Students of political history already know the story of the late Senator Ted Kennedy in 1979. Others like Mo'Kelly are old enough to simply remember it. For everyone else, it goes a little something like this. Democratic party discontent with President Jimmy Carter for all things ranging from the American gas crisis to the Iran hostages; reached its nadir when Senator Ted Kennedy decided to mount a Democratic challenge against the sitting president.
Proponents of the idea argued that the party needed a "stronger" candidate in the general election, regardless of the Republican competition. Opponents argued it would rip the party apart and send moderates and independents into the ballot box to vote Republican.
Ted Kennedy entering the fray splintered the Democratic party pure and simple and presented the public face that the party had lost all faith in its own president. It led to disastrous consequences.
Jimmy Carter held off Kennedy and then was summarily thrashed in the general election, losing to Ronald Reagan in one of the largest landslides in election history. Independents and moderates swung heavily for Reagan and Democratic turnout was comparatively low.
The term "Reagan Democrats" was given to the tangible and palpable disaffected and ultimately defected Democratic voters.
The political lesson supposedly learned on that day was the in-party dissension fractured the base and all-but-ensured a Republican victory.
In 2011, Republicans have been working night and day to make the historical connection between President Obama and President Carter; the cerebral, intelligent yet ineffective Democratic president of the 20th century. And just like the spineless Democrats they tend to be, they have been eating it up with extra helpings, rushing to repeat history and the same mistakes.
Is President Obama in trouble? Absolutely. Does his party have legitimate reason to voice a level of discontent in regards to how we've arrived at this point in history? Surely. But repeating the "Ted Kennedy" mistakes of 1979 only ensures that either Rick Perry or Mitt Romney easily waltzes into the Oval Office in a landslide manner.
What do I mean? Rumors are growing daily that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and others) are preparing to mount a Democratic primary challenge to the president. It would be fiasco 1980 all over again. The primary rejection of Ted Kennedy had largely to do with memories of Chappaquiddick still dancing in voters' heads and a reluctance to continue the Kennedy political monarchy. More importantly, it sent the message to America that the Democrats had lost all faith in the sitting president.
To suggest that there is a Democrat more "electable" than the sitting president of the United States is foolhardy on its best day, irrespective of party. You will always have a better chance of keeping the White House outright through re-election, than trading politicians from the same party.. If the president is not supported by his own party, Americans take notice. If Democrats put forth the idea that they need a new candidate, you can bet America will follow suit. In relation to Hillary Clinton, to surmise that independents and moderates will opt for a cabinet member of the very administration in which they by implication are rejecting is even more silly.
Al Gore lost in his 2000 bid to become president in large part due to a rejection of the idea of a Clinton continuation in the wake of Monica Lewinsky. If you thought it was hard to elect Barack Obama, how hard do you think it would be to elect Hillary Clinton on the heels of Barack Obama?
You can't criticize the foreign policy of the administration regarding Libya and in turn offer up the Secretary of State as a presidential alternative. That's simply silly. Democrats are going to have to ride the Obama train until the wheels fall off. But having the wheels fall off is distinctly different from unscrewing the lug nuts and pulling them off yourself.
Offering up Democratic primary challengers is self-sabotage of the worst order.
If Democrats wish to bite off their nose to spite their face and send a message to President Obama... feel free, knock yourself out. Just know that you will only be validating the comparisons to Jimmy Carter and ensuring that history accordingly follows the Carter narrative, complete with a landslide defeat.
If Democrats are unhappy with President Obama, just wait for "President Perry."
Despite the Republican talking points, 2012 is for the Democrats to lose. Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with an ill-conceived primary strategy and repeat Carter history.
Morris W. O'Kelly (Mo'Kelly) is a political correspondent for the BBC Radio and Television networks and author of the syndicated column The Mo'Kelly Report. For more Mo'Kelly, go to his site. Mo'Kelly can be reached at mrmokelly@gmail.com and welcomes all commentary.
Follow Morris W. O'Kelly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mrmokelly
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Progressives need to bite the bullet and set their sights on 2016 and back Obama for 2012 instead of sabotaging any chances we may have because, trust, we wouldn't have a lot of the accomplishments we attained thus far (health care reform, banking reform, gov't funding that absorbed a lot of the immediate chaos from this recession, etc.) By giving this election to the GOP on a silver platter, we'd be forfeiting what little progress we've made and giving up important opportunities like future supreme court nominations and building on our small victories.
Obama 2012 or bust.
To be clear, Obama can not do this alone. Although they missed the mark on some things, the Congress of 2008-2010 was superb and accomplished a lot. However, progressives did not turn out in 2010, and we lost a lot of our steam by losing the House majority. So, it's not just Obama...he needs a strong, liberal Congress, too. Therefore, instead of moaning about how Obama failed you, everyone needs to focus on preserving the recovery/progress we made (cuz you know if the next Pres is GOP, he will dismantle all of it throwing us further backwards) and building a liberal Congressional stronghold that will fight for what's right & needed even when the President plays to the center.
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=3032
Goodnight and good luck...
Obama has come across similarly much to the discontent of those of us who voted for him. I want my leaders to be strong... compromise where necessary but not capitulate at every turn with the oppostion. That is not leadership or governance. It is simply talk and no walk.
Myself.... I am of the opinion that if Obama can stick to the populist groove he rolled out yesterday, he will not invite a primary challenge. However, if he demonstrates more craven capitulation on the jobs, ss, medicare and tax issues that are important to the democratic base, then he may certainly invite someone with more gumption to decide to challenge him. I frankly don't see that as a bad thing.... either prove you have the fortitude to carry out your agenda or become a footnote in history as a 1 term president.
It's about weighing all of the alternatives and seeing them through to their logical conclusion. While I agree with you in regards to the shortcomings of President Obama, I'm not so sure I agree with you that a primary challenger will bring about the desired result ultimately you envision.
I don't necessarily agree that the republican automatically becomes the victor and I guess I could have been more clear on that point with my initial post.
I was a kid in my 3rd year of college when Kennedy mounted his challenge so I did not have a good appreciation for the baggage that he carried and how it would affect him nationally. Carter ran a fairly rutheless campaign against him and the dirt was thrown around pretty good. In the end, I think folks perceived Kennedy as morally flawed and his support only went so far after that. In the general election, people then saw Carter as weak and ineffective which caused the sea change turn to Reagan. Heck, up until that point, my parents were democrats but the voted for Reagan because Carter told them they had to much.
Today.... I do not see potential challengers to Obama as having the same amount or type of baggage as Kennedy did when he challeneged Carter. This is not to say that for example, Hillary is a shoe-in as she has her share of baggage. I just don't believe that it is the morally flawed baggage such as Kennedy had and that she could position an argument of effectiveness and leadership that would help her in a national election. That in my opinion is what makes for a different possible outcome over what you are proposing.
A couple of decisions I view as mistakes are not getting an agreement to raise the debt ceiling as part of the tax-cut extension deal, not consulting with Congress (as far as I know) before engaging in the Libya NATO operation, and getting involved in the Solyndra solar panel fiasco.
It is unfortunate that the Republican propaganda machine is so effective that it causes many to lose sight of Mr. Obama's many accomplishments (which you can easily find listed elsewhere).
It is in the nature of things to be disappointed in a political candidate, because most interest groups concern themselves with a small subset of the total array of issues with which a President must deal.
I will vote for Mr. Obama in 2012 because I like him and the job he is doing, despite his missteps, and because the alternative is awful to contemplate.
As for Hillary Clinton, I'd like to see her on the 2012 ticket.... in the VP slot.
-----------------------------------------------------
But these disaffected Democrats represented a trend already underway of the crumbling of the Solid South, which Carter had reversed being a Southern man.
Examine loss of South to Republicans in Presidential election (see link) for confirmation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
States Carter held 76, lost to Reagan 80:
Alabama, Arkansas,Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
Which of these states won by Nixon 72? All but Maryland.
Your sentiment may be right. Your prediction may be right. But your historical precedent? Not so great, is it? It wasn't Kennedy or Khomeini that did for Carter. It was rightist, good ole Christian whites drifting rightwards after a little flirtation with one of their own.
I'm not sure that Carter started the crumbling of the "Solid South" for the reasons that the passage of the Civil Rights Act under LBJ basically gave away the South to Republicans for the next 40 years, something LBJ even predicted.
Also, Reagan specifically campaigned on a states' rights/Southern Strategy. Meaning, Reagan specifically went after the South in ways beyond just having to do with the disappointment with Jimmy Carter, who happened to be a southern governor. There are respectfully more variables to the southern equation than just Jimmy Carter. Christian whites hadn't "drifted" right. They were already there.
Carter had the fortune of facing Gerald Ford, someone the country hadn't elected in 1976. A member of a disgraced previous administration. Let's be honest in the review of the popularity of Carter and why...
----------------------------------------------------------------
I did not say that. I merely pointed out he won by winning back above-listed States that Nixon had won. He then lost them to Reagan as Solid South reverted to its rightward drift only temporarily halted because they had one of their own (or so they thought) to vote for.