what are barack obama's flaws?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

serious question

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

arrogance

elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

i was looking at these synopses of all the right wing anti-clinton books & thinking damn i actually agree with all the personal clinton armchair psychology stuff - dishonesty, lack of principle, general cowardice. at the time (i was like 10) i didnt believe that shit, just thought it was partisan & desperate - basically true i guess - but switched my understanding of clinton up after i read the shitty hitchens book, and now after the the obama stuff in the primaries most liberals agree with right-wing/national review types about this shit. so when obama becomes president are there any character flaws we'll look back on in 10-15 years and think man the republicans were actually right about that? is this genuinely different?

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

too handsome

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

Scary name.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

faith in his friends

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not that I give a shit, but a 'flaw' in terms of some people think it's a reason to be suspicious of him.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

too black, too strong.

jim, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

^ beat me to it

sleep, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

ok oily but we arent going to look back in 10 years and be like this guy was actually only okay. if only his name was jim scott. the point of this thread isn't "why won't racist people vote for him"

J0rdan S., Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

you guys are missing the point

J0rdan S., Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha rly

sleep, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

poor bowling form

sleep, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

overconfidence in the electorate's willingness to assume civic responsibility

elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

probably has a clogged pore or two

dan m, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

In that case, all this 'bipartisanship' talk makes me worry he'll let the plutocrats walk all over him in the name of unity. It's too early to tell, of course. The problem is, I'm guilty of being a little star struck by the dude and his speeches and advisors and stuff, so I'm probably missing important defects. So maybe that's a flaw, too.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

too cool

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, basically

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Born in the wrong country at the wrong time.

Both Hillary and McCain would be "good" Presidents, especially in comparison to the current Commander-In-Chief, but neither of them are in the same league as Obama.

Oh yeah, he's also an elitist, as the children of single moms tend to be.

j-rock, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Wife seems like a dick.

paulhw, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Better writer than every single last one of his critics and most of his supporters.

Dave Matthews endorsement.

Trick move in pickup b-ball is to fake to the right, plow in hard to the left. No symbolism there at all.

suzy, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

i actually wish people would take this thread seriously; i didnt realize it wasnt about electability & i think the answer is probably the same either way (we dont know yet), but even tho im behind the guy 100% & have been for months my gut says myself & probably a lot of people here are gonna be dissatisfied with him 4-8 years down the road. a discussion of concrete reasons why this might be so seems worthwhile to me

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

foreign policy naivete. biggest thing that worries me about him by far. if he gets elected, pulls us out of iraq, closes gitmo, and restores civil liberties to their pre-9/11 status, and then ta-da something actually blows up, how many times is he going to say "uh um" during the press conference in which he capitulates to the chickenhawks in both parties screaming for his head

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

thank u deeznuts i am serious about like actual clintonesque character defects not more empty lolz how everybody except us is superficial & racist

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

what elmo and tom said, basically--the dude comes across as too trusting in america's ability to be smart about shit

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

not good at speaking for 10 second clips on the 6 o clock news

Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

hard to say but i think he believes his own hype at this point

messiah complex (likely to evolve into martyr complex)

elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah what max/tombot/elmo said fourthed.

Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

might not be able to tame congress and end up like Clinton in 1994

Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also a bit of what deez said - I'm worried he's setting himself up to disappoint everyone.

Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

has convinved people like me to be largely uninterested in this question

gabbneb, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

He has a bit of this tendency to come off like "I fully understand this problem because I've read many essays about it." Which makes me like him and wince at the same time.

Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

if he gets elected, pulls us out of iraq, closes gitmo, and restores civil liberties to their pre-9/11 status, and then ta-da something actually blows up, how many times is he going to say "uh um" during the press conference in which he capitulates to the chickenhawks in both parties screaming for his head

It's hard to see how staying in Iraq is helping to prevent domestic terrorism. Even McCain wants to close Gitmo. I doubt civil liberties will go all the way back to pre-9/11 status, and not sure if Obama is even suggesting that they should

o. nate, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

has convinved people like me to be largely uninterested in this question

-- gabbneb, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:55 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

shock of shocks

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

what elmo and tom said, basically--the dude comes across as too trusting in america's ability to be smart about shit

-- max, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:48 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i really want to believe this is true, but it sounds the kind of bs that be lipped by his supporters - his flaw is that he's TOO right about everything? ill take that.

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

foreign policy naivete. biggest thing that worries me about him by far. if he gets elected, pulls us out of iraq, closes gitmo, and restores civil liberties to their pre-9/11 status, and then ta-da something actually blows up, how many times is he going to say "uh um" during the press conference in which he capitulates to the chickenhawks in both parties screaming for his head

-- El Tomboto, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:45 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

this is more lol gwb put u in a jackpot sry!

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

i am really curious as to what hes gonna do w/the gitmo dudes who we have evidence against thats inadmissible due to torture tho

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

i wonder about his ability/willingness to get his hands dirty and wrestle things to the ground. saying you're willing to talk to iran/hamas/whoever is all well and good, but if you go into those situations you have to go in saying, "here's the deal: you can get this and this, you can't get this and this, and we're going to have to fight about this and this -- but if the fight goes on too long, you get nothing." the bushies have been terrible at that stuff, so it's not like the bar is set particularly high, but it would be nice to have someone who can actually get some things done. (wouldn't have to be him personally, but he'd need some hardball players around who knew how to do that.) (same applies in dealing with congress, obviously.)

tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

deex -- i didn't say he's overly correct, but i think he may be presumptuous that America will be eager or grateful about implementing the changes he wants

elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

also I am dead serious that his uh um uh tic that he has when you can tell he's thinking on his feet is really not reassuring at all

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

he actually comes across as a guy who would be an absolute expert at that kind of stuff to me tipsy

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

yah he def should cut that out xp

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

nodding slowly and looking thoughtful is the way to go

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

his uh um uh tic that he has when you can tell he's thinking on his feet

this doesn't bother me so much -- it's campaign season and he has to be excruciatingly calculating about his diction. when he speaks off the cuff he gets in trouble, but really only because he running for office

elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

or alternatively quit being so optimistic about your fellow humans that you keep getting surprised by shit, like Wright dropping an atom bomb on you on national television

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp Still, I think Hillary is a better extemporaneous speaker.

jaymc, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

his almost musical hand-gesture of 'conducting' a discussion / 'putting a fine point' on an argument

it's like the new bubba remote

elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't think Tom's point is that Obama is going to cause terrorism to happen, just that when it does he's going to look bad.

Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

you guys all seem to think obama waaaaaaaaay less pragmatic than i do, i guess

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

I actually HOPE he's more cynical and pragmatic than I'm giving him credit for.

Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

eh tom did begin his post w/"foreign policy naivete." soo...

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't think Tom's point is that Obama is going to cause terrorism to happen, just that when it does he's going to look bad.

-- Hurting 2, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:18 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

isnt this precisely cuz its easy to paint him as a pussy/pushover, which you guys all seem to be buying into?? i think hes far from either of those things. and i dont mean to draw this into electability issues, just that im more interested in what might be lurking behind the 'optimist' facade

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

i mean, this guy is naive?? he comes across as a freaking borderline genius to me

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Bush adminstration has done so much to restore if not empower the executive branch that I doubt President McCain, Clinton, or Obama would be so eager to rescind those powers -- why would you?

I wish he was an atheist -- with his oratorical skills he could do lots for the millions of us who want to hear a convincing defense of godlessness put to theists. And yet, and yet, I suspect he IS less of a god-fearing man than he pretends. Something about his preternatural coolness bespeaks a kind of deism.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

might not be able to tame congress and end up like Clinton in 1994

Can't see that happening. He's got too many friends there already on both sides. Senators apparently luv the dude.

xp Still, I think Hillary is a better extemporaneous speaker.

unless you ask her about bill's position on nafta and she goes into that uncomfortable cackle that's soooo painful to watch.

kenan, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

just a little armchair psychoanalysis, let's all be cool

elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

its funny how everyone buys the optimist/naivety package - its a symptom of dumb cynicism - those two really dont have to come together

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

in fact i bet that obama is closer to the optimist/cynic model

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

its funny how everyone buys the optimist/naivety package

^^^. The right wing has been all "SEE? SEE? AUDACITY OF HOPE MY ASS!" the last couple of weeks; they've accepted the narrative that Obama is a New Kind of Politician. To me he's "new" only in that he understands the importance of words and is uncommonly quick-witted.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah i dunno if thats directed at me or not but i agree -- im not saying i dont believe the guy isnt genuinely optimistic, but i def dont believe he's remotely naive, like not even remotely remotely xps to jhoshea

deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

not directed at u in the slightest deez

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

paranoid/optimist ^^^ lol

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

More on Obama & civil liberties: he voted to make permanent all but two of the PATRIOT act provisions that had been originally passed with an expiration date - so not exactly a wide-eyed innocent on that front.

o. nate, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

i mean, this guy is naive?? he comes across as a freaking borderline genius to me

Early on I thought he came off as naive when he said that having lived abroad was a foreign policy credential. Like not only naive for thinking that (which he might not have, really), but naive for thinking it sounded good.

Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

i really don't think disappointments with an obama presidency will be with character flaws per se.

something that occasionally makes me uneasy about his campaign rhetoric is that he'll elide the differences between kinds of identity, most problematically ethnic and economic identities. being Latino isn't really like being rich even though there's a fair degree of mystification cast over class as culture in this country. i don't really know where i'm going with this; it fits his overall message well to talk about the poor/rich divide as bridgeable, but that's a divide that economic policy should be targeted at eliminating or at least bringing closer, it's not like the problem is, oh if only poor people and rich people could just sit down over coffee and talk.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

which i'm sure he knows and in part he's hemmed in by the landmine that is talking about class in America.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh if only poor people and rich people could just sit down over coffee and talk.

-- horseshoe, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:48 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3448/l10342545qc8.jpg

Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

(ahem, not that I've seen it.)

Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

isn't the deal with character flaws you see powerfully ten years after that they're the things you saw as VIRTUES at the time

no one's going to be lookin back at president two-term obama and sayin "yes how did i not see he was naive?" -- what will piss you off abt him will be a quality you were pleased abt back when you voted for him

mark s, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

he will beat me in basketball and steal my girlfriend

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

maybe but i was really (maybe willfully?) blind to the bill clinton is untrustworthy thing in the 90s. i can see how it was the flipside of his charm in retrospect, i guess.

xpost

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

edwards was better at talking about class that obama, as i remember, but i also think its "easier" to talk about class as a white guy than it is as a black guy

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

and the flip side of that was that edwards was no good at talking about race.

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

uh, whatever that would mean, i guess

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wish he was an atheist -- with his oratorical skills he could do lots for the millions of us who want to hear a convincing defense of godlessness put to theists. And yet, and yet, I suspect he IS less of a god-fearing man than he pretends. Something about his preternatural coolness bespeaks a kind of deism.

I kind of like to think that Barack Obama's reasonable optimism is engendering a sort of secular spirituality in the country.

Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

it pretty funny fighting bill clinton and being all ooooh yah ok now i see why he got under yr skin so bad

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

i really want obama to give a truth bomb class speech like he did with race. lol campaign fan fiction.

xposts

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

also easier to 'talk about class' when you're never gonna be Prez and just want to influence the debate

gabbneb, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

at the time (i was like 10) i didnt believe that shit, just thought it was partisan & desperate

Nobody's gonna call bullshit on a 10 year-old and what studying up on the Clintons?

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

hes never going to be able to give a speech about class with that kind of credibility after the "bitter" thing

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think edwards wanted to be prez xxp

deej, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

I didn't say he didn't want to be prez

gabbneb, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

No results found for "obama edwards slash fiction".

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

also easier to 'talk about class' when you're never gonna be Prez and just want to influence the debate

-- gabbneb, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:00 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

yeah, i think that's basically right.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

hes never going to be able to give a speech about class with that kind of credibility after the "bitter" thing

-- max, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:01 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

okay, in my imaginary fan fic scenario, an in-depth justification of the "bitter" thing would be the pretext for the entire speech! OMG AMAZING, RIGHT? but yeah, whatevs. i love him.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

He worked his way up the ankles to Jim's knees, and then his thighs. As Edwards's hands continued up Obama's body to his torso, they traveled lightly over Obama's full rear end. Edwards's blood quickened at his first touch of such an interesting area of flesh.

He lathered up Obama's stomach and carefully rubbed the soap over the other man's front. "I am pleased that your chest is once again free of hair," Edwards remarked. Then he ran his foamy hands over Obama's pecs, grazing both nipples at once.

"Mm," Obama grunted in answer. More of his penis went turgid. Edwards continued to clean him as if he hadn't noticed, moving soap all around Obama's back without missing an inch of skin.

Edwards returned to the floor and gathered more soap into his hand. Now he ran his curious, searching fingers against Obama's inner thighs, exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

this ad kicks the gas tax freebie's ass

http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/30/obama-responds-to-clinton-in-new-north-carolina-indiana-ad/

gabbneb, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

turgid

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

at the time (i was like 10) i didnt believe that shit, just thought it was partisan & desperate

Nobody's gonna call bullshit on a 10 year-old and what studying up on the Clintons?

-- jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:00 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

my thesis on bill clinton in 96 was that i was happy there was a cool democrat in the white house instead of a creepy old republican and he liked jazz and made jokes and seemed smart and my mom liked him

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

i didnt know the word 'partisan' then but i do remember thinking all the armchair psychology was jealous haterz not serious analysis

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha lil guy otm

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

thats the thing is, i dunno if it was just stopped clock/twice a day shit or if idiots like jonah goldberg actually managed to see the truth about bill clinton and liberals were blinded by triumphalism

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Nobody's gonna call bullshit on a 10 year-old and what studying up on the Clintons?

ethan gets a pass because he has well-formed opinions about records and a job in a muppet museum. it's when folks like suzy talk about being smarter and ballsier than average that makes people upset

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh man xposted to death again

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

wtf about my post made ppl think i was making serious policy & character judgments at age 10???? ive been pretty clear on ilx that ive only soured on the clintons in the last 7-8 years

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol tom what made today defend-suzy day?

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

and before you answer read these two sentences:

Edwards returned to the floor and gathered more soap into his hand. Now he ran his curious, searching fingers against Obama's inner thighs, exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

anyway if I had to pick something that's a virtue of the guy that we're going to regret two terms from now it's that he has too much faith in people which is what this whole thread has been about the end

max: people being really boring about hating suzy and gabbneb. it'll be like one tiresome post that breaks the camel's back with stuff like that on ILX and then I just go off. you know this

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

it reached the TIPPING POINT

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

ive defended gabbneb a lot, and suzy is surprisingly inclusive with her class-hatreds, but generally suzy/gabbneb zings still make me lmao

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

peak zing

dan m, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

my thesis on bill clinton in 96

You were 13 in '96.

jaymc, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

i'm surprised that everyone's saying clinton's flaw was "untrustworthiness" - he was a dlc democrat for years and that's exactly what we got; i think he actually tried to follow through on pretty much everything he said he would

to me his tragic flaw was his charm - he could charm the pants off anyone, and it brought his world down around his ears

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

I followed the '84 race when I was 8 </gabbneb>

gabbneb, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

those things are the same thing!

xpost to tracer hand

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

liberals were blinded by triumphalism

Did liberals believe Clinton then? Most of'em were warily happy there was a Democrat in the WH.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

untrustworthiness and charm are the same thing??

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

gabbneb is a gr8 poster

deej, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

xpost

i can see how they'd be part of the same package for sure

btw the classic politician's answer to this question, which most of you have already made, is "sometimes i'm just too honest"

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

suzy is surprisingly inclusive with her class-hatreds

lol

Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

charm at its logical endpoint is about misleading, i think!

xposts

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

I followed the '84 race when I was 8 </gabbneb>

I have a hazy memory of announcing to my first-grade teacher I was a Mondale fan, but I have no idea why: probably just picked up bits of conversation from my parents.

jaymc, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

I was the only Mondale fan in my elementary school, and I did it just to be contrarian (and Reagan creeped me out even then).

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

back in '92 before the election some friends and i walked around the playground chanting "clin-ton."

deej, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Friends With Money is good

Surmounter, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha i remember seein pictures on the news of the available candidates (= nixon, humphrey, wallace) and thinkin THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME ie UGLY, i shall vote for NONE OF THEM

i was 8 and my policy analysis stands

mark s, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

I was one of three kids (out of 25 or 30) in my 5th-grade class who voted for Dukakis in a mock election. I was also the only white kid who did so.

jaymc, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

the Hitchens book ethan mentioned has a fairly detailed indictment of Clinton's war on welfare, if you get past the author's breathless rhetoric.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah if he would chill with how clinton is the worst man in history who violently rapes every woman in sight its actually a substantive policy critique from the left

and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

i was pro-clinton in 2nd grade because my parents told me to be so

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

and im pro-obama now because my college tells me to be so

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

if im lucky i wont ever have to make a decision in my life

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

i voted bush in my fourth grade mock election because my dad voted republican. ;_;

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

i would have been mean to you as i was instructed to be mean to bush supporters by my parents

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't even have been alive! it was bush v. dukakis.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

:( i would have been 3

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, elementary-school mock elections are just a handy way for teachers to assay the political opinions of their students' parents.

jaymc, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

challenging opinions

gabbneb, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

I remember a surprising amount of support for Perot in 9th grade, though.

jaymc, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

i voted for dole as a joke ;)

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

good joke dude

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

i vote for dole pineapples

deej, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

i felt bad for him like when he fell and his shriveled up arm that he got from war heroism

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

are you going to send a sympathy vote to john mccain? i guess he hasn't fallen yet.

deej, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

if he falls then maybe - hes way less pitiful than dole - but most people are

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

arm not working at all > arm not working above shoulder

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.
exploring the contours and lines there which were uniquely Obama's.

John Justen, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

i liked carter in 80 cuz of georgia, root for the home boy (80 was a big year for georgia in general) and also cuz the only ronald i knew was ronald mcdonald and who in the world would vote ronald mcdonald for president. i was SHOCKED when he won.

balls, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

jj ty for bringing this thread back to the real issues

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

mcdonald/grimace 08

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

i argued for carter in my 6th-grade presidential debate in 1980. i was 11. i have no idea what i said, but i remember being pwned by the girl who was repping for john anderson (brainy cute girl named dee-dee, with big glasses; i had a secret crush on her). i remember her going off about "now we've got these gas prices and hostages everywhere!"

tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

wow you grew up in a doonesbury strip

max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

my brother supported Bush when he was 4 because he liked shrubbery

Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

xpost it felt more like peanuts.

tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

tipsy you could have killed her on "these gas prices everywhere" -- anderson was proposing a 50¢ per gallon gas tax

mark s, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol curtis is that true

jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

now i feel like i let jimmy down.

tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 23:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

LOL at 'job in muppet museum'; people who spend any time hating on me clearly need other occupations besides this - I spend zero time on hating you. Really. Also it's just American ickleboys of a certain vintage, nobody else gives a shit.

Pragmatism over Obama should probably rule the day. I've gotta say I've got major empathy for a single-parent/child of divorce guy who worked his arse off for scholarships; remember 'bittergate' (agh) was friendly fire from an On the Bus person and perhaps rich schmucks really threatened by such a possibility for dialogue on class, so put the boot in, at least once this broke. I would not be at all surprised, they like the general public to stay stupid and obsess over trivialities.

Can remember supporting Carter when I was eight; neighbour kid wrote to him with pointers for dealing with getting bullied by GOP and wangled invite to the inauguration (same kid is now radical left minister). HATED Reagan because by this time a) political grandmother went all Body Snatchers/ 'that broken down cowboy actor' whenever he was on TV b) Iran hostages freed on day of inauguration looked fishy as fuck even to 11-year-old me.

suzy, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 23:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

never underestimate the shrubbery vote

latebloomer, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 23:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

^ ban

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 1 May 2008 00:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

In Kindergarten I voted for Ronald Reagan in the school election. When my (liberal) parents asked why, I said "He lost the debate, so I wanted him to win something."

Hurting 2, Thursday, 1 May 2008 00:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

100% true jhoshea!

not so surprising that these sorts of thought patterns run in my gene pool

Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 1 May 2008 01:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

I remember writing something about Clinton being a 'kneejerk liberal' in my 6th grade journal when he was reelected. I attribute this to my Dad always listening to Imus when I was having breakfast in the morning.

As for Obama, I'm in the "He strikes me as too intelligent to be as naive and optimistic as he comes off" camp. I really do think it's a campaign tactic, if you look at the more hawkish spots on his record you know he's not all teddy bears and rainbows.

adamj, Thursday, 1 May 2008 01:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

my earliest political memory is of my mom saying something disparaging about Carter while he was running for office, I must have been 4? I remember liking CArter when he was president because he was the first president I was conscious of. I remember when Regan won pretty clearly; we already had a political cartoon on our refrigerator with a crying indian on it with some quote of his about breaking treaties; I remember when he won, I went and wrote "sucks" after his name.

Rolling Stone-reading pre/early adolescent that I was I was pretty politically savvy through school UP until college; as guessed above, I was just happy a democrat had finally won and tuned out and drank for several years instead. As a result I came out of the Clinton years with the impression that things had gone pretty okay and really one looked back on it critically in the past few years and seen the issues. Obviously still better than the years that followed though.

akm, Thursday, 1 May 2008 04:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

obama's major flaws, for me:

--fairly skimpy record for most of his state senate career
--endorsed mayor daley for re-election, as well as one or two of his cronies (i know i know politics as usual but EWWWWW)
--a bad offhand speaker, if the debates are any evidence
--a bit too willing to believe that his fellow politicians are decent well-meaning folks at heart (way worse than "overconfidence in the electorate's willingness to assume civic responsibility," which i can't parse at all -- how does he do that?).

J.D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 05:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

by being the favored candidate of people who would rather dismiss democracy as a concept than believe anything actually negative about their boy

El Tomboto, Thursday, 1 May 2008 05:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

people who would rather dismiss democracy as a concept

i am stupid and slow

explain this to me please.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 1 May 2008 05:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

maybe not now cause i'm off for the night but i'm flummoxed as fuck by that clause.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 1 May 2008 05:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, wtf?

J.D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 06:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

I dunno, I generally figure the "electorate's" "civic responsibility" is to vote for the candidate they prefer

El Tomboto, Thursday, 1 May 2008 06:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

gotcha.

stuff i like about obama:

--writes own speeches
--pretty good writer (the audacity of hope is surprisingly readable for an i-wanna-be-president book, tho my eyes must've broke from glazing over during the vague-as-fuck foreign policy chapter)
--even-tempered guy (i.e., neither a wimp nor a tantrum-throwing egomaniac like mccain -- or, frankly, bill clinton)
--a "moderate" in the carter sense, not the clinton/centrist sense

J.D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 09:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

i know "writes own speeches" seems like a minor point but think about it this way: if every candidate had to write his own speeches, 9 out of the last 10 presidents wouldn't have won shit.

J.D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 09:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

foreign policy naivete

This applies to every president for the last 30 years apart from, possibly, Bush 41.

Ed, Thursday, 1 May 2008 10:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

thing abt political buyer's remorse is that it's gnna be eg "is pretty good writer" which we will look back on and say OMIGOD WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THIS SOONER

(as of now, i don't know why it'll be this either -- JUST MARK MY WORDS, his flaw will be something you currently and justifably consider a good quality)

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

J.D. – Dreams From My Father is even better.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

is this like MARK MY WORDS BUSH WILL LOSE IN 04

and what, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

MARK S MY WORDS

and what, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

an economic conservative

won't say when he'll get us completely out of Iraq

carried water for Joe Lieberman

considers Israel STALWART (probly not cuz they use old men to spy on us)

doesn't seem to believe in his own timid healthcare plan

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

I remember being pretty little (maybe 5?), and being shocked--SHOCKED!--to hear from my mom that President Reagan (the only president I'd known, and thus THE PRESIDENT) didn't give a shit about homeless people.

G00blar, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

when i was little i was shocked that the president couldn't just kill someone he disagreed with. "why not? he's the PRESIDENT!"

btw dukakis visited my school when i was in eighth grade; he made some sort of education speech in a basement room (the largest we had in the school). we all lined up on either side of the hallway leading there, and we were told to show a lot of respect, and i think we were all encouraged to clap for him as he strode between us. it was thrilling

gore also visited my school, in tennessee, a few years later - somebody tried to get me to ask him during the q&a section if he voted for gulf war i on account of his dad voting against the vietnam war and then getting booted out on his ear by the voters - i didn't do it

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

MARK MY WORDS SOMEONE WILL HAVE LOST IN 2004 <--- this is the level of certainty we are lookin at

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

Mark S, it's a total truism that if a person gets fired from a job, it's usually for something the employer vocally deemed an asset when hiring. 'We like your individuality' becomes 'you're too individual'.

Dreams From My Father is not just 'even better', it's absolutely fucking stupendous:

"My mother laughed once more, and once again I saw her as the child she had been. Except this time I saw something else: in her smiling, slightly puzzled face, I saw what all children must see at some point if they are to grow up - their parents' lives revealed to them as separate and apart, reaching out beyond the point of their union or the birth of a child, lives unfurling back to grandparents, great-grandparents, an infinite number of chance meetings, misunderstandings, projected hopes, limited circumstances. My mother was that girl with the movie of beautiful black people in her head, flattered by my father's attention, confused and alone, trying to break out of the grip of her own parents' lives. The innocence she carried that day, waiting for my father, had been tinged with misconceptions, her own needs. But it was a guileless need, one without self-consciousness, and perhaps that's how any love begins, impulses and cloudy images that allow us to break across our solitude, and then, if we're lucky, are finally transformed into something firmer. What I heard from my mother that day, speaking about my father, was something I suspect most Americans will never hear from the lips of those of another race, and so cannot be expected to believe might exist between black and white: the love of someone who knows your life in the round, a love that will survive disappointment. She saw my father as everyone hopes at least one other person might see him, she had tried to help the child who never knew him see him in the same way. And it was the look on her face that day that I would remember when a few months later I called to tell her that my father had died and heard her cry out over the distance."

suzy, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

usually a total truism <--- this the level of certainty we are aiming at

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 13:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

i <3 obama but theres some soft bigotry of lowered expectations shit going on with his writing 4real - its ok but not ABSOLUTELY FUCKING STUPENDOUS

and what, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

though im reasonably sure its "pretty good for a politician" expectations not "pretty good for a black dude"

and what, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's excellent for a pol, and let's note that through Woodrow Wilson most presidential candidates wrote at this level.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

"very good for a politician" more like....

"pretty good" for a literary memoir I guess

xpost

G00blar, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

better than JFK's war-hero memoirs that that guy ghostwrote YES
better than ulysses s. grant memoirs NO WAY d00d
better than six crises <--- u&k

(disclaimer : ok i have read none of these tho the kennedy book was read out as excerpts in school assemby for abt 12 million millennia when i was like 9)

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

This sounds like a great poll - RATE PRESIDENTS AS WRITERS.

(the Grant memoirs are excellent, but I get bored when he describes battles, troop formations, etc)

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

admittedly jfk memoir = like "acka-acka! neeeow! crash! splash! we are on a raft w.sharks circling oh noes!" but even so GET THE FUCK ON WITH IT MR PRESIDENT

haha jfk's favourite books
1: the rouge et le noir
2: from russia with love

I CALL BULLSHIT ON THIS LIST ALREADY

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

amazingly i have never read six crises, though i did slog thru lbj's incredibly boring THE VANTAGE POINT

and what, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha in Caro's biography he notes how LBJ, recovering after his 1955 heart attack, ordered Lady Bird to leave books and journals strewn all over the Texas ranch to give journalists the impression that he read and "thought deeply."

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

and mcgovern's autobio which is folksy & charming

and what, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

probly should get around to the grant book one of these days

and what, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

morbs, fyi, 'stalwart' is an adjective. you're probably referring to O's statement that Israel is a 'stalwart ally' of the US, but maybe you intended to refer to his statement that Israel's security is 'sacrosanct'.

gabbneb, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

box 13!

caro's biography = is lbj actually president yet (as per the published volumes)? is caro still even alive?

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

xpost Ethan, I'm really glad you clarified that, but if you haven't read DWMF, you really aren't in a place to say whether it's WHOA INCREDIBLE or not. I stand by my opinion.

suzy, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

Mark, Master of the Senate ends with LBJ as veep, chastened and chomping at the bit.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

ethan, fyi, the praise for Obama's (first) book, at least outside of ilx, is for the self-knowledge it exhibits more than the writing (tho people think that's pretty good too)

gabbneb, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

though im reasonably sure its "pretty good for a politician" expectations not "pretty good for a black dude"

you think?

gabbneb, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

All of you that are dissing Dave and his band, obviously haven't given him a chance. Actually try to listen to them then you may discover that they aren't bad. Dont judge them without knowing what they are all about. They are making millions and usually boring music doesn't do that. The reason for that is because they are great musicians. I love all kinds of music so dont even try judging the fans either. You dont know them or me you have no right to say stuff about us. Sure some of you may be offended about his one line "hike up your skirt a little more and show the world to me" come on its not nearly as bad as half the rap that is played twice or sometimes 3 times as much as what Dave gets played on the radio.

-- Kara, Friday, June 6, 2003 11:51 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark Link

and what, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

caro is the brigadier pudding of actual real reality

"not nearly as bad as half the rap that is played twice" <-- you do the math!

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

What I heard from my mother that day, speaking about my father, was something I suspect most Americans will never hear from the lips of those of another race, and so cannot be expected to believe might exist between black and white

you don't need to have read the whole book to know that this could have used some tightening

J0hn D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Caro Biography of LBJ does seem a bit liek a Hawkwind boxset with every outtake, bootleg and demo thrown in published in the form of a partwork.

Ed, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

"More of his penis went turgid" <-- tightening

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

The idea of LBJ ripped on acid and wailing at the top of his lungs...is more Texan than I realized.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

when people praise the language in Obama's (first) book, they may be referring more to the interweaving of narrative and themes and ability to evoke thoughts and feelings than the tautness of the sentences

gabbneb, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

tautness is all politics: gettysburg address = 243 words long <--- this is the mark we are huntin

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

"Unintentionally Homoerotic Oval Office Imagery"

suzy, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha "tautness is all IN politics"

(it is apparently possible to be too compressed!)

"Unintentionally" <--- OO I SO DON'T THINK

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah oh LBJ big proponent of 'accidentally' showing cock to underline alphadawg status, amirite?

suzy, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes "the vantage point" = lbj givin orders while takin shit w.door open

also: "better inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in"

also also:
LBJ: "say he had carnal knowledge of his hog herd"
minion: "wah boss we can't call him 1 x pigfucker"*
LBJ: "i wanna hear him deny it"

(*root of neverstarted lester bangs project-title "a history of pig-fucking" and hence proto-noize alt-rock strand pigfuck)

lbj wz punk

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Audacity of Pig Fucking

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

APFestival

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

yea ohb's flaw will turn out to be that this is NOT the secret title

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

flaw 2: his pastor was not samuel delany :(

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

Teh visions that inspires, Mark.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

"I'd like to read from Neveryona, chapter 2..."

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 1 May 2008 14:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

hogg is what put him in mind :/

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

is there like a secret cult of lbj I didn't know about

J0hn D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'd say you stumbled into it. Now show us your pecker.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

or yr surgery scar.

someone plz show gobbknob how to recognize adjectives.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

Hmm, here I was thinking the 'surgery scar' was a placeholder for Lyndon Baines' Jewels.

suzy, Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://jeff.pasleybrothers.com/images/LBJ_scar.jpg

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

you say subtext i say domtext

mark s, Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

you say subtext i say domtext

YOU ARE A GOLDEN GOD

J0hn D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

lincoln = greatest american writer (gore vidal once said this, and i kinda sorta believe it).

i read one of nixon's books years and years ago and all i remember is the incredibly hilarious chapter where he tries to explain watergate and there's like 5,000 paragraphs in a row that all begin like "the most foolish misunderstanding about watergate was...", "the most ridiculous assertion about watergate was...", "the most ironic charge about watergate was..."

J.D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

hey, i was there, maaaan

gabbneb, Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

In the Arena's got a photo of Nixon writing a speech, arm of his glasses in his mouth. The caption: "Even writing one line takes hours of concentrated thought."

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

in the arena! i think that was it.

J.D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

didn't pat buchanan write nixon's farewell address?

J.D., Thursday, 1 May 2008 15:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

The success of the Obama administration will largely depend on the quality of his advisors and appointments. There's no way to know what his administrative style will be. I know he's bright enough to figure out a lot of this stuff and correct his mistakes, but he won't enter office with much margin for error.

I don't worry about his ability to conduct diplomacy with other nations. I don't worry about his ability to conceive and propose budget priorities or legislation. I wonder about his ability to stay in front of the public opinion parade in the USA, what with the attack machine (Fox news, Scaife and Coors throwing millions around, conservative think tanks, etc.) grinding 24 hours a day trying to steer the conversation onto whatever trivia they deem useful to their ends.

It's a pretty big shitstorm to stand in the middle of and still have the time, energy and focus to accomplish good things.

Aimless, Thursday, 1 May 2008 17:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

This could be said about any president ever.

Also:

I wonder about his ability to stay in front of the public opinion parade in the USA, what with the attack machine (Fox news, ILE, Scaife and Coors throwing millions around, conservative think tanks, etc.)

Fixed.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 1 May 2008 18:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Sure. The things I identified don't even begin to approach critical flaws. They're kind of givens.

But then, I don't see any evidence that Obama is beset by major flaws that would prevent him from being a good president. I do see good reasons to think he would be an excellent president. I can only speculate.

I do think it is good to mention this stuff, though. It's good to remind the more gung-ho fro either Obama or Clinton that a campaign is different from governing, and that even good candidates with undoubted talents can be ensnared in a failed administration, due to encounters with problems that are beyond their ability to solve.

It's fine to get your hopes up, but don't consider them guaranteed by the "right" outcome of the election.

Aimless, Thursday, 1 May 2008 18:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

Later at a Lincoln Park nightclub, Obama spoke to a raucous crowd of music fans, who paid up to $500 per person to see a performance by Wilco lead singer Jeff Tweedy, and two other band members.

"Before these guys go, I want them to know that I had heard a rumor that they had suggested that I had nothing by them on my iPod," Obama said. "That is not true. I love Wilco."

velko, Saturday, 12 July 2008 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

love is over

gabbneb, Saturday, 12 July 2008 18:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

so it was an alt-country cowboy hat

Hurting 2, Saturday, 12 July 2008 19:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

There's nothing wrong with a little Wilco on your ipod. And I'd rather he pander to voters through questionable music taste than questionable policy positions.

Super Cub, Saturday, 12 July 2008 20:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol xp

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 12 July 2008 20:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

There's nothing wrong with a little Wilco on your ipod. And I'd rather he pander to voters through questionable music taste than questionable policy positions.

-- Super Cub, Saturday, July 12, 2008 3:07 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

you obama maniacs sure do some rhetorical backflips to support this guy!! first his stance on civil unions, now his stance on wilco ... does the man have any principles??

deej, Saturday, 12 July 2008 20:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

he'll throw wilco under the bus if he needs to

Hurting 2, Saturday, 12 July 2008 20:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

No Son Volt, no credibility

milo z, Saturday, 12 July 2008 20:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

a lot of people on ILM certainly did (xpost)

Hurting 2, Saturday, 12 July 2008 20:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Obama met Wilco at the Farm Aid 20th Anniversary show in 2005 and has appeared with them at several events since.

http://www.harpmagazine.com/img/news/2005_09_29_wilco_obama.JPG

jaymc, Sunday, 13 July 2008 03:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

during the debate bits I saw between innings, I definitely heard him SIGH.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 27 September 2008 15:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

serious question

Alex in SF, Saturday, 27 September 2008 15:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

Now in terms of the administrations or how I would approach the presidency, I don't think I'd restrict myself to three people. There are people like Sam Nunn, a Democrat, or Dick Lugar, a Republican, who I'd listen to on foreign policy. On domestic policy, I've got friends ranging from Ted Kennedy to Tom Coburn, who don't necessarily agree on a lot of things, but who both have a sincere desire to see this country improve.

Tom -- or John mentioned me being wildly liberal. Mostly that's just me opposing George Bush's wrong headed policies since I've been in Congress but I think it is that it is also important to recognize I work with Tom Coburn, the most conservative, one of the most conservative Republicans who John already mentioned to set up what we call a Google for government saying we'll list every dollar of federal spending to make sure that the taxpayer can take a look and see who, in fact, is promoting some of these spending projects that John's been railing about.

regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^^ #1 from the saddleback forum, #2 from yesterday BTW

regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

you're positing these as flaws?

akm, Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

Listening to people with alternative viewpoints is a flaw? xp

12HOOS2012 (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

Being friends (or pretending to be) with Tom "LESBIANS IN OUR SCHOOLS" Coburn is a black mark in my book. Fuck that Okie asshole.

sad man in him room (milo z), Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

As a congressman in 1997, Coburn protested NBC's plan to air the R-rated Academy Award-winning Holocaust drama Schindler's List during prime time. Coburn stated that, in airing the movie without editing it for television, TV had been taken "to an all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity." He also said the TV broadcast should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere. Coburn described the airing of Schindler's List on television as "...irresponsible sexual behavior...I cringe when I realize that there were children all across this nation watching this program."

and what, Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

more like tom COCKBURN

velko, Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

wow, calling an airing of schindler's list "irresponsible sexual behaviour" is so amazingly fucked up

s1ocki, Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

i mean whatever you think of that movie. that is fuuuuucked.

s1ocki, Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

daria palin!

i'm sure that obama is total best buddies with tom coburn, one of the senate's leading intellectuals

gabbneb, Saturday, 27 September 2008 22:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

just like hillary is actually bffs with lindsey graham and don nickles (rip)

gabbneb, Saturday, 27 September 2008 22:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

has anyone said that he's black?

johnny crunch, Saturday, 27 September 2008 22:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

i thought it!

cankles, Saturday, 27 September 2008 22:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

I understand the gag factor in seeing an embrace of someone with detestable views, but being able to work with someone is not the same as taking BFF photobooth I ENDORSE YR VIEWS BROSEF pics with them.

12HOOS2012 (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 27 September 2008 22:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

he shouts out coburn waaaaaaaaaayyyy too much IMHO. so unnecessary

FWIW i do more work to help get obama elected than anyone else on this board

regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Sunday, 28 September 2008 04:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

So that thing McCain mentioned during the debate about Obama requesting $932 million in pork is more or less accurate, right? Admittedly it's not something I care about that much compared to the bigger issues, but it would count as a flaw, and as far as I can determine it seems to be true.

i fuck mathematics, Sunday, 28 September 2008 05:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

my guess (i have not researched the details re: obama) is that a fair amount of what GOP usually term "pork" would be funding for projects in the state/district that would benefit the public

that is part of his job imho. i got plenty of things to criticize about obama but this is not one that troubles me unless there is some real cronyism stuff in there.

regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Sunday, 28 September 2008 05:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah I wish he would actually defend some of the earmarks instead of saying that the system is "broken" since it's kind of giving the point to McCain, and not requesting any earmarks for the next year isn't going to do great things for Illinois. If he was just like, "hey here's all the useful stuff I did with my earmark money, I was working for my constituents, fuk u John" that'd be cool.

clotpoll, Sunday, 28 September 2008 06:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

FWIW i do more work to help get obama elected than anyone else on this board

― regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Sunday, September 28, 2008 4:00 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

A remarkable assumption.

12HOOS2012 (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 28 September 2008 08:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

FWIW I don't think anyone on this thread was attacking your motivations for criticism (nb: on this thread, other bs attacks on your motivations notwithstanding). Your point is well taken.

12HOOS2012 (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 28 September 2008 08:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol daria do u have a dick if so plz tell us how much bigger it is than the dicks of everyone else on this board

you have been yellow carded by an actual referee (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 28 September 2008 08:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

he shouts out coburn waaaaaaaaaayyyy too much IMHO. so unnecessary

FWIW i do more work to help get obama elected than anyone else on this board

― regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Saturday, September 27, 2008 11:00 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

1. isnt he alwsy 'shouting out' to coburn in response to bullshit 'ties' to an asshole like ayers?

2. orly

deej, Sunday, 28 September 2008 08:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

i got it guys i think daria is actually joe biden

you have been yellow carded by an actual referee (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 28 September 2008 08:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

I took that to mean D. is working at an office or in some other GOTV capacity (much like Ethan).

jane hussein lane (suzy), Sunday, 28 September 2008 09:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

or is sara palin

gabbneb, Sunday, 28 September 2008 14:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

i assumed campaign work, but then i thought maybe she just knows more people who are "uncomfortable with" Obama than the rest of us

i might do Camp Obama, but I'm probably a little too Federal court for door-to-door; should do voter protection if I'm able to

gabbneb, Sunday, 28 September 2008 14:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

Obama's biggest flaw is that he doesn't have a tic which would make him suitable for a really good "SNL" evisceration.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 28 September 2008 14:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

well, it does. there are things that are true and things that are false, at the end of the day.

regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Sunday, 28 September 2008 17:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

ha

Cletus Tiffins (Curt1s Stephens), Sunday, 28 September 2008 17:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

jeez i haven't even remembered to keep up with rolling ringtone maybe i should see you all over there on a different subject

regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Sunday, 28 September 2008 17:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think I remember hearing Obama use the word "cockamamie" at least once. Which is just, I mean, come on... it's just a foolish word.
That said, my Grandma occasionally employed the phrase "Holy Jupiter!" with notable success, so I could be wrong here.

Chelvis, Monday, 29 September 2008 06:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krisken/2862353537/

and what, Monday, 29 September 2008 06:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

Now would you prefer that or the Public Enemy logo on there?

Office Cat is Eating the Monitor Again (kingfish), Monday, 29 September 2008 06:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

his support for ethanol?

jermainetwo, Monday, 29 September 2008 07:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

serious question

YESSSSSS

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-lucky-we-are.html

Dr Morbius, Monday, 29 September 2008 16:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

if you hate jim lehrer, you hate america

Mr. Que, Monday, 29 September 2008 16:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

true

gabbneb, Monday, 29 September 2008 16:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

MCCAIN: (whispering) I'm taking you out, gook boy.

OBAMA: (whispering) Step up, cracka.

This is making me nostalgic for high school satire columns.

i am the small cat (HI DERE), Monday, 29 September 2008 16:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

what's wrong with cockamamie?

Maria :D, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dennis Perrin's just crying out for a hug isn't he?

Alex in SF, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

you actually read it?

gabbneb, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

Good lord no.

Alex in SF, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh dear.
jim lehrer did a pretty good job imho. he forgot to ask them a stupid question about professional sports though

regular guy, scranton, pennsylvania (daria-g), Monday, 29 September 2008 17:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp: he won't let the close-minded hug him.

Lehrer neeeds to be put down in the barn.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

classy^^^

Mr. Que, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Behind the barn, please. Or we'll never get the stains out.

Vampire romances depend on me (Laurel), Monday, 29 September 2008 17:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp: he won't let the close-minded hug him.

Lehrer neeeds to be put down in the barn.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, September 29, 2008 1:22 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

are you 15??

and what, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

not nearly no matter where you put the tape measure

Dr Morbius, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

move thread to I Love TMI plz

i am the small cat (HI DERE), Monday, 29 September 2008 17:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

jesus christ

and what, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

btw Que, Lehrer's brand of mewling "classy" PBS journalism is what makes him a waste of space.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dr. Morbius i don't ever watch CNN or Fox or any of that shit, because I try not to get too much of my news from the TV. Nor do I have cable. That said, Jim Lehrer and PBS are really not that bad--they go pretty in depth on lots of topics, and they seem fair to both sides. i read papers and blogs and stuff, too so PBS is more supplementary. he runs a good debate. if you really think he needs to be shot like a horse, i don't think there is anything I or anyone else can say to change your mind.

i'm not sure what mewling classy journalism means to you but like i said, TV's a horrible way to get your news, so Lehrer and co suprise me.

Mr. Que, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

surprise me--

you on the other hand never surprise me.

Mr. Que, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

he's no Dennis Perrin that's for sure

A bold plan drawn up by assholes to screw morons (dan m), Monday, 29 September 2008 17:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

A thought that haunts him, I'm sure.

Alex in SF, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

seriously--i stopped reading after the "Jim Lehrer wants to put a Tek-9 in his mouth" gag. i guess i should read that bullshit instead of watching PBS from time to time, right Morbs?

Mr. Que, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

it means he has a mild disposition and eschews the scatology morbs so prizes

he's also a Marine, so good luck w/ that KO, morbs

gabbneb, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

not saying it's an illegitimate argument to call him insufficiently hardnosed - in what capacity? he's mostly a newsreader and dialoguer - but we can do without another geraldo'reilly afaic

gabbneb, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

i'm saying for TV, he's pretty good. that's all i'm saying

Mr. Que, Monday, 29 September 2008 17:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Cockburn in last week's Nation:

Unusually early, the real election day this year fell on October 4, the day the House of Representatives finally approved the bailout bill already passed by the Senate two days earlier....

The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was ...a season of hope that a new era was dawning, particularly in the arena of foreign policy and the cold war. "If, after the inauguration," Carter's campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan, told the press, "you find Cy Vance as secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of national security, then I would say we failed. And I'd quit." Carter wanted George Ball as secretary of state, but in the backstage maneuverings of the real election the Israel lobby vetoed Ball. Carter was forced to pick Vance as secretary of state and the cold war fanatic Brzezinski as national security adviser. Jordan did not quit.

The real election in Bill Clinton's case took place after his election, when he swiftly indicated surrender by making Goldman Sachs's Robert Rubin his treasury secretary. By May 1993 he had signaled his total submission to the Wall Street banks and the end of any pretense--thin from the get-go--of economic change or social reform.

This year the economic crisis demanded an early real election, designed to fend off the admittedly very remote possibility--Rubin is Barack Obama's close economic adviser--that Obama, victorious in the November 4 election, might claim a reformer's mandate and seek to prize loose the stranglehold of Wall Street financiers on the economy.

On September 23 Obama stated on NBC that the crisis and the prospect of a huge bailout required bipartisan action and meant he likely would have to delay expansive spending programs outlined during his campaign for the White House. Thus did he surrender power even before he gained it. Simultaneously, McCain, endorsing the bailout, destroyed a golden opportunity to revive his candidacy by placing himself at the head of the Republican revolt and seizing the popular mood, which was and remains one of vitriolic fury at Wall Street and the bailout.

Dissent dwindled rapidly in the press as the Accredited Commentariat, from George Will on the right to Paul Krugman in the center, declared the bailout odious but necessary....

As the economic crisis continued unabated, people said this showed that the bailout bill had been useless. Not true at all. Its paramount importance was as a show of force, as dramatic as nineteenth-century cavalry cutting down demonstrators at Peterloo. As an instigator of beneficial change, the Clinton administration was over six months after election day 1992. Assuming he wins, Obama has beaten the speed of Bill Clinton's 1993 collapse by almost seven months.

But hold! you cry. Obama may enter office with a secret plan. Even FDR campaigned in 1932 for a balanced budget. And anyway, Obama and Biden will save us from Sarah Palin, Alaska's answer to Eva Perón! My friends, the ebullient Palin, a provincial right-wing populist in the Poujade tradition, is a distraction from the uncomfortable truth. After the October coup, and Obama's meek surrender, the November ballot is merely a coda.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 13 October 2008 19:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

thanks.

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Monday, 13 October 2008 19:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

in the backstage maneuverings of the real election the Israel lobby vetoed Ball

this guy

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 13 October 2008 20:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

to Paul Krugman in the center

this guy sounds european :D

joe 40oz (deej), Monday, 13 October 2008 20:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

'lefty' economists write for the Times, lol - somebody tell Doug Henwood

Dr Morbius, Monday, 13 October 2008 20:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

the failed social experiment of america: democracy, capitalism, and the mets
compiled and edited by benjamin morbius ph.d.

El Tomboto, Monday, 13 October 2008 20:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Don't forget foreign-film distribution

Dr Morbius, Monday, 13 October 2008 20:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

that is retarded

El Tomboto, Monday, 13 October 2008 21:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

"obama and bush have both used the same key terms in a number of statements. also he voted for budgets."

El Tomboto, Monday, 13 October 2008 21:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

seriously that's the funniest shit i've read in a minute

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 13 October 2008 22:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

Before joining the newspaper, she was a senior adviser for the Republican National Committee and was appointed a public affairs director in the Department of Health and Human Services by President Bush.

fifth from the b (The Reverend), Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Right now Obama is holding his cards so tightly to his vest it would be about impossible to discern any of his intentions once elected, apart from those carefully-shaped and electorally-advantageous ones which are officially embalmed in his stump speech soundbites. Very few of those will survive contact with political reality.

We won't see him really shake loose from this mode until after Nov. 4. I wonder if he'll ever come to a point in his presidency where he can cut loose and start freewheeling a bit. Or if that is contrary to his nature.

Aimless, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 01:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

Is that a paraphrase from a post on The Corner?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 01:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

If so, then it was transmitted to my brain via the luminiferous ether, because I don't read The Corner.

This is simply my impression of the last month and a half since the Republican convention. This stage of the election is all about caution if you're the clear front runner and the undecided vote is not especially large. The election is his to win or lose. He's playing not to lose. Not a very astonishing choice, really.

As for political reality, adding an extra trillion dollars in federal debt in the past 50 days has left Obama very little wiggle room for attaining his platform.

As for 'his nature', he strikes me as quite circumspect and cautious by nature. He speaks in bold strokes, but seems to act with containment. I could be wrong. He'll no doubt grow and change in the job.

Aimless, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 04:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

No president in my lifetime has grown in the job, except malevolently.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 13:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Maybe you're the problem.

Kerm, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 13:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

You never know.

Not saying that O can't do it, but FISA and "I love markets" are not encouraging signs.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 13:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

didn't tell liar/homicidal fuckup Colin Powell to shove his endorsement

Dr Morbius, Monday, 20 October 2008 14:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

seems intent on winning election, within grasp with fortnight to go.

besides - not that he shouldn't - but has he even responded yet? i've heard him mention it in a speech, but nothing else.

schlump, Monday, 20 October 2008 14:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh, with supporters like these....

"On that Saturday 10,000 households in Scranton were canvassed for Obama and another 5,000 canvassed on Sunday. I realized that we did just what the "Chicago Machine" would do. I had seen it often enough in my youth: the Ward Boss, the Precinct Captains, and the Block Captains...caring and knowledge of the individual affairs of each citizen goes with the system...The audacity of it: to build a nationwide machine based on the Chicago Machine. Now nobody groan - the Chicago Machine WORKS. We have seen the birth of a huge, wonderful Machine, the new Dem Machine, which will carry us all forward into an Age of Mutuality."
-- Martha Miller

"Being a liberal and a young upstart, I always questioned things - especially my superiors. Over the last month I have stopped this habit...By and by, the Mother Brain has earned my respect. Instead, I take comfort knowing that my time is not taken for granted; my superiors use me efficiently and intelligently. To me, that matters more than you know."
-- Ryan Kushner

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-davis/otb-campaign-journals-oba_b_135285.html

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

I realized that we did just what the "Chicago Machine" would do.

holy shit.

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse (kenan), Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

build a nationwide machine based on the Chicago Machine

holy shit.

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse (kenan), Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

the Chicago Machine WORKS

christ on a cracker.

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse (kenan), Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, a mirrorworld anti-Chicago Machine where there's no neighbourhood coercion or turkeys, yeah?

Bedframes and Broomsticks (suzy), Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think you get the option to be wired into the Machine OR Mother Brain.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

"the new Dem Machine, which will carry us all forward into an Age of Mutuality."

Somewhere, Huxley laughs?

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

xpost to suzy: or graft, bribery, extortion, racism, waste, arrogant flaunting of all of the above, and on, and on, and on...

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse (kenan), Thursday, 23 October 2008 15:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

The other day my mom started foaming about La Machine Chicago - and tying O to same - based on living there for one year only. Try to argue with her and she's all OH YEAH, I BEEN TO HYDE PARK - IN '67.

Bedframes and Broomsticks (suzy), Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

(What makes that photo is the banner in the distance reading "HELLO DEMOCRATS!")

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse (kenan), Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's possible that he's a little TOO awesome ...

polyphonic, Thursday, 23 October 2008 17:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha Dr. Morbius you should e-mail John Dean, tell him you found the liberal authoritarians finally, they're no longer a theory.

El Tomboto, Thursday, 23 October 2008 17:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

were they ever just a theory?

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 October 2008 18:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think they're a whole corner of that ideology graph thingy, actuellement.

Bedframes and Broomsticks (suzy), Thursday, 23 October 2008 18:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think that well-known ideology graph thing (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index) is pretty clearly a libertarian indoctrination tool.
There's a whole body of literature surrounding the concept of authoritarianism, and as far as I know to align libertarianism as its polar opposite strongly misrepresents authoritarianism.

Dan I., Thursday, 23 October 2008 22:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

don't confuse Political Compass for the World's Smallest Political Quiz. The former makes conservatives foam at the mouth because it (generally) pegs them as authoritarians, and libertarians foam because its emphasis on value questions highlights their proximity to conservatives.

sad man in him room (milo z), Thursday, 23 October 2008 23:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

(but the idea of a 2-axis or 3-axis ideology guide is generally pretty stupid as a rule)

sad man in him room (milo z), Thursday, 23 October 2008 23:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

ah, okay, thanks!

Dan I., Friday, 24 October 2008 02:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

to align libertarianism as its polar opposite strongly misrepresents authoritarianism

Who did this? we're talking about LIBERAL authoritarians. the Daleys, Humphrey, all the Dem senators not named Feingold, etc.

You just KNOW those two Obama Youth robots quoted on HuffPost are going to cluck their tongues at anyone who protests President Bam governing (and bombing) from the "center." "He has to do this to get re-elected!"

Dr Morbius, Friday, 24 October 2008 13:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

you are truly a seer

joe 40oz (deej), Friday, 24 October 2008 15:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

despite yr condescension i think most of us are pretty aware around these parts that obama will not be ushering in a totally post-partisan age. yes, people will be there to cheerlead whatever he does. i dont see why u think thats news to anyone.

joe 40oz (deej), Friday, 24 October 2008 15:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

uh, we are IN a postpartisan age, that's the problem.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 24 October 2008 15:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

wtf are you talking about never mind

joe 40oz (deej), Friday, 24 October 2008 15:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

morbs/feingold 08

BIG HOOS was a communisteen orgadriver (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 24 October 2008 15:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

but morbs like 48.5% of this country maintains a polar opposite view than you (and the other 48.5% or so) on practically every single issue there is. how do you propose anything ever getting done? short of the blue coastal states seceding from Jesusland?

p.s. i think it's a little early to take Barry to task for countries he hasn't bombed yet.

flyover statesman (will), Friday, 24 October 2008 15:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

he's way smarter, more likable, and likely more decent than we've had in decades. give him a shot.

flyover statesman (will), Friday, 24 October 2008 15:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^^ otm

Wanting the moon is understandable, but is no reason to turn down the offer of a few genuine moon rocks.

Aimless, Friday, 24 October 2008 18:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

I am giving him a shot. But I think liberal reforms have been deemed impractical by the entire ruling class since at least 1980. Time will tell if the New Depression shifts the spectrum.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 24 October 2008 18:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=populism_without_pitchforks

He's apparently a "communitarian populist!" Thanks, intellectually lazy "progressive" JACKASS. Perhaps you would consider investing in a DICTIONARY before you become a WRITER.

"Communitarian Populism!!" You know, how Hitler rolled!! Jesus Christ. Obama's greatest flaw really is having supporters like these.

El Tomboto, Sunday, 26 October 2008 15:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

and yes I already feel guilty for linking that piece and possibly causing other people to try and read it

El Tomboto, Sunday, 26 October 2008 15:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

no its cool i saw the populism without pitchforks in the url before i clicked

some sort of sweetpea New Deal (Lamp), Sunday, 26 October 2008 16:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Him being the antichrist could be a problem, apparently.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/images/Picture%205-166.jpg

(lol)

StanM, Sunday, 26 October 2008 21:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Topeka KS 66604

imperial management trainee (latebloomer), Sunday, 26 October 2008 21:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

LOL at one medieval thought accusing something incredibly dense like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism of being satanistic.

StanM, Sunday, 26 October 2008 21:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

Amen.

ℵℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜ℘! (Curt1s Stephens), Sunday, 26 October 2008 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

amen xp!

8 HOOS Dog (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 26 October 2008 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'll amen if the screed writer can learn to spell 'worshipped'. HAHA.

Bedframes and Broomsticks (suzy), Monday, 27 October 2008 01:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

the most impressively irritating thing in the world is the font used by Phelps' propaganda posters

restraint and blindness (Just got offed), Monday, 27 October 2008 01:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

i like obama a lot but some of his supporters' eagerness to justify daleyism as "just politics" or "just what you gotta do to get elected" is seriously disturbing.

J.D., Monday, 27 October 2008 02:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

I like that the Westboro thing is headed as a news release. Front page of the next day's New York Times: "BARACK OBAMA IS ANTICHRIST."

Merdeyeux, Monday, 27 October 2008 02:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

J.D. what "daleyism" are you referring to?

Kramkoob (Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃), Monday, 27 October 2008 03:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

mixing up Fred Sanford & George Jefferson

ban or astroban? (Curt1s Stephens), Monday, 3 November 2008 18:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

too much of a fuckin badass

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

overweeningly handsome

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

overly unflappable

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

embarrassingly thoughtful

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

skinny legs

Kramkoob (Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃), Monday, 3 November 2008 18:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

ballhog

my other son is a zamboni (gbx), Monday, 3 November 2008 18:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

insufficiently cruel

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

digustingly considerate

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

disappointingly pragmatic

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

wait, wtf @ "communitarian" being a bad word? That's a totally common category in contemporary political philosophy, used for those who see communities of individuals rather than isolated individuals as politically central. Or did I miss some kind of joke, with the Hitler references and all?

Euler, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

yep, no one deifying him on ILX.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

it's called glee, morbius

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

pure, unadulterated sheer fucking glee

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 November 2008 18:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

morbs tomorrow i will toast to your unrivaled principle and then get drunk

on wednesday i will be hung over

on thursday and thereafter it will be l-r: obama, BIG HOOS
http://nynerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/14-cat-meets-eagle.JPG

HOOS HOOS HOOS on the autosteen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 3 November 2008 19:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

poor kitty gonna get raped

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 3 November 2008 19:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

for "The Wire" multitudes:

Obama as Tommy Carcetti

Obama’s victory is consequently a watershed in American politics, and it should be enthusiastically celebrated for that reason alone....
The grim reality, however, is that Obama (like Carcetti) will spend his first term campaigning for his second term, a campaign he actually began in his acceptance speech in Chicago on election night... If he wins a second term, he’ll spend it shoring up the prospects of both the Democrats in Congress and his aspiring Democratic successor to the throne--again, by cultivating the “center.”

Obama will undoubtedly be better than Bush was and better than McCain would have been, and the differences matter. But a realistic assessment of the scope of those differences is imperative. Without it, people who really care about changing this country’s direction will end up counting on one man, Obama, instead of on themselves to bring about the change we need. Those people will inevitably be disappointed.

...All told, the outlook for a new day in America is poor. The bottom line is this: When you think Barack Obama, think Tommy Carcetti. He probably has a good heart, but he is confronting a vast array of institutional forces aimed at preventing him or anyone else in power from doing the right thing. To have any chance of getting the results we want out of his administration, we cannot just sit back and expect him to work his magic. We must organize, agitate, and pursue independent initiatives (like ballot measures) to get what we want (like single-payer healthcare) at the state level. And we must carefully scrutinize Obama’s every move and harass and harangue him relentlessly just as if he were John McCain or George Bush. From the point of view of every American left of center, the principal advantage of Obama over McCain is that it is at least possible that he will listen to us. We cannot let that advantage go to waste.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

what are barack obama's flaws? [Started by and what in April 2008, last updated Thursday, November 6, 2008 11:40 AM by Dr Morbius on I Love Everything] 17 new answers

gabbneb, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

And we must carefully scrutinize Obama’s every move and harass and harangue him relentlessly just as if he were John McCain or George Bush. From the point of view of every American left of center, the principal advantage of Obama over McCain is that it is at least possible that he will listen to us. We cannot let that advantage our shitty blogs go to waste.

Mr. Que, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

Greenwald's on it already on his shitty left wing blog.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh great, the WBC is going to picket Obama's grandmother's funeral. (don't wanna link to their site though)

StanM, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

Alfred, do you think Obama should work on repealing DOMA before or after he gets to work on the economy, energy independence, and, say, getting the troops home from Iraq? I say this with the belief that DOMA is bullshit.

Mr. Que, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

Obama (like Carcetti) will spend his first term campaigning for his second term

Maybe a minor quibble, but this is kind of off, since Carcetti was leapfrogging to a higher office (from mayor to governor) in a 2 year span, not trying to ensure his chances of being re-elected to the same. And doesn't every prez immediate begin sweating their 2nd term the moment they start their first? There's kind of a huge difference between being so ambitiously careerist that you're too busy pursuing the next job to be good at the current one, and getting to the highest possible post and making moves to try to stay there longer (which usually involve being good at that job). Still, I enjoy the implicit parallel that a white man getting elected to run Baltimore is kind of like a black man getting elected to run America. And of course Obama should be carefully scrutinized, just like every president.

some dude, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

Alfred, do you think Obama should work on repealing DOMA before or after he gets to work on the economy, energy independence, and, say, getting the troops home from Iraq? I say this with the belief that DOMA is bullshit

Not at all, and, regrettably, I'm not sure it's even one of his campaign promises. I was more interested in the second part of Greenwald's argument.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

ah gotcha.

Combine all that with the fact that only a small minority is actually affected by DOMA's injustices, that many Democrats will insist none of this is worth the "risk," and that many Obama supporters will refuse to criticize anything he does (marvel at the number of commenters here saying that Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is right because . . . it is Obama's choice -- just look at this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this).

and yeah i agree, refusing to criticize the dude is ridiculous, but harass and harangue him relentlessly isn't much better.

Mr. Que, Thursday, 6 November 2008 16:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Que, if he takes a stand or is going to back sign legislation you disagree with, are you going to write or phone? That's all "harass and harangue" means.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 6 November 2008 18:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

+ or march or...

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 6 November 2008 18:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

i guess it probably depends on the legislation & the position he takes on it, etc. etc. i don't give politicians blank checks. . . but nor do i have a chip on my shoulder about them.

Mr. Que, Thursday, 6 November 2008 18:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

i also reserve the right to respectfully disagree with said dude

Mr. Que, Thursday, 6 November 2008 18:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Obama and Congressional Democrats deserve some time to figure out what they will do and what they will prioritize. It's irrational to criticize them for things they haven't done. It's probably politically wise for the first steps they take to be related to the economy, and there are numerous other non-economic priorities of vital importance that nobody should wait for (restoring habeas corpus, closing Guantanamo, imposing a government-wide ban on torture). But repealing DOMA, and certainly its most destructive part, is a quick and important way to establish who they are, and doing that is consistent with, not contrary to, prevailing political sentiment.

truth bombastic and really fantastic

HOOS HOOS HOOS on the autosteen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 6 November 2008 19:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm writing a letter to Messrs. Elect & Pelosi & Reid today in this regard.

HOOS HOOS HOOS on the autosteen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 6 November 2008 19:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

Obama's 10 Worst Ideas

❤ⓛⓞⓥⓔ❤ (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, 12 November 2008 17:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

Obama cannot bring change to Washington. There is no one in the Washington crowd that he can appoint who is capable of bringing change. If Obama were to reach outside the usual crowd, anyone suspected of being a bringer of change could not get confirmed by the Senate. Powerful interest groups--AIPAC, the military-security complex, Wall Street--use their political influence to block unacceptable appointments.

As Alexander Cockburn said of Obama in a pre-election column, column “never has the dead hand of the past had a ‘reform’ candidate so firmly by the windpipe.” Obama confirmed Cockburn’s verdict in his first press conference as president-elect. Disregarding the unanimous US National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran stopped working on nuclear weapons five years ago, and ignoring the continued certification by the International Atomic Energy Agency that none of the nuclear material for Iran’s civilian nuclear reactor has been diverted to weapons use, Obama sallied forth with the Israel Lobby’s propaganda and accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” and vowing “to prevent that from happening.”

The change that is coming to America has nothing to do with Obama. Change is coming from the financial crisis brought on by Wall Street greed and irresponsibility, from the eroding role of the US dollar as reserve currency, from countless mortgage foreclosures, from the offshoring of millions of America’s best jobs, from a deepening recession, from pillars of American manufacturing--Ford and GM--begging the government for taxpayers’ money to stay alive, and from budget and trade deficits that are too large to be closed by normal means....

The change that is coming is the end of American empire. The hegemon has run out of money and influence. Obama as “America’s First Black President” will lift hopes and, thus, allow the act to be carried on a little longer. But the New American Century is already over.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11102008.html

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 17:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

THE HEGEMON

Uncle Shavedlongcock (max), Wednesday, 12 November 2008 17:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

pika pika!

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 17:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

if you prefer the Titanic, mon, that works

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 18:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

# what are barack obama's flaws? [Started by and what in April 2008, last updated 4 minutes ago] 5 new answers
# not funny [Started by oooh in November 2005, last updated 4 minutes ago] 4 new answers

nelson algreen (get bent), Wednesday, 12 November 2008 18:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Paul Craig Roberts is probably right in his overall conclusions, but his piece doesn't exactly speak to Obama's flaws so much as the situation he will find himself in and the limits placed on his choices. Within the context of the office and what can be done right now, Obama will still be a first class president.

Aimless, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 18:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and WSJ & National Review ed:

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 19:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

morbs have you found any blogs by chuck colson yet I wonder what he has to say about obama

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 19:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

what the fuck happened to this guy

BIG HOOS' macaroni is off the motherfucking chain (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 12 November 2008 19:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

looking up roberts he seems to be a 9/11 truther nut among other fringey views.

velko, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 19:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

paul craig roberts also thinks that lincoln was "the american pol pot": http://www.vdare.com/roberts/police_state.htm. he's a complete crackpot.

J.D., Wednesday, 12 November 2008 21:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

jeez, Bill Clinton was a war criminal but he has some astute things to say

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 21:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

anyone suspected of being a bringer of change could not get confirmed by the Senate

largely true

Disregarding the unanimous US National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran stopped working on nuclear weapons five years ago, and ignoring the continued certification by the International Atomic Energy Agency that none of the nuclear material for Iran’s civilian nuclear reactor has been diverted to weapons use

Sadly otm

Change is coming from the financial crisis brought on by Wall Street greed and irresponsibility, from the eroding role of the US dollar as reserve currency

Also otm

The change that is coming is the end of American empire.

More wishful than true. We will be weakened, and reduced, but we'll still be the hegemonic world power throughout Obama's administration. Could be true, in a longer time frame.

Aimless, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 21:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol @ ron paul's massive disingenuousness reagan ass-kissing : http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html

Most Republicans endorsed this view in order to achieve victories at the polls. Limiting government power and size with less spending and a balanced budget as the goal used to be a "traditional" Republican value. This is what Goldwater and Reagan talked about. That is what the Contract with America stood for.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif

the night of counting the years (Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃), Wednesday, 12 November 2008 21:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Fuck Ron Paul, fuck XKCD, peace I'm audi 5gs

the night of counting the years (Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃), Wednesday, 12 November 2008 21:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

buying into lincoln hatred is sort of the kiss-the-ring moment for true right-libertarian nutjobs. you find someone that's on that shit you know you've struck GOLD.

goole, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 21:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

Butterfingers Obama Lets Blackberry Slip
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 16, 2009
Filed at 12:31 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama's cherished Blackberry slipped through his fingers Friday -- but it was only a butterfingers moment.

Obama, who has been reluctant to relinquish the device when he becomes president, dropped his Blackberry and its hard plastic case onto an airport tarmac as he emerged from his fortified vehicle.

A Secret Service agent hustled to pick it up.

Secret Service officials are among those urging Obama to give up his Blackberry habit, because it causes security worries. Lawyers think it also poses difficulties in keeping public records.

The wireless e-mail and phone device is Obama's constant companion and link to the outside world.

Told about the fumble, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs quipped: ''That may have solved his Blackberry dilemma, right? Forget the lawyers!''

No word yet on whether the Blackberry still works.

Mr. Que, Friday, 16 January 2009 17:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

Broke bread with Will, Krauthammer etc.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 16 January 2009 17:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

If he can make new friends of old enemies, then more power to him.

Calling All Creeps! (contenderizer), Friday, 16 January 2009 18:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah I think given the response of the conservative pundits that was a remarkably shrewd move. Do I like any of those guys? No. But not having them hate your guts from the get-go is probably not a bad idea.

Alex in SF, Friday, 16 January 2009 18:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

I am less thrilled about his overall desire to "reach out" to the right though on certain policy matter (those business tax cuts are ugh and his Guatanamo comments this weekend were pretty irritating) but I'm not sure some of that stuff isn't built to fail (i.e. let a dem congress strip it out while letting Obama seem very bi-partisan).

Alex in SF, Friday, 16 January 2009 18:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

I can't even imagine Clinton having vodka tonics with Newt Gingrich, let alone Bush with Daschle, so anytime a president can seduce the opposing camp's lapdogs is a huge plus.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 16 January 2009 18:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

i know this has probably been covered ad nauseam elswhere on ilx, but fuuhuhuhuhuuck that Rick Warren dude. I realize that it's a purely ceremonial function, relegated to one half hour of one day and it's not like he's being bandied about as replacement for Sec of Ed. if Arne Duncan gets accused of point shaving during his tenure in Australian league basketball (lol), but I feel Barry could have easily found a clergyman (or woman) with gravity and notoriety that embodies Christian principles without the hateful (re: gays) and willfully ignorant (re: creationism) rhetoric.

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Friday, 16 January 2009 18:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

Agree about the recent Guantanamo comments, but I still (optimistically) expect real progress on the closure as soon as he's in office. Half expect to be disappointed though...

Calling All Creeps! (contenderizer), Friday, 16 January 2009 18:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

as the CIA guy says in Charlie Wilson's War, "WE'LL SEE"

Dr Morbius, Friday, 16 January 2009 18:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

i know this has probably been covered ad nauseam elswhere on ilx, but fuuhuhuhuhuuck that Rick Warren dude.

More fun with Rick Warren.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 16 January 2009 18:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

so as far as flaws, Obama's eagerness to reach out to those who vehemently oppose him could be seen as a slap in the face to a lot of people who campaigned tirelessly for him, even when he was spouting off some political CYA bullshit like marriage = man + woman, could, you know, be one.

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Friday, 16 January 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

wotta dick x-post

lol "saddleback" - isn't that when christian youths engage in anal in order to technically stay virgins? ;)

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Friday, 16 January 2009 18:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah but his supporters knew they were backing someone whose management style was marked by openness and inclusivity.

redmond, Friday, 16 January 2009 18:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

Saddlebackers?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 16 January 2009 19:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sometimes uses nominative-case pronoun as object of preposition.

M.V., Friday, 16 January 2009 19:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

precis for the backlash?
"I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDA1MTkzYTc4NjA5MWQxOGNjMzU3YmZiYTJhZDQ5YTY=
i still have faith that b-o's running a long game around this kind of transparent partisanship, but i wouldn't mind seeing some proof soon

kamerad, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

in understanding the world it's important to stay as far away from the writings of victor davis hanson

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

He's doing a pretty crappy job so far with the "stimulus". Or rather he's sitting back and letting congress do a crappy job. Amounts to the same thing, basically.

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

hanson's a total tool, true, but there's a lot of similar droning going around in the right-wing echo chamber. i'd like to think it won't gain a wide hearing, but right now the republicans are showing way more on-message party discipline than the democrats

kamerad, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

Uh like they always do?

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

it helps if your statements don't have to be true? there's not a sentence in there that not in bad faith if not outright wrong.

"he promised so much and delivered on half! in two weeks! what a horrible president snicker snicker!"

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh no, democrats are worried about something

max, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

re: Daschle:

"I think I screwed up," Obama said in a wide-ranging interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper.

"And I take responsibility for it and we're going to make sure we fix it so it doesn't happen again."

Though I'm less concerned with the screw-up and more-or-less happy that dude can admit a mistake like a human being. I couldn't imagine this sentence coming out of W's mouth for any reason.

Whiney G. Weingarten, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

look VDH has always batted around .001 so this is good news if it's anything. plus most of his "points" are predictions, ah yes it will all come to pass as you say professor. he's not an analyst but a cosplayer of one, every time he says "it will" or "is going to", read "i really wish and pray super hard that..."

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

The thing that's most stuck with me from the acceptance speech in November was this:

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face.

Now, this can easily be read as a 'get out of jail free' card -- "Hey, I told you I'd goof!" And the proof ultimately is in the pudding. Still, I'm glad he said it, and the presumption is that he won't have to say it every week, so here's hoping.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think his flaws may not be any naive expectation of love and comity in international relations, but in expecting that from his domestic political enemies. i basically agree with this (posted to tpm) but i'm not sure the public will be receptive to a 'major address' anymore.

From Theda Skocpol ...

In response to what you are saying: Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as biparitsanship not saving the U.S. economy. Right now, he has only one chance to re-set this deteriorating debate: He needs to give a major speech on the economy, explain to Americans what is happening and what must be done. People will, as of now, still listen to him -- and what else is his political capital for?

Speaking as a strong Obama supporter who put my energies and money into it, I am now very disillusioned with him. He spent the last two weeks empowering Republicans -- including negotiating with them to get more into Senate and his administration and giving them virtual veto-power over his agenda -- and also spending time on his personal cool-guy image (as in interview before the Super Bowl). The country is in danger and he ran for president to solve this crisis in a socially inclusionary way. He should be fighting on that front all the time with all his energies -- and he certainly should give a major speech to help educate the public and shape the agenda. That is the least he can and should do. Only that will bypass the media-conserative dynamic that is now in charge.

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

personal cool-guy image

max, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

wtf why are people retarded

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^OTM

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

hey shakey and dan, stop working your personal cool-guy images

max, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

dude has been president for what, three weeks?

Whiney totally OTM about the apology/admission of error thing

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

Poll: Public Turning Against Stimulus Bill

By Eric Kleefeld - February 4, 2009, 2:07PM
A new Rasmussen poll shows that support for the stimulus plan appears to be falling precipitously in the last two weeks, since it became as heavily politicized as it is now:

Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?

Favor 37%
Oppose 43%

A week ago Rasmussen had a 42%-39% plurality favoring the plan, and a 45%-34% margin of support two weeks ago. Support among independents has fallen to 27%, unchanged from a week ago but down from 37% support two weeks ago.

So the Republican talking points out there against he bill -- too much spending, redistribution of wealth, stacking hundred-dollar bills on top of each other, etc -- appear to be having some measure of success.

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

that's what i'm saying. rightwing pundits and politicians are all over the place trash talking the stimulus and i'd like to see b-o take command of the dialogue again. but maybe he's just giving the naysayers enough rope to hang themselves

kamerad, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

"This guy who kept saying that he wanted to end partisan politics keeps trying to work with people in the other party! That's not why I voted for him!" <--- this line of rhetoric earns an instant "stfu, douchebag" from me

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

Such fucking irresponsibility among Republicans is hard to fathom, even when it is perfectly evident and has been for a long time.

It is time to rewrite Chapter 11 to require all corporate officers of bankrupt corporations to place their own assets into the bankruptcy and follow the corporation into receivership. Then the fuckers won't be so happy to see hard times coming.

Aimless, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

that idea appears to not make even a lick of sense beyond being vindictive

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

Maybe that's because you haven't given it a lick of thought, Dan.

Aimless, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

the gop has a lot of batshit economic ideas floating around in it as a general rule, but now they have a positive incentive to torpedoing the stimulus -- tank the economy, give the president a black eye, blame him for the mess in '10.

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

quite a few things have gotten me riled up a bit in the past week or so, say, right-wingers talking about how obama's a failure already, cheney's politico interview, republicans more or less dominating the stimulus debate despite not being in political power, mainstream press talking about how much of a disaster the nomination process has become, a bunch of things.

but it helps to take a deep breath and remember that the gop just faced some serious fucking losses (seems like ages ago), probably aren't poised to gain any congressional majorities in '10, and obama is actually in there for 4 more years at least (i still can't get over this after feeling like bush was president like forever), likely eight if nothing major happens.

mark cl, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

there's a difference between being fair to the other party and hearing them out vs. letting them frame the stimulus debate in the media

kamerad, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

what goole posted is basically otm - who cares what the republicans think!! if obama thinks that the bill is on point he should tell them to fuck off and pass it w/ only dem support. what are the drawbacks, politically? if it's a wild success then it will reflect highly on him, no matter who voted for it. and if it's a wild failure then it will reflect poorly on him, regardless of who voted for it.

your infinity in you is mad lifted (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

and yeah the fact that he has allowed them to 100% control the debate on this issue is mind blowing

your infinity in you is mad lifted (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

at least, i wanna see one of these fabled threatened filibusters actually happen. make mitch mcconnell stand up and read the fucking phone book or whatever and we'll see who really gets embarrassed by it.

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

and while i'm at it, i think the fact that bank nationalization is totally off the table is even more frustrating.

gee where's morbs when we need him

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

toasting marshmallows

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

"this is a bit o_0"

Article has been largely debunked elsewhere.

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

It basically conflates "rendition" with "extraordinary rendition," one of which is a synonym for "extradition from another country to the United States in order to face due process" and one of which is a synonym for "extradition to countries that will torture you." Obama is keeping the former and suspending the latter.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

cool, good to know.

Bone Thugs-N-Harmony ft Phil Collins (jim), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

IMHO it's not just the right wing pundits out there pushing GOP talking points, it's pretty much mainstream media.. booking a lot more GOP guests/commentators to repeat this stuff.
i don't buy for a second (never did) the explanation that obama is playing some mysterious other level chess game that the rest of us mortals just don't understand.

all it is is, right wing/drudge report driving the public dialogue & media happily following - as usual. really aggravating. cherry picking items in the bill that are comparatively miniscule in order to trash it & the democrats.. and furthermore, too many "liberal" writers/commentators happy to go right along and say, let's cave in to the GOP & just cross out whatever they complain about, that'll be a good strategy. ugh.

NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

mainstream media is just going along with it right now for the main reason they always do: they require drama.

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

I mean they did the same thing during the campaign, seesawing back and forth about Hillary ("ooh she's washed up! But wait, a comeback!") Its all just manufactured narrative bullshit that doesn't matter. You know why? Cuz in the end this stimulus bill will pass along a party line vote, and Obama will say to the Republicans "hey, I tried to include you but you were a bunch of bitchy whiny babies AND YOU STILL LOST."

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

This was going to happen to any President, regardless of who it was; you would see the exact same shitstorm swirling around Clinton, McCain, or Romney had the chips fallen slightly differently.

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

i really and truly do not think we're seeing anything at all unusual either in the losing party's response to the winning party's first few weeks in office, or in the press's post-inaugural shift to a critical stance. obama's got a big, ugly job in front of him, the ever-swelling stimulus package was bound to attact a LOT of negative attention no matter what, and his appointment stumbles couldn't have been more poorly timed.

take it in stride. we'll know better what way the wind is blowing a couple years from now.

Calling All Creeps! (contenderizer), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

and yeah none of this is in the least bit surprising - barring the issue with the withdrawn nominees, which is really minor imho.

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

I remember Ned frequently reminding us in the midst of shitstorms before the election that "It's only February."

"It's only June."

"It's only October."

Now I find myself thinking: guys? It's only February 2009.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

People remember when Supreme Court nominees get shot down - failed cabinet nominees are forgotten almost immediately and rightly so

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm sure we're gonna remember Daschle, though

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

"People remember when Supreme Court nominees get shot down"

Sorta. They remember memorable ones.

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

Harriet Miers and Hugh Hewitt, BFF

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

Daschle will still be around in some fashion though, unlike oh Linda Chavez who crawled back under some rock.

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

ugh Miers/Bork fanfiction would be the worst thing ever

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Can you mix...THIS kind of martini?"

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

slash fiction would top it.

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

Or is it just implied that all fanfic is slash now?

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

Miers/Bork/Palin/Katie Couric slash fic

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

my formatting was meant to imply slash; the inclusion of the word "fanfiction" was a mistake (as was thinking up the concept of "Miers/Bork", ugh ugh ugh)

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

Miers/Coulter/Palin/Malkin

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm sorry I will stop trying to ruin life

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

my slashes between the names in my previous post represent slashing

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

Miers/Limbaugh

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Andrew Sullivan ran this letter:

You have identified an approach by Obama that seems to be confounding the political pundits on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, among others. For example, the political “experts” on CNN yesterday wondered why Obama let the Republicans in the House get the “upper hand” on the stimulus bill. They are still operating under the grudge expectations of the past (i.e., now that the Democrats are in charge they can take retribution against the Republicans). Obama clearly seems to want none of this. He really seems to mean it when he says that this bill is not “his” bill, but everyone seems to be skeptical. It’s understandable since Washington has operated in this mode of political revenge for so long now (at least since the Clinton years) that Democrats are waiting for him to give them the battle charge to vanquish the Republicans and Republicans are wondering when the veneer will drop and Obama will sucker-punch them. I admit that this, too, is my natural political inclination. But I learned during the primary and presidential campaigns that every time I second-guessed Obama by wanting him to play the game as it has always been played, he proved me wrong.

Change will not come in two weeks. It will be a long process that requires building trust first. He seems right now to be committed to this process and I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I don't see it (pace Daria upthread) as an 'other' level chess game, just a long-term one. It might well not work, but that's the risk run to start with.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't agree with bits of that letter either.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

interesting re: Sully

altho in general I don't like him at all

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

maybe he'll set up daschle as some kind of czar working on health care or related issues - the advantage being, no need for confirmation by the Senate.

NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

xp: It's an "other level chess game" in the sense that he seems to actually be playing backgammon.

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Checkmate."

"Yeah, uh...wait."

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

"I jumped your king, that's $200 you owe me rent."

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

the writer assumes that things ran on grudge expectations in the past. questionable IMHO

NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, certainly some of Pelosi's aggression (and the Gingrich Repubs in the nineties) depended on grudge politics.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

not at all questionable imo

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

and resentment isn't necessarily a bad thing. RE the stimulus I agree with Barney Frank's remark the other day: Obama may have overstated his ability to bridge political divides. But we'll see.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's February 4th

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

You just learned that yourself, right?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

the point i take from sullivan's post is.. for a long time, it's going to be possible to explain everything that happens vis-a-vis obama administration as.. this is the new politics, which is different from the old politics, and everyone else just doesn't understand. perhaps they should invent shorthand or a nice acronym for this explanation, because it's not interesting, but at least it could be said briefly.

NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

Joan Didion wrote an essay in the late eighties called "In the Court of the Fisher King" or something, in which she eroded in her understated way the claim that Reagan's misstatements and blunders were really "signals" sent over the heads of the media to his true interpreters, The Base. Obama ain't Reagan, not by a long shot, but I don't want to get into the fortune telling trade yet.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

"everything that happens" = uh what exactly? that's pretty broad. Everything bad that happens? Everything good? Every bill that actually passes? A terrorist attack? Withdrawal from Iraq? Capturing Bin Laden?

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

as far as media commentary on the politics of any situation - yeah - i await plenty of "you just don't get it, this is the new politics." right now IMHO this is not the new politics, this is right wing talking points & the gop screwing up obama's plans, which IMHO is a very bad thing for the country.

NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

i mean GOP/right wing winning the message battle over this, is a bad thing for the country. i trust obama's people are mostly on point, i mostly get annoyed about stuff they're taking out of the bill

NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, i really hope that team O wasn't really expecting a lot of cooperation from the gop, on anything. they've got dudes out there showing placards of stacked dollar bills (omg), saying transit spending is not stimulative at all (wtf), or calling the bill a "mugging" (lol). time to cut them out. nobody remembers bipartisanship after a week except david broder. put a good bill together and get it to 51.

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

is it me or is it not really obvious that offering to cooperate with the GOP and then them acting like childish assholes makes the childish assholes look bad, not the other way around. This thing will pass along party lines, the public will go along with it and move on to the next crisis, and the GOP will have further isolated themselves like the jackasses they are.

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

yes, but in going along with the game, we'll come out with some weak brew of business breaks, tax cuts for buying america cars, and piddly road fixups, and not a gop yea vote in the bargain. it's not just the optics of the process that matter but the meat of the bill passed

goole, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:46 (eight years ago) Permalink


i don't buy for a second (never did) the explanation that obama is playing some mysterious other level chess game that the rest of us mortals just don't understand.

― NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Wednesday, February 4, 2009 3:57 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

u didnt even buy it when the metanarratives around your candidate sunk her?

LOOK WHAT I BRING TO THE TABLA (deej), Thursday, 5 February 2009 01:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

i mean in this case im not so sure hes on the right track but come on, u think it was just dumb luck & not his 'chess game' that had him beat the biggest name in dem politics??

LOOK WHAT I BRING TO THE TABLA (deej), Thursday, 5 February 2009 01:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

It helped that her campaign seemed to be run by three-year-olds.

nosotros niggamos (HI DERE), Thursday, 5 February 2009 01:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

i don't think it was 'metanarratives' but ground-game ruthless execution that offed HRC in the end.

goole, Thursday, 5 February 2009 01:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

besides, fighting HRC to a media/narrative draw doesn't mean he isn't getting rolled on the stimulus

goole, Thursday, 5 February 2009 01:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 5 February 2009 02:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

besides, fighting HRC to a media/narrative draw doesn't mean he isn't getting rolled on the stimulus

― goole, Wednesday, February 4, 2009 7:57 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i said as much

LOOK WHAT I BRING TO THE TABLA (deej), Thursday, 5 February 2009 02:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

just put off by daria's "ive been TELLING you guys" thing

LOOK WHAT I BRING TO THE TABLA (deej), Thursday, 5 February 2009 02:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

where did she say that

Mr. Que, Thursday, 5 February 2009 02:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

i don't buy for a second (never did) the explanation that obama is playing some mysterious other level chess game that the rest of us mortals just don't understand.

― NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Wednesday, February 4, 2009 3:57 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i was referring to this (altho taking into acct her exaggeration of the position that i & others argued), if i recall the primaries threads correctly something of a consensus developed that yah he kinda was playing a mysterious (i.e. didnt have any information leaks) other level chess game (i.e. came up with a winning plan & stuck to it w/ consistency) that 'us mortals' didnt understand (lol obama is GOD to his supporters amirite??)

LOOK WHAT I BRING TO THE TABLA (deej), Thursday, 5 February 2009 03:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think you're making a mountain out of a molehill

Mr. Que, Thursday, 5 February 2009 03:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's maybe time to put away all the bullshit lessons we learned from the primary thread and move on

Mr. Que, Thursday, 5 February 2009 03:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11358

[i]Finally, at his press conference today, President Obama begins to rise above the Church of Broderism that fetishizes bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake, and instead offer up a little bit of good old fashioned commonsense:

In the past few days, I've heard criticisms that this [stimulus] plan is somehow wanting, and these criticisms echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care, that we can somehow deal with this in a piecemeal fashion and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.
I reject those theories. And so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change.

More like this, please.

If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Thursday, 5 February 2009 09:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

[/i]!

If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Thursday, 5 February 2009 09:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Liberal Democrats: waiting for the Republicans to pay the price for looking like childish assholes for 28 years

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 5 February 2009 14:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

The writer is president of the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
now that's what i'm talking about. give em hell barry

kamerad, Thursday, 5 February 2009 15:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Liberal Democrats: waiting for the Republicans to pay the price for looking like childish assholes for 28 years

in case you didn't notice they lost the white house and both majorities in congress and their core demographics are shrinking

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 February 2009 18:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

He's a bully:

http://i40.tinypic.com/5yxcu0.jpg

Alba, Friday, 6 February 2009 00:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”

ah, that's more like it.

thunda lightning (clotpoll), Friday, 6 February 2009 11:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

no doubt! heard some reporters discussing this @ npr this morning & finally seemed to be catching on as far as why it might be important to spend money, someone called in & made the point that the GOP had no problem with spending shitloads of money every time bush wanted it, no questions asked. but a lot of media still hung up on viewing the entire thing as fighting for political advantage, which.. no doubt plays a role in whatever gets done but for crying out loud, another 600K+ jobs were lost last month!!

also, good lord - some of you guys really need to get over the primaries.

NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Friday, 6 February 2009 16:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, the "Villagers" aspect of this is really taking over, with all these pundits and journos continuing along on their behavior of something between junior high schoolers and courtiers/syncophants of the Sun King.

kingfish, Friday, 6 February 2009 17:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

And sentiments like We're All Bob Somerby Now are spreading

kingfish, Friday, 6 February 2009 17:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think PRESIDENT: ARE THESE PEOPLE SERIOUS? is my favorite headline.

Like, ever.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 6 February 2009 17:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

"I don't care whether you're driving a hybrid or an SUV -- if you're headed for a cliff, you've got to change direction."

^^^luv this fucking guy

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 February 2009 17:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

I've been reading somerby for years as well.. the media attack on gore in 2000 is kind of an idee fixe for him, but he's OTM on that, I think.
did you catch MoDo's recent column comparing obama visiting a DC public school while Daschle was being attacked for tax issues to... Bush sitting there in the classroom, dumbfounded, on 9/11? clearly THE SAME THING

NFL RUNOFF miss u plaxico (daria-g), Friday, 6 February 2009 21:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

the hatchet job the new yorker did on gore in 2000 still gives me the willies

kamerad, Friday, 6 February 2009 21:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

Rumor is he's not very good in the sack. Neither was Sam Cooke apparently. Huh. Imagine that.

OldHamSweat, Friday, 6 February 2009 21:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

Wait...you got a source for that, OHS?

Stefanthenautilus, Saturday, 7 February 2009 21:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

Lucianne Goldberg told him; he recorded the conversation.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 7 February 2009 21:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4209/att00000lg2.gif

James Mitchell, Saturday, 7 February 2009 22:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Mr. White, words cannot express my delight in what lies at the end of this link. My sorry ass motherfucking ignorance has been cured.

Aimless, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

There is something immensely satisfying about it, n'est-ce pas?

It is not enough to love mankind – you must be able to stand (Michael White), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

Nixon on the WH tapes - now there was a motherfucking asshole. This Obama guy is just... sweet.

Aimless, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. His 'motherfucker' sounds downright wholesome next to any profanity uttered by Nixon.

It is not enough to love mankind – you must be able to stand (Michael White), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

NO WORSHIPPERS HEAH, NO SIR

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

did you promise not to post about obama for the first 90 days?

Lord Infamous Epsilon (and what), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

Oh, c'mon, Morbs! Did you ever expect to hear a President of the U.S. utter the word 'motherfucker' like that?

xpost

It is not enough to love mankind – you must be able to stand (Michael White), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

Take a listen, Morbs. It's Obama reading aloud from his book about growing up, for a book-on-CD version. He doesn't seem able to make it sound nasty. The timbre of his voice is too gosh-darned good-natured.

Aimless, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

he wanted ron paul, who cant say "motherfucker" without a racial slur in front of it

funk doctor nude spock (and what), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

did you promise not to post about obama for the first 90 days?

i promised not to comment on his policies, and must you dive on my dick every time you see I've posted? It's disturbing.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

Technically, it's a comment about the Obamaloverfaithful, amirite Morbs?

----> (libcrypt), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.art-books.com/artbooks/images/items/05-2338.jpg

Mr. Que, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

I saw my first (1.20.13) bumper sticker today.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

What did the little voice inside your head say?

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

Don't look, Barack!

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

He should stop emailing everybody asking for hits on his Youtube videos but then leaving the videos as 'friends only' so no one can watch them.

James Mitchell, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

He needs to give Joe Biden the correct name for recovery.org

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

is, by any reasonable standard, a huge fucking liar.

is just another Imperial Manager, most reminiscent of Clinton and Nixon so far.

(welcome to the 101st day)

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

Dr. Morbius is talking about reasonable standards

loaded forbear (gabbneb), Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

x-post -- Not only that, there is not enough melody in his speeches.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

one of his flaws i was thinking last night is that he's too perfect and too handsome--it would be nice if he got something wrong so we could criticize him for it

Mr. Que, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

whats the over/under on the number of days until morbius is banned from all politics threads

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

He has cellulite on the backs of his thighs. I saw it in the Enquirer.

Kevin Yates, Phys. Ed. (u s steel), Thursday, 30 April 2009 15:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

Do we have a hundred days thread proper somewhere?

thomp, Thursday, 30 April 2009 17:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

I mean, I'm aware it's a meaningless retarded benchmark, but I feel I should catch up.

thomp, Thursday, 30 April 2009 17:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

Here's Ms. Magazine's list of womanly accomplishments:
http://www.msmagazine.com/press/2009_Obama100Days.asp

Alex in SF, Thursday, 30 April 2009 18:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

What has he been lying about? I haven't been paying close enough attention, I guess. Mostly I just get all my news from watching PBS and reading this board.

slugbaiting (rockapads), Thursday, 30 April 2009 19:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

I've been having a hard time figuring out his flaws. Will we really know this early about policy flaws? All I can think of is superficial stuff. "Arrogance", his whole professorial speaking style which can be tedious to listen to sometimes.

slugbaiting (rockapads), Thursday, 30 April 2009 19:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sometimes you can see his political gears grinding his brain to a halt. His answer last night on torture and the Bush administration was totally incoherent because he didn't want to say outright that his predecessor had committed crimes, yet he wanted to signal that he understood that Bush did.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 April 2009 19:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

right, morbius -- nixon was "just another imperial manager," no better or worse than any of the others.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 30 April 2009 19:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

He supports charter schools.

Mr. Snrub, Thursday, 30 April 2009 20:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

His approved federal government budget might get me laid off.

Mr. Snrub, Thursday, 30 April 2009 20:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

That's just three letters more than something awesome :-(

StanM, Thursday, 30 April 2009 20:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

Isn't he supporting some weird expansion of federal branch powers in court?

autogucci cru (deej), Tuesday, 5 May 2009 15:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

Oh no! Even WORSE! First Lady wears dress more than once SHOCK

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/06/2009-05-06_michelle_obama.html

StanM, Thursday, 7 May 2009 22:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

why is there any controversy at all about where the Guantanamo detainees should go? I can understand navigating the legal complexities regarding TRYING them (under what charges, with what evidence, etc.) but seriously - Reps/Senators are complaining about sending detainees to prisons in their states? What the fuck is wrong with their prisons that they can't hold violent criminals? Was federal prison not good enough for Timothy McVeigh? Or Manson? Or whoever? I don't get it. Our prisons already house people just as (if not more) dangerous than these guys (including that blind sheikh from the OG WTC bombing), why doesn't the Obama administration just point this out. It is really not that big a deal.

Skinny Malinky (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 7 May 2009 23:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

enjoy your FANCY BURGER

once he puts that purple he will become an enemy (omar little), Thursday, 7 May 2009 23:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

president poop on

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Friday, 8 May 2009 00:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

I cannot believe I live in a world massively threatened by environmental catastrophe, and my government is barely even talking about half-measures, let alone moving heaven and earth with fierce urgency to save the planet. And the oil guys aren’t even in the White House anymore.

I cannot believe I live in a world where the economy is imploding and the guy in charge of the country where the recession is rooted has hired agents of the very criminal crowd responsible for the problem to produce a solution, and that, shockingly, the ‘solution’ once again benefits wealthy elites while doing little for the rest of us.

I cannot believe that I live in a country with a crumbling healthcare system, and the solution being offered by the “change” candidate-now-president – to the extent we will see one at all – will forego the obvious model of universal coverage adopted by all other developed countries in the world, and will instead slap Scotch Tape on the train wreck of the existing for-profit healthcare disaster, in an attempt to hold it together a little longer.

I cannot believe that I live in a world where the Taliban is within spitting distance of capturing nuclear-armed Pakistan, and my government can’t even get serious enough about peace in the Middle East to show some real security guarantee carrots and foreign aid sticks to its client state in the region, forcing it to end an illegal and deeply antagonizing annexation masquerading as a forty year occupation.

I cannot believe I live in a country where individuals who knowingly broke the law and ruined the national reputation by torturing are exposed by the president, only for him to then turn around and deploy magical powers which supposedly allow him to exonerate them in advance.

This is Obama’s America? This is Obama’s America....

For a year now I’ve wondered what Obama would turn out to be – a Bill Clinton or an FDR. I think we have a pretty good answer at this point. Indeed, ironically, Obama now seems to be out-Clintoning Clinton. He not only has the very national crisis that Wild Bill craved, he’s got about six of them. But always the response seems to be incredibly tepid and conventional and, well, conservative – as the above examples show.

Even when it’s a slam-dunk policy choice, he is still the Cautious Kid to a fault....

The biggest irony may just be this: That Barack Obama’s instinct for the capillary could be the one thing that has the capability of reaching deep down into the toilet bowl, down through the pipes and into the sewer system, and dragging the shit-encrusted Republican Party back to the surface, miraculously offering it a magical elixir of renewed viability despite its own immensely successful attempt at party suicide.

http://www.counterpunch.org/green05112009.html

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 14:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

This belongs in the "What are Counterpunch's flaws?" thread.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 14:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

I cannot believe that I live in a world where the Taliban is within spitting distance of capturing nuclear-armed Pakistan, and my government can’t even get serious enough about peace in the Middle East to show some real security guarantee carrots and foreign aid sticks to its client state in the region, forcing it to end an illegal and deeply antagonizing annexation masquerading as a forty year occupation.

ha ha ha

Swat Valley High (goole), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 14:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

I mean, you can't argue that Obama's policies might trigger a Republican resurgence when the post implies (and in places explicitly argues) that Obama's political moves are deeply conservative and thus Clinton-esque.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 14:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

I cannot believe that I live in a world where people post ridiculous stuff they find on blogs.

Mr. Que, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 14:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

counterpunch is a 'website'

Swat Valley High (goole), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 14:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

can he really not believe any of that stuff, because some of those things seem pretty believable to me, if only because, they actually are true

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 14:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

good thing a shit-encrusted Republican Party resurgence won't matter since there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

^ THIS IS WHY (I DIED), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

my taste for old-school lefty ranting died out after being too well-acquainted with certain cadres of the Nader 2000 campaign ...

Pull Slinky and Make Me Fart (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

i really can't believe so many leftists think that kicking israel to the curb will magically make the whole "middle east" (here including pakistan? uh...) sort itself out towards "peace".

Swat Valley High (goole), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

and dude needs to get a history book, too -- i'm down w/ bashing Geithner and folks who want to sweep the Justice Department's torture memos under the rug and i heart the New Deal and shit, but if he thinks that the New Deal was some Sacred Project administered solely by the Angels of Light then he's more ignorant than Limbaugh on one of his bad days.

i mean, JOE FUCKING KENNEDY was the first Chairman of the SEC for God's sake!

Pull Slinky and Make Me Fart (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

but the public BELIEVES there are significant differences between the duopolies, those who bother to vote at least (or can't abide not pretending there are). Those fantasists are amply rep'd here.

In which policy areas that Green lists has he misrepresented Obama's actions?

if he thinks that the New Deal was some Sacred Project administered solely by the Angels of Light

Christ, i'd tell you to stop inventing arguments that don't exist here, but it's the only way you win.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

In which policy areas that Green lists has he misrepresented Obama's actions?

Green stated that Obama deployed "magical powers" when, in fact, Obama is not even a magician.

^ THIS IS WHY (I DIED), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

In which policy areas that Green lists has he misrepresented Obama's actions?

um, all of them?

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

I cannot believe I live in a world where the economy is imploding and the guy in charge of the country where the recession is rooted has hired agents of the very criminal crowd responsible for the problem to produce a solution

Timmy G has never worked in the private sector

Mr. Que, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

That Barack Obama’s instinct for the capillary could be the one thing that has the capability of reaching deep down into the toilet bowl, down through the pipes and into the sewer system, and dragging the shit-encrusted Republican Party back to the surface, miraculously offering it a magical elixir of renewed viability despite its own immensely successful attempt at party suicide.

mixed metaphor--pick either the circulatory system or digestive system, not both

Mr. Que, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

I cannot believe I live in a world massively threatened by environmental catastrophe, and my government is barely even talking about half-measures, let alone moving heaven and earth with fierce urgency to save the planet. And the oil guys aren’t even in the White House anymore.

to take the one example that I am most personally acquainted with, talking about the climate change/cap-and-trade bill, the Obama administration's active engagement with global initiatives, the federal money being invested in transmission infrastructure and green technology applications, the increase in federally funded scientific research, etc. - all within the first few months of an administration - as "barely even talking about half measures" is totally blatant misrepresentation.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

I cannot believe that I live in a world where the Taliban is within spitting distance of capturing nuclear-armed Pakistan, and my government can’t even get serious enough about peace in the Middle East to show some real security guarantee carrots and foreign aid sticks to its client state in the region, forcing it to end an illegal and deeply antagonizing annexation masquerading as a forty year occupation.

as has already been pointed out, this is near-total nonsense. The Taliban's military adventures in Pakistan have pretty much nothing to do with Israel. Almost a completely separate set of issues and dynamics at play - plz to get one history/geography book k thx

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

well like i said it's pretty stupid to link up israel/m.e. policy and afghan/pakistan policy up on a 1-to-1 causal basis, but since you asked: rahm immanuel has been quoted as saying the US wants two states, now, and doesn't care who the PM of israel is.

the real crazy thing about pakistan is that, in general, the US is more freaked out about the taliban controlling more and more territory than the pakistanis appear to be. if david michael green has some bright ideas about how to get a country to fight its internal enemies when its military basically doesn't want to, i'd love to hear them. only, if that bright idea is "tell bibi netanyahu & avigdor lieberman to go fuck theirselves" then a) lol and b) we did that? pakistan is still a mess, go figure.

i don't think he's "misinterpreted" obama's actions so much as he has not interpreted them in the first place.

Swat Valley High (goole), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

the real crazy thing about pakistan is that, in general, the US is more freaked out about the taliban controlling more and more territory than the pakistanis appear to be.

otm

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, as various commentators have pointed out, Pakistan has been fixated on India as its mortal enemy for pretty much its entire existence, pivoting to address an internal problem has them a bit befuddled.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

especially when that internal problem has been actively helping them annoy india for decades

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

the alliance between the pakistani army and various mujahadeen sub-factions might be stupid, but it's not crazy

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 15:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

I cannot believe that I live in a world where the Taliban is within spitting distance of capturing nuclear-armed Pakistan, and my government can’t even get serious enough about peace in the Middle East to show some real security guarantee carrots and foreign aid sticks to its client state in the region, forcing it to end an illegal and deeply antagonizing annexation masquerading as a forty year occupation.


this is a really fucking funny paragraph. its like pacifist colonialism or something. how exactly do carrots and sticks 'force' things to happen? isnt that the opposite of the idea behind 'carrots and sticks'?

autogucci cru (deej), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

When you understand the amount of money the USA sends to Israel each year, you will understand how the author you quoted might believe that the USA has sufficient leverage to "force" Israel to change its policies. This could be a mistaken belief, but it is not entirely unrealistic.

btw, a stick is very much a symbol of force.

Aimless, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

force as a verb not as a noun, deej

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

I cannot believe it took 4 paragraphs to blame Israel.

bnw, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

a carrot is a symbol of force too, inasmuch as the carrot bequeather has the power to withhold it; that this particular metaphor construes the subject of these blandishments to be a donkey has lessened its appeal somewhat amongst people who give a shit about such things

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

isn't the carrot ON the stick? like you're holding out the stick and the carrot is hanging off a string at the end?

s1ocki, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

s1ocki = Fudd

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

fudd on the low

velko, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

if you want a donkey to find its giddyup you've got two basic tools: a carrot to entice it forward or a stick with which to smack its ass from behind

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 20:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

but you're right, if you yourself are riding the donkey then yeah, a stick and a piece of string would be a good system of carrotage. you'd need two sticks in that case because it could get tedious untying the string each time you wanted to use the stick as a whip. though i guess you wouldn't need to. you could just whip the donkey with string, carrot and all, running the (slight) risk that the force of your whipping caused the carrot to slip out of its probably not-too-well-tied knot. it would get messy. two sticks would be far better.

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 20:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

Kneecapping Party Boss Obama helps clear the NY senatorial decks for Appointee Gillibrand:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-05-27/columns/obama-the-political-fixer-works-new-york-s-senate-primary

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Obama_clears_field_for_Gillibrand_in_New_York.html

Prior to Obama's intervention, at least five veteran public officials were actively considering running against Gillibrand. Most, like Long Island congressman Steve Israel, who got the warning message directly from the White House, thought they could present themselves to voters in a state primary as a viable alternative to Gillibrand on several issues that Obama himself championed in his own race: gun safety, fairness to immigrants, the economy. That was the plan, that is, until the president told them not to bother.

...His heavy-handed politicking is a surprise only to those of us who know him solely from his inspiring campaign. It is old news to those in Chicago who watched Obama's steady rise. I admit to warnings received from Windy City friends who said Obama had taken lessons in kneecapping from his ward-heeler pals in City Hall and the state legislature. This complaint sounded like a petty gripe resulting from a family squabble. Even if true, it was a tiny blemish on a magnificent canvas. This notion held right up until the moment when the White House invoked Chicago rules—one of ours to the hospital, one of yours to the morgue—on any Democrat seeking to challenge Gillibrand.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 4 June 2009 12:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

why do you think he prefers gillibrand

autogucci cru (deej), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

That he can't lock up people like the ones in this video is a pretty big flaw of his job, IMHO.

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/06/max-blumenthal-feeling-the-hate-in-jerusalem-on-eve-of-obamas-cairo-address.html?

StanM, Friday, 5 June 2009 15:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

yah its pretty flawed that we cant imprison people we disagree with

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

We need another Wilson.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

why do you think he prefers gillibrand

because she's an appointed incumbent, ie might as well use our funds try to buy a Dem Senate seat somewhere else in the country. ie, democracy-for-sale as usual, the Schmuck Schumer-Rahmbo Emanuel way.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 5 June 2009 15:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

morbs id vote for you if you ran

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

rahmbo emmanuel << next level name-gaming

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

dunno, leaving "emmanuel" untouched is pretty lazy

congratulations (n/a), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

rahmbo escamuel

congratulations (n/a), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

this is harder than it looks

congratulations (n/a), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

he-scams-you-well

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

He-ram-you-well

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

rahmbo fuckface

loose lobsters (brownie), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 5 June 2009 15:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah i invented Rahmbo, right

way to focus on the scummy Obama gaming too.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 5 June 2009 16:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

honestly I don't give a shit

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 June 2009 16:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

wait are you saying you plagiarize these nicknames? ur breakin my heart over here

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 5 June 2009 16:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

I mean this is standard operating procedure for a smart political party - its not like he's disseminating misinformation a la Karl Rove or assassinating political opponents or something

x-post

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 June 2009 16:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

I mean this is standard operating procedure

ding ding ding ding

Dr Morbius, Friday, 5 June 2009 16:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

what do u all make of the explanation that the moves toward photo suppression are a big favor to maliki? "baghdad will burn" etc. i don't much care, myself.

it seems, i dunno, just natural -- the executive always jealously defends any and all prerogatives of the executive, no matter who or what he is or what they are. if the GOP were to suddenly turn on Obama on these issues and hammer him as an "imperial president", it would be a feature and not a bug of the american system, but they don't have two ideals to rub together anymore. it'd be nice if the teleprompter jokes and "government motors, morelike!!" gags became uh operationalized to something constitutionally useful, but that whole corner of america is just beyond hope.

reo teabaggin (goole), Friday, 5 June 2009 16:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

i've said this all before, but i see no compelling reason for photos to be released to the public--filed in court as part of criminal charges? absolutely.

V-CHIP BILLY (Mr. Que), Friday, 5 June 2009 16:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

well there's the rub though, because the ACLU clearly wants these photos so they can build a case that torture was an institutionalized practice and then they can bring criminal charges against the Bush administration.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 June 2009 16:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

but they can't file those charges until they get the photos, and the only way to get them released is under the FOIA

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 June 2009 17:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

Weird pre-moustache.

M.V., Friday, 5 June 2009 20:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

on gillibrand:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/new-yorks-gillibrand-has-become.html

iatee, Sunday, 7 June 2009 01:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

"with very few exceptions, electoral considerations bear far more firmly on a Congressperson's voting record than any sort of deep-seated personal convictions."

So yeah, she makes me feel so good

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 7 June 2009 14:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

serious question

casual racism fridays (bug), Sunday, 7 June 2009 20:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

this qualifies as a flaw. ffs.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Friday, 12 June 2009 17:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

He's taking us down for his own benefit.

I don't see how Obama benefits from this, which is why I also don't understand why he's taking this particular legal tack (also that blog post totally overstates the DOJ's legal argument being made, but that's just a rhetorical issue....)

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 June 2009 18:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Holy shit.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 June 2009 18:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

that is some serious bullshit

sorry i poisoned u with nachos :( (HI DERE), Friday, 12 June 2009 18:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

although seeing it is Holder and not Obama slightly lowers my urge-to-kill reflex towards Obama and redirects it towards Holder

still: serious bullshit

sorry i poisoned u with nachos :( (HI DERE), Friday, 12 June 2009 18:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

i'm not defending this, but AmericaBlog is lying when it says Obama is lying about what it's doing. the fact that the four previous Presidents had their DOJ oppose the law on the books does not mean that Obama has to believe that's an appropriate use of the DOJ. it's not news that the dude thinks change comes legislatively.

Endless Bourgie (gabbneb), Friday, 12 June 2009 18:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm boiling.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 June 2009 18:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

also, crickets from John 'n Morbs re "CHANGE" on the whole Israeli settlements thing

Endless Bourgie (gabbneb), Friday, 12 June 2009 18:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

agree with gabbneb, which unfortunately is not lessening my urge-to-kill

sorry i poisoned u with nachos :( (HI DERE), Friday, 12 June 2009 18:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

Does Barack Obama care too much about his wife's clothing?!

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huggett/090611

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Saturday, 13 June 2009 00:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

crickets from John 'n Morbs re "CHANGE" on the whole Israeli settlements thing

whatever nuanced words he's issued lately, pardon me for not caring any more right now than the heavyweights running Israel do.

(you may eat the crickets)

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 13 June 2009 00:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

lmao

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 June 2009 00:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

<3 morbs

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 June 2009 00:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

crickets! the shrimp of the air! /mark s

Woman who offers Michelle Obama fashion crit should maybe look in a mirror sometime IMO

http://www.renewamerica.com/images/columnists/huggett.jpg

bad hijab (suzy), Saturday, 13 June 2009 00:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

eddie izzard, after a religious experience, now writing right wing screeds

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 June 2009 00:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

Cleve Jones (you know, Emile Hirsch in the movie) confirms there'll be a gay rights march on D.C. in October:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/06/cleve-jones-we-have-permit-march-on.html

We should be marching, engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience every day. We have a window, but it's already starting to close. If you think you're going to get anything out of Obama in the second half of his term, you don't know anything about political history. In a year, he'll be in full re-election mode."

Referring to today's DOJ-DOMA news, Jones closed with this: "It's so clear that Obama and the Democratic leadership are turning their backs on us. If we don't go for it now, we'll get nothing. It's beginning to smell a lot like Clinton."

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 13 June 2009 00:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

whatever nuanced words he's issued lately, pardon me for not caring any more right now than the heavyweights running Israel do.

maybe if you were better at following the coverage you'd know that more than words are involved, but keep talking about "heavyweights" "running" things

Endless Bourgie (gabbneb), Saturday, 13 June 2009 01:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

andrew sullivan's got comprehensive coverage of the legalities and complexities, and the whole issue is sort of complicated. but the bottom line seems to be that even if this wasn't the right case to challenge DOMA on, the administration's brief went farther than it needed to to satisfy the justice dept's obligation. and of course the context is of a rising sense of impatience and disappointment on gay issues more generally. obama obviously is going to have to be pushed on gay rights, and maybe he's made a strategic decision that he won't move until he's really forced to. that's not an honorable position even if it's politically safe (and i'm not even sure it's politically safe). but anyway, time to see some action.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 13 June 2009 03:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

the bottom line seems to be that even if this wasn't the right case to challenge DOMA on

as Larry Tribe argues

the administration's brief went farther than it needed to to satisfy the justice dept's obligation.

so they shouldn't have made their case zealously? the brief was written by a Bush admin holdover as would be typical in the early days of a new admin

Endless Bourgie (gabbneb), Saturday, 13 June 2009 07:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

I certainly hope Obama comes out forcefully in favor of same-sex marriage soon, but perhaps it's understandable that he wouldn't want to use his political capital on this issue in his first 6 months in office. His agenda is a bit ambitious already, ya know. Considering that he is basically trying to reshape the role of government in American society and create a new social contract, perhaps he is wise to prevent wedge issues from hurting the chance of success for his MAJOR policy initiatives. This issue could hurt him politically, and in terms of actual policy, there isn't really all that much the Executive branch can do.

I can live with Obama pushing the status quo on same-sex marriage for a year if it mean passing comprehensive health care reform and universal health insurance.

Super Cub, Saturday, 13 June 2009 07:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

But that's just me, and I'm not personally effected by this issue. I sure as hell would like to see my state do what is right.

Super Cub, Saturday, 13 June 2009 07:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

i disagree w that logic, kinda

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=100

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens' "Councilor" or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direst action" who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

autogucci cru (deej), Saturday, 13 June 2009 07:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

i mean, this court case may have just been the wrong one, then its the wrong one. but as a rule the "take it easy, it'll happen" kinda thing is ... not true. the reason that things like civil rights 'happen' is bcuz ppl dont take it easy, they agitate for change (i.e. why i voted obama --> 'hes never going to be president' well yeah if everyone has that attitude ... u have to actually get out there & make that shit happen & that means agitating for change when you know it needs to happen)

autogucci cru (deej), Saturday, 13 June 2009 07:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

Cleve Jones (you know, Emile Hirsch in the movie) confirms there'll be a gay rights march on D.C. in October:

SPEED RACER IS GAY?!?!?!?!?!?

El Tomboto, Saturday, 13 June 2009 07:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

cant believe it took u this long to figure that out

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Saturday, 13 June 2009 07:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, I thought someone would call me out on the 'just wait, it'll happen' sentiment. That's not really what I am saying though. I'm all for people going ape shit over this issue and putting all kinds of pressure on their elected officials (I wrote several politicians for what its worth). What I'm saying is that it may in fact be shrewd and wise for Obama not to push this issue. It's a political calculation aimed at getting things done.

Super Cub, Saturday, 13 June 2009 08:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

You quote MLK, but Johnson, the ultimate political operator, got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

Super Cub, Saturday, 13 June 2009 08:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

You all sound like bill maher tonight, I don't want a democratic politician! I want a benevolent dictator! yeah, well, keep voting for nader or what the fuck ever. Obama bears half a resemblance to goddamn Nixon, and compared to four before him, that's fuckin high fives

El Tomboto, Saturday, 13 June 2009 08:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

johnson was also spent his whole career proving that democrats suck at foreign policy

El Tomboto, Saturday, 13 June 2009 08:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

btw (love the man, he put FOIA through, too - the job has many aspects)

El Tomboto, Saturday, 13 June 2009 08:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

You quote MLK, but Johnson, the ultimate political operator, got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

You think this just happened with LBJ getting up in the morning and thinking, "Shit! Gotta do somethin' about civil rights today!"? He acted after a decade of consistent pushing.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 June 2009 12:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

from Jake Tapper's blog:

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 June 2009 12:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

corroborating MLK:

We want the world and we want it now
We're gonna take it anyhow

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 13 June 2009 12:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

corroborating?

Endless Bourgie (gabbneb), Saturday, 13 June 2009 12:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

You think this just happened with LBJ getting up in the morning and thinking, "Shit! Gotta do somethin' about civil rights today!"? He acted after a decade of consistent pushing.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that effective public policy making involves making calculations and using political capital in the right way at the right time.

Yes, the Civil Rights Movement had been going on for 10 years, but it took the combination of LBJ's politic maneuvering and cajoling, plus the political capital gained in the aftermath of JFK's assassination to get the thing passed. If you look at the progress of the bill, there were several points when it nearly got killed. Would the bill have passed in 1960? With a newly elected, 43 year old president who won the election by less than 1% of the popular vote. I don't think so. Effective politicians make calculations and think about timing and prevailing winds.

Maybe some people didn't know what they were getting when they voted for Obama. He's a pragmatist and a political gamer. Personally, I'm totally fine with that, because that's how things get done in government. If Obama thinks that he has a short window of opportunity to make huge, sweeping, vitally important changes in our government, and he believes that same-sex marriage could hurt his chances of success, then staying on the sideline on this issue is shrewd and good politicking. By the same token, if he is calculating that weighing in too early on same-sex marriage will make his play less effective, then I'm glad he's making that calculation too. Considering that the executive branch has little direct say over this issue, and the president's role is basically symbolic, maybe he's right to sit back now. Poll numbers on this issue are shifting, more states are changing laws. If Obama has decided to let things develop and then make a stand at a crucial tipping point, then that's shrewd and probably will be more effective then getting out in front on this issue. If you want a politician who takes principled stands at the expense of actually getting things done, then you should have voted for Nader.

Super Cub, Saturday, 13 June 2009 20:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

what if these purported calculations are wrong?

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 13 June 2009 20:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

Super Cub, you're repeating every argument we've had here and the political threads for the last three years. All your points are noted. I didn't vote for Obama, in large part because I suspected where he'd come down on this; and yet, and yet, as Law Dork notes, the DOJ didn't need to use such strong language:

It’s offensive, it’s dismissive, it’s demeaning and — most importantly — it’s unnecessary. Even if one accepts that DOJ should have filed a brief opposing this case (and the facts do suggest some legitimate questions about standing), the gratuitous language used throughout the filing goes much further than was necessary to make its case.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 June 2009 20:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

Fair enough. I definitely believe that Obama needs to come out strongly on this issue, if not now, sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Super Cub, Saturday, 13 June 2009 20:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

Super Cub, you're repeating every argument we've had here and the political threads for the last three years. All your points are noted. I didn't vote for Obama, in large part because I suspected where he'd come down on this;

― Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:51 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark

are u serious

autogucci cru (deej), Saturday, 13 June 2009 21:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

YEAH, HE'S SEEN DEMOCRATS BEFORE

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 13 June 2009 21:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

what if these purported calculations are wrong?

Well they very well might be, but Obama seems to have a pretty good feel for this stuff. He's played most everything right so far.

Super Cub, Saturday, 13 June 2009 21:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

Okay so I got sortof out of hand at the local Starbucks. Yes I'm drunk, but I yelled at a woman going in "WE TORTURED PEOPLE AT GUANTANEMO!" and I saw the look in her eyes. She wanted to wince, she could see the truth in my eyes.

Obama can really suck it, man. I'm ashamed to be an American. You hear me? If there's one subject in this world I feel strongly about it's fucking torture and I am ASHAMED. Go to freaking hell if these goddamn mother fuckers aren't brought to justice. I won't stand for it. Not for a fucking minute.

Fever Pitch, Bitch (Bimble), Saturday, 13 June 2009 22:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

INNOCENT PEOPLE TORTURED BY THE UNITED STATES IN MY LIFETIME

OBAMA CAN SUCK IT

AND THAT GODDAMN MOTHER FUCKER FROM IRAN TOO

Fever Pitch, Bitch (Bimble), Saturday, 13 June 2009 22:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

goin in ^^^

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 June 2009 23:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

are u serious

― autogucci cru (deej),

Fuck yeah.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 13 June 2009 23:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

Saw David Simon in some sort of Q&A. Said Obama wasn't the answer, but that he'd mean things got bad less quickly. Is that the case or not?

GamalielRatsey, Sunday, 14 June 2009 00:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

Well they very well might be, but Obama seems to have a pretty good feel for this stuff. He's played most everything right so far.

Oh for god's sake shut the fuck UP. No he hasn't!

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 00:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

is "go vote for nader" going to be thrown at every obama critic for the next four years? i voted for the guy (obama, not nader) and i think excusing every single political maneuver on the grounds of "pragmatism" or "that's just what you gotta do to get things done" or whatever brand of beltway bs is fashionable that week is a recipe for disaster. i mean, i don't think people like us were sitting around in 1964 saying "don't worry, lyndon will take care of those segregationists." i'm way more worried about liberals sitting back and "trusting" in obama to take care of everything than i am about liberals abandoning him in a principled huff.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 01:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Libs will never abandon Obama, not if he becomes Joe Lieberman (and it's not that long a trip). They have a dream. It was sold to them, but it's theirs. This is why the Dems take every voter to the left of Limbaugh for granted.

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 14 June 2009 01:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

Look, the Democratic Party is a centrist party, because this is a center-right (maybe shifting center) nation. That's the reality. No politician can get elected and reelected by appealing to the 15% of the country that has political beliefs far to the right or left of the mainstream (ala the Republican Party right now).

Dismissing politics as "inside the beltway bs" misses the point. The necessity for compromise and quid pro quo and whatever, is fundamental to democracy. It's not some parlor game, it's the way our government functions.

I find Obama's stance on Guantanamo deplorable. I still support him, because he may actually achieve universal health coverage, and that's incredibly important. Pragmatism has its merits.

Super Cub, Sunday, 14 June 2009 02:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Pragmatism" is always defined as far to the right -- pro-status quo, if you like -- as lobbyists and Wall Street can dictate. There comes a time when you HAVE TO REDEFINE what Rahmbo calls "the possible."

Maintaining the status quo in a number of key areas is about to pass the point of no return.

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 14 June 2009 02:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

^yeah, I can appreciate that point of view.

Super Cub, Sunday, 14 June 2009 02:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

i mean, this court case may have just been the wrong one, then its the wrong one. but as a rule the "take it easy, it'll happen" kinda thing is ... not true. the reason that things like civil rights 'happen' is bcuz ppl dont take it easy, they agitate for change (i.e. why i voted obama --> 'hes never going to be president' well yeah if everyone has that attitude ... u have to actually get out there & make that shit happen & that means agitating for change when you know it needs to happen)

There's a wealth of evidence that more happened for blacks in the way of employment, income relative to whites, and desegregation from 1940-1960 than 1960-1980. The idea that "it all went down in the 1960s" is championed by authorities because it gives white people, the government, and the white boomers currently in political power, a greater role to play in the civil rights narrative. And doesn't that seem plausible as a theory, assuming the figures support the idea?

Agitation, marching etc comes when groups have counted heads and realized "Hey, wait, why are we being patient and debating? We have the numbers and muscle to overpower the opposition. Let's go." Homosexuals don't quite have that kind of support at this time. You need foot soldiers and a morally defeated opposition.

And Kennedy didn't push the Civil Rights legislative bill because it would've alienated the South before re-election. It actually took Johnson, the Republicans, and the non-Southern Democrats to get it done.

Cunga, Sunday, 14 June 2009 02:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

this is a center-right (maybe shifting center) nation. That's the reality.

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 02:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

I think discussions of what Americans "want" or think are always confusing because Americans will want anything depending on how they were asked the question.

"Are you for staying in Iraq?" v.s. "Should we pullout right now?"

The same American might say "No." to both and get used for two differing political agendas.

Cunga, Sunday, 14 June 2009 02:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, yeah, but that's not exactly exclusive to "americans." it has more to do with the nature of polling.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 04:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

Well this has been the consensus in political science and theory for the last few decades and guides the actions of politicians and political parties. It's going to take more than citing two particular issues (one of which I don't think you are right about) to refute it.

Super Cub, Sunday, 14 June 2009 04:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

There's a wealth of evidence that more happened for blacks in the way of employment, income relative to whites, and desegregation from 1940-1960 than 1960-1980. The idea that "it all went down in the 1960s" is championed by authorities because it gives white people, the government, and the white boomers currently in political power, a greater role to play in the civil rights narrative. And doesn't that seem plausible as a theory, assuming the figures support the idea?

Agitation, marching etc comes when groups have counted heads and realized "Hey, wait, why are we being patient and debating? We have the numbers and muscle to overpower the opposition. Let's go." Homosexuals don't quite have that kind of support at this time. You need foot soldiers and a morally defeated opposition.

And Kennedy didn't push the Civil Rights legislative bill because it would've alienated the South before re-election. It actually took Johnson, the Republicans, and the non-Southern Democrats to get it done.

― Cunga, Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:36 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

none of this really contradicts what i said.

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 04:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

look the really weird thing here is that Obama doesn't really have anything to gain by taking these kinds of anti-gay rights positions. Maybe he's aware of some political calculus I'm not, but demographically there's broad support for gay civil rights - where things get hung up is on rhetoric and how the issue is framed. Which is Obama's strong suit. So again, I am confused as to why he is doing this (being a raging homophobe seems unlikely, and again, not politically expedient)

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 14 June 2009 04:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Like, he should be fully aware that the majority of the country supports gays having the rights associated with marriage - visitation, inheritance, custody etc. - but that where they draw the line is on being forced to make some kind of explicit APPROVAL of homosexuality itself (which is stupid I know I know let's not go into it) So all he should have to do if he's worried about this damaging him politically is to frame the issue correctly, present it as a not-a-big-deal thing that won't destroy society or hetero marriages or whatever, and list all the net benefits and pro-arguments. Its not really that difficult. This country is not in the same place it was in 1993 - attitudes have shifted massively, and the demographic shift in the younger generation favors pretty broad acceptance of gay rights.

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 14 June 2009 04:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Pragmatism" is always defined as far to the right -- pro-status quo, if you like -- as lobbyists and Wall Street can dictate. There comes a time when you HAVE TO REDEFINE what Rahmbo calls "the possible."

Maintaining the status quo in a number of key areas is about to pass the point of no return.

― Dr Morbius, Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:15 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

the first reasonable and otm post morbs has ever posted in a poli thread in my 2 years on ilx

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 04:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

none of this really contradicts what i said.

I thought you were implying that unless people are engaging in 1964-style sit-ins its an indication that nothing is happening with gay issues.

Cunga, Sunday, 14 June 2009 05:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

I would also be prepared to argue that in '64, the situation in Vietnam and the parallel 'civil rights' of feminism were the other sticking points for the left, and today we've got at least 10 different things to sort out that meet a similar standard, because of 8 years of neglect or full-on law flouting. I've noticed that most lawyers I've seen commenting on the subject of the DOMA defense are finding it difficult to get across to non-lawyers the necessity of citing icky case law, no matter how repellant the comparisons might strike them personally. Case law isn't about personal feelings. LGBT people, unlike black people, have never been impeded at the ballot box or enslaved by people who own everything, including them, so I find the civil rights comparisons too hastily drawn. This is a community that is VERY well-educated and entitled whatever the income level; far beyond me to say there's a blind spot within it but a verrry long time ago I had a conversation with an activist friend at college who said the issue would never be sorted until people stopped going on about lifestyles and started going on about lives. I am not sure some of the fiercest advocates for repeal of DOMA and DADT have figured this out.

bad hijab (suzy), Sunday, 14 June 2009 08:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

I thought you were implying that unless people are engaging in 1964-style sit-ins its an indication that nothing is happening with gay issues.

― Cunga, Sunday, June 14, 2009 12:04 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not at all. 'agitating for change' can mean any number of things

re:shakey mo:
i think its pretty clear based on the article i linked yesterday why obama wouldnt want to expend political capital this way?? the DOJ almost never comes out against a law its supposed to be defending, 99% of the time. its totally legit to ask why hes not pushing for legislation (& even more legit to ask why congress isnt pushing for it, considering the political factors) but acting like hes supposed to make a single stand is like begging for a giant issue the right can twist into a fuckup that actually hurts his credibility.

So all he should have to do if he's worried about this damaging him politically is to frame the issue correctly

isnt 'framing it correctly' = 'it should go thru the legislative process'???

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 08:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

can we also retire the bs that political gaming is some sort of complicated chess-like manoeuvre that we're not smart enough to get? pragmatism and compromise are simple things to understand. but the thing is, coming out with genuinely fierce advocacy for gay rights and the action to go with it is not gonna be politically expedient in the foreseeable future. right now the economy and pushing health coverage are priorities, fine, whatever, but you realise that there will always be something which takes precedence? give it a year or two and it'll be "hush now, we have an election to win".

it's just disappointing that obama's not prepared to take a genuine leadership stance on this issue, especially considering how eloquent and articulate he's been in so many other divisive areas. i mean, all of these individual things can be justified on their own, but as tipsy said upthread the context is important - the cumulative message of rick warren + not explicitly supporting gay marriage + the pietrangelo DADT case + this defence of DOMA = obama is not gonna be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights any time soon, and we should expect very little from this administration on this issue. which completely sucks.

and in the event that i'm wrong, if by the time obama's presidency ends there has been significant legislative progress made...it still sucks, using a minority group's civil rights as political capital in this way.

lex pretend, Sunday, 14 June 2009 09:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

suzy, Shakey, and lex -- you guys are OTM.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 12:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

I never said it was chess; it's probably draughts at best.

Something else has just occurred to me: I would prefer Obama to agitate for the ratification of ERA, because legally it would make it so. much. easier. to argue for all the rights LGBTs want if we are all completely equal regardless of gender, under the Constitution.

bad hijab (suzy), Sunday, 14 June 2009 14:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

ERA would be wonderously good, but even for feminists it appears to be a dead issue right now. Obama would look silly reviving it on his own without any political groundwork laid for it.

Aimless, Sunday, 14 June 2009 18:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

right now the economy and pushing health coverage are priorities, fine, whatever, but you realise that there will always be something which takes precedence? give it a year or two and it'll be "hush now, we have an election to win".

This is clearly an exceptional period in government. Obama has easily done more in his first few months than any president since FDR. Make a list of the shit Obama has to deal with and the challenges this country faces right now. It's absolutely incredible. Obama is gearing up to take on the largest policy issue of this age - health care. There are millions of people in this rich country without adequate health care, and thousands of people right now are suffering and dying unnecessarily as a result. Most every measure of wellness and health in this country has plateaued, and relative to other developed countries, is declining. Obama is addressing this clusterfuck after no one has wanted to touch it for 16 years, and he needs to nail it. No distractions, no bringing up wedge issues that could hurt him. Discipline.

Obama may very well not care much about gay rights. That's a shame, and if true, I hope he changes his views. That doesn't change the reality that this is a truly exceptional period in our country and political landscape and a very important opportunity for sweeping change. Obama has a major mandate and a terrible economy to justify overhauling whole elements of society and government. Like I've said before, if he fears having his larger agenda derailed by this issue, and that's his calculation, I can support that.

Super Cub, Sunday, 14 June 2009 19:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

Any period of history in which you're living is "exceptional," you White House apparatchik.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 19:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

Okay.

Super Cub, Sunday, 14 June 2009 19:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

he has a powerful majority in congress - and if history dictates he won't have that same majority after mid terms - so i really don't see how actively pushing for gay rights - let alone striking down the kind of tone taken in this brief - would derail his health care efforts

lex is right - it's always going to be something. next it's gonna be when we withdrawal from iraq, or we have to deal w n. korea or iran or whatever. if he wants to do it - and he should - he should just do it, and he doesn't have much an excuse, because it's one thing to push the issue aside and it's another to let this type of language permeate his administration

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 19:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

i want him to abolish student loan debt

kamerad, Sunday, 14 June 2009 20:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

and luckily for him the iran election allows for this to slip under the radar even on mainstream liberal blogs

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 20:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

We'll know him by his deeds. There's no use in trying to suss out how this is being "gamed".

Euler, Sunday, 14 June 2009 20:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

im baffled for the same reasons shakey is

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Sunday, 14 June 2009 20:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

also because im a libtard

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Sunday, 14 June 2009 20:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

did anyone here read the article i linked to??

it makes sense to be baffled by his lack of leadership on this issue -- i am also

but it makes no sense to treat this particular case as the specific 'problem,' because taking a stand on this case is just straight-up a bad way to go about pushing for gay rights.

im not making some captain-save-a-ho argument here, just asking that folks take a look at the context of this particular case

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

if you guys think dude is teflon on gay rights i think you're totally wrong -- framing this shit the right way matters, and trying to change things by executive fiat isnt going to do as well politically as pushing for legislation. period. its that simple

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

Phrasing DOJ arguments in language as anachronistic and hostile as possible, using arguments as risible and specious as possible, isn't going to do well politically. Period. It's that simple.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

deej, this is serious strawman bullshit. No one's arguing for executive fiats.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

alfred you're totally missing the point here

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

im going to ask again, did u or did u not read the article i linked to upthread

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

basically, what not-defending DOMA in court would have amounted to was executive fiat, yes. of course in terms of the righteous nature of the cause its 'wrong' but in terms of the most effective end result, i think there's a really good argument for pushing for legislative change instead.

& there is no way to defend DOMA in court without being anachronistic and hostile! thats what DOMA is! what else are you expecting here?

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

deej as i said it's the cumulative effect of a bunch of individually defensible stuff that people are justifiably angry about - if this, even with its offensive and hostile wording, hadn't come after a) failure to explicitly support "gay marriage" b) rick warren invitation c) perceived turnabout on DADT - then maybe it'd have been forgiven as a necessary "part of the game". and all those things are individually defensible too. but it's adding up to an indefensible whole, and it's not being balanced by any positive pro-gay rights action, or even rhetoric, apart from that "fierce advocate" weak sauce which is just a flat-out lie.

lex pretend, Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

Law Dork:

Even if one argues, as I often have, that a government lawyer — from the Department of Justice to state attorneys general — must defend even those laws with which one disagrees*, such a lawyer needn’t overstate his or her case. The government lawyer defending a statute with which she disagrees needn’t add gratuitous demeaning statements into the legal brief she files.

Unlike the Obama Administration’s brief filed in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell case turned away by the Supreme Court this week, last night’s filing in Smelt v. United States goes too far (pdf). It’s offensive, it’s dismissive, it’s demeaning and — most importantly — it’s unnecessary. Even if one accepts that DOJ should have filed a brief opposing this case (and the facts do suggest some legitimate questions about standing), the gratuitous language used throughout the filing goes much further than was necessary to make its case.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

deej, how tasty do the bottom of Obama's boots taste?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

yah i agree the optics are totally bad (as is the content, in a vacuum) but as i said i totally agree that so far obama has a long way to go to prove to the lgbt community that he means what he says ... i still think its important to have the right context for this shit though, like this is bad in a 'treading water' way, not in a 'drowning' way

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

xxp

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

hey alfred
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/who-wrote-the-doma-brief.html

how does trying to enable a sarah palin presidency by not voting for obama in FL taste?

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

"I suspect obama will drag his feet on gay issues so im going to enable a VP candidate that believes in witches!"

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

& for the 90th time i dont see how u can say im kissing obamas ass here since im entirely agreeing that his (lack of a) stance on gay rights is totally unacceptable

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

An election in which the GOP had no chance and the Democratic candidate had already waffled on FISA and gay marriage tastes a lot better, esp. with a side of fries.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

Fair enough.

(xpost)

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

while the more...over-dramatic anti-obama hissy fits i've read really irk me, i think what's worse is reading people dismissing them as flouncing gays - what you're seeing is people suddenly realising that all that stuff about hope and change still, once again, doesn't apply to them. and the creeping suspicion that obama simply doesn't see this issue as one of morality and civil rights.

you know, i think that "fierce advocate" line makes me more angry than any of the other stuff. it's like...no. NO. don't fucking LIE, man.

lex pretend, Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

im entirely agreeing that his (lack of a) stance on gay rights is totally unacceptable

― autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:31 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

except that you're saying that their filing in this case is okay because obama should be pushing for gay rights through the legislature, but he isn't doing that either - who cares what his "stance" is? i personally have a stance of wanting to go to the moon. what's the difference at this point?

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

except that you're saying that their filing in this case is okay because obama should be pushing for gay rights through the legislature, but he isn't doing that either - who cares what his "stance" is? i personally have a stance of wanting to go to the moon. what's the difference at this point?

― let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:39 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

where did i say that?? im saying that their filing in this case is ok because if they'd done it any other way it would be counterproductive, and that they SHOULD be pushing for gay rights legislation. as i say in the sentence you just quoted back to me

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

and what point when they don't push for gay rights through legislation does everyone defending them on this step up and say "this is horseshit"? in 2016?

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

i personally am against going to the moon

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

^another palin enabler

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

and what point when they don't push for gay rights through legislation does everyone defending them on this step up and say "this is horseshit"? in 2016?

― let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:46 PM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im saying its horseshit that they are not pushing for legislation. how about we focus on that instead of what some former bush appointee said in his asinine but ultimately pointless DOJ defense of DOMA?

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

i dont know where u guys are getting this parody of my position here -- i was the one comparing inaction to MLK's 'letter from a birmingham jail' upthread, remember?

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

Obama has easily done more in his first few months than any president since FDR

Statistics, please?

Dr Morbius, Monday, 15 June 2009 02:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

ok, wrong word -- I think Reagan and Carter "did" at least as much, for good or ill.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 15 June 2009 02:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

NOTHING TO DO W/ OBAMA'S FLAWS

Dr Morbius, Monday, 15 June 2009 14:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

Dr Morbius: Anti-Peace

Gabbneb in NYC (gabbneb), Monday, 15 June 2009 14:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

Rep. Keith Ellison on Obama and the progressives: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8657/

bad hijab (suzy), Tuesday, 16 June 2009 02:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

Obama to give benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees

there's some docu on don't ask don't tell on a lot of public access stations this evening, according to a feature on NPR, if anyone's interested

the heart is a lonely hamster (schlump), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 13:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

half-assed damage control imo, but at least something

giovanni & ribsy (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 13:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's either that, really poor timing (ie, it was already in the works and the DOJ clusterfuck beat it out the door) or some combination ("shit, let's push this out now instead of waiting until September").

HIS VAGINA IS MAKING HIM CRAVE SALAD. (HI DERE), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 13:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

honestly surprised fed employees don't have this already

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

what are barack obama's flaws? ― HIS VAGINA IS MAKING HIM CRAVE SALAD

^^^ Kinda unsettling to see that one in New Answers

Enemy Insects (NickB), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

still a valid flaw tho

HIS VAGINA IS MAKING HIM CRAVE SALAD. (HI DERE), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

really hope the right-wing blogosphere doesn't find out O has a V

i want to marry a pizza (gbx), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

ok so i'm hearing that this presidential memorandum will only extend relocation benefits, NOT health or retirement benefits -- if that's the case then this is some straight up bullshit. also, as a memorandum it will expire when he leaves office. ugh

giovanni & ribsy (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

He can swat a fly, you know...

Mark G, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

BREAKING NEWS

http://i39.tinypic.com/29djs5x.gif http://i39.tinypic.com/fbcdiu.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/29djs5x.gif

(xpost damn!)

StanM, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

That's a great expression.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

o rly?

i want to marry a pizza (gbx), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

so sick of hearing about the fly-swatting

lex pretend, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

ok so i'm hearing that this presidential memorandum will only extend relocation benefits, NOT health or retirement benefits -- if that's the case then this is some straight up bullshit.

Obama's hands are tied by, you guessed it, DOMA. From Politico: However, the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from extending health and retirement benefits to same-sex couples, so the benefits are more likely to be marginal -- like relocation assistance.

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

fucking Clinton

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol what a pathetic sop this is

lex pretend, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

agreed

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

like...this is seriously the best he can offer? why even bother

lex pretend, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

so that when it's time for you to donate money again people can say "he tried"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

eh, poor attempt at damage control.

I am really surprised at his poor political instincts here. I can understand not wanting to throw the repeal of DOMA into the current legislative agenda, but he could at least be laying the groundwork for it, both rhetorically and behind the scenes.

x-post

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

so that when it's time for you to donate money again people can say "he tried"

?? He hasn't tried shit!

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

altho the irony of him being on the hook for cleaning up Clinton's fuckup is ... well not delicious but its somethin

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

Barney's angry

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 17:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

haaa this is great:

http://www.obamasplanforgayrights.com/

goole, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 22:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

Not the world's biggest Conan the Barbarian expert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW7OPByRGDY

James Mitchell, Saturday, 20 June 2009 15:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

haaa this is great:

http://www.obamasplanforgayrights.com/

oh how fucking clever
good thing boyo got that copyrighted

El Tomboto, Saturday, 20 June 2009 16:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

In general, how much one criticizes Obama is largely a function of the areas on which one tends to focus. If I had spent the week writing about Iran, I would be largely defending -- and praising -- Obama's very wise restraint, even in the face of bipartisan political pressure, when it comes to interfering in Iran's internal political disputes. His private and public refusal to cheer on all of Israel's policies is also commendable. Conversely, those who focus on gay issues have been understandably furious with the administration, and in the areas of civil liberties, secrecy, and his Justice Department generally, the administration has been nothing short of abysmal. Criticizing the Right for its support of these positions is understandable, but in our modern political culture, the President is, far and away, the driving force, and those who supported him can have far more of an impact pointing out, rather than ignoring, the role he is playing in advancing these policies.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/20/dna/index.html

El Tomboto, Saturday, 20 June 2009 16:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

what's michelle been up to lately?

heave pho (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 19:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

Staying the fuck out of the health care debate?

Anatomy of a Morbius (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 19:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

serious question

galumphing lummox (bug), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 21:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

performing abortions for welfare queens while dressed as Hitler

go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 21:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

Little Richard misjudging the tone slightly.

firestorm of twat rage (onimo), Monday, 17 August 2009 11:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

three months pass...

Sooo... the Patriot Act* will extend to 2013?

*"If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document — through library books they've read and phone calls they've made — this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong."

Barack Obama
12/15/2005
US Senate Floor

vlogger working on a thinkpiece about the gastro-truck revolution (Steve Shasta), Saturday, 5 December 2009 00:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

In that case, all this 'bipartisanship' talk makes me worry he'll let the plutocrats walk all over him in the name of unity. It's too early to tell, of course.

― Oilyrags, Wednesday, April 30, 2008

TIME TO START TELLING

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 5 December 2009 02:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

hush steve and albert, can't jeopardize the reelection

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 5 December 2009 03:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

count me as "not surprised, but not pleased either"

ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP (Eisbaer), Saturday, 5 December 2009 04:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

wtf with this shit

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 5 December 2009 13:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

"shit" from BHO yes, wtf not so much

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 5 December 2009 13:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh for the record i'm wtfing at golf digest

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 5 December 2009 13:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

patriot act bullshit makes me angry and sad and this combined with other things means i don't see myself voting for him in '12 (and definitely not defending him at the holiday dinner table)

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 5 December 2009 13:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

an unsettling depression has landed on me, most of it to with events utterly outside of the realm of politics, but what I'd hoped would be the only good thing out of the past year (Obama's election) has turned into another incredible disappointment. I voted and supported him as a realist as well, knowing full well that we would not have some kind of miracle return to...(what? don't know, things were never that great, ever) or the dawning of the Age of Aquarius or something. But fuck me if I can think of anything he's actually accomplished that's been of any benefit. Might be my mindset though. But I think he might have overpromised. I'm not going to be surprised if he looses the next election and we enter into some hellist right wing military state.

akm, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

dude.

max, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

stabilizing the economy, ARRA, healthcare reform, closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, putting the EPA back to work (regulating greenhouse gases, letting CA fuel efficiency standards go forward, etc.)

these are all good things

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

Man I was so pleased with those first couple months. No extraordinary rendition! Withdrawing from Iraq! Cap&Trade! Closing Guantanamo! Obama World Tour '09! But then a bunch of rabbit punches of non-symbolic actual centrism and concessions to the right and a whole waterfall of :/

xp

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

how has he overpromised? To me he's fulfilling every one of his campaign promises: enlarge the war in Afghanistan, ban torture, allow secret renditions, cut the easiest, most compromised deal to get something close to universal health care coverage.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

gitmo doesn't seem to be closing anytime soon

harbl, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

^

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah i don't think he really overpromised so much as created a false image of himself that a lot of people bought
i only voted for him because i was in an important state but i'm not anymore & i was never pumped about him so i don't feel so conflicted about it. lucky me, rite

harbl, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

three provisions of the Patriot Act are up for renewal, and Obama always supported them: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/obama-backs-expiring-patriot-act-spy-provisions/ so what are you guys surprised about

x-posts

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

gitmo doesn't seem to be closing anytime soon

this is Congress' fault, not Obama's.

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

anyway Alfred OTM

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

ok but we still can't say that's a success for him yet, whoever's fault it is. same with healthcare.

harbl, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's gonna happen. healthcare reform is gonna happen too.

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah most of my issues probably boil down to congress to be honest.

akm, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

healthcare reform is going to happen but even in the best plans, no-one seems to actually benefit from it for another four years.

akm, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

A return to the Third Way with some anti-war window dressing is exactly what I voted for, if not what I wanted. I suppose center leftism just looked that much more starry and wonderful after years of watching talking heads actually argue about the acceptability of torture.

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

its important to bear in mind how bad the last 8-12 years were - that shit isn't gonna all get washed away in 12 months by some Executive Branch magic

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

and it's not our fault that our culture overrates presidents.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

that is a very good point^^

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

healthcare reform is going to happen but even in the best plans, no-one seems to actually benefit from it for another four years.

hahaha wait you expect gov't to work QUICKLY now? As someone who's personally impacted by the ARRA funds disbursement, that shit was passed at the beginning of the year and is only JUST NOW getting out to actual projects. The federal gov't is huge and slow.

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

its nice to see people pushing obama to his left but its also important to remember that he is just one dude who is very visible and whose power is not by any means absolute

max, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

hush steve and albert, can't jeopardize the reelection

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, December 5, 2009

y'know, no one EVER says this to you so it'd be nice if you would stop endlessly parotting yr favorite strawman argument k thx bye

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

and yeah I agree with max - the left's job right now is to relentlessly pressure Obama. they're needed as a counterweight.

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

And Obama responds well to it, seeing as it's one of the things he really wanted people to do once he got sworn in.

special vixens unit (suzy), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

The right has no problem bitching about their candidates' wingnut cred; I advise the left to keep the pressure on. It's doubly difficult for the left though: it's in the same position as the right in the sixties and seventies, i.e. no mainstream venue through which to air its views.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

wait, what? the right had Nixon!

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, after '68 anyway

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

also not to malign anyone on this board but a lot of lefty activists would do well to remember that depending on where they live their political interests would likely be better served by campaigning hard against right wing senators and representatives and for left-wing candidates--not that criticizing obama is bad just that theres an election coming up and the president is not going to be on the ballot

max, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

no its all his fault for telling me to HOPE

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 18:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

Couple of months back was talking to my agent about editing a collection where a bunch of high-profile people lobby Obama on their issues but got project fatigue in the sense of 'oh great, this might be the flipside of right-wing black man micromanagement'.

special vixens unit (suzy), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 19:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

i take a small (very small) amount of comfort from what amounts to "if he can't do it, no one can"

which isn't to sound like a schoolchild, it's about the very serious structural limits on governance in this country.

this particular candidate, the way he won the primary, the coalition he put together to win the presidency, in a moment of contempt and fatigue with the governing party/personality that we haven't seen for decades, plus a world-historically severe economic meltdown -- repeat the phenomenon similarly in congress for the candidate's party -- add it up, and this is about as far left as you can really imagine the electorate putting its federal government.

and this is what we've got. barring truly fantasy-land results where the GOP share in congress drops to like a third, this is the highest water mark we're ever going to see in one direction. and it's still very disappointing. the right wingers didn't get social security privatized. we still will probably get health care. if you lined up and shot every senator and erased the upper house from the page of history, we would have by now. cap and trade, too.

you can judge obama, the individual, against whatever criteria you like, and you should. i'm disappointed mostly in those things that the executive DOES have near-exclusive control over (torture, DADT) that have been soft-pedaled. but judged against the available alternatives, he's still the best option for his job.

goole, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 19:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

i'd be happy if he drop-kicked Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Bob Rubin from a helicopter into a shark-tank.

ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 19:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

yes i don't trust larry summers at all, and the other two are basically in his orbit, as far as anyone can tell.

i read econ wonks saying they wish paul volcker and/or sheila bair had more leverage, but i don't know enough about $$$ to know why or what.

a lot of the joblessness is basically up to ben bernanke however, and he's recently said he's fine with it, not in so many words.

goole, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

DADT is going to be repealed next year - Barney Frank has said so, and the president has signalled this as well

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

(its part of some military funding bill or something, I forget)

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

its important to bear in mind how bad the last 8-12 years were - that shit isn't gonna all get washed away in 12 months by some Executive Branch magic

speaking of strawmen, mr. strawman-spotter, nobody even remotely suggests anything might "get washed away in 12 months by some Executive Branch magic." that's your kneejerk deflect-criticism-of-the-failing-ass-president move: "hey, you're asking for PERFECTION! you weren't promised perfection!"

DADT is going to be repealed next year - Barney Frank has said so, and the president has signalled this as well

can we hear in advanced how ugly the "compromise" is going to be so we can be braced for it, please?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

i have mixed feelings about Bernanke. on one hand, i think that he did a great job during the worst moments of the financial crisis; and (unlike Paulson, Rubin, et. al.) i don't think that he's venal and corrupt. OTOH, he was also complicit in the crisis in that he did little to nothing before everything turned to shit and yes, he seems less than concerned about unemployment (i.e., which is what non-economists think about when they think about the economy at all).

i fall b/w the morbz "god he sucks lol i told you so to the barricades!" camp and the gabbneb/ethan doe-eyed fan-boy camp re Obama. i expected him to be a centrist Democrat (campaign rhetoric/bullshit nothwithstanding), and that's what he's been by and large. doesn't mean that i wish that Obama could be a little more than that or that i am not disappointed with some things that his administration has done, but i am not really surprised either.

ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

i notice when i try to sort out the deeper structural (that word again) problems to why gov't looks and acts the way it does, beyond what any one actor (even a president!) does... stone silence.

goole, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

Actually, your post was mostly on-the-money, goole.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

Four Senators have put a hold on Bernanke going forward, yes?

special vixens unit (suzy), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

MOSTLY?

goole, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 21:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

what are goole's flaws?

velko, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 21:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

nobody even remotely suggests anything might "get washed away in 12 months by some Executive Branch magic."

I beg to differ. Complaints about Gitmo still being open fall into this category, for example. Suggestions that he should just withdraw all our troops from Afghanistan do as well, for another example. Or that he could magically make gay marriage legal and repeal the DOMA act... all of these complaints have been lodged against him by the left, sometimes even by posters on this thread (and others), and frankly, they're stupid. These are all things that are left over from the last 12 years of shitty governing, they cannot be reversed quickly.

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 21:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

now there are things I can specifically remember you complaining about - rendition, for example - that are totally legitimate. and its important to hold Obama accountable for that stuff.

unobtaintium (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 21:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

stabilizing the economy, ARRA, healthcare reform, closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, putting the EPA back to work (regulating greenhouse gases, letting CA fuel efficiency standards go forward, etc.)

these are all good things

I must've missed about three o' those.

My ARRA/COBRA discount is expiring in February, wonder if I should spring for the 200% increase...

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 8 December 2009 23:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

Matt Taibbi on Obama's financial advisors:

The significance of all of these appointments isn't that the Wall Street types are now in a position to provide direct favors to their former employers. It's that, with one or two exceptions, they collectively offer a microcosm of what the Democratic Party has come to stand for in the 21st century. Virtually all of the Rubinites brought in to manage the economy under Obama share the same fundamental political philosophy carefully articulated for years by the Hamilton Project: Expand the safety net to protect the poor, but let Wall Street do whatever it wants. "Bob Rubin, these guys, they're classic limousine liberals," says David Sirota, a former Democratic strategist. "These are basically people who have made shitloads of money in the speculative economy, but they want to call themselves good Democrats because they're willing to give a little more to the poor. That's the model for this Democratic Party: Let the rich do their thing, but give a fraction more to everyone else."

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 December 2009 18:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

what I don't get is why everyone feels so deceived (in:re economic appointments, etc.)?

My parents were all excited about Obama when he was running. Bush had made me so cynical it was hard for me to get excited about anything at that time. I gave in and watched one of Obama's speeches. In an aside, he said "of course we believe in globalization, of course we believe in free trade". i may not like his economic policy but i am not surprised by it. (and really, once he started making his appointments and invited a lot of the clinton establishment back, why is anyone surprised by anything? its not exactly Clinton III but it sure wasn't going to be Mao sending Goldman Sachs out to a "re-education camp")

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

here's a somewhat contrary view from matthew yglesias:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/if-corporate-america-loves-barack-obama-so-much-why-dont-they-marry-him-or-at-least-support-his-policies.php

"corporate america" and "wall street" not being the same thing, exactly...

but i'm really not a fan of rubinism or larry summers.

goole, Friday, 11 December 2009 19:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

Taibbi is good at rabble-rousing outrage as usual, but I don't think his article is very constructive. To read him, you would never suspect there could be such as thing as regulatory overreach. Perhaps there could be some valid reasons why a Congressional committee might want to fine-tune regulations which could have far-reaching impacts on credit-creation and the wider economy, even though a broad-brush approach of "Spank the Banks" might have more populist appeal.

o. nate, Friday, 11 December 2009 20:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

can anyone point me to a reliable chart of US corporate tax rates compared to other countries?

akm, Friday, 11 December 2009 20:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

Probably my biggest disappointment with Obama so far is the Afghanistan troop surge, but he's basically been true to his campaign promises there, so I have no justification to feel betrayed.

o. nate, Friday, 11 December 2009 20:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

Taibbi is good at rabble-rousing outrage as usual, but I don't think his article is very constructive. To read him, you would never suspect there could be such as thing as regulatory overreach

Well, yeah, sure, but regulatory overreach never even crossed Obama and his Cabinet's minds, did it?

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 December 2009 20:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm sure Obama has influence, but regulation is currently wending its way through Congress, so it's a little premature to say what we're going to get at this point.

o. nate, Friday, 11 December 2009 20:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

except Congress doesn't do regulations, the executive branch does

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Friday, 11 December 2009 21:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^erm no

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 December 2009 21:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Congress may have some input but congress writes/passes *statutory* authority, not regulatory authority.

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Friday, 11 December 2009 21:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think basically Congress writes the rules and the executive branch enforces them.

o. nate, Friday, 11 December 2009 21:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

no

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Friday, 11 December 2009 21:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

In areas where Congress hasn't specifically written a rule, the executive branch has considerable leeway. But it wouldn't make sense for Obama to direct his cabinet to try to reform by working within the interpretation of existing law at this point when a big Congressional overhaul is coming down the pike anyway.

o. nate, Friday, 11 December 2009 21:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

Timely article: "Sweeping bank reform bill clears House"
http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/11/news/economy/financial_regulatory_reform/

o. nate, Friday, 11 December 2009 21:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

"a big Congressional overhaul" = the 2010 midterm elections.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 December 2009 21:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

Let's hope not - if it is, it won't be in the direction we want.

o. nate, Friday, 11 December 2009 21:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

In any case, the inclusion of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) in the House bill should be seen as a victory for liberals (and Obama). Banks and Republicans fiercely opposed it.

o. nate, Friday, 11 December 2009 21:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

We'll see.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 December 2009 21:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

i like Matt Taibbi b/c he is more than willing to kick the Rubins and Summers (and the Gabbnebs) w/n the Party around and call them out on their pretensions (which is MORE THAN RICHLY DESERVED imho). few things sicken me more than so-called Dems who shit on the middle- and lower-classes almost as much as Republicans do, but think that b/c they're willing to throw the plebes a few more crumbs than Republicans and b/c they don't hate gays and black people or thump Bibles that they are somehow "better" than the GOP (who at least are open in their contempt for the "lower orders.")

where i find Taibbi weak, though, is on just HOW we should have handled the financial world and the economy post-Lehman Bros. -- does he think we should've just let AIG and Goldman Sachs go under (a libertarian/Republican back-bencher view) or something else? maybe i missed the column(s) where he spelled out his ideas, or he just thinks that his role should merely be to point out how the financial sector is taking the American taxpayers for a ride.

ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 December 2009 22:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

b/c they don't hate gays and black people or thump Bibles that they are somehow "better" than the GOP

um, this does make them better than the GOP imho

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 December 2009 22:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

and not to get all constitutional/administrative law-ish on folks here, but Mr. Que and nate are right -- administrative agencies are either part of the executive branch or independent of either the executive or legislative branches (e.g., the FCC). Congress can delegate "discretionary power" to administrative agencies to regulate in a given area, but not its legislative authority to an administrative agency (the so-called "non-delegation doctrine").

ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 December 2009 22:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

um, this does make them better than the GOP imho

you are right ... i should have said "simply because they don't hate gays and black people or thump Bibles." of course, that line of thinking also applies to lots of libertarians as well as the likes of Rubin et. al.

ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP (Eisbaer), Friday, 11 December 2009 22:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

you would never suspect there could be such as thing as regulatory overreach

He really should give you a job, primo shit-shoveling.

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 12 December 2009 15:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

Commenting on political threads now are we? Someone really woke up on the wrong side today.

really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Saturday, 12 December 2009 15:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

that Nobel turned out to be an even sicker fucking joke than it seemed at the time; Strangelovian congrats all around, Nordic plaudit dispensers.

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 12 December 2009 15:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Nordic plaudit dispensers" is terrific prose

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 12 December 2009 16:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

I was gonna make it my screenname but then remembered we had a poster named I think "Nordicskillz" a long time ago so deferred to the old guard

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 12 December 2009 16:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

he and his speechwriters use too many adjectives

goole, Saturday, 12 December 2009 16:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

they should use more internet abbreviations amirite

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 12 December 2009 16:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

tevs

goole, Saturday, 12 December 2009 16:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

let me b real srs w/u

make no mist8k

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

and j0hn by that i mean "tevs" could be the entirety of his nobel speech

goole, Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

what I don't get is why everyone feels so deceived (in:re economic appointments, etc.)?

otm, and that's my only problem with taibbi's article. the sense of betrayal is weird. surely matt taibbi never expected obama to be anything but an establishment incrementalist? yes there was some populist speechifying in the campaign, but there was from mccain and palin too, so what? if you looked at obama's record or read anything serious about his economic views, it was obvious there wasn't much rooseveltian about him (fdr or teddy). there was a reason he got all that money from wall street. i mean, i'm not saying i'm not disappointed; just that i expected to be. taibbi's right on the facts, but sort of wrong on the whole WE WUZ TRICKED thing.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

Taibbi's a muckracker though: he's supposed to generate outrage.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

Also, like all good writers, he remembers his audience. His pieces run in Rolling Stone, which has always been yay-Obama and the last bastion of complacent liberalism.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh i know, and i'm glad he's out there. i just don't believe that he personally feels deceived by obama, because i think he's too smart for that. and that sort of undermines the outrage in that article.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

where i find Taibbi weak, though, is on just HOW we should have handled the financial world and the economy post-Lehman Bros. -- does he think we should've just let AIG and Goldman Sachs go under (a libertarian/Republican back-bencher view) or something else?

i felt that the gist of what he was saying is that Obama shouldn't have appointed them all to run the economy and tossed his campaign economic advisers to the wayside once he got elected. i also read that as one of the main sources of outrage.

richie aprile (rockapads), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

but summers and rubin were campaign economic advisers. obama had a whole bunch of different people. and goolsbee and volcker are still advisers too, in lower-profile spots (which i think was true in the campaign as well). there isn't this big difference between obama the candidate and obama the president that that article is trying to make it appear. i'm sure there were a lot of people who weren't really paying attention to all that during the campaign, there was lots of personal projection about who obama was and what he believed, but if you look at any in-depth discussions of his ideas during the campaign -- like this one -- you hardly get the sense that he was lying about anything or that his ideas have changed very much. the major thing that's happened since that article came out, obviously, was lehman brothers and the collapse and the bail-outs. and people are going to be hashing that whole thing over forever, but obviously that was where the wall street guys really got the upper hand in designing policy, starting with paulson and continuing on through geithner. it's all pretty appalling, but it's not very surprising.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

for the rec, I went to some Brooklyn Library discussion btwn Taibbi and David Rees (the Get Yr War On guy, who'd done some door-knocking for Bam) last December, and in front of a 98% Obama-lovin' crowd, I don't recall either of them raising the possibility that BHO's aim was to be a biz-as-usual prez.

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 12 December 2009 20:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

had nobody actually looked at his list of donors? that site's called open secrets for a reason.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 12 December 2009 20:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm racing through Andrew Sorkin's Too Big to Fail to meet a reviewing deadline this week, but what really galls is how incestuous this world is (Geithner, Jon Corzine, Paulson, Summers all worked together).

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 12 December 2009 21:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

the best and the brightest.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 12 December 2009 21:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

you would never suspect there could be such as thing as regulatory overreach

He really should give you a job, primo shit-shoveling

I'm just saying that Taibbi tends to be a bit one-sided, and I'm not too crazy about the way he deploys facts in an intentionally misleading way. For instance, he dismisses the CFPA with a statement about how exemptions were given to the vast majority of banks, but he never mentions the facts that the banks who were exempted were the many small, local banks that only add up to a relatively small percentage of the total consumer banking market. The big national banks with the biggest market share are covered. I think that's a pretty notable accomplishment, but Taibbi makes it sound like a joke. It doesn't fit in with his view of government as basically a fat-cat conspiracy to defraud the rest of the country.

o. nate, Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't understand all the outrage with using people with Wall Street backgrounds. These people know where the bodies are buried. FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to be in charge of the SEC. Anybody knows that Joe Kennedy made his money gaming the stock market. FDR believed that it took a crook to know a crook.

micheline, Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

I knew someone was going to make that analogy, cuz I've puzzled over it myself. The difference here, micheline, is that instead of one Joe Kennedy you have seventeen.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

xpost
its like any social scene. "ex-":(wall street firm)::"ex-":(local indie rock band)

if Taibbi really wanted to play to his audience, he should ask them why their belief in Obama was just as superficial as most Bush supporters' belief in Bush. I feel better knowing Obama is in the White House than Bush but the fact that people are voting on projections and impressions and not on actual policy decisions means that if anyone who is elected actually gets anything substantive done, it will be pretty incidental to the rationale that allowed that person to be in the position to accomplish those things.

Taibbi is just justifying the ignorance that got us here, and incidentally marginalizing progressive voices who argued that this was going to happen in the first place by writing from the perspective of this "surprise" instead of from the perspective of "intelligent people knew this all along but you folks ignored them as if the only purpose of their alarmist viewpoints was to 'harsh your buzz'".

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yes, but these people probably are more useful than some one with no Wall Street background.

micheline, Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

I should also add that many of those people worked in the Clinton administration which was a time of great prosperity.

micheline, Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

Actually the Geithner/Obama connection goes back to Geithner's dad, who ran the Ford Foundation and was friends with/boss of Obama's mother.

special vixens unit (suzy), Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

I knew someone was going to make that analogy, cuz I've puzzled over it myself. The difference here, micheline, is that instead of one Joe Kennedy you have seventeen.

― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, December 12, 2009 4:22 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what?

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

omg ppl know each other

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

ive argued with gabbneb on the internet but i certainly hope that doesnt retard my future career options

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

im sympathetic to the idea that some of these dudes are philosophically not really helping things esp w/r/t employment numbers but i should hope u guys can come up w/ something a lil more specific -- say, motives -- instead of this guilt-by-association inference b.s.

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

im not saying this because i think there isnt any other reason, but because i would genuinely like to know if there is

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't like seeing the "revolving door" in action between Wall Street and government - or between any regulated industry and government. It definitely creates an appearance of possible conflict of interest. And I do wish there was a better representation in among Obama's economic advisors of non-financial people - it would be nice to see more "real" business leaders in government. I mean people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and so on. However, I don't think that people like Larry Summers, Rahm Emmanuel or even Tim Geithner are really such Wall Street insiders as this article makes it sound. Yes, I know that Emmanuel and Summers both made a lot of money in brief stints at financial firms - but I wouldn't assume that they feel beholden to the industry in general because of that. They never spent a lot of time inside that culture. Geithner was always a government guy - a regulator. He's never worked for a Wall Street firm, as far as I know. He knows those guys, since he was their regulator, but I'm not sure he's really "one of them".

o. nate, Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

'OMG ppl know each other' is pretty much the tinder for Taibbi's box.

Remembering the primaries, I recall there was a ton of pressure for former members of Team Clinton to hold off on throwing their weight behind Obama while Hillary was still in play and people who were very young serving Clinton were getting the pitch hard from both sides.

special vixens unit (suzy), Saturday, 12 December 2009 22:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah but for lefties "omg ppl know each other" when it's a repubican admin gets re-coded as "fuckin cronyism of the worst kind, backscratching/logrolling has no business in the public sphere, these ppl are shameless" etc etc

kinda gross imo

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

but of course the president is above all that, he doesn't even resemble every other politician ever in any way

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

um john cheney cutting deals for oil buddies isnt exactly the same thing

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah but for lefties "omg ppl know each other" when it's a repubican admin gets re-coded as "fuckin cronyism of the worst kind, backscratching/logrolling has no business in the public sphere, these ppl are shameless" etc etc

kinda gross imo

That talk only occurred during the era of Bush II because it was true, i.e., Hurricane Katrina.

micheline, Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

well cronyism of the worst kind is when you have some demonstrably unqualified bozo like michael brown or bernie kerik in a position of real responsibility solely because of who they know or how good they are at stroking their bosses' egos. cronyism of the not-worst-but-still-bad kind is when you choose demonstrably qualified people (which i think summers, geithner et all are) but you choose from a small, incestuous pool where everyone knows everyone and not enough diversity of experience or opinion is available. that's more like the obama econ model.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

hellzapoppa,

The problem is groupthink not the fact that these people came from Wall Street.

micheline, Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

is that really the case ? what happened to the team of rivals

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

xpost: the problem is both. but that's what i mean about diversity of experience and opinion.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

J0hn, you really can't infer that I haven't worked out that Barack Obama's connections are similar to other politicians', so am wishing you wouldn't.

Yeah wrt Wall Street, in as much as you need poachers turned gamekeepers in an organization, you really shouldn't allow it to become a case of roulette players turned dealers.

special vixens unit (suzy), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

the "team of rivals" idea seems much more true in foreign policy, where there does seem to be real debate and push and pull. and also, i think obama feels more confident in foreign policy, he understands it more, and so is maybe more comfortable presiding over a wide-ranging debate. economics is more of strange land to him, and that plus what seems like the summers-geithner combo's sharp elbows -- summers in particular is obviously a steamroller -- i think has hurt.

so with all that it'll be interesting to see who the next treasure secretary is, since that's a post that tends to rotate every 2 or 3 years. (jamie dimon? yikes.)

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

See, I am not econ-ish and really hate Summers for misogyny (but sometimes that's quite enough).

special vixens unit (suzy), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

See, I am not econ-ish and really hate Summers for misogyny (but sometimes that's quite enough).

special vixens unit (suzy), Saturday, 12 December 2009 23:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

"These people know where the bodies are buried" = "We'll see the REAL Clinton in his second term!"

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 13 December 2009 00:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

THEY ARE REFORMING FUCKING NOTHING.

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 13 December 2009 00:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

we did see the real clinton in his second term -- a gladhanding incrementalist who couldn't keep it in his pants.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 13 December 2009 00:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

suzy I was more talking to deej for whom cronyism in the obama admin = "well of course, what are you, an idealist?" as vs. in a republican admin "oh this is some bullshit"

it is the same fucking bullshit.

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Sunday, 13 December 2009 00:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

Taibbi is just justifying the ignorance that got us here, and incidentally marginalizing progressive voices who argued that this was going to happen in the first place by writing from the perspective of this "surprise" instead of from the perspective of "intelligent people knew this all along but you folks ignored them as if the only purpose of their alarmist viewpoints was to 'harsh your buzz'"

I don't get this at all. Like I said earlier, Taibbi writes for readers of Rolling Stone, which put Obama 67888 times on its cover; moreover, he's explained the problems with subprime loans, hedge funds, and the erosion/extinction of Glass-Steagall better than anyone I read. That's why I called him a muckraker: he's a populist, and populists almost always use gaucheries and hysterical prose. Someone needs to point out these compromises with Crayolas, and he's done a damn fine job of it.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 13 December 2009 03:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

the "team of rivals" idea seems much more true in foreign policy, where there does seem to be real debate and push and pull. and also, i think obama feels more confident in foreign policy, he understands it more, and so is maybe more comfortable presiding over a wide-ranging debate. economics is more of strange land to him, and that plus what seems like the summers-geithner combo's sharp elbows -- summers in particular is obviously a steamroller -- i think has hurt.

i'm not so sure that Obama really is all that out-to-sea wr2 economics as all that. i remember throughout the campaign how he and his campaign people talked about how he'd developed ties w/ and adopted ideas from the University of Chicago -- not the right-wing/libertarian Milton Friedman-types, but folks like Goolsbee and Cass Sunstein (both of whom ARE in the Obama Administration) and Obama's interest in behavioral economics. i also think that it means something that there ARE folks w/n the Obama Administration who don't fall directly in line with the Geithner/Summers way of thinking (even if, for the moment, they've been pushed aside).

ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP (Eisbaer), Sunday, 13 December 2009 07:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

financial reform bill passed the house, the wh is pushing it cos the problems are, as always, in the senate

goole, Sunday, 13 December 2009 07:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

wr2 geithner, i keep the term "stockholm syndrome" in mind. no, he didn't work for Goldman Sachs and spent just about all of his formative years as a regulatory bureaucrat (so he isn't as directly conflicted as, say, paulson or anyone else who initially worked on Wall Street). but still, his job as a regulator meant that he was in regular contact w/ Wall Street folks and their way of thinking became very familiar (maybe TOO familiar) to him.

ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP (Eisbaer), Sunday, 13 December 2009 07:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

Digby posted this LRB shattering account of the Obama administration's record thus far.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 13 December 2009 13:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

Obama is sufficiently humane and sufficiently undeceived to take no pleasure in sending soldiers to their deaths for a futile cause.

Evidence, please.

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 13 December 2009 13:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the LRB link, Alfred. I'm going to quote at length one of its paragraphs:

Malthus’s doctrine on population and the necessity of many living in adversity, Hazlitt wrote, was a gospel ‘preached to the poor’. Equality in the United States in the early 21st century has become a gospel preached by the liberal elite to a populace who feel they have no stake in equality. Since the Reagan presidency and the dismemberment of the labour unions, America has not known a popular voice against the privilege of the large corporations.

I just spent a couple of weeks with my American parents visiting me here in Paris. A number of strikes went on during their visit (and continue today): museum strikes, transportation strikes in the Ile de France. My parents were astonished that labor could still organize like that. My father, having lived in the deep South for twenty years now despite being an immigrant, assailed the strikers as typical examples of French laziness. I pressed him to justify the counterbelief that Americans work harder---an absurdly general claim, but I knew he was speaking incoherent thoughts. He's breathed in too much of Cheney. He blamed the security checks at the Orsay on "Arab terrorism", but had no answer to my questions about Timothy McVeigh's legacy. He is angry but he has no voice.

I don't know that technocrats can give voices to people without voices. But how else can the Left reach the people? Who else besides the technocrats do we have to offer? Obama offered us hope in this direction with his voice but as we all knew, this has been an overwhelmingly technocratic administration.

Yet without such a voice from below, all the benevolent programmes that can be theorised, lacking the ground note of genuine indignation, have turned into lumbering ‘designs’ espoused by the enlightened for moral reasons that ordinary people can hardly remember. The gambling ethic has planted itself deep in the America psyche – deeper now than it was in 1849 or 1928. Little has been inherited of the welfare-state doctrine of distributed risk and social insurance. The architects of liberal domestic policy, put in this false position, make easy prey for the generalised slander that says that all non-private plans for anything are hypocritical.

This is deep and insightful: "moral reasons that ordinary people can hardly remember". And it's the root of what ails us. In his Oslo speech this week Obama promoted "the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us." Have we as a nation ever believed this? A president can't reteach a nation to be moral: if this was ever possible for political leadership, it's not in our era. Leaders can tap into what's latent. I presently lack faith that a desire to care for others is latent in America's moral character at present. The Democratic technocratic dream is to care for others through public policy. Institutionalize caring. This is how the social security apparatus functions here in France. But that's not to change people's hearts; it's to permit hearts to remain hard while the needy are cared for anyway. America is not a Christian nation in the sense Obama hopes it is (not that it ever was). Our moral compass, such as it is, is aimed at our own material prosperity.

My hope for this administration was that it would, somehow, foster a sense of common purpose in the USA, that would allow some rebuilding of our moral compass away from the merely individual. It all rides on the "somehow". The smartest guys in the room can't figure out how to do that (not that most of them want to, anyway).

Euler, Sunday, 13 December 2009 14:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

Matt Taibbi must be following this thread:

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/12/13/obamania/

Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 13 December 2009 17:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

suzy I was more talking to deej for whom cronyism in the obama admin = "well of course, what are you, an idealist?" as vs. in a republican admin "oh this is some bullshit"

it is the same fucking bullshit.

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:15 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

um, how is this what im saying?? im just asking for context so i dont have to just take it on faith that "lol dude worked in wall street -- ergo hes obviously totally corrupt & bad for america"-type shit. i dont care how justified it is, thats guilt-by-association as long as yr repeating it w/out actually explaining context etc

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 01:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

Brad DeLong has posted some fact-checking of several of Taibbi's assertions in that RS piece linked above. Apparently Taibbi fell prey to a case of mistaken identity: the James Rubin who was involved in the Obama economic staff search is not Bob Rubin's son. Lots of other good stuff here:

Ten Things on Which Matt Taibbi Really Does Not Know What He Is Talking About

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah there's a whole back and forth about fact checking that article

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/12/11/fernholz-vs-taibbi/

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

omg ppl know each other

deej this isn't "asking for context," it's "wtf, you paranoid fucks, who could possibly imagine cronyism in washington"

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

Matt Yglesias has written an excellent post on why Taibbi's outrage is misplaced:

The implicit theory of political change here, that pivotal members of congress undermine reform proposals because of "the White House's refusal to push for real reform" is just wrong. That's not how things work. The fact of the matter is that Matt Taibbi is more liberal than I am, and I am more liberal than Larry Summers is, but Larry Summers is more liberal than Ben Nelson is. Replacing Summers with me, or with Taibbi, doesn't change the fact that the only bills that pass the Senate are the bills that Ben Nelson votes for.

The problem here, to be clear, isn’t that lefties are being too mean to poor Barack Obama. The problem is that to accomplish the things I want to see accomplished, people who want change need to correctly identify the obstacles to change.

http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/12/matthew-yglesias-on-matt-taibbi.html

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah yglesias has been really on-point about how the #1 obstacle to a progressive agenda is the senate--not this administration, not the cabinet, not the house, but the senate, and specifically, ben nelson, evan bayh, and fuckin droopy dog lieberman

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

not that that should stop j0hn or morbs from gettin their self-righteous on w/r/t to obama, just, like--lets not pretend that obama is the problem here

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

That's well and good, but, even accounting for the changed environment (the old "Boll Weevils" are now southern Republicans), has Obama done what Reagan did in '81 to get his economic program passed? He spared no expense in cajoling, dealing, and threatening legislators. And Obama has an even bigger mandate than Reagan.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

not that that should stop j0hn or morbs from gettin their self-righteous on w/r/t to obama, just, like--lets not pretend that obama is the problem here

Obama never said this is what I want. He's never said the "public option" is non-negotiable.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

lets not pretend that obama is the problem here

lol of course not, only the insane could imagine obama being the problem

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

Obama never said this is what I want. He's never said the "public option" is non-negotiable.

― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, December 14, 2009 10:28 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im not sure that i buy the idea that obama can snap his fingers and get 60 democratic votes

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

why can't they both be the problem

being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

He's never said the "public option" is non-negotiable.

because he doesn't want to be boxed in. he wants to be able to call whatever comes out a win. i understand that as far as his public position. where he's fallen down (on health care and other issues) is his either inability or unwillingness to play hardball behind the scenes. supposedly that's what rahm was supposed to be for, but we haven't seen enough evidence of it. too much pulpit, not enough bully.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

He's never said the "public option" is non-negotiable

I think he's smart enough to realize when he doesn't have the votes for something, and going out on a limb and saying something is non-negotiable when it will end up being negotiable is a great way to waste lots of political capital and get a lot of egg on his face.

xp

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol of course not, only the insane could imagine obama being the problem

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 10:29 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

john, serious question, do you think a strongly progressive president could get healthcare passed? or financial reform?

obama is NOT PERFECT and i would really appreciate it if youd avoid straw-manning me--but it can be more than a little frustrating when we have ben nelson and joe lieberman in the senate obstructing serious progressive legislation and the guy in the white house is getting ten times as much flak as they are!

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

max otm

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

thing is non-negotiable when it will end up being negotiable is a great way to waste lots of political capital and get a lot of egg on his face.

Yes I understand, but power is worthless unless you're willing to use it – and risk losing it.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

im not sure that i buy the idea that obama can snap his fingers and get 60 democratic votes

this is the magic dismissal you guys always use. nobody's saying that he can "snap his fingers." they're saying he can use & exercise influence & use his position to push his agenda & probably get his way. I don't see a lot of Democrats digging in their heels against the most popular Democrat alive if he stood firm, do you?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

yes! i do! i see joe lieberman doing it! and evan bayh! and blanche lincoln! and mary landrieu!

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

john, serious question, do you think a strongly progressive president could get healthcare passed? or financial reform?

while I don't minimize that there are people who will now have insurance who haven't til now under the sloppy wet insurance co. kiss that the bill now is, I think this president could have gotten a much more patient-friendly/less "but what about BUSINESS?" ins. bill through if he'd wanted to. I don't think he wants to at all, & I'm kind of preemptively bummed about how ppl are gonna tell us how crypto-progressive he was when it comes time to solicit donations/votes in '12

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

(you think Obama is powerless against the fearsome four, eh? I don't. I think he's more like them than his defenders will admit.)

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^ this

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

o really--do tell

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

As I seem to recall, LBJ did most of his legendary arm-twisting behind the scenes. I can only hope that Rahm, Obama, et al are pursuing a similar approach. But if it reaches the point where all he can do is go to the media to issue ultimatums to Congress, I think the game is probably lost.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

look, hes not LBJ. but im not convinced that conservative democrats are all that interested in toeing the party line, considering most of them are in states that werent carried by obama

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty sure that Democrats in restive conservative states, especially those facing reelection next year, wouldn't mind at all being able to point to something they stood up to Obama on.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

but they have their pressure points. everybody does. and while obv we don't know the details of behind-the-scenes strategy, there hasn't been much evidence of obama really trying to squeeze any of these people. it's been all courting and coaxing.

and anyway, what about lieberman? he's actually more conservative than his state. and i don't know if any interest groups are out there running "why is joe lieberman trying to kill health reform" ads in connecticut, but if they aren't, why not?

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Monday, 14 December 2009 15:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah everyone is mystified by why lieberman is doing this, the current meme seems to be that all he wants to do is fuck with liberals for beating him in the CT primary

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 15:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

ethan linked to this on fbook
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/how_liberal_is_obama.html

You could imagine a lot of presidents more dogmatically liberal than Obama, but I wonder whether there are a lot of plausible hypotheticals in which they amass more liberal achievements than Obama. At the executive level, it might be the case that being too liberal is a liability to, well, liberalism.

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 16:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

Apparently his own "CT for Joe Lieberman" party is running ads against him now -- or is that what you were referring to?

WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Monday, 14 December 2009 16:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

no, ha, i didnt even know that. what a dickwad.

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 16:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

For those who dream of some truly bold financial reforms, there's some good red meat from Volcker in these interviews:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/volcker-we-need-to-think-more-boldly/

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 16:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

We have a really exaggerated view of what passes for 'liberal' in this country. It's that puritanism dragging us down again.

Adam Bruneau, Monday, 14 December 2009 16:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

what we

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 16:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

been thinkin baout this

i heard on NPR this morning there is another sit-down with the president and the big banks. the marketplace guys were chuckling, "heh heh more like a LECTURE" "FINGER WAGGING from the president." reminded me of one of the first meetings like this, back when the economy was in chaos instead of a flatlined grind, and obama said something like "we are the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"

but that is exactly wrong. it's a cute threat but it is just logically untrue. and i'm sure everyone knew it. the substance of the threat is that beyond the obama administration's stern high school principal act, lies a vast sea of populist anger. that's true in a sense, but in electoral terms it's backwards. either in a loss of majorities in '10 or a loss of the white house in '12, the governance of gov't-bank relations can only get worse. in real terms we are not getting the government action we need but in practical terms we will not get any better. so yes, it does come down to the priorities and prerogatives of the president. and congress(ional leadership).

republicans will have to problem riding "bailout fatigue" and the beck-ist sense that big gov't and big finance have gotten in bed with each other to screw YOU. liberalism has failed, your job is gone, they don't care, let the market work, you can hear it all now. but! the financial reform package passed the house with 0 GOP votes. the stimulus got a handful, health care got 1. not even poor little joseph cao wanted a piece of "anti-bank" bill. will legislation like this get easier if populist anger gets worse? no, absolutely not. you can't vote out bank of america but you CAN vote out the democratic majority.

the only caveat to this complaint is that even IF the "harshest" (ie most prudent) set of regs were put in place on the financial sector, it wouldn't help the economy grow in the short term. it would only (if i get this right) prevent the next crisis. the gov't's soft touch with the banks and a weak job market are not the same problem.

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 17:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

look yglesias is still writing about this

If you want to complain about the Obama administration, you should complain about their conduct of issues they actually have control over. Foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan, for example. Or issues related to secrecy, surveillance, and executive power. There should be plenty of grist for anyone’s mill on those issues—Glenn Greenwald’s blog is still very much in business—but on legislative matters that require the concurrence of congress, it’s not clear what pushing Obama to the left would accomplish. Rather than “Obamamania” I think a lot of the left is infected with a kind of “Presidentmania” in which they assume that the White House could get anything done if only they really wanted it. But let me promise you, the White House wants to sign a health care bill. They really, really do. Having their top priority bogged down for months is not part of a secret plan.

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

why is m.y. promising me shit?

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

because you think that the white house doesnt want to sign a health care bill

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah well, the idea i'm coming around to is that yglesias et al ARE being too easy on the president. the structural problems in gov't are immense but there is a snowball's chance in hell of the filibuster being done away with, let alone the senate itself. given the situation, what the administration and the congressional leadership wants to do is really all we have. it's the only independent variable in the whole equation.

the only solution, really, is for ppl like greenwald and taibbi to keep it up. that seems very paltry.

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

Rather than “Obamamania” I think a lot of the left is infected with a kind of “Presidentmania” in which they assume that the White House could get anything done if only they really wanted it.

this is OK though because it's countered by partisan Democrats' insistence that the President can't do anything, ever, and is really only an impotent figurehead on whom exactly nothing can be blamed

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh hey are we beating up on straw men again

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

he's over there using superlatives - GET 'IM!

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

seriously J0hn did you not read the two sentences before the one you quoted or what

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah I read 'em and I know very well what happens when you take that bait - there's a whole "in due time" move partyline ppl bring in on those issues - "he can't do it overnight," "he's not Jesus," etc - it's kind of like a shell game

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

unless he actually accomplishes passing health care, in which case its not a shell game

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

i mean j0hn can u at least admit that the truth is somewhere in the middle

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

i mean j0hn can u at least admit that the truth is somewhere in the middle

yeah but that middle is still miles away from anything more complimentary than "what an incredible disappointment this presidency is" no matter how low your expectations were. also, "a health care bill" is like the saddest thing, and it's already depressing that, no matter how ugh the bill that goes through ends up being, we're being prepped for "hey, give the guy credit: he got a health care bill through!" it's like if I promise you a car and I give you a Yugo, I think you're within your rights to say "this is a fucking Yugo"

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

ingrate

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Hey stfu it runs and gets you down the street" ok fair enough but I was hoping for at the very least a gremlin

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

the food here is terrible, and in such small portions

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

Stop it – I'm hungry.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah but that middle is still miles away from anything more complimentary than "what an incredible disappointment this presidency is" no matter how low your expectations were. also, "a health care bill" is like the saddest thing, and it's already depressing that, no matter how ugh the bill that goes through ends up being, we're being prepped for "hey, give the guy credit: he got a health care bill through!" it's like if I promise you a car and I give you a Yugo, I think you're within your rights to say "this is a fucking Yugo"

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 12:36 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

an 'incredible disappointment'? imo, huge overstatement considering the state the country was in when he got here, & the fact that he was only elected 12 months ago & wasnt even in office until less than a year ago, in the middle of a huge economic collapse. WHAT A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. i dont understand -- are you trying to, like, agitate from the left by being disingenuous now? does pushing him left require you pull a chicken little routine about his presidency, & act like a health care bill is somehow not a big deal?

i think being honest about whats going on doesnt mean you shouldnt be disappointed, but christ

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, to follow that analogy, who is to blame for the yugo being a yugo? (the president can be one of your answers.)

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah until somebody gets prosecuted for using my fucking tax dollars to torture human beings, "incredible disappointment" is an understatement as far as I'm concerned. if anything's worth spending political capital on, it's torture. after that, the subverting of the Constitution for political ends. both things from which we're "moving forward."

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

"oh so it's YOUR money" fucking right it is. if you pay taxes, you paid for somebody to torture prisoners. we know that. the guilty should be brought to justice. they won't be. that's an incredible disappointment.

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

so when you grudgingly voted for barack obama you expected him to swiftly bring cheney to trial & prosecute him for war crimes

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

im not saying he shouldnt have btw -- just wondering if youre so incredibly disappointed because you thought at any time that was going to happen

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

deej i admire your stansmanship but on torture or surveillance or 'executive privilege' u cannot

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

I certainly didn't expect his Justice Department to file briefs with the Supreme Court urging it not to hear arguments in favor of releasing photos of torture.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

goole stop asking for "perfection" - only Jesus Christ would make any effort to right such wrongs, everybody else needs to focus on what's important: a win in the Senate

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

I knew he supported the FISA compromises and would probably keep Bush's cool new executive branch powers, but Holder's move there was breathtaking in its capitulation to the unitary executive theory of government.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

j0hn bro you are making it v difficult to agree w/ you

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

what the fuck dude stop misinterpreting me -- im talking about your stance here of calling this a 'failure' of a presidency -- what president's gold standard are you holding this up to -- presidents are assholes -- FDR interned japanese ppl -- every president is 'disappointing,' im talking about working w/in the world we actually live in

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

goole stop asking for "perfection" - only Jesus Christ would make any effort to right such wrongs, everybody else needs to focus on what's important: a win in the Senate

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 12:44 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what does 'a win in the senate' mean -- do you mean health care? because i do think that is 'what's important'

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

But that doesn't stop one from saying, "Presidents are assholes -- FDR interned American citizens of Japanese descent – but here's how Obama in particular is an asshole."

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

and to be clear deej if he'd hang a scooter libby out to dry, something, anything, to indicate something other than total moral cowardice in the face of what 8 years of bush turned this country into - a nation of people for whom torture & indefinite detainment without charge is an unpleasant fact of daily life which they subsidize with their own money - I'd be placated. "moving forward" is bullshit. the man in the oval office has the names & notes of the people who tortured. either them or the people who commanded them need to be brought to justice. it's never going to happen. 100% permanent no-excuses crap imo.

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

i find myself searching for the reasons for doing that [xp to Alfred: re: the torture photos] -- necessity of legal continuity? need to keep the CIA happy while they are dying in SW Asia? foreign gov'ts have begged for no more riots in muslim cities? -- because the prospect of Holder thinking it's really the right thing to do, is really really gross.

j0hn i really don't know how to respond to what you are saying. is there really a response? i could repeat myself. i probably will.

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

(and in the face of that, yeah, whatever, a health care bill - deck chair on the damn titanic if we just go "yeah, some bad shit went down, you guys don't really need to know about it, let's just move along")

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

(goole I was being sarcastic, pretty sure you & I are on the same side here)

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

can someone fill me in on the STD apology for o's lack of movement on stuff like torture etc? is it still "it'd tear the country apart?" or is it that he'd blow capital and get stuffed on healthcare and other plans that Look Forward?

being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

got ya -- so universal health care is simply a mea culpa for not prosecuting gwb for torture

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

Listen to Beltway hack Chuck Todd tell us what would happen if Obama pressed ahead on prosecuting lawyers who authorized torture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2LroD5_IbU

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

xp evidently I can't keep up

being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

ugh @ chuck todd not realizing that his framing is exactly the problem

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

iPhone, can't watch. my q was srs btw

being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

"best" answer about torture: it would be extremely distressing to the CIA and military, who need to be kept in some kind of fighting shape so we can get out of two wars (u can not agree on this, of course), and yes, suck up any valuable oxygen needed for health care, the economy, anything else. and it has no constituency. americans like torture. they took to it very easily and don't want to let it go. they are mostly happy to forget about it and move on.

"worst" answer: obama and his ppl are narcissistic enough to think that merely electing them to not-torture is a good enough solution.

none of these is a good answer, mind u.

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

and, see, Todd is yet another guy who thinks that Practical People understand how torture is a "distraction" for the President.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

thx goole

being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious, which is that photos of the US actually torturing detainees would be first-rate recruitment materials for al-Qaeda etc. I'm sure if considerations of Americans' safety didn't factor into it, Obama would like nothing better than to embarrass and shame the Bush administration. It's pretty much a slam-dunk in terms of domestic politics. The fact that he refrains shows some of the maturity required of being commander in chief, IMO.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

can someone fill me in on the STD apology for o's lack of movement on stuff like torture etc? is it still "it'd tear the country apart?"

it's "he wouldn't get reelected and be able to do the things he really wants to do/the really important things" IIRC and to try to make it plain that I do get the argt, I just don't agree with it: look, there are small gains to be made, which have real impact on people's lives: health care; the economy; jobs. On these, the Democrats, led by Obama, can make gains, and repair some of the damage to the system done by 8 years of neocon economics (really 28 years of neocon economics I'd guess, gotta defer to people who can really describe how Clinton engineered the years that followed Bush I). If Obama chooses to do something huge & make-or-break like prosecute members of the previous administration (or people who would be compelled to point up the chain of command), he risks the midterm elections for sure, and probably reelection, and these losses would have human costs -- less people getting the jobs we hope the Obama administration will produce; less statesmanship and back to the adversarial international ways of the previous administration, which demonstrably harmed us at home and abroad; less of the small good gains we believe tend to be made on behalf of normal working people under Democratic administrations.

How'd I do?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

"so universal health care is simply a mea culpa for not prosecuting gwb for torture"

I accept this apology!

Philip Nunez, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

so deej is your position seriously "nothing can be done" on torture? like, it happened, too bad so sad for dudes who got tortured, we promise not to do it again?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

um, no ...?

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's "he wouldn't get reelected and be able to do the things he really wants to do/the really important things"

jesus christ will you fucking stop it with this re-election line since NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THIS TO YOU EVER on this board. nor have I read any pundits say anything like it.

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah i dont know where the re-election thing is coming from j0hn is that something your irl friends say or what

max, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

irl friends?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

thx j0hn!

being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

intemperate raccoon lovers

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

do you guys live in some dreamworld where 1st term presidents with sympathetic house & senate are never thinking about elections?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

don't thank me yet gbx evidently my understanding of the whole thing is based on a fallacy, to wit, that politicians sometimes seek reelection

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

no one here is arguing that Obama should/shouldn't do things based on how it would affect his chances for re-election, is all I'm saying.

Obama is surely performing that calculus, but that's beside the point.

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'd argue not so much a fallacy as much as an unstated assumption but that arguing would take away time I could spend posting this:

http://www.lepenquotidien.com/valentine.png

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

GAH

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

Obama is surely performing that calculus, but that's beside the point.

wtf, that's the entire point

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

"no one's ever said that to you" - conceded! how does that even matter?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

(gonna stop the raccoon pics before I get sbed but I found a DOOZY)

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

GODDAMN IT HI DERE

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

WHAT THE HELL

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

well why should ilxors formulate defenses for arguments ilxors are not making? that's more about politeness than politics, tho...

xps ok what is with the raccoons

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

I had another long post about how Obama's definitely NOT gonna be more liberal in his second term but it got eaten apparently... Obama's doing the calculus to get elected, no doubt. I'm sure he's aware that the majority of modern president's major legislative accomplishments are achieved within the first two years of their first term. By the second term the President is often severely compromised politically and also lacking in the political capital to get things done with congress.

But, even so, Obama is NOT promising to be more liberal if he gets re-elected. You have posted, repeatedly and apparently without any provocation, that this argument - that Obama will be more liberal if he gets re-elected - is being used to silence criticism. Even though, NO ONE IS SAYING IT. this is not that complicated to understand, frankly I'm kinda surprised at your harping on this...

x-posts

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's "he wouldn't get reelected and be able to do the things he really wants to do/the really important things" IIRC and to try to make it plain that I do get the argt,

you "get" an argument that you just made up, that is ahistorical and illogical, and that no one on ILX is making. good job.

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't think the argument is really that Obama is going to be more liberal if he's re-elected. The argument is that he isn't being very liberal now so that he will get re-elected; what he does in the hypothetical second term is entirely up in the air.

My counter-argument is that all Obama really ever promised to do is be more liberal than McCain. He isn't as liberal I want for him to be, but I knew this would be the case going into things and therefore it is difficult for me to feel betrayed when 85% of his responses to issues have been in line with how he campaigned.

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

(btw 85% is a precise statistic that I just pulled out of my ass)

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

..except for torture. and the banks. but maybe we got the wrong impression from all the populist sunshine?

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

The torture thing is the most misleading thing he's done IMO and even there I am not 100% prepared to pass judgment because I haven't spent as much time as I want to spend digging into the issue and getting info from multiple sources in an attempt to get to what the real facts are.

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

(which is a weaselly way of saying "I stopped paying attention but IIRC the last thing I heard on it really, really sucked and I should stop playing WoW long enough to confirm it")

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

when did he say he was going to prosecute people on torture?

bnw, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

never

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

He said something during the campaign about putting a stop to it, which was undercut somewhat by the rendition decision, and that people who did it should be brought to justice, which was undercut by Holder's decision not to prosecute and his own statements that we should look forward; I am fully aware that I may be misremembering what he said during the campaign, though.

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

he did say we weren't gonna do it anymore. whether or not that promise has been carried out is a little difficult to determine, given the secrecy of rendition process. although on the public face of it, yeah he did outlaw it and order all branches of the military/intelligence community to follow no-torture guidelines, etc. which is a good thing imho.

x-post

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't think he ever said he was going to go after Cheney or Gonzales. Holder's given conflicting statements since being appointed.

a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

(the more accurate thing is likely that he said something which was interpreted to mean what I outlined above that really should have been taken at bald face value, but that doesn't keep me from being bummed that no one is trying to through Cheney in jail)

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'd actually put my happy-with-Obamaness at about 70/75%; that the rest of the world no longer thinks we're led by an idiot who can't find France on a map is important to me, and I believe that Obama's statesmanship will be good for us as a country & important for our economic health in the future, since the future of the world economy is going to involve one whole hell of a lot of cooperation imo. I am happy with his bipartisanship; he restores dignity to the country when he insists on listening to others, trying to hear what they have to say. Even his tendency to compromise what I'd call valuable principles - I see that as a net gain for public discourse, which, in the long run, is extremely important; it has a lot to do with how impressionable young people will grow up to be, and govern, etc.

Unfortunately, the remaining 25-30% has mainly to do with the torture of prisoners & the disposition of prisoners of war, issues on which while there are no answers without possible cost. I am arguing that it seems clear that the president believes the political costs to him & his party would be too great for him to pursue the right course of action, which is holding people accountable for betraying the country on an issue as vital as detention without cause & torture of prisoners. I don't think any other explanation of his stance on this issue holds up.

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

Cheney, bummed in jail.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

so deej is your position seriously "nothing can be done" on torture? like, it happened, too bad so sad for dudes who got tortured, we promise not to do it again?

Thinking back over a long history government-sanction abuses of human rights, I'd say that is a best-case scenario.

Adam Bruneau, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

:(

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

I can think of many considerations other than electoral ones that would make Obama hesitate to launch an investigation of the previous administration. At a time when its vital for the US to repair its image in the Muslim world, to be digging up a lot of dirt and airing it to the world may not be the most advisable course, however much we would like to reach some semblance of justice against those who perpetrated it. Also, such investigations are bound to be incredibly disruptive and divisive within the national security agencies and military, at a time when we need their full focus on threats to the country. Not saying these considerations should trump everything else, but they are there.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

a developed democratic country that cant come correct on torture-- i dont know if that image can be repaired without disclosure imo.

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Monday, 14 December 2009 20:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

I hear that o. nate but really - that information? it's going to come out eventually. we don't live in a world where you can keep secrets for long. if any president might be able to preside over its release and maybe minimize the damage it'll do, better Barack Obama than anybody else, in my opinion - as an international statesman, he's better equipped than anybody else I can see filling his shoes. the damage is done & it's going to surface at some point, all of it. I would expect Obama to realize that he might have the best shot at averting utter catastrophe but pursuing a policy of openness with it. which policy, incidentally, would be right in line with FOIA & as Hunt3r points out, our vision of ourselves as a decent bunch of people.

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 20:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

(but pursuing = by pursuing in the above, thx)

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 20:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think minimizing the damage might just involve letting things come out slowly in dribs and drabs. Maybe the trauma of a big media circus investigation might be therapeutic for the national soul, but Obama does not seem like the kind of person who would be drawn to such a divisive confrontation.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 20:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

xpost
I'm confused. Are pictures depicting the torturing Muslims worse than killing Muslims? If we want to repair our image I think it makes the most sense to prosecute torturers and stop killing innocent people. It sounds naive in the context of these sort of discussions in which the "grown-ups" pretend "our hand" has been "forced" by "fate" or that "we" are making "significant strategical Foreign Policy decisions", but for actual adults, who understand that the basic fact of being a human being is understanding that actions have consequences and that the actor generally must take responsibility for those consequences, this whole foolish "debate" takes on the character, the ill-informed, all-knowing conviction, of a bunch of six year old boys playing "war" in a backyard somewhere. As long as nobody can "squander" "political capital" by doing the right fucking thing, nothing will change.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

xpost
it sucks that it would be divisive. All of that finger pointing, when, really, the question of complicity is only a matter of degree for all.

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 20:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

Interesting to consider the experience of South Africa with its Truth & Reconciliation Commission. In a sense, they had to choose between truth and justice. As a country, they could either entice people to testify in exchange for amnesty, or else they could try to seek retribution and face stonewalling and cover-ups. They opted for the less divisive and more forward-looking choice.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

Ok. I will read up on that. I know what you are saying but generally "justice" and "retribution" is a dangerous conflation. Also, as far as I remember, the situation in South Africa was a domestic concern, with both the hurt and hurters part of the same legal system. That is not the case here. Whether us Americans decide to be "friends" again or not doesn't change the fact that the acts occur, the acts continue to occur, and that the people most affected by this have no voice in the matter.

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

im pretty sure the s.a. situation was a pretty shitty resolution in many many ways, even if it was the best/most realistic one (not sure that it was that, either)

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 21:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

A lot of people were unhappy about it. They would have preferred to have the justice first, then the reconciliation. However, as a whole it seems to have succeeded in its aims.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

As a country, they could either entice people to testify in exchange for amnesty, or else they could try to seek retribution and face stonewalling and cover-ups.

Which of these are we doing right now?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 21:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

("torturing of Muslims")

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

sorry to loop back to taibbi but

Unwavering ideological voting, of the sort Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich exhibit, is the exception in politics for good reason. It is impossible to separate wealthy or powerful groups from the centers of government. And trying to do so can make a country less stable. Opposition movement must enlist opposing powerful elements in order to achieve success, which means one group of powerful individuals is replaced with another. Look at the relationships between the wealthy, the military, and the government in any number of anti-democratic or marginally democratic states. That Goldman Sacs, to take Taibbi's favored boogeyman, is able to influence the political process through lobbyists is far preferable a government where the most powerful interests might need stage or threaten a military coup in order to influence the stewards of government.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/obama-and-taibbi-ii.html

is there an academic version of this critique?

should i lol or ;_; (Hunt3r), Monday, 14 December 2009 21:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

Maybe you can read C Wright Mills' "The Power Elite" and say "awesome" instead of "damn" at the appropriate moments?

j/k or am I?

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm sort of confused with the last sentences. Are we a democracy simply because our coups are nonviolent?

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

our coups are regularly scheduled, that's the whole point

goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

not sure what you meant upthread-- i like taibbi's critique, and tend to view it at least as much "dc is an incestuous self interested circle jerk" than, say, "lefties want obama to be more lefty."

ive simply never seen anyone posit that k street adds needed stability to the republic.

xpost

should i lol or ;_; (Hunt3r), Monday, 14 December 2009 21:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure if there's an academic version of it, though I've heard similar arguments put forward in support of for instance our current campaign finance system - ie., that if you don't let the moneyed interests funnel dollars to their preferred candidates openly, they'll do it under the table. There is probably some truth to this. If the powerful are not given peaceful and fairly transparent ways of influencing policy, they will find ways to circumvent it that could potentially be more harmful to the smooth functioning of a civil society. Too many unenforceable laws tend to undermine the rule of law.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sullivan is having the wrong effect on me. Suddenly I wish we had leaders principled enough to only change their minds in the face of tanks.

o. - in:re influence - that is a good principle in terms of the giving but not the taking.

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

Speaking of Sully, he's on vacation, and Patrick Appel posted this in part, responding to the Taibbi stuff:

Unwavering ideological voting, of the sort Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich exhibit, is the exception in politics for good reason. It is impossible to separate wealthy or powerful groups from the centers of government. And trying to do so can make a country less stable. Opposition movement must enlist opposing powerful elements in order to achieve success, which means one group of powerful individuals is replaced with another. Look at the relationships between the wealthy, the military, and the government in any number of anti-democratic or marginally democratic states. That Goldman Sacs, to take Taibbi's favored boogeyman, is able to influence the political process through lobbyists is far preferable a government where the most powerful interests might need stage or threaten a military coup in order to influence the stewards of government.

This is not to say that we should always capitulate to powerful interests, but that these interests will always have a say in government and that our system of lobbying is an alternative to much less desirable arrangements. Pretending that if Obama were more liberal that the government would suddenly have tools to oppose these interests is wishful thinking. These problems are systemic and not attributable to any individual

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 21:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

If you're just looking for a history of the outsized influence enjoyed by the wealthy and powerful even in a democracy such as ours, there's Kevin Phillips' engaging book Wealth and Democracy. In particular the part about how late-stage empires tend to see a flourishing of finance at the expense of more tangible industries is sobering (prior examples include Spain, Netherlands and Great Britain).

Shh- Not sure I understand the "giving" vs "taking" distinction you're making.

o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 21:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

It is inevitable that powerful people will try to influence policymakers. It is not inevitable that they are influenced.

Especially that last paragraph makes it seem like politicians are just leaves subject to whoever has the most powerful blower. In which case I vote maple.

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 22:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Pretending that if Obama were more <S>liberal</S> principled that the government would suddenly have tools to oppose these interests is <S>wishful</S> thinking. These problems are systemic and <S>not</S> attributable to any individual

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 22:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

ARGH!
Pretending that if Obama were more liberal principled that the government would suddenly have tools to oppose these interests is wishful thinking. These problems are systemic and not attributable to any individual

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 22:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

<S>not</S>

thread saved

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 22:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

I like "swishful" - a great replacement for the sometimes overlong "light in the loafers".

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Monday, 14 December 2009 22:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

bad pun kills thread sorry.

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 02:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

Hey, guys, hot off the press:

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leaders said Monday that they were prepared to drop a proposed expansion of Medicare and make other changes in sweeping health legislation as they tried to rally their caucus in hopes of passing the bill before Christmas.
Skip to next paragraph
Prescriptions Blog

A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.

* More Health Care Overhaul News

conversations
Health Care Conversations

Share your thoughts about the health care debate.

Top Discussions: The Public Option | Medicare and the Elderly | A Single-Payer System
Living Story
Health Care Reform

Recent developments on the struggle over health care with background, analysis, timelines and earlier events from NYTimes.com and Google.

After a tense 90-minute meeting on Monday evening, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, was asked if Democrats were likely to jettison the Medicare proposal.

“It’s looking like that’s the case,” Mr. Baucus said, indicating that the provision might be scrapped as a way of “getting support from 60 senators.”

Under the proposal, uninsured people ages 55 to 64 could purchase Medicare coverage. The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, floated the idea about 10 days ago as a way to break an intraparty impasse over his earlier proposal to create a government-run health insurance plan.

The signal from the party leadership came after the closed-door session to gauge sentiment for moving ahead with a pared-back measure that would not contain elements that liberal lawmakers had sought, particularly a public health insurance option.

Lawmakers and top aides said that the overriding view at the session held just off the Senate floor was that they had come too far in the health care debate to give up and that they should forge ahead with some legislation even if it was not all that they wanted.

After the meeting, lawmakers said they believed that chances were increased for completing a health care bill and that a final product would be a substantial improvement over the current system.

“If you compared it to the alternative, it looks good,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, about the prospect of moving ahead with a measure that does not have a public health insurance option. “If you compare it to the possibilities, it looks pretty sad.”

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 02:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

I am too tired of arguing with people I respect about this stuff. I support this bill now no matter what it says. Something is better than nothing. That's politics. Idealism is for the stupid.

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 02:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

I am too tired of arguing with people I respect about this stuff. I support this bill now no matter what it says. Something is better than nothing. That's politics. Idealism is for the stupid.

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:37 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

your assumption that we're not super depressed about this is wrong so plz quit caricaturing

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 02:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

I was actually speaking from the heart, that is how I feel tonight about this stuff.

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 02:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzcYajuigHk

Shh! It's NOT Me!, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 02:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.glatuc.org.uk/images/uploads/b1.jpg

There should be massive protests happening right now, for this and climate change. Seriously, nothing would be better than
for my building in DC to be surrounded by health care and climate change protesters in a crowd stretching all the way to the capitol and the white house.

Why there isn't a sustained, strong protest is probably better left for another (already existing?) thread.

Everything in life is real....EVERYTHING (Z S), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 03:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

dude I don't have the money to take time off and fly to DC to get arrested I hate to say it

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 03:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

I will pay to have you arrested Shakey Mo, always happy to help

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 03:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

j0hn d otm in an obama thread

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 04:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

i would be in dc in a heartbeat to protest for healthcare and climate change action. i dont know why no one is organizing for these things.

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 10:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

MUSTNT WEAKEN OUR GUY

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 11:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, that's not really what anyone's here's been arguing. but hey, don't let that stop you from saying I TOLD YOU SO for the nth time.

I don't think this is funny..Much Clown Love Ya'll! (stevie), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 11:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

I am enjoying it, and hating it.

Shakey, I'm sure you can find a way to get arrested in SF.

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 11:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

speaking of protests:

President Obama came into office with the backing of progressives, but they are not happy about the recent developments in health care, and they plan to show it: MoveOn.org will host a protest outside the White House at 1 p.m. today calling on Obama to oppose a compromise with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on health reform.

Cutting a deal with Lieberman would mean dropping the Senate bill's provision to let 55-64 year-olds buy into Medicare. Politico reported yesterday that the White House has urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make such a deal.

The stated mission of the protest is to remind Obama that the country elected him, not Lieberman, to fix health care. (Exit polls, by the way, showed health care as the top concern of voters in the 2008 presidential race--so they may have a point). From MoveOn's press release:

Today, MoveOn.org members will hold an emergency rally outside of the White House telling President Obama to not allow Senator Joe Lieberman to hold health care reform hostage, and to urge the President to fight for real reform with the public health insurance option. MoveOn members want to remind the President that the country elected him, not Joe Lieberman, to fix our nation's broken health care system.

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 16:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

not really sure what it does to oppose a compromise with lieberman, to be honest, besides kill healthcare for the next 25 years

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 16:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

Shakey, I'm sure you can find a way to get arrested in SF.

lolz yeah but protesting in SF is so thoroughly pointless, no one gives a shit what we do here in librul-lala-land

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 16:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

perhaps the folks at moveon have figured out a way to get the bill through the senate without going through lieberman. i'm all ears!

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

not really sure what it does to oppose a compromise with lieberman, to be honest, besides kill healthcare for the next 25 years

they go the reconciliation route and piss off the Republicans even more - but since the GOPers are being such intransigent, uncooperative idiots anyway its hard to imagine how they could possibly be any MORE uncooperative. fuck 'em says I. go hard or go home, Reid.

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

fwiw the reconciliation route is currently still "on the table" but is not being considered as the best alternative

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think dems are more worried about the "optics" of reconciliation, and how easily it allows the GOP to stay on-message about the democrat party cramming healthcare reform down grandmas throat

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh noes Democrat Party unable to control narrative SHOCKAH

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah well democrats are a bunch of big wusses i knew that when i joined <shrug>

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

if they actually had a good plan maybe they wouldn't mind taking sole responsibility for it

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

what 'they' would that be

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

if they actually had a good plan maybe they wouldn't mind taking sole responsibility for it

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Democratic Party.

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

hee hee

"they" = the senate

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

and by "sole responsibility" i mean using every dirty trick between the lines of robert's rules of order to effect their vision

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sorry.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Senate. *rimshot*

I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

there are times when what the white house "wants" is important but health care is not one of them. oh, the bill is bad, it's taking forever, they must not want this bad enough.

on torture, there's really no other explanation, because there are no other decision makers acting other than the WH and DoJ. no, they don't really want to go there. and on economics, nobody but obama put larry summers in the lead position. (on new bank regulation, there's a good House bill that the white house is pushing, the GOP and the banks hate, and looks shaky in the senate. kind of a pattern)

but on health care? the senate is a horrible institution to begin with, and the GOP filibuster mania has made it a thousand times worse. that's true no matter what obama wants, or how badly he wants it. it also seems true to me that obama wanted to spend as much time and as much of his own popularity as it took to get as good a deal as possible. we're still at it, and we're farther along than anyone has ever been since LBJ.

ben nelson has been a pro-life creep forever, joe lieberman has been a crabby asshole forever, susan collins and olympia snowe have been unreliable weather-vane centrist feebs forever -- these are the people that were always going to be making the decisions about major legislation. they are the outer edge of any successful coalition of yea votes. one or a few of these people are the eye of the needle that the fucking camel has to fit through. i really want it to be different. what are the chances it will be?

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 17:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

not really sure what it does to oppose a compromise with lieberman, to be honest, besides kill healthcare for the next 25 years

it is good to be reminded of the advantages of even the shittiest incarnation of the bill - insuring the uninsured - but caving to lieberman, rather than making a reckless and divisive attempt to get a worthier bill passed, seems like the most resigned capitulation to coercion and obstruction imaginable. i know they should concentrate on the war rather than the individual battles but this would be so hard to live with.

high-five machine (schlump), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

imo not as hard to live with as no healthcare reform at all

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think the best-case scenario that would take the concession into account without making it feel like resigned capitulation would be to approve the bill with Lieberman's provisions, then strip him of all of his positions and standing with the Democratic Party and remove campaign support from him. And then have every senator line up and punch him in the face one by one.

Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

rather than making a reckless and divisive attempt to get a worthier bill passed

why is everyone so certain that this is a gamble that would succeed? what is better, 60-70% of a good bill, or 0?

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

remove campaign support from him.

ha ned lamont did this three years ago

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

the most resigned capitulation to coercion and obstruction imaginable.

ie politics.

stop grieving, it's only a chicken (darraghmac), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

anyway as much as i like to see the scumbag humiliated, lieberman wont lose anything, hes working on a lot of legislation thats important to democrats and its not clear if theyre ever going to get any republican support for anything for the next four years

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

this is how i feel

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/paying-the-liebergeld/

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

its not clear if theyre ever going to get any republican support for anything for the next four years

it's abundantly clear that they are NOT so they should stop fucking trying

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

why is everyone so certain that this is a gamble that would succeed?

because they only need 51 votes to do it and that way the Dems can let Nelson and Lieberman and the other fucknuts walk away from voting for it

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

dude--they actually cant get everything passed through reconciliation

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm aware they'd have to alter the legislation, but if they could keep some version of the public option...

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's abundantly clear that they are NOT so they should stop fucking trying

I disagree with that tactic.

They should not expect any Republican support but that doesn't mean they shouldn't continue to offer the opportunity to give it. Also, there is some merit to the idea that an opposing viewpoint can help you identify and shore up the weak points in your ideas. I think the Democrats are swinging WAY too far to the center in reacting to criticism but the idea of successfully rebutting/refuting objections shouldn't be thrown out just because the Republicans are being stubborn.

Restless Genital Syndrome (HI DERE), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh I'm all for "successfully rebutting/refuting objections" and paying attention to what the Republicans have to say. but stop acting like there's any point in horse-trading for votes, because they just negotiate in bad faith and clearly have dug in their heels as obstructionists (as the Dems should have - but didn't - when Dubya was prez)

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

reconciliation only covers things that are budgetary. that's only half (or something) of the total package; the subsidies, the tax changes, etc. anything regulatory, the exchanges, the rest of it, is non-budgetary, and needs cloture to proceed. the bill would have to be rewritten to be done that way. and the house bill that already passed would have to be rewritten to match it (or so i understand it). whatever the merits of reconciliation are, that train is gone.

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

klein on reconciliation:

For a detailed primer on the reconciliation process, head here. The short version is that reconciliation, which short-circuits the filibuster, can only be used for legislation that directly affects the federal budget. Anything that "indirectly" affects the budget -- think insurance regulations, like the ban on preexisting conditions -- would be ineligible.

What would be eligible? Well, Medicare buy-in, for one thing. Medicaid expansions. The public option. Anything, in short, that relies on a public program, rather than a new regulation in the private market. That means we'd probably lose the regulations on insurers, many of the delivery-side reforms, the health insurance exchanges, the individual mandate and much else.

Reconciliation, in other words, tips the bill towards an expansion of the public sector rather than a restructuring of the private sector. That makes it much less congenial to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (not to mention more conservative Republicans). But it also doesn't need as many of their votes, as it can pass the Senate with 50, rather than 60, in support.

To be very clear, this is not a trade I'm eager to see reformers make. You lose too much in reconciliation, and gain too little. The exchanges are too important, and so too are the insurance regulations and delivery-system reforms. But if Democrats end up in reconciliation, this bill is going to get a lot worse from the perspective of its skeptics.

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

ugh. okay yeah that's not a good trade-off.

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 18:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

wow, maybe complaining works

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/a_chastened_lieberman_defends_himself.php

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

lieberman is a POS but its probably easier to negotiate with a dude whose positions are built on a sociopathic desire to irritate ned lamont supporters than a dude (or chick) whose positions are built on ideological foundations, no matter how flimsy those foundations are

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

not "negotiate," sorry, "embarrass"

max, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

wow, maybe complaining works

I don't see him recanting his position

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

i don't see him saying he's "still dissatisfied" either, which is what i expected

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

there are 5 google hits for the exact phrase, "in the tent, pissing in"

2 are about joe lieberman

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

google missed this one

HEALTHCARE THREAD

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

Who is going to bring the hammer down on Lieberman? Does anyone have a hammer ready to hand?

― I would feel confident if I dated her because I am older than (Laurel), Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:31 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark

if only we had, like, a bag of them

goole, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

would be nice to see some Connecticutans (uhm, is that what they're called?) pointing out that a majority of the state's residents support a public healthcare plan

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

perhaps this will remind the Dems to totally stonewall the GOP president who succeeds Obama.

(j/k, about the Dems ever having balls that is)

Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 00:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^yeah really. I wonder how many Republicans are worried about losing their seats/"being outside the mainstream"

Magnolia Caboose Babyfinger (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 00:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

You're joking, right?

everything, Friday, 18 December 2009 22:35 (seven years ago) Permalink

hell no! this is huge!

larry craig memorial gloryhole (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 December 2009 22:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

Lack of patriotism, lack of intelligence, silly nigger arrogance 'Look at me!!),lack of executive experience.
Cetainly the most inept American President since Jimmy Carter, possibly all time.

Carl, Friday, 18 December 2009 23:05 (seven years ago) Permalink

bye

Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Friday, 18 December 2009 23:08 (seven years ago) Permalink

suicide by cop

you are wrong I'm bone thugs in harmon (omar little), Friday, 18 December 2009 23:11 (seven years ago) Permalink

certainly the most inept poster since ___________

harbl, Friday, 18 December 2009 23:12 (seven years ago) Permalink

possibly all time

harbl, Friday, 18 December 2009 23:12 (seven years ago) Permalink

Inept (of all time)? Pierce, Buchannan, Taft, W, Polk, really??

I ♥ facebook like you ♥ cock (Michael White), Friday, 18 December 2009 23:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

Wait, Polk?

uninspired girls rejoice!!! (Hoot Smalley), Friday, 18 December 2009 23:15 (seven years ago) Permalink

Polk wasn't inept at all, not even at growing a mullet.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 December 2009 23:18 (seven years ago) Permalink

I can't deconstruct Shakey's praise of Bam's latest non-achievement.

Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 19 December 2009 07:32 (seven years ago) Permalink

Thanks for asking. Maybe it was a joke after all.

everything, Saturday, 19 December 2009 07:35 (seven years ago) Permalink

trial mortgage modification follies

In the fine print of the form homeowners fill out to apply for Obama's program, which lowers monthly payments for three months while the lender decides whether to provide permanent relief, borrowers must waive important notification rights.

This clause allows banks to reject borrowers without any written notification and move straight to auctioning off their homes without any warning.

it sounds like lenders are able to resume foreclosure process without notice from where it had been suspended prior to any trial modification. pretty bad policy.

not a well done article, the bit about the wealthy guy is seems a bit misleading, as he is not in the HAMP program. he's just got a crooked bank. interesting though.

nostragaaaawddamnus (Hunt3r), Saturday, 19 December 2009 19:31 (seven years ago) Permalink

Now that we've seen O in action for about 10 months in office, and for a couple of months during the post-election tansition, I think I am figuring out his flaws.

Mainly, his central flaw as president has been a misunderstanding of his office in the whole scheme of government and politics. His style has been to act as a facilitator, negotiator, and a decision-maker. None of these are bad things in themselves, but his leadership style has been missing a crucial ingredient: ass-kicking in the service of getting what he wants.

He is far too deferential to other politicians. It is as if he doesn't have a strong idea of what is wrong and what to do about it. I have a hard time thinking this outward appearance jibes with reality.

Rather, I suspect he doesn't yet grasp that the presidency is the heart and soul of the Executive branch, as in getting things done. He is averse to kicking ass, taking names, twisting arms, and getting out in front of the parade. He needs to embrace more of the persona of the wrathful god no one wants to get on the wrong side of.

He needs to break a few heads just as a display of power, to keep the rabble in Congress more cowed. As it is, he lends the opposition a part of his strength, and instead of testing his own strength against a true opponent, he wrestles with himself and always comes out partly a loser.

Aimless, Saturday, 19 December 2009 19:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

i dont really understand that

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

How to break heads? Dude, you smash them together. You'll hear a crunching sound. Simple.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

i mean, what is it you want him to do?

NOTE TO JOHN: im not saying that there arent things he SHOULD be doing that he isnt. im asking critics to be more specific. i know how u like to read motives into this

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:37 (seven years ago) Permalink

I want him to invite Joe Lieberman to the White House. I want him to quietly tell him that he has a choice to make: Joe can reverse his opposition to a public option in the healthcare bill with whatever face-saving excuse he cares to make, or he will be kicked out off the Democratic caucus, stripped of meaningful committee assignments, and exiled to Outer Slobovia. Plus any other credible threats a sitting President can muster.

After said meeting, both of them will walk arm in arm, smiling, into the Rose Garden and publically congratulate one another on their new found concordance of minds. But, if Joe persists in his opposition, O should bury the knife in him as deeply as it will go and make sure everyone in Congress sees the blood flowing.

LBJ was a master at this stuff. O needs to learn from his example.

Aimless, Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

I'm realizing that legislative success, like most things, is serendipitous. It's not exactly the same though. LBJ drew upon the good will of the American public, dazed after the JFK assassination, and two civil rights bills he was instrumental in passing as majority leader to pass the Voting Rights Act. Plus, he had a lot of help from Republican minority leader Dirksen. Even Reagan used the sympathy generated by the attempt on his life to pass his economic plan in July '81.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 19 December 2009 21:55 (seven years ago) Permalink

sticking a (figurative) shiv in Joe Lieberman would certainly jibe w/ Obama-ist "change" rhetoric. it's hard to think of anyone who's more representative of Beltway insiderism/conventional wisdom than Lieberman. plus i think that there are not a few Congresscritters who (at least secretly, and not all of them liberals) who would love to see Joementum taken down a notch or ten. Lieberman is to the Senate what Billy Mumy was on the "It's a Good Life" episode from the twilight zone -- he needs to go, but no-one dares to do the deed.

How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:03 (seven years ago) Permalink

well, the fact is that figuratively stabbing him doesnt really change the fact that hes voting on all bills that pass thru the senate

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:11 (seven years ago) Permalink

another disclaimer: im not forgiving anything obama's done or not done, just asking for more specifics than "he needs to be mean to joe lieberman." i mean, fuck joe imo, but we're kind of stuck with dude (thnx a lot ct)

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Saturday, 19 December 2009 22:12 (seven years ago) Permalink

im not saying its the model of executive efficacy, but what did bush do when he needed something done? he got his army of henchmen and some key legislators flooding the media proclaiming an incredibly urgent crisis demanding immediate action, objection to which would be unpatriotic. dude could barely speak a straight sentence, but had no qualms about "going to the people." at least thats my recollection. i guess it didnt get ss reform done, but i think that's because ss reform is less popular and less urgent.

from obama, ive seen tepid solo shit like his address in july for small businesses etc.

nostragaaaawddamnus (Hunt3r), Saturday, 19 December 2009 23:42 (seven years ago) Permalink

as with all post-Reagan Democrats, he needs to stop being a Republican.

He Won't.

Also, he wears a fucking flag pin.

Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 20 December 2009 07:07 (seven years ago) Permalink

NOTE TO JOHN: im not saying that there arent things he SHOULD be doing that he isnt. im asking critics to be more specific. i know how u like to read motives into this

followed shortly by

well, the fact is that figuratively stabbing him doesnt really change the fact that hes voting on all bills that pass thru the senate

you can maybe see how finding excuses for not stripping Lieberman of his committees kinda looks like seeing the glass half full on purpose n'est-pas. also, "if you don't have a constructive suggestion, that's a flaw in your criticism" is nonsense boss-speak. I can't play the saxophone but that doesn't mean I have to like Kenny G.

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, 20 December 2009 07:59 (seven years ago) Permalink

i dont see how stripping him of his position changes anything john!! thats all im saying

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Sunday, 20 December 2009 10:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

ooooh we showed him!! now he'll ... do exactly the same thing!

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Sunday, 20 December 2009 10:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

if only we'd told him who was boss -- hed vote pro on health care then for sure!

unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Sunday, 20 December 2009 10:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

that's all well and good, deej, and not to get all "listen to yer elders, whippersnapper" here ... but Lieberman has pulled this kind of shit before and has always gotten away with it. today it's the health care bill; several years ago, it was his shucking and jiving for Dubya for the Iraq War; a decade ago it was him sticking a knife in Clinton's back during the height of Monicagate, sticking a knife in Gore's back during the Florida mess after the 2000 election, ad nauseum. i remember all of this shit, i am sure that John D. remembers it, and lots of other folks here do as well. and it's high time that someone puts a stop to it.

How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Sunday, 20 December 2009 12:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

Stripping a senior member of Senate of committee positions has an effect.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 December 2009 13:02 (seven years ago) Permalink

Stripping a senior member of Senate of committee positions has an effect.

^^^

if there's been repercussions for him when he starting pulling this garbage we wouldn't be having problems with him now imo. I mean deej when somebody is routinely bullying you is your solution to go "better not fight back under any circumstances - that'll end my chances of winning this guy over"? horse has left the barn here

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, 20 December 2009 14:35 (seven years ago) Permalink

the problem isnt that he never got stripped of his positions imo--its that the senate dems, like a bunch of retards, heavily campaigned for him in connecticut instead of campaigning for the guy duly nominated by their party

max, Sunday, 20 December 2009 15:31 (seven years ago) Permalink

i think only a handful of senate dems kept supporting lieberman after the primary. mostly the party fell in behind lamont, tho maybe not as full-throatedly as he would have wanted.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 20 December 2009 15:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

aimless otm

deej: it isn't even about stripping lieberman of his positions so much as leveraging that threat

dyao mak'er (The Reverend), Sunday, 20 December 2009 15:54 (seven years ago) Permalink

Note how well-behaved Lieberman momentarily became when talk circulated last November that Reid might strip him of his committees after Lieb campaigned for McCain.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 December 2009 15:56 (seven years ago) Permalink

Stripping a senior member of Senate of committee positions has an effect.

― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:02 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

...which is ...?

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:01 (seven years ago) Permalink

dude

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

dude what? im asking how this situation would have been helped if obama had stripped lieberman of his position. other than feeling better about sticking it 2 the man, what would it accomplish??

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:40 (seven years ago) Permalink

the impression that obama's willing to risk his nice guy image for a medicare buy-in?

kamerad, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:42 (seven years ago) Permalink

im not saying he didnt deserve it

im not saying OBAMA DID ALL THE RIGHT THINGS!!

im asking what this path of action would have accomplished -- & im not even saying that I think it was per se a wrong choice!! if you can explain to me how the outcome would have been better im willing to be like "yah yr right!" but other than being theraputic i just dont see it

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:44 (seven years ago) Permalink

If Lieberman is stripped of his chairmanships one of two things will happen

1) He will fall in line.
2) He will get vindictive, Dems will not campaign for him, and he will lose the next election.

Which of these two do you think he prefers?

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:44 (seven years ago) Permalink

you think #2 isnt happening anyway?

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:44 (seven years ago) Permalink

why do it in the middle of his term? why not just play nice until the election cycle?

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:45 (seven years ago) Permalink

I use the present tense cause yhwh knows how this dude is gonna act on other upcoming reforms if something isnt done

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:45 (seven years ago) Permalink

i dont think that stripping him of his position is going to cow him into behaving

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:45 (seven years ago) Permalink

you think #2 isnt happening anyway?

― deej, Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:44 PM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark

hey remember how lieberman gave w a bj for 8 years and then obama campaigned for him

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:46 (seven years ago) Permalink

this is different

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:46 (seven years ago) Permalink

I'd think that there's a good chance it would persuade him into "behaving" (or, more likely, being less of a total hypocritical dick constantly), but playing the devil's advocate, is there any drawback to stripping him of his positions? Other than angering his immediate family?

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:47 (seven years ago) Permalink

You guys, if we make Lieberman mad by stripping his position away, he could potentially SABOTAGE FUTURE REFORMS!

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:48 (seven years ago) Permalink

i mean again if yr asking me to speak for the dems im definitely not doing that -- i was a lamont supporter & i think lieberman is a tremendous asshole.

i dont know the election situation with lamont v. lieberman -- i know obama campaigned for him at one point, but i dont know if he was expected to win anyway, & obama backing the loser would be a pretty big L in his column

but if you're going back in time to that election, yeah, it would have been nice if lieberman hadn't won his election

but we're not talking about that, we're talking about stripping him of his positions. and im saying thats not gonna do shit

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:48 (seven years ago) Permalink

You guys, if we make Lieberman mad by stripping his position away, he could potentially SABOTAGE FUTURE REFORMS!

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 4:48 PM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

why is this not a legit concern?

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:48 (seven years ago) Permalink

HE ALREADY DOES THAT ALL OF THE TIME

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

sorry, caps lock OFF. :)

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

this is some cutting off your nose to spite your face shit

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

HE ALREADY DOES THAT ALL OF THE TIME

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 4:49 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well, yes & no

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

deej, is your last name "Lieberman"?

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

* Day 1: Repeal the Bush restrictions on stem cell research. (Jan 2004)
* Keep abortion safe, rare and legal; with 24-week viability. (Dec 2003)
* FDA’s RU-486 decision stands; it’s made properly by experts. (Oct 2000)
* Leave abortion decision to a woman, her doctor, and her god. (Oct 2000)
* Rejected partial-birth ban since it ignored maternal health. (Oct 2000)
* Supports abortion rights within his faith, not despite it. (Sep 2000)
* Parental consent with judicial override; Gore agrees. (Aug 2000)
* Supported parental notification for minors; but pro-choice. (Aug 2000)
* Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
* Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
* Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
* Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:51 (seven years ago) Permalink

this is some cutting off your nose to spite your face shit

― deej, Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:49 PM (53 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yes except in this analogy your nose is CONSTANTLY TRYING TO EAT YOUR FACE

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:51 (seven years ago) Permalink

hes an asshole, but there are plenty of opportunities for him to be an even bigger asshole

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:51 (seven years ago) Permalink

hes more like a bloody nose than a cannibalizing one

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:52 (seven years ago) Permalink

I don't think anyone disagrees that he's pro-choice, Deej. That doesn't absolve him from being an obstructionist asshole, and the Dem majority on choice issues is pretty solid.

smashing aspirant (milo z), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:52 (seven years ago) Permalink

deej if career congressfucks like lieberman thought that crossing obama had some repercussions, they wouldn't parade their defiance so smugly. maybe they'd even fall in line a little better

kamerad, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:52 (seven years ago) Permalink

I don't think anyone disagrees that he's pro-choice, Deej. That doesn't absolve him from being an obstructionist asshole, and the Dem majority on choice issues is pretty solid.

― smashing aspirant (milo z), Sunday, December 20, 2009 4:52 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

right but the question isnt "do we react," its 'how' and 'when' -- im saying that, yknow, maybe stripping him of his chairmanship while he still is one of a hundred in the senate is not such a great idea

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:53 (seven years ago) Permalink

RE: Lieberman's good deedz list

I'm curious how many of those were party-line votes anyway, but regardless, seeing a list of votes that Lieberman wasn't an idiot on doesn't really do much for me, considering that flipping a coin would result in a good choice half of the time.

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:53 (seven years ago) Permalink

why drive him into the other party? & how good does it look for obama to have his own party involved in this intra-party warfare? i want to see dude punished, but the notion that spiting him will make him fall in line is nonsense.

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:55 (seven years ago) Permalink

if only a flipped coin was voting in the senate!!

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:55 (seven years ago) Permalink

actual potential obama flaw: campaigning for lieberman in the first place (possibly -- not sure if we'd be better off if lieberman had won anyway AND obama had campaigned for lamont)

no way an obama flaw: not stripping a senator of his chairmanship in the middle of his term

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:58 (seven years ago) Permalink

it's not about spiting him, it's about drawing a line in the sand and establishing party discipline. vote with the caucus or fuck you, kiss your chairmanships goodbye. obama's only defining his presidency on this issue after all

kamerad, Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:59 (seven years ago) Permalink

party discipline vs. being able to pass bills

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:02 (seven years ago) Permalink

no way an obama flaw: not stripping a senator of his chairmanship in the middle of his term
if people believed the threat was valid the punishment wouldn't be necessary. it's a grown up world in the health insurance game. trillion$ of dollar$ at stake. sometimes you have to play rough to do what's right

kamerad, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:02 (seven years ago) Permalink

party discipline and ability to pass bills aren't remotely mutually exclusive

kamerad, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:03 (seven years ago) Permalink

Lieberman isn't a Democrat, so it isn't intra-party warfare.

I'm curious when you think he should be punished - when he's not "one of a hundred in the Senate"? Wait for him to retire? Hope he loses the next election?

smashing aspirant (milo z), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:04 (seven years ago) Permalink

i dunno its a shitty situation! i think it makes more sense to wait for him to do something unpopular like vetoing parts of the health care bill, then campaign against him in the next election cycle

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:09 (seven years ago) Permalink

lieberman is an 'independent democrat' who caucuses with the dems

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:10 (seven years ago) Permalink

So the Democrats should empower his obstructionist bullshit for two years, and then suddenly turn on him in 2012, praying he loses?

Strip him of his powers and influence now and start building a candidate to beat him.

smashing aspirant (milo z), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:12 (seven years ago) Permalink

i dunno it seems like lieberman's obstructionism is hurting his chances in '12 more than anything the dems could do.

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:13 (seven years ago) Permalink

the dems stripping him of power can't hurt

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:15 (seven years ago) Permalink

i think it makes more sense to wait for him to do something unpopular like vetoing parts of the health care bill

You do realize that he just single-handedly demanded that the last vestige of the public option be removed from the bill, even though up until 3 months ago and for the past decade he stated that he supported an expansion of medicare, right?

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:18 (seven years ago) Permalink

i think what deej is saying is, let's wait until he does something really stupid, and then the Dems can act

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:19 (seven years ago) Permalink

and the people of connecticut and most of the country want a public option, but not a health care bill without one. seriously, fuck lieberman for being a putz. obama, not al franken, should be telling joe off

kamerad, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:23 (seven years ago) Permalink

And I support stripping any hint of a leadership position that he has, even though Lieberman is a key supporter of the upcoming climate legislation, which is pretty much the most important legislation I can imagine.

it's not about spiting him, it's about drawing a line in the sand and establishing party discipline

This. What Lieberman just did sets a horrible, horrible precedent. If Congress (or sorry, the Democrats, because the Republicans will be just as AWOL on climate/energy as they were on HRC) miraculously manages to come to some sort of agreement about the climate bill, and then at the 11th hour some bluedog jackass decides to hold the whole thing hostage unless they remove essential elements and replace them with kissing the coal industry's ass, they'll just be pulling a Lieberman. Punish him now.

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:25 (seven years ago) Permalink

Blooooooooooooooooooooooooooood.jpg

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:32 (seven years ago) Permalink

i think what deej is saying is, let's wait until he does something really stupid, and then the Dems can act

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 5:19 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no, im saying hes already done something stupid

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

i mean, duh i was talking about his obstructionism on the health care bill dudes ...

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:35 (seven years ago) Permalink

if you think checking him now means he'll still support climate change legislation & not be spiteful -- esp since he's already being spiteful -- i think yr crazy. i would love to see dude get his career clocked but the idea that the dems are really holding anything meaningful over him right now is just wrong

deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

I don't understand, sorry. You said that he's already done something stupid (and, I'll add, incredibly unpopular) by sabotaging the medicare expansion, but you also said "i think it makes more sense to wait for him to do something unpopular like vetoing parts of the health care bill." So it's not the magnitude of his hypocrisy, it's just the frequency? What makes his umpteenth really stupid, hypocritical act more damning than the one before the umpteenth?

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:40 (seven years ago) Permalink

I don't think that checking him now means much at all on his position on climate change legislation. You can't count on him for anything, even if he's traditionally supported a position in the past (like on climate change). His complete unreliability is the point. What will your opinion be if pulls a Lieberman and sabotages climate change at the last minute? "well wait until NEXT time he completely fucks us over, that'll be the time..."

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:43 (seven years ago) Permalink

You can't count on him for anything, even if he's traditionally supported a position in the past (like on climate change). His complete unreliability is the point.

Yes. Key point here.

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:00 (seven years ago) Permalink

I don't understand, sorry. You said that he's already done something stupid (and, I'll add, incredibly unpopular) by sabotaging the medicare expansion, but you also said "i think it makes more sense to wait for him to do something unpopular like vetoing parts of the health care bill." So it's not the magnitude of his hypocrisy, it's just the frequency? What makes his umpteenth really stupid, hypocritical act more damning than the one before the umpteenth?

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 5:40 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i was joking about 'waiting' for it -- im saying that the problem is the dem leadership also has ... a dem base! that actually votes for the senators. if lieberman is seen as an obstructionist asshole its not going to help his election chances. & now he is seen this way to increasing degrees

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 00:12 (seven years ago) Permalink

You can't count on him for anything, even if he's traditionally supported a position in the past (like on climate change). His complete unreliability is the point.

Yes. Key point here.

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:00 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the only point i see u making here is that, yes, hes being an asshole without us punishing him. i agree with that of course. what is at issue here isnt "is he currently an asshole" but "if we punish him, will he become even more of an asshole" & i think the answer is yes, meaning now matter how great it would feel to check him, its not the smart thing to do

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 00:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

im looking for a reasonable argument, some sort of logic that if we strip him of power he will be cowed to the will of the dem leadership

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 00:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

should not be surprised by deej's "roll over for this asshole, again & again forever, it'd be horrible if betrayed all the rest of his principles to get even" position, and yet am

the impact down the line of showing your hand as a party that will put up with anything, ever, always, from any guy who might conceivably vote for you every now & then ("90% of the time!" fantastic, FANtastic; doesn't make up for how often he screws you over, y'know) - what a horrendous look. no wonder everybody but everybody hates the democratic party tbh

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:17 (seven years ago) Permalink

im looking for a reasonable argument, some sort of logic that if we strip him of power he will be cowed to the will of the dem leadership

the argument is adherence to principle. I know your stance is "principles are always lame" but many of us disagree with that stance d

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:18 (seven years ago) Permalink

im looking for a reasonable argument, some sort of logic that if we strip him of power he will be cowed to the will of the dem leadership

― deej, Monday, December 21, 2009 12:14 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

im not american so.

but you're making like j-lieb does his thing out of unshakeable principle when he clearly doesn't.

Dean Gaffney's December (history mayne), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:19 (seven years ago) Permalink

deej--the point is not to punish him so he adheres to the party line, the point is to strip him of his power because he's an egotistical obstructionist asshole

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:20 (seven years ago) Permalink