HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Perhaps apostasy in this ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:25 AM

 

Perhaps apostasy in this new DU3 regime, but Obama now does have a progressive

Democrat challenging him on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary and primaries in 3 other states:

Darcy Richardson, previously a campaign aide to Senator Eugene McCarthy, offers people who wish to vote Demcratic but do not approve of Obama's term in office an alternative.

http://www.darcy2012.com/

87 replies, 16114 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 87 replies Author Time Post
Reply Perhaps apostasy in this new DU3 regime, but Obama now does have a progressive (Original post)
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 OP
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2011 #1
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #2
LoZoccolo Dec 2011 #4
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #9
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #26
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #28
oldhippydude Dec 2011 #60
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #74
Jackpine Radical Dec 2011 #81
Art_from_Ark Dec 2011 #68
Occulus Dec 2011 #33
Ken Burch Dec 2011 #70
JackRiddler Dec 2011 #73
Ken Burch Dec 2011 #82
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #75
hifiguy Dec 2011 #79
bigtree Dec 2011 #5
MilesColtrane Dec 2011 #12
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #14
dionysus Dec 2011 #16
MilesColtrane Dec 2011 #32
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #40
kwikset Dec 2011 #54
bigtree Dec 2011 #3
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #6
dionysus Dec 2011 #7
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #10
kenny blankenship Dec 2011 #69
Whisp Dec 2011 #13
in_cog_ni_to Dec 2011 #38
LineLineReply !
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2011 #46
ProSense Dec 2011 #8
LineLineReply .
bigtree Dec 2011 #11
one_voice Dec 2011 #30
immoderate Dec 2011 #42
one_voice Dec 2011 #45
kwikset Dec 2011 #50
ProSense Dec 2011 #59
Ken Burch Dec 2011 #71
frazzled Dec 2011 #15
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #17
bigtree Dec 2011 #20
SidDithers Dec 2011 #21
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #23
frazzled Dec 2011 #24
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #27
Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #83
frazzled Dec 2011 #84
Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #85
MH1 Dec 2011 #35
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #37
in_cog_ni_to Dec 2011 #41
robinlynne Dec 2011 #61
kwikset Dec 2011 #52
frazzled Dec 2011 #56
FedUp_Queer Dec 2011 #65
Ken Burch Dec 2011 #72
dmallind Dec 2011 #18
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #25
MH1 Dec 2011 #36
dmallind Dec 2011 #39
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #48
robinlynne Dec 2011 #62
SidDithers Dec 2011 #19
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #31
CakeGrrl Dec 2011 #22
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #29
robinlynne Dec 2011 #63
kath Dec 2011 #87
grantcart Dec 2011 #34
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #44
Sheepshank Dec 2011 #43
Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #47
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #49
kwikset Dec 2011 #53
Hutzpa Dec 2011 #51
apples and oranges Dec 2011 #55
slay Dec 2011 #58
slay Dec 2011 #57
Blasphemer Dec 2011 #66
JoePhilly Dec 2011 #64
tritsofme Dec 2011 #67
mmonk Dec 2011 #76
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #77
mmonk Dec 2011 #78
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #80
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #86

Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:26 AM

1. Shoot for 2%!

We know you can do it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:28 AM

2. Your derisive mocking aside, few people remember that Eugene McCarthy did not actually win

 

the New Hampshire primary. However, he scored highly enough to signal to LBJ that he needed to relinquish the presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:31 AM

4. Then a Republican was elected.

 

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:35 AM

9. You're falling for the 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacy, I think. Be that

 

as it may, most political scientists now agree that Humphrey would have defeated Nixon had Humphrey broken with LBJ sooner on Vietnam.

Ancient history, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:15 PM

26. Wrong.

Then Kennedy entered. Then, the moment he sealed up the nomination, he was assassinated. Then, the convention forced the nomination of a party machine man who had not run in any primaries, and who supported the rape of Vietnam, while the police outside the convention hall brutalized protesters. Then Nixon ran a fear campaign, and beat Humphrey by a hair's breadth. In short, McCarthy's run had absolutely zero to do with Nixon's win. Do you enjoy not just simplifying but falsifying history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:31 PM

28. Nixon with his 'secret plan' to end the war 'with honor.' Hah! Nixon's secret plan

 

was to expand the war illegally (without Congressional authorization) to Cambodia.

Thanks for filling in the gaps. It's so easy to argue that because something happened afterwards (Humphrey's defeat), it had to have been caused by something that came before (McCarthy's candidacy), when the reality is often far more nuanced with various causalities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:47 PM

60. your right Jack

I worked for Mc Carthy in Oregon.. we actually won in Oregon ( it was a week or 2 ahead of California).. by this time the campaign staff pretty much admidtied that we would be moving on tto Bobby's campaign when Gene called it quits.. Humphry was in fact viewed in LBJ's shadow, and the violance of the convention prety much sealed HHH's fate.. i remeber that campaign as it was my first year voting, and politically active

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippydude (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:48 AM

74. Hey! Clean for Gene!

Excellent. Should I say, "Thank you for your service"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #74)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:56 PM

81. God, yes! Clean for Gene.

Thanks for your service indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:14 AM

68. Then there was George Wallace siphoning off Democratic votes in the South

Certainly in my part of Arkansas, there was "Bobby fever" when summer vacation started, one week before the 1968 California primary.
In September, a lot of the students (read: their parents) who had supported Bobby Kennedy were now supporting Wallace! And the Humphrey supporters seemed to be only lukewarm at best for their support (Remember, Humphrey did not even run in the primary). Still, very few wanted the Republican (Nixon), especially since a lot of parents remembered him from the Eisenhower administration and the fact that Ike didn't have too many good things to say about Tricky Dick back in the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:00 PM

33. Do your read history much?

Your narrative there has a couple large gaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 04:29 AM

70. Nothing better would have come of leaving LBJ unchallenged

He'd also have kept the war going another four years and wouldn't have been interested in introducing any more progressive legislation-assuming that Johnson COULD have been re-elected, and his 29% approval rating at the time of the Democratic convention proves that he couldn't have been.

And, if you know anything at all about 1968, you'd realize that it was LBJ's fault that Nixon defeated Humphrey in the fall.

Nixon forced Humphrey, who probably could have won the nomination on his own merits, to stand as the "status quo" candidate and forced Humphrey to vote for an arrogantly rignt-wing and pro-keep the war going plank on Vietnam, thus making it all-but-impossible for progressives to vote for Humphrey as long as he stayed with that. This insistence on Johnson's part was what ultimately led to protests that were violently suppressed by the Chicago police.

Then, when Humphrey realized he was going to stay thirteen points behind until the end if he didn't break with Johnson at all and made his Salt Late City speech announcing his own, more independent position, Johnson froze Humphrey's access to funds from major party donors, which, even though Humphrey was able to nearly wipe out Nixon's lead on his own, guaranteed Nixon's narrow victory-and Johnson further guaranteed it when he refused to go public with the proof he had that Nixon's campaign had interfered in the Paris Peace Talks.

So no, the challenge to Johnson didn't cause Nixon's win-Johnson did. Accept reality.

Renominating LBJ without challenge would have meant giving up on ever ending the war AND on achieving any more progressive change at home. Johnson was a dead loss by 1968, and you know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:48 AM

73. Good points, Ken Burch: a correction.

Your third paragraph begins "Nixon forced Humphrey," but you seem clearly to mean "Johnson forced Humphrey..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #73)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:24 PM

82. You are right. Thanks for catching that.

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:49 AM

75. Thank you for supplying all the meticulous detail. I had forgotten

 

some of those details, while remembering the general outlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 11:13 AM

79. That is the correct view of the history as I

have always recalled it and read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:32 AM

5. oh

that would turn out well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:40 AM

12. LBJ quit because he believed he was going to die in office, not because of how he was polling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MilesColtrane (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:44 AM

14. So it was pure coincidence that LBJ ran in the New Hampshire primary, allowed

 

Gene McCarthy to nip at his heels there and then decided to drop out because he was afraid of dying in office?

OK.

(I did see one alternative explanation for LBJ's decision to relinquish the presidency by an LBJ insider a long time ago. It was actually pretty convincing, but did not center around LBJ's fear of death in office. For the life of me, I cannot now remember what that alternative explanation was.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:50 AM

16. get back to us when darcy cracks 2% in any poll. thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:59 PM

32. I too have seen a recent (within the last 4-6 months) story by a long time LBJ aide/friend that...

cited his reason for not running.

I even remember making a post about it, but can't find it on DU2 right now.

Anyhoo, this person says Johnson talked about bowing out for health reasons a year before the primaries during a ride through his ranch in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MilesColtrane (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:11 PM

40. It was a very cool story and plausible as an alternative explanation. I'm going to

 

dive into DU2 soon to see if I can locate it. Will let you know what I find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:53 PM

54. Delegates at 15%

 

If he scores 15% in any of these primaries, he'll be able to send delegates to the DNC.

I would be happy having a few grassroots progressives at least able to voice their opinions on the platform, instead of letting the party machine stooges manage the whole puppet show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:30 AM

3. challenging?

. . . in the general election that would be more of a protest than a challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:32 AM

6. Sorry, I should have clarified in the OP, I guess. Richardson is

 

on the primary ballot in New Hampshire and 3 other states as a Democrat.

Editing OP now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)


Response to dionysus (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:37 AM

10. Wow, I'm not sure whether to flag your post as racist (for the 'Brothers' slur)

 

or classist (for the 'Effed Up Teeth' derisiveness).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:18 AM

69. It's dentist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:44 AM

13. . . .

 

LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:11 PM

38. That's a pretty crude thing to say about someone who doesn't have straight, perfect teeth.

However, it is expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:24 PM

46. !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:34 AM

8. He's a "liberal reformist"

Between 1989 and 1992, Richardson served as the National Chairman of the New Democrats, a liberal reformist group that included Eugene McCarthy and Gary Hart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy_Richardson#Author_and_Activist

Oooh, those "liberal reformist" New Democrats!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:39 AM

11. .

we definitely need a facepalm smiley

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:40 PM

30. we have one...




You can get them here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/

Just type the code.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:15 PM

42. Funny, I don't see it on the list.

But it works.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:24 PM

45. you're right!

I hadn't noticed it wasn't on the list, I just did the facepalm code. I think Skinner is still updating the list..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:45 PM

50. Wikipedia is your source?

 

Wow good catch. Except there are two groups that used the term New Democrats. The original New Democrats were a small group that included McCarthy and Gary Hart and were very liberal. The Clinton-istas stole the name.

What's REALLY FUNNY is that you rely entirely on Wikipedia for research... seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwikset (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:45 PM

59. So

are you saying McCarthy didn't endorse Reagan? How much more progressive can one get?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #59)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 04:32 AM

71. This guy isn't responsible for McCarthy's Reagan endorsement.

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:46 AM

15. And you know that he is a "progressive" ... exactly how?

Because he was an aide to Eugene McCarthy more than 40 years ago? The same McCarthy who was so progressive that he formally endorsed Ronald Reagan for President in 1980, so much was his antipathy to Jimmy Carter?

McCarthy may have been a good spoiler, and helped ruin Carter's reelection chances, but even he was a perennial candidate. Darcy Richardson is absolutely nobody, and has never held an office. He just runs for office, thinking he can recreate the (failed) candidacy of Eugene McCarthy in 1968. You would even consider voting for such a person, about whom I assure you you know next to nothing?

Ah, a fool and his ideas soon lead to ... President Gingrich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:50 AM

17. Well, I thought I was performing something of a public service in posting this OP, never

 

dreaming that I would be subjected to such scorn and mockery. It's OK. As Harry S. Truman famously said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But I am now questioning whether there is much of a future on DU for me.

That said, have you looked at Richardson's website (link in the OP)?

I'm looking for a way to drive Obama to the left. I have stated publicly elsewhere that my hatred for Gingrich is of such a primal nature that I will gladly hold my nose to vote for Obama in 2012 in order to express my hatred of all things Grinch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:59 AM

20. this 'driving' thing sounds fine and good

. . . but, in action, it can be either distracting or enabling of the opposition.

We get desperate to not lose an inch. New Hampshire, for example, is pretty critical on the electoral map. Don't be surprised when folks who are really desperate to not lose this election defend every inch of territory.

That said, I think the concept of a primary challenge is a sound and meaningful principle which should be respected as a legitimate and affirming exercise of our democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:01 PM

21. Heya...

there's some history about Richardson's candidacy. It was discussed (well, heralded is maybe a better term) by one very strange poster in GDP back at DU2.

If you don't know the history, you might not realize the pile of poop you stepped in

Cheers,
Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:07 PM

23. The back-story here. I had put myself on Richardson's mailing list back when he first

 

announced his primary candidacy, merely as a way to keep myself informed and my options open.

Now that you mention it, I do vaguely remember the DU2 pile 'o poop you reference, but I had forgotten it before making my OP this a.m. Oh, woe is me.

At any rate, overnight I received an email from the Richardson campaign saying they were now on the primary ballots in Louisiana and Oklahoma (in addition to New Hampshire and Missouri). That's what prompted me to create this OP on DU3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:10 PM

24. I just wanted to point out that this has never worked

Nobody has ever moved anybody to the left in this way.

Think about it: Eugene McCarthy's challenge led eventually to Hubert Humphrey's nomination, and to Nixon's election. Nobody moved to the left. Especially the country. Jesse Jackson's candidacy did not move the eventual nominee, Walter Mondale, to the left, and we got a second term for Ronald Reagan. Neither Bill Bradley's primary challenge nor Ralph Nader's general election candidacy moved Al Gore to the left. And these guys were all national figures with long experience.

You could search for more examples in the modern era. Like the Republicans' economic theories that have proved not to work time and again, so too does this tactic from the left never work.

I'm not trying to scorn or ridicule, so I'm sorry if it came off that way. I'm trying to disabuse you of the notion that this is in any way a practical or noble tactic. And it most often leads to the very opposite of what you wish for. Not that I'm worried about Darcy Richardson mounting any kind of serious challenge. I just hate to see people waste their energy chasing rainbows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:26 PM

27. Before Eugene McCarthy's challenge 'led eventually to HH's nomination,' that same challenge

 

triggered the decision of a sitting U.S. president (LBJ) not to continue to seek re-election. I'm not so sure that McCarthy's motive was to shift LBJ leftward -- LBJ hardly needed much pushing in that direction on the domestic front -- so much as it was to provide an electoral challenge to the Vietnam War policies that, at that point, was LBJ's war to win or lose.

I wrote a song called 'Chasing Rainbows' (non-political) about 10 years ago, so I guess you could say it's a speciality of mine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:36 PM

83. Between Eugene McCarthy's challenge and Hubert Humphrey's nomination, you left out an assassination.

Things might have turned out differently if democracy was allowed to run its course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capitalocracy (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:50 PM

84. Yes, history is always unique

So it doesn't really help to appeal to what happened in the past to predict the future--or to counterfactuals (such as what might have happened had Bobby lived). But I might point out that Bobby Kennedy didn't enter the race until two weeks before Johnson dropped out--he had actually promised earlier that he would try to talk McCarthy out of running against Johnson. Actually, Kennedy entering the race in mid-March was seen as opposition to McCarthy, who was angry about it: it split the anti-war vote. Had Johnson stayed in, who knows, he might have eked out a victory over the two anti-war guys. But that again is pure speculation. What happened happened. And Nixon might have won anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #84)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:42 AM

85. But you're saying it's never worked...

but how many times has it been tried? And do you have a better idea?

Not that I'm endorsing the candidate in the OP... I have no idea who that guy is, never heard of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:06 PM

35. what, you never expected to be subjected to scorn and mockery on DU?

you've been leading a charmed life, my friend.

seriously, if posts cross the bounds, alert. That's what it's there for. Mostly I just see people posting facts that perhaps differ with your view of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:09 PM

37. Nah, I'm good. I take Harry S. Truman's words as my motto: "If you can't

 

stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I actually dished out my fair share of scorn and mockery towards Hillary supporters in 2008, so I'm only getting my karmic payback now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #17)


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:47 PM

61. Wait. Dont go. We're here to back you up!!!! I'm with you. WE aboslutley need primary challenger to

the left. The entire progressive caucus of the democratic party agrees with you. the largest caucus in the party, btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:47 PM

52. You should read what you're writing...

 

More than 40 years ago? In 1988? Math not your strong point in school?

And you're concerned about a protest candidate in the Democratic primaries somehow electing a Republican president? I'm guessing civics wasn't an 'A' subject either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwikset (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:26 PM

56. Oh, so he wasn't an aide in 68

It wasn't until 1988, McCarthy's fourth presidential run, when he had already endorsed Reagan four years earlier. That really makes things even worse for this Darcy Richardson.

By 1988 McCarthy was well past his prime, and running on obscure third-party tickets (not as a Democrat) in a few states:

In the 1988 election, his name appeared on the ballot as the Presidential candidate of a handful of left-wing state parties, such as the Consumer Party in Pennsylvania and the Minnesota Progressive Party in Minnesota. In his campaign he supported trade protectionism, Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and the abolition of the two-party system. He received 30,905 votes.


That's real "progressive." But more important, it shows, once again, how quixotic such fly-by-night campaigns are. If the well-known (and in many ways beloved, though by this time he'd gone off the deep end) Eugene McCarthy could garner only 30,905 votes in the whole country, I'm not too worried about DR. In 2008, the three top Democratic primary candidates in New Hampshire garnered around 266,000 votes. If Darcy Richardson gets even what McCarthy got in several states in the 1988 elections there, he'll have, well, zero impact on anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:12 AM

65. BINGO.

 

My God...a President Gingrich would lead to:

1) more warrantless wiretapping

2) government immunity for warrantless wiretapping

3) ever increasing defense budgets

4) more military bases around the world

5) indefinite detention

6) extrajudicial killings.

Oh wait...never mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 04:34 AM

72. It can't be a good thing to renominate Obama without any challenge at all.

That's asking progressive to give up.

Only a principled challenge can get the promises of 2008 back on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:55 AM

18. I will be interested to see how he does

Should be a very good indication of how many people out there passionately want a more leftward alternative to Obama, especially in closed primary states. It would be even better if there were a Dem challenger from the rightward end of the party too so we could see where the in-party objection to BO is strongest. So far all we have is Gallup polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:11 PM

25. Exactly. I would think that everyone here would have that same level of interest, but

 

judging from some of the comments to my OP, the mere appearance of a 'choice' is too much for many here.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:09 PM

36. It may be that the 'choice' you're suggesting

doesn't seem that good of a choice to many people, based on what they know of the person that can be found from authoritative sources outside the candidate's own website.

Just a possibility, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:11 PM

39. To be honest, I agree with most who think this will be insignificant, but I want to KNOW, not think.

If this guy gets more than a percent or two, we'll know that leftward disaffection with Obama is indeed significant beyond the noise and fury of a self-selected sample of netroots pundits. A simultaneous challenge from the right by a Shuler/Nelson type would help see if polls suggesting he is less popular on the right of the party than the left are true, but no sign so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:28 PM

48. Excellent observations. I find it hard to believe that Obama is less popular on the right of the

 

party than on the left, but I suppose it is possible. Who would that right-winger be, someone like Nelson or Baucus?

I definitely agree with the value of knowing over mere opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:48 PM

62. they don't get that this is supposed to be DU, not DLC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:59 AM

19. The former Merrill Lynch employee?...

Awesome

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:44 PM

31. Look, I used to work for a subsidiary of the Los Angeles Times (before it went

 

completely over to the Dark Side). I would hate to think that my character and fitness to serve were a function merely of my prior association with the LA Times (expecially since, in my case, the LA Times acquired the company for which I had been working).

The same reason Obama's membership in Jeremiah Wright's congregation should not have disqualified Obama for service nor called Obama's character into question.

Or does Merrill stain indelibly anyone associated with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:02 PM

22. And how do we know he'll do what he claims?

It's WORDS, not actions...so what makes people believe he has what it takes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:35 PM

29. That's an excellent point. I think that's part of what a primary campaign

 

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

is supposed to do, to allow voters to vet candidates for the party nomination.

Taking your point a step further (and with no snark intended), how do we know that any candidate (like Obama in 2008) will do what he claims? The sad truth is that we don't and can only vote our hopes and fears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:49 PM

63. We know that Obama will not do what he says. That is the only thing we know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:22 AM

87. Yep. Very sad but all too true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:01 PM

34. Apostacy? Making broad statements without facts is a cornerstone of DU not Apostacy.


Here are some facts.

1) Gene McCarthy supported Reagan against Jimmy Carter.

2) Gene McCarthy never sponsored a single piece of legislation that passed either the House or the Senate.

3) Darcy Richardson was also a member of the Boston Tea Party whose goal is to:

"reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose"

4) An analyst for Merrill Lynch in 2000 he gave money to a number of candidates, including Nader, but no Democrats.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/darcy-richardson.asp?cycle=00

We get these threads every once in a while about Darcy.

No one ever seems to actually endorse him.

Are you endorsing Mr. Richardson's candidacy?






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:21 PM

44. FWIW, 'apostasy' (not 'apostacy'). I am in no position to

 

endorse anyone's candidacy. Rather, I should say, I am nobody so my endorsement would mean exactly . . . NOTHING. But would it make you happier and less snarky if I did endorse Richardson? If so, consider it done.

My #1 goal in 2012 will be preventing a Gingrich presidency. I don't care who is running against Gingrich, he or she will have my vote. That's not exactly an endorsement of the Democratic Party per se, but more an expression of a visceral, nay primal, hatred of anything Gingrich. Can you tell I really hate that unctuous son of a bitch?

On a brighter note, your analysis in your OP elsewhere has started me thinking we may well see a brokered Repuke convention in Tampa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:17 PM

43. Darcy? Isn't that a girls name?

I know there are males named Jody, Shirley and a guy name Sue, but I feel sort of bad for dudes with a female-ish name. They get get called almost as many names as Rudolph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:27 PM

47. and odds are he will win those 4 states, but lose the other 46 + 4 territories


Because nobody is going to bother showing up to vote for Obama. He will be the nominee, voting will be a waste of time.


It isn't really a challenge if it is mathematically impossible for him to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:31 PM

49. Well, Richardson seems to be giving it the old college try, as his latest email

 

contains a plea for funds to help get his name on the Texas ballot (a $2500 filing fee, if I was reading the email correctly).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:51 PM

53. Maybe he'll win some delegates

 


Read the site, he's not trying to win -- just to register a progressive protest vote.

If he gets 15% in any state, he wins delegates to the convention. Those delegates will probably be grassroots folks, not party machine people. So he deserves a vote for that reason alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:46 PM

51. I have one question

Can he send me some free money? I'll make very good use of it I promise.



















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:01 PM

55. I wonder which Republican is financing him

Clearly, the goal is not to elect Darcy but to defeat Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apples and oranges (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:36 PM

58. None - since this is in the primary only and only in a few states, that would not make sense

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:35 PM

57. Choices are good

 

wish we had a legitimate one to Obama that had a chance of winning - say a Bernie Sanders maybe. Run Bernie run! (i wish.. sigh).

i don't blame anyone who votes their conscience and votes for Darcy Richardson - i'd probably do so if i lived in one of those 3 states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slay (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:27 AM

66. I agree... primary challenges are always a good thing

The voice of the people is not limited by the two-party system. It simply makes it more difficult to get all the voices heard. I don't know enough about Mr. Richardson to say whether or not I would support him if I lived in one of those four states but I unequivocally support the right of anyone to vote for whomever they decide would best represent their will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:56 PM

64. As Mr Bill would say .... "Oh Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:31 AM

67. Obama's toughest opponent since Lee Mercer Jr!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:56 AM

76. Interesting. A progressive Democrat running for office. Thanks.

I still don't know much about him though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 11:02 AM

77. I don't know much about him either and there seems to be quite a bit of contention (as

 

evidenced in this thread) as to his progressive credentials and pedigree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 11:09 AM

78. New Democrat is usually associated with the right, not progressivism.

I say that even though they call themselves progressives. But Progressives would not be for defunding and removing regulations from the New Deal, the only remaining tidbits of progressivism left in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 11:13 AM

80. There are "New Democrats" and then there are "New Democrats". This is

 

incredibly inside-baseball stuff but apparently the original appellation referred to figures like Gary Hart and Bill Bradley, i.e., 'progressive' in some measure. The later iteration of the phrase 'ND' has come to mean right-wing.

I think I have that etymology correct but, if I have goofed up, my apologies in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:51 AM

86. Very much inside baseball



Thanks by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread