Eugene McCarthy's Heir: Who Has The Courage To Challenge Obama In The Party?

[Hart2008]

In the 1968 New Hampshire primary, Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy shocked LBJ and nearly won the primary. Sen. McCarthy harnessed discontent with LBJ's escalation of the war in Vietnam and organized students to campaign for him. While McCarthy did not win, he ran close enough to convince LBJ that is was time for him to leave the national stage. After Sen. McCarthy had showed the way, RFK announced his candidacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy_presidential_campaign,_1968

The question now is: Who will challenge the President and his policies?

Who in the party has the courage to stand up and fight for the heart and soul of the party?

[frazzled]

1. And give us another Richard M. Nixon

Jeebus, if you can't see the forest for the trees today, at least try to draw some valid conclusions from history.

[dbonds]

2. Nixon was to the left of our current government.

[brentspeak]

3. Beat me to it

[Peacetrain]

5. Yeah if you like what the Nixon Whitehouse was going to do with its enemies list

[Pirate Smile]

7. The Republican that would win now sure as hell wouldn't be.

[TheWraith]

9. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

It's located on the moon.

[ProSense]

11. Oh bullshit

Nixon was a despicable crook. He may have been to the left of Paul Ryan, but, despite the so-called progressives for Nixon, the notion that he was to the left of Obama is hogwash.

[RC]

20. OK then, Obama is to the Right of Nixon

[Hart2008]

23. Nixon embraced Keynesian economics; Obama has embraced neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is not a good thing:

"Neoliberalism is a label for the market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state. The term is typically used by opponents of the policy and rarely by supporters."

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

[ProSense]

33. Throwing cliches around

doesn't make doesn't make one look knowledgeable. Nixon was a corrupt, manipulative bastard.

"Probably more new regulation was imposed on the economy," wrote Herb Stein, the chairman of Nixon's Council of Economic Advisers, "than in any other presidency since the New Deal."

The federal government took an active role in preventing on-the-job accidents and deaths when Nixon in 1970 signed into law a bill to create the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). That same year, rising concern about the environment led him to propose an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and to sign amendments to the 1967 Clean Air Act calling for reductions in automobile emissions and the national testing of air quality. Other significant environmental legislation enacted during Nixon's presidency included the 1972 Noise Control Act, the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 1973 Endangered Species Act, and the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act.

Despite this blizzard of legislation, environmentalists found much to criticize in Nixon's record. The President impounded billions of dollars Congress had authorized to implement the Clean Air Act, lobbied hard for the air-polluting Supersonic Transport, and subjected environmental regulation to cost-benefit analyses which highlighted the economic costs of preserving a healthy ecosystem.

Nixon proposed more ambitious programs than he enacted, including the National Health Insurance Partnership Program, which promoted health maintenance organizations (HMOs). He also proposed a massive overhaul of federal welfare programs. The centerpiece of Nixon's welfare reform was the replacement of much of the welfare system with a negative income tax, a favorite proposal of conservative economist Milton Friedman. The purpose of the negative income tax was to provide both a safety net for the poor and a financial incentive for welfare recipients to work.

Nixon also proposed an expansion of the Food Stamp program. His Family Assistance Program was bold, innovative-even radical-and, apparently, insincere. "About Family Assistance Plan," Haldeman wrote in his diary, the President "wants to be sure it's killed by Democrats and that we make big play for it, but don't let it pass, can't afford it." One part of Nixon's welfare reform proposal did pass and become a lasting part of the system: Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provides a guaranteed income for elderly and disabled citizens. The Nixon years also brought large increases in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.

<...>

He was forced to do a lot of things by a strong social movement and a Democratic Congress. Behind the scenes he did everything to undermine progress. He left office in disgrace, and rightfully so.

[Ken Burch]

115. It goes without saying that he'd have beaten a renominated LBJ as well

LBJ's popularity was gone by 1968. How can you think it could possibly have been a good idea to renominate an UNPOPULAR incumbent. Nothing could possibly have happened in'68 to make Johnson electable.

[Hart2008]

160. Agreed. NT

[Starbucks Anarchist]

42. Yes, that $700 billion stimulus package wasn't Keynesian at all.

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

43. No, because it didn't spur demand for domestic production. It ultimately went to China. NT

[tweeternik]

46. Not nearly big enough AND $300 billion were for tax cuts .....

which aren't as stimulative as say, large, long term infrastructure projects!

[Ter]

40. Nixon wasn't pro-choice (he staunchly opposed Roe vs. Wade)

He also didn't support gay rights at all. The notion that Nixon was more liberal than current Democrats is a myth.

[Hart2008]

67. Almost half of the Supreme Court Justices who gave us Roe were Nixon appointees!

You are conflating social issues with economics.

The truth is that country as a whole was more conservative on social issues in the late 60's and early 70's, but more liberal (U.S. meaning of the word) on economic issues.

On those economic issues, Obama is clearly to the right of Tricky Dick.

[stevenleser]

97. And Nixon had nothing to do with their positions on that, but nice try. n/t

[lumpy]

79. A ridiculous myth at that. I can't believe so-called Democrats

consider Nixon left of our current Democrats in office.

[lumpy]

78. Hear hear- Nixon to the right of any Democrat ? Hahahahahaha

In a pigs eye.

[still_one]

12. You think so. Do you know what Nixon's Southern strategy was about? Ever hear of the enemies

list? Maybe you should revisit history, and Watergate, and understand exactly what the Nixon administration along with Halderman, Collson, Atwater, and so many other lovable characters that made the nixon administration what it was

[dbonds]

14. I lived the history. I was there.

[still_one]

17. So was I. So what. Nixon was no liberal, and he was a crook /nt

[dbonds]

19. Crook and Liberal are not contradictory terms.

And Nixon was far more liberal than the government today. I don't like that fact, but it is a fact.

[hedgehog]

21. Nixon was not a liberal - he was a conservative working in a

liberal environment, just as Obama is a liberal working in an extreme right wing environment.

Just who do you think started our long turn to the Right, anyways?

[dbonds]

22. The people Nixon called the crazies started our right wing turn.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their friends we know from juniors time in office.

Look what google thinks about Nixon being liberal http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#sclient=psy&hl=en&newwindow=1&nord=1&site=webhp&source=hp&q=liberal%20policies%20of%20nixon&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=fdbe5bcf5e3c173e&ion=1&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=fdbe5bcf5e3c173e&biw=1218&bih=870&ion=1

And Obama is no kind of liberal, nada, none. He is at best a moderate conservative.

[ProSense]

29. Hmmm?

"The people Nixon called the crazies started our right wing turn."

More bullshit!

John Ellis O'Neill



"And Obama is no kind of liberal, nada, none. He is at best a moderate conservative."

Yeah, but Nixon was Che Guevera!

Absurd!

[lumpy]

145. You put your finger on it. The political environment has a lot to

do with how leadership responds to issues. During Nixon's tenure the public was clamoring for social justice,very vocally anti-war, there was less emphasis on economic concerns. He had to work under a different set of public considerations. He gave the appearance that he was more for ending the Vietnam war swiftly than his opponent, Hubert Humphrey. You might say he was 'forced' to give a little to hold a GOP lead. To claim that he was a liberal is questionable at the least. His nickname was after all, Tricky Dick. He rather knew the way the wind was blowing. He was not one of the more blatant capitalists they we are stuck with these days.

[lumpy]

80. So was I. And I was a Democrat not a Republican

v

[dbonds]

89. Congrats, so was I.

[dbonds]

16. He can be both corrupt and sort of liberal.

They are not conflicting ideas once you are in politics.

[lumpy]

81. They are not conflicting ideas once you are in politics ?

One might think that if one is a newbe in politics.

[Ken Burch]

116. And Nixon was certain to beat LBJ

Johnson could never have been re-elected after Tet. We all damn well KNOW that. Why pretend otherwise?

There couldn't have been a good reason to renominate LBJ. He wasn't even going to try to do anything good in a second term.

The reason we got Nixon wasn't because Johnson was challenged...the reason we got Nixon was that Johnson screwed Hubert Humphrey by forcing to be stand for the nomination as an arrogant, inflexible hawk in public(in opposition to Humphrey's own actual position on the war, which privately had been skeptical-to-opposed from early on-Humphrey questioned the war at the first Johnson Cabinet meeting he attended, which led to Johnson barring him from speaking at cabinet meetings).

It was Johnson that gave us Nixon, not the "Dump Johnson" movement. Face reality already.

[Ikonoklast]

25. Prove it.

Prove the latest talking point used so frequently here.

Nixon was a paranoid authoritarian that almost took this country to the brink of nuclear war with the USSR over the Middle East.

Real 'Leftist' ya got there, Skippy.

[dbonds]

26. I don't usually do people's homework for them...

But in this case it is just as easy to point them to my previous post as chastising them for being lazy. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=739102&mesg_id=739163

[Ikonoklast]

28. Yeah, "Yahoo Answers" is the ultimate source.

You have got to be fucking kidding me if you think Google results of bloggers and their opinions constitute facts.

Nixon was as much a Liberal as GWB.

[dbonds]

30. put your hands over your ears and cover your eyes all you want.

That doesn't change the facts. And there were MANY links on that page, you cherry picked the one you thought you could throw the most stones at. But it really doesn't matter what your opinion is. What was was, and none of your spin can change that. I am not a Nixon fan, but he was left of our current government. period. He was also corrupt, but even with that some liberal things got done, EPA for instance.

[Ikonoklast]

35. He was a racist bigot and anti-Semite.

Real 'Liberal' values you got in your pal Nixon.

If the EPA is all you got nuttin'. That was going to happen with or without Nixon, and it cost him nothing, politically. He thought the tree-hugging hippies would love him for it.

Nixon was a monster that brought this country to the brink of a Constitutional crisis.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbonds]

41. So you are going against the grain of consensus history opinion to say he wasn't more liberal...

You have extraordinary claims, it is up to you to prove it.

You are nuts if you think I'm a fan of Nixon. You need to learn your history. But your opinion doesn't matter. What was, was. One person trying to spin the past so the present looks better doesn't matter. But I would like you try to see you prove your extraordinary claims. Nixon was more liberal that the current government, prove that his is not. Prove it.

He was a corrupt and bad man, but he still was more liberal than today's government. Nothing is black and white. Life is a bit more complicated than a cowboy movie.

So prove it.

[Hart2008]

56. Re-evaluating Richard Nixon: His Domestic Achievements

Let me give you a definition of the word ‘liberal.’…Franklin D. Roosevelt once said…It is a wonderful definition, and I agree with him. ‘A liberal is a man who wants to build bridges over the chasms that separate humanity from a better life.’ – Richard Nixon

Re-evaluating Richard Nixon: His Domestic Achievements by Joan Hoff:
http://www.nixonera.com/library/domestic.asp

"Nixon posted an objective record that we can use for purposes of comparison. Consider (and forgive me for repeating some of what I wrote three years ago here):
He got us out of Vietnam.
He was a keen foreign policy type whose diplomatic efforts strengthened our relationships with both established and emerging world powers.
He implemented the first significant federal affirmative action program.
He dramatically increased spending on federal employee salaries.
He oversaw the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South (something the crackers where I grew up were none too happy about).
He proposed a guaranteed annual wage (aka a “negative income tax”).
He advocated comprehensive national health insurance (single payer) for all Americans.
He imposed wage and price controls in times of economic crisis. This wasn’t a terribly good idea, but it was the furthest thing from a conservative idea. Truth is, it was positively socialist.
He indexed Social Security for inflation and created Supplemental Security Income.
He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.
He promoted the Legacy of Parks program.
He appointed four Supreme Court Justices. Three of them voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade."

If Nixon Were Alive Today, He Would Be Far Too Liberal to Get Even the Democratic Nomination
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/641730/if_nixon_were_alive_today,_he_would_be_far_too_liberal_to_get_even_the_democratic_nomination


Paranoia is psychological condition, which wouldn't change the fact that Nixon pursued policies which were far more liberal than those of Barak Obama on economic issues.

[dbonds]

90. Thanks, for the list, well said.

I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept. It's not like it is an opinion, it is history. Along with the good liberal things he was also a corrupt president and did other bad things. Why does it get some's panties in a wad to realize he was more liberal then than we have today?

[bornskeptic]

109. Nixon's healthcare plan was far from single-payer.

You don't get to just make things up to support your silly argument.


Nixon said his plan would build on existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would provide government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. He said it wouldn't create a new federal bureaucracy.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/11/28/22163/democrats-health-plans-echo-nixons.html

[Hart2008]

125. When Kennedy Nearly Achieved The "Cause Of His Life": Health Care Reform With Nixon

"In retrospect, 1974 was the closest we have ever come to enacting national health insurance, and Democrats made a great mistake by not eagerly embracing Nixon's proposal," said Paul Starr, a health care policy expert and professor at Princeton University. "The distance between Kennedy and Nixon then was so small by comparison with the distance that exists now between Democrats and Republicans."

Sam Stein, When Kennedy Nearly Achieved The "Cause Of His Life": Health Care Reform With Nixon:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/when-kennedy-nearly-achie_n_269935.html

Nixon wanted to use government subsidies, and Teddy Kennedy wanted a single payer system. Nixon's original plan is here:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

Nixon was eager for a political compromise to prove that he could still govern in the middle of the Watergate controversy. The great compromise never occurred due to Nixon's impeachment, and resistance from the labor unions and business:

The real pushback, however, came from the labor community. As Watergate cast a shadow over the Nixon presidency, unions began asking why compromise was needed in the first place. "They wanted the insurance industry out," said Altman. "They were convinced that they would win the presidency in 1976 and they just said no. And so, they essentially left Kennedy out to dry. And the same thing with the conservatives. They were flabbergasted that Nixon was willing to go as far as he did."

Sam Stein, supra

Teddy couldn't get a better deal with Ford or Carter. Again, Nixon's domestic agenda proved more liberal than his successors!

(And if you were to check my post, you will see that I was quoting someone else. I didn't make that quote up. Even though the author's parenthetical comments were inaccurate, his comment that Nixon reached out to Dems to enact comprehensive health care reform was very true.)

[truedelphi]

152. Thank you for posting that record.

And he refused to cooperate with the Biggest of the Financial Players, who even back then wanted regulations, like Glass Steagall, to be abolished.

Instead, he issued an Executive Order that rolled back prices on products, the summer of 1973.

It is really sad that this man is now able to be portrayed as to the left of what we have now, in terms of "Democratic Party" leadership.

And the portrayal is correct, which makes it doubly sad.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. And Tried To Put Two Arch Segregationists On The Supreme Court

Haynesworth and Carswell.

He was no liberal.

[Hart2008]

59. He appointed four Supreme Court Justices. Three of them voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade.

No, in his day he was to the right of the liberals. The country itself was more liberal then. Nixon, like Clinton, triangulated very well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. After The Democratic Senate Rejected Haynesworth And Carswell

He also gave us the Burger court and Pat Buchanan who was his handmaiden.

[Hart2008]

62. Yes, and the Burger Court was far to the left of the present SCOTUS reactionaries.

How much secret support will a challenger get from the Dems in Congress?

[dbonds]

61. You are thinking in black and white.

There was bad, and there was some liberal. It was more liberal than today's government. You can't argue with that, it's not opinion. People are capable of doing really bad things and doing some good things too.

[Arkana]

31. And the Republican that another 1968 would put in place would be

on par with Michele Bachmann.

Your move. Wanna keep that Overton window sliding rightward? Cause if the teabaggers get one of their own nominated and we don't fucking JAM the polling places for Obama then they will win and we will end up in a post-apocalyptic wasteland a la "Fallout".

[dbonds]

32. Would rather jam the polls for a liberal democrat.

So will be working to make sure we get a liberal democratic nominee. And all the fear mongers have now is a hypothetical republican boogie man to scare people into sticking with a failing presidency. Obama is not the one to lead us out of this crisis. If he is re-elected it will be more of the same. There is nothing to indicate any hope or change.

[bornskeptic]

45. He was far to the right of Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey.

If Humphrey had won the election the war would have ended sooner, wat least as much environmental legislation would have passed, and we probably would have had universal healthcare decades ago.

[lumpy]

82. Humphrey was rather hawkish about the war. I tend to disagree.

v

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. But he was also to the right of LBJ

If a Republican is elected in 2012, is he/she like to be to the left, or to the right, of Obama?

[dbonds]

63. Nixon was to the left of our current government.

Our Current government. Not LBJ.

We don't have a republican candidate yet. So we don't know where they will lie. Obama is a moderate conservative, most of the republicans are hard right, so playing odds you might say to the right. But if Obama lets the hard right roll all over him anyway, does it matter?

[Hart2008]

65. Did you ever think that we would have a Dem president who would make us nostalgic for Nixon? NT

[SidDithers]

113. You're nostalgic for Nixon?...

Really? :rofl:

That's maybe the dumbest fucking thing I've read at DU in a long time.

Sid

[Hart2008]

124. Nostalgic for Nixon's liberal domestic economic policy which was to the right of Obama's.

We are nostalgic for those policies, and not the man himself.

The man himself was grotesque. The point is that he had to adopt liberal Keynesian economics because that was where the country was at the time. Nixon had to triangulate to the liberal side to be acceptable to the nation.

[Hart2008]

155. Nixon's liberal domestic economic policy which was to the LEFT of Obama's.

Sorry, correction, unfortunately.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. Are there any Republicans who have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination that are

not to the right of Obama?

[lumpy]

83. Anyone with half a grain of sense has figured out where the

Republican candidates for Prez stand on issues. Amazing !

[dbonds]

88. If only Obama was so easy to figure out.

[BlueMTexpat]

108. No, hardly. The Nixon Administration was the beginning of the end.

Even before Raygun.

Remember that it was during Nixon's time, among other very unsavory things with which he and Henry Kissinger were associated, that Milton Friedman's Chicago Boys began their economic "experiments" in South America - those same disaster capitalism policies that form the economic backbone of the RW Rethuglican Party today.

If you haven't read "The Shock Doctrine," I heartily recommend that you do so.

[Raksha]

119. That's true about Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys

starting their experiments during Nixon's administration. This discussion almost had me convinced Nixon was more liberal than Obama because of OSHA and the EPA.

[Hart2008]

120. Regardless, In the USA Nixon was implementing Keynesian economic policies.

The point is not that Nixon was a liberal. (He was to the right of center in his day.) It is that his economic policies were to the left of the DLC and the present Obama administration.

You are not denying this when you make comments about what was happening in South America.

Things like political coups de 'etat and media control were first practiced there before being attempted here. It does not change the truth of the matter that Nixon's domestic economic policies were collectively more liberal than Obama's, and more Keynesian.

[truedelphi]

137. Thank you for not letting them rewrite history.

As much as I hated Nixon at the time, he looks like a level headed Keyesian, by compairson to Obama and his goons (Geithen/Summers et al)

Nixon even did price roll backs on industries like insurance (I know that is for sure, as I worked insurance underwriting in 1973 and had to re-calculate over 1,000 car insurance policies.)

[Hart2008]

139. You are very welcome!

Neoliberalism must be put in the ash heap of history!

(Bows low and doffs hat!)

:patriot:

[jefferson_dem]

126. Good lord...

Truthiness reigns supreme!

[treestar]

140. Today's Republican would not be

[NYC Liberal]

146. Too funny. Yes, a racist, homophobic, anti-choice, anti-woman,

anti-Semitic, criminal who supported aborting black babies and ranted about Jews controlling everything was "to the left" Obama.

Hilarious!

[Whisp]

151. what utter nonsense

I don't understand how you can borrow those lines from somewhere and use them without actually looking into it and thinking about it for 3 minutes or so.

what drivelly silliness

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

13. Well, progressively speaking

this comment is progressively worse than the OP.

[totodeinhere]

38. No, the assination of RFK gave us Nixon. n/t

[Hawkowl]

136. Yes!!

Primaries do not weaken presidents. Weak presidents create primaries. RFK would've won in a landslide.

A true progressive would win in a landslide in 2012.

[former9thward]

54. McCarthy did not give us Nixon.

The Vietnam war did especially since Humphrey would not step back from it one inch.

[Hart2008]

55. Amen. Nixon promised he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.

Vietnam was not winnable as a war.

Anyone who has been there knows this.

Had they spent as much money investing in the South, as opposed to bombing and destroying the countryside, another result may have been possible. However, there was no money for the military-industrial complex with this approach.

McCarthy and the left proved correct, and eventually the war was ended, but only after Nixon had played politics with it long enough to get reelected. Remember Nixon promised that he had a "secret plan" to end the war in '68?

Promising to end wars/occupations and then not doing it is then truly Nixonian. Does not Obama now fall into the Nixonian camp?

[lumpy]

84. That is so right. Humphfrey was hawkish on the war.

v

[Ken Burch]

117. in public. Privately, he was fairly dovish

but Johnson wouldn't allow him to run that way, and insisted on crushing the doves in Chicago on the war plank, when Humphrey was BEGGING LBJ to let him reach out to the "Dump Johnson" wing of the party.

And Johnson, in the fall, refused to go public with the proof he had that Nixon's campaign had intervened in the Paris Peace Talks to try to make sure there wouldn't be a peace deal before the election. All LBJ had to do was to make a nationally televised speech announcing that, and Nixon's support would have collapsed. But he wouldn't. Because LBJ was more loyal to the war than to his own party.

If Hubert Humphrey had been allowed to run as his own man in '68, Nixon would have got an ass-kicking in November.

[Hart2008]

128. LBJ sabotaged the Dems in '68 to benefit Nixon. It supports Madeliene Brown's claims

Madeleine Duncan Brown was LBJ's mistress. She had his son. The night before the assassination she has stated that she attended a party with LBJ in Dallas. Those present included J. Edgar Hoover, Jack Ruby, George Brown (of Brown and Root), and Richard Nixon among others. They had a private meeting and after that meeting LBJ told her, "After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That's no threat. That's a promise."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y

In light of LBJ's sabotage of the '68 campaign to help Nixon's election, his motives for pushing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act need to be reconsidered. Rather than having a commitment to social justice, he was most likely destroying the southern base of the party to ensure that Nixon would follow him in office and continue to cover up who was behind the conspiracy that killed JFK.

It is also worth noting that LBJ had led McCarthy to believe that he would name him VP. Judging from HHH's deference to LBJ, in comparison to McCarthy's independent streak, it is obvious why HHH was chosen over McCarthy. Johnson would never be able to say that he had McCarthy's "pecker in my pocket". It would have never happened.

[Faygo Kid]

64. If Bobby had lived, he would have crushed Nixon.

As it was, a couple more days and Humphrey-Muskie would have caught passed Nixon-Agnew.

I don't think a primary challenge is a bad idea.

[Hart2008]

66. Hear! Hear! NT

[Ken Burch]

114. It couldn't have been progressive to renomninate LBJ

No one who cared about progressive issues in 1968 could ever again have voted for the guy who was committed to keeping us in Vietnam. You'd have seen the Cleaver/Spock ticket ticket take 27% of the vote.

[Hart2008]

141. The fact is that LBJ's war in Vietnam cost us the gold standard, and the devaluation of the dollar.

Nixon's decision to take us off of the gold standard is a direct result of the Vietnam war escalation by LBJ. It causes the subsequent inflationary period. It also took away resources which could have been used to build a more progressive society.

[jaxx]

4. That led to Nixon winning.

Is that the message?

Unrec

[Hart2008]

8. Only after they killed RFK! NT

[Zen Democrat]

10. Who would have thought that after RFK was murdered that the country would elect NIXON???

How crazy is that. People went crazy, the Democratic Convention was turned upside down and inside out and Nixon won on "Law and Order." Don't let that history repeat.

[Hart2008]

15. The same people who killed JFK to promote LBJ.

The same people who killed MLK, Jr.

The same people who had George Wallace shot when it looked like he could cost Nixon the election.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumpy]

85. I guess we have all had those thoughts.

Maybe true.

[dbonds]

18. At that time people felt the Democratic party had betrayed them...

They rose up in protest. Of course the republicans weren't an alternative. That is what happens when people have been betrayed and they get another puppet for a nominee.

[Mimosa]

49. You described late 1960s history in a nutshell.

I was a teenager and remeber it well. The Demo convention was televised. It scared the heck out of people.

[TexasProgresive]

24. Tell me when that has ever worked?

When has an incumbent president ever faced a strong primary contest and the presidency did not turn over to the other party. When When When????

[Hart2008]

27. When the leading candidate in that party doesn't get killed. NT

[TexasProgresive]

34. When has it ever been sucessful?

You may be right but I would like some historical facts to back up that a strong primary challenge against an incumbent president has ever resulted in anything but turning over the WH to the out party. Tell me, I want to know.

[Hart2008]

44. Franklin Pierce denied renomination at the Dem. convention. Dem nominee Buchanan wins gen. elect

It can happen!

The modern primary system is relatively new.


RFK would have beaten Nixon. Had the election lasted another week, HHH beats Nixon too, with all of his baggage as LBJ's VP.

Across the pond the conservatives deposed Maggie Thatcher, and John Major won the election for them. There is a lesson to be learned there.

Renominating a failed President is the surest way to lose the general election.

[jefferson_dem]

36. Yay for Richard Nixon.

This is not 1968 and Obama is not LBJ.

On the other hand...

Whoever the GOP offer up in 2012 will make Nixon look like a Green.

[Hart2008]

68. Obama isn't even Nixon. Nixon promised to end a war, and eventually did. NT

[JoePhilly]

47. In response, I'm making an inappropriate hand gesture.

[Hart2008]

53. Is that your age or your IQ?

Such methods of communication don't work well with asynchronous communication.

:spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:

[JoePhilly]

111. Don't get me wrong .... I get a kick ...

out of the daily masturbatory-fantasy driven, "primary Obama" thread.

Like most such fantasies, it ain't happening.

[Hart2008]

122. Remember what Smokin' Joe Frazier did to Ali's jaw for talking so much?

You're from Philly, go to Pat's and get a cheese steak.

When the challenger shows up for the Primaries you can stimulate yourself all you want.

[tweeternik]

48. sorry, I might have missed it ..... but did anyone come up with

a NAME of a challenger to Obama in a primary?? just trying to get back to the original question.

[Hart2008]

50. More information to come next week. The question is not IF but WHO! nt

[CakeGrrl]

51. This should be interesting.

:evilgrin:

[tweeternik]

72. oh, good !! i hope it's gary hart !!

or maybe nader or sanders or kucinich or, or, maybe gov. brown ?? that would be great .... :sarcasm: actually, it wouldn't!! give obama a real democratic congress, not one filled with "blue dogs" like 2009-2010. "that's what we need to get back to work again" ...

[Hart2008]

156. Gary Hart was an early supporter of Obama's. Should he run, it is significant.

Now Senator Hart was an early supporter of President Obama back in 2008:

Some see Barack Obama as the long awaited champion finally come to slay the awful dragon of race. And they are right. Some see him as a new start for the Democratic Party and national politics. And they are right. Some see him as the walking embodiment of internationalism, ready to restore an honorable and respected place for America in the world. And they are right.

I see Barack Obama as a leader for this transcendent moment, the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century and to convert threat to great new opportunity.

Gary Hart, Politics As Transcendence:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/politics-as-transcendence_b_86490.html

I can only wonder what Senator Hart will do if President Obama continues to squander the opportunity which was his presidency by compromising with Big Money and Big Business. RFK was his political idol.

His most recent blog entry indicates that he is becoming dissatisfied with President Obama's leadership:

If so, the voters of this country, and particularly the functional fifteen percent (or more) of the unemployed, and the parents raising their kids in the back seats of cars, and a lot of the rest of us are going to have to stand up in 2012. And it would help a lot if President Obama started sounding like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Unless private interests that control America’s wealth begin to put this country first and do what should be done to create jobs, they should not be surprised to see a nation that has been tilting right begin to do what it has done under similar circumstances and demand action by our Government. Americans are not going to let this poker game go on much longer. And we shouldn’t.

Gary Hart, Who Is Standing On the Airhose?:
http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=742
:popcorn:

[CakeGrrl]

158. Yay, Mr. "Monkey Business" could enter the fray!

I'm sure the MSM will comport themselves with utmost dignity and do Hart the respect of forgetting ALL about his transgressions.

Not once will they be brought up.

The MSM will focus SOLELY on the issues that are most important to Americans at this serious juncture.


Well, let's amend that. They'll leave Hart alone as long as he's giving President Obama problems, but should by some miracle he actually win the opportunity to go up against the GOP...





:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

159. Sorry, Groucho Marx has been dead for some time now.

Gary Hart didn't have any "transgressions".

He was always an honest public servant who refused to take any money from PACs and mortgaged his house to run for President in 1984. That integrity was viewed as a threat by most of the political establishment, and the MSM in particular.

[boxman15]

58. Because we really want a GOP president in 2012, right?

I truly don't understand how primarying Obama would help anything. It would make Obama cater to the far-left for a while, but he'd still only be getting center-right legislation at best thanks to Congress. We should focus our energy on Congress in 2012. It would do more harm than good.

[Peacetrain]

70. You have got to be kidding me... and that worked out how?

[BklnDem75]

71. More like: how can the left help the right, again.

Stealing defeat from the clutches of victory since 1968.

[Hart2008]

73. No, it's how the left helps the left by nominating someone who is truly left of Obama

In 1968 Nixon was the weakest candidate the Republicans had.

Yet, after Johnson's exist, after McCarthy exposed how weak he was, after all of RFK's charisma and ultimate sacrifice, the party establishment nominated the one man in the party burdened with all of LBJ's unpopularity. It was the Mayor Daly's in the party who truly stole defeat from the jaws of victory in Chicago in '68. All of the chaos that they unleashed in Chicago played right into Nixon's "law and order" schtick. They made Nixon look normal, statesman like, etc.

Do not blame Eugene McCarthy, RFK, or anyone else for what the party establishment did to lose that election to Nixon. No one who was alive then remembers it your way.

[dbonds]

74. +1

[BklnDem75]

75. Hardly...

The left did then what they're doing now. It's what they've always done. Ideology trumps all. The right's secret weapon. Nixon thanks you, Reagan thanks you, Bush thanks you.

[Hart2008]

76. The right's secret weapon in 1968 was assassination. MLK, Jr. and RFK gunned down in their prime.

Without those assassinations, there would have been no New Nixon in '68.

Without the attempted assassination of Alabama governor George Wallace, Nixon probably doesn't get reelected in '72.

Reagan was beatable in '80 and '84.

Bush was very beatable in '88. Those years were different stories from '68.

[BklnDem75]

77. And the trashing of the same President...

that's praised today as one of the best along with FDR.

[Hart2008]

91. Sorry, no one here is praising Nixon, only noting the reality of his liberal economic policies

No one here has stated that he ranks up there with FDR.

[BklnDem75]

93. I was talking about LBJ

Trashed and smeared by the left of that time, and now praised today as the progressive icon that Obama should strive to be. Well, Obama's got the 'being trashed from his left flank' part down, just like so many other Dem leaders before him.

[Hart2008]

100. LBJ was a warmonger who lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate US involvement w the war.

JFK had ordered the phased withdraw of US military personnel beginning by the end of 1963 and to be completed by 1965. That NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963 was promptly reversed by LBJ's NSAM 273, on November 26, 1963 after JFK's assassination. It was that decision which resulted in him ultimately retiring early. LBJ's domestic policy failed to overcome the meat grinder which was Vietnam. The drain of Vietnam on the U.S. Treasury was so great that it resulted in the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, the abandonment of the gold standard, and the following inflationary period of the 1970's.

We might well conclude that Obama, by refusing to disengage in Iraq and Afghanistan, while intervening in the civil war in Libya, is following LBJ's path to an early retirement, especially since the U.S. economy remains in the toilet. Guns and Butter don't mix well, and that is true in 2011 as much as it was in the late 1960's.

[BklnDem75]

104. And your ideology will be praised once again...

by the right as they serve another 8 years. The country will continue to shift to the right. If you think the right is gonna stop the wars, then that's a cherry on top for the opposition. Secret weapon indeed.

[Hart2008]

105. The country is shifting left on foreign intervention and military occupations from the 2008 election

The problem is that Obama hasn't brought the troops home from Iraq like he promised. Bin Laden was found and executed.

With the economy in the toilet, people want butter, and not guns.

Should the Repukes nominate someone like Ron Paul, Obama is very vulnerable..

People want the peace dividend now.

:hi:

[BklnDem75]

106. Ron Paul?

Have you been paying attention to the right? Rand Paul has a better chance of being a serious candidate in that party. Don't get it twisted, the right's against Obama leading the wars, not the wars itself.

[Hart2008]

121. Ron Paul finished second in the Iowa straw poll, and he can raise money from his base.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Ron Paul, once seen as a fringe candidate and a nuisance to the establishment, is shaping the 2012 Republican primary by giving voice to the party's libertarian wing and reflecting frustration with the United States' international entanglements.

The Texas congressman placed second in a key early test vote Saturday in Ames, coming within 152 votes of winning the first significant balloting of the Republican nominating contest.

Once A Fringe Candidate, Paul Shaping 2012 Race:
http://news.yahoo.com/once-fringe-candidate-paul-shaping-2012-race-205132862.html

Paul is from the Silent Generation. At present no one from this generation has won the presidency. Never before has the presidency skipped an entire generation. So, the odds are that they are due to win this time. After getting fooled by Obama it is logical that voters will want a president with a proven record and philosophy. So an old wise man could win easily.

Of course, we have our own Silent Generation leaders in our own party: Gary Hart and Mike Gravel come to mind.

[lumpy]

86. Probably you are right.

v

[craigmatic]

87. I think Feingold is available.

[Hart2008]

110. Isn't he running for Wisconsin governor in the Walker recall?

If so, I think he will sit this one out.

[Hart2008]

138. Feingold is not running. We need a candidate!

Russ Feingold isn't running for anything in 2012:

http://www.progressivesunited.org/blog/a-message-from-russ

[Hart2008]

92. If he can raise $1 Million, Gravel would challenge Obama

"“Somebody should challenge Obama, there’s no question about it. He is what he is, and it’s not what we want,” Gravel said. “I’d be happy to do it, but it takes money. Without enough money to be heard, you come off as somewhat foolish.”

Gravel said he will challenge Obama if there is sufficient financial backing.

“If (supporters) would put up $1 million, I probably would run. And that would at least fund enough activity to get a message out,” Gravel said."

http://news.yahoo.com/gravel-says-million-dollars-challenge-president-234013197.html


If he is the only one to challenge Obama, he could raise that money.

Is he the only one?

Whoever challenges him, to avoid paybacks, would need to be someone who is not presently in office seeking reelection. Other names are possible:

1. Al Gore: He has the name recognition and still has a strong following, but without the money he was accustomed to raising, he probably sits out again.
2. Wes Clark: Strong leadership skills, and someone with the military experience to end our military adventurism, but lacking a clear political record.
3. Gary Hart: Has demonstrated the ability to come from nowhere in a national campaign before. While he is getting older, he is younger than Gravel and has a proven record in office of never taking any money from a PAC, and holds impeccable foreign policy credentials. He has written extensively on many topics, including restoring the republic and civic virtue.
4. Russ Feingold: He has a proven record which many progressives find appealing of fighting for campaign finance reform, universal health care, opposing military interventionism, etc. He is well known with younger activists.

[woo me with science]

143. That's the problem.

The system has been systematically rigged so that, with few exceptions, only corporate shills can afford to run and win.

[Hart2008]

148. If there is only one challenger, then the message will be important, and money less so.

When there is an incumbent, then the election becomes a referendum on his/her performance. As long as people know there is a challenger, and if the economy and the foreign occupations remain the same, then I think a challenger starts with a floor of about 30%. A better challenger with gravitas, and who can articulate why he/she is challenging the president will get more votes.

It still comes down to someone who has the courage to buck the party establishment and do what must be done. Someone must speak for those who are getting run over by the big banks and the globalists.

[SanchoPanza]

94. You mean the guy who endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980?

[Hart2008]

95. I mean the Democratic Senator from Minnesota eulogized by Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy

He debated red-baiting Joe McCarthy on national TV, tried to reign in the CIA, and chaired a special Senate Committee on Unemployment. (Back when Dem's really cared about that.)
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/eugene-joseph-mc-carthy
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-31.htm

True, he despised Carter, but undoubtedly would have endorsed Teddy had he won the nomination despite his famous rivalry with RFK. "He believed in government as an engine of social welfare".
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/04/05/040405crbo_books

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[northoftheborder]

96. Back to the history of that election>>>>>

RFK would have been elected President had he not been assassinated; he won the California primary and was on his way; Nixon would not have been elected.

[Hart2008]

101. The only reasonable interpretation of why RFK was assassinated. NT

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. Yes indeed!

And a Progressive can beat Obama. This country is starving for a candidate that cares about the working class, the poor and elderly.

[truedelphi]

153. Thank you for that reminder.

And not only would he have occupied the WH, it is a likelihood that his son Robert F Kennedy Jr would probably be willing to run for the Highest Office right now.

But who wants to run for office only to be gunned down?

[killbotfactory]

98. Promoting someone who parrots your views but can't win is political masturbation at best.

Active subversion of the left-wing cause at worst.

[Hart2008]

99. Are you seriously denying that FDR's 2nd New Deal was so he could steal Huey Long's "thunder"?

FDR admitted it himself. FDR only moved to the left when he was pressured from the left, and "the Kingfish":

With the Senate unwilling to support his proposals, in February 1934 Long formed a national political organization, the Share Our Wealth Society. A network of local clubs led by national organizer Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, the Share Our Wealth Society was intended to operate outside of and in opposition to the Democratic Party and the Roosevelt administration. By 1935, the society had over 7.5 million members in 27,000 clubs across the country. Long's Senate office received an average of 60,000 letters a week. Some historians believe that pressure from Long and his organization contributed to Roosevelt's "turn to the left" in 1935. He enacted the Second New Deal, including the Social Security Act, the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, Aid to Dependent Children, the National Youth Administration, and the Wealth Tax Act of 1935. In private, Roosevelt candidly admitted to trying to "steal Long's thunder."

Historical facts are stubborn things.

:popcorn:

[killbotfactory]

102. This isn't 1934. n/t

[Hart2008]

103. It isn't even 1933. Where is the Home Owner's Loan Corp.?

It isn't even 1933. Where is the Home Owner's Loan Corp.?

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was a New Deal agency established in 1933 by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation Act under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its purpose was to refinance home mortgages currently in default to prevent foreclosure. This was accomplished by selling bonds to lenders in exchange for the home mortgages. It was used to extend loans from shorter loans to fully amortized, longer term loans (typically 20–25 years). Through its work it granted long term mortgages to over a million people facing the loss of their homes.
The HOLC stopped lending circa 1935, once all the available capital had been spent, and began the process of liquidating its assets. HOLC officially ceased operations in 1951, when its last assets were sold to private lenders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Owners%27_Loan_Corporation#cite_note-ikl-3


Rather than lose money, the HOLC returned a profit of almost $15 million in 1951 dollars:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,858135,00.html

Now, I knew something about because as a young lawyer my grandfather worked for the HOLC. He had long lines of people waiting to see him. The fact is that programs like the HOLC helped ordinary working people, so they identified with the Democrats. Yet, despite the fact that the HOLC clearly proved that it kept people in their homes, helped to stabilize the housing market by preventing deflation, AND turned a profit for the government, the Obama administration has refused to even consider it!

It wasn't a wasteful government program. It proved to work AND be profitable.

We don't need to play “Happy Days Are Here Again!” at the convention, but we do need to learn from what worked in the past and recycle it.

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:
:dem:

:rant:

[Phx_Dem]

107. Why, so he can end up being like your dad?

And so we can lose the WH?

No thank. I am quite happy with all of President Obama's accomplishments and I don't blame him that the GOP has treated him worse than any president in history, refusing to give hearings on his judges and fillibustering every bill in Congress.

Fuck off Eugene's "heir."

[Hart2008]

129. Read David McCullough's Bio of Truman to learn how a president confronts GOPers in Congress

The name of the book is "Truman" and it is highly recommended so you can see how a Dem president confronts a hostile Repuke Congress and wins. (Truman had Repukes in both houses of Congress and not just one.) It will show you that there is no reason for the President to compromise with them, and that the American public respects the President when he shows he has a backbone.

You might also learn that Harry S. Truman ended segregation in the U.S. armed forces by executive order. The president has more powers than you think.

Also, Eugene McCarthy didn't lose the election in 1968. That was Hubert Humphrey and he isn't my dad.

Lastly, since you want to talk about family, does your mother know you use that kind of language on the Internet?

I am sure that she would be embarrassed to know that you do.

[mdmc]

118. Nixon was left of the DLC

[quaker bill]

123. No one. n/t

[KOfan]

127. Oh please

Seriously? We're gonna dump the best man to come to our party in a generation just to win an election? Obama will win it no problem!

[AtomicKitten]

130. You catch on pretty quick, grasshopper.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[KOfan]

134. I've been here for a while

Just starting over after a 2 year lay off..came back and my ex had taken everything including my computer. Just starting over with a fresh name and start! I had been doing global food relief in Africa.

[Hart2008]

131. Obama can't win with a 39% approval rating and a 53% disapproval rating

The present trend is that Obama will not be reelected:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Should that trend continue, that unpopularity will affect other Dem office holders on election day. I remember the Dems losing the Senate on election day in 1980 and not get it back for six years. We don't want that to happen again.

[KOfan]

133. Long way to November 2012

I have a feeling the economy will turn around shortly. The President is due to introduce some radical jobs program next month.

[Hart2008]

157. With the unemployment rate over 9% it may be too late for him now.

The Repukes will obstruct his proposals, and water down water ever he proposes.

Then the finger pointing starts over the next election.

None of that will help the people who need it. Ultimately, the buck stops with the president on this for not getting this done when he had the majorities in both houses of Congress. Unfortunately, it appears to be too little, too late.

[BlueIris]

132. Lots of people.

And every single last one of them has a better chance of victory in the general than he does.

[Hart2008]

135. Very true, but we need a candidate with the courage to buck the party leadership! NT

[dionysus]

142. lol, thanks for the chucks...

[IcyMedic]

144. I don't see why a primary would be bad..

Might give us a chance to choose someone who is better suited for winning. I honestly think Hillary could win, but ONLY if Obama drops out. If she challenges him, the black vote is gone.

[Hart2008]

149. Isn't the racial issue really about MLK, Jr.'s dream. Shouldn't Obama be judged on his results?

Obama benefited from a desire for change in 2008. In the party, people wanted a change from the Clintons' DLC ways, and the country wanted a change from Bush's war mongering. His present unpopularity is due to his inability to affect the kind of change he had represented in the 2008 campaign. I would hope that African Americans understand that this is not a racial issue, but one of job performance.

Will Obama drop out if it appears that he is unelectable?

Given that he hasn't fought for much of anything, and his preference is to avoid conflict and then to compromise, he might. If a stronger Dem candidate emerges, Obama might be offered a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Taft is the only former President to date to achieve this accomplishment, and perhaps the court is a better fit for his personality. There he would contrast nicely with Clarence "Uncle Thomas".

Time will tell what happens here.

:popcorn:

[NYC Liberal]

147. Who do you have in mind? I want to know so I can fight my ass off against them.

Obama has the support of the liberal base of the party and I am one of those people.

[kwolf68]

150. No he doesn't

Liberals are very disturbed by Obama. I work in D.C....lots of Liberals here, very active politically...they do not like the alternative, but Obama has been a terrible disappointment. Rose color glasses or not.

[Honeycombe8]

154. The 'publicans would like that. nt

[MinM]

161. CIA backed Eugene McCarthy in '68 v. RFK

“A Tale of Two Doves,” JFK Assassination Forum, No.7, (April 1975), p.2:

“…when a dove of more conservative cast, Gene McCarthy, decided to oppose Johnson for the nomination, the CIA promptly infiltrated his campaign.

Names to conjure with: Allard Lowenstein, Curtis Gans and Sam Brown. Ostensibly these men were concerned with ‘containing’ the student anti-war movement. The motto of McCarthy’s student supporters was ‘Keep clean for Gene’ – none of your Hoffmans or Rubins, please.

In early 1968, when McCarthy’s campaign seemed dangerously short of funds, help was forthcoming from West Coast industrialist Sam Kimball, chairman of Aerojet-General Corp. whose representative in Washington was Admiral Raborn, a former CIA chief.

When Robert Kennedy…entered the nomination stakes, two more ‘former’ CIA men, Thomas Finney and Thomas McCoy joined McCarthy’s campaign. (For fuller information, see Private Eye 169.)”


According to Time (“The Nonconsensus,” Friday, Jul. 05, 1968),Thomas Finney was “the Senator's organization chief.”

In 1980, William Blum notes, good old Gene, the eternal splitter of the anti-Republican vote, backed Reagan...

Read more: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10093

NPR: Remembering Eugene McCarthy

[Major Hogwash]

162. Doh!

Marge, they're dissing my man McCarthy again.

Oh, Homer, don't worry about it, a Republican will take care of everything later.