Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Any (Other) Democrat 2012

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 09:52 PM
Original message
Any (Other) Democrat 2012
Dangerous, scary topic, guaranteed to earn me a shitload of grief. But hey? When has that ever stopped me from opening a Pandora’s Box?

'This guy . . . has about four to six months to turn the perception of him and the party around or we've got to start thinking about somebody else in 2012.' " Dan Rather

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/06/dan-rather-obama-likely-to-get-a-serious-primary-opponent/

The right wing is praying that Rather is right---and they are giving him loads of free press at conservative sites like Townhall.com. Why? As Roland Barthes pointed out in Mythologies the right likes to take history and turn it into nature. If something happened once, then the right believes that it will happen again and again. For example, if Lyndon Johnson got chased out of his own Democratic primary in 1968 clearing the way for Nixon and if Ted Kennedy’s 1980 challenge to Jimmy Carter weakened him in the general election, then a strong primary challenge to Obama is all the Tea Party needs to secure a Sarah Palin victory in 2012.

This history as nature notion is not the exclusive property of the right. We learn by observing associations, which our higher brain translates into “cause” and “effect”. However there is a big difference between “fire burns” and “primary challenger dooms the sitting president’s party to defeat in the fall.” Every single time you stick your hand into the fire, you are going to get burned. However, presidential elections are must more complicated. You would have to be a super computer with several thousand years of data to discover that one single factor---say, a primary challenger—is decisive when determining the outcome of presidential elections---

But that will not stop certain elements of the Democratic Party from nodding their heads in agreement with Townhall.com. Yes, indeed. A primary challenger will definitely doom us to eight years of a Sarah Palin presidency. That’s why we all have to agree that the rich pay too much in taxes, and gays can’t be trusted with military secrets, and ten percent of us don’t deserve health care, and outsourcing is good for the American worker. Because if we start whining over every single unnecessary cancer death and hungry child and homeless veteran, we are traitors to our party.

Excuse me. Purist, sanctimonious traitors to our party.

That should shut those leftists up.

But wait. Barthes also said “Men do not have with myth a relationship based on truth but on use; they depoliticize according to their needs.” In other words, when the GOP declares “A Primary challenger will doom the Obama presidency” what they are really saying is “Give financial support (and media coverage) to Democrats who are willing to bad mouth the president in order to soften him up for the general election.” And when Democrats say “A primary challenger will doom the Democratic Party” what they are really saying is “Obama right or wrong. If Obama gives war criminals blanket immunity, it is because he loves you.”

The 2008 election should have put to rest the myth that a single factor can determine the outcome of an election. In 2007-2008, the GOP staged a repeat performance of the Democratic primary battle of 1972. There was a Musky—Edwards, who was shot down in January 2007 by people like John Solomon. There was a Humphrey---Clinton, who was single handedly responsible for the War in Iraq just as LBJ’s VP was single handedly responsible for the war in Vietnam. And then there was McGovern---Obama, so clean he squeaked. There were Pat Buchanan style dirty tricks, such as Drudge posting offensive photos of Obama and claiming that it got them from Hillary---because everyone knows that Democratic primary voters trust everything they read in Drudge. We had Rush praying for protests at the Democratic primary---

And yet, the Democrats did not go down in flames, like poor old McGovern. Democrats had learned from their mistakes. They came together for the general election.

Some Democrats are going to argue that Democrats who have learned from their mistakes in 2012 will be the ones who refuse to be tempted by any primary challenger. Remember what Kennedy did to Carter! will be battle cry heard over and over again.

To which I would like to propose a question. What if Carter dug his own grave in 1980? What if he was destined to lose and what if the Kennedy primary challenge was a symptom of the disease of Carter’s presidency and not its cause?

And an even scarier, more heretical question---what if the sin of Kennedy in 1980 was not that he tried but rather that he did not try hard enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. That whole.....
"...Mayan thing" you refer to here, is set to occur on December 21, 2012. So she'd never make to the White House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
26. We need Sen. Bernie Sanders to run on a Dem ticket ---
with Grayson as VP --

or Michael Moore - he could run on a Dem ticket!!


Sanders is a better Democrat than many of our actual Demcorats!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. How many states do you think that ticket could win against anyone other than Palin
I love Sanders and I love VT, which would likely vote for him. Throw in Masachusetts and DC (with no electoral vote) and that might be it - even if he had a better VP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. How many states do you think Obama will carry?
Obama, himself, is moving us into a Post-Obama era --

and if the Dems sign this back room deal with GOP, we'll be in a Post-Democratic

Party era!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. More than Sanders/Grayson or Sanders/Moore- at this point, he is doing better than either Clinton
or Reagan at this point. Two years is a long time politically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. 28 million voters stayed home in 2010 ... if Obama wants to count on short memories ....
Two years is a long time -- when we know what the last two years

have been like politically!!1


:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. To me, the ideology of the replacement doesn't matter as much as her or his existence.
The Party can either replace him or die out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. If that were true, the GOP would have long been dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It mutates and changes. The party of 20 years ago is dead so is the one of 60.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. True enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. so you think you'll actually get any support for that outside of here?
I haven't seen any indication of that at all. The President has a hell of an advantage in visibility and elevation, resources, networks, organization . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I hope I dont get any support for it FROM here. What would it say about Obama
if Democratic Underground did not trust him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
27. k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
44. It wouldn't mean shit.
DU isn't even a blip on the political radar. An overwhelming majority of Democrats support Obama now and will support Obama in 2012.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Pretty sure he's doing his best job to alienate those resources, networks, and organization...
Edited on Wed Dec-08-10 10:06 PM by Fearless
As for visibility and elevation, shining light on shit is not the most effective method of being reelected. If we get another Reagan it's on his head and his alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndrewP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. That's just it
Even if there was a candidate, the President has one heck of a head start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. It doesn't matter, since there won't even be a serious primary challenger. Bernie Sanders et al will
Edited on Wed Dec-08-10 10:05 PM by BzaDem
enthusiastically endorse the President. For one, they don't want the party to lose the African American vote for a generation (though even outside of that reason they would still endorse Obama).

The criticism of Obama now is perfectly normal (and honestly, if they think this is bad, it's going to be a long 2 years for them). Both parties have a subset of people who will never be satisfied. The percentage of Democrats who oppose a Democratic President is the lowest in 5 decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. So true:
What if Carter dug his own grave in 1980? What if he was destined to lose and what if the Kennedy primary challenge was a symptom of the disease of Carter’s presidency and not its cause?

We have received two calls so far from family members who are just outraged at Obama's "compromise" on the tax cuts.

He has less than a few months to turn this around.

He needs to have a heart-to-heart with some progressive leaders.

He is wounding not only himself but our entire party.

He should quite now while he is ahead. Because at the rate he is going, things will just get worse and worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Ted Kennedy's Challenge of Carter
Edited on Wed Dec-08-10 11:13 PM by Demeter
was a case of drunken hubris. He had no business doing it.

But the Democratic Party prima donnas turned up their aristocratic noses at the peanut farmer, ex-Navy populist. It was disgusting. They were quickly retired after that. Newt took them out, because they took out Carter.

Carter still had the support of the population. But the Party Elite worked overtime to defeat his every move. Obama, on the other hand, has lost his base, and never had the support of the opposition, either. He's ripe for replacement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Carter's Presidency was doomed regardless of Kennedy.
I opposed Kennedy's Primary attempt, but I have no illusions that Carter would have made it without a Kennedy challenge. Too many things had gone wrong. The hostage crisis was dragging on and on, the October Surprise plot was in place, inflation was at 21%, people's savings were being destroyed, there was the abortive rescue mission that Carter got the blame for, and the national media had solidly turned against him. Remember the Killer Rabbit? Remember the "malaise" speech? (Actually I thought it was a good and honest speech, but the public cannot stand to hear unpleasant truths.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. Btw, guess who headed up those rescue missions .... ?
Ollie North commanded the mission --

Secord was second in command --

and Oops! the necessary sand filters weren't added to the helicopter engines

-- even after they began going down!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olegramps Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #20
31. This is the first time that I have ever heard that North was in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. Yep ... interesting, eh ... Carter was sabotaged at every turn ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
32. I remember the sand-filter debacle, but
didn't know it was Ollie & Secord in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Carter would have lost anyway
regardless of whether he had been challenged or not. Every day in 1980 right up to the election, the TV news programs seemed to devote half of their broadcasts to the hostages in Iran. Every day, seven days a week. The failed rescue attempt of April 25, 1980, graphically depicted with video clips showing jubilant Iranians dancing around the charred remains of American aircraft, essentially sealed Carter's fate.

I agree that Ted Kennedy was not the one who should have made the challenge, because he had that great big albatross called Chappaquiddick around his neck that would have guaranteed his defeat in the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. "Nightline" with Ted Koppel was on every night to do damage to Carter ....
There seems to have been heavy right wing infiltration of Carter's administration --

he pretty much had no chance --

Chappaquiddick may have been the work of Nixon and his plumbers --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9729507&mesg_id=9730826


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. It wasn't just Ted Koppel, of course
It seemed like every nightly news show I watched was focused on Iran. Every single night. I got to the point where I just couldn't watch it any more because it was so predictable: The hostages are still in Iran; The Iranians are laughing at us. President Carter doesn't know what to do"

I would agree about the right-wing infiltration, especially Brzenzski. I could never understand why Carter kept him, because he seemed to be the ultra gung-ho Cold Warrior type.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. You're absolutely correct ... but I've read the Koppel Show was
Edited on Thu Dec-09-10 01:05 AM by defendandprotect
created for that very purpose --

By that time, like you, I wasn't watching -- an occasional look at it --

but I could certainly see the connections between the hyped coverage and

Americans with bumper stickers "Bomb Iran!"

And then, the "October Surprise" -- Gates was also a primary player in that.


Re Brzezinski -- he's bragged about our creating Taliban/Al Qaeda --

we financed it thru ISI/Pakistan. AND, that we went into Afghanistan six months

before the Russians came in ... and "we did it to bait the Russians into Afghanistan

.... in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience."


US/CIA also created, wrote, printed those obnoxious religious books that the MSM

were showing being read by kids in Afghanistan -- and we shipped them into the ME

obviously to create a more violent strain of Islam.

I have links to this stuff -- it's also in my Journal --


But, do you recall Carter taking us out of the Olympics in Russia because of their

"Invasion of Afghanistan"? Brzezinski revealed all of this 6 years or more ago --

but I've never heard a journalist ask Carter about it. Did he know?



:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. I remember that Olympic boycott very well
And then to reciprocate, the Soviets/Russians and their satellites boycotted the L.A. Olympics four years later
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. No --- Chappaquiddick was about keeping Ted Kennedy from being a
Edited on Thu Dec-09-10 12:22 AM by defendandprotect
viable candidate to challenge anyone --

Like RFK -- Ted Kennedy had to be sidelined --

otherwise the public would have elected them.


Further, it's quite possible Nixon and his plumbers had a hand in Chappaquiddick -

Here's more on that ....


Chapter 7
The Control of the Kennedys
Threats & Chappaquiddick

Through the years the most common question of all has been: "If there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, why didn't Robert Kennedy find out about it and take some action? And if there was a conspiracy in the RFK assassination why haven't Ted Kennedy and Ethel Kennedy done something about it?" No one except the Kennedys know the answers to these questions for sure. However, there are plenty of clues and some other Power Control Group actions to provide the answers to us.
First of all, thanks to Jackie Kennedy Onassis' butler in Athens, Greece, Christain Cafarakis, we know why Jackie did nothing after her husband's death. In a book published in 1972, Cafarakis tells about an investigation Jackie had conducted by a famous New York City detective agency into the assassination of JFK in 1964 and 1965.<1> It was financed by Aristotle Onassis and resulted in a report in the spring of 1965 telling who the four gunmen were and who was behind them. Jackie planned to give the report to LBJ but was stopped by a threat from the Power Control Group to kill her and her children. Ted, Bobby and other family members knew about the report and the threat.
The second clue is Chappaquiddick. A careful examination of the real evidence in this event shows that Ted Kennedy was framed in the killing of Mary Joe Kopechne and then his life and his children's lives threatened if he ever told the truth about what happened. The facts in the case and the conclusions that can be drawn from them are contained in a book by Boston researcher Robert Cutler.<2>
The third clue is Ted's withdrawal from the presidential race in November 1975. It is a fact that all of his and Robert's children were being protected by the Secret Service for five days in November 1975. A threat had been made against the children's lives unless he officially announced his withdrawal. He made the announcement and has stuck to it ever since. The Secret Service protection ended the day after he made the announcement.
It does not seem likely that Senator Kennedy would withdraw from the race because of a threat from a lone nut or from some obscure group. He remembers the 1965 threat and Chappaquiddick very well. He knows about the Power Control Group and he knows their enormous capability. He knows what they did to his brothers. He has no choice but to hope that somehow, sometime, the Group will be exposed. But he dares not let them believe he would ever have anything to do with it. Publicly he will always have to support the Warren Commission and continue to state that he will not run for president. Privately he is forced to ask his closest friends and his relatives not to get involved with new investigations, and to help protect his children. Some of them know the truth. Others do not, and are puzzled by his behavior. They go along with it under the assumption that he has good and sufficient reasons not to open the can of worms represented by the conspiracies in his brother's deaths.
The Power Control Group faced up to the Ted Kennedy and Kennedy family problem very early. They used the threat against the Kennedy children's lives very effectively between 1963 and 1968 to silence Bobby and the rest of the family and friends who knew the truth. It was necessary to assassinate Bobby in 1968 because with the power of the presidency he could have prevented the Group from harming the children. When Teddy began making moves to run for president in 1969 for the 1972 election, the Group decided to put some real action behind their threats. Killing Teddy in 1969 would have been too much. They selected a new way of eliminating him as a candidate. They framed him with the death of a young girl, and threw sexual overtones in for good measure.
Here is what happened according to Cutler's analysis of the evidence. The Group hired several men and at least one woman to be at Chappaquiddick during the weekend of the yacht race and the planned party on the island. They ambushed Ted and Mary Jo after they left the cottage and knocked Ted out with blows to his head and body. They took the unconscious or semi-conscious Kennedy to Martha's Vineyard and deposited him in his hotel room. Another group took Mary Jo to the bridge in Ted's car, force fed her with a knock out potion of alcoholic beverage, placed her in the back seat, and caused the car to accelerate off the side of the bridge into the water. They broke the windows on one side of the car to insure the entry of water; then they watched the car until they were sure Mary Jo would not escape.
Mary Jo actually regained consciousness and pushed her way to the top of the car (which was actually the bottom of the car -- it had landed on its roof) and died from asphyxiation. The group with Teddy revived him early in the morning and let him know he had a problem. Possibly they told him that Mary Jo had been kidnapped. They told him his children would be killed if he told anyone what had happened and that he would hear from them. On Chappaquiddick, the other group made contact with Markham and Gargan, Ted's cousin and lawyer. They told both men that Mary Jo was at the bottom of the river and that Ted would have to make up a story about it, not revealing the existence of the group. One of the men resembled Ted and his voice sounded something like Ted's. Markham and Gargan were instructed to go the the Vineyard on the morning ferry, tell Ted where Mary Jo was, and come back to the island to wait for a phone call at a pay station near the ferry on the Chappaquiddick side.
The two men did as they were told and Ted found out what had happened to Mary Jo that morning. The three men returned to the pay phone and received their instructions to concoct a story about the "accident" and to report it to the police. The threat against Ted's children was repeated at that time.
Ted, Markham and Gargan went right away to police chief Arena's office on the Vineyard where Ted reported the so-called "accident." Almost at the same time scuba diver John Farror was pulling Mary Jo out of the water, since two boys who had gone fishing earlier that morning had spotted the car and reported it.
Ted called together a small coterie of friends and advisors including family lawyer Burke Marshall, Robert MacNamara, Ted Sorenson, and others. They met on Squaw Island near the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport for three days. At the end of that time they had manufactured the story which Ted told on TV, and later at the inquest. Bob Cutler calls the story, "the shroud." Even the most cursory examination of the story shows it was full of holes and an impossible explanation of what happened. Ted's claim that he made the wrong turn down the dirt road toward the bridge by mistake is an obvious lie. His claim that he swam the channel back to Martha's Vineyard is not believable. His description of how he got out of the car under water and then dove down to try to rescue Mary Jo is impossible. Markham and Gargan's claims that they kept diving after Mary Jo are also unbelievable.
The evidence for the Cutler scenario is substantial. It begins with the marks on the bridge and the position of the car in the water. The marks show that the car was standing still on the bridge and then accelerated off the edge, moving at a much higher speed than Kennedy claimed. The distance the car travelled in the air also confirms this. The damage to the car on two sides and on top plus the damage to the windshield and the rear view mirror stanchion <3> prove that some of the damage had to have been inflicted before the car left the bridge.
The blood on the back and on the sleeves of Mary Jo's blouse proves that a wound was inflicted before she left the bridge.<4> The alcohol in her bloodstream proves she was drugged, since all witnesses testified she never drank and did not drink that night. The fact that she was in the back seat when her body was recovered indicates that is where she was when the car hit the water. There was no way she could have dived downward against the inrushing water and moved from the front to the back seat underneath the upside-down seat back.
The wounds on the back of Ted Kennedy's skull, those just above his ear and the large bump on the top indicate he was knocked out. His actions at the hotel the next morning show he was not aware of Mary Jo's death until Markham and Gargan arrived. The trip to the pay phone on Chappaquiddick can only be explained by his receiving a call there, not making one. There were plenty of pay phones in or near Ted's hotel if he needed to make a private call. The tides in the channel and the direction in which Ted claimed he swam do not match. In addition it would have been a superhuman feat to have made it across the channel (as proven by several professionals who subsequently tried it).
Deputy Sheriff Christopher Look's testimony, coupled with the testimony of Ray LaRosa and two Lyons girls, proves that there were two people in Ted's car with Mary Jo at 12:45 PM. The three party members walking along the road south toward the cottage confirmed the time that Mr. Look drove by. He stopped to ask if they needed a ride. Look says that just prior to that he encountered Ted's car parked facing north at the juncture of the main road and the dirt road. It was on a short extension of the north-south section of the road junction to the north of the "T". He says he saw a man driving, a woman in the seat beside him, and what he thought was another woman lying on the back seat. He remembered a portion of the license plate which matched Ted's car, as did the description of the car. Markham, Gargan and Ted's driver's testimony show that someone they talked to in the pitch black night sounded like Ted and was about his height and build.
None of the above evidence was ever explained by Ted or by anyone else at the inquest or at the hearing on the case demanded by district attorney Edward Dinis. No autopsy was ever allowed on Mary Jo's body (her family objected), and Ted made it possible to fly her body home for burial rather quickly. Kennedy haters have seized upon Chappaquiddick to enlarge the sexual image now being promoted of both Ted and Jack Kennedy. Books like "Teddy Bare" take full advantage of the situation.
Just which operatives in the Power Control Group at the high levels or the lower levels were on Chappaquiddick Island? No definite evidence has surfaced as yet, except for an indication that there was at least one woman and at least three men, one of whom resembled Ted Kennedy and who sounded like him in the darkness. However, two pieces of testimony in the Watergate hearings provide significant clues as to which of the known JFK case conspirators may have been there.
E. Howard Hunt told of a strange trip to Hyannisport to see a local citizen there about the Chappaquiddick incident. Hunt's cover story on this trip was that he was digging up dirt on Ted Kennedy for use in the 1972 campaign. The story does not make much sense if one questions why Hunt would have to wear a disguise, including his famous red wig, and to use a voice-alteration device to make himself sound like someone else. If, on the other hand, Hunt's purpose was to return to the scene of his crime just to make sure that no one who might have seen his group at the bridge or elsewhere would talk, then the disguise and the voice box make sense.
The other important testimony came from Tony Ulasewicz who said he was ordered by the Plumbers to fly immediately to Chappaquiddick and dig up dirt on Ted. The only problem Tony has is that, according to his testimony, he arrived early on the morning of the "accident", before the whole incident had been made public. Ulasewicz is the right height and weight to resemble Kennedy and with a CIA voice-alteration device he presumably could be made to sound like him. There is a distinct possibility that Hunt and Tony were there when it happened.
The threats by the Power Control Group, the frame-up at Chappaquiddick, and the murders of Jack and Bobby Kennedy cannot have failed to take their toll on all of the Kennedys. Rose, Ted, Jackie, Ethel and the other close family members must be very tired of it all by now. They can certainly not be blamed for hoping it will all go away. Investigations like those proposed by Henry Gonzalez and Thomas Downing only raised the spectre of the powerful Control Group taking revenge by kidnapping some of the seventeen children.
It was no wonder that a close Kennedy friend and ally in California, Representative Burton, said that he would oppose the Downing and Gonzalez resolutions unless Ted Kennedy put his stamp of approval on them. While the sympathies of every decent American go out to them, the future of our country and the freedom of the people to control their own destiny through the election process mean more than the lives of all the Kennedys put together. If John Kennedy were alive today he would probably make the same statement.
John Dean summed it up when he said to Richard Nixon as recorded on the White House tapes in 1973: "If Teddy knew the bear trap he was walking into at Chappaquiddick. . . ."<5>




__________

The fabulous Jackie -- Christian Cafarakis -- Productions de Paris -- 1972

You the Jury -- Robert Cutler -- Self Published -- 1974

A rope attached to the stick which held the Oldsmobile throttle wide open caught the drivers rear view mirror and tore it loose so that it was hanging by the rear bolt. There was no other mark on the left side of the car.

A sliver of glass from two broken windows no doubt caused this bleeding since Mary Jo was already face down and unconscious in the rear seat. Since there was no autopsy this clean cut went unnoticed by the embalmers.

On page 121, White House Tapes Paperback Edition, published by New York Times

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
28. I have always liked Carter.
Obama has really separated himself from middle-of-the-road as well as liberal Democrats. We have heard complaints, serious ones, from two family members since Obama announced the deal he thinks he is going to get through Congress.

Even people who really need the tax break, people who don't have a lot of money, understand that this tax break for the very rich will hurt the economy of our country. It makes no sense.

The Republicans ran on the fact that we have a high deficit. Now they want to lower taxes. It makes no sense. They ran on the jobs agenda. If they want lower taxes and more jobs, they should increase tax deductions for employers who hire workers in the US. Now that would make sense. This tax deal does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
36. Revisionist history
Edited on Thu Dec-09-10 03:18 PM by karynnj
How do you say that Carter had the support of the people - when it is obvious that he didn't from the election results. In addition, you can't blame it on Anderson, because in only about 5 states did he get enough so that when added to Carter's, he would have won.

Not to mention, Newt was a decade after Carter. The year Reagan won, was a terrible year of the defeat of about 10 of the strongest liberals we ever had - including some like McGovern, Church and Bayh (Birch) who were once considered to have Presidential possibilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Well, first the Carter thing was different ... almost the reverse of this ....
Carter was being betrayed at every turn --

Right wing penetration of his presidency --

It was Ollie North who headed up his desert rescue mission --

and Secord second in command -- somehow they didn't get the sand filters

on the helicopters. Oops!! Even after first one went down and then another!!

Agree that Obama is doing a even more damage to Democratic Party --

and not by accident --

Can't imagine two more years of this -- what will be left?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. "It was Ollie North who headed up his desert rescue mission --" False.
"The Joint Task Force commander was U.S. Army Major General James B. Vaught, while the fixed-wing and overall air mission commander was Colonel James H. Kyle, the helicopter commander Marine Lt Col Edward R. Seiffert, and SFOD-D commander Col. Charlie Beckwith."


Educate yourself

It helps with this thing called "credibility." :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
16. We need Obama to announce he is stepping down in 2012 ....
Then let's DRAFT Sen. Bernie Sanders -- he's a better liberal Dem than

any in our party! Sanders can run on the Democratic ticket --

Take Grayson on as VP --

or draft Michael Moore for VP -- he can also wear the Dem label -- !!



Next question ... How in the hell do we survive the next two years and what

will be left of the Democratic Party or anything else???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. If you think you are going to have trouble surviving the next 2 years
Edited on Thu Dec-09-10 12:25 AM by BzaDem
you have a giant wake-up call coming to you in 2013 if Obama doesn't run. And it won't be pleasant.

(But fear not -- he will run and win.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratAholic Donating Member (156 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
24. How dare you suggest such a thing! Just kidding - I love this post
This is a very interesting and thoughtful post. One of the most interesting things about this post is how you have prefaced your remarks in expectation of being criticized...that you would even DARE to bring up this subject! "OMG! How dare you bring up the subject of a primary challenge!"

It does seem to me from reading posts on this board that whenever someone dares to criticize Obama...or even worse...dare I say it...suggest a primary challenge, they are met with accusations of being trolls, "bad Democrats," utter rudeness, vulgarity, conspiracy theories, etc. As if it is beyond their comprehension that a fellow Democrat would even think of criticizing this President. It seems pretty clear to me that these are intimidation tactics meant to scare people from voicing their opinions. I really makes me sick to my stomach when I see it. I expect these kinds of things from Republicans. It leaves me scratching my head in disbelief when I read if from Democrats.

I LOVE the history you have provided in this post. It is such an important thing we need to consider moving forward. We MUST learn from history, and consider it carefully.

My own opinion is this...I don't expect a primary challenge of this President. A few reasons. Most of the people on the "left" were Obama supporters in 2008. They might look a little foolish now trying to challenge this President. Obama retains enough support from the left for anyone else to really make a credible challenge. Meanwhile, the "right" side of the party is probably pretty satisfied with him. Then of course we have those people who just love him personally, and will support him no matter what, and don't really care about the issues. Considering also what he represents to history, i.e., the first black president...this is also something I don't think many people would want to step on. Furthermore, Obama was pretty successful in exorcising any one from the party apparatus who was not loyal to him personally. Progressive organizations, like MoveOn.org, seem to be in a state of shock at the moment. This was the guy they supported in 2008. Without the support of that kind of movement, it just ain't gonna happen.

Having said that, if it were going to happen...again learning from history, I believe that there is a right way to go about it, and a wrong way. What Kennedy did in 1980 was the wrong way. Yes, he did weaken Carter and hurt his chances for re-election. Because he used many of the same arguments that Republicans were using against Carter.

An even better example of the wrong way would be what Hillary Clinton did against Obama. That...was despicable. That 3 AM phone call commercial...absolutely disgusting. I would also say that what he did to her...the "Bush-light" comments, etc, which look absurd in hindsight...were equally disturbing.

If someone was to mount a primary challenge, I think they must make it clear that they are a Democrat, and will support Obama should he win the nomination, and that the Republican alternative is unacceptable. That should be the first line in every speech they make. They should completely refrain from attacking him personally, and make it clear that their only disagreements with him are about the ISSUES.

If someone was to go about it in that way, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If we're going to sacrifice our ideals and principles just for the sake of winning elections, what's the point? It does seem to me that Obama and many of his supporters are trying to give they impression that they now own this party. This is something that really bothers me, they are placing one man ahead of principles that we are supposed to represent. I wouldn't mind a primary challenge, even a mild one that had no chance of winning, just to remind Obama that he was elected to represent our party, not coronated to be king of the party.

It is my own opinion, Obama has his eye on his own re-election in 2012, and has been sacrificing principles and other Democrats in the party for the sake of his personal popularity. One glaring example of that is the fact that he did NOTHING for the Democratic candidate for NYC mayor last year. Not one appearance, not one radio commercial, not a TV ad...nothing. The Democratic candidate for the largest city in the USA...and Obama was totally absent. It still makes me sick thinking about it. Clearly, he did not want to ruffle Mike Bloomberg's feathers. But his support for the Democrat could have made a huge difference. I can give a lot of other examples as well.

I do think he needs to be knocked of his pedestal and reminded that he is not more important than the Party. And that we are not going to tolerate him sacrificing the principles of this party, or other Democrats, for the sake of his personal popularity. I find it rather pathetic that he thinks that was a choice...which is why I have completely lost faith in his integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
43. +1 You make some interesting points here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
29. I'd like to see Alan Grayson as a primary challenger.
He wouldn't win, but he'd get enough votes to scare Mr. President into paying respectful attention to the Left. Thinking the Left has no choice but to support him, Mr. President has been disgracefully contemptuous of the people who put him into office in the first place.

As Stephen Colbert said, (paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact words) "Keep trying, and eventually the Republicans will love you like the Democrats used to."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
40. Well, I'd rather see us draft Sen. Bernie Sanders to run on Dem ticket ... !!
VP -- I'll take Grayson, I'll take Michael Moore -- I'll take Thom Hartmann ...

I'll take anyone I feel I can trust --

but that no longer includes Obama -- !!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
33. get over it already. sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
34. Absolutely
Nobody deserves a presidential nomination just because they're a sitting president -- regardless of what party they belong to. If Obama wants a second term he'd damn well better earn it. He's totally lost my trust, and it's difficult for me to foresee circumstances under which he would regain it.

I've been a member of the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember, but I never considered that that gave me an obligation to support whatever our Democratic leaders do -- president or not.

And you are absolutely right that there are a lot of factors involved in whether a candidate wins other than whether or not he receives a primary challenge. Thank God we have primaries in our country. Without them we may as well be living in a dictatorship. To the extent that primaries are forbidden because people are afraid to jeopardize their president's chances of getting elected -- no matter how bad of a job he does -- we may as well be living in a dictatorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
37. Rec for Barthes and Rather! Damn good commentary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
42. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC