Saturday, December 11, 2010
To All of Those Who Think That a Progressive Challenge to President Obama in a 2012 Primary is a Good Thing, This
You're crazy. a) A sitting President has rarely successfully been challenged in a primary before (Buchanan's victory over Pierce in 1856 - that being the most recent example). And b) whenever a sitting President has been challenged like this, he tends to end up losing in the general election (Ford, Carter, and Bush 1 - the three most recent examples). And, folks, I'm also telling you here, if by some incredible miracle event, President Obama does lose in a primary, this nation would never, EVER, elect a Bernie Sanders or a Dennis Kucinich President. They just flat-out wouldn't do that (this and, yet, I've also said that about Sarah Palin, huh?).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Hillary is the only one that could challenge Obama Will. She likes the job she has now.
Of course you and I like sports so I could envision a scenario that Obama knows he can't win so feigns an illness (injury) and takes himself out of the game and Hillary steps in.
Save this comment Will. It may well be prophetic.
You mentioned Buchanan. You mean Pat Buchanan, right?
What?
Obama does look a might stressed, Truth. This, however, would clearly be your greatest prophesy EVER......James Buchanan, CDM, the greatest President of all time. This, me-bucko, in that, yes, according to historian John A. Garraty, "He could drink tremendous quantities of alcohol without showing the slightest signs of inebriation."
I'd vote for either Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich. Either one is precisely the kind of individual we really need as president.
This nation just decided the Republicans should be in charge of the House of Representatives though, so I suppose you're right. This nation is too stupid to vote for the kind of change we really need.
Once again we see a flash of the charismatic WD personality...similar to watching paint dry.
Oh man WD. Rusty thinks you're boring dude.
The absolute worst choice that I can think of is Sanders (an avowed Socialist) vs. Palin (a cypher)....Hell, folks, I might even go as far as to say that that could be apocalyptic.
America elected its first black president...if Kucinich got elected he would be the first dwarf in the white house.Wow,imagine two first in a row.
Bernie Sanders, in addition to being a Democratic Socialist (which is actually a GOOD thing) is also a pragmatist. Which is why, even though he supported the public option and hated the fact that the legislation "negotiated" by the president reaffirms that health insurance in the US will remain FOR PROFIT forever (I don't see how it will ever be possible to get rid of these parasites NOW)... he held out of the best deal he could get and then voted FOR the legislation.
I'm sure he knows he couldn't win the presidency. So, I'm not sure why you're discussing a Sander's run as if it's an actual possibility. Some Liberals may be floating his name as a possible primary challenger -- but he's not interested.
If you really want to speculate on this topic -- how about suggesting someone for which a credible sounding reason (regarding WHY he'd run) exists? I've heard Russ Feingold mentioned -- and the reason the person who mentioned his name thought he might run was because he's got nothing to lose. (he won't run though).
I'm not one of those people who believe this primary challenger talk is either a good thing OR will go anywhere. Good or bad I think we're stuck with Obama (and I'm currently leaning toward it being bad).
I'd be supportive of the Tea Party running it's own presidential candidate however... and splitting the Republican vote.
As for Rusty, I don't give a damn what the hell he thinks.
Yes you do....you know you do.
I like and admire Mr. Feingold. I mean, sure, he's probably a little more liberal than I am (though, no, neither of us are doctrinaire) BUT, in terms of honesty and integrity, I don't think that it gets much better.......As for socialism, it's a totally discredited concept. The hard-core versions of it were jettisoned 20 years ago and even the milder versions are presently being debated in Europe. Yes, we DO need SOME government regulation, an adequate safety net, etc. But what we don't need is a strong central government that puts forth excessive central planning, picks, from the safety of Washington, winners and losers, etc.. It would in fact be a disaster.
Democratic Socialism is not a discredited concept. That is a Right-wing myth.
The wealthy elites hate Democratic Socialism because they know that if the American people knew how successful it's been in Canada and Europe they'd demand it here. And the days of the wealthy elites robbing us blind would be numbered.
The fact is that it's Reaganomics that is a discredited disaster, and it is far past time we jettisoned it.
I think Rusty is jealous of Dennis Kucinich's hot wife. In any case, if Dennish Kucinich were elected president he would NOT be the shortest man to hold the office. At 5ft-7in Dennis is taller than James Madison (5ft-4in) and Martin Van Buren (5ft-6in). Also, someone afflicted with dwarfism has an adult height of less than 4 feet 10 inches.
I don't think that I've ever defended Reagan's overall economic policy. In fact, I've been consistently critical of a) the very high deficits that the man ran up (he did have a Democratic congress for a large chunk of his tenure, though) and b) the fact that the Savings and Loan fiasco happened under his administration.
I was talking about the supply side ideolgoy and deregulation. I notice your refutation mentions neither. Reagan's Democratic congress has nothing to do with why his presidency is a failure.
I am not a supply-sider. I agree with Greenspan and Stockman that tax cuts do not pay for themselves and have stated so previously......You have to realize here, wd, the world is a lot more complicated than Reaganomics vs. socialism. Viewpoints on economics and a lot of other things are represented by a continuum, and NOT by some idiotic good vs. bad dichotomy.
Will said... You have to realize here, wd, the world is a lot more complicated than Reaganomics vs. socialism.
Actually no, I don't think that framing would be grossly inaccurate.
A good 40% of the American electorate is independent. My suspicion is that a very large chunk of them are neither supply-siders nor socialists. You might want to get out and meet some of them sometime.
The Republican tax cuts -- the ones for the wealthy they threatened to shut down the Congress until they got -- the argument in favor of them is supply side. They say that's what the American people voted for in the last election.
If 40 percent of the electorate is independent and don't adhere to supply side economics -- where the hell were they? Either they voted for Republicans -- and thus in favor of supply side, or they stayed home -- and thus voted supply side by default.
"Independent" in most cases means uninformed. These people need to educate themselves and chose a side.
Sometimes independents vote Democratic. Sometimes they vote Republican. Sometimes they vote for a third party. And they vote for a variety of reasons. In 2006, being that the Iraq War was my #1 national issue, I voted for Ned LaMont for the Senate. But I also voted for the moderate pro-choice Republican, Jody Rell, for Governor. I have voted Democrat the last two times for President (in 2004, because of the war, and in 2008 because I felt that McCain was talking like a crazy man). The farther right that the national Republican party, the less likely that I am to vote for them. But times sometimes do change. And if the Republican party can somehow reignite their Eisenhower/Rockefeller wing (a nightmare, no doubt, for Volt and Rusty) , I'd be more than happy to consider voting for them for President.......I am generally for low taxes (on moral grounds more so than economic ones). But I'm also for paying the country's bills. And I'm not necessarily opposed to the wealthy paying a somewhat higher rate. I just don't think that a confiscatory approach is anything to brag about and, yes, I propose taking peoples' money judiciously. Is this helping you at all?
I said that the continuum was one that went between (actually, there are many things farther to the right than Reaganomics but, whatever) Reaganomics and SOCIALISM, not Reaganomics and mainstream Democrats. Mainstream Democrats (thankfully) are significantly to the right of socialism (and, yes, I've defended Mr. Obama many times against charges that he's a socialist).
In response to your second to last post:
I support higher taxes on moral grounds.
In response to your last post:
I don't know why you're capping SOCIALISM, but I don't believe in it. I'm not in favor of government controlling the means of production. I'm in favor of a mixed economy.
I just though I'd clarify that, since, considering your CAPITALISIZED use of the word "socialism", it appears as though you think I support full blown socialism. I don't.
You can go farther right than Reganomics. You can go farther left than socialism. I don’t know what your point is.
Nor do I get your bringing up your defense of Obama against charges of socialism. Have you defended him against charges that he's a shape shifting reptilian alien from the constellation Draco, here as part of a conspiracy to enslave humanity? That's assuming you've heard that allegation. If you haven't -- then WILL you start defending him against the allegation?
It's just as serious as the "socialist" allegation, which you seem quite proud to be denying, so I'm sure you'll want to start denying he's a reptilian alien ASAP.
BTW, "mainstream" Democrats being significantly to the right of Socialism is NOT a good thing.
Post a Comment