EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- 'Reprehensible, Reckless, Illegal': Washington Officials Slam Heroic NSA Surveillance Leaker
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democratic Party Needs a Democratic Primary Process
What a comedown!
In 2008 Barack Obama ran on hope and change. His reelection bid relies on fear (of Republicans) and stay-the-course (lest said Republicans slash even more Medicare than Obama is willing to give away).
Inspired yet?
Yeah, yeah, anything can happen in one year--the GOP could nominate Bob Dole again--but it's getting harder to imagine a scenario in which Obama wins reelection. The tsunami of bad economic news has become so relentless that last week's story that one out of six Americans have fallen below the poverty line came and went with nary a shrug. (On the bright side, we're just ahead of Indonesia. On the other side, Russia won the Cold War after all.)
Obama's threat to veto any debt bill that doesn't include taxes on the rich is supposed to signal a "new, more combative phase of his presidency, one likely to last until next year's election as he battles for a second term," as the New York Times puts it. But it's too nothing, too late.
Tax increases get rolled back; Medicaid cuts are forever.
Rick Perry thinks the earth is a week old and Mitt Romney wears pink underwear and Michele Bachmann has crazy eyes. Unless they fart into the camera on national television, however, any of the leading Republican candidates will likely trounce a president who did nothing while the labor force shrunk by at least six million.
OK, he did stimulate the Martha's Vineyard golf club economic sector.
On fifth thought, voters might overlook flatulence.
I had been wondering what accomplishments Team Obama planned to point to next year. Times editor Bill Keller helpfully lays it all out (I use the word "all" loosely) in an op/ed: "Lost in the shouting is the fact that Obama pulled the country back from the brink of depression; signed a health care reform law that expands coverage, preserves choice and creates a mechanism for controlling costs; engineered a fairly stringent financial regulatory reform; and authorized the risky mission that got Osama bin Laden."
Let's take these Democratic talking points like the trajectory of the U.S. empire: in reverse.
The trouble with assassinating Osama bin Laden is that once you've killed Osama bin Laden no one thinks about Osama bin Laden anymore. The Bushies understood this. Putting the Al Qaeda chief on trial would have been smarter politics (not to mention a sop to basic legal principles).
The new banking and securities regulations were too granular and timid for anyone to notice. Show me a president who bans ATM, overdraft and late credit-card fees, on the other hand, and I'll show you a shoo-in for reelection. Or sainthood.
I don't know what kind of health plan they offer on 8th & 42nd, but no one--not conservatives, not liberals, not anyone--likes what we know about Obama's healthcare reform. The Right thinks it's socialism. The Left wishes it were. What matters is that it doesn't matter--Obamacare doesn't going into effect until 2014. You can't ask for votes of gratitude for a law that no one has experienced--and that many suspect will be repealed by the GOP or overturned by the courts.
Then there's Keller's first assertion: "Obama pulled the country back from the brink of depression."
Um--Bill? Depression? We're soaking in it.
The real unemployment rate (the way the government calculated it during the 1930s) is over 24 percent. That matches the highest monthly rate during the Great Depression.
But this Depression is worse than the "Great" Depression. You could buy an apple for a nickel back then. Now there's high inflation too.
Not only are one out of four Americans out of work, the salaries of the employed are stagnant and getting eroded by soaring food and gas prices.
U.S. state-controlled media outlets like the Times are in the president's corner. But their "without Obama the economy would be even worse" narrative is reducing their man's chances next November. If there's anything worse than losing your job, it's a media that pretends you that you and your reality don't exist. There never was a recovery; the economy crashed with the dot-coms in 2000 and never came back, what they called a "stimulus" was nothing more than a giveaway to bank CEOs, and now tens of millions of pissed-off people are itching for a chance to make a noise.
This, as Keller should know from reading the polls in his own paper, is why the liberal-progressive base of the Democratic Party is drifting away from
Obama. They won't vote for Perry or whomever, they just won't vote.
Not since 1980 have the Democrats headed into a reelection campaign with such a weak incumbent president. Which prompts a question: Why is Obama running unopposed? A Democratic Party, it should go without saying, needs a democratic primary process.
A group of liberals led by former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader has issued a call for one or more progressive leaders to run against Obama in the spring primaries. "Without debates by challengers inside the Democratic Party's presidential primaries, the liberal/majoritarian agenda will be muted and ignored," Nader said in a press release. "The one-man Democratic primaries will be dull, repetitive, and draining of both voter enthusiasm and real bright lines between the two parties that excite voters."
It's a nice thought, though it would be impossible to raise enough money to successfully challenge Obama at this late stage.
So get ready for The Return of the Republicans. I'm no James Carville, but I've seen enough presidential politics to know that anger beats fear.
Especially during an Even Greater Depression.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
80 Comments so far
Show AllNo Ted, we don't need a "process," we need an alternative candidate.
One with both charisma and money. Below one of the responders says that "passion trumps money." I wish that were true, but modern politics runs through TV commercials and unless someone figures a way to compete on that heavily tilted playing field without corporate contributions, nobody but mainstreamers stands a chance.
-
No. What we CAN DO is blow up the playing field.
BOYCOTT cable TV. Cancel your subscription and/or just DON'T PAY for a 'bundled' 'Package' of Basic Cable political DONATION (to the 2-party hoax).
Because, see, when you pay your monthly cable TV money to the cable company, and they pay EVERY single CHANNEL in the 'bundled' 'Package' -- whether you watched it or NOT -- and that-and-those MainStream Media channels get the money (oh, say, a 100Million$ a month, a Billion Bucks a year, each 'Main' channel) then those main Corporate Channels GO ON Broadcasting LIES, giving away hate-talk airtime to FASCISM -- putting defeatism in Ted Rall's head and a lot o' peeps just like him (see this description of it as the tyranny doctrine for "Learned Helplessness": http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/22-6 ), and we go on in the post-WW II Imperial manner of the mega-complex CIA/FBI/NSA/DEA/DHS/TSA/ICE where there is NO DEMOCRACY in America nevermind the Democratic (ha!) Party.
And milking the cable TV Porn/News 'Package' cash cow, the Main Stream so-called 'media' get all our monthly money and they DON'T NEED NO stinking commercials. The money that political campaigns give to 'buy' TV ad time is merely extra icing on the cableTV cake. Democracy is choking on.
WE are PAYING for OUR own EXTINCTION of our democracy.
BOYCOTT cable TV. Cancel your subscription and/or just STOP PAYING.
The MSM has commited crimes against our humanity. PUNISH the MEDIA.
BOYCOTT cable TV. Don't pay 'em.
(Sure, that means the responsibility falls to each of us to make the sacrifice ... of watching TV on the internet, or broadcast 'free' ... or something. Don't wait for a Savior Candidate, and rather SOLVE our problem OURSELVES. Every ONE sacrifice a LITTLE bit. BOYCOTT cable TV. ... but no-o-o-o-o, that's too much sacrifice for self-righteous self-pompous Americans, not even a million could do it although that's all it might take to JOIN Together in BOYCOTT cable TV and BLOW UP the 'playing field.')
-
Killed the TV years ago. I still won't Netflix a Fox comedy; that might kick back royalties to Rupert Murdoch. That's why goddess invented public libraries, of course!
475 channels on Comcast but Free Speech TV and RT Tv Not allowed.
So much for Choice.
I don't have cable but watched an hour of Chris Matthews the other day - less than 2 min of real news - all the time spent on the 'horse race" of the repub presidential primary - disgusting, pathetic example of "news" that only America would allow.
Proving the need for a Fairness Doctrine or at least to enforce the damn Sherman Anti-Trust laws.
Justaman
Exactly. And if somehow a viable and genuine third party leftist candidate does appear on the horizon then we also need a media who will have the courage and common sense to cover the candidacy of that candidate. One can go back to the 2000 election to recall how the Democrats and the Republicans conspired with the corporate media to make sure that Ralph Nader was not going to be allowed to debate Bush and Gore despite the fact that he had a ticket in his hand which should have allowed him to participate in that debate.
It is simply disgraceful that the supposed best democracy in the world only allows basically two points of view to be heard every four years in this country while we have people like Ted Rall who apparently believe that the American people would be better off if they were to remain locked into this fascist way of thinking.
Good article Ted, but as usual it is tongue-in-cheek. We both know that the system is rigged to prevent real progressives from entering the fray. Ralph Nader couldn't even get on the ballot in the last election in 13 States. Democracy my ass! Chris Hedges' article with Rev. Wright said it all yesterday when the reverend said... "President Obama was selected before he was elected” and as more and more people realize this, the less likely they'll even bother to vote next time to the delight of corporate America.
The Democrats had debates before Obama got elected and it accomplished nothing as Obama simply dumped his base once elected. The debates are a circus show as there is no debate. With its rigid rules, the "debate" is just an opportunity for candidates to take softball questions and deliver planned speeches without anyone contesting misstatements and lies without challenge. Democrat leadership goes along with "non-chosen" candidates being trivialized and not even allowed to participate in all the debates. And all those Democrats that participate, are under the influence of the political funding of the Democratic party. The Democrats and Republicans have rigged the election process with rules and legal attacks on independents and Corporate media has assisted. Vote third party.
"it would be impossible to raise enough money to successfully challenge Obama at this late stage."
IMHO, Ted has drunk the dis-empowering hype spewed endlessly by the msm and or the political establishment.
Passion trumps money every time.
Devoted, hard-working volunteers can trump bought-and-paid-for consultants and telemarketers any day.
It's time we stop the self-fulfilling prophecy of our own defeat.
People are profoundly disturbed by recent events in our country. They are desperately looking for an alternative.
We need to pool our imagination, creativity and passion for justice into an effective strategy of liberation.
We will never match their money. But our ideas reflect the hopes and dreams of the people. Theirs are garbage. Garbage that clearly leads to war, enslavement (ours,) and the destruction of the environment. Despite their truck loads of cash, they should be running scared. Not us.
I think it's less a matter of drinking the disempowering hype and more a matter of articulating a brutal truth. Without lots of media exposure, it's impossible to field a national candidate. This can change, but only over the course of several years' worth of laborious organizing. This is precisely why . . .
"People are profoundly disturbed by recent events in our country. They are desperately looking for an alternative."
. . . the media have, and are relentlessly hawking, a prefabbed "alternative" for the disaffected. It's called the Tea Party.
Nice sentiments, but there can't be any "effective strategy of liberation" unless there is a very visible and powerful leader behind whom progressives and leftists can pool their energies and imaginations. That's just an unfortunate reality of politics. Many like to say these days that we don't need any leaders, that we're all leaders, etc., but that's anarcho-romantic nonsense. Show me how a strategy of liberation is going to get elected to the presidency.
Someone has mentioned Barbara Lee. She won't run, and if she did she'd get no further than McKinney did. And I voted for McKinney. I don't know anyone else who did, or even had heard of her. No leaders, no money, no media attention=no electoral chances of any kind. Truckloads of cash will beat unfunded ideas every time, no matter how much those ideas reflect the hopes and dreams of the people. That's the money-driven system we're stuck in.
At this point, unless someone comes along to challenge Obama in the primaries, I'm probably not voting next year. Certainly not for Obysmal, and unless I go totally insane, not for any Repug. Probably some unknown will be on the ballot, from the Greens or whatever. 99% of liberals and progressives will have never heard of him or her, and won't even see the name on the ballot. I'll throw away another vote on that guy, as always. And we'll end up with either 4 more years of the present asshole, or another round with the Republican medievalists.
This idiotic cycle will never end if no one ever manages to challenge the duopoly electorally. Not that that's the ONLY way to do it. Extra-electoral organizing is far more important, but none of that is happening either.
"Extra-electoral organizing is far more important, but none of that is happening either."
I'm 100% in agreement with this Ephraim.
Iowapink - how is saying that a primary challenge probably cannot happen because of the money required to work within the Democratic party the same thing as saying that there are no other alternatives? Not only is Rall not saying that here, it is easy enough to discover that he does not believe or promote that idea.
Also, the corporate media, the Republicans, and even many Democrats have liberated any actually left-of-center Democratic challenger to Barry from harboring justifiable fears of being labeled a "socialist" or "Marxist." The listed groups will label anyone to the left of George W. Bush as a socialist or Marxist, so there is really no downside to strongly advocating for socialistic policies that will benefit the little people. A candidate could gain popular support through the substance of the policies offered and ignore the overdone accusations that have lost their edge, having been used far too often through the years.
Remember Eugene McCarthy? Futile though his campaign was, he was a living breathing symbol of American integrity, a trait, now absent, from the present political scene. Indeed he and McGovern are now subjects of ridicule, but history will be good to them, just as it will be good to any politician today willing to step out and say no to the forces of reaction.
g
The purpose and effect of the McCarthy campaign was to co-opt and dilute the growing anti-war movement. It was presented as such at the time - "to bring people in off of the streets and back into the system."
Stop bemoaning these 2 parties and their candidates and create the alternatives!
If the dems were actually interested in pushing the debate to the Left they would push for Instant Runoff Voting -
But instead you have Obama doing everything possible to Decrease turnout which empowers the Rightwingers and their corporate masters. I believe All According to the Plan.
Instant Runoff Voting would basically allow coalitions of different Progressive parties to increase passion and turnout But not take votes away from the dem party.
It's a Win-Win for the dems But would decrease Corporate influence so of course the dems fight against it instead of embracing it.
Proving that the dems are simply one side w/ the rethugs on the other side of the same crooked coin.
Hope = not having to Act
Believe = not having to Think
"Instant Runoff Voting would [be] a Win-Win for the dems"
I don't agree. With the threat of "spoiling" the election gone, over time more and more traditional democrats would cast their first preference for a real progressive party, and would vote for the Democrats only as their fall-back, second choice. Over time, Democrats would either be relegated to third party, or be forced to govern in a way consistent with popular aspirations. Sorry, can't have that. The power elite will never tolerate IRV.
Ted Rall, it's time to retire to Florida. Anyone peddling our one party, with two right wings, is not worth arguing with.
How anyone can think that Rall is "peddling our one party, with two right wings" is beyond understanding. Writing about "our one party, with two right wings" is not the same as "peddling" it.
"Putting the Al Qaeda chief on trial would have been smarter politics"
What is Rall smoking?
Why would any US politician in his right mind EVER open a can of worms when they can simply burry it?
It's interesting that Rall's piece is itself obviously intended to make us afraid of doing anything BUT support Obama.
Two lines say it all:
"It's a nice thought, though it would be impossible to raise enough money to successfully challenge Obama at this late stage."
So get ready for The Return of the Republicans."
Fear mongering indeed.
After reading your comment, I re-read Rall's piece. How is Rall's piece "obviously intended to make us afraid of doing anything BUT support Obama"????
Rall points out that it's too late to raise enough money to run a successful challenge to Obama, and then points out that since there is no reason to vote for Obama, probably a Republican will be elected.
Many of us are more afraid of an Obama second term than of a Republican victory, because at least maybe we'd see some real opposition to Republican policies being passed by actual Republicans. I'm sick of seeing Obama pass Republican policies with hardly a murmur of dissent.
As a further plus, if Ron Paul were to get elected (which will happen only if we vote for him in the Repub primary), he would bring all U.S. troops home from everywhere, including the Middle East. So we would have misery + peace, instead of misery + war, which is what we get with Obama and the rest of the Repubs.
"Many of us are more afraid of an Obama second term than of a Republican victory"
But you (and I) are certainly not the norm -- and not the audience that Rall is writing for.
I can only see two possible reasons that Rall might have written what he did (I don't believe he is simply stating an observation. What would be the point of even writing such an article?)
1) he hopes that it will actually induce Obama to DO something for his base between now and the election (Don't ask me why, but many commentators on the left ARE actually under the delusion that what they write has an influence on the President)
OR
2) he is doing what i suggested above.
I dimiss #1 because Rall strikes me as astute enough to realize that it is exceedingly unlikely that Obama could actually accomplish anything significant at this late date.
As far as Ron Paul, he lost any chance with me when he effectively said "F U" to people who need expensive lifesaving medical procedures but who have no health insurance. Paul is a callus a**hole as far as i am concerned. .
Or perhaps he merely wrote what he actually wrote, and has no secret hidden agenda that fits into the "it's the duopoly!!!" melodrama going on in so many people's fervent imaginations?
Rall's political stances are well-known and not in any way hidden or obscure.
I once again suggest that progressives show love and support to Barbara Lee (D-CA).
She should be drafted by the people to run against Obama.
She was the only person brave enough to vote against Public Law 107-40 (which started the insane and DAFT war to prevent future terrorism forever and ever, amen).
It boggles my mind that Progressives allow her to go unrewarded for her bravery. When all the rest of the Congress was in lock-step with Bush/Cheney, signing away our hard-won civil rights and liberties, she alone stood against the lynch mob. She is the only person who can be a bona fide Peace candidate.
Why is she ignored? Because she represents Oakland, CA?
Unless you are already willing to concede that Obama is the Democratic candidate, I suggest that you support Ms. Lee.
I'd be delighted to support Barbara Lee (see my comment in the article about Troy Davis).
Has she made any statements on the subject? Is she willing to run? She would be the perfect candidate to primary Obama.
Barbara Lee wouldn't even cross Nancy Pelosi when the two of them held a "town hall" in Oakland a few weeks ago . . . which of course was no more than an exercise in authoritarian "consensus-building."
Too bad most of the D's in congress are just as bad as Obama. 45 of the D Senators are indistinguishable from Republicans and the House is almost as bad. Face it that party needs a total overhaul.
Why is Obama running unopposed?
Because he's a republican, just like all the other top hogs in the democrat party. I think you know that Ted, you're just trolling.
Sigh.
Don't people read anymore?
If writing the only mass-market book explicitly calling for the immediate overthrow of the US government doesn't make my politics clear, I don't know what to say.
Obviously I am done with the Democrats and have stated that over and over and over for years. In fact, this piece is just another way of saying that. The system is rotten and unreformable and must be replaced.
This week's column is a bit of political analysis, not an endorsement of the do-nothing Dems.
Welcome, Ted (if I may), and
"Don't people read anymore?"
I imagine you already know the answer to that . . .
It is a little depressing that so many here apparently did not actually read your article, or were unable to comprehend it.
Thanks for the excellent analysis here and keep up the good work.
Not sure how often you read CD, but there are alot of "head in the sand" liberals here...if you don't say exactly what they want to hear, you're bad, bad. Perhaps you should take a cue from muslims, in how they must say "praise allah" everytime they mention Muhammad (or something like that). Everytime you use the word "democrat" or "Obama" end that sentence with "down with dems, obama, and the fake one party system".
In all fairness, there are some of us who comment without reading. For better or worse, I do it myself, although I try to limit such behavior to those authors who repeatedly hawk a defective worldview (Robert Reich, for instance). With Rall I don't think that's fair; it's a rare occasion indeed when he doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's also the case that most of us are more than convinced of our essential powerlessness in a world of gigantic and corrupt forces; most of us also too subjectified to want to sacrifice our lives to a losing cause, however noble. This leaves us with the ability to generate a lot of highly informed commentary -- and highly informed impotence as well. Blogs tend to serve less as coordinators of action than as venues for blowing off steam.
It happens often times. Selective quoting, cherry picking data, and spinning words out of context are bad habit practiced even among the best of progressives. I always read the article in full and make it clear on what portions of the article I am having issues. At least no one can attack me as "discrediting the author". By the way, I think you might wanna look back at the discussion on 9/11 and let us know what you thought of the 500+ comments there in your next article on 9/11 or foreign policy related. Thanks.
Hello Mr. Rall,
I very much appreciated your analysis. I agree that Obama has little chance of reelection. On average, no president running for reelection won when his approval rating was less than 50% 15 months out. O's is currently 43%. Even in California it's only 46%. With the further cuts to the gov't spending, the economy will only go further down. I think Obama is toast. But given this prognosis, why do you think it's not possible to successfully challenge Obama in a primary? Not the faux 6 member panel but someone like, hell, Rachel Maddow? I'd rather go down trying to get Obama outta there than just wait for the collapse of the country.
The system isn't set up to allow last-second challenges. A serious primary challenger would have begun fundraising at least two--more like four--years ago.
More to the point, I don't think leftists should look at the elections as something to get involved in. At this point anyone serious should be working toward revolution.
thanks for this.
couldn't agree more...
You do know that I was kidding about your using this article to troll us, eh? (if of course you really are Ted Rall, and not someone who's playing him on the intertubes.)
I agree that time is not on our side, but I do think it is within the realm of possibility (although a tough challenge) if the Democratic Party could identify and convince a real firebrand to go after Obama. If Obama runs unchallenged, it will simply validate the prevailing perception that we really only have one political party. To think otherwise is self-deception on a grand scale.
I find it rather amusing how all it takes for the "progressives" in the news media to see Obama as the new Messiah, is that it be based on just one more empty speech well delivered. They really do serve their corporate masters exceedlingly well, don't they?.
Obama is far from toast. Much of this depends on the candidate the GOP forwards. If it's a kook--and the odds favor that--Obama is going to win. If it's someone who can slip in like Bush did with somewhat civilized rhetoric, then Obama might be in trouble.
Obviously much of this depends on who the Masters want signing their memos and carrying their water. They know full well only a Democrat can achieve the gutting of the last shreds of the social contract. On the other hand, they also know that GOP domination means they get everything else without the public poisturing that Dems have to do for their base.
I think it comes down to whether or not Obama is seen as being able to make deep inroads into the destruction of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid as to whether or not he gets reelected. If he can't, expect a Republican. If he can, 4 more years, baby.
I suspect Obama does get reelected after a Herculean effort by liberal press to frighten their voters (which we will see here, too), but the GOP will take Congress. A perfect scenario for power.
boy now that's cynical. Next time don't forget the quotes around "liberal press"
no need for the quotes...I'm not referring to corporate media but to actual liberal press outlets. Like this one, for example.
it is cynical, and honestly, every time I think I hit cynical bottom, I discover I haven't gotten cynical enough.
my analysis probably mirrors a ton of what several public policy analysts would also say. It's not an especially controversial position.
I agree with this. I have stated before that if the PTB choose Perry or Bachmann as the Republican nominee, that means they have agreed to another four years for Barry, for basically the same reasons as stated above.
Obama has so blatantly abused his base, I came to the conclusion that he must want the Democrats to fail and his party seems to have the same death wish. The Democrats could have been elevated to a position of national heroes had they stuck to even a modicum of Obama's campaign promises. Instead, they not only enabled a frighteningly rabid, fascist right wing, they paved the road for their mid-term majority. Obama and his minions have snubbed us, called us names, suggested we undergo drug testing, thrown our best and brightest under the bus, and now they're handing the presidency to a party that was in the toilet just a couple of years ago. This is a party bent on losing. Weird.
Obama's playing Chess! By destroying the democratic base and the party he'll turn the country over to the Teabagger nutjobs who will destroy the last Social Safety net programs leading to massive unrest and wa-la Revolution and a New American progressive movement!
See Obama is 12 steps ahead of the dem detractors! (sarcasm off)
Don't limit yourself by saying something is impossible.
A primary challenger is a must for this non performing president. Never underestimate the American people. If you offer them a viable alternative to the dull, grey misery that 8 years of Bush and 3 years of Obama have made of their once promising lives, they'll be there. Mobilize and they'll come.
Votes get people elected, not money.
Ted Rall, the man who gave us that miserable article upholding the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 (yes, the one formulated by the Bush junta), a revolutionary? Yeah, that'll be the day.
So when you read "The Anti-American Manifesto," what did you like/dislike? Oh, right, you didn't. So STFU.