Why Nader, Cornel West, Jonathan Kozol, Gore Vidal Seek Primary Challenges to Obama

[xchrom]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/163618/why-nader-cornel-west-jonathan-kozol-gore-vidal-seek-primary-challenges-obama

The volume on the ongoing discussion about whether President Obama should face a primary challenge for the 2012 Democratic nomination is constantly being adjusted. When the president compromises on basic premises of progressivism, when he talks of putting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts “on the table,” and sometimes when he simply seems unfocused and politically inept, the volume goes up. When the president stands strong, however, when he outlines plans for making the rich pay their fair share, when he promotes infrastructure and investment in he face of Republican intransigence, sometimes when he simply seems to “get” that there is a point where compromise becomes capitulation, the talk dies down.

After the president drew some lines in the sand last Monday, with a speech that laid out the case for genuine shared sacrifice by the wealthy and that seemed to reject the most extreme cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the “Primary Obama” volume dialed downward. As Michael Moore said on MSNBC the other day: “It doesn’t take much” to renew the “hope”—or, at least, the partisan fidelity—that made Obama the most politically potent Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

But if the “Primary Obama” volume is turned down for the moment, the knob is still within hands reach. And there are more than a few Democrats who are only one “Super Committee” bargain away from spinning it toward “10.”

Now, some of the talkers have begun to walk the walk. They're outlining a plan to run a slate of six primary "challengers" to the president, with each focusing on issues of ideological concern. The point of this initiative is not so much to displace the president as it is to move Obama and the party toward the left -- an in so doing to provide the themes and the energy to excite the Democratic base and draw new voters to the polls in 2012.

[NYC Liberal]

1. "The point of this initiative is not so much to displace the president"

Now that is really fucking stupid. The point of running in an election is to win. Don't run if you don't think you can win.

Anyone who runs "just to make a point" should not be taken seriously.

[MADem]

6. I agree--and these bastards could have made a bit more "productive" noise while we

were laboring under the oppressive BushCo regime. Of course, that might have been hard work!

It's easy to run solely to make a point--it's what attention-seekers do best.

I have no patience for professional contrarians....they don't give a flying fuck what the issue is, so long as they come out against it.

[NYC Liberal]

8. And, as usual: no actual names. Just a bunch of noise about how "someone" should run.

If we're talking about a primary, let's get some names so we can deal with real people and talk about both their strengths and weaknesses.

The great thing about generic candidates is that they are perfect; they have no weaknesses. It's easy to say "a progressive" should run; it's harder when specific people are named who can be critiqued.

[MADem]

13. +1 n/t

[Whisp]

44. spot on. who IS this progressive?

and if the mystical he/she should ever get in, they'd get a lot Less done than President Barack Obama. Let the fuckers try that heat for 2 weeks, they would melt into their own puddle of piss. because when all is said and done, of all the calls of weakness and caving against him, there is no one better to do this bloody dirty job than Obama.

Be thankyou, be helpful, not scornful

[JackRiddler]

28. If you didn't hear them before, it can only be because you weren't listening.

[MADem]

33. I was listening. NT

[Snotcicles]

10. It is not to make a point.

It is to make Obama, make commitments. If he has no challengers to debate him on issues that matter to the left, he starts out from a center right position. And his propensity to go right will be intensified if he has not been made to commit to a position. He will be up against two years of hard right tea-party babblery and any thing that he says will be made to look extreme, unless it has been publicly discussed from within his own party.

[NYC Liberal]

11. If you don't think you can win, do not run in an election.

It's as simple as that. I have zero respect for people who run just to make noise and not to win.

And just who will these challengers be? Let's put some names on the table so we can have a discussion about their pros and cons.

[tomp]

19. fortunately, you don't get to decide.

you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but i think making a point here and there is about all we can do.

the chance of anyone other than obama winning the dem nomination is admittedly slim to none. but, if you can think of another way of getting obama's attention, SERIOUSLY, i'm all ears.

[JackRiddler]

30. It's easy to get Obama's attention. Just be Boehner. Or a bankster "economist"

[JackRiddler]

29. Anti-democratic bullshit. Also, could have applied to McGovern, or Mondale.

Or the Republicans who challenged FDR.

[NYC Liberal]

42. The point of running in an election is to win. Otherwise, you're a damn fool

and that's putting it nicely. I have zero respect for anyone who would run in an election without even trying to win.

It's anti-stupidity, not anti-democratic. I never said anyone shouldn't be allowed to run if they have no intention of winning. I said they are fucking idiots, and they are. I would never vote for someone who ran with no intention of winning.

Oh, and McGovern and Mondale ran with the intention of winning. They made the effort; they wanted to win. So did the Republicans who challenged FDR. That is not what I was talking about.

The article states that the point of this nutty idea is not to win. Idiotic.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. Well, since the entire election system in this country is rigged to protect thpse already in power,

I guess there's no point in running at all then.

[hfojvt]

40. I strongly disagree with that

I certainly ran in an election that I was fairly certain that I could not win. If I thought I could win it, I would have been delusional.

I did think I could win the primary, and even that ended up being wrong, although to the shock of some people, I was ahead in the early returns for a couple of hours.

Running a campaign is not just about winning, it is about spreading a message. The message in this case that Obama needs to fight for the bottom 80%, and that he has demonstrably failed to do so.

[NYC Liberal]

43. The first and foremost reason for running a campaign is to win.

Of course you want to "spread a message" but if that's all you want to do, there are many other ways to do it.

The purpose of running in an election is to win and get elected to office to implement your message and your ideas.

[saras]

45. "Don't run if you don't think you can win." Wrong in the general case as well as the specific

In a fair voting system, it would be common to run simply to raise issues that the 'major' candidates are avoiding. A neighbor has done exactly that on a non-partisan position. No chance of winning, but an almost certain chance of forcing the two front-runners to publicly address some difficult questions they'd both rather have avoided.

Winner-take-all is as stupid in politics as it is in grocery shopping.

[NYC Liberal]

47. It is absolutely correct in our electoral system.

Your hypothetical is irrelevant because, for better or worse, we do have a winner-take-all system. Are there better systems than ours? I think so. But until our system is replaced, we have to work with what we have. And running in a winner-take-all system merely to "raise issues" with no intention of winning is, to put it bluntly, stupid.

[trumad]

2. Nader is the Pat Paulson of politics.

[MADem]

7. Paulsen being the more credible of the two, I believe.

He's dead....but he's running again!!

http://www.paulsen.com/pat/

[Hoosier Daddy]

23. Good one!

:rofl:

[mdmc]

3. r

[treestar]

4. No way is President Obama "politically inept"

You fall into the right wing trap - political disagreements mean the people who don't agree with you are incompetent, stupid, inept, weak. It may be that it could be said of Bush that one could disagree with him and find him inept. That does not mean it is always so.

[JackRiddler]

32. I agree, but you're taking away Obama's main remaining excuse for his policy stands.

[Zorra]

5. I like it. I'd love to see Obama in a serious debate with

a group of hard core progressives.

[NYC Liberal]

9. Which progressives do you think should run? The article mentions no names. nt

[Zorra]

38. I'd like to see Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Dennis Kucinich,

Brian Schweitzer, Paul Krugman, and John Nichols in an all day debate with President Obama.

No holds barred on subjects, brutal honesty, complete transparency all around.

"Mr. President, how much influence has Wall St. and other wealthy private interests had on your actions as Commander in Chief?"

"Mr. President, what do you think about initiating a WPA type projects to stimulate the economy and put people back to work?"

"Mr. President, why didn't you put pressure on Congress to pass a budget when Democrats had a large majority?"

"Mr. President, do you think electronic voting is dangerous to democracy?"

"Mr. President, would you consider issuing, in the name of national security, an Executive Order neutralizing the Supreme Court's decison in the Citizen's United case?"

"Mr. President, how much of a role should transnational corporations and other incredibly wealthy private interests have in determining government policy?"

And so on and so forth. All of the many questions that we progressives have had that have not been clearly answered. There has been an, IMO, lack of transparency that could be a primary reason that so many of us have been left with a profound mistrust of the President.

I worry that we would not like his answers, if he answered them with total honesty.

I acknowledge that there has been some progress during the Obama presidency, the repeal of DADT has scored lots of points with me recently. But after experiencing Bush, republicans, and wealthy private interests rape us, our party, our nation, and our planet, unrestrained and with reckless abandon, I have been left to question what appears to me to be the lack of significant effort toward implementing progressive policies that would seem to be solutions to many of our problems.

Significant progressive democratic policies and solutions that I believe a sincerely concerned Democratic President would have made enormous efforts to further.

Honestly, I would vote for Feingold, Sanders, Warren, Kucinich, Schweitzer, and even Krugman in a Democratic primary if they were to primary Obama.

As it stands, I am compelled by conscience and concern to vote for the Democratic candidate that has the best chance of defeating the republican Presidential Candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

[NYC Liberal]

41. Thanks. I definitely know who I'd be voting for in such a primary. nt

[woo me with science]

48. K&R nt

[LWolf]

18. Me, too. nt

[SidDithers]

12. unrecommend

Sid

[mmonk]

14. It will be interesting to see what turn it takes.

Unlike many here, I believe if they came out with some primary challenger if the president gains no ground for progressive positions, it could actually help Democrats down ticket. I do not view this as the same as Carter/Kennedy. I think it might allow for more progressives running for House and Senate seats to make it through the primary process and offer people something in the general election. Then Obama will go into the general election with more progressive candidates down ticket.

[leftstreet]

35. Which is precisely why they won't do it

You make a very good point

But the Dems are so insistent on keeping that powder dry and blaming the GOP, they simply MUST have an R House/Senate so their hands will continue to be tied.

[Cool Logic]

15. "move Obama and the party toward the left..."

That is precisely the opposite of what D candidates do a general election.

In fact, by the time the general election rolls around, Ds and Rs will both be residing on their perches atop the fence that separates L & R.

[LuvNewcastle]

16. The only purpose that will serve is to

give political pundits something to slaver over. It would just be more talk, something we've already had plenty of. If a serious, viable progressive candidate runs, I'll probably vote for him/her, but I'm not going to pay any attention to some jackass who just wants to get up and lecture Obama.

[pipi_k]

17. Same old shit

A lot of yammering about how someone should primary Obama but nobody wants to do it.

If this were only the first time we've heard it from anyone, they wouldn't sound quite as stupid as they do.

[Karmadillo]

20. K&R. Thanks for posting this.

nt

[TreasonousBastard]

21. The point of this initiative is really to get some left-wing flacks who have been...

left out of the party some last hope of relevance.

Obama's been smacked upside the head so much by Republicans and even his own side that this nonsense will be met with the contempt it deserves.

One would hope that anyone with the energy and creativity to invent imaginary primary candidates would have at least a little energy to help fight off Obama's antagonists so he can get at least a few things done.

But, just like they were so effective in fighting off the last occupants nightmares, they'll stamp their little feet hoping to get a pat on the head from this one.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. dupe

[Itchinjim]

24. Maybe Nader, Cornel West, Jonathan Kozol, and Gore Vidal should primary Obama.

Instead of waiting for someone else to do it. Put your money where your mouth is fellas. Talk is cheap chumps.

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. I'm of two minds about this. #1 I agree with them. #2 these are the exact same folks from 2000

And we all know how that turned out.

[MisterP]

39. I didn't see Jeb or Katherine Harris in the article--so it's not the exact same folks from 2000

[ProSense]

27. Here's an example of the stupid claims these assholes are pushing

From their letter:

This scenario is what most observers expect. Mr. Obama will face neither opposition nor debate. He will have no need to clarify or defend his own polices or address the promises, kept and unkept, of his 2008 campaign. The president will not have to explain to his supporters why he directly escalated the war in Afghanistan and broadened America’s covert war in Pakistan, why he chose to engage in a military intervention in Libya, or why he has maintained the Bush Administration’s national security apparatus that allows for the suspension and abuse of constitutionally protected civil liberties—dismissing Congress all the way.

Why the fuck would Obama need to explain his Afghanistan policy to his supporters?

He campaigned and won on the very policy he carried out

Afghanistan and Pakistan

• Afghanistan: Obama and Biden will refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security -- the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, press our allies in NATO to do the same, and dedicate more resources to revitalize Afghanistan’s economic development. Obama and Biden will demand the Afghan government do more, including cracking down on corruption and the illicit opium trade.
  
  
• Pakistan: Obama and Biden will increase nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan.

The President is also working to end the wars:

Ending wars:

- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

link

Operation New Dawn began with 94 military sites in Iraq, in September 2010. Today, that's down to 48 sites. Seven more sites will shut down in August, Richardson said.

more

On June 22, 2011 the President addressed the American people about the way forward in Afghanistan. We have made substantial progress on the objectives the President laid out at West Point in 2009, and he made clear that we will begin the drawdown of U.S. troops from a position of strength. We have exceeded our expectations on our core goal of defeating al-Qa’ida – killing 20 of its top 30 leaders, including Osama bin Laden. We have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and trained over 100,000 Afghan National Security Forces. The U.S. will withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and the 33,000 “surge” troops he approved in December 2009 will leave Afghanistan by the end of summer 2012.

link

There are a lot of people pushing to end the wars sooner, but to trump up bullshit claims because they weren't paying attention to the campaign is absurd.

Also from the OP article:

The point of this initiative is not so much to displace the president as it is to move Obama and the party toward the left -- an in so doing to provide the themes and the energy to excite the Democratic base and draw new voters to the polls in 2012.

Another ridiculous effort disquised as something positive: Oh, we want the President to succeed, but we're doing this to pull the party to the left.

Bullshit! What's to stop them from being vocal? The MSM is giving them a lot of attention.

The point of this initiative is to cast doubt and portray the President as weak and ineffective ("and sometimes when he simply seems unfocused and politically inept").

These assholes may fool some people, but they're still assholes, and their motive is transparent.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. The irony is that they are "working for change within the party" as the moderates always demand.

Of course, now, when they do the same moderates bitch about it.

[JackRiddler]

36. Yes, but the real "moderate" (corporatist/party hack) demand is always the same: Shut up!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Yep. Saying "Work within the party" is all very nice..until they do.

Then, by doing so, they are regarded as a threat that must be quashed.

Then, when working within the party fails, they tell us to support the moderates who tell us to STFU.

It's all very amusing.

[jaxx]

34. issues of ideological concern

That sums it up nicely. A bunch of ideologues wanting to promote their brand of left. No thanks. I saw West on tv the other day, he was so incoherent you had no idea what the hell he was saying. I'll stick to the President, he's for the people.....not the one-issue ideologues.

[MilesColtrane]

46. Nader is like an incontinent groundhog that pops up every four years,...

craps himself, then scurries back down his hole.