WASHINGTON — Patrick Buchanan in 1992, Edward Kennedy in 1980, even Ronald Reagan in 1976 — what do they all have in common?
Not only did they fail to be elected president — Reagan had to wait four more years — but by taking on an incumbent in their own party, they helped deliver the White House to the opposition.
Some progressives have indicated support for such a challenge in 2012. To them I ask: Do you really want Mitt Romney, Rick Perry or Herman Cain as the most powerful person in the world? I served under House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and I can assure you that the prospect of a President Gingrich is even more unsettling.
A primary challenge would be a lose-lose — it would be hugely unsuccessful but would leave President Barack Obama bruised and weakened for a tough general election campaign against the Republican nominee. Far from ushering in a progressive renewal, the result could be an extreme right-wing monopoly on control of the federal government.
Every day in the House, my fellow Democrats and I are fending off a radical tea party agenda. Just imagine if that agenda were being pushed by the White House with the support of a Republican Congress.
If my pro-primary friends truly want government of, by and for the 1 percent — if they want more anti-choice Supreme Court Justices, no improvements to health-care reform, attacks on labor unions, and cuts to Social Security and Medicare — then by all means they should abandon the president’s campaign and embrace a primary opponent.
Some have suggested that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should or would challenge the president, but she has clearly and categorically ruled it out. She is too smart and too committed to her outstanding work as the nation’s top diplomat to contemplate such a reckless and counterproductive move.
All this is said by an unapologetically outspoken progressive who has disagreed more than I like to admit with the Obama administration. We will of course continue to push back on the president when we think he has lost his way, but we must also have his back when he gets it right. We should urge him to be bold, reminding him who his base is, but not actively undermine him during a pivotal election year when the other choice on the ballot is unthinkable. We should not be blind followers, but nor should we be petty spoilers.
Whatever Democratic appetite there is for a primary fight — and I believe it is minimal — is based on a misunderstanding of what animates President Barack Obama. The president is who he is — enormously intelligent and dynamic, and an extremely cautious and moderate politician. In 2008, many voters confused a historic candidacy and great personal charisma with their own agenda and hopes.
Also, with a Republican Congress obstructing every positive step for change, there is a limit to what the president can accomplish.
In 2009-2010, his partnership with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a Democratic majority produced a jobs bill that rescued the nation from the economic abyss; the Affordable Care Act that expanded health coverage to 32 million more Americans; historic financial reform; and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — quite a lot when you consider the debacle he inherited from the Bush administration.
Democrats have a reputation for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, allowing ideological purity to get in the way of smart politics. With so much at stake, we cannot afford to do that in 2012.
Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let’s put aside our disappointments and circle the wagons around the one viable presidential candidate who shares our values. Let’s endorse President Obama for re-election and do everything we can to assure his victory next November.
• Woolsey, D-Calif., serves in Congress and is president of Americans for Democratic Action.
Comments (17)
Add commentI will certainly vote for
I will certainly vote for Pres. Obama. and every Democrat from here on out!
The republicans work the 1%, they are destroying our country.
11 months left
A lot can happen in those 11 months. And I bet positive things are a-comin' which will sail Obama to victory.
As for the republipukes and their convention, they will choose Mitt by default. The rest are really, really whackos. Cain is dropping out (thank god), and Perry recently disgraced himself with his gay-bashing, ultra-christian "strong" ad where he wears the same jacket as dude in Brokeback Mountain.
And, if you want some amusement, go to YouTube and search "Rick Perry Strong parody." The web is full of them, and they will keep you laughing. Or search "Rick Perry oops" for more Texas-sized hilarity.
Newt won't be POTUS. He resigned in disgrace during the Clinton years, and the right-wingers out there will point to his skirt chasing, three divorce, totally unfaithful approach to women that makes Bill Clinton and JFK look like high school virgins. And Newt is just scary. It's funny his half-sister is gay and hates him too.
Soooo, that leaves (cringe) Mitt Romney, the flip-floppin', special Mormon underwear wearin', promise-them-anything, neo centrist whose only victory is lying low while his fellow republipukes all disgraced themselves into implosion.
Rick Perry parody
Here's one of the parody videos of Perry's gay-bashing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtFzuGeCfkc
He's wearing the same jacket at dude in Brokeback Mountain, lol!
Obama has disappointed me many times...
...by not being "progressive" enough, in my opinion. However, there's no way in H E Double-Toothpicks I'm voting for anyone in the elite Republican circus! Oh, and btw... Hillary ain't runnin' anyway, so give it up. Obama's the candidate - and will win, unless the majority of the American electorate has had their brains turned to mush. Aside from Huntsman, who appears to at least have a functioning brain, and Ron Paul, who I think is only half-nuts (look at the whack-job Senator from Kentucky, whom Ron sired), the rest of the Republican field continue to sing in unison the same old tired, worn-out, proven to be a profound failure, Trickle-Down Reaganism Bush Tax Cuts! Incredible! - and forever a stain and blemish upon a party that has devolved into a mouth-piece for the obscenely rich corporate special-interest. I truly believe this to be true of the Republicans. Having said that, don't think for a minute that I think the Democrats are perfect. The corruption of the financial system and the unfairness and corruption in politics affects both parties like a cancer in the bones. We need progressive solutions, and that includes forcing the corporations and the rich to pay their fair share of taxes.
Oh, such hatred, jo -
Oh, such hatred, jo - "republipukes, whackos, special Mormon underwear wearin'". Got nothing but namecalling left,huh?
And we're supposed to take anything this "retiring in 2012" rep has to say seriously?
"This truly is one of those “gotcha” moments that will leave people shaking their heads in dismay, and disapproval. Democrat Lynn Woolsey, who reportedly earns $174,000 a year serving her constituents in the U.S. House of Representatives, can be seen below in the following C-SPAN clip, doing a crossword puzzle on the House floor while fellow California Democrat George Miller spoke addressed the topic of union rights on Wednesday."
This has got to be the most hilarious line from the whole boot licking article -
"The president is who he is — enormously intelligent and dynamic, and an extremely cautious and moderate politician."
How'd ya all like the two weeks early celebration of Hanukkah BO had at the White House last night - and the lighting of the WHOLE Menorah. Ugh...
Odd
All we ever hear from you is "libr'al, progressive, socialist, idiotic, leftist".
We must unite indeed...
We must unite indeed, not to avoid an outcome but to fulfill a vision.
We must unite indeed, not by default behind an incumbent, but behind the most capable leader.
Hillary Clinton would have long since turned this situation around and united factions to the common cause of economic prosperity, social justice and an end to costly wars. I hope she still gets the chance.
partisan politics
I've cast my last vote for Obama: I'll be throwing my vote to a third party candidate, and if Newt gets to sleep in the White House, so be it---It'll wake the "left" up far more than Obama has.
I think they call it the "left" because it's been left behind by the democrats, who are all too anxious to shake the dust of environmentalists and peaceniks off their expensive suits; while whispering to them out of the sides of their mouths to just play along, vote for us and give us your money...
Both parties are owned down to their panties by Wall Street, and no matter who wins the election, these things are certain:
The goals of the Security State will be furthered at the expense of social programs and the poor.
Environmental laws and restrictions on big business will be loosened or eliminated.
Surveillance will increase, privacy will decrease, as our rights are systematically eroded at all levels.
Our access to medical treatment, education, legal representation, shelter, food, and clean water will be increasingly tiered, with the best of each going for the highest price---All as income inequality increases, our environment continues to degrade, and factional manipulation of the electorate becomes the rule of the day.
Poetic as ever
Jamison
Welcome back, jamison! We've
Welcome back, jamison! We've missed ya...
It sounds like you should join the TEA Party. Smaller government and liberty shall rule.
Democrats haven't been "left" behind - they've been hijacked by the "left". The Democrat party used to stand for the working man, which I guess were the unions of the 50's. The elite in the party saw those workers as tools and as a way to garner political power and win elections with the dues money and thuggery and now we're reaping the "benefits" of their ideology. It's a frightening time as we see our country being brought to its knees.
On one hand, you're scared of a police state, yet, you worry about the demise of the social programs that only make people dependent on government and grow it.
How about working to shrink government, then free enterprise can grow and prosper and create jobs so everyone can have a chance to contribute to society? We don't want equality of income - it'll never happen. We need for people to feel personally responsible and then find their niche in society. I don't need a million bucks to be happy but some do and that's okay with me.
One of the scariest things that Obama and the left have fomented the last three years at warp speed is the psychological weakening of Americans. It's going to be hard to change the mind-set that government is there to take care of your every need. We've got way too many takers.
"result could be an extreme
"result could be an extreme right-wing monopoly on control of the federal government."
As opposed to the "extreme left-wing monopoly on control of the federal government." we had from 2009-2011 ?
I vote for FREEDOM, not just for myself, but for those that may make a few more bucks than I do. First, because I do not believe that I am more worthy of what they have earned than they are.
And secondly, some schmuck that earns a few bucks less than I do will be coming after me when they have sucked the evil "1%" dry.
spoken like a true "patriot", Madison
I don't know what I'm laughing harder at right now: Calypso's, "hijacked by the left," or your, "I vote for FREEDOM, not just for myself, but for those that may make a few more bucks than I do."
I guess those of us who make less had better watch our backs.
Thanks for the entertainment and happy holidays.
It's sentiments like these that keep me away from the TEA Party.
The "freedom" referred to seems only to apply to large multinational corporations, and those who want to be their cheerleaders and lackeys.
For the rest of us, I guess it means "jobs" and the ability to sweep up their crumbs, in a degraded environment where even getting a drink of clean water is becoming all but impossible for most of the world: All while we argue inanities, our fat donkeys sat behind our TV's and our computers; trembling with fear about terrorists, socialists, and desperately poor people in third world countries---From the aegis of the largest and most advanced military in the history of the world.
Question
If government control is a thing to be avoided, why is corporate control not the same? Corporation and businesses, as they grow in size, can influence elections and those placed in office by campaign donations and support given to candidates. As a result, government can become nothing but a tool of business. How then are the two tyrannies distinguished? Businesses and corporations have as their sole driver the accumulation of greater profit, and as a means to such, the accumulation of greater control and power over resources, markets, and opposing companies, regardless of environmental and human cost. How is it that so many vilify government control, yet seemingly rush headlong into corporate control, all the while screaming that it is "freedom"?
In 2009-2010, his partnership
In 2009-2010, his partnership with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a Democratic majority produced a jobs bill that rescued the nation from the economic abyss;
Are you insane?
And you are suggesting...
...McCain and Palin would have pulled us back from the brink??
If you think so, clearly you ARE insane!
Both likely wrong...
Fun to watch your debate Jeff and Latitude, but the most likely salvation from the brink would have been Hillary Clinton, with the expertise and uniting ability needed to pull it off.
@fromdustreturned: I wonder
@fromdustreturned: I wonder the same thing myself, and not just about corporatist control, but about all those "states' rights" advocates. Apparently Ron Paul thinks it's bad for federal government to oppress us (rightfully so), but he's okay with states passing oppressive laws. The only concern is in who is doing the oppressing; the focus should be on who is oppressed.
This can be applied to everything today from environmental regulations to bank bailouts to wars overseas. Few politicians seem concerned with who actually feels the effects of policy, but they all seem to REALLY care about how the policy fits in with their ideology. This is especially true of Republicans as of late, considering they've purged most of their more moderate party members and ideas.