Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Darcy Richardson, aide to Senator Eugene McCarthy to continue his tradition, challenges Obama in NH!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:01 AM
Original message
Darcy Richardson, aide to Senator Eugene McCarthy to continue his tradition, challenges Obama in NH!
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 06:48 AM by Hart2008
Darcy Richardson, aide to Senator Eugene McCarthy to continue his tradition & challenges Obama in NH!

While the New Hampshire primary may have lost its luster due to a possible December election date, Darcy Richardson will stand in as the challenger to Obama in the interim, following the tradition of his mentor, Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy:

I dont think Obamas been a fighter for the poor or working class, Richardson said. Hes done nothing to turn the economy around.
Richardson feels Obama squandered the first two years of his presidency pushing for his health care bill, rather than addressing the economy. He believes the economic stimulus bill should have been bigger.
Richardson, who now lives in Florida, lost races in Pennsylvania in the 1980s for state auditor general and US senator. He worked for Senator Eugene McCarthys 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns.
Richardson has no illusion that he will win. But he hopes to reach rank-and-file Democrats who are unhappy with Obama.
If it becomes something larger, I would love it if someone of national stature or credibility would come into it, to have an opening for a realistic alternative to Obama, Richardson said.


http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011...

Richardson is a 55-year-old advertising manager and financial services consultant. He is the creator of left-wing blog site BattlegroundBlog.com and Uncovered Politics blog site. He also seved as the National Chairman of the New Democrats, a liberal reformist group that included Eugene McCarthy and Gary Hart.

I hope that my candidacy, as limited as it may turn out to be, might in some small measure restore a belief in American politics and American government, reinforcing the notion that real change can be achieved at the ballot box.

"I appreciate New Hampshire's welcoming attitude toward candidates, most political dreamers with no realistic chance of winning the presidency, who would otherwise be completely shut out of the nominating process," Richardson wrote in a letter to New Hampshire's secretary of state, mailed along with his one-page declaration of candidacy form and $1,000 filing fee.

Richardson quotes the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who once said that candidates running in New Hampshire shouldn't get excited if they sense a groundswell of support, because "it might just be a frost heave." "While I fully expect to receive a somewhat cold or chilly reception from the state's Democratic voters, especially since I'm challenging a sitting president of my own party, I nevertheless cherish the opportunity to run in your fine state," he continued. Richardson, an author who has run for local office in Pennsylvania, said in an email that "if ever an incumbent president deserved an intraparty challenge," it's Obama.

He hadn't intended to run -- he hoped former Labor Secretary Robert Reich would -- but decided to do so when it became clear that no "progressive Democrat of some national stature" would. "I personally like President Obama, but I think he's in way over his head when it comes to dealing effectivey with the U.S. economy," he said. Richardson will file in some other states as well, but New Hampshire's requirements are among the most welcoming for a long-shot like him.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/la-pn-new-h...
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Celebratory emoticons (Dial up warning)
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 06:10 AM by Hart2008
:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump:



:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:woohoo: :woohoo:: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. Oh great. McCarthy helped Nixon get elected.
Now his aide can help Perry or Romney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Bullshit! That was LBJ and his war. Still, Nixon needed RFK's death to win. NT
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 06:16 AM by Hart2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
54. No, he didn't: Nixon would've beaten RFK easier than he did Humphrey. Indeed, RFK was the candidate
Nixon wanted to run against.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #54
63. Uh, so that is why RFK was assassinated, to HURT NIXON?
And you believe that Sirhan Sirhan acted alone?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #63
72. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #54
108. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #54
118. What are you basing that on? I think the historical record suggests
Edited on Tue Nov-08-11 12:24 PM by coalition_unwilling
that Nixon inordinately feared RFK and the mystique of the Kennedy clan. I've read extensively in the history of the time and I've never once encountered anything suggesting Nixon preferred to run against RFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #54
139. LOL! And you know this how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. The Vietnam War got Nixon elected.
McCarthy's original '68 campaign was all about the Anti-War Movement and a rejection of the official Democratic machine that started that war.

Mayor Daley's police riot at the Chicago Democratic Convention was another nail in HHH's presidential bid.

Don't blame Eugene McCarthy for Richard Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Right on! NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. self delete dupe.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 06:36 AM by Hart2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. Then don't expect that having a challenger now will improve Obama for the general election.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 01:57 PM by pnwmom
It's never helped any American President before now. Obama won't be the first. All it will do is suck up money and resources and give Rethugs fuel for the general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. Don't worry. THere is no challenger now. This Darcy person is one of a dozen or so no-names that
always show up on primary ballots. There is no primary challenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
141. Assuming a primary challenger always hurts an incumbent has no grounding in reality.
Incumbents lose because of media propaganda and shenigans, vote caging and all the same reasons that cause any candidate to lose, plus their very own performance for the prior four years.

Americans don't get amnesia in the voting booth.

FDR could have had ten primary challengers and he still would have won.

Carter (whom I actually like) could have no challengers and he still would have lost.

If anything, Kennedy's challenge generated some interest where there had been only apathy.

Democrats made a mistake not backing Kennedy that election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
52. Yap, I still recall "Nixon has a secret plan to end Viet-Nam war"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #52
62. The plan was to play politics with the war for four years to help his reelection. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-12 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
149. Good thing he kept it a secret. We don't cotton to no war ending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
56. Nope, it most certainly did not. What got Nixon elected was stunts like McCarthy's, plus all the
nastiness at Grant Park (among other places) in Chicago outside the Democratic National Convention that year.

Oh yeah, oh yeah...we hear about it often here on DU from those who were supposedly "there," in the streets, plus pseudo-scholars who bray that the protesters who were battling Chicago cops outside that venue in 1968 somehow "won" the day with their chants of "the whole world is watching!"

Yes, the whole world was watching: and the vast majority of voting part of it in United States didn't like what they saw. The combined Nixon/Wallace vote - the anti-Democratic vote - was 57% in the 1968 presidential election.

What you call "Mayor Daley's police riot" was no such nail in HHH's presidential bid: HHH's failure to do what Nixon did after that so-called "riot" was. Nixon changed his campaign schedule after he watched the Democratic National Convention on television and flew to Chicago immediately afterward. He gave a speech praising the CPD and "law and order" and hundreds of thousands of otherwise loyal Union Democrats cheered him on in those same streets. That was the "nail" in HHH's presidential bid, at least until the bombing halt just before the election.

You really should study history before you presume to post about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #56
95. What polling data do you cite for the assertion that LBJ could have won in '68?
You want to blame McCarthy and the doves for everything without any reference to polling data or anything which might persuade someone who doesn't share your unique historical perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #56
122. I have studied the history closely and your account is, at the very
least, ahistorical in its suggestion that Humphrey needed to run harder to the right to defeat Nixon. On the contrary, most historians and political scientists have now concluded that, had Humphrey broken with LBJ sooner over Humphrey's support for the Vietnam War, Humphrey would have defeated Nixon. IOW, HH waited too long to break with LBJ, in other words, i.e., to move leftward, not rightward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
133. So how many shooting wars are we currently in?
Afghanistan.
Pakistan.
Yemen.
Iraq.
Iran next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
140. No, Nixon's promise to end the war got Nixon elected. As did voting machines and the usual
shenanigans of the RW of both parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. That was what I thought! Nothing to yee haw about.
Those that don't remember history, etc., etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. In order to remember history, one must first learn it in the first place.
Simplistic suppositions that somehow Senator McCarthy put Nixon into the White House don't square with the actual history of that election. LBJ's war made the Dems unpopular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. That's not quite accurate, either. Domestic unrest got Nixon elected.
Be clean for Gene! Ah yes, I remember it well.

Your memory, though, is a bit faulty on how Nixon appealed to his constituency. Nixon was NOT an "anti-war" candidate. Nixon was a former WW2 Naval officer who created the impression that he could do it "better" than LBJ.

HHH might have pulled it off if the so-called perfect didn't become the enemy of the good, and his own party members didn't fuck him six ways to Sunday. If he'd had no distractions he wouldn't have had to fight a war on three fronts, as it were. The term "October Surprise" (which dealt with peace negotiations) originated in that election--and it was a salient feature of it.

Nixon ran on "Law and Order" and got the votes of those who LIKED the idea that cops were cracking heads in Chicago and elsewhere. He got the votes of frightened whities who were afraid of what was happening in "the Inner City" with riots a-plenty. A plank in Nixon's platform was "The Warren Court SUCKS," in essence.

Nixon got the votes of people who wanted head cracking against crime, against protesters, against anyone "getting out of line." Those heads that were being cracked were those of people who opposed the war, not that were in favor of it. Nixon's constituency was not anti-war. They were the "Silent Majority" who were supposedly ready to hang in there until Nixon could magically get us out of there (with a Win, of course), without having to throw more cannon fodder into the mix.

People didn't necessarily believe that "secret plan to end the war" shit (something Nixon NEVER said, btw--he had others carry that water), they just tacked that onto their reasons because it made it easier to justify to anyone who questioned their voting for Tricky Dick. It was a bit of a joke, actually.

People who didn't like black people had plenty of choice that year--George Wallace was in the race too. And that "Southern strategy?" The Democratic party well and truly lost the south that year--a whole load of racist Dems, who hadn't yet done so out of historical party loyalty, jumped ship to the GOP after that race.

The Democratic leadership was fractured, over and over again, and progressive leaders were getting murdered (MLK, RFK). Ironically, HHH was, over the years, a proud and pragmatic progressive who knew the Senate up one side and down the other, and knew how to make a deal. He didn't have a lot of charisma, but he was a smart guy who was highly principled. He wanted Teddy to run with him, but Teddy refused (he had his own run in mind down the road, so it was in his interest for HHH to run--and lose).

The war was NOT the only game in town during that election. It was a piece of the pie, but by no means the only one. There was a domestic, cultural shift going on, there was a lot of violence in the streets, and many people didn't like it.

Nixon appealed to those people who were wary of change, particularly the CULTURAL changes that were happening. If your idea of happiness was a Leave It To Beaver lifestyle, you were a Nixon fan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
65. And McCarthy told the protesters to clean up and work within the system for change.
McCarthy know they weren't going to change anything by just smoking dope and protesting. To change the policies on Viet Nam they had to organize, and he organized them.

The unrest came in Chicago when Daly sent the cops out to bust the heads of the protesters, and THAT fed into Nixon's "law an order" schtick. The truth didn't come out about the government provocateurs until the Church Committee investigated years later.

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but my point was that it was LBJ's war that fed the social unrest. That war also would cost us the gold standard, and fed the inflatifeldon that followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
145. Do you ever post a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. The simplistic assumption that a primary challenger HELPS an incumbent in the general election
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 02:17 PM by pnwmom
doesn't square with history. Too many DUers think that all Obama needs is a challenger -- any challenger -- and Obama will move further to the left. But if he did that, then he'd lose critical vote among moderates and Independents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. McCarthy and RFK helped the party in the general election by forcing LBJ back to his ranch.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 02:03 PM by Hart2008
No way LBJ could have won in November and everybody knew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. McCarthy never helped Humphrey in the general. Humphrey would have had a much
better chance if the Dems had coalesced around the winning candidate, but people like McCarthy were too stubborn to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #33
67. McCarthy did endorse Humphrey in '68. LBJ wouldn't let HHH oppose the war.
LBJ used his influence with big donors to keep HHH from opposing the war publicly.

LBJ was more loyal to the war than to his own party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #67
100. Actually LBJ did endorse Humphrey. Made radio addresses for him and appeared at the final big rally
Edited on Mon Oct-31-11 10:39 AM by WI_DEM
in Texas on November 3, 1968 before 55,000 at the then new Houston Atrodome. He also campaigned for him in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia--and made two fund-raising appeals for HHH in New York. Johnson also made a peace inittiative in late October and early November of 1968 which benefitted HHH greatly but was undercut by Nixon's campaign which got word to the South Vietnamize to reject it because they would get a better deal under Nixon if he won. (All of this is in many campaign books on 1968 and biographies of Humphrey and Nixon).

BTW, McCarthy only endorsed HHH a week before the election and it was at best a lukewarm endorsement. Other than that he sat on his hands for much of the campaign and read poetry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
143. True, LBJ had lost the support of the left and he never had the support of the right.
On the other hand, fixing elections is more common today and people are less reluctant to try.

So, maybe history is not as big a help to us in predicting the future as it once was.

Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
144. The assumption that a primary challenger always hurts is even more simplistic.
Primary challenges tend to occur most when the challenger perceives that the President is vulnerable and either likely to lose in the general or deserves to lose in the general.

Assume that a weak President loses in the general only because of the primary challenge is either impoverished observation and reasoning or disingenuously selective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-12 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
150. It does not square with some INTERPRETATIONs of history.
For example, that Carter lost an election to Reagan is a fact, but that Carter lost because Kennedy challenged Carter is interpretation of a fact.

For that matter, perhaps the real reason Democrats lost that election was their insistence on blocking Kennedy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
142. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. McCarthy also supported Reagan in 1980,
and then there was this:

He opposed Watergate-era campaign finance laws, becoming a plaintiff in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain provisions of federal campaign finance laws were unconstitutional.<18> McCarthy, along with the New York Civil Liberties Union, philanthropist Stewart Mott, the Conservative Party of New York State, the Mississippi Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party, were the plaintiffs in Buckley, becoming key players in killing campaign spending limits and public financing of political campaigns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy

Any Democrat who could still support McCarthy for President in 1988 has to have his sanity questioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. The party moved to the right, and he refused to move right with it.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 07:02 AM by Hart2008
And he all remember how Mike "the Duck" Dukakis got 111 electoral votes against the scandal tainted V.P. Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #10
55. So that justifies McCarthy's endorsement of Reagan in 1980....uhhhh, how, exactly?
:shrug:

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. Even great men are occasionally wrong. He had deep philosophical issues with Carter's neoliberalism
Ultimately, Carter's problems with the economy resulted from his rejection of traditional Keynesian economics. McCarthy, conversely, had headed a special Congressional committee on unemployment. There was a sharp clash of philosophies there. McCarthy didn't think Reagan could be any worse. Had the Dems nominated based on who matched up best against Reagan in '84, Reagan may not have gotten that second term. Reagan wasn't all that popular in early '84.

On the other hand, McCarthy had mentored Mondale in the Senate as Minnesota's senior Senator, and worked with Hart and the original New Democrats in the 80's. The man had a very distinguished career. He debated Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy on national TV when he was at the hight of his red baiting frenzy. The man had a brass pair, and he was a great thinker. The country lost a great talent by not having him serve in national office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #66
74. "McCarthy didn't think Reagan could be any worse" - That's the best you got? It's a pretty meager
defense, if so. And then you wander off to talk about, of all things, Joseph McCarthy, who died in 1957, as if endorsing a grand right-wing asshole twenty three years later was all made up for by something he did to bring down McCarthy. Besides which, even that is historically inaccurate: Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson, acting in tandem, brought down McCarthy, as did McCarthy's own mouth in the Army hearings.

Regardless, even if you grant that "McCarthy didn't think Reagan could be any worse," then all one can say is: then McCarthy was deeply and tragically wrong, and betrayed his party in general and liberalism in particular in the so doing. Besides everything else Reagan's reign brought to the country that was disastrous, Reagan got to appoint three supreme court justices that shifted the balance of the court far to the right. That wouldn't have happened under a Carter administration.

So, spare us any further attempts at justification for McCarthy's betrayal of his party and his supposed progressive principles by endorsing Reagan in 1980: there really is no justification for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:15 PM
Original message
Uh, Eugene McCarthy isn't running this year.
It's not like McCarthy was the governor of the state where Poppy Bush was shipping all of those drugs.

So, you must be mad at Bill Clinton for his glowing eulogy of McCarthy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
81. By the bye, for those just catching up wondering why so many dodges and evasions and now this
business about "Eugene McCarthy isn't running this year," here is the original post that sparked this series of replies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

As can be seen, every reply I've given in this sub-thread has been on topic, even as constant attempts to deflect attention away from the facts concerning that topic have been ongoing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #81
91. We are all wondering why you have so many dodges and evasions.NT
Why do you need to use that "I" so much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #81
146. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. Uh, Eugene McCarthy isn't running this year.
It's not like McCarthy was the governor of the state where Poppy Bush was shipping all of those drugs.

So, you must be mad at Bill Clinton for his glowing eulogy of McCarthy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Now you attempt to change the subject, again. I would too, if the facts were so inconveniently not
on my side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. You want to judge a great Dem based on one error in his career?
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Now you begin quoting the Bible: what's next in lieu of a factual rebuttal? A hymn?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. "Silence is the true friend that never betrays."-Confucius NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. More fun with irrelevant quotes and other evasions in lieu of facts. Discussion concluded. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #88
94. Discussion concluded without any facts referenced or cited by you.
Better luck next time trying to find references for your version of the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. I never "judged" McCarthy based on "one error": I judged his actions within the context of that "one
error," as that was what the original debate was about. Remember?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The specific discussion of that "one error" has been what this entire sub-thread has been about. You have not gotten the better side of it factually, which is why you have resorted to asking yet another rhetorical question in yet another attempt to deflect and dodge your way out of refuting facts that are irrefutable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #85
93. Try citing references for your "facts" which are so irrefutable.
Instead of all of the ipse dictum you employ constantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. I'd forgotten about that. Ugh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Scruffy1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
53. I actually knew him.
And there is no way he would have been a good president. He seemed bored with every job he ever held and couldn't steer a steady course to save his ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #53
70. Which is to say that in '68 and '72 you think he would have been worse than Nixon?
Edited on Sun Oct-30-11 03:39 PM by Hart2008
WTH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #53
92. I once sat on a panel with a colleague whose assessment of him was the same. It was only anecdote,
but persuasive anecdote, as the historical record confirms some of these kind of tendencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #92
96. I can only wonder what assessment your colleagues and stuents have of your opinions.
The worst kind of university instructors are the ones who attempt to abuse their status as educators to impose their view of reality on their students.

I can only wonder how your students judge your receptiveness to their perspectives.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-12 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #53
151. Unlike Nixon?
Well, no, Nixon did not seem bored with the Presidency. Threw himself into it, he did, covering up break ins and all.

Then again, "seemed bored" is a highly subjective assessment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
97. McCarthy's challenge to LBJ was finance largely by one wealthy doner.
Which would explain his opposition to limiting individual donations, since that is how he was able to run in '68. The man is no longer alive to address the issue, but I very much doubt that he would have agreed with the Citizens United ruling that corporation are people with rights of political expression. I can only imagine what Eugene McCarthy could have done with the Internet. The man was super intelligent with a razor sharp wit. His knick-name in the Senate was The Needle, and it was well deserved. Much of the reason that he didn't get far after '68 was that he lacked media coverage. Those who are truly dangerous to the powers that be got ignored by the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shotten99 Donating Member (478 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
101. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't get fooled again.
History repeats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. gee. who knew nixon would have beat RFK?
everyone of my family would have voted for RFK.

Ya'll are arguing and some, cheering over obama having no front runners. It seems kind of sad to me-tells me we really have no choice, little to no representation at all.

I'm supposed to feel grateful for being allowed to vote for someone who appoints people the likes of summers, geithner, duncan, rahm and keeping little boot's retreads. Ya'll cheer for goldman sachs appointments, corporate appointments and where are those who are for us?

We're all to suck it up and vote for the one we think will do the least damage, not one that will be giving main street relief. I'll stick with the jackass over the bullseye new democrat or should I say reagan repug, I guess i'm just a stubborn as a jackass kind of democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DisabledDem Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-24-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
137. Explain to me what did McCarthy do to lead the augury of Nixon victory in 1968?
And no way is Rick "Opps" Perry going to be elected by the GOP. He's the Fred Thompson of the 2012 race. It's Romney or if he's fortuitous during the primary, New Gingrich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-11 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
138. Bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
11. Bless his heart... The New Democrats, which he Chaired, are a centrist DLC faction.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 07:23 AM by jefferson_dem
Not progressive as you claim.

In the politics of the United States, the New Democrats are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values.<1><2> They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.

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


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. No, before Clinton, the New Dems were not DLCers.
From the Wikipedia website that you cited: "the New Democrats are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

Hart had started the New Dems before 1988. After his defeat in '88, Clinton and company took over and the movement was corrupted by the DLC. Don't judge the original by the imitations. Eugene McCarthy had no time for the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
39. According to these articles from 1989, Hart didn't start it and wasn't actively involved
Although he apparently approved of its efforts (http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-10/news/mn-161_1_eu... ):

Hart, a former Colorado senator and the favorite Democrat in the 1988 presidential campaign until public disclosures about his private life took him out of the running, has given his blessing to the movement but declined a leadership position, the New Democrats say.

The group's founder, Jesse Yoder, is a philosophy professor at the University of Lowell in Massachusetts who worked in McCarthy's 1968 campaign. He said the group plans to field its first candidates for congressional and other political offices in 1990.

Darcy Richardson, a political activist and sports handicapper in the Philadelphia area, said he plans to be the first New Democrat to run for Congress, and will begin his campaign next month.


And another from the Pittsburgh Courier, which affirms that Hart is supportive of its goals but not involved: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19891213... .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #39
60. Sports handicapper?...
Darcy Richardson is a bookie? :rofl:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-12 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
152. Thanks for that info. I had thought the New Dems were always DLC shits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. I think that's a different group
From farther down in the page you linked to: "Although the label "New Democrat" was briefly used by a liberal reformist group including Gary Hart and Eugene McCarthy in 1989,<6> the term became more widely associated with the policies of the Democratic Leadership Council, who in 1990 renamed their bi-monthly magazine from The Mainstream Democrat to The New Democrat.<7> When then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton stepped down as DLC chairman to run for president in the 1992 presidential election, he presented himself as a "New Democrat".<8>"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #37
61. Right! The DLC stole the name to market itself. It sounded better than Repuke Lite.
Hart's idea was to rethink "Big Government" programs which the Democratic Party supported, while still supporting the goals of those programs.

The DLC just wanted to make the Democrats more like the Repukes to attract corporate $$, but support social issues like abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, etc. So DLCers support bailing out banks, but not the people hurt by the loans which never should have been originated. Dems like McCarthy would insist on a New Deal style program to help those people facing foreclosure.

Hart and Eugene McCarthy were two of the deepest thinkers this party produced in the later 20th century. It is a shame that neither of them got to hold national office. Truly, we are the losers for that.

Thanks for the assist!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
13. Seems Richardson may not be much of a Democrat after all...but likes to try to play spoiler.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 07:29 AM by jefferson_dem
The "pundit and historian" ran as an "Independent" for Lt. Governor in Florida.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/farid-khavari-tap...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. The banking industrys dirtiest secret is that its half socialist, and in the worst sense
The banking industrys dirtiest secret is that its half socialist, and in the worst sense of that word, said Richardson on Monday. While privately held at the profit end, it externalizes all the attendant risks to the public. If the people of Florida are going to bear the risks of finance, we contend that they should also reap its benefits.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/farid-khavari-tap...

Thanks for the great progressive quote there.

So this platform means he can't run as a Dem?

:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. No, just that he's not actually a Democrat. He's run under the "Consumer Party" label too.
:crazy:

Perpetual candidate. Spoiler-want-to-be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. And Leon Panetta and Robert Gates were Repukes who now serve in Obama's cabinet.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 01:58 PM by Hart2008
He is running now as a Dem, and that is better than "Connecticut for Lieberman" any day!

Two campaigns in the 80's hardly makes him a "perpetual candidate" or spoiler.

From that quote you found, he sounds like an old time Dem who wants to protect ordinary people from corrupt banks buying influence.

Has the party really changed that much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
68. OOOOPS! I forgot the former "Goldwater Girl" who is now Secretary of State! NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
47. No-names that put themselves on Presidential primary ballots usually are pretty odd cats.
I'll bet if we analyze any of the other dozen or so no-names on the New Hampshire ballot that all of them are kinda weird and have odd backgrounds too.

The OP is just trying to make it seem like their Quixotic OP about having a primary challenger wasn't the massive fail that it was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
18. Who? Was he on 'Married with Children?'
Whoops! My bad... that was Marcy Darcy. Nevermind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
19. Darcy will probably end up with about 5% of the NH vote. He and Hart2008 will proclaim victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. According to the nationwide polls 20% of Dems want another candidate.
That means he should start collecting delegates as the only alternative at present.

Remember that those who are dissatisfied with this President are more likely to vote than those who are simply tolerating him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Keep dreaming, old chum.
If 80% of Democrats want Obama renominated he's not going to lose the nomination short of a dead girl/live boy scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #30
57. Have the 20% been clamoring for "Darcy"? They're even more eff'd up than previously thought.
Especially since they probably don't even know WTF Darcy is. Losers & PUMA's unite! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #57
73. The 20% asked for democratic elections and Darcy answered their call. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. !
:spray:

Good one, now pull the other one. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
107. He'll have to share the anti-Obama vote with twelve other candidates:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
20. Ahahahaha.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 10:04 AM by Arkana
Seriously? This was your grand, heralded challenger? THIS GUY?

Nice try, champ.

Richardson will be lucky to get 2-3% of the vote. He has no money, no name recognition, no ground game, and barely any time. But let me guess--to you, that's a "victory".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
21. Mickey Mouse will get more votes.
This guy is a gadfly, a nobody, and he's your saviour?

Just stop your anti-Obama agenda, you are making yourself look foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Did Mickey pay the $1000 filing fee? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Unlike that nobody Darcy, Mickey knows better than to waste his money
tilting at windmills.

You could learn a thing or two from Mickey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. He doesn't need to. He's still a more credible candidate
than this nobody you think is going to "save the party from ruin".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
50. And Mickey didn't waste $1000 like the other no-name losers. LMAO
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
22. why not just accept the reality that President Obama is not going to have a serious challenger in
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 11:25 AM by Douglas Carpenter
the primaries? There are always a few obscure candidates for every major office - both in the primaries and in general elections. Mr. Darcy however a noble man he may be has no more chance of mounting a credible campaign in the primaries than the Socialist Workers Party candidate has a chance of carrying a single state in November.

First accept the reality that there will not be a significant challenger to President Obama in the primaries and then do whatever you think will advance the agenda you support based on what is at least remotely plausible. Accepting reality is the first step in advancing any agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
23. OMGz!! How will Lee Mercer Jr respond?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Bwaha
I have always loved the Clinton quote that is your sig.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. hehe n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. Ha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
49. Not 100% sure but I think a hotwire hookup will be employed somehow. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #49
102. darcy richardson is all up in lee mercers house with disease....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #23
64. !
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
32. Hey look, I found a picture of Gary Hart rising out of the pumpkin patch!

(The OP is on the left)
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. I think Charlie brown's sister Sally sums up the wait for the "Great Primary Opponent" very well ...
"You blockhead! You kept me up all night waiting for the Great Pumpkin (aka, serious primary opponent), and all that came was a beagle (aka, Darcy somebody)! I didn't get a chance to go out for tricks or treats. And it was all your fault! I'll sue! What a fool I was! I could have had candy apples and gum and cookies and money and all sorts of things. But no! I had to listen to you, you blockhead. What a fool I was. Trick or treats come only once a year, and I missed it by sitting in a pumpkin patch with a blockhead."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. And the OP (as Linus)
STUPID? What do you mean "stupid"? Just wait till next year, Charlie Brown. You'll see! Next year at this same time, I'll find the pumpkin patch that is *real* sincere and I'll sit in that pumpkin patch until the Great Pumpkin appears. He'll rise out of that pumpkin patch and he'll fly through the air with his bag of toys. The Great Pumpkin will appear and I'll be waiting for him! I'll be there! I'll be sitting there in that pumpkin patch... and I'll see the Great Pumpkin. Just wait and see, Charlie Brown. I'll see that Great Pumpkin. I'll SEE the Great Pumpkin! Just you wait, Charlie Brown. The Great Pumpkin will appear and I'll be waiting for him...

Just replace "pumpkin patch" with "Obama primary challenge." :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #41
69. You get to be Pig-Pen!!! NT
Edited on Sun Oct-30-11 03:37 PM by Hart2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
43. NOBODY in the MSM even mentioned this. That's because this guy is not a serious candidate.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Exactly, there are always one or two dozen no-name losers who put their names on the prez primary
ballots. As with other candidates who didnt have a serious primary challenger, Obama will get 99% of the vote in every primary and caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Yup...
they're the "also-rans."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #43
90. The M$M never reports any real news. That's why we have the Internet.
If you don't get your news from the Internet, then you don't know what is really happening in this world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
44. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
45. This is nothing special. There are always no-names who run. We knew that before this.
No one knows who this Darcy person is now, and they won't get to know them between now and New Hampshire.

THey are one of a dozen nobodys on the ballot. Nice try though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
58. "advertising manager and financial services consultant"
Oh yeah, I can see the OWS movement getting behind a "financial services consultant". Bring 'em on! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
59. ROFL...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Exactly who you were hoping for, I'm sure. :rofl:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
71. After 10 years working for Merril Lynch, I'm sure he's got a lot of great ideas to help the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. I look forward to hearing his ideas regardless of his employer in this bad economy.
You think you needs to apologize for not being a professional politician for the past ten years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. He sent a ton of money to Nader in 2000, for crying out loud.
If you have a line to this guy, you may want to remind him that large political donations are public information in this country. And when you don't support Democrats, you're not going to be popular among them.

Frankly, with respect to running as a Democrat, I think he's a fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. Nader used to be Dem too before the DLC took over the party.
Funny that.

Do you think there was a connection?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. And Lieberman used to be a Democrat, too.
Funny, that.

... You want Democrats to support a candidate who just became a Democrat, and donates to people running against Democrats?

Waiter? I'll have what that guy's having. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. People like Lieberman and the DLC made old Dems reconsider the party.
If we get the DLC and the corporate money out of the Party, then old Dem values can return to the party.

So to answer your question, it depends on what our definition of the Democratic Party is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #71
79. It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the OWS protestors.
I'm thinking not good. They don't sound like they're in the mood for a lot of "nuance" re: "financial" sector participants, no matter who the messenger is. This should be loads of fun. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #79
99. Darcy Richardson/Cornel West 2012!11!11 feel it!!1!!
Edited on Mon Oct-31-11 10:30 AM by dionysus
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #99
103. Aw Jeez. Is that what he looks like? He's got a fucked up grill for starters.
So he and Cornel can be "Brothers of the Eff'd up Teeth". :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
98. oh happy day!!1!1!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
104. The anti-Obama people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Splinter Cell Donating Member (498 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Yup.
That's where they come from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #104
109. They've been scraping so hard, the bottom has fallen out
and now they're scrounging up the crud that's been living underneath the barrel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
110. So, anything new from Darcy Richardson yet?...
His website is still under construction http://www.darcy2012.com /

And I didn't see him on any of the Sunday morning shows. Has he picked up any major endorsements yet? Surely Gary Hart has thrown his weight behind him, right?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. !
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. hey! you spit water on me! thems.. fightin' woids!
PUT UP YER DUKES!!11


:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. Dion, don't fight me. Fight Darcy!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #114
115. i ain't messing with the Brothers of the Effed Up Teeth.... that's all you...
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. Quit it! You made me a pee a little bit!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"Effed Up Teeth" :spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
112. kick for FAIL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
117. Is anyone fooled into believing this isn't a bizarre face-saving effort by the OP?
The OP could have picked any one of a dozen no-name losers who paid $1000 for the priviledge of having their names on the ballot and will not get %.01 of the vote each.

The OP doesn't want egg on their faces having been proved wrong that no primary challenger would emerge to take on Obama. This doesnt come close to qualifying. These losers would have run regardless and will lose in humiliating fashion regardless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
119. Too late to rec this. Plan to send a nominal donation soon. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. In that case, allow me to interest you in this bridge I have for sale. You should see the traffic
through the toll booths!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #119
121. He'll soon have enough money...
to cover the cost of joining this primary. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
123. I think this thread needs to stay alive until after the NH primary...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. I think it needs to say alive... FOREVER...
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. WHO???





:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-11 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
126. ABSOLUTELY *ZERO* REC'S. Life must be miserable for you, especially following a loser like HART!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-12 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #126
153. How many unrecs a thread get determines if an OP's life is miserable? Sounds as though you may need
to get out more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-11 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
127. No thanks. A financial consultant and blogger??
:wtf:

He thinks Obama is in way over his head when it comes to dealing effectivey with the U.S. economy. And what does he propose to do differently that would actually have a chance of passing the do-never House of Repukes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
128. Well, it's been a week since we last checked...
Anything new from Darcy Richardson, saviour of the Democratic Party?

Nope. Website still under construction: http://www.darcy2012.com /

Though I did see that he was one of 3 Democrats to file papers in the Missouri primary. The other 2 being Obama and Randall Terry (!!).

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. !
:spray:


:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. This thread would be a lot more fun if the OP hadn't fled the scene...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Is Darcy a no-show? Did he find out that progressives wouldn't get behind a "financial consultant"?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-11 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
132. One last kick...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #132
134. I'll kick your kick.
Wonder where Gary Hart went?

Donna Rice get a booty call?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. Kickin' your kick!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-11 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. You guys are SO BAD!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-12 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
147. I'll give a kick...but, then I'm from the Viet Nam War Gen...so I'm biased..
:-(

I wanted someone to run to challenge a Dem President on War and Killing.

I feel sad that Ron Paul on the Right (the crazy one amongst other Crazies) is the only one talking about "Withdrawing Troops."

I wanted a Dem Candidate to Challenge Obama to make him understand how some of us feel about these Endless Wars and now DRONE WARS? GIVE ME A BREAK!

As a person who fought agains Vietnam in the 70's ...you are asking ME...who is STill Young and FIT to now SUPPORT DRONE WARS?? YOU gotta UNDERSTAND...that THIS WILL NOT STAND! WE WORKED TOO HARD AGAINST THESE WARS for EMPIRE.

MY GENERATION ISN'T DEAD YET! Don't let ANYONE TELL YOU THAT. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-12 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
148. NH Democratic Primary Results...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Democratic_p...

Barack Obama - 45,008 votes 81.9% 10 delegates
Darcy Richardson - 245 votes 0.4% 0 delegates

A squeaker.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-12 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #148
154. Who said it was going to be a squeaker?
Are you sad that Candadians cannot vote for Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AverageJoe90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-12 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
155. Oh dear, this is the LAST thing we needed.
Edited on Sat Jan-14-12 11:47 PM by AverageJoe90
IMHO, I think his heart may be in the right place, but it'll be a terrible mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Fri Jul 25th 2014, 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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