We need a challenger from the left at this point in history.

[mmonk]

Otherwise, we will lose any remnants left of the American system with a proper balance of a public sector and a private sector that it was in the past. We no longer need a compromiser unless your goal to define or shape a rightwing nation that has no healthy balance between sectors. Both parties believe in small government and limited regulation and flatter taxes. That is why we are going in that direction no matter the makeup of the branches of government. I can tell you, when I was growing up, there was no debt "crisis", there was no problem funding public schools, or housing for the poor, or our infrastructure. I will not participate in the dismantling of my country. That means I will not vote for Republicans, Libertarians, New Democrats, or Blue Dogs. My line in the sand has been reached. And when this sick agreement kicks in with its "Super Committee" and the next hostage crisis hits and leaves more destruction in its wake, I hope more people will see it my way. What we have witnessed isn't compromise. If you don't believe in rightwing theories, it has been surrender. Compromise is meeting somewhere in some sort of middle. But since only one party does, this all must be by design because it makes no sense otherwise.

[ClarkUSA]

1. Will you vote for the Democratic Party's incumbent President Barack Obama in 2012?

[demosincebirth]

11. You bet. Who would you suggest? Romney, Bachmann or maybe Perry, if he runs?

[MrScorpio]

2. And who should this challenger be?

And how is this challenger going to raise enough cash to be creditable?

Would it matter if this challenger can beat Republicans or not?

Wouldn't it be better if we all focused on replacing Republicans with Democrats instead of replacing Democrats with Democrats?

[Skink]

8. I think Gore should run.

for publicity atleast. He can promote his ideas on climate change etc.. He could get enough financing to be competitive early and make Obama chose which base he wants.

[rhett o rick]

50. Gore is a loser That bowed down to Baby Bush in 2000. I want someone willing to fight not

kiss the asses of the oppressors.

[Art_from_Ark]

56. Gore won the Florida Supreme Court case

But then Cheney's hunting buddy on the US Supreme Court took the case of bu$h vs. Gore, and the 5 addle-headed conservatives on the court ruled in favor of the addle-headed plaintiff based on an amendment that had absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections.

What would YOU have done after that? Especially after seeing mobs of foaming-at-the-mouth teabaggers in front of your house every day, telling YOU to get out of "Cheney's house", the weak-kneed Democrats in the Senate deferring to the USSC decision, and the party establishment telling you to give it up ????

I'd take Gore in a heartbeat.

[rhett o rick]

72. We have to draw the line somewhere. That would have been a great

Place to start. Instead we continue to compromise and retreat.

[rhett o rick]

73. Dup

[FiveGoodMen]

87. Gore picked Lieberman as his running-mate.

[mmonk]

59. It doesn't matter. There needs one for representative purposes if nothing else.

The real challenge has to be a movement in the party itself or it will die. The New Democrat Coalition has to be fought within the party and its policy shop position challenged.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

99. Bernie Sanders for President in 2012

http://www.sandersforpresident.org/

[RKP5637]

3. There is a significant loss of generational memory in this country. I'm starting

to think many younger people think this is just the way it is in the US. Many never lived in the US when it was a superior country in many ways. Today, it's just a glimmer of its former self and I fear too many really don't get how much the US sucks anymore. We have lost the generational history. They take shit as a way of life.

[Horse with no Name]

10. This is probably the most astute post on this site currently.

The "win at ALL costs" mentality is frightening...whether it comes from the right OR the left.

Our COUNTRY is at stake. Everything we hold dear is at stake...yet, those that support this POTUS no.matter.what do not realize that we are losing DEMOCRATIC blood and treasure--our SOULS-- in these backroom deals. If we CANNOT stand for the working people, the children, the poor, the elderly, and the otherwise disenfranchised in this country, then we have NO right to call ourselves Democrats. I don't exactly know what we would be..but the DEMOCRATS that SERVED OUR COUNTRY and that fought these battles long ago DESERVE that we uphold their blood, sweat and tears as what has been the backbone of our platform for the majority of the last century.

[EFerrari]

18. I think a lot of younger people are focused on "win at all cost"

in that short term, shallow way because that's all they have, not only because it's all they've known. They don't have a growing economy with lots of job potential, they only know "public school" as some kind of epithet, like "liberal" and "the left". They wait for hours in clinics routinely and are clawed by TSA. What else do they have to make them feel part of something bigger than the spat of the day?

[MissDeeds]

63. +1000

Well said!

[madrchsod]

13. i`m 64 and i tell my kids about the 60`s and 70`s....

if you did`t like your job you could quit and find another that afternoon.yes i actually did this. free insurance with no co-pays,pensions,and unions.

i made more money ,adjusted for inflation , per week in the 70`s than i did in the early 2000`s. my wife is working for less than i did in the 70`s.

yes there are one or two generations that know nothing about how things were till the 1980`s

[RKP5637]

29. Yep! And back then one had to really try hard not to have a job. Back then if you

lost your job it was generally due to the fact you really F'ed up. There was a lot of disgrace back then with losing a job. Employers really cared about you for the most part.

In the corps. I worked in I recall going to meeting after meeting where they told you how valued you were. In one company where I worked you could not be let go after 10 years without your manager and director explaining to the president of the company how you could be a 10 year employee and let go. His goal was to see if your manager and director should be let go instead. And that was true at all levels, right down to the lowest level job in the company, and it was not even a union company. Once hired, they wanted you for your whole career.

I worked at several companies like that.

I also felt good about the country back then. Sure, sometimes it was really F'ed up, but I felt it was a solid country, that we would make it better and better.

Anyway, just a couple examples above... but anymore I feel all of that has gone away, I don't feel the stability anymore, I don't feel we are all pulling together. Anymore it's just a damn uncomfortable feeling.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Please make this an OP.

If you don't, I may blatantly steal it.

[RKP5637]

32. OK, I will. Glad you liked it ... n/t

[mmonk]

31. I agree.

[Number23]

55. I know. My grandfather always talked about the good old days

What it was like to come home from fighting in a war and be denied job after job after job because of the color of his skin.

To have his eldest brother lynched and know that there was absolutely nothing he, his other siblings and his mother (who almost died as a result of her son being killed) could do about it because the law supported the white men who killed his brother.

My grandmother fondly remembers having to shuttle all five of her daughters through the back doors of restaurants, shopping centers, and even government offices -- offices that she helped PAY FOR with her tax money. She gets nostalgic when remembering despite being college educated and absolutely brilliant, the only job that she was allowed to have was as a schoolteacher because that's all black women were allowed to do in those times if they didn't want to be maids, housekeepers or nannies for rich, white women.

Ah yes, the good old days. Where'd they go?

[tammywammy]

64. This is really the saddest part of these good ol' day threads

There's always a glossing over of what else was going on. Good ol' days = good ol' white people days.

[RKP5637]

71. My concern was not of good old days being better, but rather that

I fear too many really don't get how much the US sucks anymore. We have lost the generational history/knowledge of standing up for rights, taking to the streets. Too many take shit as a way of life today. WI is a good example of a turnaround, I hope it continues.

[Number23]

84. I agree

Good ol' days = good ol' white people days

You're absolutely right. Except I don't think it's sad. I think it's fucking disgusting.

[RKP5637]

68. I was thinking more of the 60's and 70's when we were climbing out of

this BS of conservatism, racial repression and lack of women's rights, when opportunities for all were getting better. IMO there was a forward feeling across the nation then of things will be better. I just don't see that anymore today.

[Number23]

85. My mother was born in the early 1950s

And she remembers being shuttled into the back door of Macy's and other buildings as a child. This DID happen during the 1960s, which is the time period that you were referring to.

As tammywammy so truthfully said, the constant lamenting for the "good old days" on DU is a bunch of older white people pining the for the days when people of color and women were denied opportunities and basic rights. It is disgusting and shameful. But at least it's honest, which is a value lacking around here lately.

[RKP5637]

86. I certainly hope you are not putting me in that category of some old

white bigot pining for the old days. if so, you entirely missed the point of the original OP and are woefully mistaken! And that in itself is disgusting and shameful. I've been kicked around and I take no pride in it. You seem to want to make this a racial issue and that was NEVER the intent!

[Number23]

95. I'm not making this a racial issue

I'm introducing a radical new concept: REALITY.

The reality is that so many here pine for the "good old days" when they had a grand old time and life was peaches and cream, blithely ignoring that back then people of color were ROUTINELY denied basic rights and opportunities. That automatic "cheap house" that so many fondly remember was not available to blacks. That automatic "good job" was not available to blacks. That is the reality.

If that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe that's a good thing. Perhaps some people need to remember that America has always treated certain groups of people like shit. Because some people are unaware of that fact, or choose to ignore it, does not make it even the slightest bit less true or real.

[RKP5637]

96. I lived through it so it's not unfamiliar to me. Thanks for getting back and

I agree, that it's good to point out that what some see as good times were very very bad for others. "America has always treated certain groups of people like shit" and I'm in one of those groups.

[Empowerer]

98. Thank you.

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[Forkboy]

5. We do, but I wouldn't put money on it happening.

[EFerrari]

20. The thing about the Tea Klan destabilizing the government is

that it will have unintended consequences. Maybe the shake up isn't over and maybe we can rescue something out of it. It's hard to tell right now.

[Forkboy]

21. I would certainly welcome more shaking.

:)

[cbdo2007]

6. Or would you rather have someone who can actually win??

Hey, I love the idea of a superliberal running but I like the idea of winning more and a superliberal isn't going to get enough votes to win.

[mmonk]

65. Win what exactly? We're in reverse throttle.

[cbdo2007]

70. So....would you say we are more conservative or more liberal as a whole....

than we were 50 years ago?

[SOS]

76. Breaking it down

Politically - far to the right of 50 years ago
Economically - from capitalism to state monopoly capitalism (oligarchy) in 35 years
Socially - more liberal than 50 years ago

[jaxx]

7. I'm voting for the Democratic President Barack Obama.

The leader of the Democratic Party. Try turning some of those "I won't" into "I will".

[rhett o rick]

17. Goody for you. You like where we are today I assume. nm

[jaxx]

24. I like it a whole lot better than where we were in 2008.

So yes, goody for me.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Sprat]

22. I will not. Not the guy who is sacrificing

the very principles upon which this party galvanized the greatest middle class in history. You don't surrender your principles if you lead this party. When you surrender those principles, what do you expect the House Democratic members to run on in the fall of 12? Apologies? If that's the case, we might as well fold the tents and become the Republican II Party. We will just simply vie for the corporate vote.

[jaxx]

28. What was sacrificed?

Nothing. Nothing but rumors and woulda shoulda coulda by the ever insistent doomsdayers.

The house Dems will run on the fact that the teabaggers are a bunch of liars, that McConnell admits the hostage taking and vows to do it again, that Boner brags he got 98% of what they wanted in ransom. There is plenty to run on, and our principles are intact.

[Jack Sprat]

41. I'm not a believer anymore.

I think we'll see the Bush tax cuts extended again while Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all take reductions.

Do you think the Repubs are just going to salivate on this one victory and quit the field? They are coming for more and more. They aren't finished with him. They have only started good.
They are emboldened by each victory that they have enjoyed over this weak president. They can't wait for the next opportunity to box him in again. He has surrendered the economy. Any growth will be weak and slow. People are going to react as they always do when an economy is awash. He will get blamed for things he never dreamed he would.

[jaxx]

43. Oh hell yes the pubs will come back for more.

They've already bragged about it. That's why it's so important to work and get the bastards out of congress. The President didn't surrender the economy, he kept us from default. If he had surrendered or caved it would have been done a long time ago. He didn't. The pubs got a lot of cuts, some meaningless, and they won't start until 2013. The pubs are holding the economy down, refusing to pass bills, refusing to allocate money for much needed jobs programs.....again get them out of there and things will improve. This stagnation happened after they got the House this year....before there was growth.

Dammit, do your part and work to get the House back and keep the Senate. And for sure the White House. I'm not about to give up and let the toads take everything!!!

[Jack Sprat]

51. Well okay then. n/t

[madrchsod]

9. let`s face the facts...the party is`t obama`s it`s ours

we have to rebuild the party from the dog catcher to the president. it took 30 some years to get to this point so it`s not going to change overnight.

if you look at what wisconsin is doing you`ll see how it can be done.

[girl gone mad]

12. k & r

[killbotfactory]

14. How would anyone further left get what they want passed by this congress? nt

[rhett o rick]

16. So you are ok with where we are today? Or are you willing to fight? You decide. nm

[killbotfactory]

42. I am not okay with a lot of things, but that hardly changes anything. nt

[rhett o rick]

47. No it means a lot. Are you willing to fight, or go willingly into the gas chambers? nm

[MilesColtrane]

52. Obama's building gas chambers now?

[rhett o rick]

77. So are you going to wait until someone does? nm

[Jack Sprat]

15. Absolutely we do. Agree with you.

Mostly we need someone who openly expresses the message that you just expressed. Obama is a smooth talker when it comes to being an understanding mediator, but he is biased in the Repub direction. Giving Beohner 98% of what he wanted is not a fair arbitration.

[Turn CO Blue]

23. Yeah cuz that worked SO well when Kennedy primaried Carter

Ted Kennedy ripped Carter worse than imaginable and gave the Repubs all the ammunition and the weakened incumbent they needed in the General.

Man, history lessons!

[EFerrari]

25. You're looking at one election. The OP is looking at our future.

[gkhouston]

35. Iran hostage crisis? Magically resolved on the day Reagan was sworn in?

Let's not forget that bit of history, which had a hell of a lot more to do with Carter's loss than Kennedy's primary challenge.

[Mr Dixon]

69. SAD

AGREED

[FiveGoodMen]

89. Carter was worth keeping

[rhett o rick]

97. So you recommend to just stick it out as the ship sinks? Is there ever a time

where you say enough is enough and stand and fight? Just how far are you willing to let the Republican terrorists push you?

[stklurker]

26. Congress folks... focus... Congress

Please folks.. pay attention.. we need to take back the House, and increase the lead in the Senate.. He WILL pass the bills if they come through Congress.. if you get a 'R' President and we dont get back the House... well, you havent seen anything yet.

[EFerrari]

27. The House will now be HARDER to take back because

the indies broke for the Republicans over jobs. How are we going to win them back with worse unemployment next year? What will your selling point be, exactly?

[stklurker]

34. selling point

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, but thats what we need to focus on is what I am saying. Winning POTUS and losing both Houses of Congress is really going to get us nowhere.. especially if we dont get some better leadership in Congress...

[EFerrari]

38. How do you sell the big 3 when Obama went out of his way

to say how willing he was to "reform" them? Who is going to believe that? Could you sell that to a voter with a straight face, knowing that from Nancy Pelosi on down, this party has put the big 3 into play? Seriously?

[jaxx]

45. He said no benefit cuts.

Cuts to providers and cut the pork in Medicare. Like the quack who triple bills Medicare and gets by with it unless the patient turns him in, or the hospital padding the bills which the patient has to turn in or they get by with it.

[EFerrari]

48. I'm sorry but I'm not stupid enough to believe cuts to providers

won't mean cuts to beneficiaries. I know people on Medicare and I was born at night but not last night.

[jaxx]

49. That's your problem, not mine.

You can choose to believe what you want, I'll stick with the facts.

[EFerrari]

53. Not at all. It's very much your problem and your family's problem

and your neighbors' problem. This atrocity of a deal has set Medicare up to be cut automatically if the Committee of hand washers get no result. There is no term to this deal that won't be under attack by the Republicans. And who is going to hold them off?

There's some facts for you.

[jaxx]

54. Facts:

Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.

In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

[Horse with no Name]

30. When Obama announced he was willing to carve up SS and Medicare

We lost Congress. American people have always been assured that the Democrats would cherish these programs like you would cherish a newborn baby and save them from harm.
That dialog has changed now and the people can no longer trust US as the keeper of these programs.

So, it matters not what I post on this board...or if I throw him some cash, or if I support a primary challenge...if Obama loses this election--he will lose it strictly because he was UNWILLING to stand with courage against these terrorists.

We carried him the last election. He better be ready to carry himself this one.

[EFerrari]

33. I think that's right. I imagine myself at somebody's door

and what I could say to them. It's easy to find people's issues. But once I do that, what can I say about them?

[Horse with no Name]

37. I fear that the local Dems are going to feel the blowback of this more

than the national Dems...or maybe it will just feel worse because it is closer to home.

[EFerrari]

39. Yes, because cuts in federal funding to the states will be felt

most immediately at home.

[FiveGoodMen]

91. My local Dem -- at the state House -- is pushing cuts as well.

The party is rotten, through and through.

[stklurker]

36. Congress and Obama

So.. basically its over, I mean trying to primary a sitting president with no viable candidate and accepting you are going to lose Congress is pretty much end of story.

[BillyJack]

40. Name some potential "left" candidates.....

Whadda ya got?

Everybody is leaning SOOOOOOOO far right that the "ship is gonna capsize" at any moment...

GEEZ

[mmonk]

66. Anyone. The point is to fight back while we can.

[upi402]

44. dig up goldwater

he's left of the prez afterall

[grahamhgreen]

57. How about kpete and/or madfloridian? How much would it cost to put them on the ballot?

Or anyone here who'd like to give it a go. David Swanson?

Seriously.

[nashville_brook]

58. yep.

[JoePhilly]

60. Where did you grow up?

"I can tell you, when I was growing up, there was no debt "crisis", there was no problem funding public schools, or housing for the poor, or our infrastructure."

That's just ridiculous.

The debt becomes an issue any time we get a Democratic President, schools have always been underfunded, and the infrastructure has been underfunded for about 50 years. These aren't new problems.

[mmonk]

67. I grew up in the generation that desgregated schools, produced low income housing,

established the Voting Rights Act, went to the moon, etc.

[Ganja Ninja]

61. I would like to see Allan Grayson take on Obama in the primary.

I would look forward to seeing them debate Obama's first term performance.

[Recursion]

75. The guy who couldn't keep his own House seat?

:eyes: yeah, he'll do great nationally...

[msanthrope]

78. Do not bring facts to this thread....n/t

[MissDeeds]

62. K&R

[Recursion]

74. Dissatisfied Democrats are to Obama's right, for the most part

It's just a numbers thing: if there's going to be a primary challenge, it's going to be somebody like Bayh. That's where the votes are.

[Raksha]

93. HUH??? Where do you get that? Dissatisfied Democrats are to Obama's right???

First of all, it would be pretty impossible to be to Obama's right and still call yourself a Democrat. Not even Joe Lieberman calls himself a Democrat any more.

And if you're talking about the Dixiecrats, most of them have long since become Republicans. All the squawking I've heard and participated in has been coming from the LEFT, on DU and elsewhere. I'd like to see a concrete example of all these potential Evan Bayh voters you say are out there.

[Freddie Stubbs]

79. There is already someone running:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-17/news/27081555_1_teen-girl-dorm-room-tea-party

[treestar]

80. No, you need a Democratic House

Quit looking to the Presidency as a savior-being. It is an office. The President can sign or veto Congress' bills. Bills have to pass both Houses.

[Maven]

81. Sorry. We must have just imagined Obama's glorious "deal-making" these past weeks.

Clearly that was Nancy Pelosi in an Obama suit.

[treestar]

82. What do you mean?

Nancy Pelosi is the minority leader.

The only reason Obama had to make some kind of deal was that the House was in Republican hands.

If it had been Democratic, the ceiling would have been raised without question.

[Maven]

83. Nonsense. He made plenty of "deals" with PhRMA/Big Insurance behind closed doors

and without Pelosi's imprimatur while we had a Dem majority.

Try again.

[amborin]

88. desperately so

[woo me with science]

90. Strong K&R nt

[Fire1]

92. It makes no sense to you b/c you see only what you want to see

and I certainly don't have time to convince you otherwise.

[Martin Eden]

94. A possible scenario if Obama is primaried:

Obama defeats a challenger from the left, which makes him appear to be the centrist candidate.

This helps Obama with the independents in the general election, but the progressive base is even further alienated and few will lift a finger to help this president get re-elected (though most will vote for him, given the alternative). If Obama wins a 2nd term, this triumph of the centrist over the base of the left could push the Democratic Party even further to the right.

I'm only speculating what I think could happen, and not advocating anything here. I think more choices in a primary are in principle a good thing regardless of incumbency, but politics is so messed up in this country that we have to consider how things will play out.

[StarsInHerHair]

100. yes