CAUTION: Geniuses at work…

There are a group of people who sell themselves as “progressives” who have proven over the years that they are complete fools. These are folks with a serious strategic thinking problem. Time after time all they do is rack up failure after failure. Worst of all, they provide wingnuts everywhere perfect foils who can be presented as proof that all folks who believe in progressive goals are idiots.

The damage these clowns do day in and day out is substantial. Like Upper Class Twits from a Monty Python sketch, they just keep walking into the same wall over and over again with gusto. All the while, their comic failure works to make any effort at progress all the more difficult. These fools regularly repeat whatever wingnut talking point they are fed and then think they are having an original thought. Even racist framing is OK if they think it will help them hit the same wall with a little more force. These fools would be worthy only of derisive laughter if they hadn’t proven to be such effective tools for destruction.

ABL wrote about the latest gathering of these dopes over the weekend. It seems that Ralph Nader, Cornell West and a group of other easily manipulated egos have decided that President Obama MUST face a primary challenge. They are so serious about this that they have sent out a press release!

Some Emo-bloggers have picked it up, but not many. The effort is so silly that even FDL has yet to jump on the bandwagon (but to be fair, FDL is slow on the uptake, so I guess they’ll get excited about this effort by October). The effort is getting far more attention on wingnut blogs and wingnut media. The Washington Times proclaims:

President Obama’s smooth path to the Democratic nomination may have gotten rockier Monday, after a group of liberal leaders, including former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, announced plans to challenge the incumbent in primaries next year…

And Fox News is all over the story as proof that President Obama is a failure.

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.

And here they come again, right on cue–ready to compete for the Upper Class Twit 2012 Title. They will talk up anybody as a “progressive” or “populist” alternative to President Obama. Hell, Ralph is already celebrating Palin as a populist diva. I guess they’ll do what damage they can in the Primaries and then support some wingnut assisting 3rd party effort. I’m guessing a Palin/Nader 2012 Third Party ticket would really excite these mental giants.

What a bag of useless dicks.

Cheers

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

337 replies
  1. 1
    Mike Goetz says:

    No comments yet? Well, let me be the first of +/- 400.

    Obama will be fine. He’s doing swell, and the Republicans are idiots. Don’t sweat it.

  2. 2
    LT says:

    And Balloon Juice sinks to new a new low.

    John. Oy, man. Oy. The smart, wise even, cranky, and beautifully empathetic vibe is gone, man, it’s gone!

    Bonus: Feels like the overwrought Human Events school of writing.

  3. 3
    some guy says:

    Obama’s ozone decision, however, has provoked particular outrage, for four reasons. First, by ordering the EPA to delay the promised ozone regulations, the president repudiated science; the independent panel of experts advising the EPA were unanimous in recommending the tougher regulations, which would reduce incidence of child asthma and avoid 12,000 deaths a year. Second, Obama’s order was possibly illegal. The Clean Air Act expressly forbids the government to consider the economic impacts of its regulations; public health is the sole criterion (a stipulation upheld in 2001 by the Supreme Court, with none other than archconservative Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion). EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who has described the existing regulations as “not legally defensible,” has now been undercut by her boss, raising questions about whether she—the administration’s strongest environmental voice—will resign. Third, in making his announcement, Obama channeled the antigovernment mantra of the Chamber of Commerce, citing “the importance of reducing regulatory…uncertainty,” thus buttressing the discredited argument that regulation costs jobs. Fourth, Obama blatantly double-crossed environmentalists, who were suing the EPA over these regulations when Obama took office. His aides persuaded them to drop the suit because Obama’s EPA would soon strengthen the regulations.

    these traitorous foes of Team Obama are clearly history’s greatest monsters. where the hell do these goddamn environmentalists (and the Leftists who support them) get off?

  4. 4
    James says:

    “YOU ARE DOING FREEDOM WRONG! THE ONLY WAY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS THE WAY IN WHICH I APPROVE!!!! RAAAARRRR!!!!”
    – Dennis G.

    Seriously, if you think Obama doesn’t coast through this next election you are straight up pants on head dumb.

  5. 5
    LT says:

    The effort is getting far more attention on wingnut blogs and wingnut media.

    Oh rats, Right Wingers aren’t going to vote for Obama now!

  6. 6
    Corner Stone says:

    Some Emo-bloggers have picked it up, but not many.

    Looks like they are so powerful and dangerous you were too scared to even link or quote from any of them.

  7. 7
    Loneoak says:

    We’ll never have a progressive paradise until we elect President Bachmann.

  8. 8
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @James: Do you quite grasp the concept of blogging?

  9. 9

    Preach it Dennis G

    But I honestly don’t think it is, or will get as bad as dems treated Carter, or even Clinton before the congresscritters lost it all in 94.

    The years out of power, especially in the House has chastened and moderated the self preening purity shits to a large degree, in my recollection. We got them in the pro left and nutroots with the internet nowadays, but by and large, with some recent exceptions, dems in congress have kept their individual egos in check.

    I suspect some of that has been having Nancy Pelosi leading them has helped with that. But there are some still out there, and Nader is the biggest fool of them all. He should have stuck to consumer advocacy, and stayed out of electoral politics.

  10. 10
    some guy says:

    If Obama approves the pipeline, explains Courtney Hight, his Florida youth-vote director in 2008 who was arrested in the protest outside the White House, “it is just human nature that the resulting disappointment will sap the enthusiasm that drove us to work so hard last time.”

    fuck Courtney. with Florida unemployment at 10.7% and U6 at just below 20%, Florida is totally in the bag for Obama in 2012. he don’t need no stinking environmentalists, nor those lazy first/second time youth votes in Florida

  11. 11
    Dennis G. says:

    @Corner Stone: Too bored to bother to link to them if you must know.

  12. 12
    James says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Well aware of what shitposting is. Dennis G made a sundae!

    Loneoak: Sturmfuhrer Petraus shall deliver us in 2016. Have faith!

  13. 13
    mcd410x says:

    You and ABL have to be bored of writing the same old crap. I’m certainly tired of reading it.

    You’re so much better attacking the right. You should do it.

  14. 14
    Shade Tail says:

    @Dennis G.:
    Don’t waste your time with Corner Stone. He/she/it is just a troll.

  15. 15
    jeff says:

    I’m still 38, but I’m old enough to have learned these lessons from politics: fool me once shame on you we won’t get fooled again.

  16. 16
    Cliff says:

    I used to have a generally positive view of Nader, until I saw that he said Palin is smarter than most people think.

    Come the fuck on, man. If you find yourself nodding along to anything Palin says, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

  17. 17
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @some guy: So you are in favor of a primary challenge? Who is your candidate of choice?

    @James: So your answer is no?

  18. 18
    gwangung says:

    Shorter: Right direction, disastrously poor use of tactics.

    And that’s REALLY worth that sense of betrayal and talk of primarying?

  19. 19
    Comrade Kevin says:

    @mcd410x:

    I’m certainly tired of reading it.

    Then don’t.

  20. 20
    RareSanity says:

    @James:

    I think you missed the point of the post.

  21. 21
    Shade Tail says:

    @mcd410x:

    You’re so much better attacking the right. You should do it.

    He *is* attacking the right.

    Reading comprehension, how does it work?

  22. 22
    daveNYC says:

    Jesus, when did Nader fo full retard? Dude is fucking broken.
    +5

  23. 23
    agrippa says:

    I am not concerned about them. Purists of that sort have always been with us. At the end of the day, they do very little harm.
    From time to time, the purists do have good ideas that are worthwhile.

  24. 24
    Water balloon says:

    Ralph Nader is not a Democrat. He has run for the presidency several times in general elections opposing the Democratic party. He has virtually no clout inside the party, and no standing to tell Democrats who they should nominate. This will go nowhere.

  25. 25
    MikeBoyScout says:

    How old is Ralph Nader? Like 77?
    What is ole Grampa Walnuts up to? Maybe Nader can dump West and add McCain.

    Think of it… Old & In the Way 2012!

  26. 26
    aisce says:

    Some Emo-bloggers have picked it up, but not many.

    oh?

    …oh. i’m glad you’re here to tell us these things.

    does it take awhile, having to type all your posts one handed?

  27. 27
    maya says:

    Isn’t there a Corvair racing team somewhere that Nader could drive for?

  28. 28
    LTL-FTC says:

    It worked out so well for Nader and the rest of us the first time, right? It’s not enough that he should give us Bush, why not double down and give us Perry, too? First time tragedy, second time farce, etc.

  29. 29
    Corner Stone says:

    @Dennis G.: So you went with the “Some say” technique.
    Couldn’t even nutpick something from their diary pages?

  30. 30
    magurakurin says:

    Don’t you have to be a Democrat to run in a Democratic Party primary? Nader clearly isn’t a Democrat, is Cornell West? Don’t you have to get Democratic Party members to give you signatures to get on the ballot? I mean how does this even work? Guys who basically aren’t Democrats are going to be running a campaign as Democrats? I don’t get it. I don’t see how they succeed even a little. It looks like a joke.

  31. 31
    LT says:

    @mcd410x:

    It’s kind of like watching “Shoq’s” twitterings. 173,606 tweets – contemplate that – most of them about Greenwald and other FIREBAGGERS!, all in the name of doing something, you know, more constructive than just hatin’ on Obama.

  32. 32
    OzoneR says:

    @some guy: fuck Courtney. with Florida unemployment at 10.7% and U6 at just below 20%, Florida is totally in the bag for Obama in 2012. he don’t need no stinking environmentalists, nor those lazy first/second time youth votes in Florida is going to depend on jobs, not some stupid fucking pipeline.

    I’m sure the unemployed voters of Florida would certainly be willing to vote for Obama after Courtney tells them he nixed a pipeline Rick Perry told them would create jobs.

    you can’t be this stupid

  33. 33
    RareSanity says:

    FWIW, DennisG, I think that teh interwebs has given the people you’re talking about, the illusion that they are larger then they really are.

    I really do think that for each of these “teach him a lesson” types, there is probably an offsetting, “why the hell have I been voting Republican?” to replace them.

    Or,as an illustration, for every Jane Hamsher, there is a John Cole.

  34. 34
    LT says:

    @OzoneR: Snark meter…busted.

  35. 35
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @RareSanity: I hope you are right, but I would prefer a 2:1 ratio if you don’t mind.

  36. 36
    Ian says:

    @some guy:
    The whole Ponzi scheme thing probably won’t help Perry down there either

  37. 37

    @MikeBoyScout:

    Think of it… Old & In the Way 2012!

    LOL! I am old and am frequently in the way. But to think of that as a campaign slogan is downright funny!

  38. 38
    Danny says:

    @some guy:

    Which is more important: Global Warming or Ozone Layer depletion? The Obama admin backed away from stricter regulation of Ozone depleting gases but in a landmark policy change found global warming gases a danger to public health and thus subject to regulation.

    The purple line in this graph shows trending on net total Ozone depleting gases levels in the atmosphere. It’s down 10% since peaking in 1992 (with current policies) and the trend is towards further decrease.

    Global Warming gases, meanwhile, are increasing at an escalating rate. Global Warming is the big threat. You saying it’s worth it to primary Obama over doing something about the huge problem but failing to do more about the smaller problem, and risk loosing to a guy who deny the that the larger problem exists and swears to do his best to make it worse?

  39. 39
    MikeBoyScout says:

    Honestly, we all should look forward to Nader continuing to run for president every four years. It’s kind of a time honored windmill tilting tradition.
    Also too, Lyndon LaRouche.

  40. 40
    Mike Goetz says:

    Wow, the Chomskyites are squatting all over this joint. Someone get the firehose.

  41. 41
    Loneoak says:

    I really don’t understand how Obama expects to capture the youth vote if he’s never bothered to clear any brush during his presidency.

    NOT. ONE. FRACKING. BRUSH.

  42. 42
    RareSanity says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Your words to FSM’s ears (eyes?)…

  43. 43
    Danny says:

    @Dennis G.

    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.

    This, a million times this. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This aint the first time. It’s like this every f-cking time ever since Jerry and Abbie paraded Pigasus in Chicago. And it’s not like it never made a difference in the past. Some of us really are hell-bent on shooting us in the foot and sometimes they really do succeed and when they do we really are crippled by it. F-ck em.

  44. 44
    aisce says:

    landmark policy change found global warming gases a danger to public health and thus subject to regulation

    that was the supreme court.

    it’s very important that you get your facts in order so that you can be the most effective and productive advocate for progressive policy possible. you’re welcome.

  45. 45
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    Sometimes I wonder whether these so-called “Progressives” are just running a modern-day version of COINTELPRO on our ass. When I think back to the funding and support that Nader got from the Repubs back in 2000 to get put on ballots as a 3rd party, and when I think of Hamsher rubbing up to Norquist, I want to put on the AL foil hat and run for cover.

    I don’t expect my own personal soshulist nirvana to be established in Merka anytime soon, and from a practical political standpoint, I don’t expect a sharp move away from the right, either. My main reason for voting for Obama was that he had a brain and seemed to take the idea of governing seriously. I didn’t (and don’t) expect a 21st century version of the New Deal or the Great Society coming from the man, but he’s to the left of the crazies, and right now that’s good enough.

    I don’t think that sniping from the Left, promoting primary threats, and leveling the old “there’s no difference between Obama and the right-wing-bugaboo-of the-day” are particularly helpful. I don’t see that the public wants any great leap to the Left just now, and trying to drive them in that direction isn’t going to work. The Right wing has done a great job of selling the “Government bad/taxes evil” memes, and before we can do anything constructive, we need to roll back the thinking on that issue.

  46. 46
    MikeBoyScout says:

    With the Nader nooz, I think Obama has reached his nadir.

  47. 47
    Short Bus Bully says:

    @agrippa:
    You’re missing the point.

    Worst of all, they provide wingnuts everywhere perfect foils who can be presented as proof that all folks who believe in progressive goals are idiots.

    They are like the drunk uncle who won’t shut the fuck up at Thanksgiving dinner and let everyone eat in peace. Or even worse when you’re out in public he makes your whole family look like assholes.

  48. 48
    elmertfudd says:

    @Cliff: She seems to be smart enough to get people to part with their money…

  49. 49
  50. 50
    Cacti says:

    So is Corney West now the official spokes-token for the angry white left, rather than the informal spokes-token?

  51. 51
    mike in dc says:

    Shorter Purity Trolls: That’ll show our face not to take us for granted! (holding severed nose in hand)

  52. 52
    Danny says:

    @Dennis G.

    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.

    Thank you Dennis. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

  53. 53
    aisce says:

    i tend to think ralph nader is one of the most successful political terrorists in american history. the rest of the country just hasn’t put two and two together yet.

    the guy plainly has more hate for this country than even bin laden could muster.

  54. 54
    Danny says:

    @aisce:

    Oh, the emobagger whatever you are butthurt. You’re welcome.

  55. 55
    gwangung says:

    I don’t think that sniping from the Left, promoting primary threats, and leveling the old “there’s no difference between Obama and the right-wing-bugaboo-of the-day” are particularly helpful. I don’t see that the public wants any great leap to the Left just now, and trying to drive them in that direction isn’t going to work. The Right wing has done a great job of selling the “Government bad/taxes evil” memes, and before we can do anything constructive, we need to roll back the thinking on that issue.

    Basically, you’re saying that you need to SHOW, not TELL, why progressive policies are better.

    Which means electing more progressives, implementing more progressive policies and making them WORK.

    By the way. THAT sort of thing will make national candidates move leftward naturally. And primarily opposition will arise naturally. Because they’re coming from larger, wider bases of support.

  56. 56
    LT says:

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    Sometimes I wonder whether these so-called “Progressives” are just running a modern-day version of COINTELPRO on our ass.

    That’s because your brain is broken.

  57. 57

    as you point out, there has always been and will always be a left fringe, that is unelectable, and unsupportable in large batch elections.

    however, unlike on the gop side, they are not running the democrats like their counterparts are running the right wing noise machine .

    so, they make a noise, beat a drum, call obama a republican, a sell out, a centrist, or a corporatist, i fail to see the downside, when it comes to figuring out where the actual votes will be coming from.

  58. 58
    ABL says:

    amen, dengre. amen.

  59. 59
    MikeBoyScout says:

    Wait a darn pea picking moment!

    Has Ralphy cleared this with the Mustache of Understanding?

  60. 60
    Leeds man says:

    All the while, their comic failure works to make any effort at progress all the more difficult.

    Always comforting to have scapegoats, innit?

  61. 61
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Absolutely righteous rant dude. Kudos!

    I hope this doesn’t trigger a “Dennis G./Dengre FanBoi Cult” rant by any unstable FPer hanging around. ;)

    Tagworthy: advocates of apathy

    Spot on.

  62. 62
    Short Bus Bully says:

    @aisce:
    You’re giving him too much credit. He’s just a dumbass with mean streak and the ability to hold a grudge. Shame is that it all equals out to about the same kind of real damage to America that OBL could have wished on his best day.

  63. 63
    Keith G says:

    You hit on some important ideas, but:

    “There are a group of people”
    “The damage these clowns do”
    “Some Emo-bloggers”
    “And here they come again”

    If you are going to indict someone, proper nouns would be cool.

  64. 64
    russell says:

    nobody gives a flying f**k what ralph nader says.

  65. 65
    MikeZ says:

    I think Gore actually disciplined himself over the sins of Clinton. His decision to distance himself from the President likely cost him the election even if he actually did win…..or something.
    Having said that; any Democrat who believes that Obama is not the strongest Democratic candidate for 2012 is really nothing more than the mirror image of a tea-bagger. They will apply some form form of purity test that will beget some form of Democratic Bachmann who supposedly most closely represents an idealized vision of the “Perfect Liberal”.
    I am tremendously disappointed in Obama but it is far more important that he win the next election than any of the nutjobs in the republican party or any nutjob that nader et al propose.

  66. 66
    CaseyL says:

    There’s a reason the proverb says watching legislation get put together is like watching sausage get made, and there’s a reason the old saying goes that voting is most often a choice between Evil and Lesser Evil.

    Politics is nasty business. It’s about power. People don’t run for office unless they’ve got at least a touch of megalomania. We’re lucky to get as many public-service minded pols as we get; lucky there are some Obamas and Harkins and Cantwells and so on in the mix.

    I get upset with Obama as often as anyone, but I’m not idiot enough to think we improve matters by letting the GOP win. “Heighten the contradictions” has been going on for 30 years now – longer if you count 1968 – and we’ve not only not moved farther left, we’ve moved so far right that the old Righties now look like radical sock.u.lists.

    I don’t know whether there are enough idiots to make a difference. There were in 1968, 1980, and 2000 – all pivotal elections precisely because of said idiots. I won’t relax until the day after Election Day (assuming that Obama does get re-elected; and, hopefully, has a Congress he can work with).

  67. 67
    Short Bus Bully says:

    @Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal:

    i fail to see the downside, when it comes to figuring out where the actual votes will be coming from.

    How about Bush v. Gore for starters? Enough downside on that motherfucker for ya?

  68. 68
    aisce says:

    @ danny

    EPA released the 133-page proposed “endangerment finding” [pdf] in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that ordered the agency to reconsider whether greenhouse gases are pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

    reding iz hrd.

    i’m sorry that anthony kennedy went and fucked up your chosen narrative of unimaginable political courage and awesomeness in the face of unrelenting pressure, but literally nobody on earth was surprised when the epa began regulating carbon dioxide under the clean air act after being legally authorized to start regulating carbon dioxide under the clean air act. it is, as of 2007, the least they can do.

  69. 69
    some guy says:

    I never said I was in favor of a primary challenger, but if I was forced to choose I would have to say Roseanne Barr.

    Yup, jobs jobs jobs, that’s what it’s gonna be in Florida. 10% unemployment, 20% U6 underemployment, who cares if you piss on your supporters, with this kind of rock solid employment picture, and the absolute success Team Obama has had resolving the foreclosure crisis and punishing the criminal banksters who caused the shit storm I would say Florida will be a walk in the park for Team Obama. so not to worry about the Courtney’s of the world. demagoguing Social Security and Medicare will work just fine….oops, demagoguing SS will work just fine

    Danny says: “Global Warming gases, meanwhile, are increasing at an escalating rate. Global Warming is the big threat.” maybe so, but that doesn’t negate the 4 points the Nation editorialists raised, which Dennis G used as his prima facie evidence of another “example of the progressive death wish.” Asking Obama to do what he said he would do= progressive death wish in BJ Center Rightland, I guess

  70. 70
    jamurph says:

    Stay the course. Get behind your president and support him. 6 more months and we’ll turn the corner. Stay the course. 4 more years of total allegiance to Obama and we’re bound to advance liberalism. STAY THE COURSE.

  71. 71
    CaseyL says:

    FYFWP – My comment is in moderation, and I don’t know why. Even changed the dreaded “S” word to something else.

    Do comments ever come out of moderation, or should I just forget the whole thing?

  72. 72
    some guy says:

    @Keith G:

    some say proper nouns are for firebagging emoproggers and their minions, while others disagree.

  73. 73

    Thanks Dennis. These people are chock full of pure distilled stupidity, and the neo-Confederates are laughing their asses off at them.

  74. 74
    pete says:

    @MikeBoyScout: Dude, Jerry’s gone, and so is Kahn, and so is Vassar Clements. But the spirit lives (holds lighter in air, burns finger, says ouch, drops lighter on toe, calls for medics).

  75. 75
    AkaDad says:

    As a Conservative, I’d like to thank these Liberals for aiding and abetting the Republicans.

  76. 76
    aisce says:

    @ some guy

    that doesn’t negate the 4 points the Nation editorialists raised, which Dennis G used as his prima facie evidence of another “example of the progressive death wish.”

    because they’re stupid and unworthy of respect or dignification.

    it’s not the united states’ job to regulate canadian oil sands. it’s not the united states’ role to dissuade the canadian government from pursuing environmentally filthy policies.

    somebody is gonna buy that shit. and somebody will need to refine it. it can be us, or it can be china and india.

  77. 77

    @some guy:

    Dude, if you don’t like something Obama has done–or hasn’t done–then by all means call him on it. He said as much way back while he was still running. Nudge him further the way you’d like him to go.

    But for fuck’s sake, do it in a way that helps rather than hinders. Don’t start screaming about primary challenges because he hasn’t done everything you wanted. Don’t go all over Fox and screech that he’s a sellout and as bad as Bush was.

    Those were a few handy “don’t”s. Here are some “do”s:

    Go out and work for the candidates in the primaries who fit your bill. Show up at their offices and do shitty, dull work for them. Trudge through the rain canvassing on an October Saturday when you’d much rather be at home. Send them some money. If you don’t like who’s running, run yourself.

    Those are helpful tips. But before you do all that that I suggested, here’s another “don’t”:

    Don’t work for some Democrat you love above all else if it means you’re likely to badly weaken the Democrat in office who votes as you’d like 9 times out of 10, or even only 7 or 8, or even only 6 or, yes, even only 5 out of 10, if–and here’s the thing–the 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 out of 10er is the best you can get. Examples: O.K., we all know Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson are irritating assholes. But before you go out and work your ass off for Louisiana or Nebraska’s version of Dennis Kucinich, bear in mind that Landreiu and Nelson are the best we can hope for in those states. Yeah, I’d love it if Louisiana sent somebody who speaks and votes like Al Franken to the Senate. But that isn’t going to happen. The choice isn’t Mary landreiu or Al Franken; it’s Mary Landreiu or some dickwad who votes like David Vitter. There are reasons Minnesota sends people like Franken to Washington and Louisiana doesn’t. Those reasons are called “voters”.

    I live in Virginia. In 2006 and in 2008, I worked for Jim Webb and Mark Warner when they ran. If Virginia were a place where somebody like Franken or Sanders or Sherrod Brown could win statewide, I’d happily have worked for them. But it isn’t, and no amount of wishing by me will make it so. So I worked for the best I could reasonably hope for. And much to my delight, I got two Democratic senators in the last two elections we had here. They aren’t as liberal as I am; they aren’t as liberal as I would like them to be. But none of that matters. I live in Virginia in the early 21st Century, not some fantasy world where everybody thinks the way I do.

    Now as for Obama, well, you know what? I would like it if he were more like Al Franken or Sherrod Brown. I’d love that. But right now, it’s hard to get somebody like that into the presidency. It isn’t going to happen right now, however much you might want it to. So, yes, maybe Obama does what I’d like 8 or 9 times out of 10. Guess what? I lived through 8 years of George Bush, who did what I would have liked 0 times out of 10. And Rick Perry and Romney would also do what I’d like them to 0 times out of 10.

    0. 8. 10. Those are the numbers to keep in mind next year, 0, 8 and 10. There are, to be sure, fantasy candidates who would give me what I want 10 times out of 10. (Nader sure as hell isn’t, however many people wrongly think of him as some kind of liberal crusader; he’s only an egoist who wants to throw fits and show everybody how wrong they were. If he got in, he might well appoint somebody like Palin just to stick a thumb in our eyes. I don’t trust him or anybody who works with him.)

    Anyway, 0, 8 and 10. Keep those in mind. Maybe President Franken would give you what you want 10 times out of 10. But that means nothing. He’ll never be president, not in this country, not as it is. This is a country that chose George Bush 7 years ago, knowing fully what it was getting. So 10 is an important number because it’s what you–we–won’t be getting. That leaves 8 and 0. What we have to choose from is getting our way 8 times out of 10 or no times out of 10. Maybe you don’t like that. Tough shit. That’s what you have, and whether you’re happy with it has nothing to do with the world as it is.

    Do you want to get your way 0 times out of 10 as long as you can happily, smugly tell us all about how pure you are and how devoted to The Cause–whatever it may be–you are? Are you willing to live with that? Or would you rather have somebody who does what you like 8 times out of 10? That isn’t as good as 10 out of 10, I know that. But what if these are your only choices? Then what? Are you going to work to get Rick Perry voted in so you can feel like you’re one of the few who are really, truly committed to doing what’s right, even though you might have to take a few lumps for it? (Keep in mind that you are unlikely to get any lumps; it’ll be some other poor losers, but, hey, eggs and omelettes and all that, right?) Or will you take the 8 out of 10 and be willing to be let down once in a while for the sake of all of us? Because these are your choices. These two. Forget about 10. Forget about President Franken. Forget about President Sanders. Forget about President Kucinich, and for the love of God, forget about President Nader. Can you do that? I hope so, since you’ll never get them. Understand that: You will never get them. It won’t happen. You get to choose between President Obama and Governor Perry, or between President Obama and Governor Romney. That’s it. That’s all.

    And if you work for Nader or some other asshole in the primary, all you will do is weaken President Obama and make the likelihood of President Perry or Romney that much greater. That’s what primary challenges to sitting presidents do. It happened in 1992. It happened in 1980. It happened in 1968 (Humphrey was running more or less for Johnson’s third term). It happened as far back as 1912. Each time–each time–the challenging party got the advantage and each time it won. That’s what happens when you run a serious primary against a sitting president: you help elect somebody from the other party. We can’t afford that.

    Now, before anybody weeps and wails about “Don’t I have the right to vote for whomever I want? Isn’t this a democracy, don’t you believe in democracy?” let me just say: Yes, you have the right to vote for whomever you choose. Yes this is a democracy. And yes, I believe in democracy. Yes, yes and yes. Nobody is telling anybody else, “You have no right to vote for Nader,” or anything like that. What we are saying, what we are asking you people who have legitimate criticisms of Obama, is to put your own feelings and your own egos and your own need to feel holy or to feel like martyrs to the cause to the side. That’s all we’re asking. We’re asking you to take a good look at what’s going on here in this country, and to swallow your pride for a little while, and to get over the bruise Obama gave your ego when he didn’t do everything just the way you wanted him to.

    We aren’t telling you; we aren’t ordering you. We aren’t shooting you or threatening you or jailing you or hosing you down with fire hoses or beating you. We are asking you. Yes, sometimes you (collectively; people like you) piss us off and we call you mean names and say intemperate things to you. But, Lord in heaven, get over it. If you can’t even take a few nasty comments without crumpling up and whining about how this is just like what Martin Luther King or somebody had to go through–and there are manic progressives who go on that way; I am not saying you are one of them–then you really aren’t the fearless liberal warriors you like to think you are.

    So, again: Please do not work for or encourage primary challenges to President Obama in 2012. If you do, you greatly weaken his odds of winning next year, and if you do that, then lots of other Democrats will get highly pissed off at you, and we withhold the right to call you mean names. If we do that, then live with it. It’ll be the least you’ll have to worry about.

  78. 78
    magurakurin says:

    In all honesty, I sometimes wonder if I didn’t grow up in a different America (born 1962) than the folks who see Obama in such a negative light and as such a disappointment. To be perfectly frank, I never thought I would even hear a politician say the things Obama said, much less ever be able to carry them out. I watched people, liberal minded people(or so I thought) fawn over Reagan and watched in horror as the country worshiped him. Obama is further left than I ever imagined a president would ever be. That’s not to say he is further left than I want a president to be, far from it. But sometimes I think I grew up in a different place than some people.

    Of course, I don’t live there anymore so I see everything now through an ex-pats eyes, which probably clouds things to a large extent.

  79. 79
    El Cid says:

    Is Nader seen as having any influence on anything these days? I mean, he gets on “Democracy Now!” a lot, and occasional op-ed pieces.

  80. 80

    @Short Bus Bully:

    so how many ways can you lose that election ? i don’t think you can blame nader for lack of a few hundred votes, as it its the only reason. there are tons of ways we could have added the needed margin, and last i checked, nader has little influence on scrotus.

    seriously, if you are going to act like everything coming from the far left is existential on scale, you are going to be surrounded by hostage takers.

    no, you let the fringe say what they want, they will do it anyway, and then take their criticism back to the mainstream orphans of the gop teaparty capture.

    you can replace the far left, and it doesn’t even take a large percentage of purple people who happened to go mccain.

  81. 81
    Lojasmo says:

    Clearly, I will be voting for Biden.

    What is this thread about?

  82. 82
    some guy says:

    “Please close Gitmo, like you promised!” example of the progressive death wish.

    “Stop torture!” example of the progressive death wish.

    “Oppose Tar Sands Pipleline.” example of the progressive death wish.

    “Enforce existing EPA regulations!” example of the progressive death wish.

    Stop the Hate, firebagging emoproggers, and get on the Team! Yay Team! Go Team!

  83. 83
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @jamurph:

    4 more years of total allegiance to Obama and we’re bound to advance liberalism

    Maybe, maybe not, I’m not smart enough to know. What I *am* smart enough to know is that four (or, heaven forbid, eight) years of the Presidency of any one of those Republican idiots certainly will not advance liberalism. And will also give my children and grandchildren at least 20 more years of a radical reactionary SCOTUS.

  84. 84
    CaliCat says:

    LT, are your widdle fee-wees hurt? Tough shit, moron.

    Thank You, Dennis. Enough is enough with these imbeciles.

  85. 85
    Keith G says:

    @Cacti:

    So is Corney West now the official spokes-token for the angry white left,

    No, but that is an important question.

    It may be a bug, it may be a feature, or it may be both, but left (whatever that means) tends to be non hierarchical and rather amorphous. Dr West seems to truly be in love with the sound of his own voice, but is he a leader of anything larger than just own fan club?

    Who are these leaders of the left that Dennis writes about and how did they become thus?

  86. 86
    El Cid says:

    I’m relieved that I don’t need to know much more about what was going on in 1968 to understand the Democratic nomination battle and the election other than a story of how the left shouldn’t run primaries against incumbents because that’s what happened and it brought us Nixon, the end. It makes history a lot easier.

  87. 87
    MikeBoyScout says:

    @72 pete:

    I’m a tellen ya, that Nader/McCain could totally bring 100% of the peyote OD demographic. The fundamentals are sound!

  88. 88
  89. 89
    Danny says:

    @aisce:

    reding iz hrd.

    It sure is when you’re a butthurt aspie.

    SCOTUS forced EPA to reconsider, it didn’t mandate the EPA finding one thing or another. That should be bleeding trivial.

    but in a landmark policy change found global warming gases a danger to public health and thus subject to regulation

    That’s what I wrote and you objected to. And what happened was that SCOTUS told the EPA to investigate whether green house gases contributed to Global Warming. Then the Bush admin sat on it for 2 years and then the Obama EPA investigated and found that green house gases does contribute to global warming (a landmark finding by the EPA), and that they are thus a danger to public health (or whatever the exact choice of words is since you obv like to nitpick semantics). Or, IOW, what I wrote from the start.

    I await with anticipation your future attempts to avenge your damaged hiney.

  90. 90
    West of the Cascades says:

    @aisce: evidently reading IS hard, since you said it was the Supreme Court that made the policy change. You evidently haven’t read the limited holding in Massachusetts v. EPA – I’ll paste it in and take out the complicated citation parts so you can follow that the Supreme Court remanded the case for EPA to make the decision in the first place.

    Also, too, the majority opinion was by John Paul Stephens.

    Way to get your facts straight.

    “In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore ‘arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ … We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. … We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.”

  91. 91
    some guy says:

    But for fuck’s sake, do it in a way that helps rather than hinders. Don’t start screaming about primary challenges because he hasn’t done everything you wanted.

    this is the kind of quality reading skills I have come to expect from the BJ Two Minute Center Right Hate Club.

    show me where I have ever called for an Obama primary challenge. in this thread. on any BJ thread. on any thread anywhere on the Internetz.

    go ahead, I’ll wait………

  92. 92
    cokane says:

    I’m not so sure a vigorous primary would hurt Obama. I think you’ve allowed your thinking to become a bit too boxed in. Let me first say, that I don’t think Obama NEEDS to be primaried because he is some progressive failure, but I also do not see the logic that a primary campaign hurts Obama.

    In 2008 many people were clamoring for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race in the same fashion where Romney quickly conceded, arguing that it was hurting the party for those two to continue to duke it out.

    But I think the vigorous nomination battle actually helped Obama and the democrats in the long-run. It kept Democratic and progressive policies such as health care reform in the news and helped build up a core of activists in places like Indiana and North Carolina. I think both parties and voters would benefit from a vigorous primary challenge every election year, and this might satiate some of those who bemoan America’s constricting two-party elections.

  93. 93
  94. 94
    AA+ Bonds says:

    GOD JESUS IT’S ELECTION SEASON SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU HATE OTHER DEMOCRATS

  95. 95
    AA+ Bonds says:

    TAKE THE SHUT THE FUCK UP PLEDGE RIGHT NOW BY SHUTTING THE FUCK UP. HUSH NOW.

  96. 96
  97. 97
    TooManyJens says:

    I can’t help thinking that this thread would be filled with a lot more personal insults toward the poster if that poster had been ABL instead of Dennis.

  98. 98
    Jenny says:

    “[Obama]feels most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart.” ~ Cornel West

    Doesn’t West know Obama is a secret mooslim trying to bring down the jooos?

  99. 99
  100. 100
    Short Bus Bully says:

    @Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal:

    i don’t think you can blame nader for lack of a few hundred votes, as it its the only reason. there are tons of ways we could have added the needed margin, and last i checked, nader has little influence on scrotus.

    I can very much blame Nader for a hell of a lot in an election that close and he was a stupid fucking assclown not to realize that in the case of politics the Perfect is indeed the enemy of the Good.

    Also too, best type EVAR.

  101. 101
    Jenny says:

    West is silly.

    A year ago he was wetting himself like a teen girl meeting the Beetles when he met Obama.

    http://dingo.care2.com/picture.....45_370.jpg

    Now he’s alone in his room cutting himself because Barack never calls.

    Marsha! Marsha! Marsha!

  102. 102
    Random User Name says:

    @cokane:

    I’m not so sure a vigorous primary would hurt Obama.

    You have much to learn, grasshopper.

    Giving the benefit of the doubt that you’re not spoofing or trolling – a long primary fight benefits Senator Obama, candidate for President because he was perceived as young and inexperienced at national politics. Beating Hillary was a notch on his belt. He doesn’t need that now, he’s the fucking president.

    Any primary damages a sitting President – see Carter, Jimmy and Ford, Gerald.

  103. 103

    @cokane:

    If this were an open seat or one already held by a Republican, you would be right. Things are otherwise when it’s a challenge to a sitting president. If, when they awaken in the summer of next year, people who don’t follow politics too carefully see a convention fight–and most of these challenges, however futile they might have been, like Buchannan’s in 1992, lingered on until the convention, and even when they didn’t, the bad feelings did–they’ll say, “Well, if his own side can’t get behind him, then he must really suck.” It’s happened before, and while it wouldn’t be inevitable, I don’t see any pressing need to test the theory, not with the country on the line.

  104. 104
    Donald says:

    “nobody gives a flying f**k what ralph nader says.”

    I do. He tends to be right about most of the issues. He’s not particularly good at Presidential politics, but then, who wants to listen to someone who is? I might vote for Obama, but listening to him is a waste of time.

  105. 105
    Roy G says:

    So funny how the Dem kool kids are laffing at the kool kids table about the funny names they’re coming up with for the liberal dorks. Look! you just cracked up Rahm Emmanuel, and Bill Clinton may come to your party this weekend, omg.

    Keep on telling yourselves that Gore would have been sooooo much better (at least a smiley green face on the corpofascism), and that you’re not part of the ‘business wing of the Democratic Party,’ aka the enablers of the right-wing takeover.

  106. 106
    The Moar You Know says:

    Ralph Nader has done more to damage progressivism and liberal causes than anyone with the last name of Bush ever could have. Let him run with the Neiman-Marcus fraud from Wasillia.

    We could call it the Fail Party.

  107. 107
    Short Bus Bully says:

    @TooManyJens:
    Absolutely correct, sad to say.

  108. 108
    Mike says:

    Meh…

    Who are they going to get? Really… nobody. If there was someone of any substance, then maybe, but even then, there is no way any Democrat is going to successfully challenge the first black president. The democratic primary electorate is like 40% African American. Who of any stature within the party would try to fly that kamikaze mission?

    Anyways, one of Nader’s gadflies will get like 2% of the primary vote and end up looking stupid and irrelevant. The righties are probably excited ‘cos they think that Nader is some sort of god to Democrats, when, in fact, most Dems hate him for giving us Bush.

  109. 109
    slag says:

    After recently attending a meeting in my senator’s office with a bunch of these jokers, I can’t bring myself to disagree with many of your conclusions, dengre. But I’m curious…at what point do you and your fellow cavilers start to take some responsibility for the process that you describe? Do you really think that saying the exact same thing over and over again in the exact same way actually makes you the change you can believe in?

    Because it certainly doesn’t make you any more compelling to some of us who already agree with you. And it almost certainly doesn’t make you any more persuasive to those who don’t already agree with you. Yet, you must feel like you’re getting something out of this deal. What is it?

    Inquiring minds and all that…

  110. 110
    Ron says:

    @some guy: What fucking fantasy world do you live in where Obama can simply wave a wand and close Gitmo? He signed an EO day 1(?) ordering it to close and Congress voted eleventy billion to 1 to basically not let it happen. Do you have actual evidence that torture is still happening?

  111. 111
    magurakurin says:

    @cokane: no, fuck that, mate. It’s time to close ranks..zee Germans are coming…

  112. 112
    cokane says:

    @cokane: I appreciate the condescension. I have a degree in political science and I worked on political campaigns in Ohio from 2004 to 2010. Knocking on doors 5 days a week, for 5 hours each day, having an average of 250 conversations every week.

    So yeah, I don’t need some internet idiot to educate me about political campaigns.

  113. 113

    @ TMJ 75: Perfect, just bloody perfect.
    __
    Should be a primer for the “primary him” club.

  114. 114
  115. 115
    magurakurin says:

    @cokane: fuckin go for it then, you’ve now proclaimed yourself a genius and the rest of us idiots.

    Good luck.

  116. 116
    MikeBoyScout says:

    I’d like to announce it here, the Zombie Eugene McCarthy primary challenge to President Obama in 2012.

    Eugene McCarthy – he may be dead, but the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

  117. 117
    Danny says:

    So funny how the Dem kool kids are laffing at the kool kids table about the funny names they’re coming up with for the liberal dorks.

    Nope. The “dorks” are not the same thing as the “liberals”. Self identified liberal democrats consistently show the highest level of support for Obama for pretty much any group that gallup provides data for (with the exception of african americans).

    E.g. for this week’s numbers where Obama is at 40% approval for the country he’s got 78% approval with liberal democrats, while only 60% with conservative democrats. It would be more accurate to call Obama’s discontents in the democratic party “conservative dorks”.

  118. 118
    Short Bus Bully says:

    @Roy G:
    so.much.stupid.

    Keep on telling yourselves that Gore would have been sooooo much better…

    Al Gore would have been eleventy billion times better than Shrub. Is that seriously the argument you are trying to make? That the Gore years would have been equal to or worse than the Bush years?

    Christ on a Crutch the Stoopid is strong with this one. Not even bothering to mention the rest of your fail-post…

  119. 119

    @cokane:

    I take it this was directed at me and not yourself. And, while I may well be an idiot, it is still true that over the last 100 years, primary runs against sitting presidents have helped to turn each of those presidents out of office. I don’t claim that each time it was the primary challenge alone that did it, but they all helped. Now, maybe this time isn’t like the others and maybe a primary run against Obama would help him rather than hurt. But upon looking at 1912, 1968, 1976 (I’d overlooked that one; somebody else recalled, thought), 1980 and 1992, and then looking at the Republican party in 2011, a primary challenge is a risk I don’t want to run.

  120. 120
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @cokane:

    I’m not so sure a vigorous primary would hurt Obama.

    Since you have a degree in poli sci and all (and I don’t) please remind me of the last time a vigorous primary campaign against a sitting president helped him.

  121. 121
    JWL says:

    An even better example of a “useless dick”, Dennis, is someone who constructs a straw man, and proceeds to hurl pejoratives at it.

    Pejoratives such as “useless dicks”.

  122. 122

    @Danny:

    It sure is when you’re a butthurt aspie.

    Hey, now. I’m a butthurt aspie. I will never, ever vote for you or your candidates again, ever, unless you not only withdraw that comment but grovel on the floor begging for my forgiveness.

  123. 123
    MikeBoyScout says:

    @103 Roy G:

    Keep on telling yourselves that Gore would have been sooooo much better (at least a smiley green face on the corpofascism), and that you’re not part of the ‘business wing of the Democratic Party,’ aka the enablers of the right-wing takeover.

    Wow! Hey, are you available to primary Obama?

  124. 124
    some guy says:

    @Ron:

    so you are saying he’s not Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States? good to know.

    evidence of torture: see Human Rights First report of September 8th
    http://humanrightsfirst.org/20.....on-complex

  125. 125
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Roy G:

    Keep on telling yourselves that Gore would have been sooooo much better

    Even if Gore had been equal on every other policy to G.W. Bush, he would not have nominated Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS. And that damage will be with us for another two decades, probably.

  126. 126
  127. 127
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @TooManyJens:

    No doubt about it. Not one bit.

  128. 128
    Shade Tail says:

    @JWL:

    An even better example of a “useless dick”, Dennis, is someone who constructs a straw man, and proceeds to hurl pejoratives at it.
    __
    Pejoratives such as “useless dicks”.

    Hmmm. Well, you built a (really cheap) strawman of Dennis’ post, and then called him a useless dick. So you’re talking about yourself, apparently.

  129. 129

    @Short Bus Bully:

    you can blame voter suppression, good weather, bad weather, early bird specials dosed with sleeping pills a sale at pennys, that is the thing about such a close election, the reasons you didn’t get 1000 more votes, are greater than the votes you need.

    the point is, we have to win on the economy, we just have to. we have to make our case to the middle, the people left behind by the republican purity festival.

    nothing good happens for us, or the left far and near, in a bad economy. winning on the economy means taking the case to the purple people, that obama is a centrist who is trying to fix the gop mess.

    its practical, because that is where the votes are, and it how you build the mandate to end the gop austerity madness.

  130. 130
    aisce says:

    Also, too, the majority opinion was by John Paul Stephens.

    what difference does that make? the opinion could have been written by stevens’ chauffeur in crayon on a napkin on the drive over, and the only thing that mattered was that kennedy was the deciding vote.

    you two seem awfully desperate to pimp an “investigation” (all three hours) that “decided” (after ten years of waiting) that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. in 2009. because it was in serious question, as was the administration’s response. certainly the court couldn’t be aware of the consequences of its decision. they’re just impartial observers living in a glass bell jar.

    it was all in serious question indeed. we must certainly not take it for granted as literally the least that can be done. even though even the supreme court assured there could be no industry legal challenge to the findings (which were guaranteed from any democrat not named mary landrieu) beforehand.

    in related news, the administration also “found” that homosexuals are human beings with rights and stuff and not witches or pedos or agents of satan. it was a tough decision. could have gone either way.

  131. 131
    Loneoak says:

    @cokane:

    I suggest you take your poli sci degree and shove it in President Carter’s face in 1980. Should be comforting for him to know how smart you are while Reagan mops the floor with the whole Democratic Party.

  132. 132
    slag says:

    @JWL: I so wish it were a straw man. Really, I do. But if it makes you feel any better, you and dengre may have more in common than you think. You’re both fairly useless dicks, as far as I can tell.

  133. 133
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    .
    .

    another example of the progressive death wish

    Dennis G, although your stupidity and petty score-settling are legendary, they are still offensive. What you call a “death wish” is actually translated into the firebagger language as “Live Free or Die, Motherfucker.”
     
    Braying center-right personality cultists such as yourself are directly responsible for the greatest income inequality in United States history, the foregone global warming that will kill billions, as well as all the other progressive policies you hate. Yet you go down asking folks to keep believing in your policies of guaranteed slow capitulation and surrender to the forces of suicidal evil represented by the non-progressive right and center instead of insisting on acting on principle and fighting them to the last breath. They are crazy, and so are you. Look at the world you and your balloonemo chickenshits have made – it is not a success, nor is it sustainable. But you and the chickens have come home to cluck-cluck about those terrible progressives.
     
    I advise you to change your ways and stop foolishly holding up your failures as a beacon to anyone.
     
    —  
    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” – John Wayne Bobbitt
    .
    .

  134. 134
    mk3872 says:

    100% X 1,000, spot-on, well said. And certainly will be ignored by those who co-opt “The Left” as their persona every 4 years. Hooray!

  135. 135
    boss bitch says:

    Despite all of Obama’s efforts to prevent repeal, in a few minutes DADT will be gone.

  136. 136
  137. 137
    Leadpipe says:

    Useless dicks said it all for me.

  138. 138
    Shade Tail says:

    @Roy G:

    Keep on telling yourselves that Gore would have been sooooo much better

    Gore wouldn’t have ignored the “bin Laden determined to attack” memo.

    Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq to get people we knew weren’t there.

    Gore wouldn’t have slashed taxes for the ultra-wealthy.

    Gore wouldn’t have appointed a horse manager to lead FEMA and then said he did “a heck of a job” after Katrina.

    Keep telling yourself he wouldn’t have been better, if it helps you sleep at night. You know even better than I do that you’re just lying to yourself.

  139. 139
  140. 140
    cokane says:

    1964, 1948, 1940, 1936 were all elections where the Democratic incumbent faced more than token opposition and went on to the general election.

    If there is no Democratic primary, then there will be no Democrats at political debates until September. Which means months and months of televised Republican debates with little counterpoint. There are some advantages to a primary — not necessarily a competitive one, that would never happen, but one with a vigorous opponent is not the worst thing in the world.

  141. 141
    Loneoak says:

    @Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal:

    nothing good happens for us, or the left far and near, in a bad economy. winning on the economy means taking the case to the purple people, that obama is a centrist who is trying to fix the gop mess.

    That is far too sensible. What we really need is a polygendered Filipino candidate who writes columns for the Socialist Worker, subsists on raw acorns, and will get elected by sheer virtue of hir appeal to grad students living in Oakland.

  142. 142
    Loneoak says:

    @Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal:

    nothing good happens for us, or the left far and near, in a bad economy. winning on the economy means taking the case to the purple people, that obama is a centrist who is trying to fix the gop mess.

    That is far too sensible. What we really need is a polygendered Filipino candidate who writes columns for the Susha1ist Worker, subsists on raw acorns, and will get elected by sheer virtue of hir appeal to grad students living in Oakland.

  143. 143
    Short Bus Bully says:

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas:
    u r a doosh…

  144. 144

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas:

    What the fuck is wrong with you? Go fuck yourself. Really. Just go away.

    @Loneoak:

    Didn’t the Greens nominate her already, in–what–1996 or something? I still don’t understand how she lost…

  145. 145
    Another Chris says:

    I’ve been a little suspicious about Cornel West since 2000, when he was an active Bradley supporter in the primaries (there’s video on C-Span’s archives of West speaking at some Bradley rallies a few days before New Hampshire voted), and then when Bradley lost, he threw in with Nader. What bothered me about that was that Bradley and Gore were not that far apart on the issues. Both had supported NAFTA and GATT, both had raised a lot of money from Wall Street, both had been identified with the “neo-liberal” wing of the Democratic Party, which was the term people were using in the 1980s. Bradley had opposed the Gulf War in ’91, while Gore had supported it, and Bradley had opposed welfare reform in ’96, while Gore had argued to Clinton that the should sign it, so there were some differences that put Bradley to Gore’s left. But Bradley had also seriously considered running as an independent for President in ’96 on a “transpartisan politics” theme not all that different than what Obama ran on 12 years later, and had tried to get Colin Powell, JCS Chair during the Gulf War, to be his runningmate.

    I dunno, it just seemed to me that all the objections West kept listing about Gore were a little disingenuous, considering that he was okay with most of them in Bradley’s case.

    Stepping into the present day, I neither love nor hate Barack Obama, so I always feel a little out of place in these arguments. The only thing I’d suggest, to both sides, is that when you’re reading/formulating these arguments about Obama, imagine it’s 1979 and we’re arguing about Jimmy Carter. Maybe that will put things in perspective.

  146. 146
  147. 147
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas:

    UnCTious Tommeh, our shrill purity troll, is shrill. As usual. Day in and day out, they bravely rage against the machine known as the Democratic party. Of course, going after than many politicians is real hard so they will go after their proxy, the President!

    Go vote third party or Republican. You want those evil corporatist Democrats to know that you are happy handing the Presidency to the Republicans to teach them a lesson. There’s no better way to do that than to vote third party or Republican, amirite?

    Fuck you are stupid. I would venture that you are as dumb as a stump but even a stump has uses.

  148. 148
    cokane says:

    @Loneoak: Again, I’ve worked on political campaigns in Ohio from 04-10 — 6 very hard years. I’ve had literally over 10,000 conversations at people’s doors. So before you blame me for Democrats losing, why don’t you ask yourself, what ACTIONS have YOU DONE to help them win?

  149. 149
    Uriel says:

    .
    ,
    ;
    :

    Braying center-right personality cultists such as yourself are directly responsible for the greatest income inequality in United States history, the foregone global warming that will kill billions, as well as all the other progressive policies you hate.

    What the hell?

    …–.
    ~
    *
    ¿

  150. 150
    Random User Name (Internet Idiot) says:

    @cokane:

    @cokane: I appreciate the condescension. I have a degree in political science and I worked on political campaigns in Ohio from 2004 to 2010. Knocking on doors 5 days a week, for 5 hours each day, having an average of 250 conversations every week. So yeah, I don’t need some internet idiot to educate me about political campaigns.

    I stand corrected. Given your self-proclaimed political pedigree, your original point appears to be even more ill-considered than I had originally thought.

    @cokane:

    Which means months and months of televised Republican debates with little counterpoint.

    And this would be a bad thing, because?……

    Keep those yahoos front and center for as long as possible – getting “Social security is a Ponzi scheme” on tape was worth its weight in gold, I can hardly wait to see what they come up with next.

  151. 151
    some guy says:

    But before you go out and work your ass off for Louisiana or Nebraska’s version of Dennis Kucinich, bear in mind that Landreiu and Nelson are the best we can hope for in those states. Yeah, I’d love it if Louisiana sent somebody who speaks and votes like Al Franken to the Senate. But that isn’t going to happen. The choice isn’t Mary landreiu or Al Franken; it’s Mary Landreiu or some dickwad who votes like David Vitter.

    scanning the thread before nighty night, I think I found tonight’s most succinct and exemplary ideological justification for the BJ Center Right Two Minute Hate Club.

    bravo, Two Minute Hate Club, bravo. Surrender, Dorothy, not just a slogan, an ethos.

  152. 152
    LanceThruster says:

    What a bag of useless dicks.

    Hear, hear!

    And Palin also, too.

  153. 153
    some guy says:

    PS: I sure hope all of you are girding up and marking your calendars for the Connecticut For Lieberman convention. I hear there won’t be any primary candidates in that one.

  154. 154
    Satanicpanic says:

    @cokane: Half of those were situations where a VP took over after a sitting president died. Not the same thing.

  155. 155
    Allan says:

    @cokane:

    I have a degree in political science and I worked on political campaigns in Ohio from 2004 to 2010. Knocking on doors 5 days a week, for 5 hours each day, having an average of 250 conversations every week.

    If you keep knocking on doors in Ohio, the Democrats may never win another statewide election. You have my permission to sit out 2012.

  156. 156
    aisce says:

    I’ve been a little suspicious about Cornel West since 2000

    ooh, is there an actual leftist elite conspiracy to destroy our country after all?! awesome, all this time i’ve been hoping and hoping.

    who else is in it? we need to infiltrate. nader obviously. and some ivy league professors like west. and chomsky. i wonder if they all have code names in their secret correspondence with one another. i bet they do. this is so exciting.

  157. 157
    Martin says:

    Ok, the need to preserve the safety net has been firmly driven home tonight. My mom just mailed me a box of probably 300 unopened happy meal toys. Perhaps there’s a backstory I’m unaware of, or perhaps my mom has finally gone whackadoodle.

  158. 158
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Allan:

    2016 too. The sacrifice will be worth it to Ohio.

  159. 159
    RareSanity says:

    If there are people that think, in any way, that President Obama not winning the election in 2012 will be positive, I submit that these people are a lost cause.

    Anyone that was paying attention during the 8 years of GWB, and has even slightly paid attention to what Republicans have been doing in Congress, they are “the left’s” 27 per-centers. Irrational, illogical and incorrigible.

    I won’t add to the fire by calling them “trolls”, but I will say that all of the arguing is wasted energy.

  160. 160
    Martin says:

    @cokane:

    Again, I’ve worked on political campaigns in Ohio from 04-10—6 very hard years. I’ve had literally over 10,000 conversations at people’s doors.

    And yet Ohio today has a Republican governor and legislature. Correlation? Causation? Does it matter?

  161. 161
    magurakurin says:

    @cokane: Okay, you get your primary challenge. Who will you be knocking on doors for, Obama or the Mystery Vigorous Challenger? If it is the former, what really is the point? All you would have is your guy burning up cash and volunteer hours battling a senseless battle. If you are going to be knocking on doors for the challenger how effective will your appeals be for Obama after he wins when you then knock doors for Obama? The people you spoke with just a couple of months prior will be all like, what the fuck? two months ago you told me Obama sucked.

    It’s a bad fuckin idea, in spite of your college degree. I have one as well, two actually and one MA. They don’t mean shit in regard to the validity of what either you or I say.

  162. 162
    trollhattan says:

    TBogg linked to this instructive rinse-and-repeat post from those glowy days of 2008.

    http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2.....n-anymore/

  163. 163
    Elie says:

    @aisce:

    aisce:

    Do you ever comment straight ahead, without sarcasm?

    Just once can you just say what you wanna say without that game?

    Of course, you can do as you wish. You clearly make interesting and at times funny comments, but you almost never just say what you think.

  164. 164
    Lysana says:

    @cokane: And yet you’re still convinced primarying Obama’s a good idea despite decades of proof to the contrary? No, you’re not naive. You’re deliberately stupid.

  165. 165
    Another Bob says:

    Both co-chairmen of the House Progressive Caucus, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, have recently said that Obama is the best candidate to represent the Democrats next year. If the story I read in the WaPo is correct, even Nader himself doesn’t appear to be advocating a primary challenge.

    Nader said Saturday it is “very unlikely” he would challenge Obama, and that he is gauging the interest of former lawmakers and governors, academics, authors and labor leaders. “I just want all these liberal, progressive agendas to be robustly debated. Otherwise, there will be a de facto blackout of their discussion” during next year’s campaign, Nader said.

    Is a “robust debate” really such a terrible prospect that em-o-bots have to frantically thrash proggo-bagger straw men to assuage their fear? Considering that there actually is no groundswell anti-Obama movement among most self-described progressives, what’s all the fuss about? It just seems so Republican to freak out over a little dissent.

  166. 166
    someone says:

    Election season seems to come earlier and earlier and with it the “my way or the highway” mentality of the democrats. Well, nothing I’ve read here is going to convince me to vote for Obama, whose policies I disagree with. I will vote 3rd party yet again for someone who articulates a set of progressive policies. I know that doesn’t bother the democrats because they figure they’ll sweep up enough support on lesser of 2 evils. The republicans believe the same thing. It is a sad state of affairs, especially because the policies currently enacted by the US government are literally, and without hyperbole, causing suffering and death to people who deserve better, in the US and abroad.

    Enjoy yourselves. Maybe I’ll check in on you all in 2013.

  167. 167
    Yutsano says:

    @Martin:

    Perhaps there’s a backstory I’m unaware of, or perhaps my mom has finally gone whackadoodle.

    I submit this is not an either/or proposition. And now I go make tuna casserole.

  168. 168
    Michael Hall says:

    “Without these useful idiots the GOP and their ideas would always be defeated.”

    Christ Jesus. This is a joke, right?

  169. 169
    Elie says:

    @Too Many Jimpersons (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.):

    amazing..

    He won’t hear you, cause its all Me me me… he thinks that he is SOME guy (emphasis on some) — special, singular, pay attention to me me me. He will not be convinced and he and folks like him just dont have the cortical structures in their brains to know what you are saying. Some of the aparatus that relates to understanding relative choices and the judgement for weighing conditional situations — if/then scenarios. It is not intelligence. Its a kind of “mind blindness”. They can see only one perspective and have a hard time playing out anything but that reality… They also have probs with anything having to do with complex relationships and dynamics.

    It was a great piece you wrote and I am glad you wrote it, but some guy and a host of others here won’t get it. Its not willfullness. They just don’t see it.

    Nader is one of the type. I think he has Asperger’s — one of the autism spectrum conditions. Plenty bright but just doesnt get the whole relationship thing at all. Its all black and white and rigid — rules to be memorized cause there is a glitch in the part of the brain that makes and understands communication vis a vis relationships and attachment. He can’t make or understand bonds like that. He is disloyal cause he doesnt really understand what that is. To him, loyalty equals “selling out”, cause there is no means for understanding what having someone’s back means. He can’t grok it.

  170. 170
    CT Voter says:

    Thank you, Dennis.

    It’s a toxic brew. The media, the right, and the left are intent on eviscerating a Democrat. The media doesn’t care about its role. The right knows exactly what’s going on, and has benefitted, for years, by the media’s assist. The left? And in particular the left in the blogosphere? It’d be funny, if it weren’t so predictable.

    DE FAZIO/NADER 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  171. 171
    BombIranForChrist says:

    In many ways, this is a perfect template for your typical front pager post:

    1. Open with an ad hominem attack.
    2. Assert something that is not true.
    3. Close with an ad hominem attack.

    Do you really, really think that we would live in a Democratic Paradise if it wasn’t for Cornell West and Ralph Nader?

    Sigh. I guess I will now go read an article where ABL calls me an idiot for something..

  172. 172
    kestral says:

    Agreed, but for slightly different reason. The base is fractured and strained enough as is. Throwing in primary challenges just seems like a good way to cause a total collapse on the Dem side of the aisle.

    And with the other guys being so Scary Dogmatic, that isn’t exactly a good thing. So… yeah. No primary challenges, please.

  173. 173
    cokane says:

    @magurakurin: Democrats win when turnout is high. If everyone who could vote, did vote, then Democrats would win the White House in a landslide. Having a longer, more engaging political campaign from both sides, and getting people involved in the process early encourages more people to vote come election time. This was shown in 2008, and the opposite was shown in 2010.

    You’re talking about my degree more than I ever did. I only used it, along with my lengthy experience campaigning, to show that I was not ignorant about politics as others have implied. I’ve spent more time working in politics than the vast majority of posters on this board. Sorry if that offends you, or anyone else. But the fact that you continue to bring it up (though I only said it once) is further proof that you lack any significant arguments. Above I posted the years where Democratic incumbent faced a primary challenge. 4 Different elections. People so far have only posited 1 election where a primaried Democrat lost. Looks like the empirical evidence supports me.

  174. 174
    ABL says:

    @BombIranForChrist: i can call you an idiot right here, if you like…

  175. 175
    Matt says:

    I think I agree with a previous poster, Al Gore didn’t lose because of Ralph Nader. Jimmy Carter didn’t lose because of Ted Kennedy. Humphrey DID lose because of LBJ, in that you were right. Democrats lose when we have no idea what they stand for, or if they’ll even take a stand. Obama has taken a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time to finally take a stand on anything, and stopped playing Señor Sensible, I’m just only slightly enthusiastic that people are paying attention anymore. I think his saving grace is that the Republicans are just really sub-par. I mean seriously? Rick Perry ‘nee Bush’. Seriously?

  176. 176
    marginalized for stating documented facts says:

    The big problem really seems to be the blunt reality that there’s not much Obama can do. For that matter, I don’t see that there’s all that much Obama could have done back in 2008.

    Progressive may yap about “increase the minimum wage” or “push for a second stimulus” or “he should have demanded a much bigger initial stimulus.” Well, great. That’s all fine, but in the end, where does that get you?

    The essential problem is that America now faces brutal competition from manufacturers and service providers in the rest of the world. Obama could have offered a 50 trillion dollar stimulus package, and even if by some miracle he had gotten it through congress, the plain fact of the matter is that IBM will still be offshoring all its IT service jobs to Bangalore India because people in India will work for 50 cents an hour and people in America won’t do that.

    Say Obama had proposed (and succeeded) tripling the minimum wage. That’s great. But the bottom line is that it prices American labor even more out of the world market. Raising the minimum wage, which we ought to do because the minimum wage in the U.S.A. has not remotely kept pace with inflation since 1970, will merely provide more incentive to businesses to automate more jobs out of existence in America and to offshore more jobs to third world countries.

    Kevin Drum has been writing about this lately. There isn’t a simple solution here. See “Who will tend the machines that tend the machines?”

    Obama isn’t a miracle man. People on the left have been screaming for Barack Obama to “act more like FDR.” Barack Obama can’t act like FDR because the growth of the American (and the world) economy is now oil-constrained. That wasn’t true back in 1932, when FDR took over as president. All FDR had to do was unleash American labor and the economy grew by leaps and bounds. Today, even if by some magic wand Obama was able to unleash American labor and American industry, our economy would crash into the brick wall of skyrocketing oil prices as a growing economy forced oil prices up.

    These kinds of attacks on Obama for failing to do something that’s impossible, as well as the ongoing frenzied verbal assaults on progressives like Cornel West, just aren’t doing anyone any good. “More of the same” Obama policies aren’t going to fix things, but primarying Obama isn’t going to fix anything either.

  177. 177
    cokane says:

    @Satanicpanic: Oh where was your comment when someone used the Ford as an example against me? Are you kidding me?

    @Allan: and

    @Martin: I can’t believe I’m being giving grief for actually DOING SOMETHING to fight for progressive causes. A little history lessons for the ingrates here. We won the governor’s race in Ohio in 2006, and we won the Senate seat, the presidency, and the congressional seat in hamilton county in 2008. But gee, I just love hearing criticism of my ACTION from idiots who do little more than sit on their asses and complain about cornell west on the internet. Worthless

  178. 178
    cokane says:

    Tell me assholes, what ACTIONS have you DONE to help advance progress politics in this country?

  179. 179
    Cat Lady says:

    I never said I was in favor of a primary challenger, but if I was forced to choose I would have to say Roseanne Barr.

    Let that sink in. What a clown.

  180. 180
    Elie says:

    @marginalized for stating documented facts:

    exactly.

    We are in a period of major labor and economic transformation. There are no answers yet but I think that what Obama offers is a relative soft landing supported by government programs, versus a hard crash that the Republicans amazingly seem to be advocating. We have a series of tough situations and decisions to be made over the coming years, long after Obama is out of office.

    Cornell West is an arrogant and fiercely narcissistic fool, however. If he had nuance and true depth of character, it would show. It doesnt. He is very lucky however. Sometimes that is enough in this life but I think he is a four star creep.

  181. 181
    Elie says:

    @cokane:

    I just returned home from a community meeting to block development of a huge coal export terminal in our local deep water port — one of the last clean marine environments for a number of species. Tons of coal, coal dust will yield only 200 jobs and contaminate our beautiful, tourism dependent landscape.

    I also work with progressives and Democrats in WA state.

    Many of us work.

    So, we can’t disagree with you?

  182. 182
    James says:

    @BombIranForChrist:

    You left out Chomsky and Greenwald. They’re apostates too standing in the way of true Democratopolis(tm).

    The enemies list is a long and varied clusterfuck.

  183. 183
    cokane says:

    @Elie: You’re like a child who walks into a movie halfway through…

    Please read the above bullshit sniping at my work before diving into snark at me.

  184. 184
    Elie says:

    @cokane:

    OMG — so sorry!

    By all means, Carry On!

  185. 185
    Yutsano says:

    @cokane: I was thisclose to giving you the benefit of the doubt…then you went full raging asshole when SHE ANSWERED YOUR FUCKING QUESTION. If you’re not going to argue in good faith, then STFU.

    @Elie: Apparently no one is as good as cokane because YOU WEREN’T THERE MAN! HE DID SOME THINGS! HE’S SEEN SOME STUFF!!

  186. 186
    Kola Noscopy says:

    @Allan:

    Look! ABL’s featherweight familiar flits among us…

  187. 187
    Elie says:

    @Yutsano:

    Yeah… he showed ME. I didnt see WHAT HE DID I GUESS

    Ho hum…

  188. 188

    @Matt:

    I think I agree with a previous poster, Al Gore didn’t lose because of Ralph Nader.

    Yes, Gore did lose because of Ralph Nader. He lost for a bunch of other reasons, too. None of them were sufficient for him to lose, and all of them were necessary.

    All of those reasons were 100% responsible for Gore losing. When dishing out responsibility for things, it can some to vastly more than 100%.

  189. 189
    cokane says:

    @Yutsano: I was being humorous.

    Pretty sad that this comment section is filled with people who claim they want Democrats to win, but spit on the people who actually do the work necessary for that happen if they so much as disagree with a minor point (primary campaigns).

  190. 190
    Yutsano says:

    @Elie: And a few more electrons die slowly in vain…

  191. 191

    @marginalized for stating documented facts:

    Goddam! Where’s a major outbreak of Bubonic Plague when you need it?

  192. 192
    Elie says:

    @cokane:

    Relax, man.

    Relax. Its all good…

    Sometimes people here mess wicha a lot of different ways.

    Right now I am having a bowl of cereal with milk and then I am going to put on my fuzzy slippers and go to bed.

    Go getcherself something good or fun to eat.

    Everything will be jes fine

  193. 193
    Larkspur says:

    @Martin:

    My mom just mailed me a box of probably 300 unopened happy meal toys.

    Oh dear lord, this is the funniest thing I’ve read so far. This is some truly excellent mommishness.

  194. 194
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Martin:

    My mom just mailed me a box of probably 300 unopened happy meal toys. Perhaps there’s a backstory I’m unaware of, or perhaps my mom has finally gone whackadoodle.

    I seem to recall a tv-news story that California Fuhrer Jerry Brown, at the behest of FLOTUS Michele Obama (History’s Fourth, Maybe Fifth, Greatest Monster) was going to cruelly ban the selling of toys with happy meals, either to discourage childhood obesity or because they hate happiness, depending on how right-wing the news affiliates’ stance. Could your mom have picked up the impression, from some forwarded email or AOL news site, that black market happy-meal toys are now rare & resale-valuable commodities in your state?…

  195. 195
    Comrade Luke says:

    No matter how bad any Democratic candidate might be, you must vote for him. Otherwise, if they lose, it’s your fault.

    Thanks, that really clears things up. I’m sure this strategy will really help move the conversation to the left.

  196. 196
    Elie says:

    @Anne Laurie:

    LOL! There has to be a story here and I am dying to hear it. Martin, you have to follow up with this, man…

  197. 197
    Martin says:

    @Yutsano:

    I submit this is not an either/or proposition.

    Oh, that is indeed a good point.

  198. 198
    Elie says:

    gnight all…

  199. 199
    Martin says:

    @cokane:

    I can’t believe I’m being giving grief for actually DOING SOMETHING to fight for progressive causes.

    Snark aside, I actually, honestly do appreciate the effort. The ‘would a primary hurt Obama’ statement however does raise some legitimate questions about the quality of the effort. Strong primaries to incumbents are always damaging. Always. If you force the candidate from the center, you risk the general election. If you run a negative campaign (inevitable in a ‘vigorous’ primary), you risk the general election. You’re not actually aiming for some better outcome here, just some better words. Fuck that.

  200. 200
    The Raven says:

    As opposed to people like you, who are supporting the President who has lead us into what seems likely to be a decade of poverty.

    Y’know, it really isn’t necessary to grovel to the President. He hasn’t been crowned…yet.

  201. 201
    Martin says:

    @Larkspur: Well, she volunteers at the hospital most days and I know she gets a happy meal for lunch every day that she goes, so thankfully I do know the source of the happy meal toys (though there must be 2 years worth in there). So I know she didn’t blow her life savings buying them off of EBay or something. But the following questions inevitably follow:

    1) Why the fuck would she save 2 years worth of happy meal toys? And I have reason to suspect it’s more than 2 years as I didn’t see any dupes on casual observation and I think I saw some movie tie-ins from 3-4 years ago.
    2) Why the fuck does she think I want these things? Her grandkids are now too old for them (and she never sent them when they weren’t tool old for them). Is it part of a craft or something?
    3) Why was there a brand-new ANSI certified hard hat buried in the middle of the box of toys? Did she really intend to send that? (I have 5 already, for christs sake – she knows I don’t need any more) Did she think the hat needed packing material and chose the toys? But it’s a fucking hard hat! It doesn’t need packing material!

    So, this is all very curious to me. She mailed it pre-Reno, so it’s not some nutty near-death kind of thing. Maybe she’s planning for her demise and has decided to UPS me her house one bit at a time, starting from the back of the closet. Hopefully the cat isn’t next.

  202. 202
    Yutsano says:

    @Martin: I suppose you could ask…but I demand you record that conversation. Some matters must be preserved for posterity.

  203. 203

    @The Raven:

    Hahahahaha….You must not live in Michigan, where we’re in our second decade of poverty. We were led there by the little brothers and sisters of the people who led the nation into this crisis- Republicans and neo-liberals- and for eight years of a decent liberal Democratic governor’s time in office, every attempt to get the state on a solid footing was blocked by the same people who got us in trouble in the first place- as is happening now in Washington.

  204. 204
    Martin says:

    @Anne Laurie:

    Could your mom have picked up the impression, from some forwarded email or AOL news site, that black market happy-meal toys are now rare & resale-valuable commodities in your state?…

    Actually, you might be onto something there. She has a bit of a teaparty fever about her, and if she’s gotten onto one of ErikVonErik’s ‘Mail ice to the global warming denier’ bits of social commentary idiocy, perhaps that’s what I’ve stumbled onto. I don’t recall us getting onto the great happy meal debate so maybe this is a protest move – showing me the wingnut nirvana that my misguided liberal attitudes will lead me to miss – having Splits the Flamingo (Beanie baby © 2009) and Rudy from Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs © 2009.

    Holy shit, I just found a Minty with Pony Accessory My Little Pony © 2005. 6 years old. Some bronie out there just went ‘squeeee!’

  205. 205
    Martin says:

    @Yutsano: Uh, you want me to include or edit out the easy half-hour recitation of why Tom Brady is more awesome than Jesus? Because almost 1000 passing yards in 2 games, it’s going to be unbearable. I may have to choke myself with a The Last Airbender Slithering Spirit Dragon toy to escape that purgatory.

  206. 206

    @Martin:

    Well, she volunteers at the hospital most days and I know she gets a happy meal for lunch every day that she goes…

    See, that there is just odd, man. I mean, it’s odd that she doesn’t just give the toys to the pediatric floor/wing, but it’s really odd that she gets a happy meal. IMO, of course.

  207. 207
    Yutsano says:

    @Martin:

    Uh, you want me to include or edit out the easy half-hour recitation of why Tom Brady is more awesome than Jesus?

    Impossible. We all know God’s quarterback plays for the Broncos. Just ask him!

  208. 208
    karen marie says:

    @El Cid: Ralph who?

  209. 209

    @Yutsano:

    Impossible. We all know God’s quarterback plays for the Broncos. Just ask him!

    And Brady is more awesome than him…But Rodgers is the best QB in the league right now. Not his fault that the Packers also have the running game that Belichick wishes he had.

  210. 210
    Martin says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): I don’t think the hospital she volunteers at has a pediatric wing. She’s always gotten happy meals – I think they were cheaper than buying the items separately and she just got in the habit. Hamburger, fries, apples, and a small iced tea. But why save the toys?

    Hmm. I wonder if I should expect a UPS package with 300 flattened happy meal boxes.

  211. 211
    Uriel says:

    @cokane:

    if they so much as disagree with a minor point (primary campaigns).

    Ummm- you mint want to take a look at the historical record. There’s damn little evidence supporting the contention that primary campaigns are a ‘minor point.’

  212. 212
    aisce says:

    @ elie

    ah, somebody has finally caught on to the fact i might not be operating in good faith here.

    how much more obvious could i be? in one post, i call nader a secret terrorist. in the next post, i mock those who would do the same. in one post, i shrug my shoulders at tar sands pipelines. in the next, i make fun of a perfectly logical argument about prioritization and progress at the epa. and yet dipshits like danny scratch their thick monkey skulls and go along with it.

    balloon juice is a troll’s world these days, and i’m just rolling with it.

  213. 213
    amk says:

    Didn’t the firebaggers want that guy whatshisname who plays that bourne character in movies to primary Obama ? He must be pissed off now.

  214. 214
    Yutsano says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): Yes but Tebow has Teh Jeebus Sprinkles! Endorsed by Lady Starbursts herself! You canna defeat that kind of power man!

    @Martin: It does have the suggestions of escalation.

  215. 215
    sukabi says:

    Nader’s as close to being a progressive as GWB was close to being a genius… he’s a willing tool of the GOP because they’ve got the $$$ to stroke his ego and his ‘campaign’. And I can see where he’d feel an affinity for Palin, she plays the same part in a skirt on the R side of the aisle.

  216. 216
    CaliCat says:

    @sukabi:

    he’s a willing tool

    Yes, indeed.

  217. 217
  218. 218
    CarolDuhart says:

    @Roy G: My God, Gore would have been a hundred times better. Would there have been a 9-11 if Gore had been President? He worked on a report on airline safety that recommended locked cabin doors. He helped run Clinton’s foreign policy and had backdoor links to a lot of governments. No way he would have ignored that August 6th 2001 report that warned that Osama bin Laden was preparing to attack. Clinton had wanted to do more to get bin Laden, but he felt that it was too late in his term to get anything done. Gore would have continued Clinton’s pursuit, gotten work on those cockpit doors, and alerted the needed governments about bin Laden’s threats.

    A second term Gore would have pushed for improvements to the levees in Katrina, or if that wasn’t possible, been johnny on the spot with aid. In short, lives were lost because of the “no difference between the parties” crowd.

    Gore had appointed Justices instead of Bush, would there have been a Citizens United type ruling that practically took the limits off of corporate giving to candidates? Or would Gore appointments have supported a more citizen-oriented approach to campaign finance?

    The no difference crowd made a bad difference the last time.

  219. 219
    Sleeper says:

    @Another Bob:

    Is a “robust debate” really such a terrible prospect that em-o-bots have to frantically thrash proggo-bagger straw men to assuage their fear?

    To the people here? Yes.

    Too many people here are personally invested in Barack Obama to care what actual policies he endorses or advocates. Hate to say that, but it’s true.

  220. 220
    AxelFoley says:

    @cokane:

    Tell me assholes, what ACTIONS have you DONE to help advance progress politics in this country?

    Not vote for dumbasses like you, for one.

  221. 221
    Danny says:

    @aisce:

    HURR DURR I WAS ONLY PLAYING RETARDED JOKES ON YOU
    Yeah whatever floats your boat buddy. Knock yourself out.

  222. 222
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Hate to say that, but it’s true.

    No, as often as I hear this shit from the manic-progressives I believe that you happen to enjoy saying that. There is no one who is “personally invested” in Obama here, just clear-eyed individuals who look at one side and compare it to the other. We see that the option is not an option. We believe that Obama deserves criticism but not the ineffective, self-defeating bullshit that the manic progressive left is pushing. As usual.

    With you assholes, it’s either we agree with you or we worship Obama. No gray area, no nuance. Like the wingers, it’s all or nothing with you asshats.

  223. 223
    AxelFoley says:

    @Sleeper: i
    And too many here are invested in tearing down Obama. Oh, It’s true, it’s damn true.

  224. 224
    Sleeper says:

    @Comrade Luke:

    I’m sure this strategy will really help move the conversation to the left.

    Balloon Juice is not at all interested in moving the conversation anywhere. The frontpagers and commenters are pretty much in agreement that things are perfectly fine just where they are, and that even thinking wistfully about moving to the left is not just impractical, but foolish, and not just foolish, but heretical. And that’s fine; if they prefer center-right policies and find Obama’s presidency to be the best of all possible worlds, that’s certainly their right to do so.

  225. 225
    magurakurin says:

    @cokane:

    Jesus tap dancing Christ. If you can’t see how a primary in 2012 of a sitting president will be vastly different than the one in 2008…fuck, what can be said.

    Who is this awesome Vigorous Candidate anyway? I mean seriously, who the fuck is it? That is the question that folks like you never ever fucking answer. Or when you do you say something stupid like Dean or Sanders or even Gore, which is a real kicker because you people are all the same ones who were saying there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Gore and Bush.

    Who.The.Fuck.Is.Your.Awesome.Candidate?

  226. 226
    debbie says:

    I don’t have time to read all the comments, but instead of bitching that Obama hasn’t acted “green” enough, why don’t the people who want green policies focus on changing the attitudes of the country so that there will be support for these policies? Think long-term.

  227. 227
    Sleeper says:

    @AxelFoley:

    And too many here are invested in tearing down Obama. Oh, It’s true, it’s damn true.

    Oh, I completely agree. However, it’s a mistake to assume (as is cavalierly bandied about around these parts) that such opposition is invariably rooted in apolitical reasons, like racism, resentment/derangement over Clinton’s ’08 loss, or preening egotism. No one here really seems to think that yes, people can be that disappointed and angry with his performance that they feel a need to oppose him, even if its utterly futile, even if there’s no fucking way he’ll lose the Dem primary, and even if it somehow wounds his re-election effort. People can hold these opinions in good faith. Maybe they think it’ll budge Obama towards the Left, so that he doesn’t lose votes he needs, or maybe they think the media which loves ripping into the Obama Administration will pick up some of their valid complaints and run with them for their own reasons, which will at least mainstream them for some people who otherwise wouldn’t consider such positions. (Those opinions are debatable, and arguments can be made for or against them.) Now, you can mock people like this, you can threaten them with Tea Party boogeymen, you can accuse them of treason and even blame them for any setbacks Obama might endure…but what you can’t do is make them vote your way. Not with arguments like the one’s you are employing. And if the “emoprog/firebagger” Left is so irrelevant, it won’t matter how they vote; and if their votes do matter, then doing what you’re doing (screaming at them/taunting them/accusing them of racism/accusing them of ratfucking) isn’t going to convince them you’re right, is it? Either way, this whole approach is not about supporting Obama’s campaign for many people here; it’s about bashing people who disagree with you, because you enjoy it. Which doesn’t have to be a bad thing! People need to blow off steam. Just be honest about why you’re doing it. You’re not defending the President. It just feels good to do it.

    I myself am not personally invested in tearing him down; if he were to start espousing and pursuing policies that were in line with my own, I’d have no problem letting him stay in office despite the many mistakes he’s made so far. I think that should be how we treat every politician.

  228. 228
    kay says:

    Ralph Nader warns that without an intraparty challenge the liberal agenda “will be muted and ignored,” the one-man primary will kill voter enthusiasm and voters won’t get a chance to reflect on the real differences that divide the Democratic and Republican parties.

    Oh, bullshit, Ralph.
    Ralph Nader was a great lawyer and advocate. He led a real movement, “Nader’s Raiders” and he is responsible for reams of consumer legislation, but here he’s just flat-out lying. Nader loathes the Democratic Party. He wasn’t able to maintain or lead his own movement, the group he created, and he’s blamed Democrats for that failure ever since.
    I actually had more respect for him last time out, back when he told the truth, and ran as an independent or a Green.
    He’s not going to highlight the “differences” between the two parties. He’s going to do what he always does, which is attack Democrats, in the hopes he can peel off enough energy and people to re-create the movement he wasn’t able to lead, or effectively maintain.
    Barack Obama was 4 years old when Nader was leading the movement Nader created into the wilderness. Blaming Obama for every liberal failure since is just silly, and Nader organizing a primary within the Democratic Party, an entity and organization he loathes, is dishonest.
    Nader was a powerful, effective liberal leader with real accomplishments. At some point he’s going to have to grapple with the fact that he failed at translating that into a lasting or resilient electoral majority. It isn’t Barack Obama’s fault, and it wasn’t Al Gore’s fault. It’s Nader’s personal failure.

  229. 229
    Sleeper says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    We believe that Obama deserves criticism but not the ineffective, self-defeating bullshit that the manic progressive left is pushing. As usual.

    This is where we simply disagree. What is the point of criticism without consequence? How can you have any hope of correcting a politician’s bad decisions if you telegraph to them, even as you’re taking them to task, that your support for them has not diminished one iota? Then what’s the purpose of that criticism? Maybe it makes you feel good, but the politician isn’t going to alter course; on the contrary, getting away with what they did will embolden them to try for even more next time.

    As a voter, election season is our window of maximum leverage. We do NOT owe any politician or party our allegiance if they haven’t earned it. Make them sweat. Make them concerned that the Left will stay home. Prop up the occasional quote-unquote fringe left candidate to try to siphon off a few votes here and a few votes there. The biggest problem with any president is getting them to notice you. Barack Obama has absolutely no reason whatsoever to pursue policies we care about if he doesn’t see the political upside to it (and people should just assume as a rule that re-election is the first, last, and only goal of EVERY politician). Obama and his people are not stupid; they know Ralph Nader or anyone like him couldn’t win the 2012 nomination even if he’d led the SEALs on the bin Laden raid. This is all incremental. But if the race starts to tighten, and they decide that they can’t afford to bleed off any more of the progressive vote, and they think there’s any actual chance that a challenger might tap into 3 or 2 or even 1 percent, then that’s a chance to wrest one or two policy concessions out of a campaign season White House looking to shore up support on their left flank. You have to give them political reasons to do what we want and demand. This talk of rallying the wagons and pretending we’re doing better than we are is not going to work, I’m sorry. It’s not enough to say “This is as good as we can get right now.” It’s our job to demand the impossible, in the hopes that we can settle for the better than expected.

  230. 230
    Sleeper says:

    @debbie:

    Don’t you think pressuring a president to pursue those policies is a good way of doing exactly that?

  231. 231
    kay says:

    It’s funny that the Washington Times quotes the electrical workers in the article. They’re one of two unions who endorsed Nader over Gore in 2000.

    That worked out great for their members. 10 years of steadily declining union membership, and a flat-out assault on unions in the remaining hold-out rust belt states. Good job!

  232. 232
    CarolDuhart says:

    How to create real pressure: Pressure Congress. Better yet, elect a Congress that will act on those things. Change the electorate? Stop trying the “primary the president route” and start buying tv and radio stations and building an alternative media. That’s what minority groups have done over the decades, and it works. The message goes out 24/7, 365-and changes the dialogue that way. That’s what the right did back in 1980 when music moved to the FM dial and left a lot of AM radio stations without programming. Where do you think Rush Limbaugh got his start? Now politicians listen to him and those he represents-probably far too much.
    Back in the early eighties, progressives could have taken that route at least in some urban areas, or partnered with the growing minority media, and been a counterbalance that way. What happened? There was a disdain on the part of some progressives regarding the media-it was corrupt, it was too populist-whatever-and it never happened.

    But creating an alternative media that talks to the strap-hangers on the bus is too much work, takes too much being “commercial” for some purist takes too much time and too much daily grind. Easier to primary a sitting President who needs every vote he can get and preen in front of a media that’s in the bag for the other side. What kind of dialogue are they interested in?

  233. 233
    kay says:

    @Comrade Luke:

    No matter how bad any Democratic candidate might be, you must vote for him. Otherwise, if they lose, it’s your fault.

    I’m a Democrat and I don’t agree with that. I think you should absolutely vote for whomever you want to vote for. I don’t know why it even has to be stated. Of course you should.

    I don’t even agree that threats and fear are a good or effective political tactic. I think that approach nearly always loses, except when it’s used on very vulnerable or (rightfully and sensibly) fearful people, so even when that approach wins, short-term, it sucks.

    Not all Democrats agree with it. I actively oppose it. Vote (or not) for whomever or whatever you want. You’re only responsible to the extent that you have power, so one vote.

  234. 234
    kay says:

    @Comrade Luke:

    I would say that leaders (union leaders or others, in this instance) have a larger responsibility than individual voters, and they’re leaders, so if they make the wrong call they are responsible, because they have measurably more power to affect the result.
    But one voter? You should vote the way you want, w/out threats or fear. You’re speaking for yourself.

  235. 235
    amk says:

    @Sleeper:

    how very generous of you.

    I’d have no problem letting him stay in offic

    Now if you’re so kind to fuck off, it’d would be nice too.

  236. 236
    Ian says:

    @El Cid:
    We may be in the same boat about what happened, but please do not ever assume such a basic interpretation of history is enough for you to know what is going on.

  237. 237
    Pat In Massachusetts says:

    “Without these useful idiots the GOP and their ideas would always be defeated.”

    I would say that’s a bit of a stretch because the GOP will always have Main Stream Media on their side, who happen to have a tad more clout than the Ralph Nader’s of the country.

    I wonder how many Americans fell into poverty in the amount of time it took Dennis to write this article.

  238. 238
    CarolDuhart says:

    I head that argument before. “You’re telling me I shouldn’t vote for who I want”. I heard a lot of that back in 2000. I’m here to tell you, sure, vote for who you want, but voting has consequences-strategic ones in a lot of places. The reality is that there are only two parties who have the ability to elect real sitting officials-at least on any level higher than City Council-and the pool of unelected people they appoint comes from the same pool. If you vote for somebody who has no chance of ever taking office, you set a default vote for someone who you would rather not have in office.

    Election season is NOT the time for greatest leverage for any policy. For one thing, nobody is going to make big permanent moves before being sure they would be the ones to implement them fully and with campaign season, there’s little time to implement policy fully readily anyway. Better to elect people who would do that, and then pressure them at at time and place they can listen and do-

  239. 239
    harlana says:

    i think i’m just going to let this one slide by my peripheral vision, it will get some airplay for a while and that’s about it

  240. 240
    kay says:

    @Pat In Massachusetts:

    Ralph Nader had an enormous amount of clout. He’s almost singly responsible for the “consumer movement”. There’s reams of federal and state legislation that would not have happened without him. He moved tons of legislation. He was effective.

    But he wasn’t able to maintain his movement, the people, his army, and that’s partly because he has a huge ego and wouldn’t let it grow, because as it got larger it would have (inevitably) become more moderate. I admire him as a lawyer and advocate, but he’s a poor leader. He failed, ultimately, at maintaining a movement, and translating legal successes to electoral power.

    It’s tragic, in a way, but it’s his tragedy.

  241. 241
    A Mom Anon says:

    I’d like to know,for those thinking a primary is a good idea,who you’d nominate. Someone who could actually win the election. Someone who will bring out the numbers needed to win. Remember,depressed turnout almost always leads to a GOP win,so who? Name some names and let’s have the discussion.

    I don’t know how it is anywhere else,but here in GA,any third party is suspect. I know this because I’ve seen people from the local level GOP operating in both Green and GOP circles. The local level Dems are mysteriously missing from that equation. The idea has been to syphon off Dem voters by sowing dischord and it’s worked in the past. Things may have changed in the last couple years(I bowed out of local level politics to work with my son and deal with the school system),but that’s how it was for at least 8 yrs here. If they weren’t doing that,the GOP floods any district around here with tons of money at the slightest hint of a Dem challenger. My federal level rep has run unopposed for years now. The dem party apparatus simply will not spend a dime here,so I don’t see that changing until people here step away from conservative media and start learning wtf is actually happening.

  242. 242
    bin Lurkin' says:

    @kay:

    It’s tragic, in a way, but it’s his tragedy.

    The tragedy is for all of us who are living through this Kafkaesque Orwellian Catch 22 nightmare we call America in 2011. It’s particularly tragic for those of us who have been paying attention for a while and know that it didn’t really have to be this way.

    Maybe if Nader had been a Second Coming of a perfect person this wouldn’t have all gone down the way it did.

    Or not.

    For want of a nail indeed.

  243. 243
    agrippa says:

    I have no problem with either West or Nader. It is a free country and they can do whatever they want. That applies to me as well.
    I know what I will do.
    I will vote for Obama. I will be glad to do it.
    I will work to replace the GOP representative in my district.

  244. 244
    agrippa says:

    @Sleeper:

    The likelihood of that scenario working out as you envision is at the vanishing point.

  245. 245
    gelfling545 says:

    @daveNYC: He is one of those who peaked too early in his career. About 40 years ago he was doing good work. If he had continued to work in that vein & skip the running for president deal he might have retired with honor. As it is he’s made himself an annoyance to people who used to respect him and become the republicans’ best hope for siphoning off votes.

  246. 246
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Sleeper:

    You do whatever the fuck you want to with your purity vote, I’m voting for NOT CRAZY. If the Democrats/Obama lose, you can celebrate your vote helping to punish the Democrats by allowing the Republicans to take over.

    I’m sure your smug sense of self-satisfaction will keep you warm and safe at night.

  247. 247
    schlemizel - was Alwhite says:

    What sleeper is suggesting is what the wingnuts have done for years. Sure, it cost them the first Bush Presidency but it gave them the second one & their complete domination of national politics today.

    Thats not to say that I agree with him, or that I even think this approach would work for liberals the way it has for wingnuts, just that I see where he is coming from.

    Anyone that voted for Nader in ’00 should be suspect, anyone who still thinks it was a good idea should not be allowed to vote ever again. That same policy apples to Boy Blunder.

  248. 248
    ornery says:

    Here is what cannot seem to be understood: Nader isn’t trying to get elected, but to have his issues discussed in a public forum.

    Dems made him the scapegoat for their weak leadership (sorry but Gore’s VP pick *was* Lieberman), and so avoided looking at the reality of how badly the Dem Party leadership has become captured by money-interests.

  249. 249
    russell says:

    I do. He tends to be right about most of the issues.

    With respect, that makes one of you.

    I voted for Nader in 2000. It was a risk-free gesture, because I live in MA. I was interested in establishing some level of credibility for the Green Party.

    So, I’m sympathetic to the point of view he generally espouses.

    Nader personally is a guy whose favorite thing in the world is to hear his own voice. There are about a million people who can speak for the issues he claims to champion, and who are more responsible actors in the actual political environment we find ourselves living in. And, who are less transparently self-absorbed.

    So, no reflection on you, but I’d be perfectly happy if the guy would just STFU and go away. Not you, Nader.

  250. 250
    Marc says:

    The original post was about the sheer foolishness of a primary challenge to Obama, not about whether it’s permissible to disagree with him on anything.

    And, yet, we get a lot of lectures from Naderites proclaiming that there is no difference between the two. We also see a lot of the usual suspects defending Nader vs Gore in 2000.

    You have the right to attack Obama in any way you choose. Similarly, we have the right to disagree with you. A lot of the delicate progressive flowers seem to be unable to tolerate any opinions different from their own, and the claims about the intolerance of Obama supporters are coming across as a serious case of projection.

  251. 251
    AxelFoley says:

    @ornery:

    Nader isn’t trying to get elected, but to have his issues discussed in a public forum.

    Then buy some TV time and have a forum. Don’t waste time trying to primary the sitting President.

    I’d be more open to believing Nader is sincere with this if it weren’t for the fact that he never goes after the GOP, he only attacks Dems.

  252. 252
    Marc says:

    @ornery:

    And Nader voters in swing states made an enormous mistake. It took a lot of those mistakes to swing the outcome, but the 2000 Nader effort turned out to be an absolute catastrophe for liberals.

    The single most likely outcome of a serious primary challenge to Obama, by the way, would be serious racial divisions within the Democratic party (as a challenger would cede the AA vote and focus on conservative whites; liberal whites are a minority in the party, and more satisfied with Obama than conservative whites are.) The second outcome would be Obama taking a more conservative set of positions. The third would be to highlight divisions in the party, cost a lot of money, and help the republicans win the general election.

    It’s just as brilliant as Nader 2000, really.

  253. 253
    The Raven says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    You must not live in Michigan, where we’re in our second decade of poverty. We were led there by the little brothers and sisters of the people who led the nation into this crisis

    Point. And the auto-industry bailout is one of the better things the Obama administration has done. From my viewpoint it is one bright spot against a dark background, but, hey, I’ll take all the points of light I can get.

  254. 254
    bayville says:

    I see some genius left Dennis G. alone with the crayons again.

    Ok. We get it Dennis. Anyone who questions O-Mighty One is a racist idiot, Firebagger, egomaniacal, racist.

    And they are racist too.

    Zzzzzz….

    …Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the Song Remains the Same.

  255. 255
    kay says:

    @ornery:

    Dems made him the scapegoat for their weak leadership

    The Democratic Party didn’t owe anything to Nader. Ralph Nader was a leader, all by himself. Nader created and led a real movement, and when he couldn’t maintain it as a movement, he decided the Democratic Party was to blame. His whole schtick is that the Democratic Party somehow robbed him of his natural and inevitable constituency, which is nonsense. He actually had one, once, and he failed to grow it.
    Ask someone younger than 40 what Ralph Nader has done. If they know him at all, they’ll know him as a spoiler. He couldn’t even advocate for himself successfully, defend and celebrate his own (real, tangible) achievements, let alone make some broader liberal argument.

  256. 256
    schlemizel - was Alwhite says:

    Remember, in 2k Nader stated to a reporter that he would prefer Bush winning. He is not actually a liberal, much closer to a polished Ron Paul.

    How do we push the Dems leftward? I agree that a primary challenge to Obama is – at best – a waste of time & effort and aid & comfort to the wingnuts. I thought Dean was actually making it happen when he was head of the DNC but the DLC made short work of that.

  257. 257
    schlemizel - was Alwhite says:

    @Martin:

    Have you given any thought to the fact she might view them as an investment? Since they are unopened they might draw some real money on ebay – maybe she thinks it will feather your retirement nest?

  258. 258
    MikeMc says:

    Can someone please explain to me what Ralph Nader does?

  259. 259
    MomSense says:

    @27 Maya

    Spittake at work which I now have to explain. That was funny!!

  260. 260
    kay says:

    @bin Lurkin’:

    Maybe if Nader had been a Second Coming of a perfect person this wouldn’t have all gone down the way it did.

    I didn’t say he had to be a second coming of a perfect person, but perhaps he could have let go of some of his rigid, vaguely authoritarian control of his own movement. He was supposed to bring up younger people behind him, instead of playing Lone Ranger.

    I actually think he could have created a liberal lawyers group, something with the clout and power of the Federalist Society, with judges with a coherent, consistent liberal legal approach. At one time, during the height of his movement, people were vying to work for him, because he (essentially) was creating a whole body of law. He could have done a lot of things. What he decided to DO was battle the Democratic Party.

  261. 261
    bayville says:

    @MikeMc:
    Ralph Nader? What a loser.

    All he’s done is lobby and report on the need for mandatory automobile safety measures (seat belts, air bags, rear view mirrors), clean water laws and protections (i.e. The EPA), public health issues (waste dumping by industries, second-hand smoke); open government, rental control to protect non-homeowners, argue against the penalty; organize more than 30 non-profit citizen- consumer watchdog groups and, finally lobby against the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex.

    Gee. I can see why the Obots resent this man.

  262. 262
    kay says:

    @bin Lurkin’:

    By the summer of 1969, Nader decided he needed a standing institutional home for his special brand of citizen action. With the help of Gordon Sherman and other funders, Nader founded his first group, the
    Center for Study of Responsive Law. Work at “the Center” was intense, and the pay modest ($150 to $300 a month). Yet few summer jobs in Washington in the late 1960s and early 1970s had as much cachet and
    challenge. “I think one-third of Harvard Law School applied,” Harrison Wellford, then the director of the Center, told a reporter. By the second summer, 200 “Nader’s Raiders” were selected from among 30,000 applicants.

  263. 263
    ksmiami says:

    @marginalized for stating documented facts: Just my $.02 – Have you seen America lately? It’s crumbling, antiquated infrastructure, roads still made out of cracking asphault, poorly designed suburbs that tax the earth and the vibrancy of our communities? I believe that when people ask Obama to channel FDR, they are asking for major infrastructure money that WILL put people to work here and will provide long lasting benefits to citizens as we head into an even more competitive world. I mean I for one am sick of building schools in Afghanistan when so many American public schools are falling apart.

    We can do it if we can rid ourselves of the Republican fantasy delusions that government can’t do anything – see
    Manhattan project, etc. or that millionaires can’t just can’t help pay for it.

    That’s why I vote straight dem ticket – the whole platform of the GOP is as Judas Iscarot the commenter said, simply treasonous on every level.

  264. 264
    Emma says:

    I lost respect for Nader and his organization when they managed to get the production of Cylert stopped in 2006 even though it was the only effective medication for narcolepsy for thousands of sufferers. Thirteen (13) cases of serious liver damage since the drug was introduced in the seventies was enough for Nader and his “heroes” to screw over the rest. It was more important to send out their press releases than allow people a decent life.

  265. 265
    RossInDetroit says:

    I live in hope of a Left that can get through four years without setting its own ass on fire and jumping into a pool of gasoline.

  266. 266
    RossInDetroit says:

    @bayville:

    All he’s done is lobby and report on the need for mandatory automobile safety measures (seat belts, air bags, rear view mirrors), clean water laws and protections

    etc.

    In other words, making people and corporations take responsibility for what they do. Yet he consistently ignores the consequences of the disruptions he causes himself. See FL, 2000.

  267. 267
    bayville says:

    @RossInDetroit:
    Yeah. the nerve of him to run for Preznit.

    Less choices, more Freedom. It’s the American Way.

  268. 268
    AxelFoley says:

    @bayville:

    All he’s done is lobby and report on the need for mandatory automobile safety measures (seat belts, air bags, rear view mirrors), clean water laws and protections (i.e. The EPA), public health issues (waste dumping by industries, second-hand smoke); open government, rental control to protect non-homeowners, argue against the penalty; organize more than 30 non-profit citizen- consumer watchdog groups and, finally lobby against the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex.

    And then toss that all away by working with the GOP to help Bush get in office, regulating us to 8 years of hell. Add to that, to continue aiding and abetting the GOP with talks of primarying a sitting Democratic President, which is fucked up because 1) he’s not a Dem, so he should keep his fucking nose out of Dem politics, and 2) I don’t recall him trying to primary Bush in 2004.

    Oh, and not to overlook his racist remarks about President Obama. Seems like there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between him and the Republicans.

    Fuck him. Fuck his old rusty ass to hell.

  269. 269
    RossInDetroit says:

    @bayville:

    If only politics was that simple. Running is one thing. Running a better candidate off the road into the bushes is what actually happened. In this actual real world.

  270. 270
    Corner Stone says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    There is no one who is “personally invested” in Obama here, just clear-eyed individuals who look at one side and compare it to the other. We see that the option is not an option. We believe that Obama deserves criticism but not the ineffective, self-defeating bullshit that the manic progressive left is pushing. As usual.
    __
    With you assholes, it’s either we agree with you or we worship Obama. No gray area, no nuance. Like the wingers, it’s all or nothing with you asshats.

    This is the funniest thing you have ever posted here. Thank you.

  271. 271
    Emma says:

    @Sleeper: Oh come on, you don’t hate to say it. The superior smirk is just wafting out of my monitor…

  272. 272
    Marc says:

    @bayville:

    And how dare we point out that the so-called liberal Nader spends all of his energy attacking Democrats; and that his 2000 candidacy was one of many factors leading to 8 long and disastrous Bush years.

    Nader hasn’t done anything positive for 40 years. And he failed even at building a viable Green party movement (it’s always about him.)

  273. 273
    mutt says:

    Sure, Obama is the Dims strongest candidate, and will beat whatever nutbag gets the teatard nom. So what, as far as the country and the world goes? “One Oligarchy, two Committees”. We are bombing and killing and propping up loons in almost 90 countries, all of which are sliding into chaos. Might not mean anything to some of y’all, but it means something to me (Nick Turse- google him- wrote a great roundup of all the killing we are doing a few days ago)
    Watching these murderous thieves since I got back from Viet Nam in ’69 has bought me to the conclusion the role of the Democrats is to pass those laws the Repubs can’t get away with. Frankly, Im tired of dead peasants and corporate wreckers. And I wont pretend this current crop of loons is better than the prevuious crop. That said, I cant stand West, and Nader would make a fun AG, but thats 20 years ago.
    Too much blood. Too much damage. Too many insults to the intelligencve. Folks got legit beefs. We’ve been voting for the “lessers” in this evil equation, and look where we have arrived, ferchrissake.

  274. 274
    kay says:

    @Emma:

    It was more important to send out their press releases than allow people a decent life.

    Right. There’s that, too. The rigid ideologue problem that probably precluded his building a larger movement.

  275. 275
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Corner Stone:

    You should read your shit. It’s sad to read but what can I expect from a bitter old McCain/Palin voter from Texas.

    Keep shoveling your shit you old racist douchebag, I’m sure you’ll find your pony.

  276. 276
    MikeMc says:

    @bayville: It was just a question, guy. Thanks for being a smug asshole. You must be a hoot in real life.

  277. 277
    bayville says:

    @Marc:

    Nader hasn’t done anything positive for 40 years. And he failed even at building a viable Green party movement (it’s always about him.)

    Silly.
    You’re obviously a stranger to the local library system. There’s only about a dozen of his books on any library shelf in America.
    All of them, of course, were written during his teen years.

  278. 278
    Yevgraf says:

    @russell:

    . It was a risk-free gesture, because I live in MA. I was interested in establishing some level of credibility for the Green Party.

    I just want to point out that those “risk-free” Nader votes in Gore-safe states made it easier for the Supremes to appoint Bush. They’d have been far more afraid of the social consequences of going against a larger vote margin.

  279. 279
    Marc says:

    @bayville:

    Doubtless you can come up with specific things he did since the 1970s that have had any positive impact. I’m familiar with him as an arrogant prima donna, uninterested in building left coalitions, destructive in his impact on general politics, and crassly insensitive on gender and racial issues. YMMV.

  280. 280

    […] Balloon Juice, Dennis G. writes, This Nader/West effort to marginalize the left is just another example of the progressive death […]

  281. 281
    bayville says:

    @MikeMc:
    Smug asshole?

    From someone appearing in a Dennis G. post?

    That’s too rich.

  282. 282
    Cappadonna says:

    You know, as a former Green, I’ve heard the laundry list of “Nader Accomplishments” at nausea. Yes, Nader fought to get better environmental standards and has lobby against corporations. Yes, he’s starting non-profit watchdog groups the way members the Wu-Tang clan and Sean Combs comes up with new stage aliases. Yes, ‘Saint Ralph’ is the most successful private citizen after MLK (laughbable, but OK). His only other competition for most steady lefty voice is Jesse Jackson and Gloria Stiennem.

    But like “Messy Jesse”, Nader’s ego gets in the way of his common sense. And his past good works does not mean he has all the answers then or now.

    At the end of the day, this is about a bitter old man with a massive following who still thinks he’s Moses leading us out of Egypt.

    If Nader were interested in really making change – he would have ran against Holy Joe in the CT Senate race or used his formidable ground campaign to get local progressives elected. He would go into hard hit conservative districts and help liberals and moderates make in roads.

    But, no, its not about that its about punishing Obama for not delivering (in reality, its about punishing Obama for becoming POTUS the first time around, something Nader with his vanity campaigns have never done.)

    Nader, Chomsky, West and other Left Wing know-it-all’s fail to realize that they have no influence because all of their writing and bluster has translated to a few coffee shops in Vermont and Berkley and useless acolytes who couldn’t get elected dog catcher. The Right fears and respects Limbaugh and Fox News because they can doom you if you step out of line and build a following out of nothing if you tow it. The Lefty know-it-all’s , at worse, can gum up the works and throw an election or stop a bill by just being pricks. At best, they couldn’t get you 10 more votes for anything. Limbaugh can help you get elected or doom your campaign as a conservative. Nader and West could make you lose or do next to nothing as a liberal/moderate.

    Leaders, left and right, listen to people with real followings, not malcontents whose influence in realpolitik couldn’t fill a minivan with new voters. They are politic equivalent of fruit flies and cockroaches – gross, annoying pests that provide little benefit to anyone. The best thing to do is to clean house and squash them.

  283. 283
    bemused says:

    Egoists Nader & Cornell West: It’s all about me, me, me.

    West got all butthurt because he wanted to be Obama’s BFF and Obama at his beck and call.

  284. 284
    bayville says:

    @Marc: @Marc:

    Doubtless you can come up with specific things he did since the 1970s that have had any positive impact.

    You really don’t know who Ralph Nader is?
    Wow! Today’s youth, eh?

    Off the top of my head, ingredients on processed food, campaigned and advocated for the Superfund (CERCLA statutes) passed in 1981; 40 years of work on Universal Healthcare reform; tenant’s rights laws; for two decades prior to the Wall Street meltdown of 2008 he was the leading, and most of the time, the lone voice, for increasing regulatory oversight of the financial industry; the leader in writing public anti-smoking legislation; No smoking on/in airplane/airport laws; leading advocate for passing anti-“Redlining” laws, etc., etc. etc.

    Class dismissed.

  285. 285
    bayville says:

    @Cappadonna:

    Shorter Cappadonna: Don’t bore me with accomplishments…He sucks. Go Obama.

  286. 286
    bayville says:

    Shorter Cappadonna II: Nader’s an ass for runnin a vanity campaign for President. He should run a vanity campaign for the Senate, instead.

  287. 287
    bayville says:

    @bemused:

    From the upside-down world of bemused:

    West, Nader egomaniacs.
    Guy in the White House – the most powerful man in the world who is literally overseeing seven wars at this moment: A world Class altruist.

  288. 288
    eemom says:

    what a thread. On one side Kay, articulating the most intelligent and insightful explanation of Nader I’ve ever heard, including an acknowledgment of his achievements and rightful place in history…….and on the other, brain dead, tone deaf buffoons like “bayville”……baying, indeed, about what a fucking GOD Nader is.

    Just to pluck an idle example

    40 years of work on Universal Healthcare reform;

    yes? And where was St Ralph when Obama finally ACHIEVED something on that front? Oh, that’s right…..over in the peanut gallery with Jane Hamsher, lobbing spitballs.

    And of course the ACA is totally worthless and more evidence of how the two parties are EXACTLY alike anyway.

    Fucking idiot.

  289. 289
    CarolDuhart says:

    @Martin: I googled ebay Happy Meals and this is what I came up with: Happy Meal Toys Ebay.

    Apparently some people do collect them, and at even a buck a piece you could make serious cash.

  290. 290
    CarolDuhart says:

    @bayville: But a Senate race would not have put everything at risk, and he would at least have if he won, a place to get legislation he wanted passed.

  291. 291
    pk says:

    You really don’t know who Ralph Nader is?
    Wow! Today’s youth, eh?

    Off the top of my head, ingredients on processed food, campaigned and advocated for the Superfund (CERCLA statutes) passed in 1981; 40 years of work on Universal Healthcare reform; tenant’s rights laws; for two decades prior to the Wall Street meltdown of 2008 he was the leading, and most of the time, the lone voice, for increasing regulatory oversight of the financial industry; the leader in writing public anti-smoking legislation; No smoking on/in airplane/airport laws; leading advocate for passing anti-”Redlining” laws, etc., etc. etc.

    Class dismissed.

    Nadar is best known for screwing up the last election. The harm he caused in 2000 outweighs any good that he ever did. BTW Fuck you and your “Class dismissed” crap.

  292. 292
    Surly Duff says:

    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.

    In the examples above, only Carter was a sitting President. There were “progressive voices” calling for LBJ’s seat in 1964 and Clinton’s in 1996 as well, but trying to unseat a sitting President in a primary challenge is futile. They can hoot and holler all they want, but their efforts will be worthless.

  293. 293
    jprfrog says:

    Well here I go again: IMO there is enough raw material for an American Fascism lying around to constitute a real and present danger. Don’t think that Americans are not capable of the monstrosities that emerged in the 20th century when a long-standing but corrupted social system collapsed after WWI.
    And characters like Nader and West (like the Weathermen of 1969 breaking windows in Chicago) remind me, however faintly, of the German Leftists who so happily attacked the German center from the left as the Nazis did so from the right, saying “Nach Hitler, uns!”, calling the middle parties “Social fascists” and making the place ungovernable. Heightening the contradictions indeed!

    Of course they were right, in a perverted sort of way, they got their Workers’ Paradise at the cost of 60 million or so dead and it turned out to be the police state of the Stasi. And in general the idea of a socialist society as the antidote to a virulent capitalism (such as we have now) was destroyed.

    These are extreme analogies, I know, but recent history (learn some, please!) shows how quickly extremes can become accepted as normal in abnormal times. Consider the idea of a Perry, Bachmann, or Palin with access to the FBI, the CIA, the “Homeland security” apparat, and the nuclear codes and really convince yourself that that would be no different then Obama. And also remember, that the GOP in charge of many state govs (thanks to your sitting out the 2010 elections) is doing its best to disfranchise large numbers of minority and student voters, making the re-election of a sane (if not progressively perfect) president that much more difficult. To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell: “Think ye, in the bowels of Christ, that ye may be mistaken!”

  294. 294
    Pat says:

    Ironic how Obama loyalists are now expressing the same kind of rage that the old guard left heaped onto the DLC/New Democrats in the 80s and 90s. A little comeuppance is always a good thing in the long run.

  295. 295
    schlemizel - was Alwhite says:

    @Surly Duff:

    Except LBJ was a sitting President in 67. Bobby Kennedy hired that useless sack of shit Gene McCarthy (who also was not much of a liberal but every inch an ego problem) to run RFKs stealth campaign to unseat LBJ & elect RFK.

    Would it have worked if not for SBS & a handgun? Who knows but it did unseat LBJ and provide the meme that HHH was just like LBJ.

    One thing Obama has demonstrated is that the office of President can be a fairly powerless post. If the Greens etc really wanted to gain power they would get Congressmen & Senators elected. Over time they would have influence above their job. But that is hard work & requires people who actually know what the hell they are doing.

    Its easy to get an ego case like Jess “The Boobie” Ventura or Ahnold elected Governor or a Nader or Perot to run for Pres. Its much harder to do the real work.

  296. 296
    Pat says:

    *One thing Obama has demonstrated is that the office of President can be a fairly powerless post*

    How adorable. There’s a high demand for preschool teachers, y’know.

  297. 297
    bayville says:

    @eemom:

    Yay. We can all go home now since we’ve finally gotten a response from one of the chief finger-waggers of the Jerry’s Kids faction of the “Progressive” blogosphere.

    I’m sure eemom couldn’t chronicle one attribute of the Orwellian-named Affordable Care Act but, hey, Obama signed it into law and he called it “health care reform” so its super-duper good. Three Cheers.

    And anyone who thinks differently is a Firebagger, a racist and a fucking idiot.

    Oh, BTW shut-the-fuck-up and go Vote for Obama, because that plan worked so well in 2010.

  298. 298
    Marilyn Merlot says:

    Nader is bad because he stole votes from Gore that were guaranteed to the Democrats. Don’t you idiot Naderites realize the Democrats own liberal votes?

  299. 299
    El Cid says:

    @Ian: It was snark. That way of seeing 1968 is shallow, stupid, and self-serving. It’s a joke, and a bad one. It’s also a fun game — if you can wish that one group had acted differently, why not all? Why not wish LBJ had acted differently here or there? Or whoever else? Why just the group you don’t like, whatever their real or overly ascribed harms? It’s a much better counter-factual if it always favors you.

  300. 300
    bayville says:

    @pk:

    Nadar is best known for screwing up the last election. The harm he caused in 2000 outweighs any good that he ever did

    .

    Great to see they have computers in study hall now.

  301. 301
    bemused says:

    @bayville:

    I remember very well Nader’s accomplishments. He had a lot of influence once upon a time but he blew it. He could have used his clout and accomplished a lot more but his ego is completely wrapped up in being a purist. He can’t see that his counterproductive tactics in more recent years have backfired on him to the point that his earlier important accomplishments are rarely mentioned now. He wasted his capital. Sad.

  302. 302
    El Cid says:

    @Cappadonna: That’s completely unfair. Chomsky not only realizes he has no sway with any political establishment, much less a non-existent mass movement — he clarifies that all the time. In fact if he began to feel like he had such sway, he’d probably be horrified. Unfortunately, he also has to deal with the fact that most of his most intense-seeming fans don’t pay attention to context he’s made over the years.

  303. 303
    pk says:

    Great to see they have computers in study hall now.

    In kindergarten too apparently.

  304. 304
    bayville says:

    He had a lot of influence once upon a time but he blew it. He could have used his clout and accomplished a lot more but his ego is completely wrapped up in being a purist.

    Explain please. This talk about his ego causing his influence to wane is simply gibberish.

    Beginning in the 1980’s the People’s Party (i.e. the Democrats) began trivializing the influence of such factions as: the labor movement (see: Jackie Presser, as an example), environmentalists, peaceniks, grassroots organizers, college-aged idealists and budding Naderites in a quest to get some of that Wall Street and MIC $$$.

    Nader was neutered by the establishment…because his voice became an irritant and the money he brought to the party was literally pennies compared to the bags of loot the oligarchs collected.

  305. 305
    Pat says:

    @302

    Bingo

  306. 306
    different church-lady says:

    @The Raven:

    As opposed to people like you, who are supporting the President who has lead us into what seems likely to be a decade of poverty.

    I’m not clear on where or when Dennis said he supported GW Bush. Link me up?

  307. 307
    the fenian says:

    C’mon, Dennis, you’re smarter than this. It wasn’t The Left that did in Carter. It was the old-line establishment D’s in Congress during most of Carter’s term –the late Walter Karp wrote about this at length and in real time — and, in the subsequent campaign, it was the white labor vote that fell apart and helped elect Reagan. The EM Kennedy primary challenge wasn’t the RFK crusade, either. It was those same old-line D’s who saw what was coming in the fall and were desperate to hold onto their power.

  308. 308
    Marc says:

    @bayville:

    The Bush years were a disaster. Nader made it possible, and he wanted to make it possible. This alone makes his overall legacy negative. He will go to his grave as the deluded fool who helped get George Bush as president. In a just world that would be etched on his tombstone.

    He was a major consumer advocate in the 60s and 70s. He made changes for the better – and I was around then, and know more about his actual record than you do.

    It’s complete bullshit to claim every progressive cause for the last few decades as being from Nader. He did not help – in fact he was an obstacle – for the bills which were passed. He was good at shooting spitballs from the sidelines; not so good at actually getting things enacted.

    You’re a Nader cultist, which makes the Dear Leader stuff pretty amusing. Go back and argue about the difference between the popular front of judea and the judean people’s front. You’ll get six people at a meeting any day now!

  309. 309
    Deb T says:

    MikeBoyScout wrote:
    How old is Ralph Nader? Like 77? What is ole Grampa Walnuts up to? Maybe Nader can dump West and add McCain.
    Think of it… Old & In the Way 2012
    !

    You know I get fed up with the ageist baiting by the Youngs on the blogs I read, but I must say, Nadar and Walnuts! That made me laugh out loud.

  310. 310
    different church-lady says:

    It occurs to me that had Nader been smart about wanting to effect change through a political career he would have run for senate instead of president.

  311. 311
    bayville says:

    @Marc:
    Where can I get what your smokin’?

    There’s a lot of unpacking needed just in that one paragraph there, big boy.

    Nader made it possible, and he wanted to make it possible

    .
    Proof. Or are you just clairvoyant?

    He did not help – in fact he was an obstacle – for the bills which were passed. He was good at shooting spitballs from the sidelines;

    See post 303.
    Besides, can you cite an example pleeze of him being an obstacle for Progressive causes? Or are you talking about his opposition to the policies leqading to the invasions of numerous over the last decade?

    You’re a Nader cultist

    Translation: I can’t argue facts wit’ u, so I’ll calls u some names and then transition into a complete non-sequitir.
    A standard BJ commenter ploy.

  312. 312
    bayville says:

    @different church-lady:
    Yeah, right.

    Quick quiz. Who are the two Senators from New Jersey and what are their so-called “pet issues” and cite some of the major pieces of legislation they’ve sponsored?

  313. 313
    different church-lady says:

    @bayville: Maybe I should try that again: It occurs to me that if Nader had wanted to have a political career through which he could effect change, he would have run for a lesser office than president. Because that way he would have had a realistic shot at (a) actually getting elected to something (b) using that office to effect change and (cee) eventually running a presidential campaign that was more than a vanity project.

    Please note that I said effect change through a political career. I do not mean to dismiss the change he has successfully effected outside of holding political office.

  314. 314
    Marc says:

    @bayville:

    I haven’t seen anything but assertions from you; the demand for proof comes across as pretty laughable. “Not a dimes worth of difference between Gore and Bush” came from somewhere – you might want to look it up. Nader had the choice of campaigning in “safe states”. He deliberately chose states where he could throw the outcome to Bush.

    See

    http://www.slate.com/id/1006380/

    Nader wanted Bush to win to heighten the contradictions, nothing more and nothing less. He did his level best to help Bush win because he honestly didn’t see a difference between Bush and Gore. And those of us aware of politics at the time have never forgiven the SOB for what he did, and will never forgive him for what he did.

  315. 315
    eemom says:

    @El Cid:

    agree; I think it’s very unfair to lump Chomsky in with Nader. He’s never been a fan of Obama but he’s the first to say there’s a big fat fucking difference between Obama and the republicans.

    Of course, he says it much more calmly and eloquently than that.

    I actually love to hear him talk, that patient, wise, weary and completely unperturbed voice explaining how utterly fucked everything is.

  316. 316
    eemom says:

    @bayville:

    I could name quite a few provisions of the ACA, asshole.

    You, I suspect, not so much.

    I have a hunch you were still wearing diapers when Ralphie was on the ballot.

  317. 317
    Maura Cavaleri says:

    I am a center/moderate southern Democrat. I’m a single mother with a small business. I am also responsible for the care of my older sister. I like Obama’s policies. I would like to see more regulations/paperwork cut for small businesses but I’ll take just getting jobs to people so they will buy my stuff. He has kept his promises to me as far as I’m concerned.

    I just think that if the progressive/left wants a progressive President, then they need to elect one. But Obama was never it and didn’t run that way. He ran as a centrist which is why he got my vote and will get my vote again.

    We are a big tent party which is why I feel comfortable in it. I am not comfortable with some progressive policies but if that’s who the Democrats put up, then that’s who I’ll vote for. The time around, a centrist Democrat is implementing policies which I happen to like. Six years from now, maybe progressives will have managed to convince the American people to enact their democratic agenda. I would hold my nose and vote for the Democrat. Because doing anything else is out of the question when you look at what the Republican party represents today.

  318. 318
    Samara Morgan says:

    awww, c’mon.
    Hillary is the wingnuts wet dream.
    thats plenty enuff for me.

  319. 319
    Dana in NYC says:

    Ralph Nader gave us President George Bush and with that “gift that keeps on giving” undid any good work he ever accomplished in his life. Cornell West is physiologically incapable of clearheaded thought because his ego swells to fill any available space in his head (also he will never forgive President Obama for being the smartest black man in the room). They are gnats who have undercut their own stature and if I listen very hard I can faintly hear their annoying whine. Obama 2012 because any viable alternative is truly disgusting.

  320. 320
    virag says:

    idiots abound, but nader ain’t one of ’em…

  321. 321
    virag says:

    the problem establishment dems have with nader especially, because he has the platform to get his message out, is that nader and co. will occasionally mention that the democratic party doesn’t represent them, has not represented them in a long time, and has no intention of doing so anytime in the near future. obama is a perfect example of this. this uncomfortable bit of info just drives the democratic establishment into paroxysms of anger and hatred. who are the geniuses at work again?

  322. 322
    virag says:

    @Too Many Jimpersons (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.):

    zero zero zero. spoken like a true establishment man. good for you. you have found your niche. anyone who doesn’t work for the candidate that best represents them deserves what they get: 0 0 0. your misrepresentation of nader’s politics says everything anyone needs to know about you.

  323. 323
    virag says:

    @Matt:

    nader did not lose it for gore. gore lost it for gore. the worst decision was lieberman; that right there was enough. then daley and christopher and the rest of gore’s band of losers realized they wanted bush to be president all along…

  324. 324
    tones says:

    Ok , just to be clear:

    Al Gore WON the vote.
    AL Gore was the legally elected president until the Supremes took care of that for ol Poppy.
    Nader did not have anything to do with the fact that AL GORE got MORE votes…he WON.

    Be honest, though -don’t you [any or all of you ]think that having someone like him doing this can have only one effect – a good one?
    [HINT: To help move the conversation towards issues that actually matter]
    With only Obama , we are not going to hear super progressive arguments.
    With someone like Nader who is not actually trying to win, we have someone who will pull the conversation a bit more to the left.

    Just sayin’.

  325. 325
    A L says:

    Time after time all they do is rack up failure after failure.

    Hmm yes, it’s the handful of actual American leftists blocking leftism, not right-wing chodes like Ben Nelson.

    All the while, their comic failure works to make any effort at progress all the more difficult.

    What efforts would that be?

    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.

    Let me guess: Reagan Democrat

  326. 326
    Bruce S says:

    “Humphrey had to pay a price for LBJ.”

    So RFK and Gene McCarthy shouldn’t have challenged Humphrey?

    WTF?

  327. 327
    virag says:

    status quo: not just another band that played live aid. it’s where you live, man!

  328. 328
    Bruce S says:

    #315 eemom – September 20, 2011 | 1:31 pm · Link
    @El Cid:
    agree; I think it’s very unfair to lump Chomsky in with Nader.

    C’mon. Chomsky was a Nader supporter in 2000, which is when it mattered and did the real damage. And he voted for Nader in 2004, although his position was “vote Nader in solid Dem states, vote Kerry in ‘swing’ states.” Chomsky is every bit the marginal lefty that Nader is – more so, actually, in terms of his political history – preaching a near-conspiratorial view of American power and politics.

    The real problem with Ralph Nader, incidentally, isn’t the threat of him getting involved in Democratic primaries, but that he’s consistently refused to participate in the Democratic Party and thrown bricks from outside of the sphere where he might have had some positive influence back in the day before he disgraced himself. I would have welcomed Nader into the 2000 Dem primaries, with the assurance that having made his case on the issues using that highly-publicized platform of TV debates with Bradley and Gore, he would then support whoever emerged the winner against George W. Bush. That’s all that is asked of Democrats. The problem with both Nader and West is that they have histories of both egomania and threatening damage to Dems in the general election. That’s a different story than the issue of primary challenges. Frankly, IMHO this effort has zero chance of damaging Obama. There’s no comparison to EMK in ’80 – who might have actually hurt Carter because of his prominence – but is still considered an icon rather than an egomaniac who cynically gave us Reagan by most “Party-faithful” liberals. I’m not chastising EMK – just noting that the hysterics and hate can get pretty selective. Unlike a challenge that activates a segment of the party faithful, like EMK’s, these protest candidacies are irrelevant. A lot of disparate historical circumstance over the last 40+ years is getting lashed together here to bolster outrage at some pretty small potatoes. More heat than light.

  329. 329
    Dennis G. says:

    @Bruce S: RFK and McCarthy were not on the November ballot. HHH was and folks sat it out to punish him. It was a plan, but in light of what Nixon did to America it was also a pretty stupid plan.

  330. 330
    debbie says:

    @ sleeper:

    Call it pressuring or call it bullying. Either way, it won’t get far without broad public support. Are you going to force greeness on Americans? How is that any different than forcing privatization or compassionate conservativism on the country?

    This is Marketing 101. Get the people to see the benefits. Then they’ll force the politicans and lobbyists into line.

  331. 331
    Bruce S says:

    #329 – if that’s your sole point, fine. But it’s obvious that the RFK and McCarthy challenges spilled over into disaffection with Humphrey in the general. Frankly, it’s on Humphrey that he ran as “Johnson’s Vice President” with the Vietnam war raging. That’s why he lost. 1968 was hardly “business as usual” for Democrats, liberals or the left – and there were some pretty stupid plans coming from various directions, not just the left. (It was my first vote. I couldn’t vote for Humphrey and I’m not embarrassed by that decision at the ripe age of 22, especially having just gone through a federal draft indictment. But it wasn’t part of a plan – just a sense of shame and horror at what the Dems had wrought with that war.)

  332. 332
    Dennis G. says:

    @A L: Nope. Old school liberal.

  333. 333
    stinkdaddy says:

    Let the anti-Nader jihad go already; Gore won. Nader’s well past his relevant-public-interest-crusader period, it’s obvious that his runs have been about ego for a good decade now, and most importantly the only people who still give a shit about him are butthurt mainstream Democrats looking for an excuse to whine.

    Maybe without Nader it isn’t close enough to steal… and maybe Gore shouldn’t have been so frightened of the Clenis that he picked Joe Lieberman and spent most of the campaign/debates doing his best to agree with Bush whenever possible. Maybe the Nader votes were never Gore’s to begin with, and maybe a bit of differentiation might have helped change that. Figures that the latter is the last lesson that Wise Pragmatic Centrists will ever be willing to learn.

    “Some Emo-bloggers have picked it up, but not many.”

    Yet somehow your conclusion is something other than, “Apparently nobody gives a shit; maybe I don’t need to make this overwrought blog post after all.” Funny that.

  334. 334
    stinkdaddy says:

    Why don’t you spend a little time attacking the right Dengre? Who sent you here, ratfucker? Who pays you? You’re always trying to drive Democrats apart. This kind of circular firing squad is what makes it so hard for Democrats to w… oh, sorry, this is a thread about a Wise Centrist shitting on Firebaggers? I had it reversed. Carry on! You tell ’em! Bravo!

  335. 335
    Leeds man says:

    @Marc:

    The Bush years were a disaster. Nader made it possible, and he wanted to make it possible.

    Come on. Your nasty schoolgirl press gave the presidency to Bush with their snickering bullshit about Al Gore. Nader is a convenient scapegoat. Ceci Connolly alone probably did more damage to Gore’s campaign than Nader could have hoped to.

  336. 336
    Bud Fields says:

    @maya:

    Now THAT is hilarious. Hilarious. HILARIOUS!

  337. 337
    CarolDuhart says:

    @A L: 55 next month. Voted straight Dem always. I see the same thing. Yes, these guys have nothing on Ted Kennedy’s stature (and yes, I blame him for Reagan), but with the new flood of money and media, who can say?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Balloon Juice, Dennis G. writes, This Nader/West effort to marginalize the left is just another example of the progressive death […]

Comments are closed.