Who can we get to run against Obama in the 2012 primaries? (0.00 / 0)

Assuming he lasts that long (I can safely guarantee impeachment proceedings to oust him when the GOP retakes the House next year), who from the left can we get to run against Obama in 2012?  Alan Grayson seems to be making headlines on the side of the public lately.  Might he be shaping up for a run in the future?

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 06:31:23 AM CDT

No one (0.00 / 0)

That's just not going to happen, imo. If we're going to keep the presidency through 2016, this is the horse we've got. It'd be career suicide to go against him and I don't know of many politicians who are occupationally suicidal.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:31:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We're not gonna "keep" what we didn't have to begin with. (0.00 / 0)

We don't have control of the White House; the corporations do, and they're not letting go.  Obama isn't holding onto it either, in case you haven't noticed, whether we waste our time, energy, and money on him or not.  It's career suicide for millions of Americans whose jobs are not secure because of corporate policies Obama supports and enables.  It's career suicide to stick with a political organization that not only refuses to defend its base, but actively campaigns against it.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:37:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Apparently (0.00 / 0)

You go to campaign with the President you have, not the President you wish you had.

To parapharse a war criminal.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:26:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Donald Rumsfeld (4.00 / 2)

A vile human being, but very, very quotable. My linguistic experience is all the richer for turns of phrase like, 'weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.' That was beautiful, man.

I'm not implying it's worth all the trouble he caused, but hey, look, lemons ...

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:43:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm partial to his detailing the concept of (4.00 / 1)

Known versus Unknown Unknowables and Known versus Unknown Knowables.

Classic.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:49:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (4.00 / 1)

Rummy, the guiltiest guilty pleasure.

---

by: vastleft @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:33:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quotables (0.00 / 0)

More from the most quotable neo-con.

Just for fun.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:45:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tell that to Ted Kennedy's corpse. (0.00 / 0)

He ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980 for the Democratic Party nomination, which in retrospect probably helped throw the election to Reagan, but it needed to be done.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 18:00:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Read between the lines (4.00 / 1)

I'm quoting a neo-con icon in response to the notion that a primary challenge to a sitting President should be discouraged. And let's not forget I'm a rather cynical person.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 19:32:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Career suicide"...like Ted Kennedy's in 1980? (4.00 / 2)

---

by: nasrudin @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:59:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kennedy quite clearly had the luxury of the Kennedy name. (0.00 / 0)

Are you suggesting we recruit another Kennedy, because otherwise there's really nothing comparable.

---

by: sb @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 14:34:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm suggesting a challenge from the left. (0.00 / 0)

Period. If no Dems are willing, then outside the DP.

---

by: nasrudin @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 23:02:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sadly... (4.00 / 3)

Sadly...
Progressives have done the opposite of giving themselves leverage on issues like this.

Most are reticent to criticize Obama or "make him do it," and most are content amusing themselves with the foibles of the rump Republican Party (Look, over there -- Sarah Palin! How about that Joe Wilson!)

I'm impressed with the organizing acumen of the "public option" gang, but its choice of agenda and its position toward more-progressive advocates are, IMHO, extremely problematical. It is advocacy for a compromised and intrinsically compromisable position -- and there seems no way to question or fine-tune such an agenda, except by fiat of high-status bloggers and activists.

So, we have a progressive community that operates primarily on two speeds:

* Blindly love Obama and rationalize everything he does as 11-dimensional chess
* Uncritically take marching orders from a consensus of A-list blogs, MoveOn, etc. (I say uncritically, because there seems to be no vehicle or appetite in those circles for open debate on agendas and course-corrections)

Given Obama's flagrant disregard for liberals and their concerns, it's fairly shocking how quiet a drumbeat exists of dissatisfaction and pressure from the left (a handful of persona non grata C-list blogs, and the occasional sigh from more-respectable types).

In such a climate, those who need and seek progressive policy -- anyone who hungers for reproductive rights, separation of church and state, economic justice and so forth -- better hope for change, because hope looks like all we've got.  

---

by: vastleft @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 07:01:43 AM CDT

So let's CHANGE that. (0.00 / 0)

If no progressive Democrat will challenge Obama in 2012, assuming he lasts that long in office, then we need to find a solid independent to run against him.  We have to remove our support of him so that he gets the message: "You need us, but we don't need you."  Otherwise, there is no incentive for Obama or the other right-wing Democrats to do anything but move even farther to the political right.

Hope is for people who've given up control over their lives.  I don't want to hope.  I want to do something.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:43:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's that word, "robust" (0.00 / 0)

I guess we'll find out "soon enough" if a "robust public option" is as "robust" as a "robust conscience clause." I'm guessing no.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 07:35:12 AM CDT

Janus-faced? (4.00 / 3)

While I am not on board with primarying Pres. Obama (at least not yet), his apparent willingness to consider acquiescing to the anti-choice fundamentalists on this issue is another example of saying one thing and doing another.  The quote from the RvW anniversary is pretty strong, especially his observation that choice is much more than a medical issue (though that is enough of a reason to support choice).  It is clearly about controlling women and shoring up patriarchy brick by brick.  I cannot understand how one could review the acts and statements of the anti-choice mob without reaching this conclusion.

There is simply no good reason to include these conscience provisions.  If things need to be given away to reach passage it should not be agreeing to make it more difficult for women to control their own bodies.

This conscience stuff is just garbage.  Here's my logic.

*By established precedent and simple moral calculus, control of one's body is a fundamental right.

*In only extremely rare cases should outsiders, especially the government, intrude on medical decision-making by free persons unless we are talking about fraudulent or dangerous medical practices.  That's not true with abortion services.

*Without these provisions providers can protect their conscience by opting out of federal payment programs.  No one compels these tender souls to accept government payment and if they do they should not be allowed to discriminate in the delivery of medical services.  This is a general principle: Take federal money, you should not be able to deny blacks, Indians, people from the wrong side of the tracks, women, anybody, the services they seek and which are medically proven and legal.

*"Non-profit" hospitals should not be permitted to deny these medical services either.  In my hometown more than 80% of all hospital visits I am sure were to one huge medical complex/hospital (there was another smaller one across the river in the neighboring town).  The one in my town, Sacred Heart, now Peace Health, is part of a chain of hardcore Catholic hospitals.  In addition to receiving millions in payments from federal agencies and the State of Oregon every year, they also were effectively exempted from taxation as a religious "non-profit".  What is more, they turned to the city and taxpayers for special allowances when seeking to expand their facility.  All this they get despite their refusal to provide reproductive medical services or even advice about contraceptives.

On many policy and moral grounds I find the death penalty abhorrent. Can I opt out my paying state taxes by appealing to my conscience (don't now live in a DP state, but the point stands).  I am pretty nearly universally opposed on moral grounds to American military spending and foreign policy.  Can I exercise my conscience clause to avoid paying my taxes?  At 18 I faced selective service (hell no, I won't fight in your wars).  But as an atheist, there was really no effective possible conscience exemption.  So I go through years and years and years of schooling denied federal education assistance. Why is compelling me to register more important than delivering medical services?  Why in the one case is there no conscience exemption but in the other there should be?  From the very first day in grade school I refused to recite the pledge of allegiance.  Some GOPers want to take that right away from me.  No concern for conscience exemptions here.  

The fundies often drone on about the dangers of situational ethics.  Seems to me they are its strongest proponents.

---

by: T. Jacobsen @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:52:46 AM CDT

Not just a "general principle" (4.00 / 1)

When I accept funding from the Federal government (through the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Veterans Affairs) I must sign a statement declaring that I will not discriminate on the bases of race, gender, creed, or whtever else you care to mention. If I refuse to sign, I won't get the $.

Its not just a "principle", for some of us, its a rule. As it should be.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:39:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Control of one's own body (4.00 / 3)

is a male prerogative.

And that's the real problem here, the question of whether or not women are free and full citizens, or if powerful institutions (whether government, church or medical industry) have the right to commandeer our bodies for their own purposes.

Normal Americans say yes, but the extremist fringe says no, and that is who Obama is choosing to side with.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:05:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Few things make me want to leave the party (4.00 / 1)

as quickly as this kind of blatant disregard for half the entire population.  And all our individual liberty.

That said, I don't expect to leave the party as long as the progressive wing is making headway... and we are. But I don't expect I will vote for a D president beyond a primary, if then, perhaps ever again.

If the D party won't give me someone to vote for.. then I will vote left of them.. even if the third party candidate is so so.

Thank goodness and my own common sense I did not vote for Obama.

The left simply must have an extreme wing and be willing to apply it... call it Green or Socialist and be willing to vote that way. There seems to be little evidence of moving the overton window by remaining reasonable or comfortable all the time... certainly not quickly enough. And our Senate and President are entirely too conservative on all fronts to be comfortable right now.

This damn healthcare debate should not be this hard on the inside of the D party. We should be talking about how extensive our national dental and optical plans will be in two years by now. Yet here we are losing ground within the D party on women's rights while we give half a trillion for starters to private insurance!

At some damn point we need a Dem party which slams on the brakes and finds reverse instead of just taking their foot off the accelerator.

Look at the elections during FDR... the main reason he moved to the left enough to accomplish new deal etc... was because the American electorate actually cast a few million votes for the socialists. That's what "made FDR do it".

We must do something similar... for the good of the country and the D party, if they are willing to listen at all.

---

by: Eureka Springs AR @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:05:33 AM CDT