The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

 

***********

"The enemy increaseth every day" and "We, at the height, are ready to decline"

(Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, lines 216–217)

***********

 

 

***********

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

(Brutus - Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, lines 218–220) William Shakespeare

***********

"I'll jump off that bridge when I come to it." - Adlai Stevenson.

***********

 

***********

In the summer of 1967, a 38 year old political activist and law school instructor named  Al Lowenstein conceived the highly unlikely idea of a movement to dump Lyndon Johnson.  It was as columnist Jack Newfield wrote " rather like Castro and a handful of guerrillas in the Seirra Maestra planning to overthrow Batista."

But Lowenstein fought on tenaciously because he detected deep satisfaction with LBJ when everybody else just thought his opposition comprised only of "long haired college students on LSD."

Said Lowenstein:

"There were little enclaves.  But people were doubtful and doubted that anyone else felt the way that they did.  Only farmers were against Johnson, or only Jews, or only intellectuals, or only ivy league halfbacks.  We only had to get them together to see this was not true." 

Working out of his New York apartment, Lowenstein pulled together a ragtag group of allies and started to try to find a candidate. 

Eventually he had a group he described as "75 people, half of them under the age of twelve".

New York magazine said it was a "quixotic campaign fought to the tune of laughter and snickering."

The first person Lowenstein asked to challenge Lyndon Johnson in the 1968 Democratic primaries, Robert Kennedy, said no, then Senator George McGovern when asked declined fearing that if he ran against Johnson and lost he would never win again in a Senate reelection in SD.

McGovern suggested they ask Senators Metcalf from Montana and McCarthy of Minnesotta.

Senator Metcalf rejected the idea as "ridiculous".  

But McCarthy said that " the only way to get Johnson to change would be for someone to run against him."

***********

***********

From Wiki:

The Dump Johnson movement was a movement within the United States Democratic Party to oppose the candidacy of President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson to become the party's nominee in the 1968 presidential election. Their opposition to Johnson stemmed mainly from their opposition to the Vietnam War, while the movement can be seen as part of an internal battle within the Democratic Party between antiwar liberals, unreconstructed Cold Warriors and moderates.[1]

Within the left wing of the Democratic party there had been rumbles all during 1967 of challenging Lyndon B. Johnson's candidacy. The leading proponents of the Dump Johnson Movement were two opponents of the war, Allard K. Lowenstein and Curtis Gans. Their first choice to be a candidate was Robert F. Kennedy, but the New York Senator declined after a series of meetings in September and October 1967.[3] When he declined, they next turned to California Congressman Don Edwards, Idaho Senator Frank Church, Canadian-born economist John Kenneth Galbraith, General James M. Gavin, and South Dakota Senator George S. McGovern, all of whom similarly declined. Finally in mid-October 1967 Lowenstien approached Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy and found to his surprise that the Senator was willing. 'Somebody has to raise the flag,' [4] McCarthy remarked. Six days later, in a meeting with Lowenstein and another liberal leader McCarthy made his decision definite. "You guys have been talking about three or four names. I think you can cut the list down to one now."

 

***********

In 1964 Johnson won the presidency by a majority of 61 percent.

No post-1964 Democratic candidate has managed to better LBJ's 1964 electoral result.

In 1966 Johnson's popularity had fallen, and the opposition was able to gain a net of 47 seats.

By 1967, the Democratic governor of Missouri warned that Johnson would lose the state by 100,000 votes, despite a half-million margin in 1964. "Frustration over the war; too much federal spending and... taxation; no great public support for your programs; and ... public disenchantment" had eroded the President's standing, the governor reported.

On March 12, 1968, McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary won 42% of the primary vote to Johnson's 49%.

On March 31, 1968, following the New Hampshire primary and Robert Kennedy's entry into the election, the President startled the nation by announcing:

"With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country.

Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

 

***********

I suggest you watch this entire clip.  

I think after the next year of partisan fights and investigations, continued economic horrors and no answers in these partisan wars to our long term endless debt problems, you can see that if instead of running again in 2012 in a election that polls already say he will lose, if Obama instead gave this exact speech, almost word for word, the nation, the Party and history would applaud him for it.

***********

Yes, that may sound startling now, and a joke to insiders both in 1966 and today, but I don't think LBJ's graceful Presidential exit shocked Al Lowenstein in 1968 - nor would it shock me if in early 2012, Barack Obama gave pretty much this very same speech.

***********

While looking around the internet I found this facebook page,

"The Dump Obama Movement".

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-dump_Obama-Movement/108531419205910?ref=ts

Less than 100 people have joined it but thats significantly more than Al Lowenstein started off with isn't it?.

 

***********

OK, all those that believe Obama will face no inner party challenge and is a shoe in for election can start their snickering and laughing now...

But maybe before you do, you should read this report from US News and World Report from a week BEFORE the worst electoral blood bath for Democrats in over 70 years. A historic rejection of the Obama White House that lost Democrats close to 70 House seats, 19 state legislatures and gave us 24 victorious GOP Governors who's wins included defeating 10 sitting Democratic Governors...the flight of independents, women and suburban voters to the GOP...

After that, there's the first post mid term polling from CNN on the 2012 Presidential race and Obama is doing very,very poorly.

Then a piece I read after writing this diary that also suggests a correlation between 1968 and 2012 and predicts a Democratic challenge to Obama.

***********

Poll: Most Want Obama Fired In 2012

http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/10/27/poll-most-want-obama-fired-in-2012

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, rapped by the White House for pledging to makeBarack Obama a one-term president, seems to have the support of a majority of Americans. A new poll provided to Whispers says that 56 percent of likely voters want the president fired.

According to pollster Doug Schoen, whose new poll shows vast support for the Tea Party movement among voters, the president is still liked by about half the nation. In fact, more like him personally than like his policies. Some 48 percent think he's a nice guy, while just 42 percent approve of his job performance.

But that personal favorability doesn't translate into re-election support when voters are asked if Obama deserves a second term. Says Schoen: "Despite voters feelings towardObama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president." Worse, Schoen adds, "43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been."

***********

Poll: GOP candidates top Obama in hypothetical 2012 race

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/04/poll.2012.candidates/

Washington (CNN) -- A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday also indicates that at the unofficial start of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, the field of possible contenders appears wide open with no front-runner

"Looking ahead to 2012, it may be too early to count Barack Obama out, particularly if Sarah Palin is his opponent, Obama leads Palin 52-44 percent among all registered voters, but In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, Huckabee leads Obama 52 - 44 percent, while Romney has a 50-45 point advantage, which is within the poll's sampling error. Obama holds a 49-47 percent margin over Gingrich.

**********

Democrats against Obama

By STEVEN STARK  | Boston Phoenix - November 3, 2010

Even before the rout at the polls, Democrats were nervous about their President. The left felt sold out, and moderates were frightened. Now it's payback time.

-

Now that the midterm wipeout has concluded, analysts are already sizing up the GOP challengers to a weakened Barack Obama. Not only that: some Democratic party elders are considering the once-unthinkable scenario of a debilitating challenge to Barack Obama from inside his party — most likely from a disgruntled critic on the left. But in truth, Obama has little to fear there. It's an urban myth that any inter-party challenge to a president weakens him. George Wallace challenged Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Pete McCloskey ran against Richard Nixon in 1972 — both to little effect. Even Pat Buchanan's insurgency against George Bush in 1992 was far more symptom than cause of the incumbent's loss in November.

No, what Obama should fear is a challenge from a party heavyweight — as happened in 1968 with Johnson (Robert Kennedy), 1976 with Gerald Ford (Ronald Reagan), and 1980 with Jimmy Carter (Ted Kennedy). In each of those cases, the incumbent did eventually lose, which is why the real threat to Obama is Hillary Clinton, and maybe even a reborn Jerry Brown.

Of those three examples above, 1968 is the most relevant this time. It seemed impossible in early 1967 that Kennedy would challenge Johnson, just as it seems so unlikely now that the current sitting secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, will defy Obama. But the bad economy is Obama's Vietnam War. (Yes, Larry Summers is Robert McNamara in this analogy, but that's for another column.) The longer it drags on, the more the party establishment will grow uneasy that Obama could pull a Samson and take everything down with him.

Already, a fair portion of the party mainstream is alienated from the administration. The moderates have seen their congressional wing decimated. Many were upset when Obama went to Rhode Island on October 25 and refused to endorse the Democratic candidate for governor because independent Lincoln Chafee had backed Obama in 2008. And few need reminding that Obama barely won the nomination in 2008 over Clinton. More than a few Democrats are experiencing a bad case of buyer's remorse.

Thats just the Beginning -

Read more: http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/110941-democrats-against-obama/?page=1#TOPCONTENT#ixzz14MegSFXj

 

 

 

 

Tags: obama, dump LBJ (all tags)

Comments

63 Comments

with what is at stake - this is something worth

thinking about.

 

lets see if people can remain civil in their response.

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 01:47PM | 1 recs
OK

But LBJ was followed by Nixon.  And as you and BJJ argue, Obama is already Nixon.  So wouldn't it be sort of a waste of time, energy, and resources?

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 01:52PM | 0 recs
NO

You've posed a non sequitur, one that even for you is fairly simple minded; think about it:

Back in the late 60's, we had a deeply flawed, corrupt President, who was then followed by another President who was much worse. There is nothing today which says that such unfortunate history has to repeat itself.

Obama is deeply flawed, but worse yet, totally incompetent and unequipped to handle the demands of the modern Presidency. Once we get rid of him, we'll hopefully get a live one, a President who is up to the job.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-04 02:29PM | 1 recs
RE: NO

"Once we get rid of him, we'll hopefully get a live one, a President who is up to the job."

Like, say, Ronald Reagan?

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 02:40PM | 1 recs
cont.

zzzz.

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 02:49PM | 1 recs
RE: cont.

xxxxx.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:03PM | 0 recs
totally incompetent and unequipped ...

why didnt some people point that out before we "gave him the keys?"

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 02:52PM | 0 recs
my response is

zzzzz

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 02:07PM | 1 recs
RE: my response is

xxxxxxx....

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:02PM | 0 recs
"lets see if people can remain civil in their response."

well done boys.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 02:39PM | 0 recs
to reinterate

zzzzz...

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:00PM | 1 recs
RE: to reinterate

xxxxxx.....

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:02PM | 0 recs
imitation is....

the...

zzzzzz...

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:05PM | 1 recs
RE: imitation is....

....highest form of flattery.

 

xxxxxx.....

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:22PM | 0 recs
as i was saying.

z

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:25PM | 1 recs
RE: as i was saying.

So civility only holds for those who agree with you?

What happened to your admiration of free speech and dissent?

Have I insulted or attacked you here?

Or is it your intention to purge others from participation on this website?

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:32PM | 0 recs
RE: as i was saying.

let me consider your point....

 

zzzzz...

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:39PM | 1 recs
RE: as i was saying.

I'd think it would be more productive to try to convince me.  Especially since I expressed openness to it.

There are plenty of people I would prefer to Obama.  I just don't see how to get them there.

And I certainly think Obama is far preferable to anyone from the GOP at this point.  Don't know how you feel about that.

I'm willing to consider third party possibilities, though.  But I need to be convinced of both viability and superiority.

I also grant the possibility that Obama's performance could improve.  But I have no particular estimation of the probabilities of that.  I continue to watch and weigh.

In the mean time, I think unless we come up with a real systemic strategy to deal with the new post-Citizens Unites reality, we might be looking at Palin or Romney and a resurgence of Blue Dogs, which BJJ certainly is cheering for, but I'm assuming that you are not. 

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:50PM | 0 recs
here's my position on this topic
The Dump LBJ Movement. Al Lowenstein. Obama and 2012

http://mydd.com/users/changeagain2012/posts/the-5

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 04:08PM | 1 recs
It's gonna be

difficult to grow this movement with this approach.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 04:14PM | 0 recs
"quixotic campaign fought to the tune of laughter and snickering."

ZZZZ... 

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 04:19PM | 1 recs
Another difference between you and me

is that if I had an idea of how to push for a more effective and progressive government, I'd want your support.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 04:23PM | 0 recs
without an apology for your atrotious behavior

you'd never get it.

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 05:21PM | 1 recs
RE: without an apology for your atrotious behavior

You owe me and everyone else on this site apologies for your taunting and insult laden divisive diaries and comments.

Of course, if I actually had someone I thought viable and promotable, I'd send you freaking flowers to get it done.

My politics aren't all about personalities.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 05:28PM | 0 recs
oh well

zzzzzz...

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 05:31PM | 1 recs
There you go again.

You can go screw yourself, Strummerson. Since your idol, Obama, seems to be fixated on car metaphors, you only know two gears: forward and reverse, sarcasm and bitterness.

The incredible shrinking President is rapidly falling into irrelevance. Instead of blaming your fellow myDD'ers for this, blame Obama himself. At this point, he has fucked up the Democratic party and the entire country as well. History will be kind to Barack Obama: it will forget him.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-04 03:11PM | 1 recs
RE: There you go again.

Obama is not my idol.  You seem to need to think this, maybe because you can only conceive of him through either idealization or contempt.  There's significant room in between those extremes.  Currently, I'd rate his presidency a C-.  Sure, that's higher than you.  If anyone can make a case that thee is a possibility of getting a more progressive president who leads more effectively, I would sign on.  I always want the most effective and progressive president.  It's not about personality or personal sentiment for me.  It's about policies and the direction of the country.

Obama is your obsession, not mine.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:21PM | 1 recs
sarcasm and bitterness.

lost us the house

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:26PM | 1 recs
RE: sarcasm and bitterness.

...have been the currency of the PUMA movement.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:32PM | 1 recs
RE: sarcasm and bitterness.

zzzzz...

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:40PM | 1 recs
RE: sarcasm and bitterness.

I love the letter 'z'.  

Z for Zapata.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:52PM | 0 recs
mas vale morir de pie que vivir de rodillas

Z!

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 04:12PM | 1 recs
RE: mas vale morir de pie que vivir de rodillas

Yes and no.  I'm willing to endure more since I became a father.  Death or Glory, Live Free or Die, are not necessarily fit sentiments for someone raising 3 kids under 7.

But we indeed share an admiration for Senor Z.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 04:26PM | 0 recs
A coward dies a thousand deaths…

a soldier dies but once

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 04:31PM | 1 recs
RE: A coward dies a thousand deaths…

and the relevance of this is?

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 04:36PM | 0 recs
history lessons...

"Live Free or Die - Death is Not the Worst of Evils"  

General John Stark

Gen. John Stark, the hero of Bunker Hill and Bennington, was the right man in the right place at the right time.

John Stark was born in Londonderry, New Hampshire, August 28, 1728.  On August 20, 1758, he and Elizabeth Page were married. From that time on, she was known as Molly Stark.

War Breaks Out

The Battle of Lexington and Concord was the opener, followed by the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775. Stark was a formidable antagonist in that battle and following it was attached to the Continental Army under George Washington . He took part in the New Jersey campaign and commanded the right wing at Trenton.

At the outbreak of war John and Molly stark's children were aged:

1. Caleb Page STARK, 16, b. 3 Dec 1759, Reportedly the youngest survivor of the Battle of Bunker Hill. 

2. Archibald STARK, 13, b. 28 May 1761 


3. John STARK, 12, b. 17 Apr 1763

4. Eleanor STARK, 10,  b 4 March 1765, d.20 Aug 1767

5. Ellen/Eleanor STARK, 8, b. 30 June 1767 

6. Sarah STARK, 6, b. 11 June 1769 

7. Elizabeth STARK, 3, b. 10 Aug 1771

8. Mary (Molly) STARK, 2, b. 9 Sep 1773 

9. Charles STARK, 6 month, b. 2 Dec 1774

10. Benjamin Franklin STARK, born during the war, b. 16 June 1777

11. Sophia STARK,  born during the war, b. 21 June 1782

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 05:19PM | 1 recs
RE: history lessons...

Heroic.  But still questionable.  I don't think that prioritizing one's children over martyrdom is a mark of cowardice.  Remember, the democratic party is the party that respects family commitment and those of us with feminist orientations don't believe in leaving the hands on, day by day, rearing and education of our children to women.

Of course, you may have noticed by now that I'm really not invested in what you think about me.  So if it serves some purpose of yours to label fathers who hold their responsibilities to their children as paramount, and indeed fundamentally political engagements as cowards I'm not going to argue the point further.

Finally, we are at a crucial historical juncture, but it's not quite 1775.  If the Tea Party elects Palin and they turn this country into Atwood's "Handmaid's Tale," that might be a different matter.  Especially as 2 of my kids are daughters.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 05:35PM | 0 recs
“Strength is Happiness. Strength is itself Victory"

"In weakness and cowardice there is no happiness.

When you wage a struggle, you might win or you might lose. But regardless of the short-term outcome, the very fact of your continuing to struggle is proof of your victory"

Daisaku Ikeda

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 05:47PM | 1 recs
RE: There you go again.

Obama may not be his idol...

but he sure seems to spend a unhealthy amount of time online insulting and abusing anybody who dares to challenge or criticize his non-idol in any way.

I guess hes "concerned"...

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:33PM | 1 recs
RE: There you go again.

Wrong.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 03:39PM | 1 recs
ho - ho

zzzzzz...

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:42PM | 1 recs
He's a typical fair-weather friend

Strumm has been one of the chief cheerleaders in the Obam-oron chorus here at MyDD for the last two years. Now that the Prez has gotten his ass kicked in the midterm elections, he's acting like he has no use at all for Obama, never did.

Which only proves the old saying about success having a thousand parents, while failures like Obama quickly become orphans.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-04 06:26PM | 1 recs
don't believe it

the O-enforcers define themselves much more by what they are against than what they are for.

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 06:57PM | 1 recs
RE: don't believe it

You'll have much more success pursuing your goals if you drop these paranoid and divisive fantasy and focus on actual arguments.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 07:56PM | 1 recs
oh

zzzzzz

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 07:58PM | 1 recs
RE: He's a typical fair-weather friend

You don't know what your talking about.

Look up my history.  I wrote a diary during the primary arguing that Obama supporters should stay out of Alegre's diaries and that she had the right to advocate and fund-raise for HRC.

Although I preferred Obama, I frequently related to HRC and her supporters with respect, just not those cheerleading for Palin and those making claims I disagreed with about the MI primary.

I composed a diary arguing that HRC could be an historic SoS.  At one point, I composed another questioning whether Obama was allowing her to pursue their goals with enough latitude and opportunity.

Look it up.  Am I proud of every way I have written everything on this site at all times.  No.  Are you?  I certainly don't think you or anyone else should be.  Have a bit of humility.  But this idea that I am Obama's enforcer is either a paranoid fantasy or a slander, based on what the  overall record shows.

Furthermore, as a participant on the Moose, some of my closest interlocutors strongly backed HRC in the primary.

And where do you get that I have no use for Obama?  Until I'm convinced otherwise, I think he's the best we're gonna be able to get in the near term.  I'm also open to the idea he could learn and improve.  And I think some of his accomplishments have been meaningful.  But he has also underwhelmed in both policy and leadership, though I never thought he was some progressive messiah.  Diary on that as well.

So if there is a better and viable way forward, fine.  But my priorities are confronting the CU corporatizeation of politics reality a stopping the Tea Party.  So it needs to serve those goals.  

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 07:55PM | 0 recs
RE: He's a typical fair-weather friend

You are trying to argue rationally with the irrational.  For all the talk about cultists, the PUMA's have built a cult around a leader who has the wisdom and judgment at this point to ignore them.

I'm not sure if HRC would have been a better President than Obama.  I certainly don't believe she would have been a more progressive one.  And if anyone here wants to argue that if she were president she would not face the same obstruction, irrational outrage and insanity from the right -- perhaps just as, or even more effectively -- as Obama, I have a bridge to Russia to sell them too.

Obama is not the savior, and I never expected him to be.  He's had some big accomplishments (many of which we have not yet seen the best effects of of), some significant disappointments, and has been overly deferential to a group of people (the GOP) that's highest priority is his failure. What's truly sad, is that in recent days, MyDD seems to have been taken over by those who reveal just as strong an interest and delight in Obama's failure, real or perceived, as those whose interests are directly antithetical to ours our. I guess if your only interest is validating your obsession with HRC, then you must be exempt.

I think a C- is a little harsh, but I'm not about to give Obama an A either.  I do think he will be in much stronger position in two years, as will the economy, than either the media, or his detractors give him credit for.  But you are absolutely right in your assessment.  Thank you for your thoughtful, civil, and candid posts here.  I think the level of civility exhibited by the diarist in response in contrast here says all that needs to be said about the maturity of the argument put forth.

by Pragmatic Left 2010-11-08 09:49PM | 0 recs
RE: He's a typical fair-weather friend

You are trying to argue rationally with the irrational.  For all the talk about cultists, the PUMA's have built a cult around a leader who has the wisdom and judgment at this point to ignore them.

I'm not sure if HRC would have been a better President than Obama.  I certainly don't believe she would have been a more progressive one.  And if anyone here wants to argue that if she were president she would not face the same obstruction, irrational outrage and insanity from the right -- perhaps just as, or even more effectively -- as Obama, I have a bridge to Russia to sell them too.

Obama is not the savior, and I never expected him to be.  He's had some big accomplishments (many of which we have not yet seen the best effects of of), some significant disappointments, and has been overly deferential to a group of people (the GOP) that's highest priority is his failure. What's truly sad, is that in recent days, MyDD seems to have been taken over by those who reveal just as strong an interest and delight in Obama's failure, real or perceived, as those whose interests are directly antithetical to ours our. I guess if your only interest is validating your obsession with HRC, then you must be exempt.

I think a C- is a little harsh, but I'm not about to give Obama an A either.  I do think he will be in much stronger position in two years, as will the economy, than either the media, or his detractors give him credit for.  But you are absolutely right in your assessment.  Thank you for your thoughtful, civil, and candid posts here.  I think the level of civility exhibited by the diarist in response in contrast here says all that needs to be said about the maturity of the argument put forth.

by Pragmatic Left 2010-11-08 09:49PM | 0 recs
2 new DEATH DEFYING VIDEOS

added to the diary.

Rock on.

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 03:11PM | 1 recs
And btw

my comments, as per your request rendered in civility, have helped your diary get on the most commented list.  More people will read it.  And your comments as well.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 04:28PM | 0 recs
why else do you think Im talking to you?!

:)

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 05:34PM | 1 recs
RE: why else do you think Im talking to you?!

Glad to be of service.  The election is over.  I'm happy to have a real conversation of how best to pursue progressive goals.  At the very least, we need to figure out how to function in the post-CU world, counter the TP, and form a more effective left flank.  At the least.

But I'm not interested in petty, grievance driven, personality squabbles.  It's not responsible and I have no scores to settle.

by Strummerson 2010-11-04 06:02PM | 0 recs
new LBJ video added
Lyndon Johnson - Remarks on Decision to not seek Reelection If you watch this entire clip, I think after the next year of partison fights and investigations,   you could see Obama giving this exact speech, almost word for word, and the nation, his party and history would applaud him for it.

 

 

 

 

 

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 05:02PM | 1 recs
newly added

first post mid term polling from CNN on the 2012 Presidential race

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 07:35PM | 1 recs
RE: The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

I've been doing a series on Dump Obama at FireDogLake since early September.  We've been debating it hot and heavy on OpenLeft as well.

See:

http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/09/11/time-for-a-dump-obama-movement/
Time for a Dump Obama movement

http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/09/22/dump-obama-%C2%A0-more-urgent-than-ever/
Dump Obama:  more urgent than ever

http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/09/dump-obama-working-today/
Dump Obama: working today

http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/16/dump-obama-for-a-time-of-crisis/
Dump Obama:  for a time of crisis

http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/23/dump-obama-time-for-a-candidate/
Dump Obama:  time for a candidate

Originally, the gist of the discussion was over whether to Dump Obama.  At this point, it's over what the character of the Dump Obama campaign should be.  I expect him to be vulnerable from both left and right, given the unholy path he's chosen.

Our task is to ensure that he is punished from the left.  We will be ignored no more!

by jeffroby 2010-11-04 08:49PM | 1 recs
RE: The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

Ill read them all!

I just read a article from the boston phoenix and linked it in the diary.

---

Democrats against Obama

Even before the rout at the polls, Democrats were nervous about their President. The left felt sold out, and moderates were frightened. Now it's payback time.

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/110941-democrats-against-obama/

by changeagain2012 2010-11-04 08:55PM | 1 recs
RE: The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

why not post en here?

by changeagain2012 2010-11-05 02:13AM | 1 recs
RE: The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

One more:

http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/30/dump-obama-not-for-wackos-only/

Dump Obama:  not for wackos only

by jeffroby 2010-11-05 03:55AM | 0 recs
RE: The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

no i men s a diary here

by changeagain2012 2010-11-05 05:36AM | 0 recs
RE: The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

Okay.  Soon.

by jeffroby 2010-11-05 11:23AM | 0 recs
RE: The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

cool good diary.

by changeagain2012 2010-11-05 03:57PM | 0 recs
RE: The Dump LBJ Movement, Obama and 2012

will you please send me an email to changeagain2012 at g mail . c o m

by changeagain2012 2010-11-05 04:47PM | 0 recs
Understand what the problem is...

Its not Obama the individual.

 

We let the kool aid drinkers set direction.

They are going to reelect Pelosi.

 

If you can't get rid of pelosi now you haven't changed anything.

 

If 2012 comes and Obama 2.0 displaces Obama 1.0 and axlerod and kos send us another messiah we will still be screwed.

 

We need a party that understands that the brains of the party should run the party and not the soul  of the party.  Progressives/liberals are the soul of the party.  But progressives/liberals really don't work as the brains of the party.

 

If you don't change that you will just see Carter/Mondale/Dukkasis/Kerry in your new candidate and nothing will change.

 

You need a Clinton.  You need someone pragmatic that will get the best deal actually possible not some kool aid induced illusion of change that gets repealed as soon as the American people have their say.

by donkeykong 2010-11-08 01:14PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads