fence from the republican field on nearly every issue.
All I can figure is so many Democrats must have watched Sean Hannity on a daily basis and are dissappointed that he was wrong on his assessment of Barack Obama. Obama is indeed not "the most liberal Democrat in history", nor is he "even to the left of Ted Kennedy" as Hannity promised over and over.
Really, is this the first time a republican hack on Fox News lied to you? He said the same thing about Al Gore and John Kerry.
SixthSense
(829 posts)What did you think was meant by "hope and change"? An acceleration of the rule of the banking oligarchy? A sustained assault on civil liberty? Pharma writing a new health care law? What?
JohnnyRingo
(20,683 posts)
This is a Republican president signing a bill that restricts certain abortion procedures:
I could go on and on contrasting Obama with every Republican running against him, but you are decidely upset that you haven't seen enough in this first term and have run short of patience.
I'm going to volunteer my time to re-elect Barack Obama and continue to supply you with reasons to complain. You can devote yourself to the kind of foot dragging that helps deliver the reality of a GOP White House. Then it'll be my turn to complain.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Too bad so many will simply REFUSE to listen.
certainot
(9,090 posts)there was a concerted effort on RW radio and fox as soon as obama got in to label him as the guy who was calling himself the messiah, the anointed one, the guy who himself was claiming he was going to solve all problems and roar the economy back in months, and it seems they actually convinced a lot of politically naive idiots who call themselves 'progressives' that that was the case.
it worked to suppress vote in 2010 and some of the same lazy shits who stayed out then are doubling down.
as long as the left allows the right to control the narrative and set the points of perspective they will keep being successful with shit like this.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)
alp227
(33,212 posts)And today is the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the bill of rights! Turley wrote:
yet Ron Paul would go far beyond limiting government in this area; he'd do what Grover Norquist fantasized about and leave everything up to the Free Market (TM). Sigh. Politics in this country is so frustrating that if I could work abroad I'd jump on that.
cstanleytech
(28,327 posts)I personally believe trying to would at this point cause the republicans to win and considering who the candidates are right now and what they are advocating I believe it would be a disaster for our nation if we were to try what the author is discussing, instead we would be better off focusing on keeping obama in office and wresting real majority control over the senate and congress by kicking those mad tea party do nothing nuts out to the side of the road on their butts where they deserve to be.
SixthSense
(829 posts)The GOP candidates are awful, none of them can even command a third of their own primary voters, and all are greatly flawed - not one of them would be a difficult opponent in the general election (unless it's Ron Paul who wins, in which case things will get extremely interesting and non-traditional).
Now that most people have come to understand that the difference between Obama and Bush is more style than substance, is the "safe" choice really to re-nominate him?
cstanleytech
(28,327 posts)keep him as our nominee, he isnt perfect but I dont think the reward outweighs the risk when if we could even get a new nominee to win the presidency they would face the same exact problems with the republicans that obama has had.
SixthSense
(829 posts)1) the people as a whole want a solution to the overwhelming corruption in the economy;
2) the GOP is incapable of offering them one;
3) Obama has refused to do it, preferring instead to defer to his advisors, who seem to be picked exclusively from the ranks of those who got us in this mess in the first place.
In this context, what's the best way to go? "Hope and expect no change" makes my head hurt.
cstanleytech
(28,327 posts)are making it impossible for the government to function.
SixthSense
(829 posts)Democrats controlled all three branches of government for two years. For those first two years his performance was uninspiring enough to usher in historic losses in Congress. We had it, and he blew it.
Like 2010, 2012 is going to be strongly anti-incumbent in character - people are no more satisfied with how things are now, than they were then, and I don't see anything changing for the better in 11 months as we continue to suffer the consequences of failing to address important problems.
cstanleytech
(28,327 posts)disrupting them which people for some reason seem to forget oddly enough.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Thanks for the hilarity. 
Response to Scurrilous (Reply #131)
cstanleytech This message was self-deleted by its author.
samplegirl
(13,859 posts)you can't wait for permanent tax cuts for rich! That ought to teach all us.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Veracious
(234 posts)I'm so sick of this nonsense.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)bjobotts
(9,141 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)But I'm not going to vote for Obama if he signs the NDAA.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)
annabanana
(52,802 posts)I ALSO remember all those years of Richard Nixon
and those forlorn bumper-stickers...
"Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts"
No. Thank. You.
zentrum
(9,870 posts).....seems to underscore the danger of this kind of thing. Nixon in the end, after all, won.
We don't have a McCarthy. And we don't have a Robert Kennedy, both of whom were really electable. But we currently have no one who is electable nationally. Kusinich certainly is not.
It's too soon for a challenge from the Democratic side. If we'd worked harder and with more insight since 2008, we would be ready now but we are not.
This kind of challenge will just throw the office to NewtRomney. Shudder.
Get ready for 2016 and organize, doing movement building, every day, from now forward. Norman Goldman, The VT Progressive Party and others are all on board for this 4-year effort.
gulliver
(13,828 posts)Published in the Rhode Island "something or other" and copied on CommonDreams.org.
The prosecution rests.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Hart2008
(2,350 posts)If Richardson gets enough support, maybe another candidate jumps in later.
http://www.battlegroundblog.com/2011/10/26/darcy-richardson-why-im-running-for-president/
Send a donation here:
http://www.darcy2012.com/
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(134,142 posts)Hart2008
(2,350 posts)bjobotts
(9,141 posts)Is there no president willing to refuse all who disagree... taking all his unmet demands...stomp his feet and go home. Get real. Obama is the best that can be achieved at the present moment and there is none better out there right now but we still need to push and pressure him to get our progressive agenda met.
You might as well be a republican troll with your expectations. Despair is not an option. One can criticize the president and still support him. Look around you...what do you see that can be accomplished by another president? I'm just sick of the Obama bashing and still I think he could be doing so much more...but I won;'t forget what he's taken on and how much he has accomplished in such a short period of time against all odds. Like Rachel Maddow said, "The last time a president accomplished this much in such a short period of time, booze was illegal."
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)That is how it always works.
HarryPowell
(25 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Charlemagne
(576 posts)and for the first time, I dont know what to do: vote Obama, third party, or nobody
I really, really wanted to like the Obama administration. Yeah, he has done some (a few) good things. But on the major stuff he has done worse than just give in to the Republicans. He has presented and recommended stuff that is akin to Bush Jr. Every time he supports Republican-esque legislation, I say, 'this is the last straw.' This new defense authorization act is in direct violation to the Constitution. Im sorry, but i have given up that this administration is, or will be, anything near 'progressive.'
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
certainot
(9,090 posts)karl rove's writing in harper's? i can't believe all the recs, must be a lot of folks not paying attention.... or trolls...
otohara
(24,135 posts)Under a different name
Number23
(24,544 posts)I can because it's DU. Yes. Yes, that too.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)In fact, most of the people here are better informed than 99% of the US population.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Because otherwise, your comment is just smoke being blown up someone's trousers.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Also, GWB had a 90% approval rating at one point during his Presidency. Anyone who can approve of GWB at any point can indeed be classified as uninformed.
Overall, Americans are dumber than a sack of hammers. I have been to numerous countries around the world and many folks deride Americans for being stupid. In most cases, they are correct.
Now, my 99% statement was an exaggeration on my part. 90% is probably a more accurate number 
Number23
(24,544 posts)Make sense now. I can certainly understand anyone who feels that way also feeling that DUers are "smarter" and "more informed" than 90% of the population.
certainot
(9,090 posts)monopoly that other counties do not have and it has nothing to do with DU.
aside from that the us did get away from it's melting pot roots
certainot
(9,090 posts)because there is no written record of it to read and it gives headache to listen to it.
which is the main reason those percentages are as bad as they are,
recently a study that suggested african americans were more likely to get obama's back compared that to clinton years ago but it was similar. the difference between white and black was 20 % and there was no mention of the fact that the audience for talk radio is white.
Warpy
(114,523 posts)Do you really think this country will be better under another Republican?
I'm afraid we're stuck with Obama for the time being.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)He deserves to be reelected.
HarryPowell
(25 posts)Throw this man, who obviously wants to go on murdering U.S. citizens without trial, out
What can those backing Obama be thinking. We are already going full bore into government totally dedicated to tyranny and death to any who refuse anything other than a Demoratic-Republic. What blind fools you are.
bertman
(11,287 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(134,142 posts)I believe Richard Nixon was the end result that year. 22 years later McCarthy said he was glad Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter.
Thanks but no thanks.
47of74
(18,470 posts)tabatha
(18,795 posts)Is this guy trying to get Republicans elected?
Ivywoods55
(131 posts)Ha! I come to boards like this one and I laugh at those individuals who are always talking of not voting for this President or arguing concerning trying to primary him...and I would like to ask those of you who have decided that this President has not had anyone's best interest at heart, what do you think, or what do you people (ass)ume the Black electorate will do if and when you whiners chose to "primary" this President? I laugh at these type of post where you people whine about what this President is not doing for YOU and YOUR ILK...lol.lol..lol..lol..it is too funny...when has ANY Democratic president had the GOOD of all the electorate at heart??? You people are funny as HeII...by all mean,gather your people together and decide NOT to vote for this President next year, by all means, and LOSE the Black vote for a century...we have nothing to lose, since NONE of those, neither Republican or Democratic Presidents have had OUR best interest at heart...NONE...but did we crawl around the Internet trying to find ways to primary those who threw our communities under the bus, for the more wealthy and white faced supporters? NO! NO! Blacks still stand strong for the Democratic Party and those white men who NEVER have felt the need to KEEP THEIR PROMISES TO US!!!! But those of you who feel the need to look in other directions, go for it....be our guess...pick your poison...
Number23
(24,544 posts)in my entire life. All xx years. This person actually refers to McCarthy without having apparently grasped ANYTHING that resulted from McCarthy's candidacy.
This is so stupid, I can't believe anyone even printed this. I can't believe anyone actually WROTE this. But for some reason, I'm not shocked in the least that it has at least 100 supporters on this web site.
Between this and the stupidity on Forbes.com "If I was a Poor Black Child" this is a really, REALLY shitty day for journalism.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)author falls into the category of someone who yells nonsense, has nothing to offer in the way of solutions, not even a candidate as he calls for people to dump the current President.
You can find many quotes declaring the President a failure and calling for a primary challenge dated before September 2009.
There are people who hate this President and vowed never to give him a chance. Everything that comes with governing is his fault, he's a dictator or an appeaser when necessary. His actions are both a power grab and weak. It has been constant, and designed to create the impression that President Obama is severely flawed, and that someone else could do a much better job.
One of the funniest things repeated a few times recently was in response to Ron Paul's kookiness. There were actually arguments that at least he's against the MIC, but that he would never get his other policies through.
History will show Obama to be one of the most effective President's ever. There isn't a President in the top ranks who hasn't been subjected to the same criticisms that he has, especially in matters of war. He inherited a mess, a deliberately entangled war on terror, entrenched in law and the government. It was never going to be easy to untangle the mess.
The notion that all will be well again if someone else were handed the reins is pure fantasy.
Ivywoods55
(131 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)There were some calls as soon as March of 2009, mere WEEKS into his presidency. But I guess that all of us are supposed to have forgotten that.
And the thing that always gets me about stuff like this is not only the "pure fantasy" element that you spoke of, but the distortion, lies and obfuscation that go into this kind of stuff. Who do these people think is going to run for president if they never, EVER have the backs of the folks that do? When you start wailing about this effective, smart, capable, legislatively progressive, DECENT man mere weeks into his presidency, why in the name of all that is good and holy do you think that ANYONE in their right mind would ever want to represent you again? What is gained by all of this bullshit besides shooting yourself in both feet and your own damn behind?! And the same folks writing this kind of idiocy and rec'ing this foolishness are the SAME PEOPLE beating their breasts and pulling out their hair wondering why no "progressive savior" has materialized out of the woodwork to "save" them. Damn, do they REALLY not understand why that is???
And don't even get me started on the minority angle. Anyone who thinks that minorities will support the dumping of this president is in a state of denial so deep they need a damn SEAL team to get them out of it. I never in a million years thought that people this myopic and self-destructive existed. I don't get this shit at all.
cyberspirit
(67 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:51 AM - Edit history (1)
We have the most intelligent, highly evolved President in decades and he is the most maligned President in decades. It says so much more about the people criticizing Obama than Obama. Criticism is easy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
canetoad
(20,484 posts)LOL
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Bring the challenger.
Wait...who is it?
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)Delusional author's gonna have a bad 12 months.
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)And Nixon won the presidency. Those were traumatic times. If Robert Kennedy had not been murdered he would have won the Democratic nomination.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Right-Of-The-Isle
(5 posts)I think hillary should take over the Race, and Obama should step down.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)
ecstatic
(35,032 posts)Hmmm....
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)
To bounce around w/ the dupe.