Obama Is The Democratic President NOW. Talking About The 2012 Primary Only Helps Republicans.

[KittyWampus]

This early into Obama's presidency, talking about the 2012 serves no purpose other than to weaken a Democratic President.

If you are unhappy this early into Obama's tenure as POTUS, the logical course of action would be to work on two things:

1. Getting SPECIFIC POLICIES enacted
2. Getting PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS ELECTED into Congress

If you are not doing the above two things and prefer to spend time talking about a Primary that is three years away, you are not truly interested in effecting change.

As far as I can see, saying Obama is not the 2012 Democratic candidate YET is the chickenshit way out of having to really fight for Progress.

And Howard Dean isn't interesting in running in 2012. I am certain of that. He is interested in working from within the Democratic party as was Ted Kennedy.

And I will reiterate the two course of action appropriate this early into Obama's first term:

1. Getting SPECIFIC POLICIES enacted
2. Getting PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS ELECTED into Congress

Skinner and DU Admins might allow talk of a primary in 2012, but I jolly well can voice my opinion on the folly and motives of those who insist on posting that crap.

[spanone]

1. i will hide any thread that proposes dumping our current President....asap

[LWolf]

2. Then why are you talking about it? nt

[NWHarkness]

3. Supporting a primary challenger IS working within the party.

Let's just be clear about that. Supporting a challenger may not be a wise course of action, but it's a legitimate option.

[KittyWampus]

8. supporting a primary challenger THIS EARLY is certainly not working within the party.

It's sole, singular purpose is to damage a Democratic POTUS and damage the Democratic party.

The Democratic POTUS is the head of the Democratic party.

[WeDidIt]

16. So you're saying it's okay to mount a primary challenge so long as you're hamstrung

For a primary challenge to be effective against a sitting president, it must start NOW!

[KittyWampus]

17. still sullying Ted Kennedy's image by using it as an avatar, I see.

[NWHarkness]

23. Ted Kennedy?

Would that be the Ted Kennedy who ran a primary challenge to a sitting Democratic president?

[WeDidIt]

27. Ted Kennedy mounted a primary challege against Carter after Carter fucked up

Primary challenges are sacrosanct.

You might want to learn a little bit about politics before you go spouting off.

[NWHarkness]

22. That's just nonsense

The Democratic Party is a democratic institution. No one is required to take a loyalty oath to any particular candidate or office holder.

By definition, a primary challenge is "within the party".

The purpose of a primary challenge is not to damage the party, but to nominate another candidate. This can be a good idea, or a bad one. Is it your opinion that those who supported Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or Ted Kennedy in 1980 were trying to damage the party, or do you think they felt that the party would be best served by nominating their candidate of choice?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. That, and it's just fucking stupid.

[question everything]

5. Sure way to get Republicans back in power for few more decades

Remember when Ted Kennedy challenged Carter.

And... they won't need to castigate stones at him. "After all, even his own people don't trust him."

There is one thing to disagree with they way he runs the country now, it is something else to start talking about removing him from office.

I almost think that this is what some want; the one who voted for Nader in 2000. They don't want the responsibility and, yes, compromise that come with governing the country. They want to wallow in their own self righteousness and never face reality.

[treestar]

11. +1

They want to wallow in being outsiders.

[msongs]

6. hmm primary challenge against bluedogs = good, against others, not so good?

and here i thought the main point of a primary challenge was to let the incumbent know that other people have different views and would like to have those views acknowledged and honored and maybe even implemented....You know, that whole free speech thing.

now I read we must not consider challenging the dear leader. it IS really way to early to consider that anyhow.

Msongs

[quiller4]

7. I don't support primary challenges on Blue Dogs. To me it is a sure way

to turn a seat in a conservative state from blue to red. You trade a Blue Dog who votes with the the Democratic Caucus 70% of the time for a Republican who does so less than 7% of the time. Who is well served by that?

[KittyWampus]

9. "now I read we must not consider challenging the dear leader". That's not what I said.

and you know it.

[treestar]

10. Amen! Get a more left wing congress!

Hard work, but those not willing to do it just slam Obama like that's going to help! Unbelievable!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Do you really think that Obama and Rahm aren't thinking about 2012?

And, shaping their policies on that likelihood?

[KittyWampus]

13. yeah, so if you have policies you want enacted now is the time to do that. What part of my simple

OP don't you get?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. What if I oppose the policies that Obama is pushing?

Which I do.

Should I work to get them rejected?

[KittyWampus]

18. yes, that's what I posted in the OP. Work for the enactment of policies you support

and Congresscritters, too.

Two years from now, if you're that disaffected then primary-away. I wouldn't be happy about it, but you'd at least have your efforts to change things behind you.

[WeDidIt]

15. Bullshit

IF a primary challenge is to happen, it must begin organizing now.

So don't come down on people mounting a primary challenge for 2012. They are acting in good faith and primary challenges are sacrosanct.

[KittyWampus]

20. Political advice from a person who compares Obama to Hoover. LOL!

[WeDidIt]

26. So you cannot dispute what I've said

In other words, no primary challenges allowed against Obama according to Kittwampus.

[bc3000]

19. Kucinich 2012

There's nothing wrong with saying it.

Democrats need to know we're watching and we're not going to rubber stamp corporatist policies. That's why we are in this mess in the first place. We've allowed senators and congressmen who don't represent any of our ideals to be elected, and continuously reelected, under the democratic banner.

ENOUGH!

If you aren't going to represent democrats, then you have no business calling yourself one.

[KittyWampus]

21. If you don't want "corporatist" policies, then advocate for what you do want. You want

a more Progressive representation in Congress then work for that.

If you are going to work to damage the head of the Democratic party, the Democratic POTUS, this early into his tenure, you have no business calling yourself a Democrat.

[WeDidIt]

28. You're the one who has no business calling himself a Democrat

Pirmaries are a DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

Don't like it? Too fucking bad. PRimaries are sacrosanct.

Even says so in the DU rules. Might want to brush up on those.

[tritsofme]

24. It is only a fringe minority that is even whispering about a primary challenge in 2012. They are

not a serious group.

I severely doubt that even Mr. Kucinich, their knight in shining armor, would even entertain for a second not endorsing the President's reelection.

I wouldn't let such a small insignificant group of people get under your skin.

[BlooInBloo]

25. DUers don't mind helping republicans, as long as (1) It hurts Obama...

and (2) they use the proper cover-words, like "setting his feet on fire" or some shit like that. Typically there's a healthy dose of secondary mocking verbiage, such as "messiah", "obababot", and the like.

All of which appears to be permitted here.