Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Democratic PRIMARY CHALLENGE To Obama?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:27 AM
Original message
A Democratic PRIMARY CHALLENGE To Obama?
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 09:14 AM by Segami


"...No sooner did our own Ernie Canning call for a Eugene McCarthy-like progressive Democratic primary
challenge to President Barack Obama last Friday afternoon, than Current's Countdown featured an interview
with Ralph Nader to discuss exactly that on Friday night..."



:smoke:



- "....Well, it's just the reverse," Nader countered. "It will challenge him, bring the best out of him and there's nothing worse for a candidate in terms of lessening the enthusiastic level for him than to go through an unchallenged routine of repetitious primaries." The former Green and then independent Presidential candidate discussed a soon-to-emerge, campaign by Democratic progressives to organize an initiative in the coming days "not designed to defeat , in the Democratic Primary, but designed to generate a robust debate, and put the liberal progressive issues on domestic policies, including job production and foreign and military policy, on the national Presidential agenda in 2012."



He said that without such a challenge, Obama would be allowed to continue serving little more than just "the corporate warlords and corporate barons of Wall Street." By the way, in an article last January, Canning called on Nader himself to register as a Democrat and consider exactly such a primary challenge to Obama. Nader is not the only high profile figure to discuss the possibility of a primary challenge to the President. Vermont's extremely popular Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said on Thom Hartmann's radio show the Friday before last that he thought "it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."



Then, over this past weekend, as word of the debt ceiling "deal" brokered between Obama and the Republicans, featuring historic spending cuts but no increases in revenue, leaked out, word came in that some 75 Progressive Caucus members of the California Democratic Party (CDP) had passed a controversial resolution in support of, you guessed it, a Democratic primary challenge to Barack Obama.



That resolution, passed by the Progressive Caucus of the CDP follows in full below...




RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CHALLENGE


Whereas, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, recognizes the challenge presented by President Obama's negotiating away Democratic Party principles to extremist Republicans by:


* His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, thus endangering The New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.

* His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.

* His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families.

* His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.

* His continuance of President Bush's assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act, along with violations of international human rights.

* His failure to restore due process and Habeas Corpus, while continuing the practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protesters.

* His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.

* His facilitation of the privatization of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.

* His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement and environmentalists.


Whereas the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the historical significance of the great late Robert F. Kennedy's anti-war challenge to former President Lyndon Johnson, following President Johnson's decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, betraying his campaign promise to end a war that polarized America, we similarly recognize the danger and betrayal the "Grand Bargain" represents to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's signature gift to all Americans: Social Security and the New Deal, a point of pride for all Democrats.


Whereas the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party is committed to the understanding that an interest in a 2012 Democratic Presidential Primary challenge will not interfere with President Obama's ability to govern, nor limit his ability to do so in ways that include invoking Constitutional options, we recognize that a Primary challenge will, in fact raise debate on important issues without risking the ability to mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party to elect a triumphant leader to counter the far-right agenda.


Therefore, be it resolved, to make our views heard, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views and which seek to change the course of history by exploring other steps necessary to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge against President Obama.


http://www.progressivecaucuscdp.org/Garofoli.html



###



cont



http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8641


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. A primary challenger is NOT the answer.

Everyone needs to be working to get as many Democrats into the House and Senate as we can.

Without 60 senators in the Senate and without taking the House back, there will still be HUGE GOP OBSTRUCTION - no matter who the democratic president is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. We are trying to elect real democrats. STOP trying to stop us! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Oh that is just a bunch of bull. Obama is a real democrat and you know it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:31 PM
Original message
The "Rubber/Glue Argument."
Convincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
34. k to mark the semi-lost post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. You're trying to fulfill a Republican wet dream whether you know it or not.
They are desperate for what you want because they can't beat him and they damn well know it.

Just keep playing into their hands.

Although I'm pretty sure I know what's really what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. What are you talking about, they just made sure unemployment
will be worse a year from now and those jobs voters that decided the midterms aren't going to change their minds for no reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Right now, I could care less who sits in the WH
Our focus needs to be on Congress.

If I had to vote today, it would be

Rep: Dem
Sen: Dem
WH: None of the above

Tis ok though. I have 15 months to calm down.

I would like to see a primary challenge, even if only through Super Tuesday, because this makes a great point for momentum:

"It will challenge him, bring the best out of him and there's nothing worse for a candidate in terms of lessening the enthusiastic level for him than to go through an unchallenged routine of repetitious primaries."


No fan of Mr Nader (and still irritated about his 2000 bid) but a series of debates through Super T would not be a bad idea in the least, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. You better hope like hell that Obama is back in the WH in 2013 and not a republican

One of the main things we need President Obama for is to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice, when Ruth Bader Gingsburg retires!
Which will probably be sometime in 2013

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Like I said, I have 15 months to calm down
Right now, I could care less. Good thing it is only 2011 and he didn't pull this austerity bullshit in the summer of 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. We already did 60 Senators
and it was a mess
They're all too interested in protecting their own reputations and and they treat every vote as if it's the vote that will sink them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. We had a filibuster proof super-majority in the Senate for ONLY 49 DAYS

Since the day that Obama was sworn-in we've had 60 democratic senators in the Senate for ONLY 49 days.

Senator Franken was sworn in July 2009 and Senator Kennedy died August 2009 - that makes a total of only 49 days.

With all the GOP obstruction it takes 60 yes votes to get almost everything passed in the Senate,
we need to focus on getting 60 democrats back into the Senate - and focus on taking back the House! :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. And it was still a mess
The Democrats in DC (all of them) are terrible at messenging.

They're in a constant state of running for the next election (see Ben Nelson)

There are those in the Senate who make it their business to undercut the Party either because they are getting even (see Lieberman) or are playing to their next re-election campaign (which was 4 years away) (See Ben Nelson)

Throw in those who, while reluctantly vote for some of the things, they bitch and moan publicly about the legislation (see former Senator Evan Bayh) and you have crappy messenging.

The Administration has not helped itself when it says things like "It must have a public option." or "Their must be tax cuts" only to flitter them away and say "We had no choice"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. Nader the perennial 3rd party candidate dictating Democratic votes?
He is a wrecker. And now the CA locals are going to bow down and do his bidding. Isn't that special.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. isn't it special though? people actually exercising their right to fucking vote..
and for whomever they like, no less! what a wonderful time to be alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
3. Everyone's gonna get mad, lol.
We're supposed to change the world by electing Democrats, we just aren't allowed to choose which ones, apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. He's working for the Rethugs, as always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. .
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 01:19 AM by sudopod
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
31. lots of dems are these days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. LOL.
We're all gonna die. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yay for the CDP. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
5. Gene McCarthy helped oust Lyndon Johnson, leading to Nixon's election.
Oh yeah, let's have another Gene McCarthy.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yeah evidently that's the goal.
Maybe they can run Issa, he's a CA fella.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
27. Oh that's right! That's the one I couldn't remember. Just posted about Carter/Kennedy
and I couldn't recall the other example cited.

I THINK it was Jonathan Alter who was talking about it -- be careful what you wish for type of thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
29. Having been around at the time, I completely agree.
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 02:43 AM by BlueMTexpat
And it was Nixon's administration who began promoting Milton Friedman's "Chicago School" alumni and exporting toxic shock capitalism even before the Reagan Administration. It is exactly those policies that have led us to where we are economically.

Anyone who has NOT read "The Shock Doctrine" had better do so. And do it quickly, please!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. vietnam helped oust LBJ..
oh, those were the days though. people actually holding a president to account for his actions despite party affiliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
35. LBJ kept the nation in a lost war that he fought to prove he was tough.
Don't blame it on McCarthy that LBJ turned against his base and was deservedly challenged.

Now Obama is abandoning the left in favor of pandering to the right. There are consequences to playing the bipartisan, above it all, "moderate".

If he wants the votes of the left he has to earn them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. I'm not blaming McCarthy, just stating a fact. Having someone
more liberal challenge Obama isn't likely to lead to a liberal win in 2012 -- it's FAR more likely to assist the Tea Party than liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
13. If Nader Hadn't Run His Spoiler Campaign, We Wouldn't be Having this Conversation
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 01:29 AM by AndyTiedye
We would have gotten Gore instead of Bush, and a whole lot of things would have been different.

ƒµ¢≤ Nader and the horse he rode in on.

unkicked and unrecommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. Right, because after all those years of seeding Florida with Jeb
and his criminals, BushCo would have run a clean election. Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
36. If Gore had appealed to the left instead of the right he would have had those votes.
It was Gore's responsibility to attract enough votes to win. He didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
39. and if those 250,000+ dems in fl had voted for gore instead of bush..
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 01:54 PM by frylock
ahhhhhhhhhhh fuck it anymore. trying to explain this shit to people is like talking to flat-earthers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
19. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
20. The only challenger that woulr be worth pursuing would be a ruthless fighter.
No matter how liberal he(she) might be, if he isn't capable of forcefully intimidating the Repubs he wouldn't be any better than Obama.

I suspect that Obama would make more liberal decisions if he didn't have to crumble under the Republican reaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
21. The only challenger that woulr be worth pursuing would be a ruthless fighter.
No matter how liberal he(she) might be, if he isn't capable of forcefully intimidating the Repubs he wouldn't be any better than Obama.

I suspect that Obama would make more liberal decisions if he didn't have to crumble under the Republican reaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
26. Somebody today cited the Carter and Kennedy challenge, hello
Republicans. Also another one which again resulted in a Republican winning, but I don't recall who.

That's always the problem with a primary challenge, half the party thinks the incumbent is doing just fine and votes for him, those unhappy vote for the challenger, and it just opens the doors wide for the Republican to goose-step into the WH. :scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
28. No. Just. No.
And to those who sincerely still don't "get" it, I am beginning to doubt that you ever will.

Of course, if you are not really a Democrat, then continuing to promote this meme makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
33. K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
37. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. Sid!
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
38. lol. Nader.
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
41. The OP is right. A challenge from the left will only help. The President must eat his peas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
43. Lee Mercer Jr is fighting for you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
44. This topic is a complete waste of time. It's not reality based. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 16th 2024, 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC