Ralphing Ralph

I saw a headline this morning that said “Ralph Nader praises Sarah Palin,” and I was going to link to it under a headline that said “Ralph Bleeping Nader, Will You Please Go Now?” But there is more to the story.

Apparently Ralph and fellow geniuses such as Cornell West and Gore Vidal have declared that President Obama should be primaried. They apparently think this is an original idea, which tells us they don’t read blogs much. They also don’t have a specific candidate in mind, but acknowledge that filing deadlines are fast approaching. Maybe Ralph will decide he’s the only available choice on short notice.

In other words, they aren’t pushing to oust Obama because they have somebody better in mind. They just want to punish Obama for not being progressive enough.

At Balloon Juice, Dennis G. writes,

This Nader/West effort to marginalize the left is just another example of the progressive death wish. This recent editorial from The Nation is another. I’m 56 years old. I’ve watched the so called leaders of the Left do this dance of self-destruction over and over and over again. The results have never been good.

Humphrey had to pay a price for LBJ. They had to “punish” Carter to teach him a lesson, even if it gave us Reagan. Gore had to be disciplined for the sins of Clinton and these fools claimed there was no difference between Al and Bush. Kerry never “excited” them and also required election year chastisement. Now it is President Obama who is the target of these strategic geniuses.

Nader, West and these other fools always function as the reliable Left flank of wingnutopia. Without these useful idiots the GOP and their ideas would always be defeated. With them to serve as comic foils, vote sponges, and advocates of apathy, the GOP can get close enough to steal any election.

Ralph argues that a primary challenge will actually be good for Obama. We might remember that Ralph’s political instincts are nearly as sharp as Mark Penn‘s. Going back several years, the only incumbents who have lost the White House faced tough primary challenges. Those incumbents who enjoyed unified party support won, usually easily.

Ta-Nehisi Coates writes,

As ABL notes, there are some unfortunate consistencies here. Nader began the Obama presidency by wondering if Obama would be an “Uncle Tom for the corporations..” He now joins forces with West who derides his “dear brother Barack Obama” as a “black mascot for Wall Street interests” with a “fear of free black men.” Perhaps Michael Moore shall join them and we can hear these three explain to us why Obama is actually a white president.

And the moral is, sometimes people need to learn when to shut up. Even former Naderite James Fallows thinks so.

But since Nader is too oblivious to reality to know when to shut up, I propose that any progressive who says he will vote for Nader be crowned with a dunce hat labeled “Florida 2000” and made to sit in the corner.

Update: BTW, if you aren’t already overdosed on stupid, David Brooks’s column will do the job.

66 thoughts on “Ralphing Ralph

  1. Well, David Brooks has finally written something I can half way agree with, He’s a “sap”, just not quite in the way he means.

  2. I don’t want to put Ralph Nader down, because the man has accomplished a lot of things in his life. He’s was great on auto and worker safety, and the environment. But, when it comes to politics, he’s like the Corvair – “Unsafe At Any Speed.”

    The same goes for Gore Vidal, whose books I’ve read, and who’ve I gone to listen to speak; and Cornell West, whom I’ve admired for many years.
    They remind me of “Winkin’, Blinkin’ and Nod.”
    Winkin’, Blinkin’, and Nod, one night sailed off in a wooden shoe;
    Sailed off on a river of crystal light into a sea of dew.
    “Where are you going and what do you wish?” the old moon asked the three.
    “We’ve come to fish for a Liberal to take on Obama and make him fight in the Primary.
    Nets of silver and gold have we,” said Winkin’, Blinkin’, and Nod.

    But who’s going to be W, B & N’s great catch?
    Who is this mythical Liberal who’ll ride in and save all of us to get the nomination, and then capture the hearts of the ignorant, un-and-mis-informed, and lazy masses, which is what most “indpendents” are, and then slay ‘Ponzi ‘Perry or ‘Fill-in the ___________ ‘Mitt?
    Who’s going to throw that game winning TD pass?
    Who?
    Hillary? Allen Grayson? Feingold? Tom Hanks?
    And please don’t tell me that it’ll fall to Nader again.
    Sit down and shut up, you’ve done enough political damage in one lifetime, Ralph.

    Hey, “Winkin’, Blinkin’, and Nod,” you want a more Liberal President? Spend your time, resources, and ample minds on getting more progressives and liberals into Congress.
    Think of politics as football. You want a more aggressive football coach?
    Make sure the team drafts more aggressive players.
    Right now, the Democratic side is full of well-paid and worthless 1st rounders, and a bunch of chickenshit backbenchers, all playing not to get hurt.

    And, now, over the past two weeks, President Obama should have done enough to shut up Nader, Vidal, and West – except they sure do love the sound of their own voices.
    Maybe what our side needs is more mimes, and less clowns.

  3. “Maybe Ralph will decide he’s the only available choice on short notice”

    Ralph (the lefts Donald Trump) Nader channeling Dick Cheney?

    “I don’t want to put Ralph Nader down, because the man has accomplished a lot of things in his life”

    Yes eight years of little boots, quite an accomplishment, as you state he should stay out of politics.

  4. You don’t have to worry – I won’t vote for Nader. I also won’t vote for Obama again. I am voting for the Socialist Worker’s Party candidate, whoever that may be. I will not vote for a man who has thrown away 75 years of Democratic tradition. I don’t give a shit if we end up with President Perry or Palin. Maybe, like an alcoholic, this country needs to hit bottom before it. can recover.

  5. Sam Simple,
    I know, maybe Liberals and Progressives ought to just vote outright for Perry, or Romney, or whoever the Republicans nominate. That’ll teach Obama and the Democrats a lesson!

    But maybe we’ll find that there’s an even bigger difference between hitting bottom and catastrophe – did you think of that?

    So, feel free to do what so many did in 2000, when Nader said there was no difference between the political parties. I just want to ask you, ‘How’d that turn out for the rest of us?’

    But, hey, it’s your vote…

  6. “I will not vote for a man who has thrown away 75 years of Democratic tradition”

    Any examples or are you just here to vent?

    “Maybe, like an alcoholic, this country needs to hit bottom before it. can recover”

    You may be right but it’s the dimwitted teabaggers who need to dry out, are you one of those?

  7. So, I should vote for the candidate who is “just a little bit less bad”? Perry will take away our Social Security overnight, but Obama will do it gradually? You are the ones who have no principles! I plan to vote for a candidate who shares my principles and vision for the future and that sure as hell is not Mr. Nobel Peace Prize!

    • You are the ones who have no principles!

      No, we are the ones who pay close attention. You are the one upon whom the propaganda catapulted.

    • So, I should vote for the candidate who is “just a little bit less bad”? Perry will take away our Social Security overnight, but Obama will do it gradually?

      So, you’re one of those folks who believes in the Magic President? In other words, you think Congress is irrelevant and presidents can do anything they want? Because only Congress can do away with Social Security. Presidents don’t have the authority.

      Whether you like it or not, the Patient Protection Act — even the watered-down version that passed — was the most progressive piece of major legislation achieved by any Democratic president since Lyndon Baines Johnson. Neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton achieved anything close to it. So where the bleep do you get that Obama is throwing away “75 years of Democratic tradition”?

      And if you’re so all-fired interested in “Democratic tradition,” reflect carefully upon this Nate Silver post that shows the relative sizes of Democratic congressional majorities in the FDR, LBJ, and Obama administrations. FDR in particular had HUGE Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate that moved quickly to pass FDR’s initiatives. Obama only briefly had a majority in both Houses, and a whole mess of them were Blue Dogs who voted with Republicans.

      Put another way, if FDR had had Obama’s Congress, we might remember him as an incompetent, one-term president.

    • c u n d gulag — I’d disagree with the article you link on one point. If we had Al Franken for president but still had the present Congress, we still wouldn’t get 10 out of 10. He might do somewhat better than the current president, or he might not. But no human being could squeeze 10 out of 10 from that Congress.

  8. “I will not vote for a man who has thrown away 75 years of Democratic tradition.”

    Given that you seem to be judging Barack Obama by a historical metric you yourself don’t understand, I don’t think registered Democrats are entitled to care too much about you.

    Also, good luck with the Socialist Workers Party. Will you be joining the anarcho-syndicalist wing or side with the collectivist division(s)?

    I think the last SWP candidate for president guested on The Colbert Report.

  9. Sam,
    You’re SO right!
    I was blind!!!
    Yes, let’s not vote for Obama. Let Perry take SS away from us in 2013!

    Why use holding and stalling strategies on any safety net programs, hoping that demographics and time may get us a more progressive electorate, and hence candidates, when instead we can prove how pure we are by committing mass suicide?

    So, you’re so right. We need to demand ideologican purity ON ALL ISSUES! Or else, we’ll cut our nose to spite our face – AGAIN!!!

    Sam, if you want to martyr yourself as a true-believer, that’s fine – just remember, you’ll take a lot of the rest of us with you into those purifying flames.

  10. maha,
    I agree, but it was more the 7 or 8 points out of 10 that resonated with me.
    Just out of pure ego and spite, no Congress will ever go for 10 out of 10.

    Hell, even Little Boots didn’t get everything in every way that he wanted.
    They seem to think that Bush got 11 out of every 10! People forget that he didn’t. Examples are that his disasterous tax cuts weren’t permanent, and we still have unprivatized Social Security.

    • As I remember, Little Boots got zip on his domestic proposals in his second term. Congress just ignored him. He still had some clout in foreign policy, but I don’t remember him doing anything significant except for the glorious “surge.”

  11. I think that this is one of the most cunning bits of serendipity the Republicans could have imagined.

    First, they create safe, safe, safe platforms for their people. Then, those people claim those safe, safe, safe platforms “because that’s what we believe and we don’t get affected by polls.” Left unsaid is that those ideas have polled well among Republicans for a generation….

    Then, they hash the Democrats for not having the same kind of bold, principled leadership because they don’t have safe sound-bite platforms to fall back on for every issue. Democrats are weak because they need to use more than seven words to make their point!

    And then – they get idiotic leftists who think that the energy all comes from the politicians – just look at those Republicans, having beauty pageants for primaries (this is *not* a slam on Palin – but it does explain why Palin has done so well), and looking so *good* repeating the same old, same old, which now is called LEADERSHIP.

    The energy doesn’t ever come from politicians. The energy comes from the people. Asking a politician to provide leadership without energy from the people is like… I dunno, like asking actors to provide energy without *ever* facing an audience. Sure, they’ll fake it for a long time (that’s what rehearsals are, after all), but without those performances, they’ve got nothing.

    If Nader wants to see more from the President, he should find something to energize people about, and then go energize them, and make the President happy to make them happy, and scared to make them unhappy. Generating a primary challenge to “punish” him is stupid.

    • If Nader wants to see more from the President, he should find something to energize people about, and then go energize them, and make the President happy to make them happy, and scared to make them unhappy. Generating a primary challenge to “punish” him is stupid.

      Exactly right. Progressives continue to marginalize themselves because they don’t see that.

  12. maha 2:28pm – FDR also had a GDP growing at 13%/year. (Where is our GDP? Lucky if it grows at all this year.) As far as I can determine FDR did not have a monstrous national deficit/debt. Ours is unprecedented which brings me to the totally unreliable results, even idiotic results, which naturally occur when anything which occurs in one time frame is compared to the ‘anything’ which occurred in a different time frame as if the ‘times’ are equally inter-changeable.

  13. “If Nader wants to see more from the President, he should find something to energize people about”

    I don’t think he wants more from the president. I think this is all about Ralphie, it has nothing to do with president Obama. Ralphie see’s all those republicant dimwits getting all that air time, the crazies being held on equal footing with the establishment guys. Why if bat-shit crazy Bachman can poll so high well, and what about Herman Cain why he’s completely out to lunch but allowed to attend all the debates, and look at old Newt, scant a single new idea but still promoting those tired propaganda manuals him and his aged Barbie doll produce. Ralph Nader is the lefts Donald Trump, he’s got a recognizable name, but under that skull their aint much going on anymore, his time has come and gone. It’s no different than 2000, it’s all about Ralphie, he’s a self absorb narcissist.

  14. My vote will not be a symbolic protest and I’ll vote for the best person with reasonable chances of winning. I did read a blog by Cornell West that lamented his personal betrayal by Obama (it was mostly about Cornell, but that’s a matter of tone) but it had a few good points about Obama needing to be educator-in-chief, something I wholeheartedly agree with.

    In a book or interview (I did not catch which) Rev. Wright is quoted as saying Obama told him that his problem was “that you have to be honest.” I hope that’s not true because we had enough examples of BS as a grand national example for others during the Bush administration that it emboldened many to follow the example…you know, if the President does it then…

    I’ve said it before but if the intent is to judge people then one must come down, more or less, on one side or the other but if the purpose is to analyzde what they are saying then it’s sometimes possible to find a nugget of gold in a big steamy pile of… No one is ever all right or all wrong.

    Though it’s foolish to ignore perception that doesn’t mean that dealing with perception according to the ways people are ignorant can’t be accompanied by the truth.

    What will cure this is a deep empathetic directness and honesty about the causes of our demise in which it was reported only today that 37% of young families (30 and younger) are below the poverty level. But Obama, forever on the defensive even with his offense offered a rebuttal of the accusations of “class warfare”. He could have gone further and explained that we are where we’re at because of class warfare for which there was no response. That war is almost over and look who won?

    I am worried not only about the lack of offense but also the sharpness and frequency of what should literally be coordinated ATTACKS by Obama and other dem leaders.

    I’ll still vote for him. It’s blatantly childish to take one’s toys and go home by voting for someone who will not win. That is akin to making it all about oneself and not about the best that can be had for the nation at a given point in time. It might satisfy a sesne of self righteousness or token revenge but it does nothing to help.

    Naturally to be fair and maintain the appearance of

  15. Also, good luck with the Socialist Workers Party. Will you be joining the anarcho-syndicalist wing or side with the collectivist division(s)?

    Paula, thank you for giving me the best laugh of the day.

  16. Cut off your nose to spite your face?

    Why go through the expense and effort to primary Obama? You’ll get the same result by just voting for a Repug in 2012.

  17. I’ve got a better idea. I’d love to see a Constitutional amendment that would limit all presidents to just one term. It would solve this whole problem. Yes, we would miss the “benefit” of a good president getting re-elected, though I can hardly think of a president who was better in his second term than his first, but I can think of several who were worse.

    If presidents couldn’t have a second term, they wouldn’t spend their first four years working on their re-election campaign, but might actually do the job they were elected to do.

    To take the most recent example of a Democratic president who shouldn’t have run for re-election: if Bill Clinton hadn’t run, Al Gore would have easily beaten Bob Dole in 1996. And if the Dems chose a good candidate in 2000 (Howard Dean, maybe?) then the whole Dubya nightmare would not have happened.

    There’s a reason why it’s easier for Republicans to get re-elected than Democrats. Because most Republicans are clueless what their leaders are doing, and are more easily swayed by those 30-second soundbites on TV (“Fighting terrorism, praying for our troops, supporting family values…Re-elect President Bush” – background music is God Bless America). These slogans don’t cut much ice with liberals who actually pay attention to real issues. Liberals get mad when their candidate betrays them once in office…conservatives don’t even notice. Just wave a flag and Bible at them, rail against abortion and gays, promise more war, and they’ll vote for you, even if you fail to deliver on any of your promises.

    There are countries (mostly in Latin America) that limit presidents to a single term, but there has been a trend in recent years to amend those constitutions to allow second (and third, fourth) terms, almost always with poor (or disastrous) results. Most recent case I can think of is Hugo Chavez. About 10 years ago, Argentina did the same.

    Of course, I realize that the chance of America passing a Constitutional amendment to limit presidents to one term is zilch. Indeed, I haven’t heard a single politician discuss it as a possibility. It’s not on anyone’s radar.

  18. “I’d love to see a Constitutional amendment that would limit all presidents to just one term.”

    I’d like to the the limit to two terms removed. Why limit my choice?

    I would like to see campaign finance reform come back, but the SCOTUS threw up (I use that phrase pointedly) several huge barriers to that happening any time soon.

  19. “If presidents couldn’t have a second term, they wouldn’t spend their first four years working on their re-election campaign, but might actually do the job they were elected to do”

    Are you insane, running for re-election is the only thing that keeps many of them from trashing the country for themselves and their cronies benefit? Can you imagine how many wars Cheney would have started? Maybe you should suggest changes to your own countries electoral system, ours is fine the way it is!

    I saw Nader on that yawn-fest “Last-Word” (aren’t there two shows after his in prime time)? He spewed his 2000 talking points almost verbatim. He almost crooned “more voices more choices” but caught himself and offered a thinly veiled re-write. It’s really sad seeing him stoop so low for TeeVee time. Reminded me of an old bloated rock star with a bad rug playing at the local Holiday Inn, one last time. Sad Really.

  20. “Are you insane, running for re-election is the only thing that keeps many of them from trashing the country for themselves and their cronies benefit? Can you imagine how many wars Cheney would have started? Maybe you should suggest changes to your own countries electoral system, ours is fine the way it is!”

    By that logic, we should never re-elect sitting presidents, since presumably in the second term they will trash the country for themselves and their cronies benefit.

    Can I imagine how many wars Cheney would have started if he was a one-term VP? Probably just the same two he started. He might have wanted to start a third war, but the USA was pretty much broke and broken by the first two. I don’t think that Cheney showed any restraint whatsoever in his first term. Re-election didn’t seem to be on his mind, just stealing anything that wasn’t nailed down.

    I’m hearing from some Obama supporters that they expect him to be much better in his second term because he won’t have the pressure of re-election. Hmmm….but according to you, he was supposed to be much better in his first term because he wanted to behave well so he could get re-elected.

    In pretty much every country I’ve been in (that would be around 40), presidents and prime ministers seem to do the most good in their first term. After that, it’s just keeping the seat warm and basking in glory, looking for more cash, and plotting a third or forth term (often by passing constitutional amendments to make that possible, ie Chavez in Venezuela, Peron in Argentina, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and many others). The longer they sit in office, the more smug and corrupt they become.

    Ronald Reagan would have likely had a third term in office had the US Constitution not been amended to limit it to two terms. Think about that. Despite being a nonstop disaster, he was still popular with his base.

    As for “my” country, it’s still the USA as far as being able to vote. I would happily dump my US citizenship for another, but that is really difficult where I live. But you don’t have to worry about me voting, because I’ve decided I no longer will make the effort to vote absentee – previous attempts were mostly unsuccessful. I did vote for Obama in 2008 only because I was in the USA that year, in large part because I wanted to be sure to vote against McCain/Palin. But I won’t make that effort again.

  21. “I would happily dump my US citizenship for another, but that is really difficult where I live”

    Well that says it all doesn’t it, you’ve made some excellent points. So in the end it’s not about really about president Obama, or one term versus two is it?

    “But I won’t make that effort again”

    That’s probably best, you should focus your energy on one of those other countries you’ve been in “(that would be around 40)”.

  22. I have no time for most of the closed minded thinking of liberals who bash Ralph Nader. If all our politicians would be as true to their democratic core beliefs, studied as hard, taught as hard and focused their money as selflessly, well, we might have an America to be proud of now. The fact that he has been in any democratic presidents kitchen cabinet is sorrowful.
    “This country has far more problems than it deserves and far more solutions than it applies.” Ralph Nader

    “|If we don’t believe in free expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all” Chomsky

    • I have no time for most of the closed minded thinking of liberals who bash Ralph Nader.

      And I have no time for idiots who drool on my comment threads. And nobody gets to be a sacred cow.

      “|If we don’t believe in free expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all” Chomsky

      The right to free expression does not include a right that no one may disagree with you. The issue is that Nader’s droolings about politics are not only an embarrassment to him, they actually hurt the progressive cause.

  23. So were just supposed to take it in the ass because Obama is better than Perry. How so? How is Obama anything other than W’s third term? I know Obama just gave a pretty speech about raising taxes on the Rich. He also gave pretty speeches on the need for a Public Option in his health care act while at the same time he was negotiating to kill the Public Option and enabling Joe Lieberman, Max Bacchus, and Ben Nelson to kill the Public Option

  24. Twtfltrd wrote: “’I will not vote for a man who has thrown away 75 years of Democratic tradition’

    Any examples or are you just here to vent?”

    There are ~plenty~ of examples. Do you mean to tell me that you can’t think of any yourself?! That’s just not believable.

    Where should I start?

    1. Effectively legalizing torture by refusing to prosecute torture.
    2. Wiretapping and spying on Americans, and giving the telcos immunity from prosecution.
    3. Promoting tax cuts by saying they will “create millions of jobs”
    4. Larger military budget than bush.
    5. Offering to cut Social Security, even before Republicans ask for it.
    6. Weakening the EPA.
    7. Working against single-payer healthcare

    This is just off the top of my head. If I came here just to vent, I could have written a much longer list. Obama is to the right of Reagan, validating almost every republican talking point.

    Enjoy yourself when you vote for “tax cuts that create millions of jobs”, and endless war in the middle east. Can we continue the Bush presidency by voting for obama? Yes we can!

    • John Holland, I can’t argue with points 1 and 2, although perhaps someone else can.

      Point 3 tells me you don’t know much about Democratic tradition; see, for example, this rousing speech delivered by John F. Kennedy on how tax cuts will grow jobs and stimulate the economy. Even Paul Krugman will tell you that middle-class tax cuts stimulate the economy, which is what grows jobs. What Bush and the Republicans did was slash taxes for the wealthy during wartime and are using the inevitable budget deficit as an excuse to cut benefit programs.

      Point 4 — the largeness or smallness of military budgets is not a “Democratic tradition.” Without looking it up, as I remember it, President Carter possibly did reduce the military budget; FDR did not, of course; Truman may have in the aftermath of World War II; I believe military spending grew under Kennedy and Johnson; I think Clinton ended up growing it a bit. As I said I’m going by memory here, so if you want to look it up yourself let me know if I’m missing something. Part of the issue with the military is that military resources were grossly depleted under Bush, and so many soldiers need extraordinary medical care now. We’re still paying for Bush’s sins.

      Point 5 — A lot of us suspect that by the time Obama got to that point in the debt ceiling negotiations he knew good and well the Republicans wouldn’t take the deal; he was yanking their chains. In any event, the offer has been withdrawn and is not part of his current proposals.

      Point 6 — I have issues with the withdrawal of the air quality standards also, but to call that “weakening the EPA” is hyperbole. And it’s not even close to what the Republicans plan to do with it.

      Point 7 — you are dreaming if you think single payer had a snowball’s chance in hell of being passed by that Congress. If I were Empress of America we’d have a single payer healthcare program next week. But FDR himself couldn’t have gotten single payer out of that Congress. Going for single payer would have squandered an opportunity to do something about health care reform, and then if history is our guide we’d have to wait another ten to twenty years before we got another chance.

      As it is, the Patient Protection Act is the single most progressive piece of major legislation passed by Congress since Lyndon Johnson’s administration. Carter and Clinton didn’t accomplish anything that came even close.

  25. “But, when it comes to politics, he’s like the Corvair – “Unsafe At Any Speed.””
    Nadar’s Unsafe at Any Speed was proven to be a fraud. The Corvair was not any more dangerous than any other car of the time. His whole career has been based on a fraud and that proves him to be a fraud.

  26. Yes, and President Perry/Romney/Bachmann/Whoever, will get us out of the Middle East, heal SS, Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc, and strengthen the EPA while working towards a single-payer system, all while eliminating illegal wiretapping.

    HUZZAH!
    We’ve found our Liberal saviour – Perry/Romney/Bachmann/Whoever.

  27. On wiretapping, most of us on the left knew that once that genii left the bottle, there was no putting it back in. I remember we discussed it here, as well as at other sites.
    Certainly not by a Democratic President – not after decades of the right crying that ‘Democrats are weak on national defense.’
    And certainly not by the very first African-American Democratic President.

    The right prays every day for a catastrophic terrorist event to hang around Obama’s neck (a poor analogy, I’ll grant you). They would have prayed for the same thing to happen if there was aa white Southern Democrat as President, like Carter or Clinton.
    If a terrrorist event happened after wiretapping was greatly restricted, it wouldn’t matter if wiretapping could, would, or even might, have prevented the attack, the righties would claim that it happened due to Democratic negligence, and the MSM would do nothing to stop it. Hell, terror efforts have all been thwarted here in the US, and they still make that claim. Remember the Times Square bomber incident?

    If wiretapping is ever going to be put back into the bottle, something I don’t ever expect to see, it will have to be a Republican doing a ‘only Nixon could go to China’ impression. And THAT ain’t happening, either.

    I’m sorry, but to think that a Democratic President could, or would, end the wiretapping that Bush started shows a lack of political astuteness. Especially within the first decade(s) after 9/11.
    I wish it weren’t so. But that’s the reality of that situation.

    • c u n d gulag — you’ve probably got it right there. It’s a sad fact that “peacenik” Democrats do not win elections.

      Also, time and time again, when people like Mr. Holland scream that Obama is no better than Bush, you can tell they think presidents can just do anything they want by fiat. It’s like Congress is just a little technicality.

    • I wasn’t screaming.

      Sorry, but I’ve heard the same uninformed knee-jerk talking points so many times it’s about to make me scream. I went through your list point by point, notice.

  28. I hate to say this, but the same applies for Mr. Hollands first point – and again, I’m not happy about it, but it is what it is.
    “1. Effectively legalizing torture by refusing to prosecute torture.”

    If Obama and Holder had prosecuted Bush and Cheney, as I would have loved, and as it would have happened in the best of all possible worlds, does anyone think for a second that the next Republican President wouldn’t order his AG to prosecute any transegession by the previous administration – real or imagined?
    Hell, they impeached Cinton, and he didn’t even go after the Reaganites and Bushies – just a BJ from an intern.
    Maybe Congress should have done its job. And I’m talking about prior to the ’08 election.

    And the irony is, even if Obama wins in 2012, that if the Republicans keep the House, and get the Senate, they will impeach him, for whatever they can think of, as soon as possible.
    And that they’ll investigate his administration anyway, looking for prosecutable offenses, if Obama loses in 2012 – and in 2016 if he wins, and they take over in 2017.
    This is the way Republicans roll nowadays. They are a bunch of vindictive, greedy, ignorant, arrogant, and self-rightious assholes, whose only interest is gaining and maintaining power – at any cost, and denying the other party to do anything Democratic when Democrats have it.

    And maybe Obama should have taken all of this into account and gone for it anyway, regardless of future cost to him and his party, but again, as a Democratic President, he lacks any legitimacy in the eyes of Conservatives, and as a black one – well, for them, you can’t be more illegitimate than that.
    And if a center-right Democrat, and a black one, is already painted as someone closer to Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Castro/Marx than to FDR, and the MSM can’t even get the balls to stand up to that nonsense, what chance would Obama have had in the court of public opinion? Obama would have been painted as an angry black man, looking to stick it to the powerful white man. Right now, they’ve been working for over 3 years trying to make a guy, who’s closer spritually to Urkel, look like Heuy Newton. How would that have gone over? How much support do you think the MSM would have given him?

    Again, I’m not saying he shouldn’t have done it.
    I’m saying that there would have been a cost.
    And maybe not just political.
    The one thing that stops more people from wanting to become martyrs, is that you’re not around to enjoy your own martyrdom.

  29. I wasn’t screaming.

    If you weren’t screaming, Mr. Holland, then you might as well have been. If you want to play the part of the crazy preacher on the subway platform by spewing nonsense like “Obama is to the right of Reagan,” then you might as well go the whole nine yards and put on a pinwheel hat, too.

  30. I agree with Candide. Originally, the Constitution did not limit the terms of a president. If that were still the case, Obama would have to actually run for a second term. Some have argued that because the time in office was not originally limited, the president would simply stay, unopposed, in office. (The presidency of FDR must have escaped their attention.)

    • Originally, the Constitution did not limit the terms of a president. If that were still the case, Obama would have to actually run for a second term.

      I think you are confused. The original Constitution always had the President serving terms of four years; he was not elected for life. The number of terms was limited by the 22nd Amendment.

      If it were up to me I’d probably abolish term limits entirely, but it isn’t at the top of my to-do list. But consider that were it not for term limits Bill Clinton very likely would have been elected to a third term in 2000.

  31. Right. He/she? had to run every four years. But by limiting his time in office to two terms (22nd Amendment) whoever holds the office intends to serve for two terms. In a sense, therefore, the term as president is eight years.

  32. Maha-

    I think you and I just have different values and it’s reflected in how we vote.

    For example, in the particular instance where Obama said the tax cut would “create millions of jobs”, everyone knew it wouldn’t, and it didn’t. Reinforcing this as a general message was offensive to me. It wasn’t offensive to you – we’re just different.

    Or, take Obama proactively offering up cuts in social security. I value fiercely protecting social security. It may have been a savvy negotiating trick, but it also communicates something: social security is at risk, and needs to be cut. This is a lie. Now, he says social security is off the table. It shouldn’t even be part of the debate. And to make it part of the debate, again reinforces republican framing.

    I could go on (and I will, if you’d like me to), but it just occurred to me that what I just said above is why I won’t be voting for Obama. He tacitly accepts and and then actively reinforces republican framing on so many issues.

    The healthcare act is a tweak. It’s not a revolution. Healthcare companies are enjoying record profits, and a record number of americans are uninsured (as I will be, eventually, under Obama’s healthcare revolution). It does nothing for the least of us, and that is mostly what bothers me. You had different criteria for what defined “progressive” healthcare legislation. It is a more substantive victory for you than it is for me.

    Re: Obama being to the right of Reagan, it’s true with regards to several issues:

    Torture/Human rights
    Tax Increases (until recently, as Obama’s up for re-election)
    Trade
    Amnesty

    Asserting that Obama is to the right of Reagan on several issues is defendable. Why do you call it “spewing nonsense”? In fact, why the repeated, ongoing hyperbole and hostility? This is just a discussion, and you have good ideas that don’t require that kind of approach.

    Finally, I rest my case with Obama’s endorsements. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have all endorsed Obama’s acceptance of the Bush Doctrine and approach to the war on terror. These are areas that most concern me, hence my equation of Obama with Bush. Boehner gives him credit for getting “98% of what I want”.

    This is not what I am looking for. Perhaps you are. Hence our disagreement.

    • Mr. Holland — I don’t think our values are different; I think our experience is different. At my age (damn old) I no longer get hysterical at every twist and turn in the political road. I don’t agree with everything Obama does, and I don’t agree with all of his ideas, but on the whole he’s probably doing about as well as any other Democrat in existence in the current political climate.

      For example, in the particular instance where Obama said the tax cut would “create millions of jobs”, everyone knew it wouldn’t, and it didn’t. Reinforcing this as a general message was offensive to me. It wasn’t offensive to you – we’re just different.

      What tax cut are you talking about? What was the specific quote, and in what context? The only tax cuts I know of that he actually favored were the ones in the initial stimulus package and the temporary payroll tax reduction that he’s trying to renew. I don’t remember that he said the original stimulus package tax cuts alone would create millions of jobs, although maybe he did. I thought that referred to the original stimulus package, which might have worked if it hadn’t been cut back so much to make Republicans happy. That last thing was probably his single biggest mistake. Even so, the stimulus did create a few million jobs according to analysts.

      However, you are acting as if tax cuts for low and middle income wage-earners is some kind of right-wing plot. There is actually sound and PROGRESSIVE economic theory that says they can stimulate a stagnant economy. This has no resemblance to Reagan’s “supply side” theory, which said that taxes cut for the rich would allow wealth to trickle down to everyone. In fact, putting more cash in the hands of lower-income people is a proven economic stimulus.

      I value fiercely protecting social security.

      So do I. Again, I never thought he was serious, and it turns out he wasn’t. I understand the messaging thing, but there were other messages to be sent, like the one that says Republicans are crazy and won’t negotiate in good faith.

      The healthcare act is a tweak.

      It’s much better than a tweak; when it has all gone into effect it will provide health insurance for 30 million people who don’t have it now, which is not a “tweak.” But again, if you seriously think that anything much more progressive than that could have gotten through the current Congress, that tells me you don’t have the critical thinking skills God gave turnips.

      Torture/Human rights
      Tax Increases (until recently, as Obama’s up for re-election)
      Trade
      Amnesty

      It’s obvious to me you don’t understand the tax issues. I strongly suggest you read Paul Krugman’s and Ezra Klein’s blogs on economic issues to keep up. The Obama Administration actually has stopped torture, but I agree I am unhappy the torturers were allowed to walk. On trade he’s to the “left” of Bill Clinton, which I suppose puts Bill Clinton to the right of Reagan also. And a far as amnesty goes, I think the President’s policies toward illegal immigrants are as reasonable and humane as allowable in the current political climate, and so I am not getting what your issue is on amnesty.

  33. Sorry, Maha- I misattributed you as chastising me for “spewing nonsense” when it was someone else.

  34. Regarding term limits….each time I hear a proponent state reasons it is to prevent what they consider poor choices by voters. But the essence of democracy is that we vote someone in and therefore we get what we deserve…every 4 years when it comes to Presidents.

    I do not see how a perceived shortcut or circumvention regarding negative side-effects of democracy (judgment on side-effects being someone’s personal opinion as well), which is anti-democratic in itself (it tells me that I cannot vote for someone) is even close to being rational. Underlying it is apparently the idea that the voters get it wrong so infrequently that we’d better not let them get it wrong twice in a row on the same buy. This doesn’t stop them (it’s us really, not them) from getting it wrong twice in a row on different people.

    Term limits seem to be regarded affectionately by perpetual underdogs who cannot envision the opportunity to keep someone in office that they respect. Instead they myopically (IMHO) fixate only on limiting those they disagree with despite having to live under the same limitation themselves.

    When applied to Congress it would open the revolving door even wider. Those who know Congress point out that the newly elected are in a daze, have little appreciation of how traditions, rules, and protocols arose and what they are good for, and it sometimes takes years to be effective. It is not uncommon for a freshman to seek a mentor. Take away all the mentors and we lose connections to the past. It is better to have some fossils in there who understand our history. Again, if the majority does the “wrong” thing in your opinion you must do the hard work to change things rather than looking for shortcuts.

    The idea of term limits seems raw, not very well thought out and ignorant.

    • Pat — yeah, term limits in Congress would be a disaster. As far as the presidency is concerned, as I said, I’d rather not have term limits for the same reasons you state. But since the 22nd was passed, which presidents might have gotten a third term? How many would have chosen to run? I can’t say about Eisenhower. The next few presidents flamed out in one way or another, until we get to Reagan. Reagan, Clinton and Bush were the only presidents who served two full terms since Eisenhower. I think Clinton might have been elected to a third term, which would have saved the nation a lot of grief. Of course, Reagan might have been elected again, also. Bush, I don’t think so.

  35. Some pointsto ponder.

    1. Somehow Obama managed to survive 18,000,000 votes cast against him inthe 2008 primaries.

    2. The vote totals for Democratic House Candidates inthe last three elections:
    2006- 42M or plus 6.5M over GOP
    2008-65M or plus 13M over GOP
    2010- 35M or minus 5.7

    3. There is a difference between voting for a more liberal candidate in a primary to nudge the campaign leftward and voting for a third party candidate.

    4. Asking Obama to recognize the liberal agenda has proven to be a total waste as he and his team delight in “punching the hippies” to show the Washington elite how serious they are.

    5. Poll after poll show that the American people are behind most of the liberal agenda when asked specific policy questions.

    6. Do you really think we’ll get back those 30M voters with a campaign based on not being as bad as the other guy?

    7. My conclusion is that if it takes a primary to push Obama to campaign as a Democrat instead of a “post-partisan” centrist, so be it. The arc of history does not begin and end with this President. The right knows how to keep the battle going for the long haul. So should we.

    • Mr. Levine — First, the “primary” tactic has never worked in the real world. All it does is weaken the candidate in the general election. In the past 60 years or so, and possibly a lot further back than that, incumbent presidents who face a strong primary challenger have gone on to lose the general election. Incumbents who enjoy a unified party base go on to win the general election. There may be an exception to that, but I can’t think of one.

      Second, you could put the most liberal Democrat in America in the White House, and in the current political climate, with the current Congress, he would either be crushed or he would end up disappointing you and you would end up screaming that he is no better than Reagan, or Bush, or whomever you are screaming about at the time.. I realize you don’t get that, and I’m sick to death of explaining it to people, but that’s how it is.

      As for your point #6, this is something I talk about a lot. I talked about it this week even. It does not do Democrats a damn bit of good in elections that people agree with their policy proposals, because most voters don’t have a clue what Democrats propose and what the legislation being discussed in Congress really contains. To this day when polled they say they like the individual provisions of the Patient Protection Act but still don’t like the Patient Protection Act. They don’t associate the provisions with the act.

      If you want to push Obama more to the left — and I’m fine with that — stop whining about Obama and instead do whatever you can do to sell progressive ideas to the public, to make the political climate safer for progressive legislation.

  36. 2. Wiretapping and spying on Americans, and giving the telcos immunity from prosecution.

    Obama voted in favor of giving immunity, but he did not grant it himself. As for wiretapping and spying, the President *is* allowed to do this, if he obtains the proper warrants for doing so.

    I’ve seen a few Republicans trying very hard to blur this distinction, The problem was not that George W. Bush spied on Americans. It’s that there’s a law that is the exclusive means by which a President can legally order wiretapping; Bush explicitly violated that law, both the letter and the carefully, explicitly stated, intent.

    I have no reason to believe Obama is continuing to violate FISA as Bush did. Then again, if he did, it’s classified information… we might not find out. If he did so, however, I’m sure the Republicans would suddenly remember that FISA exists and should be followed.

  37. You still don’t get point 6, or you don’t care. You can’t sell the the public on progressive ideas individually or through your congressional candidates if the leader of the party is undermining the message, as he did with the public option, and as he put medicare and medicaid and even social security “on the table”. He sets the agenda, nobody else. The point of the challenge is to show that the vast majority of Democrats want him to argue for their agenda, not the corporate democrat”third way” agenda. And how do you think he’s going to get those first time and otherwise enthusiastic voters back? All 30 million of them.

    And for cryin’ out loud, please stop copying the right wing “screaming”, whining”, “carping” meme when discussing other people’s views. You may think my point of view is unsophisticated or ignorant, and it may be, but it’s a point of view sincerely held by someone who has seen the political ebb and flowe of this country since the end of WW II and who cares about the long term future of the country. respected.

    • You still don’t get point 6, or you don’t care.

      Oh, I care, and I really do understand your argument. I agree that the President could be stronger on messaging. I disagree that he has a lot of latitude to be stronger on messaging. By himself, there’s only so far he can go in the present media/political culture. It’s going to take a huge effort by a lot of people, and massive media reform, to turn around the Right’s advantage on messaging.

      Your problem is that you can’t step away from discrete issues and see the bigger picture. If you think any other Democrat in the White House right now could do a substantially better job at promoting a progressive agenda than Obama is doing, then you are living in a dream world. If you think any other Democrat currently serving in Congress, or as a governor, who might be elected president, wouldn’t be forced into dealing with the corporate Powers That Be, you are living in a dream world. The system is bigger than than the President. His ability to function within those constraints is severely limited.

      Regarding messaging, you can’t just elect one guy, even a president, and then sit back and overnight turn around 30 and more years of media domination by the Right. Even the President’s ability to set agendas is severely limited in the current political culture. I agree that there are times the President’s judgments are questionable. But if you think there is anyone else with even a slim chance of winning the Democratic nomination and the general election, you’re out of your mind. And weakening Barack Obama is tantamount to giving the White House back to Republicans, and only a flaming idiot thinks that it wouldn’t matter if we did.

      My issue with people like you is that I’ve been hearing this same speech from so-called progressive political geniuses since the 1960s, and all it ever does is get progressivism more and more marginalized. We have to think long term, not elect one president and expect Progressive Utopia to show up next week. It’s going to take us years, and several election cycles, to get back to any position of real strength. In the meantime there is only so much that can be done.

      You may think my point of view is unsophisticated or ignorant

      Naive and unrealistic, I would say.

      but it’s a point of view sincerely held by someone who has seen the political ebb and flowe of this country since the end of WW II and who cares about the long term future of the country. respected.

      You misunderstand ME. I don’t disagree with what I suspect are your long-term goals. I disagree very much with how much is POSSIBLE in our current political climate. People’s attitudes today toward government, government programs, and economic populism are worlds apart from what they were 50 years ago, and I can say this because I remember it. For that reason, much that was possible then is not possible now. It’s going to take a lot of effort by a lot of people, and probably a few years, to bring the nation around to a place in which genuinely progressive ideas can get a fair hearing in the public sphere.

      In the meantime, attitudes such as yours are taking us FURTHER AWAY from that goal, not closer to it.

  38. Mr. Levine,
    Respectfully, you have some very good points. One of them being this one:
    5. Poll after poll show that the American people are behind most of the liberal agenda when asked specific policy questions.

    Yes, it’s true that many people like the specifics.
    However, when those specifics are wrapped back into the whole and labeled “Liberal” by the Conservatives, and a compliant and complicit MSM, people’s minds change. The term “Liberal” has been abused so much, that one would almost rather be known as a card-carrying NAMBLA member than a member of the ACLU, or a Liberal politician. The denigration of the whole taints the individual points. To this day, people don’t like ACA, but agree with a lot of the individual policies.
    And I’m at a loss as to how we change that.

    6. Do you really think we’ll get back those 30M voters with a campaign based on not being as bad as the other guy?

    Do you, Mr. Levine think that he’ll get back those 30M voters by being openly vocal about being Liberal/Progressive, or supporting policies that could be labeled as such?
    Then, you’re a greater optimist than I am.

    For goodness sake, Obama got the Congress to pass a nascent, watered-down, health care policy for this country. There was no, zip, zero, chance, that even if he’d screamed, and yelled, and stomped his feet as the leader of the party that he’d have gotten Medicare for all (Single-payer). Jesus, the Democratic rats in the Congress ran away from their own health care bill in 2010. Do you think that if Obama had tried to set the agenda for Single-payer that we’d even be talking about having passed any sort of health care plan at all?
    Again, if you do, you’re a greater optimist than I am.

    “Realpolitik” isn’t just for foreign policy anymore.
    Democrats have to use it domestically (and in foreign policy) to pass anything that even vaguely appears Liberal/Progressive.
    Republicans don’t. DC and the MSM are hardwired for Conservatism and against Liberalism. When did it start? Well, at least since the late 60’s – though, in this country, I’d guess it was ever thus…

    I am, an open Liberal!
    Shhhhh, just don’t tell anyone…

    Just kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

    • There was no, zip, zero, chance, that even if he’d screamed, and yelled, and stomped his feet as the leader of the party that he’d have gotten Medicare for all (Single-payer). Jesus, the Democratic rats in the Congress ran away from their own health care bill in 2010. Do you think that if Obama had tried to set the agenda for Single-payer that we’d even be talking about having passed any sort of health care plan at all?
      Again, if you do, you’re a greater optimist than I am.

      I’d say greater “fool” rather than greater optimist.

      I can remember a speech given by a liberal progressive candidate back home back in the mid 1960s. It was after the Kennedy assassination but early in the Lyndon Johnson presidency, I believe. It was in the high school auditorium, I don’t remember specifics, but it was a fiery bit of unabashedly liberal, economic populism, and the audience ate it up. That same speech, given today in the same auditorium (or, rather, the new one that replaced it) would probably cause a riot. The speaker would be lucky if he escaped with his skin.

  39. One last time. I’m not urging that someone else be nominated. My conclusion was to use the primary system to “nudge” Obama to campaign on the Democratic platform, not to nominate someone else. And I clearly said that history transcends the Obama era. If Obama campaigns as a centrist, he is not going to push the liberal agenda once he is re-elected. He will have moved the center of the debate rightward while undermining the message of congressional candidates, which we discovered in 2010 is a very bad thing. Thanks for the opportunity to express myself and the dialogue.

  40. Mr. Levine,
    If you give Obama a Liberal/Progressive Congress, which means the ‘will of the people’ is behind him, and he’ll turm even more Liberal than he was from 2009-10 when he had a solid House, even with Red Dog’s (ain’t nothin’ ’bout ’em blue) working against Pelosi, when he got more accomplished than any Democratic President since LBJ!

  41. A little late but 2 points:

    1. I agree wholeheartedly Maha, when you pointed out difference between term limits for president and for Congress. I was thinking exclusively about Congress and realize that my remarks did not auqlify that.

    2. I had noted this regarding statement by Obama on the 20th:

    He could have gone further and explained that we are where we’re at because of class warfare for which there was no response. That war is almost over and look who won.

    Obama did follow up on the 22nd with a suitable clarification that said as much. It still comes off as mealy-mouthed and hesitant. When will he bet crisp and concise with the leading statements? Obama loses the moment when he can’t lead with the edgy truth or lead with an attack. For once let the conservatives scramble and sound like they don’t have adequate answers…put them in the position of having to deny.

    Maybe Obama thinks that the aura of the presidency gives him some advantage. If so then why do so many, including myself, think that aura is thin?

Comments are closed.