Do you think it bothers Republicans that Reagan primaried President Ford?

[merbex]

I don't think it does.

They got over it and Reagan ushered in what historians and political scientists recognize as a distinct 'era' - we here at DU don't like that era AT ALL and many of those same historians and political scientists would tell you that 'eras' in American History swing like a pendulum and that Reagan's 'era' was swinging down - except a funny thing has happened to that swinging pendulum - the voters in 2008 voted for~ CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN~ except it hasn't happened; when the natural political cycle, the formation of a 'new political era was on target to begin( they do last about 30 to 40 years a piece) and people were literally screaming for it looking back to 2008.... and it just hasn't happened.

It has stalled.

The new 'era' has stalled.

There are many reasons for that~ the infiltration of the Democratic Party by the Koch Brothers backed DLC ~ the way it has co-opted far too many Democratic politicians who like to put a pre fix in front of the word 'Democrat' as in "Blue Dog Democrat, "New Democrat". These are the legacy politicians of the DLC which now can look to The Third Way to get their pro-corporatism talking points down pat. Along with the all important campaign cash from Wall St~ let's not forget that salient fact.

Back to my original question - do you really think that Republicans care that Reagan primaried a GOP President?

So why do we care if Obama is primaried?

A new era is waiting to begin...it has stalled....but it's coming~ when politicians, no matter which Party they identify with ignore poll after poll after poll from the American people giving overwhelming evidence that they do not want the safety net shredded AT ALL, that they want a JOBS PROGRAM, that they want OUT OF THE WARS and they are consistently IGNORED...we are witnessing a significant reform era just waiting to begin.

A primary to Obama would not be the end of the word...it is democracy.

What are you afraid of?

To be completely honest - the pro corporate policies of the Obama Administration frighten me now but I am not afraid of democracy or of the willingness and determination of the American people to get the CHANGE that they know they want from their government.

So do you want change or not?

Has there been enough of a push for change from this administration - honestly?

Happy with Obama's performance?

Happy with the press release from the White House which seems to endorse the criticisms that S&P made about 'entitlement reform'?

John Nichols of The Nation magazine calls it a 'downgrade of democracy' when a ratings agency inserts itself into a debate about budget priorities - it is. It is even worse when a politician seizes upon it to say, in effect, the S&P is right - let's cut that which the American people do not want cut.

So I will say it again: Do you really think the GOP cares that Reagan ran against a sitting GOP President?

So why should we if Obama gets a primary opponent?

We have a new political era waiting to begin and it will not begin unless there is CHANGE at the top.

Obama is not a change, or a new era President - that is very clear.

[snagglepuss]

1. "A primary to Obama would not be the end of the word...it is democracy.

What are you afraid of?" Excellent question.


:popcorn:

[jefferson_dem]

2. How did that work out for them? We got Jimmy Carter.

Just like four years later when Teddy took on Carter. We got Reagan.

Fact: Primaries of sitting president produce a singular, overriding, destructive outcome - a weakened party going into the general election. If that's your goal, go ahead support a primary to Obama.

[merbex]

3. You missed the entire point of my post - Ford was not a transformative

President - he was never going to usher in a 'new era'.

You may not like, I didn't like it when it happened, but people were looking for CHANGE -significant change- a new era back then and they are looking for one now and they aren't getting it.

Obama is like Ford~ he isn't that transformative

And he is definitely not significantly changing the era from Reagan AT ALL

[girl_interrupted]

20. Carter would have lost anyway

Voters were unhappy with him. Times were tough economically, and the country was also embarrassed by the hostage taking crisis in Iran.

I love Jimmy Carter as a human being, but as a president he did nothing to inspire confidence in the voting public. The outlook was dismal. It was more of a "accept things as they are" and along came Reagan who promised a change.

I think whether another politician from the same party runs against a sitting President, it matters very little. It's what the voters think that really counts. If they don't like what you are doing, if they don't trust you, and they see something they like better, you will be shown the out door of the White House.

Primaries are a way, of keeping politicians honest. For voters that feel they are forced to accept a politician that has disappointed them, it's a way to vent their frustration and let the sitting President and his party know that they are not satisfied with the direction it is going in. It might also make a sitting President stop and think, to reassess his positions, instead of taking it for granted that he is going to be re-elected.

[LaydeeBug]

29. Carter would have lost anyway BECAUSE REAGAN VIA BUSH SUPPLIED ARMS TO IRAN IN EXCHANGE FOR KEEPING

those hostages until after election day.

[girl_interrupted]

38. If that was Carter's only problem

but it wasn't, the economy was a mess, people were hurting, and try as he might, Carter didn't inspire confidence or come off as a strong leader. He offered few solutions that voters found acceptable and Iran was the straw that broke the camels back for voters. I think they could take so much of what they perceived to be Carters failures, at that time. He was finished. As far as Reagan and George H Bush and Iran Contra are concerned, you are right, but consider this, the public still elected GH Bush, President, as Reagan's successor, following that scandal. Go figure.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Ford was an appointee so it was easier to justify

But I wouldn't be afraid of it. Obama might even remember he's a Democrat if it happens.

I kid. I kid.

[merbex]

5. When was the last time you heard Obama say: "My fellow Democrats"

in any context?

[David Gill]

6. It's a waste of time and resources

1) It's not going to work. Absolutely not. Point me to a modern example where a sitting President has been upset in a primary. Who would even run against him? You would need somebody with widespread name recognition, like when Ted Kennedy was going to run against Jimmy Carter. Anybody approaching that stature won't want to ruin their careers pissing off every establishment Democrat.

2) Gerald Ford != Barack Obama. Ford hadn't been elected before and he STILL beat Reagan.

3) Every dollar spent to defeat Obama in a primary would be much better used in a House race with some actual hope of victory. Do you honestly believe the problem is Obama and not Congress?

[merbex]

7. Why does the thought of democracy upset you? Why does the thought of

Obama having to defend his record to democrats threaten you so much?

[David Gill]

8. I didn't say it upset me or that I thought it threatens me

I just said it's a waste of time. It's not going to work and there are some Democrats running who could really use that money and actually have a hope in hell of winning.

[merbex]

11. Who said a challenger has to run in any state but NH? Like a test

case - see how they do - if they win they keep going. If they don't they withdraw.

FYI, it doesn't take a lot of money to run in NH

[Cosmocat]

42. It is politics either way ...

you get no "democracy" high ground with this nonsense ... You position is a political one, there is a political motive (a major stretch in comparisons, and flat wrong), just the same as saying it is bad for the country.

The post you were responding to is correct. BO won't lose, there is NO ONE who is going to run against him who stand a chance. All it does is weaken him a bit for a hard fought run against the R.

You may want to believe you have some kind of ideological high ground that makes your position better. But, all that your advocating for can do is greatly increase the chances of an R president and bigger R gains in the house and senate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. And the notice that Reagan got in 76 caused him to come roaring back

in 80 and sweep the table.

By your logic, the challenger to Obama is GUARANTEED to come back and crush the Republicans in 16, and Dems will control the political conversation for the next 30 years.

edited for really weird spelling

[merbex]

16. It would be nice if it worked that way~ I admit it n/t

[David Gill]

33. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Exactly -

which is why a primary challenge to Obama does not guarantee a Democratic loss in '12.

If you posit one is true, the other must be equally true - if the other is patently false, there is no reason to believe the first to be true.

[David Gill]

36. Which is why I didn't say it would result in a loss

[jaxx]

9. So why do we care if Obama is primaried?

Because it's important to win the 2012 election and electoral division isn't going to produce a win. And don't think that a primary wouldn't hurt the Democrats, it would. It would intensify the left/far left divide long past the primary. Some may think it's democracy to primary PBO, when it's really insanity. Why would anyone want to primary the best president in our time?

This isn't our daddy's times anymore. Nor is it FDR's times. The rabid radical rightwing isn't Reagan's conservatives. When are people going to wise up?

As for Reagan and Ford, nobody gives a shit.

[merbex]

14. Got it~ you're happy with pro-corporatist policies

Newsflash - lots of Americans are not.

Again, very telling that you are afraid of having Obama face fellow Democrats and defend his own policies

[jaxx]

24. Are you calling me a scardy cat?

Back off. I've noticed you using that same meme in other answers to posts and you're way off base with it. Do I think PBO would lose to an usurper? No, he would win. Very telling that your only reason is we're afraid. Jeez what a load.

Most Democrats are happy with the President. Most don't know all the corporatist type list of wordies used by those opposed to PBO, nor do they care. This isn't USA politics, it's far left lingo. Let me tell you, you're preaching to the small choir of discontents, not the main event.

[merbex]

26. When someone tries to shut down talk of primaries it is ipso facto

an admission that one is afriad of facing voters - afraid of democracy.

Someone not afraid would say ~ they WELCOME the chance to debate their positions before Party regulars

[jaxx]

28. I can't imagine why someone would want to create chaos

and then say that people are afraid. Foolish is foolish, there is no other way to spell it.
And don't try talk down to me or any of the other posters on here. This crap is not going to fly. Party regulars? LMAO

[SheilaT]

10. All these years later most

people of whatever political stripe, would not recall that Reagan challenged Ford in the primaries. Really. And it hardly matters at this point.

It's not exactly what we need to look to if we want or don't want Obama to have a primary challenge.

[MilesColtrane]

13. "Do you really think the GOP cares that Reagan ran against a sitting GOP President"

Yes, I think they cared that they lost the WH to Carter...at the time.

Reagan coming back in four years and crushing him made the move to challenge an incumbent Ford in '76 an "all is forgiven" moment for the GOP voters in hindsight though.

I have no problem with, say, Bernie Sanders switching parties and losing to Obama in the primaries...if it is guaranteed that he'll beat President Romney or Perry in a landslide in 2016 and lock up the White House for 8 years like Reagan did, but that's extremely unlikely.

I'd rather have Obama win both the primary and the general election and have resounding Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress for four years.

[merbex]

17. So you are fine with the pro corporate policies that are being pursued by the

incumbent Democratic President?

[MilesColtrane]

31. I'm fine with keeping the Presidency out of the hands of a crazy person.

I have beefs with Obama's policies, but they pale in comparison to what any of the GOP challengers would inflict on this country if they gained the power of the Executive.

I assume you were paying attention to the result of eight years of Bush, Jr.

[CakeGrrl]

15. So do it. Shit or get off the pot.

I'm interested to see who is able to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

From what I've seen, all the Dream Team picks have either said they are NOT challenging, or think there should be one - but just not them.

Go to it!

Stop wasting time here and mobilize.

[merbex]

18. Finally one poster who doesn't seem afraid of democracy

You should be proud - everyone else who has posted seems deathly afraid of voters

[CakeGrrl]

21. I will admit - I don't see a candidate rising to this challenge

with the grassroots support and the viability to go all the way to the WH.

And of all years to do so, this had damn well better be the year you get them past the GOP, because no matter what blah-blah-blah anyone claims about Obama being to the right of past GOP presidents, the next group WILL destroy the social fabric that the Professional Left has people here thinking Obama wants to do.

I'm interested to see who is actually THINKING this through and not posting out of emotion or a reinforced group panic.

[merbex]

25. Ahh, so you ARE afraid of democracy

BTW, read the press release from the White House about the S&P downgrade - it calls for 'entitlement reform' just like the S&P called for in one of THEIR press releases.

I cannot get over how so many here walk around thinking that somehow there will be no cuts or that those cuts are ok with them

[CakeGrrl]

27. Hey, if you want to take that risk, I can't stop it.

I'll probably be able to have a better contingency plan than some of the casualties of a failed primary attempt who are hanging onto their livelihoods or homes by threads.

Why do you care what an anonymous message board poster has to say anyway?

Why aren't you out there doing it?

[girl_interrupted]

39. What if an Independent decides to run?

Like Perot did? I think the next few months are going to be crucial for Obama. If the economy improves, he doesn't have to worry, but if it doesn't, he is going to have problems. Voters vote with their pocketbooks, so to speak, if they feel they are better off since he has taken office, he's safe. But if they don't, he's not. You may see not only a Democratic challenger but also an Independent candidate give it a shot. Don't rule anything out. The Public is fickle. They may be fed up with both parties comes 2012. I don't have a crystal ball and neither does anyone on DU, only time will tell, and there is still time enough for anything to happen.

[CakeGrrl]

43. Bottom line: Are people prepared for the GOP in the WH?

It's numbers, period.

This might be contrary to some opinions on DU, but to me the worst thing that can happen to us is the GOP in the White House in 2012.

Maybe some around here don't agree. They way some of them sound, you'd think the current President posed a bigger threat to Democracy than the insane, extremist Teabaggers willing to trash this country.

I plan to vote a straight Dem ticket. That is, to me, the best thing to do to defeat the GOP.

[customerserviceguy]

19. No more than it bothered us

that Teddy Kennedy primaried Jimmy Carter.

[Zen Democrat]

22. The difference? Democrats in Congress voted for the Reagan Revolution.

It's THEIR fault.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

23. Reagan didn't primary him.

The Powers behind the Republican throne did that. With rare exception the President is a mouthpiece for the agenda and policies put forth by those who got him elected (ie:$$$$$$$$$$$). Our current situation seems to be just that. :shrug: They wanted Ford out and they got what they wanted.

[grahamhgreen]

30. K&R

[Vicar In A Tutu]

32. The Republicans will win 400+ EVs for the next 30+ years if Obama has a major primary

There would be a lot of black voters wondering why Clinton didn't get that treatment...almost as though there was something 'different' about him. They sure as fuck wouldn't be voting for the mythical scrawny white liberal who would be so pure that it would be impossible for them to get anything done in the impossible scenario which would see them elected in the first place. Another GOP jackpot handed to them by the terminally naive and chronically idiotic.

[krawhitham]

34. Ford was not an elected President when Reagan primaried him

When Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, Ford assumed the presidency, making him the only person to assume the vice-presidency and the presidency without having been voted into either office.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. Ronald Reagan was already the undeniable leader of the right-wing of the Republican Party

- having taken over that mantle from Barry Goldwater. Mr. Reagan almost won that challenge. The right-wing of the Republican Party was already united around a clear agenda and set of principles. There is no clear leader of the left-wing of the Democratic Party and no articulated clear agenda and set of principles that unites the liberal/progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

More importantly the failure of the Republicans to win in 1976 resulted in what was for the time a relatively conservative Democrat being elected who was at worse for them only marginally to the left of the sitting Republican President, Gerald Ford. And the courts were still relatively in liberal and moderates hands. So the threat to the conservative cause was that at worse for them business as usual would more or less continue. The threat to the liberal/progressive cause if a primary challenge contributes to the Democrats losing the White House is that we would likely end up with the White House and both houses of Congress and largely the courts controlled by the most extreme right-wing party in modern American history controlling the entire apparatus of state; people who think pretty much like the crazies on Fox News and in the position to continue appointing extreme right-wing judges who will be with us for another generation.

[Township75]

40. Fine with me.

I don't have a problem with it, and it's fine with me that people want this.

It would depend on who ran against him, but I imagine that if Obama has to use resources to fend off a challenge then it is because it is from a good candidate...I can live with that.

[stevenleser]

41. Another case of you missing the point even though the example is one you cited yourself

The Republicans LOST THE ELECTION WHERE THERE INCUMBENT WAS PRIMARIED!

Do you think Democrats will be happy if a Republican wins the election in 2012?

[merbex]

44. They think strategically and longterm we don't~ and by WE I mean

people who call themselves progressives being willing to vote out of office the corporate Democrats who would shred the safety net and constantly do Wall St's bidding

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil in political speaks means the lesser conservative candidate is still conservative

We need an end to conservatism theory in government and to achieve that will require primary challenges to CORPORATE DEMOCRATS.

Unless you like the status quo - then just say so

But please do not insult my intelligence by saying that Obama is progressive and it is circumstances that is forcing him to do this

Just don't

2 words~

Occam's razor

[CakeGrrl]

45. In reality, there will be a LOT of collateral damage with a GOP WH in 2012

But the mood around here amongst some people? "Burn it all down!"

Maybe they don't have a direct or personal connection to people who will be in massively dire straits under a GOP WH.

Or else they've convinced themselves that we ARE living under a Republican president :wtf:, so what does it matter?

I'll do my part to fight anyone who's succumbed to that mindset.