We're not really gonna DO this shit to ourselves, are we???

[Ross K]

Watching the Wingnut Brigade salivate at the prospect of a Democrat challenging Obama in the 2012 primaries bothers me not at all! It's when I read such suggestions on progressive websites (and this one is not immune) that I get an urge to :puke:

Whatever policy differences one may have with the President---and I've a couple---surely one realizes that an intramural feud in 2012 will render unto us the exact same result as it did in 1980, and the GOP four years before that!

[WillParkinson]

1. Whether I like a President or not...

No one gets a free pass. If someone wants to challenge Mr. Obama that is their right. If Ms. Clinton decided to challenge or even Mr. Biden, that's their choice and I respect it. Does that mean they get my support? Not at all, but I will listen to what they have to say.

[WonderGrunion]

10. People have a right to open carry a pogo stick into church

That doesn't mean that they should exercise that right or that they won't look like a horse's ass for doing so.

Just because we have the right to look like a horse's ass by having a primary challenger doesn't mean we are obligated to exercise it.

[liquid diamond]

2. Republicans may be lock step, but at least they don't eat their own

like we do.

[skeptical cynic]

3. No free passes and no guaranteed votes

The war in Afghanistan is still my overriding issue. If we're still there in 2012, then I'll not support continuing crimes against humanity.

[WonderGrunion]

11. But you will support crimes against humanity

By staying home, you allow the right wing to retake power and then commit many new atrocities against humanity.

All evil requires is for a good man to do nothing.

[skeptical cynic]

29. Who said I was staying home or doing nothing

I plan to vote according to my principles, not the lower standard of political pragmatism.

I generously support a number of NGOs that oppose illegal wars and restore democracy and human rights. I supported those NGOs during the Bush Administration, and I see no reason to stop supporting them now.

[grillo7]

4. There are things I've been disappointed with, but you can be damn sure Obama has my vote in 2012

To roughly quote LBJ: the worst democrat is better than the best republican. Look at what happened in 2000 when a few principled votes went to Nader over Gore, or when people sat that one out. That unleashed this whole mess! War! Economic ruin! Please don't make the mistake of sitting out the next election. Obama isn't perfect, but our country can't handle another Bush.

[depakid]

5. Herein lies one of the major root causes for the nation's decline

and for your own irrelevance.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Hey, we're all irrelevant on this bus.

;)

[Exilednight]

7. Stop blaming Nader and spreading a lie ...........

Gore lost by a total of 574 votes. Combined, the two socialist parties in Florida had over two times that many votes. The WWP candidate, Monica Moorehead, received over 1800 votes, three times the amount that Bush won by.

It's not Nader's fault. If Gore really wanted those votes he would of met with the nominees for those parties and listened to their concerns. I am not a huge Nader fan, but he does raise some points that are worth addressing.

[WonderGrunion]

12. Nader accepted a ton of repuke money to challenge in swing states

Nader's hands are awash with blood money that caused two wars and countless human misery.

[depakid]

14. LOL- some will never learn

And there's no use even pointing out facts or arguing.

Funny though, some of the screen names.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Gore didn't even win his home state

And that had nothing to do with Nader.

[WonderGrunion]

18. Without Nader, he wouldn't have needed Tennessee

n/m

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. If he had ran a better campaign Nader wouldn't have mattered

And if the SC had not selected Bush Gore would have been president.

[hulka38]

26. Gore's campaign sucked by his own admission. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

8. No "we're" not going to do anything.

Sure, some fringe ideologue may challenge Obama while parroting stupid delusional critiques about how Obama hasn't done enough for this cause or that cause -- all the while ignoring his actual accomplishments (which already rival or surpass any first term POTUS in the past half century). That fringe ideologue may get a tiny smattering of support from "firebaggin" opinion leaders and from a small cabal of "squeaky wheels" here on DU. Truth is, these same serial malcontents were never expecting to support Obama to begin with. Bottom line: dismiss the noise and move on.

[BootinUp]

13. "serial malcontents"

:rofl:


seems an appropriate description.

[boppers]

30. parallel malcontents, perhaps? eom

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. +10

:thumbsup:

[stray cat]

9. Progressive politicians and voters can be the best supporters the GOP has

Some of us ended up helping to elect Bush (including me - I was not enthusiastic about Gore and did not vote) so I won't be surprised if we also help elect the GOP in 2010 and 2012

[Cal33]

24. I guess you did not think in terms of choosing the lesser of

two evils at that time. To vote for the Neocons today, especially in 2012, would be
voting for a future fascist dictatorship. Bush tried, and failed. The Neocons are
making sure that they will not fail a second time. This would be the equivalent of
committing national political suicide. No Democrat could be THAT bad - bad as some
of them are!

[DailyGrind51]

15. If Obama is the candidate of the Party, I will vote for him, but if a viable Progressive challenger

appears before the primary, I will vote for the Progressive.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Some of us have more than a few policy differences

But we'll just roll over and shut up to make you happy. :sarcasm:

[Stoic]

19. Ain't gonna happen and in the outside chance it did...

The President will just run to the left, crush any opposition, then run to the right in the general.

[Bitwit1234]

21. Didn't Bush and Reagan have challengers.

Why is this something the republicans could say something about.

[saltpoint]

22. IMO had Kennedy not mounted a challenge to Carter

in 1980 Carter would still have lost to Reagan.

As for 2012 the current landscape doesn't suggest that anyone impressive enough to mount a challenge to a sitting president would be stupid enough to mount a challenge to a popular sitting president like this one. Politics is a fiercely practical obsession. There has to be a reasonable chance of victory or the rationale is just not there.

If you make a list of names of potential challengers you rapidly feel that those men and women are smart cookies and are not going to take on President Obama.

[LWolf]

25. I'd love to have a good candidate opposing Obama in 2012.

It would give me someone to vote for.

It would also, more to the point, send a distinct message about the consequences of shoving so many voters under the bus.

[impik]

27. There won't be even one person willing to primary Obama. It's a stupid blogosphere fantasy

Just like many others. People of these blogs have no idea that there's a whole different world outside.

[paulk]

28. can't we make that decision in 2012?

a lot can happen between now and then...

[Orsino]

31. Good thing we didn't have a primary in '08.

That would have been awful for the eventual nominee. :eyes:

[Connie_Corleone]

32. Was a Democrat President in 2008?

That's the difference.

See the 1980 primaries for reference.

[Orsino]

33. So a hopeful senator's tough enough to withstand a primary fight....

...but it must seriously weaken an incumbent president?

Not buying that conclusion.