He’s Back! Ralph Nader Is Here To Save The Day
Don’t worry progressives who are unhappy with Obama, Ralph Nader is here to save us all. Because Ralph Nader’s interference worked out so well in the past.
Consumer activist Ralph Nader said Tuesday that he’ll launch an initiative soon to field primary challenges to President Obama in key states.
Nader, who waged two presidential campaigns as a third-party candidate, is working with a group of frustrated Democrats who are hoping to turn up the heat on Obama from the left.
“It’s an initiative to scan the possibilities of people who may run,” Nader said in a phone interview. “My guess is that it’s almost 100 percent sure there’s going to be a primary challenge to Obama from somebody or somebodies — plural — in some states.”
Nader’s effort follows comments over the weekend by Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), a liberal independent who caucuses with Democrats, that it would be a “good idea” for Obama to face a primary challenge in 2012.
Gee, two members of third parties want to tell Democrats what to do. Maybe they should join the Democratic party and do it themselves.
I’m sure you’re aware of one definition of insanity – repeating the same actions again and again hoping to get a different outcome. That definition applies here.
Now for all of you who think this is a good idea, give me an example where a primary of an incumbent president has 1) worked and/or 2) let that president keep his job. The ones I remember – Reagan vs. Ford, Kennedy vs. Carter didn’t work out so well. Not only is it really, really expensive but it tears up your coalition. So anyone arguing this will be a good thing must show evidence of how a primary challenger will pick up the majority of the party that backs Obama.
There are other liberals that tend to think a third party is a good thing. I used to think that could be a way but all the evidence I have seen is that 3rd parties benefit conservatives. Third parties gave Gov. LePage in Maine, Gov. Christie in NJ and Senator Rubio in Florida. Except with Christie, all evidence points to the third party peeling off Democratic voters. Look at the examples abroad. In Canada, despite liberals winning a majority (split between 2 parties) they have a conservative government, the same with the UK.
*steps on soapbox*
Despite all our disappointments, the Democratic party remains our best vehicle to enact progressive change. It needs to be done at all levels – local, state and national. Tuning out or holding out for purity is not good enough. If we want change, we need to do it ourselves and not wait for a progressive savior.
*steps off soapbox*
Tags: Liberal Insanity, Ralph Nader
Nader is about ten months too late.
During the tax cut extension debate last year I would have gladly supported a credible primary challenger. Not Nader though.
The whole concept of a primary threat was to move Obama left, hopefully without going through with the actual primary. But it is too late for the tax cut extension; Obama came down on the right on that.
And, for unknown reasons Obama has already moved left, simply by his newfound insistence on tax increases for the wealthy in the debt debate.
The Tea Party has illustrated that the way to move a party in the desired direction is to challenge its weakest rather than its strongest members.
A primary challenge to Obama won’t help, but primary challenges to Democratic senators might. Tom Carper isn’t the only DINO in the US Senate; John Carney would be especially vulnerable in the House. But first liberals would have to organize the sort of structure Van Jones has been talking about.
But first liberals would have to…
I know. For liberals there is always the Law Of Eternal Prerequisites: Before you do anything, you have to do something else first.
Carter and Ford each had tremendous weaknesses going into the election and each would most-likely have lost despite being primaried.
Puck, how quickly you forget Obama’s insistence on letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2008. Or his insistence on a public option. Or restoring civil liberties. Or on and on and on…
He is a consummate and inveterate liar. He should be primaried and defeated, but I recognize that many here feel that he should be President only because he is a Democrat and it doesn’t matter how many lies he tells or how high unemployment goes or how many children live in poverty or if he cuts Social Security and Medicare or whatever.
“Puck, how quickly you forget Obama’s insistence on letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2008.”
I haven’t forgotten. It burns. It took Boston years to forgive Bill Buckner.
But Obama is now using tax cuts masterfully as a poison pill during this debt debate. Every time Repubs said “Cut Medicare” Obama said ‘OK, but tax increases.”
Not a great way to win tax increases, but a hell of a good way to protect the safety net. Republican solidarity on taxes was their strong point, but Obama turned it into their weak point.
Last year public opinion was strongly in favor of letting tax cuts expire only for the rich. We all assumed Obama would veto an extension. But by the time Obama got done bullshitting and playing it out, polling had started to decline. Same thing happened to the public option. He never used the bully pulpit or the veto threat.
Obama may have learned from that experience. He started out the debt debate last month by laying down his marker that we would not ask seniors to sacrifice (Medicare cuts) unless the wealthy also sacrificed (tax increases). And he stuck with that, which I did not expect from him.
Last week Obama was on TV calling for tax increases on the rich, and issuing veto threats against any plan that cut safety net without raising taxes, and asking us to call our Congressman for a plan that includes tax increases.
Yes it sucks that he is mostly responsible for us being in this position, but based on the here and now, I don’t know what else you can ask for from a Democratic president.
If you asked me last year would I trade some modest cuts in Medicare in exchange for starting a serious Republican civil war, I’d say yes. You can always increase Medicare later.
Puck wrote:
Can someone explain to me, even at this late date, why then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi never had a bill to do such a thing even come to the House floor?
I have to admit: I was stunned. The Democratic Party’s “leadership” enabled us Republicans to call Democrats closet tax increasers; it really seemed unbelievable that, if you were planning on extending the tax cuts, that you wouldn’t have done so before the election. I figured that the only reason you’d be so fornicating stupid was because the real Democratic plan was to let all of the 2001/2003 tax cuts expire.
a1, please spare me the usual “ben you are an evil republican in disguise” or whatever comment i usually get from you.
Do you HONESTLY believe that … not only can someone win a primary against Obama, but that someone can also win the general election? Im sure you know a great deal about the american political system… how it SHOULD function verses how it ACTUALLY functions and about the frighteningly low level of informedness (new word) of the majority of the voting pubic…. taken all that into consideration, yes or no…. (and if yes, please explain) Do you believe that a primary of Obama would result in anything other than a GOP presidential win AND do you really REALLY want that?
“Can someone explain to me, even at this late date, why then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi never had a bill to do such a thing even come to the House floor?”
She did; it passed and was filibustered in the Senate by a handful of votes, while Obama flew to Afghanistan. There wasn’t much much fuss about it because Obama had already put out the word that the real bill (full extension) was coming next week, and that he would convince Pelosi to cave.
All he had to do was issue a veto threat on full extension, and enough Senate Repubs would have voted for the House bill. It was truly enigmatic and dumb.
That is why I say Obama is mostly responsible for putting the nation through this current standoff.
Dana: Never attribute to malice what stupidity would explain.
“Carter and Ford each had tremendous weaknesses going into the election and each would most-likely have lost despite being primaried.”
Is it your contention, then, that Obama will most likely lose whether or not he is primaried? Because, frankly, the polling data don’t back that up.
Reading the least stable of isotope’s original, I get a feeling of deja vu, remembering how Donviti left the Delaware Liberal for a while because he seemed to think, oddly, enough, that it really was the Delaware Liberal, and not the Delaware Democrat.
Of course, whether President Obama has a primary challenger or not, if he goes into the 2012 election with 9.x% unemployment, he’ll be shaking hands with his successor on the Capitol steps on 20 January 2013.
Puck, it was passed after the election, when it did you absolutely no good at all.
Ben,
At this time in 2007, how many people honestly believed that Obama would win the nomination, let alone the general? Did you?
OK, then.
a1
“Puck, it was passed after the election, when it did you absolutely no good at all.”
Tell me about it.
That is not an accurate comparison. This is not 2007, we arent at the end of the Bush era. It is a different time with different rules.
Im talking about a general election and the NEED for a Democrat to win. Everyone also already knew who who Obama was. not to mention the fact thatyYou havent given any suggestions beyond “someone else”. In 2007 whoever the Democrat was was going to win. John Edwards could have gotten the nomination and banged his mistress as a part of his convention speech and STILL would have beaten that idiot and that troll.
What you either wont, or cant, admitt is that the presidency…. and by extension the SCOTUS and the nation are at a dire risk. If a republican wins, game. over. No disputing that. The older progressives on the court will likely not last another 6-14 years and a republican will replace RBG with someone who makes Roberts look like Abby Hoffman. You’ll beg for the days you were upset that a democratic president isnt being democratic enough. But at least you showed OBOMBA right?
I dont like it either, but it is reality. Step away from your computer and your steady diet of Left wing Rah Rah Rah and realize that the way you see things is not the way the majority of the country does and good or bad you have to deal with that
Way to answer my question with a non-sequitur. i should have known better than to expect a grown up response from you.
Geezer, I don’t think Obama will lose the general because he will be massively funded by his corporate backers and I don’t think the repubs will be able to field a viable candidate unless it is Huntsman or Romney, either of who I think could have a chance to beat him, particularly if the professional left stays home.
I won’t be GOTV or contributing to Obama like last time, and I don’t know many others who feel at all motivated to help him this time.
Also, as you well know, no incumbent except Reagan has won the general when unemployment was above 7%, and when he did it, unemployment was trending down.
a1
do you approve of the TEABAG tactic of destroying the country and letting the nation default in order to send a message? you MUST because you’d let a repuke win the presidency in order to send a message.
What is especially clueless about a primary challenge to Obama is that it would have to be someone who can get votes from the non-professional left. Someone like HRC, who ain’t running. Otherwise it is the same old — where the professional left pays attention to Nader or Kucinich and the rest of the Democrats politely ignore them. Or look down their noses at them.
And then you wonder why the rest of the party doesn’t pay attention to you.
All of this wish for a third party is more magical thinking — and magical thinking that somehow imagines that you’ll get some political voice by electing some third party person. This is and always has been foolish as all get out. Other viable choices would be awesome, but a third party president isn’t going to be in much position to govern.
3rd party bad. 2 party good. unga la gunga
I had to look twice at this post b/c I thought it was a Cassandra post. oy vey. You see, to me the logic here is completely flawed. You know how Obama could thwart off any worry about votes going to Nader?
wait for it
wait
wait
wait
PAY ATTENTION TO THE EFFFFINGGGGG BASE
Ben, I never said that I wanted to see a repub elected. There is no reason to think that a Dem other than Obama wouldn’t be able to beat whatever repub is nominated. They might even have a better chance.
cassandra_m, what is “especially clueless” is blind support for this lying Wall Street-owned president just because he is a Democrat. By the way, when is your primary campaign agains Tom Carper starting? I’d vote for you, you know.
Maybe it is all about “attention” to you.
That’s rich — since your entire purity shtick is all about attention. And not having to do anything to get the politics you want.
If you were serious about making your voice heard, you’d be all about taking out the one guy in your backyard who is a genuine obstacle to all of that. But you don’t — and the reason is that at some level you actually get that you are quite the minority and not really the base.
But keep sitting at your keyboard where the Yur Doin It All Wrong caucus is really raking up the victories.
And hey — way to actually avoid the real point of my post. This is the only way you can be here spouting your bullshit, just ignore what people say.
The only reason Obama is President today is because of millions of progressives like me who stupidly believed his lies and promises. We worked our butts off and donated millions of $$ to help him get elected only to have him work to do the opposite of what he said. His lying and incompetency is setting back the progressive agenda by decades and destroying the economic prospects of millions of American children, yet all you want everybody to do is clap harder for him.
So ridicule me for being a sucker in 2007- 2008 if you want. But at least I am grown-up enough to recognize that I made a mistake. Your undying devotion to this “hope and change” con artist is only making you look foolish.
And I rest my case.
All of that @2:02 was just about your performance as a victim of Obama. It isn’t an especially *good* performance, mind you, but that is what you’ve got. Sorta like Eeyore complete with cloud over your head, but without any of his basic sweetness.
Everything is about how you’ve been affronted.
GTF over yourself.
I guess Obama opening a black site in Somalia last month is all about A1 and not about the United States departure from democracy.
I guess A1 worrying drone attacks in country’s that haven’t said it’s ok is a1 being selfish
I guess a 3rd war costing a few billion a month is all about a1
I guess not liking the fact that Obamacare did nothing but line the pockets of an entire industry and cost the country more is all about a1
I guess Obama not closing gitmo is all about a1
I guess obama extending tax cuts after saying he wouldn’t is all about a1
I guess Obama robosigning the patriot act is all about a1
I guess obama getting ready to gut Medicare but do NOTHING to cut defense spending is all about A1
I’m sure we could go on, but there isn’t a point.
GTF over Obama Cassandra. He is a fraud and the more you attack the people that point it out, the more you lose credibility and look as partisan as David Anderson
anonone wrote:
I know people, my own primary liberal commenter Perry among them (he’s commented here before, too), who are persuaded that corporations are not investing right now, and are sitting on cash, precisely to defeat President Obama. President Obama will get some corporate money, because corporations play both sides, but they will, overall, prefer his opponent.
At this point in 1979, Ronny Raygun was a wild-eyed whacko who couldn’t win the nomination, and if he somehow did, the public simply would never trust him enough to vote for him.
But at least I am grown-up enough to recognize that I made a mistake. Your undying devotion to this “hope and change” con artist is only making you look foolish.
I completely reject this premise, and that’s why it’s impossible to have a discussion. You hate, despise, loathe Obama. You call him a liar, incompetent, a destroyer of economic prospects for American children. And then you go off and label anyone who doesn’t completely, 100% Grover Norquist agree with you as the exact opposite. Which isn’t remotely true, but it does allow you to argue with yourself.
And it isn’t about being grown up, either. If this fool was being a grown up he would acknowledge that he projected alot of expectations on Obama that simply were not on offer. In other words, pretended that Obama was a real third party candidate. A grownup would come to terms with this structural mistake and move on. Not inflict his stupid victimization on the rest of the world as if it were some basic truth. Because it isn’t.
“There is no reason to think that a Dem other than Obama wouldn’t be able to beat whatever repub is nominated.”
here are some reasons
1) history of democratic incumbent presidents and what happens to them when they are primaried
2) amount of money that will go to whatever Repuke is nominated no matter what by big businesses and anti labor groups (i know obama hates labor too, but GOP hates it more)
3) STILL you have not provided me with the name of anyone you think would stand a chance
4) the perception that the democratic party is weak and incapable at chocing leaders since we dont even want our own…. i dont particularly share that view but the sad truth is you have to look at things in the light of how they will be spun in our pathetic media…. again i DONT like it, but it’s the way it is.
look man, you’ve won. I openly admit that at this point the only reason I say re-elect obama is because the future of this nation is very bleak if a GOP wins and these Tbaggy terrorists get all 3 branches of government. you cant deny that.
Do you think that is a pleasant view to have? I dont blame him the way you do. I just think it wasn’t the right time for a pragmatic president. Extremism is the rule now. Comprimise is seen as treason. You have to have a check list of viewpoints to be considered serious or even trustworthy and if you have multiple opinions or if your opinions are too complex, you are some sort of traitor or coward. That kind of thinking will take us down a very dark road indeed, and it isnt any better wieh it comes form the left than from the right….. but again, we can worry about that later. The stakes are too high right to do anything but stop the Conservatives.
They are more dangerous than Bush because they dont appear to be loyal to wall street. I dont like loyalty to wall street but at least it gives SOME stability. Once we end this threat, we can talk about fixing the pathetic democratic party and punishing everyone who has treated progessives like shit. Im all for that. But we wont be able to do much of anything with Justice Palin.
think about it. 4 more years with President Obama or 40 with Justice Palin.
so when obama said he would:
lose gitmo and didn’t he’s not a liar he’s what exactly?
have health care Negotians on C-Span?
not have lobbyists working for him?
not take public financing for his presidential campaign?
put a Windfall profits tax on Oil Companies
he’s not lying though, just doing one thing and saying another. Politicians we vote for don’t lie, just the ones on the other side of the aisle do.
It’s hard to take anyone at DL serious when they tell you with a straight face that Obama hasn’t lied. Hell, the Arab world hates him more than BUSH. MORE THAN BUSH.
DV,
Gitmo) what to do with the inmates…. no american would take them here.
Health care negotiations on cspan… no one watched. AND cant really force other members of the government to do it. He left it in the hands of the congress…. like the president is SUPPOSED to do and they fucked up. Like with most things you blame Obama for, it is actually the fault of a separate brach of government. Maybe your real issue is with how our government works…. but BUsh should have shown you what a submissive congress looks like.
Not have lobbists work for him — VERY bent promise
public financing ) lied. you win that one.
Windfall tax for oil companies ) not his call. The congress does that, and they are OWNED by the oil companies. that was a promise he couldn’t keep and one that was broken by GOP who only care about turning you against Obama.
“Hell, the Arab world hates him more than BUSH. MORE THAN BUSH.” prove it
Link to who has said “Obama hasn’t lied.”
Your Gitmo complaint is weak since he signed an executive order to close it.
Also, did you guys miss the FISA vote, or simply dismiss it. Seriously, how did you manage to vote for him the first time?
“Now for all of you who think this is a good idea, give me an example where a primary of an incumbent president has 1) worked [Franklin Pierce] and/or 2) let that president keep his job” [FDR twice; Truman].
I’m not sure I understand that premise of your post. If a primary challenge against Obama, which would almost certainly fail, resulted in moving him toward the left more, wouldn’t that be a good thing? You seem to be arguing that even if that outcome resulted, primarying Obama is bad per se. I almost never get these per se arguments applied to politics.
ROTFLMAO! Pandora, you linked to a PuffHo story, Obama Signs Executive Order to Close Guantanamo Bay, dated January 22, 2009 10:40 AM, one day, 22 hours and 40 minutes into his term.
Then, of course, it finally dawned on the commander-in-chief, “Hey, I’m actually responsible now for America’s safety and security,” and it didn’t happen. Translation: George Bush was right all along. 🙂
Stop laughing, Dana, and pick yourself off the floor. It’s an embarrassing display. 😉
My point was to Bitterviti who willfully forgets (or probably didn’t know) that Obama took action to close Gitmo. He signed an executive order closing Gitmo, but Congress killed it by not funding it.
Ben,
uh, you could start by giving them a trial. Which none of them have had. Problem is we just tortured them so badly that now no one wants them back and without admitting it or “looking back” he is stuck. Innocent until proven guilty is still supposed to mean something
If the oil windfall tax wasn’t his call then he should stfu and quit pandering. Either way, it was a lie.
The point is, that was only a few items. The guy lies. A1 has valid points and to mock him b/c he doesn’t like Obama is tiring. It’s tiring b/c the minute he says something negative, the pom-poms get put down and the gloves go on over here for several contributors.
Say anything you want, but here were are 5 days from a debt ceiling issue that has been manufactured by both sides and Obama is ready to sell out Medicare and Medicaid. All while licking the boots of Jeff Immelt and Goldman execs
An apathetic guy wrote, addressing Donviti:
From the New York Post:
More at the link. But the money line was:
Not much further down you can go than a 99% disapproval rating.
pandora wrote: “I completely reject this premise, and that’s why it’s impossible to have a discussion.”
pandora, you might consider that it similarly impossible to have a discussion with people who believe that Obama is the best president since George Washington and who then go “100% Grover Norquist” with people who even slightly disagree.
But, as usual, you criticize blog commenters rather than your fellow bloggers who indulge in the exact same behavior.
I would love to see Obama primaried and defeated by someone like Russ Feingold or even Howard Dean. I applaud Nader for his efforts. Apparently just that point of view is utter heresy to the bloggers at this supposedly “liberal” site.
no one said Obama was the best president since Washington.
hey a1, who is your actual has-a-shot-and-might-actually run candidate to primary Obama?
Ralph Nader is just doing this to help a conservative get elected. The only way libtards (yes im using that word) like him have any shot is if we are in mad maxx land and he’s leading the resistance.
Pandora wrote:
Well, let’s see, he signed that executive order on 22 January 2009. As I recall, the eleventy-first Congress had a huge Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and, at some points, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. How is it that the Democrat-controlled Congress wouldn’t fund it?
President Obama has realized that the guys locked up in Guantanamo aren’t criminals, and the war against the Islamists isn’t a law enforcement problem; it’s a war, and the combatants in it have to be treated as such. He might have done better by simply declaring them to be prisoners of war, in which case they could be held until the end of the war.
Well, now that President Obama has realized the tremendous responsibilities he has been given: you have to go all the way down to paragraph 12 of this story from The Washington Post, but if you do, you’ll find this strangely uncommented upon paragraph:
Emphasis mine. I would have thought that my friends on the left would be howling about this: President Obama seems to have decided, as did his wiser immediate predecessor, that we know that some of the bad guys we captured are really, really bad guys, but we don’t know it in a way that is provable in federal court, so it really doesn’t matter what Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said in criticism of President George Bush during the 2008 presidential campaign, now that Senator Obama is President Obama, and actually has the responsibility for keeping America safe, he’s going to do pretty much what President Bush did.
Of course, perhaps to my friends on the left, it’s just OK if a Democrat does it.
This is more revisionist bullshit from you, Dana. And I guess I’m not surprised that you are joining bitteriti in it.
Did you not notice that Congress specifically defunded all effort to bring Gitmo prisoners to a US facility? Did you not notice that Congress specifically made transfer of these prisoners to the US illegal? Any leap from Congress making closing Gitmo illegal to the President making any adjustments on safety is just that — a leap. But one that makes you feel better about the failure of GWB. And, of course, satisfies the requirement that black and brown people should be denied justice so that Republicans can feel better. Bread and circuses style.
Gitmo is not and has never been about safety and the fact that it is still open doesn’t make you any safer. But then your idea of safety is fairly shallow. Every one of these guys should be made to face justice in an American court — because if you claim to have the best justice system in the world, then that is what you use to make sure justice is done. Any other option is as profoundly un American as it gets. A concept that you are utterly unfamiliar with.
I am sure that Dana must have a picture of Stalin hanging in his living room.