49% now "definitely plan to vote against " President Obama in 2012, while only 36% favor reelection.

[Hart2008]

The latest McClatchy-Marist Poll from Sept. 13-14, 2011 reports that 49% now "definitely plan to vote against" President Obama, while only 36% now plan to definitely vote for the President:
http://pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm

At the same time, Gallup's latest poll shows "Mitt the Twitt" Romney beating Obama. Considering that the electoral college in recent years has favored Repukes, i.e., they win more states, these poll results should be truly alarming for good Democrats. With such high negatives, even after the President's latest jobs speech and legislative proposal, it is relevant to ask, What is the rationale for renominating this President?

Presently, Repukes have a 25 seat majority in the House of Representatives and a Dems have a 3 seat majority in the Senate. How can such an unpopular president win back the House of Representatives, let alone, retain the Senate when the Democratic Caucus must defend 23 of 33 Senate seats up for election in 2012?

Whatever his personal ambitions are for a second term, when does the President acknowledge that those personal ambitions will interfere with the interests of the Democratic Party of winning BOTH the presidency and both houses of Congress in the 2012 elections?

[gateley]

1. Then I will hold those voters responsible for what will happen

to this country.

[PragmaticLiberal]

17. Agreed....

And you know that they'll be the first ones complaining when the GOP destroys this country. x(

[rtracey]

199. how ?

I agree, they will be the first to scream when the country is destroyed. If you are a female, senior, latino, gay, or a union member... how would you EVER consider no voting democrat. It numbs the mind the stupidity of voters. Don't fall for the repubs talking points, they will destroy your country, leave you in the dark and your social security, medicare will be a thing of the past.

[HuckleB]

145. That would be nice.

Unfortunately, none of those who voted for Bush or the GOP Congress have been held liable.

[Hart2008]

156. And how will you do that with anonymous ballots?

Try finding someone who will admit to voting for Richard Nixon in 1972.

He won by a landslide, but now no one admits to voting for him.

[Township75]

168. Well, that will get them to change their minds. They definitely don't want YOU doing that.

Be sure and get that message out there...it is our only hope!

[iamthebandfanman]

204. Ill hold ALL americans responsible..

because we should be picking better presidential candidates in general.

not corporate whores who are already bought and payed for before they even take the oath.

that goes for all parties.

[ProSense]

2. Well

"49% now 'definitely plan to vote against' President Obama in 2012, while only 36% favor reelection."

...this is good news for Giuliani !!!

[TwilightGardener]

10. The Sarah Palin and Rudy numbers just tell me that most poll respondents

are chasing names they recognize from last go-round--they don't remember how badly Roody flamed out.

[TwilightGardener]

3. A year is an eternity in politics. Tell Gary Hart to keep his cape and tights in the attic, thanks.

[Hart2008]

36. Dick Cheney told him the same thing on September 6, 2001.

Montreal Gazette headline September 6, 2001: "Terror Risk Real: Hart. Thousands in U.S. will die, ex-presidential hopeful says."

Bill Mahr showed the headline from the Montreal Gazette from Sept. 6, 2001 which reads "Terror Risk Real: Hart. Thousands in U.S. will die, ex-presidential hopeful says." That warning was given at at an aviation conference on Sept. 5, 2001 in Montreal:
Bill Maher interviews Gary Hart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACYq7gWjFFc
Gary Hart was under a media blackout after 1988. This was true even after he had co-chaired the commission which had conducted the first comprehensive review of U.S. security since the end of WWII, and after Canadian newspapers screamed headlines of Hart predicting a terrorist at on America on September 6, 2001:

The Canadian headlines read, "Hart predicts a terrorist attack"–that’s Gary Hart, the former Colorado senator and two-time democratic presidential candidate who co-chaired the U.S. Commission on National Security with former Republican senator Warren Rudman. Hart had given his speech in Montreal. Interestingly enough, he was addressing the Air Transportation Association.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/28/fmr_democratic_se...

I would point out also that the so-called newspaper of record, the New York Times, didn't print one word about that final report. Keep in mind this wasn't just another federal commission. This was the most comprehensive review of U.S. national security since 1947. And so we weren't competing with a thousand other federal commissions. This was groundbreaking stuff, and we had spent two and a half years putting these recommendations and findings together.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/04_hart.html

By the way, when our final report came out in 2001, it did not receive word one in the New York Times. Zero. The Washington Post put it on Page 3 or 4, below the fold...
...I went out on my own throughout the spring and summer of 2001 saying, "The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming." One of the speeches I gave was, ironically enough, to the International Air Transportation Association in Montreal. And the Montreal newspapers headlined the story, "Hart predicts terrorist attacks on America."
By pre-arrangement I had gotten an appointment with Condi Rice the following day and had gone straight from Montreal to Washington to meet with her. And my brief message to her was, "Get going on homeland security, you don't have all the time in the world." This was on Sept. 6, 2001.

Condi Rice's other wake-up call
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/02/hart...

[Autumn]

4. That's frightening.

We can not endure a republican administration.

[patrice]

7. Those who lust for violent revolution and secession know that. nt

[WI_DEM]

5. He beats Perry 50-41 and he's up on Romney in this same Marist poll by 46-44

Why didn't you point that out?

Why don't you stop worrying about these early polls.

[Hart2008]

23. It is within the margin for error, but Obama can now win only if he runs a negative campaign.

No more hope and change for 2012.

Obama will need to run a scorched earth, negative campaign against his Repuke opponent. Since reelection campaigns are usually a referendum on the incumbent, Obama's high negatives are alarming, even more than a year away from the general election. However, by comparison President Carter's numbers were definitely better against Reagan this far out, so it is worth worrying about.

Why didn't you answer my questions about the elections for Congress for 2012?

If Obama couldn't get things done with majorities in both houses in 2009-10, how does he govern without a majority in either house?

Waiting....

[gateley]

43. It doesn't have to be "negative" in the sense that it makes people

go ewwww, has he gone to far? He just needs to lay out the facts.

[Hart2008]

73. By which you are admitting that Obama will not be running a positve reelection campaign.

While whoever is the Repuke will imitate Reagan and ask, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"


"Things could be worse." That isn't a slogan for a president to win reelection.

Great strategy!

:sarcasm:

[gateley]

74. Yes! Yes Your Honor! I ADMIT it!

:eyes:

How the fuck should I know what kind of campaign Obama is going to run?

My comment was merely that it -- oh, never mind, if you didn't bother reading what I wrote before jumping on my post, it really doesn't matter.

[Hart2008]

77. Sorry, I was just trying to get you to think of an answer to your own question.

You can't imagine how Obama wins a second term, so you can't comment on it.

Instead you want to resort to dropping the F-bomb, before admitting you don't have a point, and it doesn't really matter.

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

:hi:

[gateley]

83. I was educated in Catholic girls schools. I can't utter a sentence

without using the "F-bomb" (how quaint).

Mea Culpa if it was too harsh for you.

[Hart2008]

86. I am sure the nuns there are proud of you, but why can't you answer your own question?

"what kind of campaign Obama is going to run?"

That question goes back to my point about, Why does Obama deserve renomination, and ultimately, reelection?

Surely, if you are posting on a political forum, you should be able to answer those questions.

You can use bad language anywhere, but it doesn't help to persuade anyone here to your opinion, whatever that is...

[gateley]

105. I never asked a question, merely voiced my opinion that it

didn't have to be an unfair negative campaign, that the facts and truth are negative enough.

And just because I post on a political forum doesn't mean I have answers to anything. I come here to learn, and frankly, I know nothing.

[Hart2008]

154. Well, thank you for your honesty and candor.

The point is that a reelection campaign is almost always a referendum on the incumbent.

So, if Obama doesn't have anything positive to campaign about, then he must go negative.

That strategy didn't work well for Jimmy Carter in 1980 or Poppy Bush in 1992.

So please think how it will be different for Obama when unemployment is now over 9%...

[gateley]

180. I agreed with your post about the incumbents. Someone

had posted that Dems will vote for Obama. You posted 'no', and I agreed with you saying that you were right -- the Dems didn't vote Dem (Carter).

My comment on the campaign was in response to the post about Obama having to run a negative one. My view is that presenting the facts -- in a way that leaves no room for question -- would not have to be done in a "negative" way.

So honestly, I don't know why you approached me to begin with. I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, and my post on the campaign style did not indicate I thought that would necessarily be successful.

It's always been my experience that when times are bad, the incumbent goes down.

[Hart2008]

183. "It's always been my experience that when times are bad, the incumbent goes down." Exactly!

Having a bare majority in the Party, and being able to attract independent voters and dissatisfied Repukes is how elections are ultimately won now. This is true in large part because the Democratic Party has been losing registered members since the '80's.

If Obama can't attract independent voters in the general election, and he is losing support from Dems, then we can stick a fork in him, because he is done as President. However, even if he manages to win election for himself by some means, he is unlikely to be able to retain control of the Senate or regain the House. How does he enact his agenda without control of the Congress?

What I see is a President with high negatives and $1 billion war chest for negative ads, and it isn't what I think we need as a party or as a country.

[gateley]

190. So what to do?

[Hart2008]

192. Time to find a new nominee then! NT

[SwampG8r]

193. lol i am slightly dyslexic and i read that as

"i was educated in catholic school girls" the first time i read it
cracked me up

[otohara]

6. We're Doomed

thanks for posting another, the presidential election isn't for a year... worthless poll.

[Champion Jack]

31. +1,000

[elocs]

8. Anyone who actually believes Dems will win both houses of Congress

is living in a fantasy land. Democrats will be fortunate to hold the presidency, while the Senate is likely a goner.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. Says who? YOU!?!? Why not work hard to ensure that that doesn't happen?

What are YOU doing to play a part in this?

[elocs]

34. Reality says so. Please take time to check it out. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. The reality is that we are 14 months away from the general election.

If you knew anything about politics and the reality of it, you would know that things change from day to day. Even on the day of an election, no one can predict the outcome.

So, again, I ask: what are YOU doing to ensure a positive outcome?

[newspeak]

79. and the only reason the repugs would take both

is because some of the plebes actually eat the media shite daily and don't realize what a quagmire little boots and his band of greedy corrupt deregulating, privatizing arseholes did to this country.

when your diverting funds desperately needed for infrastructure to war and corporate war profiteers, and cutting needed funds to states while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest of the country who are already making money from bilking the plebes and profiting from war, any reasonable person could see the writing on the wall.

You got a media in bed with these sociopaths that have attempted for awhile to rip the social safety net-years and years of propaganda fed to the clueless, all that pull yourself up by the bootstrap, care about no one except me, me, me. The corporations are your friends, you have no jobs because we haven't deregulated enough--so who cares if a few people die from poisoning or a few corporations might bilk you--you too may have one of those minimum wage no benefit jobs.

I really do think that the eight years of little boots with the squandering, unaccountability of our money--shoveling as fast as he could to his friends while cutting their tax, was an intentional move to get us where we are today. I saw what enron did to california and when davis pleaded with little boots to intervene, to regulate-he turned his back. I believe it was bilking grandma (as quoted by one employee with laughter). But, the small businesses that were lost, some lives were lost all so enron could bilk the public.

The repugs did indeed create this mess, and now the plebes it seems, want more of the same. More pain, more slavery, more thuggery. I swear if I was younger, I'd get out of dodge. Too much stupid, too much meanness.

[totodeinhere]

146. It's simple math. The Dems have to defend a lot more Senate seats than the GOP does

in 2012. I actually think we have a better chance to take back the House. I could foresee Obama being reelected and the Dems taking back the House but losing the Senate.

But at any rate it is virtually certain that divided government will continue because no matter who wins the presidency there will not be a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for either party.

[Major Hogwash]

76. You said the same thing in 2005.

Your crystal ball needs to be taken back in to the shop for an overhaul.

[WhiteTara]

9. This is 15 months from the election.

Things change daily.

May I suggest that you go out and work for a candidate in your district and stop looking for the doom?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[still_one]

16. Most Democrats will vote for Obama, especially since all the republican nominees have said they

would like social security to be privatized for those coming into the system. That is a sure way to make social security really go broke. Anyone with half a brain knows that the high frequency computers, and dark pools and quantitative funds not only increase the volatility of the market, but make it a rigged system

[Ikonoklast]

24. Potential Republican nominees are all scaring the independent voters with their insanity.

I hope they get even more outlandish as they try to capture the Teabagger Republican primary voters; those sound bites will certainly be used against them in next fall's campaign.


And, yes, argue about how good it would be to privatize Social Security and turn it over to Wall Street right after they just screwed most Americans, and the market is teetering on the brink of disaster and a potential free-fall as Europe implodes.

Great argument...AGAINST privatization.

[still_one]

30. I agree /nt

[tropicanarose]

64. I completely agree.

[Hart2008]

82. He will need more than "most Democrats" to vote for him to win the general election.

He will also need the support of a majority of independent voters as well, and he appears to be doing very poorly in that area.

Your post also does not address the question of why Obama deserves renomination, and relies upon a false dilemma that he must be renominated regardless of the affect which that will have on other contests for House, Senate and State and local elections.

So, your reply was nonresponsive to the question which I asked.

[Armstead]

53. Denial is not a river in Egypt

Complacency is not our friend.

I don;t advocate for a different nominee, but Obama had better get off the dime if he wants to avoid a President Romney or Perry.

[still_one]

12. In the marist poll if 49% they will vote against Obama, who will THEY vote for. Just because gallop

indicates romney is ahead of obama, doesn't mean the same thing with the marist poll, in fact in may mean nothing if romney doesn't win the nomination

[tblue]

13. It's a "heads up" is all. Too early to panic.

He's not dropping out. He's got plenty time to work it out. I hope!

[INdemo]

14. Look at the number surveyed..

This has right wing bias all over the place..825 surveyed..We don't know if this is all across the country or in the heart of Republican districts.The media and others are acting as if the election is next week..I have been critical of Obama on many issues but if one of the crazies get elected God help us..No longer will will we be a Democracy.
Republicans launched a very good strategy November 8 2008...Blame all of Bush's failures on the Democrats and they succeeded.

[Hart2008]

Look at the latest Gallup tracking poll. It has the same 49% disapproval number.

http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm

[Hart2008]

97. Gallup tracking poll update! 51% now dissaprove of Obama's job performance.

Sorry, I was too optimistic:

http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm

[phleshdef]

15. That newest Marist poll has some really bizarre results in it that don't tie out with other polls.

Isn't this the same one that has Palin ahead with independents? I'm not buying that and no other polls out there seems to be reflecting that trend at all.

I don't discount polls. But I look at what several polls say to determine what the trend likely is. When one poll produces these kinds of bizarre results, I tend to ignore it.

[ananda]

18. As Harry Truman said...

... when your choice is a Republican and a Dem acting like a Reep, then
people will then vote Reep.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Newsflash: Truman is Dead.

Obama 2012! :hi:

[dionysus]

25. why is that little feller karate chopping at me? fine, have it your way...

PUT EM UP!1!!
:hi: <-- karate chop
:rofl: <-- kickboxin'
:thumbsup: <-- power fist
<-- cornell west attack


:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Screech! I hate you! You Republican you! You're always scaring me!

:rofl:



:hi:

[dionysus]

38. I'll send Dennis to save you!

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. Please leave Dennis on whatever planet you found him. Thank you very much.

:rofl:

[ellisonz]

153. This is going to be the biggest ass-kicking since 1948!

Truman Defeats Dewey!

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[ellisonz]

163. I have a B.A. in it. You misunderstood what I meant by ass-kicking.

Not total domination - but nice swift jolt to the rear hind. The pukes think they have a chance. No one thought Goldwater had one. It was expected.

I don't think you know as much about Truman as you think:

Give 'Em Hell, Barry
Obama needs a little of the Truman touch.
By David GreenbergPosted Friday, Nov. 19, 2010, at 7:16 AM ET

But on the whole Truman's bipartisanship was good policy and good politics. He brought Republicans into his foreign policy at different stages—consulting with congressional leaders, appointing members of both parties to American delegations abroad, naming Republicans like Hoffman to key posts in the State Department and elsewhere. These moves sustained public support for his internationalism and muted attacks from across the aisle. Even the loyalty program fended off a Republican bill that would have been worse and deprived the GOP of a campaign issue.

Truman's bipartisan successes didn't change the culture of Washington. They didn't end partisanship, nastiness, or scurrilous attacks. Even when Republicans collaborated with the president, they still lambasted him when it suited their needs. But Truman's strategy had an unforeseen benefit: It allowed him to inhabit the presidency with new authority while putting in place policies that Americans considered to be in the nation's long-term best interest.

At the same time, his outreach to the Republicans did nothing to prevent him from going partisan on domestic issues for his own purposes. Facing an uphill fight in the 1948 election, Truman famously trashed the "do nothing Eightieth Congress" on a whistle-stop tour around the country, to cheers of "Give 'em hell, Harry!"–ending, two years after his rout, with a sweet victory.

http://www.slate.com/id/2275290?ocid=xnetr2-2

Truman and Obama both have the same political strategy towards the Republicans. Harry Truman was a patriot; not a partisan. You're really going to hate on the President like that because he used a Presidential tradition like golf as an attempt to build bridges.:eyes:

[Hart2008]

165. Truman sought GOP support for his foreign policy, but certainly not his domestic policies.

Truman learned from Woodrow Wilson's failure to include Repukes in his foreign policy goals. Wilson paid a price for that mistake and Truman wasn't going to repeat it. Truman wanted partisanship to end at the waters' edge, and in that he was successful.

In his domestic policy, Truman was fighting a rear guard action to defend the New Deal. Obama's tax policy is more Reagan than Truman. Truman didn't believe in supply side tax cuts, while Obama does. Truman would have vetoed reducing tax rates for the wealthy, while Obama didn't. Truman was a Keynesian, and Obama isn't.

The comparison of Obama with Truman is quite laughable, especially from someone who claims to hold a B.A. in History. Apparently, you didn't study postwar American history.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

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

[Hart2008]

212. News Flash! 1964 was the biggest Dem landslide since FDR!

LBJ vs. Barry Goldwater 1964

Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44+DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964

A much bigger ass-kicking than 1948:


Truman Dewey Thurmond
Electoral vote 303 189 39
States carried 28 16 4
Popular vote 24,179,347 21,991,292 1,175,930
Percentage 49.6% 45.1% 2.4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948

[Doctor_J]

20. So the 49% means he should give up?

BWAHAHA. Relax Hart. A lot will happen between now and then. He has finally begun to separate himself from the Repukes. This move will help a great deal if he sticks with it.

[Hart2008]

32. True, self-indulgent boomers have problems putting the Party first. There's no "I" in team.

At some point in time, a true party leader would recognize that if he truly believes in the goals of the party, and his personal unpopularity endangers those goals, then he has an obligation to step aside.

If the man is simply using the party as a vehicle for his personal ambition, then he doesn't care if he leaves that vehicle stuck in a ditch, and with minorities in both houses of Congress. In that case, we should expect him to use the vast war chest which he has accumulated from corporate interests for selling out his base to wage a very negative and uninspiring campaign.

[YellowCosmicSun]

21. He will be reelected. You will not stop him.

Not even close.

[Hart2008]

26. Even if that were to be true, he will lose the Senate and House with his present numbers.

Emotion and wishful thinking will only go so far.

And you haven't answered my other questions.

:eyes:

[YellowCosmicSun]

29. Obama's win will effect every other race to our benefit.

You don't really want answers.

You have turned on Obama and there is no going back, apparently.

[Hart2008]

41. More wishful thinking without addressing the question I posted.

You don't want to address how low Obama's approval ratings are by all of the major pollsters.

The Party is greater than the President, alone.

Deal with it.

[JVS]

158. When the voters of Montana, North Dakota, and Nebraska turn out to vote against Obama...

it is not going to benefit our candidates for the Senate.

The Senate candidates for Virginia, West Virginia, and Missouri might also take a pummeling because of his presence on the ballot.

[YellowCosmicSun]

160. This is your argument? We won't win the Red States?????

Well, blow me down.

[Hart2008]

169. We won't win the purple states with Obama, and Dems in red states are in deep doodoo.NT

[JVS]

197. You claimed that he helps others with his coattails. I showed that he doesn't.

[Hart2008]

202. Thank you for you rationality. NT

[dionysus]

22. WE NEED GARY HART!!1!!!

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

35. Is that you, Donna?

Bit lonely lately?











:evilgrin:

[dionysus]

42. phht, i'm not falling forthat monkey business!

;)

[Ikonoklast]

58. Damn, it worked once before!

I must be getting old, I'm losing my mojo.



Ahh, these were the days, I was firing on all eight cylinders (sigh)...



And here I am with some other woman...oh, wait, this one was my wife!


Forgot about her.

[Hart2008]

65. 24+ years later and you still get your news from the National Enquirer!

Meanwhile, the younger generation wants answers to unemployment, which has increased under our allegedly "progressive" president:

WASHINGTON — Young adults are the recession's lost generation.

In record numbers, they're struggling to find work, shunning long-distance moves to live with mom and dad, delaying marriage and raising kids out of wedlock, if they're becoming parents at all. The unemployment rate for them is the highest since World War II, and they risk living in poverty more than others – nearly 1 in 5.

New 2010 census data released Thursday show the wrenching impact of a recession that officially ended in mid-2009. There are missed opportunities and dim prospects for a generation of mostly 20-somethings and 30-somethings coming of age in a prolonged period of joblessness.

"We have a monster jobs problem, and young people are the biggest losers," said Andrew Sum, an economist and director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. He noted that for recent college graduates getting by on waitressing, bartending and odd jobs, they will have to compete with new graduates for entry-level career positions when the job market does improve.

Maybe you need to get a grip on what is relevant in the year 2011?

[Ikonoklast]

68. As if anything Gary Hart has to say is relevant in 2011.

'Young adults' have no freakin' clue as to who Hart is, nor would they care to know.

[Hart2008]

78. Certainly, nothing which you have posted here is relevant to 2011.

You are still stuck in tabloid news from the summer of 1987, which all the parties involved denied then, and never changed their stories.

I have seen Gary Hart on a university campus, and he still relates very well to young adults.

[Ikonoklast]

80. Does he still hit on the cute ones?

[Hart2008]

85. You persist in confusing Gary Hart with Bill Clinton.

There has yet to be a woman come forward by name and complain herself that Gary Hart was less than a gentleman to her.

Your comments are also irrelevant to the issue of why Obama deserves renomination, and how he will recapture the House, and retain the Senate while defending 23 of 33 Senate seats.

[BklnDem75]

96. Hart's actually worse

Despite seeing the writing on the wall, he kept up with his 'monkey business' and got caught red handed. Any sane person would quit while they were ahead.

[Hart2008]

100. Bill Clinton was accussed of rape, sexual assault, indecent exposure, and frequenting prostitutes.

"Monkey Business" was a movie by the Marx Brothers, which has no sexual connotation:
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7ncJsXtOYwsAgq1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydWd2dHVkBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGUjVfNzM-/SIG=12cjigiad/EXP=1316757897/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Business_(1931_film)

Actually it was rated "G".

What writing was on the wall?

How did he "get caught"?

Where was the love child?

Where was the semen stained dress?

Why does a "sane person" believe gossip from the National Enquirer?

Your innuendo has already been debunked:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hart2008/7
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1876521#1877067

[BklnDem75]

111. You forgot keeping the balls of a now executed rapist in a jar...

You can add that to your list of conspiracy theories born from the right. Monkey Business is a yacht that Gary used as a love shack for his mistress Donna. Was there a movie with the same name? Weird. Learn something new everyday.

[Hart2008]

115. Funny, but the crew of that yacht never agreed with that statement.

Surely, if that were true someone from that crew would have cashed in on that story.

But, they didn't because that isn't what happened.

So, it is your "love shack" theory which came from Murdoch and the right, and you are repeating here in DU.

Actually, there were two movies called "Monkey Business", and neither involved sex, but the later one did include a monkey...

[BklnDem75]

116. Apparently, someone did cash in

While words are worth something, a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Hart2008]

121. The same Lynn Armadt who brought Rice to the dock and then stole her photos!

What a credible witness she makes not.

She claimed to be Rice's friend then stole her photos to ruin her reputation.

Stone Phillips and 20/20 had that story before it got spiked, just like the story of Cheney and D.C. Madam. Funny that.

[BklnDem75]

134. Say what you want, the picture speaks for itself

[Hart2008]

135. And it doesn't say anything. I have a similar photo with my cousin...

Do you think that proves incest?

Obviously, you are a gossip.

[BklnDem75]

136. LOL!!! It proves something alright

If you think a picture like this is acceptable for a married man running for President of the US, then there's not much else I can tell you.

[Hart2008]

137. Uh, he wasn't running for President when that photo was taken...

As he said about the photo, "The attractive lady whom I had only recently been introduced to dropped into my lap...I chose not to dump her off."

Obviously, you have never had someone from the opposite sex show that kind of sudden affection for you. Sometimes, that happens to famous people.

Lee Hart said that she didn't have a problem with that photo.

They have only been married for 54 years now.

Gossip away.

[BklnDem75]

138. Look... I understand the voting public isn't the brightest bulbs...

but are you for real?

[Hart2008]

139. Are you for real? ThisOP wasn't about Gary Hart. It is about the rationale for Obama's renomination

You and some others want to rehash 24 year old Murdoch inspired propaganda which was intended to aid the election of Poppy Bush by sliming the man who had been his biggest detractor in the Senate, and resulted in the nomination of the incompetent Mike Dukakis.

The idiot in the tank video was priceless for the Bush campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPZQ3UEN_Q&feature=related

[BklnDem75]

140. It's about you trying to sell your guy...

while trashing our guy with a week old poll.

[Hart2008]

141. Gary Hart doesn't need me to "sell" him. He was never for sale.

Can you say the same about Obama?

The questions asked pertain to Obama's rationale for renomination, which no one can provide.

Renomination is simply his right, not our decision.

[BklnDem75]

142. Sugar Daddy Gary did all the spending

Just ask Donna

[Hart2008]

148. False again. Bill Broadhurst was the guy spending and fundraising.

Donna actually said nice things about Hart in the last interview she did on the topic. She knows that she was exploited by those who wanted to damage him. He was not her "sugar daddy".

Broadhurst was the guy with the deep pockets and was doing the fundraising, thus Don Henley's girlfriend, Donna Rice, got invited on the yacht when she showed up there.

Broadhurst was a Louisiana lawyer connected to the oil and gas interests there. Hart had proposed a tariff on imported oil to avoid foreign oil dependency which made him a natural ally of the Louisiana oilmen. Now if Hart's oil tariff had been implemented, had he become president, we wouldn't have fought two wars in Iraq. Now that is the discussion which we should be having, instead of discussing old gossip. The later is all that you are capable of discussing, since you are clearly an gossip.

[BklnDem75]

164. That's all that can be discussed with Gary Hart

You're the only one trying to sell him, pretending his negatives don't exist.

[Hart2008]

167. All you want to discuss is 24 year old gossip. Here's the beef, 13 nonfiction policy books.

Hart is a distinguished author on many topics, including defense policy, homeland security, and Russia:

http://www.amazon.com/Gary-Hart/e/B001H9XCPS

Then of course there was the Hart-Rudman commission which he chaired which predicted the terrorist attacks before 9-11.

You only wish to discuss an old rumor that wasn't true 24 years ago, and it isn't true now.

Do you believe that in 1972 Sen. Muskie was paying for prostitutes and wrote that on his campaign's letterhead too?

[BklnDem75]

178. He should keep his day job

There's no do-overs in politics.

[Hart2008]

185. Yes, just ask the "new" Nixon in 1968. NT

[BklnDem75]

189. 1968 wasn't about Nixon

It was about Democrats turning on each other, doing pretty much the same thing you're advocating.

[Hart2008]

194. 1968 was about Johnson hamstringing the party to ensure Nixon won.

When it was clear he would not be the nominee, Johnson's people interfered with Humphrey's campaign and made sure Nixon would win. It has something to do with that deal Nixon and Johnson cut in Dallas in November 1963:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/300806jfk.htm

But if Nixon got a second chance on the national stage, as corrupt as he was, then anyone can, or do only Repukes get second chances in American politics?

[BklnDem75]

195. LOL! Of course...

It wasn't all those primaries and George Wallace peeling a huge slice of the south. I can see why you think Gary has a chance.

[Hart2008]

196. Did it ever occur to you why George Wallace got shot in '72?

Really, the popular vote between Nixon and Humphrey was very close in '68.

Nixon wasn't polling so well against Wallace in '72...

Wallace gets shot.

Muskie gets slimed in New Hampshire, and McGovern gets the nomination.

Nixon wins by a landslide.

Free elections?

[BklnDem75]

198. Which has little to do with 1968

Wallace didn't make things more challenging for Nixon in '68, he helped clear the way.

[Hart2008]

201. 1968 was about the war and LBJ wouldn't let HHH run his own campaign. Wallace capitalized on that.

This from another thread by Ken Burch:

Privately, he (Humprey) was fairly dovish

but Johnson wouldn't allow him to run that way, and insisted on crushing the doves in Chicago on the war plank, when Humphrey was BEGGING LBJ to let him reach out to the "Dump Johnson" wing of the party.

And Johnson, in the fall, refused to go public with the proof he had that Nixon's campaign had intervened in the Paris Peace Talks to try to make sure there wouldn't be a peace deal before the election. All LBJ had to do was to make a nationally televised speech announcing that, and Nixon's support would have collapsed. But he wouldn't. Because LBJ was more loyal to the war than to his own party.

If Hubert Humphrey had been allowed to run as his own man in '68, Nixon would have got an ass-kicking in November.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x739102#745506

Really, you have gotten far from the OP of this thread.

My point, is that there was collusion between Nixon and Johnson in '68, and we expect to raise some serious issues about the Clintons and the Bushes in 1988, and Iran-Contra.

[Ikonoklast]

110. Deflection. No one in this thread is talking about Clinton.

Except *you*.

Might as well bring in John Edwards wile you are at it...and the National Enquirer was right about him, too.

I notice Hart never sued the Enquirer...

[Hart2008]

117. Bill Clinton set the standard by which all other such scandals will now be judged.

John Edwards problems are also relevant for comparison.

The younger generation will not understand what all the fuss was about in 1987, since all parties involved denied that anything improper occurred. People like you want to engage in high school like gossip about what happened between two people, who deny that anything actually happened.

Hart is and was a public figure. As is and was Donna Rice. In the U.K., it wouldn't make a difference, but here in the U.S. the media can take liberties with people who are public figures due to the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent which requires the plaintiff to prove "actual malice" in order to prevail. "Actual malice" is almost impossible to prove.

Donna Rice has stated that she regrets not suing to collect the proceeds from her stolen photos.

[dionysus]

119. it doesn't matter. he'll never be president. he'll never run again. this is all silly bullshit.

[Hart2008]

123. You will never be president, and the topic of the thread is the rationale for Obama's renomination.

It was you who was changing the topic to your silly bovine excrement.

[Hart2008]

54. She did not preside over an increase in unemployment to 9.1% and have a negative approval rating.NT

[Ikonoklast]

55. You are unintentionally hilarious.

I am on the fence on this; either this is some form of Performance Art, or you are just unhinged.

[Hart2008]

57. You are repeating Murdoch and Rush propaganda against a good Dem.

It is also irrelevant to the questions asked.

[Ikonoklast]

59. Really? Name the 'good Dem'. The one that ran from President Carter?

Because it was politically expedient for him to do so in Colorado at the time?

THAT 'good Dem'?

Self-serving, selfish shit is more like it.

[Hart2008]

60. I wouldn't complain that Tim Wirth distanced himself from an unpopular President in 1980.

The point here is that we don't need to make that same mistake again.

[SidDithers]

27. ...

Sid

[gateley]

44. OT - That pic of Choi is sending waves of shivers through me and

brought tears to my eyes. Thank you for having that.

[SidDithers]

46. Seemed an appropriate way to celebrate the end of DADT...

:hi:

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Polls are for pollsters and this far out, also for suckers.

Meaningless. If it said the opposite, it would also be meaningless.

[bvar22]

39. I won't be voting AGAINST anybody.

I'm too old.

I will vote FOR the person who BEST represents the Working Class & The Poor.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Hart2008]

40. Unfortunately, you do not represent the majority of Americans.

Reelection campaigns are always a referendum on the incumbent President.

People will vote against him and his party if they remain dissatisfied with the President and his policies. See 1980 for an example.

[gateley]

45. Agree. The Dems didn't vote for the Dem. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. You Are Correct

However it's more correct to say it's a referendum on the results (the economy) an incumbent president produces and not so much his or her policies.

If the economy doesn't improve I would not be surprised to wake up on 11/7/2012 to see the Republicans controlling all three branches of government.

[Hart2008]

186. That is the scary truth. We remember 1980. NT

[emilyg]

210. I'll be with you.

[jenmito]

50. That pollster had him with nearly the identical numbers back in November last year, then down to 40%

last month, so it looks like the "definitely won't vote for him" people seem to go back and forth in their opinions.

[vaberella]

51. My heart weeps, really. I don't really care. Why? Because if people want Perry...let Perry win.

When women are brought back to being housewives and forced into servitude along side Blacks it's their fault. It's all good in my book. I'll just make the final move and bring my mother to France with me.

[Hart2008]

81. I don't think that people really want Perry or Romney, but they don't want Obama either.

So the point here is, why does President Obama deserve renomination?

How does he regain the House, and retain the Senate?

And if we can't answer those questions, then maybe more of us will need to consider the expatriate life, and legally avoid paying taxes to support the MIC.

[Robbins]

52. Well

If people atully vote like this In 2012 get ready for great depression 2.If Obama goes down Demorats
In congress do too.Even If Obama wins the senate might be lost.Republicans will do nothing to repair
the economy and create jobs.They will make It worse be pushing more Tax cuts for the rich,more
deregulation,more cuts to entitlements,Cutting unemployment,cutting food stamp,taking the antiunion
crap from Wisconsion,and Ohio on federal level.

From the Bush years It shows Democrats In the senate won't fillerbuster like Republicans.

DADT could be put back.Remember how much Republicans hate gays.They would push more antiGay and
antiwomen laws.And when national disaster happens you will be out of luck.

If you think things are bad now just wait for President Perry or Romney,Speaker Bohener or Cantor,and
Majority Leader Mcconnell.

[Phx_Dem]

56. I bet you're excited about that.

[Hart2008]

71. No, I am a sober realist about what those numbers mean.

This is not a time to go into denial, or retreat into a cult of personality and ignore what is happening around us.

[dionysus]

113. oooh, cult... surely you can do better. try the rezko line, or messiah....

[Hart2008]

170. Self-indulgent Baby Boomer with a sense of entitlement works well enough for me.

I don't need to discuss Rezko.

You are the one with the need to keep bringing up the RW talking points in this thread.

[NICO9000]

61. We still have 14 months guys!

Everybody calm down. I predict there's gonna be real unrest here in 2012 (if not even sooner), and whatever happens after that, will determine the outcome. Next year is the 20th anniversary of the L.A. uprising and something tells me it's coming back quick.

[Hart2008]

62. Wow! This is now #1 on the "New And Hot" list, but the questions raised have not been answered.

With such high negatives, even after the President's latest jobs speech and legislative proposal, it is relevant to ask, What is the rationale for renominating this President?

Presently, Repukes have a 25 seat majority in the House of Representatives and a Dems have a 3 seat majority in the Senate. How can such an unpopular president win back the House of Representatives, let alone, retain the Senate when the Democratic Caucus must defend 23 of 33 Senate seats up for election in 2012?

Whatever his personal ambitions are for a second term, when does the President acknowledge that those personal ambitions will interfere with the interests of the Democratic Party of winning BOTH the presidency and both houses of Congress in the 2012 elections?

So far we have seen denial of the present reality, irrational hope that this trend will change in time for November 2012, and even someone repeating Murdoch's smears against an accomplished Dem. Yet, there has been no attempt to address the rationale for President Obama's renomination and reelection.

:shrug:

[tropicanarose]

63. Polls are often flawed. This is a tough time for any incumbent. A lot can change between now & 2012

[Hart2008]

66. Flawed polls are not a rationale for Obama's renomination or reelection.

That idea does not explain how candidate Obama will regain control of the House of Representatives, or retain control of the Senate when the Dem Caucus must defend 23 or 33 Senate seats.

Nor does it explain how he will govern without a super-majority in the Senate, or Repukes controlling the House.

[tropicanarose]

72. 'tis true

[tropicanarose]

112. Flawed polls are also not grounds for further condemnation and contempt either

[Politicalboi]

67. It's still too early

A lot can happen in 14 months.

[Hart2008]

69. It isn't to early to give a rationale for President Obama's renomination and reelection...

Which no one here has been capable of providing.

The time to do that is before the primary process starts, and not after.

[ellisonz]

173. Here, have a rationale:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

:silly:

[Hart2008]

188. Ignoring the bad language, it doesnt' address the 9.1% increasing unemployment under Obama.

So when the Repuke nominee imitates Reagan and asks, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?", Obama will reply, "Just check out this website: WhattheEFFIhavedoneforyou.com." It will go over real well with the older generation.

Only that won't explain why the unemployment went up in his administration, or why so many homes have been foreclosed on, does it?

It won't explain why we are still in Iraq and wasting billions that could be spent here at home.

It won't address why his disapproval rating is so high.

When things go bad, voters usually hit the reset button and vote against the incumbent.

Your website doesn't address that fact.

[Avalux]

70. "Definitely"?? The use of that word causes me to disregard the poll.

I'm not about to get worked up into a tizzy over theoretical "definite" polls at this time.

[Major Hogwash]

75. Does the Marist poll include republicans in their poll?

Idiots?
Jackasses?
Douchebags?

Obviously.

LoL

[Hart2008]

182. And independents. All citizens can vote in a democracy. NT

[Fruittree]

84. You're right -

Let's just forget the election and give up now...After all the poll says so..

[Hart2008]

87. Obviously, you can't provide a rationale for Obama's renomination or reelection either.

The poll demonstrates more evidence why Obama is likely to be a weak candidate for reelection.

It does not compel us to lose an election, if we are smart.

[Fruittree]

149. Who is "us"?

Obviously that doesn't include those of "us" who would like to see Pres. Obama win a second term. As far as a rationale - just google what has Obama done - it's pretty easy. If he turns out to be, as you say, "a weak candidate" it'll be thanks to people like you making it so - You have heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't mean to be rude but these polls are getting more than a little ridiculous...

[Hart2008]

151. The Democratic Party is "us". "We" are more than a personality cult for selfindulgent Boomer Obama.

You may find the polls to be ridiculous, but for those without a job, the official 9.1% unemployment rate is real.

For those who have had their homes foreclosed upon, that is real.

Even if those things were not Obama's fault, he needs to understand that his personal unpopularity will be a drag on the party in 2012.

Whether those who are enthralled in Obama's cult of personality wish to admit it, his unpopularity is fact, and not a "self-fulfilling prophecy" as you wish to call it.

That fact must be addressed to avoid 1980 style losses of both the presidency and the Congress.

[Fruittree]

176. My son and his friends who graduated in 2010 know

about that 9% unemployment, believe me...I think for that age, it's even higher. Obama has headed things in the right direction and has only been unable to do more thanks to a weak Dem party and obstructionist republicans who count on an uninformed public to support them. I believe, that by your statements you are more fixated on personality than most Obama supporters are. His "personal unpopularity"??! Is this what we vote on? As a history of reformers will show, doing the right thing doesn't necessrily make you popular - just ask Jesus...

[Hart2008]

179. And do your son's friends think the increase in unemployment under Obama was good for them?

Realistically, Obama's supporters want to ignore the polls which show his increasing unpopularity. Explaining that phenomenon requires breaking down his support by demographic groups, which may lead to some divisive conclusions. However, the reality is that when the President's negatives with voters outweigh his positives, it is time for him to consider standing aside for someone else for the good of the party.

Doing the right thing isn't always popular, but doing the wrong thing is usually unpopular. At least in terms of economic reforms, I haven't seen much from President Obama. I wouldn't want to compare him to Jesus here. Jesus wouldn't have voted for TARP, and He threw the money changers out of the Temple. Obama has been far too cozy with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street for my taste.

[Fruittree]

187. I wasn't comparing him to Jesus - just

coming up with the first victim of unpopularity that popped into my mind. I don't know what country you've been living in but the unemployment issue has been around long before Obama. Just out of curiosity who is this "someone else" you have in mind? And while we're at it - hwo are they going to fix everything?

[Hart2008]

191. Yes, but Obama made his first priority saving the big banks, and not the victims of their policies.

Unemployment has gone up and not down under Obama. Obama reminds me of Carter in that he has rejected traditional Keynesian economics in favor of neoliberal economics, i.e., more bad free trade deals which have been robbing us of jobs here. Obama has also embraced the supply-side economics of Reagan, i.e., tax cuts for the wealthy. These are policies which a new Dem nominee must address and reverse.

Whoever challenges him will need to run an issue oriented campaign, and leave the personality cult our of things. Just the facts ma'am. Saying that problems were around before Obama, won't excuse him in voters' minds for not solving the big problems, especially when he has rejected traditional Keynesian economic solutions which worked in similar situations in the past.

Look for an intelligent debate on issues coming up soon.

[Fruittree]

207. I think although I would have liked to see the big banks fail..

what would that really have meant? Our entire economy (not instigated under Obama) is tied up in money exchange and those big banks. Pensions, private retirement accounts, other countries' money are all tied up in Wall Street. What would the suffering of people like us have been had those banks been allowed to crash? And do you honestly think the congress would have gone along with nationalizing those banks? As far as the trade deals, he didn't start those. Our jobs have been outsourced long ago. We were, as a country, sold out by large corporations and bad government decisions in the past - There was no way one president was going to come in and change not just the entire way the world operates in 4 years or even 8. The amount that he and his administration have been able to accomplish given the opposition is remarkable.
What is this with "personality cult"? I don't quite get what you mean by that. I will admit, he seems a likable guy but my support for him is more because I see him as a "just the facts ma'am" kind of person exactly. He has tried to get people to focus on the facts but it's not that easy when it seems we've become a population drawn to drama and nothing else catches our attention.
Again - who do you see running?

[Hart2008]

211. Nationalizing failing banks, instead of bailouts, would have meant the US renogotiating mortgages!

As with all things Obama, I saw no fight from him on that.

"Our entire economy (not instigated under Obama) is tied up in money exchange and those big banks. Pensions, private retirement accounts, other countries' money are all tied up in Wall Street."

Right, we've become a nation without industry. We make nothing, therefore we have nothing to trade really.

"What would the suffering of people like us have been had those banks been allowed to crash?"

I would have preferred to see the Obama administration focus on the victims of the banks, i.e., use the billions that was thrown to the banks as bailouts to instead refinance the underwater properties to stabilize the housing markets. FDR did this with the Home Owners' Loan Corp. There has been no prosecution or civil actions of note for disgorgement of unjust enrichment from the banks or their executives. By all accounts, the result of TARP programs is that the big banks have gotten bigger, and the problem has gotten worse. The answer here was more regulation, and competition in the banking sector. Instead we got less.

What was the effect of those policies on "people like us". That answer depends on who "us" is here. Clearly, these policies have had a devastating affect on the younger generation who will be scarred from this in the way that older generations were scarred from living through the depression. The Baby Boomer generation will be judged harshly by their progeny and history for how they handled these issues.

"And do you honestly think the congress would have gone along with nationalizing those banks?"

With strong presidential leadership, yes.

"Our jobs have been outsourced long ago. We were, as a country, sold out by large corporations and bad government decisions in the past - There was no way one president was going to come in and change not just the entire way the world operates in 4 years or even 8. The amount that he and his administration have been able to accomplish given the opposition is remarkable."

Obama wasn't elected president to change the world. He was elected president to effect change here in the US. One of the things which he had promised was to renegotiate trade deals like NAFTA. That didn't happen. Instead, we are now reading that he is pushing more "hair of the dog that bit us" free trade deals with South Korea, etc. Labor sees that for the betrayal that it clearly is. Regardless of Congress, the Obama administration has continued to issue "cultural" visas that allow foreign students to come to the US not to study, but to take the kind of summer jobs that my friends and I worked in out youth at resorts, restaurants, etc. Recent graduates also need to compete with the H-1B visa holders for technical jobs. Obama could end that by executive order but won't. In short he continues a neoliberal policy of exporting jobs and importing workers.

I, of course, find him preferable to Bush, but his accomplishments have been small relative to what people want, and what was possible if he were to harness public opinion. Instead, he appears overly cautious and compromises before having put up a good fight.

By "personality cult" I am referring to his support from some people who consider him to be some kind of super hero. JibJab captured this sentiment well in one of their videos. I see the same thing here with DUers who have pictures of him as Superman, or bringing everyone donuts, etc. Also, some here have actually made comments about him as "a deity". Obviously, it isn't possible to have a serious dialogue with these people about either the man or his policies. That said, I think that the Obamas have been outstanding role models for the nation's youth, but there is a cult of personality from some supporters which over the top.

I expect to see him challenged from one or more eleder statesmen from within the party, and also at least one respected African-American.

[DCBob]

88. I suspect many of those are just angry and confused and impatient..

When it comes time to pull the lever for an actual Repuke candidate they will come to their senses.

[Hart2008]

89. Which completely begs the issue of why we must force that choice on voters and tempt fate.

You appear to be admitting that President Obama does not deserve renomination, since if he is the nominee, he will be forced to run a negative campaign.

[DCBob]

92. President Obama will be the nominee.. get over it.

[JoePhilly]

90. Gary!!! Gary!!! Gary!!!!

How is Gary polling against Obama?? Romney? Perry?

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

91. This thread now on the Top Ten for "most discussed" yet still no rationale for Obama's renomination!

So, again the questions are:

With such high negatives, even after the President's latest jobs speech and legislative proposal, it is relevant to ask, What is the rationale for renominating this President?

Presently, Repukes have a 25 seat majority in the House of Representatives and a Dems have a 3 seat majority in the Senate. How can such an unpopular president win back the House of Representatives, let alone, retain the Senate when the Democratic Caucus must defend 23 of 33 Senate seats up for election in 2012?

Whatever his personal ambitions are for a second term, when does the President acknowledge that those personal ambitions will interfere with the interests of the Democratic Party of winning BOTH the presidency and both houses of Congress in the 2012 elections?

Still waiting for answers to these questions...

[DCBob]

93. flame bait non-sense often makes the top ten.

[Hart2008]

94. The nonsense here is that you can't provide a rationale for Obama's renomination.

Renomination is simply his right as a self-indulgent Baby Boomer.

To hell with the House and Senate!

To hell with the good of the Democratic Party!

Personal ambition is all that matters.

[DCBob]

95. how about survival of America?

if you dont understand that rationale.. then I cant help you.

[Hart2008]

98. So the only rationale is that Obama is our messiah? That needs to be supported without the delusion.

For many Americans, the election will be whether they are better of in November 2012 than they were in November 2008. The unemployed, and those who have had their homes foreclosed upon, both of which increased in Obama's presidency, do not see him as America's messiah.

Religion and politics don't mix very well.

[DCBob]

99. "messiah".. right out of Rush's playbook.

[Hart2008]

101. I asked for a rationale and you gave a faith based argument about the survival of the nation.

Which states have seceded from the Union such that you compare him to Lincoln?

[DCBob]

102. ok you've had you 15 minutes of DU fame being on the "top ten".

time to bail this thread.. bye bye!

[Hart2008]

103. And I will continue to ask for the rationale for President Obama's renomination until it is given.

I have made the Top Ten lists before, and I expect to do so again.

Unfortunately, many here have an emotional attachment to this President, which clouds thier ability to discuss him and his presidency rationally.

:hi:

[dionysus]

125. obama supporters don't think he is a diety, but gary hart is clearly your messiah it seems.

[Hart2008]

131. None of the Obama supporters are able to state the rationale for his renomination.

Being President and the Democratic nominee in 2012 is simply his birth right.

The OP makes no mention of any challenger.

[dionysus]

144. keep digging gary, it's pure comedy gold.

[Hart2008]

150. There is no comedy in a presidency where unemployment has climbed to 9.1%.

I am not Gary.

[jefferson_dem]

106. I could easily knock your nonsense down with actual facts ...

But I won't as it's patently obvious that you didn't pose your "questions" with a real interest in answers. Sorry, I don't believe you.

[Hart2008]

108. 9.1% unemployment is a serious fact to many voters, and you can't address it.

The number of mortgage foreclosers is a fact, which is a serious issue to many voters.

I don't believe you have facts which support a rationale, or else that would be stated.

A Reaganesque Repuke campaign of, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" needs to be addressed with something other than, "Things could be worse".

[dionysus]

120. the premise of this comedy gold OP needs no rebuttal. hart is washed up, he'll never be president.

he was washed up over 20 years ago. let it go.
:shrug:

[KoKo]

129. the Democratic Party portrays itself as the "Victim" over and over...don't expect

anyone to bother about Gary Hart running when neither Al Gore, Howard Dean or John Kerry had any hope of winning.

Look at our Party... Look at how it always appears the "VICTIM" of Big Donors like Mellon-Scaife or Koch Brothers or Religious Right Influence.

We've had time enough to get our act together and we haven't. We still portray ourselves as VICTIMS. The time for "Abused Spouse Crap" is over.

Going "back in time" to Gary Hart is not the answer. But, what IS the ANSWER for our Democratic Party.

I haven't seen it, yet.

Until we get out of the role of Victim (which is a farse perpetuated by Ops in Dem Party who hawk their DLC/Blue Dog Candidates) we WILL NEVER WIN ANY BATTLES.

We will have to wait until the "Tea Party" wears itself out and their minions on the LEFT get enough push back that they implode on their own rhetoric.

FOR NOW...Our Dem Party is in decline. Those who don't think it is have been smoking too much weed for years.

And it makes me sick to say this...as an older DU back to JFK ...my first vote.

[Hart2008]

152. Yes, the party has been in decline since 1988. I agree your abused spouse syndrome argument.

This thread was not about Gary Hart.

I asked for the rationale for the renomination of President Obama.

No one can give those reasons.

I can only conclude, that his renomination is not a rational issue for his supporters.

We now have a President who is expected to have a $1 Billion war chest, with a disapproval rating over 50%, yet no one in the party is asking why we should renominate such a damaged candidate. The problem is the candidate's need to take the corporate money, at the expense of the base of the party, and the general public welfare. The repukes were always like that, but the Democratic Party stood for something different.

The Democratic Party, in its prime, stood for the average working American and the middle class. That was sold out by the DLC and the Clintons who wanted to take that money. The Clintons in particular went hard left of controversial social issues, while selling out the middle class on things like free trade. The giant sucking sound of free trade got hidden by the dotcom boom, and the following real estate boom, but Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagle eventually resulted in the financial meltdown of Lehman Brothers and others which we the taxpayers are all repaying.

So, we need to purge the party of the DLC money interests, but first we need a candidate who knows how to do that...

[Arkana]

104. Yawn. This news changes every fucking week.

Wake me in September of next year.

[okieinpain]

107. so lets see you want to get rid of president obama and of course

your hero is nader, Kucinich, or alan grayson. lol, man you people are crazier by the day.

[Hart2008]

109. The OP asks for the rationale for President Obama's renomination, which no one can state.

Who replaces him as the nominee was not asked.

[dionysus]

124. we're too busy laughing to "debate" this "issue" with you.

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

132. You think that presiding over 9.1% unemployment is funny?

When you graduate from high school, we'll see how funny you think that is.

How funny do you think the Obama Presidency has been to those who have lost their homes to foreclosure when his administration hasn't addressed that problem?

You clearly haven't contributed anything substantive to any discussion which I have read here at DU, so we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for the first time.

[okieinpain]

208. that's ok. i did it for them.

[dionysus]

126. even nader is more relevant that the mighty... gary..hart...

[BlueIris]

114. I predict that in the highly unlikely event he is renominated, he'll get 185 electoral votes.

Max. It will be a pretty humiliating defeat.

[dionysus]

122. so you first.. think it's highly unlike obama will even run again... and if he does, he loses

mightily to a teabagging clown.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

127. You think it's "highly unlikely" that Obama will be renominated?

Am I reading that right?

:crazy:

[ellisonz]

172. These people are nuts.

Barbara Boxer/Howard Dean in 2016! :argh:

[jefferson_dem]

200. Folks can want what they want ...

but to say something like Obama's renomination suggests someon'es living in an alternate reality.

[LaydeeBug]

118. Listen, just as staunch supporters were touting his approval ratings just as all the capitulation

was happening, the polls did not reflect the vibe yet.

When it did, he changed his course.

Three weeks ago, I would have EASILY been in that boat. I elected a democrat, not a Republican lite. NOW is a different story.

So if he doesn't bend over again for big business, he's got me, and I am sure a lot of others in that 49%

[great white snark]

130. Obama didn't suddenly change.

Please list the instances where he's "bended over for big business." Thanks.

[PhilosopherKing]

128. It's a long time between now and next November

A lot can happen.

[blkmusclmachine]

133. The pistons of "11-Dimensional Chess" are working overtime...

to lose 2012 to an insane Christofascist GOP, in a landslide election. Was that the plan all along?

[Hart2008]

184. Yes, he planned to increase unemployment to 9.1%. It is all part of his grand scheme...

We are all fools for not understanding the mastermind.

:sarcasm:

[HuckleB]

143. A generic candidate is not among the actual GOP candidates.

This poll is a poll of frustration with the economy.

[RBInMaine]

147. Just who the hell would you like to nominate? Please, get a grip.

[Hart2008]

155. The question was "whom" we want to nominate, not "who". Who is on first, but it's not Obama.

I can read the polls and the writing on the wall.

I remember 1980.

It is you who need to get a grip on reality here.

And like others, you cannot offer a rationale for Obama's renomination...

Renomination is simply the entitlement of another self-indulgent Baby Boomer president.

[JVS]

157. Normally I would say that there is time and not to worry, but since I see no reason to expect...

things to improve and I see plenty of reasons to expect things to get worse, I think we're in deep shit (or rapidly approaching deep shit).

Even if Obama wins in 2012, it seems that he will be unable to pursue any agenda due to republican control of at least one chamber of congress.

[Hart2008]

161. Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on!

Thank you for being the voice of reason here.

I am still waiting for a rationale for Obama's renomination from his supporters.

It is not forthcoming from them.

All I see is a cult of personality.

[Hart2008]

162. This thread now #1 on the Top Ten for "Most Discussed" Still no rationale for Obama's renomination!

So I will again pose the questions for discussion:

With such high negatives, even after the President's latest jobs speech and legislative proposal, it is relevant to ask, What is the rationale for renominating this President?

Presently, Repukes have a 25 seat majority in the House of Representatives and a Dems have a 3 seat majority in the Senate. How can such an unpopular president win back the House of Representatives, let alone, retain the Senate when the Democratic Caucus must defend 23 of 33 Senate seats up for election in 2012?

Whatever his personal ambitions are for a second term, when does the President acknowledge that those personal ambitions will interfere with the interests of the Democratic Party of winning BOTH the presidency and both houses of Congress in the 2012 elections?

[NorthCarolina]

166. Perhaps the Dems now have the programming advantage on America's electronic voting machines. nt

[ellisonz]

174. Threads like this make me think DU needs a General Discussion: Panic Chamber forum.

I'm a frickin O8)

[Hart2008]

175. Maybe DU just needs a denial forum for those who ignore reality and 9.1% unemployment.

And I am still waiting for the rationale for Obama's renomination in this political environment.

[ellisonz]

177. ...

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[Hart2008]

181. That language goes over well with the older generation and those whose mothers taught them manners.

:sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

203. Ask Gary Hart! He knows all there is to know about mothers who taught manners......

and what those who are in the older generation think when they think of Gary Hart.

Good luck!

[and-justice-for-all]

205. Its more than a year away...dont be disspelled by these polls..nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

206. Thrilled to see this thread is recc'd to ZERO!!! n/t

[Hart2008]

213. I'll be thrilled when the Obamatons can provide a rationale for Obama's renomination.

It is far easier to click the unrec button than to provide a rationale for Obama's renomination, which has not been stated.

[fishwax]

209. I don't think those "definitely"s are very definite this far out from the election