Dean Says Don’t Primary Obama
Two weeks ago on Face The Nation, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean said the following about the Fanatical Fringe’s chant to primary Obama.
I don’t think he’s going to face an opponent in the democratic primary. I think that would be bad thing for the country and I think it would be a bad thing for the Democratic Party. The history of people running against Presidents in their own party as the challenger, you loses and then the President is weakened and loses. Now the President has done some things that I think are terrific. This is not one of them. But I– I think he will not get an opponent.
But how crazy is the fringe left? The following were written after Dean’s appearance on Face The Nation.
“Because now, Howard Dean is perfectly positioned to primary Obama in 2012” (fflambeau on FDL)
“Howard Dean, Call Barack Obama and Tell Him that you will run against him in the primaries unless he drops his idea to cut social security.” (40 Years in the Desert)
Hello Fringe Left? It’s Clue calling. Time to get one.
Tags: Fringe Left, Howard Dean, President Obama
But how crazy is the fringe left? The following were written after Dean’s appearance on Face The Nation.
Who are those people? I never heard of them.
The old DL used to call out nutpicking when they saw it. It was a dishonest tactic employed famously by O’Reilly and Hannity – now it belongs to nemski as well.
There will always be a fringe left. They aren’t going to get a clue. And it doesn’t matter if they do or don’t, because they don’t get elected. But they serve their purpose as targets for FOX News and nemski.
Obama insured himself against a primary by helping elect a GOP House (via the enthusiasm gap).
It no longer makes sense to try to push Obama to the left, because he has nowhere to go. Since the House will not raise taxes, all revenue options are off the table. That opportunity was squandered, deliberately I am thinking now.
But there is still a principle involved. You cannot betray core principles, which you campaigned on, and expect not to be held accountable at some point – if not in a primary, then in the general.
So if a serious Democrat wants to form a primary committee and make a case, I’m all ears.
If jobs and broad prosperity come back, and Social Security is not cut, and the ominous “tax reform” turns out to be harmless – I’ll be happy to be wrong.
anon we have enough of our own nuts to pick here . . . wait that didn’t sound right. However, the Fringe Left is here and out there to make this a valid point.
All sides helped elect a GOP House.
All sides helped elect a GOP House.
Well, yes, you have to figure the Republicans would help a little with that.
But the enthusiasm gap traces directly to the public option debate. Obama failed to show up for the fight; Rahm called us f’n retards.
There was enough taken out of the bill to disillusion a significant percentage of the Dem base, while leaving enough to enrage the GOP base and turn them out for the election.
The good news for Obama is he may have been successful in actually moving voter opinion and creating a new center even further to the right, which will form his new base.
When the message from the left and the right is Obama and the Dems suck why would anyone be surprised if the average voter believes it?
I call bullshit on anon’s enthusiasm gap.
The 2010 midterm election had the highest turnout ever and it wasn’t the lack of the public option that motivated voters, it was the economy and jobs. And it was the elderly whose votes changed from Democrat to Teapublican.
The 2010 midterm election had the highest turnout ever
But Repubs turned out more than Dems. And Dems turned out less than in 2008, even accounting for the off-year. Thus a “gap.”
it wasn’t the lack of the public option that motivated voters, it was the economy and jobs.
You are right, it wasn’t the lack of a public option that motivated voters. It was the lack of fight shown in that debate, which created unease in the President’s most enthusiastic supporters. An unease which turned out to be well founded, as borne out in the tax debate.
But Repubs turned out more than Dems.
Link please, because I’m not finding anything that says more Republicans turned out than Democrats especially enough to sway the elections.
Nate Silver:
And similar findings from Gallup:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/02/final-gallup-enthusiasm-gap-nineteen-points/
Just so we are clear here, just because Republicans got more votes does NOT mean Republican turned out in greater numbers than usual or Democrats turned out is lesser numbers than usual. You see the point.
Historically, Obama’s greatest public approval comes when he is challenging and defeating Republicans, not compromising with them. Obama’s personal best approval rating was based on his 2008 platform, which included tax cut expiration and a public option, and the expectation that a stimulus would create jobs.
Something to remember for 2012 .
anon, compared to 2008, I was less enthusiastic about voting in 2010, but that didn’t change my vote at all.
So Democrats were less enthusiastic in the past and since 2008 was an historic victory for Democrats, I can really see that.
Now the Republicans were more enthusiastic than usual. Well that’s not a surprise since they dislike our Socialistic/Marxist president.
And let’s read the last paragraph from your link.
Obama’s personal best approval rating was based on his 2008 platform, which included tax cut expiration and a public option.
All president’s approval ratings were higher when they first went into office. They go down from there.
In general, yes. But Clinton ended up right about where he started. Maybe it is only a coincidence that Clinton fought for his economic plan and won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
GWB also fought for his economic plan and won, but it was a sucky plan. Which we just passed again.
But GWB got elected twice on that plan, so maybe it will work for Obama too.
The point is you, a1 and delacrat have been calling to primary Obama and many of us on DL and commenters have told you that’s the wrong way to go. Now, Howard Dean (the Progressive savior) is telling you the same exact thing.
You wrote the other day, “He is already on a path to lose his re-election. I’d rather take a chance with someone who speaks Democrat. There is nothing to lose from a primary and everything to gain.”
If Clinton were President today certain people would be pooh-poohing his economic policy because he didn’t get HCR. They’d also be saying he sold out the poor with welfare reform and the gays with DADT and that he should face a primary.
Yeah — why would anyone want to see a little democracy in the Democrat Party? Haven’t you learned from the worthy examples of Castro, Stalin, and Kim Jong-Il? The Dear Leader must never be challenged — indeed, dissent against him is treasonous.
And if you don’t agree, you need a visit from Ramón Mercader‘s ice axe.
I’ll still support the campaign of any credible Democrat who runs on Obama’s 2008 platform. Is that too far left for you? It is not likely to happen though. Most of the people talking about primaries are not credible.
The problem with primaries is you have to declare before your fears of failure are fully knowable. If you declare too early, you get hung out to dry and look like a fool. If you wait until failure, you are too late.
If jobs don’t recover and Obama’s polls are in the toilet, there can always be a late primary challenger; the problem then will be money.
And I still think Obama is headed for defeat. But I am less sure now, because so many things could happen, and so many people are changing their principles so quickly, I can’t keep track.
Perhaps Obama will avoid being held accountable for Bushonomics, just as Bush avoided being held accountable.
I am hearing the MSM rally around Obama’s Bushonomic plan, so perhaps there is more to lose and less to gain from a primary than I thought. Plus, Obama has successfully removed any option of being pushed to the left.
The most likely scenario: On Election Day, the Dem 2008 platform will be off the table, and we will be faced with a choice of Obama’s Bushonomics, or the Paul Ryan “full wingnut” plan. And we will be arguing about which is the lesser of two evils. That is a place we never should arrive at, but we probably will.
Thanks for bringing the tea bagger krazy into the thread, CT.
Nemski: DFTT
It no longer makes sense to try to push Obama to the left
After two years, it is mind-boggling that the fringe lefties still don’t get it. The people who needed to be pushed to the left were the Senators who killed or watered down alot of good legislation. And once again, I’ll point to Tom Carper who is often at ground zero for this watering down and yet none of you are working on getting him to vote any better than he does.
If Clinton were President today certain people would be pooh-poohing his economic policy because he didn’t get HCR. They’d also be saying he sold out the poor with welfare reform and the gays with DADT and that he should face a primary.
Under Clinton welfare and health care was replaced by lots and lots of jobs – a fair trade; one which Obama is not offering.
The lesson for Democratic presidents: Pass your economic plan FIRST, before you even hang the drapes.
“none of you are working on getting him to vote any better than he does.”
First, you don’t know that. Second, have you ever communicated a position he doesn’t agree with to his office? It’s made pretty clear to you that your “while you were out” form is going straight into the circular file.
Actually, I do know that. They are the ones here claiming that their progressive policies just need better champions — there is one available right here who doesn’t vote very progressively on much at all. You’d think that folks would want to get one more vote for smarter policies right where once is available to be moved. If you can’t get your local Senator — one who routinely helps to kill and water down good policy — you won’t be pushing the President any further left, either.
And yes — I call ALOT, I write ALOT, and occasionally see the guy in person. I’ve said before that there is enough correspondence from me that I half expect to be on the No Fly list shortly. If all of the presumptive progressives anon keeps calling upon would join me, I imagine Carper wouldn’t be quite so free to kill so much stuff.
The people who needed to be pushed to the left were the Senators who killed or watered down alot of good legislation.
The idea is to wake up the President and get him to do the pushing, like he did on START.
The House bills for HCR and taxes came down to a handful of votes in the Senate, with public polling in their favor. At that point the President needs to get out of the passenger seat and push the car over the finish line.
It is not reasonable to expect voters in each state to go lobby seven or eight senators in other states. Carper, Kaufman, and Coons all got letters and phone calls from me.
I too have that box of lengthy non sequitur reply letters from Carper’s office.
Carper will have less committee work this term because all the bills will come to him pre-Republicanized.
anon, it doesn’t matter if the Public Option was popular or not.
Did Mike Castle for for the Recovery Act, equal pay, HCR, etc.? And he represented a state that voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Popularity of an issue NEVER means that it will pass. For example, 80% of all Americans support medical marijuana (since 2002), but it has not come to be.
The idea is to wake up the President and get him to do the pushing, like he did on START.
Senators still listen to * constituents* when there are enough of them bringing the pressure. Is is really possible that you’ve no idea how this works? On START, the constituents were the military and other national security types who came out of the woodwork to press for this. Obama was certainly not alone in pushing Senators to vote for START. Unfortunately the lefty fringe can’t be counted on to push for their own agenda in any serious way. Because they are waiting for a President who will *sign their legislation if it gets to his desk* to do all of the work to get it to his desk.
Senators still listen to * constituents* when there are enough of them bringing the pressure.
And so do Presidents. Which brings us full circle to the topic of this post.
At one point when the public option was dropped, Howard Dean was going around saying “Kill the bill.”
Now maybe – just maybe – if Dean had said that from a podium somewhere in Iowa, perhaps Obama might have found the initiative to go get those few more votes in the Senate to pass the House HCR bill. And there would have been a different calculation for the 2008 election and the tax bill.
Why is it OK to bring pressure on Senators but not on Obama? See, this is what makes people think we worship Obama in some kind of cult of personality.
If the Senate is where this stuff is dying or being watered down, why *wouldn’t* you be pushing on Senators? If a Public Option had gotten to his desk, it isn’t as though Obama would have vetoed it. It didn’t get to his desk because people like Tom Carper were right in the thick of making sure that didn’t happen.
If the Senate is where this stuff is dying or being watered down, why *wouldn’t* you be pushing on Senators? I
Because most Senators don’t represent me, but the President does. What does Harry Reid care if he gets a letter from Delaware?
The President is the most direct route to influence out-of-state senators.
Good grief.
Keep that comment at hand and hope that gives you some comfort in the next couple of years. Sheesh.
And while I’m at it — this:
The President is the most direct route to influence out-of-state senators.
Is PRECISELY why this President can throw so-called progressives under the bus as he has done recently.
i would have liked to see him throw more Tom Carpers under the bus.
Is PRECISELY why this President can throw so-called progressives under the bus as he has done recently.
And this is precisely why Obama is “The Father of the Enthusiasm Gap.”
When he needs that support in 2012, he might find it a bit flat.
We are not going to accept the false premise that people who wanted upper income tax cuts can now be written off as “so-called progressives” just to suit your never-finished quest for compromise with the right.
Obama and nearly every Democrat campaigned on that same position. So if you want to say Obama has thrown himself and his supporters under the bus, you might have a point.
The Bush tax cuts for the rich are radical. Expiring them is centrist.
News Flash (Hot Rumor)
Hillary out as Sec of State – To be Replaced by Richardson.
The Dem Primary has begun.
Link?
other rumor!
Bo Obama to be indicted on charges of forcing Mike Vick to cage fight with Pam Anderson. This must mean that Tony The Tiger will primary Obomba!
Smells funky
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reports-suggest-bill-richardson-to-take-over-for-sec-of-state-hillary-clinton/
Shiiiiiiiiiiiit, Drudge ain’t even running this Clinton rumor.
Campaigning is the easy part; governing is a whole other matter! Obama loves to campaign; however the problem is he sometimes forgets that he’s the leader of the free world. As my favorite English professor always used to say: “Show me, don’t tell me.”
Lead us Mr. President! No excuses. Kick taint and take names. It’s all so very elementary (the GOP, recession, Bush stuff, detractors, Fox News and every other pointed finger has nothing to do with leadership). Leadership is leadership; nothing more, nothing less.
It wasnt a Drudge rumor, it was an Christine rumor! I pray Hillary is out as Sec. of State. That twit has wrecked foreign policy. Richardson would have been much better. Lanny Davis an ole Clinton buddy has his dirty mits overturning democratically elected Presidents (Honduras), and now doing the same in Ecuador. Obama was a young novice who after elected gulped and decided to go with the establishment status quo folk. To surround himself with the evil doers like Gates, Betrayus, Bernacke, Geitner & Summers, proves he was more corporate ready than protecting citizens from the evils of Disaster Capitalism. We are now in 6 wars, but media only talks about 2. The Pentagon, Defense Dept are robbing the country blind, but Obama does nothing to curb their appetite. Anyone remember Rummy on Sept. 10, stating $3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon, 911 happens and no one even mentions what happened to the 3trillion? Funny right where that missile hit the Pentagon was all the bookkeeping section? Alan Grayson asking the Inspector General about the Fed Reserve printing money and what they did with the money…no answer no investigation. No investigation into Halliburton who theived their way through Iraq and Afganistan, billions to them. Obama has surrounded himself with neocon democrats, no better than neo con repukes. Both parties are in the hands of corporations, neither respect nor help the middle class…they all dance to the tune of the one who brought them to the dance.
What a joke Howard Dean is! He is not progressive or liberal, he is a center democrat. Calling progressives who got Obama elected the “fringe left”, or Gibbs calling those who refused to go along to get along with his for profit insurance company giveaway, or delivering billions to banksters and nothing for Main street.Going behind closed doors with republicans keeping his top party members out of the debate on taxes for the rich, while nothing for the 99ners. Obama permitted the republicans to con him into forcing those making $20,000 or less to continue paying the brunt of the taxes. This is a deal we shoul be happy with. Wars, and endless wars, he made campaign promises to end Iraq…were still there. Now we are opened up on 4 other fronts Yemen, Somalia, Columbia, and you libs believe its okay to back him. What is needed to put his back against the wall and make him move out of right of center to the center or center left. He cant’ do it though, because he is as beholden to corporate america as are the republicans. Obama has been a huge disappointment especially in foreign affairs, no difference with Bush and Cheney there. No investigations into war crimes or criminals…look forward not backward. Nothing done about GITMO. And yet, he still believes he must pander to the republican ultra right wing. The man has no fight! He can give a great speech but aside from that how has he made any of lives better?
Cassandra is offering the absolutely right advice. If you want progressive policy outcomes, you need to work to get them. It’s not enough to criticize Obama. You have to put pressure on Senators and you need to build enough of a popular movement to get it done. DADT repeal had that. I don’t think tax cut expiration had the same grassroots activism.
It’s not enough to sit back after the election is over and say what you want isn’t getting done. Getting legislation passed is really hard work, as we’ve seen.
What I really don’t get is how the left sees the right more clearly than they see themselves. Everyone here seems to get the problem with the teabaggers – they are out of step with the mainstream and they run candidates that don’t appeal. They are also bound to disappointment because they won’t be able to get stuff done they think they will because legislating is a messy process.
If you want progressive policy outcomes, you need to work to get them.
What if you just want regular Democrat?
There you go again, marginalizing ordinary Democratic positions as “the left” and “progressive policy outcomes.”
You are forgetting that the work WAS done to make sure the upper income tax cuts expired.
In 2001, Democrats worked to make sure the tax cuts expired in 10 years instead of being made permanent – WIN.
There was work in 2006 to win back the House, so Democrats could control the introduction of tax bills – WIN.
There was work in 2008 to win an election, in which voters rejected the guy who wanted to extend the upper income tax cuts, and elected the guy who said he would make sure they expired – WIN.
More than enough work was done to make sure it happened. It was in Obama’s hands and he dropped the ball. The work was done but the victory was botched. We are still sorting out the motivation for the botching.
It is not enough to criticize Obama, but it is a start.
I knows there be bigger brains than mines but you is all stupid
Take a lesson from the no man pants guy and the real winner.
Say again how progressives trump dems?
Get off your pipes and into the mud. Or wear a tri-cornered hat…
How did I marginalize Democrats? Whatever outcome you want, you need to work to get it. Wishin’ and hopin’ don’t cut it. You are misremembering history if you think the expiration of the tax cuts was a grand Democratic plan. The tax cuts expired because they were passed through reconciliation, so Republicans had to pretend that they wouldn’t add to the deficit.
“just because Republicans got more votes does NOT mean Republican turned out in greater numbers than usual or Democrats turned out is lesser numbers than usual.”
yet it certainly does not mean the opposite. You see the point, I hope.
True dat, Geezer, but you feel me?
Okay, it’s official I’ve been watching way too much The Wire lately.
You are misremembering history if you think the expiration of the tax cuts was a grand Democratic plan. The tax cuts expired because they were passed through reconciliation, so Republicans had to pretend that they wouldn’t add to the deficit.
By denying Repubs 60 votes, Dems forced the bill into reconciliation and a ten-year sunset, rather than being permanent. That didn’t happen by accident. That takes a plan. It takes party discipline in the face of an overwhelming Presidential effort. Credit goes to Daschle.
Ten years later though, all that Democratic discipline and effort was squandered.
It is telling that Obama has given so much deference to those Dem defectors who voted for the original Bush tax cuts in 2001: Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, off the top of my head.
anon,
You talk about Democratic party discipline and then list Nelson, Landrieu and Baucus. All three of them were still in the Senate when the vote came up. Are you misremembering that 5 Demlcrats voted with all Republicans to not extend just the middle class tax cuts?
I remember just fine, but I don’t understand your point.
Now let’s be clear: Expiring the tax cuts for the rich is not just some special favor for whiny progressives – it is the key to a broad prosperity for most working Americans. For ten years the tax cuts for the rich have been driving the business behavior that is suppressing jobs, suppressing real wages, and shrinking the middle class. Expiring them is unlike any other special interest.
The tax cuts for the rich are responsible for working people waking up each morning terrified for their jobs and their income.
If you don’t immediately grasp that, and you still think people demanding higher taxes on the rich are just whining about some selfish interest, or some possibly misguided theory of economics – then Republicans have successfully driven a class wedge to divide Democrats.
When the House tax bill was failing in the Senate, Obama was in an airplane to Afghanistan, rather than back home fighting for his signature campaign promise.
With hindsight, it is all clear: Any major tax bill (that is not a GOP-approved tax cut) must be passed via reconciliation. Obama knew this. That is why he was so silent about it.
But what none of us understood, back in the HCR debate, was that you only get one shot at reconciliation per year. And when that opportunity was used for HCR instead, every insider in Washington knew the tax bill was dead.
– Clinton used his shot at reconciliation to pass his tax plan, and got filibustered on HCR.
– Obama used his shot at reconciliation to pass HCR, and got filibustered on his tax plan.
We will know in two years or less who made the better choice.
However, there was one lever to press that could have broken the Senate filibuster on taxes – the threat of allowing all the tax cuts to expire. But Obama never pressed that lever either.
Instead, he supported the opposition by telling them to hang tight; they would have another bill along in a week. This is what Joe Biden was running around doing the week before the vote. This assurance is what allowed Republicans to remain united, and what allowed Democrats to defect in comfort. And yet we proceeded with the Kabuki theater of the House tax bill.
Think about it for a minute. Republicans actually voted as a bloc against tax cuts. When that happens, you know something fishy is up.
This goes way beyond “lack of fight.” This is a President cynically misrepresenting his intentions.
Greg Sargent has a different view:
I have no problem with placing some of the blame on Obama, but not all. There are a lot of fingers in this mess.
I’m also having a hard time viewing the initial passing of the Bush tax cuts as Dem 11 dimensional chess. More likely, we are still dealing with the same group of Dems – the ones who support (and supported 10 years ago) tax cuts for the rich.
May 23, 2001: “I want the Congress to pass tax relief now,” Bush told reporters at the White House.
Why can’t Obama act like Bush when we need him to?
Sargent: “But the White House was right to grant Congression al leaders the leeway to chart their own course.”
Obama can discuss the rightness of his decision over a beer with Speaker Boehner.
I’m also having a hard time viewing the initial passing of the Bush tax cuts as Dem 11 dimensional chess.
Not chess. Just hard work by a competent and committed leader (Daschle) to get the best deal possible to keep faith with Democratic principles. It seems so quaint now.
The democrats have a big tent. There are neo cons like Carper, Nelson, Landrieu, Hoyer. There are liberals like Pelosi, Schumer,Rockefeller. There are progressives like Kucinch, Weiner, Wyden etc. The problem with the democratic party today is they have become more corporate especially after Clinton. Obama has followed the neo con corporate ilk rather than those who believed in his campaign promises. The dems believe “we have no where else to go”, we wont support teabaggers or republicans so they ASSUME we will the corporate democrats. I wouldnt be too sure about that. We need to apply pressure on Obama himself, stop blaming the party which is disaray. Obama is the commander in chief, the buck stops with him. HE is escalating these illegal wars on the advise of Hillary neo con Clinton, Petraus. He has two years to clean up HIS act or we may end up with a Palin disaster.