Should a progressive challenge Obama in 2012?

1. 64

   TeaPartyCrasherposted 13 years ago

   In light of the decision to let the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy continue, and the criticism from Obama of those progressives opposed to letting them continue, perhaps Obama needs a reminder of who got him where he is.
   
   I think a challenge in 2012 from the likes of Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, or some other progressive firebrand is in order?
   
   What about the rest of you?

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ron Paul 2012

      replyreport
      1. 60

         EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         this

         replyreport
      2. 48

         Harry Santosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Ron Paul is truly the only hope!

         replyreport
   2. 75

      Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Oh Absolutely, they should run as a third party candidate.
      
      Woohoo, did someone say Ross Perot?

      replyreport
   3. 86

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If you want to ensure a victory for Sarah Palin, sure.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Or possibly Gov. Chris Christie?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, maybe.
            
            Fortunately, though, the disgruntled far-left will not be strong enough to mount a challenge to Obama, and Obama will win reelection fairly handily.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I think he definitely helped himself out with this tax cut comprimise. Only the far left is really angry enough to mount a challenge. However their numbers are small. That issue will be settled in the Primaries. Once he wins the nod, there is no way the far left will vote for anyone other than the DNC candidate.

               replyreport
            2. 75

               Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               If he continues to compromise, I think you might be correct.

               replyreport
   4. 49

      RonPaulLiberalposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      A primary challenge of Obama will do nothing good. A progressive raid of the GOP is a much better idea: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

      replyreport
2. 57

   C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

   Two words: Al Franken.
   
   The perfect candidate to lead the progressive charge.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, Yeah Al Franken "That's the ticket"
      
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 57

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly, I mean if you were so impressed with one harvard man, why not another?

         replyreport
3. 78

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Nah. One schizo party at a time. It's the GOP's turn in 2012.

   replyreport
4. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   The progressives and Ron Paul share a few issues in common, but the philosophy's as a whole are miles apart.
   
   And I'm telling you---something about Ron Paul is off. He's still a Republican, you know.
   He speaks at pro-life rallies......How is that "for freedom"?
   
   It's not.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, life, and the freedom to enjoy it.....sounds like a real schmuck to me....

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well, not exactly...
         Apparently, my womb is property of the State.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            And the law on the books that says this is located where?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               If you ban a woman from exercising choice over her own body you are saying her body does not belong to her.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  But there is no such ban, so your point would be.....?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Isn't it strange how they complain about the oppression thats NOT taking place and ignore the real threat to their freedom?

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh it's real.
                        Your guys are making sure of it...little by little, just as they are dismantling our gvt--little by little.
                        
                        Perhaps it's because you are not a woman, that you don't understand, so I won't bother to explain it to you...after all, erections are so important, tax dollars are paying for them!!--So you have NO idea how I feel, since you BAN funding a procedure for me. Now you are working on banning the procedure alltogether. You don't fool anyone with your games.
                        
                        It's nothing new, really. The founding fathers thought of me as property, and could legally beat me.
                        It's not a stretch that you now want to control my sexuality, as if YOU were my daddy.
                        
                        Daddy state.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           LMC, I couldn't care less about your sexuality.  Don't flatter yourself.
                           
                           And as of today, abortion is still legal.  So I'm left wondering 9again) what your gripe is...

                           replyreport
                           1. 76

                              lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Well, maybe because they made Planned Parenthood the hostage for this last go-round of budget battles.Even though only 3% of PP is abortion, you had some nut-bag Kyle saying ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE that over 90% of PP is abortion!
                              
                              Maybe because even in the Healthcare fight, it came down in the end, to a fight about abortion. They don't want abortions available, even when women pay with THEIR OWN MONEY.
                              
                              And, it is nationwide, this push to make abortion impossible to get.
                              
                              Anti-abortion bills advance in statehouses nationwide
                              
                              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 … 39768.html

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 But, again, abortion is still legal, so your gripe is.....?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 76

                                    lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    My gripe is it's legal, yet if I want one, I have to drive 60 or so miles away...probly more, to get one.
                                    
                                    My gripe is--why is it an issue on funding the budget??????
                                    Why is it an issue in the healthcare debate?????
                                    
                                    It is a PRIVATE matter between me and my cervix!

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Probably because there is a considerable percentage of the population that disagree with you and view abortion as the taking of a human life.  If this is indeed the case, then it is not something so easily dismissed.
                                       
                                       I realize that like most liberals you want the freedom from responsibility for your actions, but some of us have a different take....

                                       report
                                       1. 76

                                          lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          That last one has got to be high on the list of pot meet kettle comments. High on the list.
                                          
                                          "If this is indeed the case, then it is not something so easily dismissed."
                                          
                                          Too bad they so easily dismiss them once they're born.

                                          report
                                 2. 61

                                    DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Billy, it might be, and I don't pretend to speak for LMC, that the conservative agenda as evidenced in the budget battle is to indeed make it more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion. And as long as it is legal, as you have pointed out, should it necessarily be as difficult to receive one? I mean legal is legal, right?
                                    
                                    Yes, it is legal. And yes, Conservatives would prefer it was not. So if you can't change the law of the land, you can certainly throw as many road blocks in the way as you can possibly think of. And that is what appears to be happening. I certainly don't advocate abortion, but it really isn't my call - I am not pregnant, I am not a woman, and I am not the Supreme Court.

                                    replyreport
                        2. 61

                           Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           "since you BAN funding a procedure for me."
                           
                           I haven't banned anything, I'm all for your right to abort any baby you feel you are saddled with.
                           
                           Hell, if you want a lobotomy I'll pay for that myself.

                           replyreport
                           1. 76

                              lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Ahahahaha!

                              replyreport
   2. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      it's against freedom if you consider the fetus not alive.
      
      it's pro-freedom if you consider the fetus a separate life.
      
      Thus, this IS a tricky subject for libertarians.
      
      Calling Ron Paul a Republican is about as apt as calling Obama a hippie.

      replyreport
5. 59

   dingdondingdonposted 13 years ago

   I would love to see Hillary run, but I don't think she will.

   replyreport
6. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   I'm with Obama...all the way.
   
   But go for it progressives! The more voices, the better.
   As long as it's not a RW operative playing the game of being a progressive.
   
   No faces that don't have a proven record. RW'ers will do ANYTHING to win, as you know.

   replyreport
7. 60

   dutchman1951posted 13 years ago

   It may be a moot point..!
   
   with the Republicans split between and Tea and Center, Obama may just, by a Republican split, walk right back in!

   replyreport
8. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   I think the progressives should run a candidate if only to spotlight that President Obama is a moderate. Americans like progressive ideas - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Head Start, etc. The idea of progressive taxation, that the rich SHOULD pay more... polls well. Despite the fact that most Americans favor liberal ideas,  a lot of those folks think they are moderate/conservative.
   
   It makes no sense, but progressive presidential candidates do poorly. George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis ring a bell? Bill Clinton was a moderate and did OK. President Obama is a moderate and he's doing alright. The republicans won't field a moderate candidate who will preserve the progressive ideals of this country. Obama will defend the programs republicans want to destroy. Since a fire-breathing liberal makes Obama more electable, I like it.

   replyreport
9. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Did you know Ryan got SS benefits when his dad died? Is he a mooch?
   Is Bachmann a mooch for taking a farm-subsidy?
   Boehner in gvt for 20 years?
   All these people who "hate" the gvt, still taking the 174K and all the bennies.....
   
   What has happened to Integrity?

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      damn right he got benefits -he paid for the service so he's entitled to it.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Gee, I was under the distinct impression that Mr. Ryan did not approve of government entitlement programs.
         Well, good thing he already got his SS benefits.
         As if he gets his way he -- and everybody else his age and youngers -- won't be getting no more.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            He can be against it all he wants.
            
            He's been paying for the service - against his will - for his whole life. The government owes him what was promised.
            
            It's called "a contract".

            replyreport