what are barack obama's flaws?

"well it would increase party discipline"
"which would do what?"
"WHY CANT YOU STOP BEING A CENTRIST DO U WANT TO MARRY LIEBERMAN AND OBAMA IN SOME KIND OF CENTRIST GAY WEDDING"

im genuinely curious to know how punshing him will result in a positive outcome! not questioning that idea that it will -- asking what it would be! because i dont know!

who here besides Eisbar is saying punishing him will result in a "positive outcome." the only reason i am advocating punishment is because he's been unreliable.

At this point it's possible to stop typing new things and instead quote sentences from the past few hours, because deej is stuck in a vicious cycle here.

dude come on, are you not listening? look into the damn future. there are more joe liebermans waiting in the wings. politics is almost entirely about precedent. the precedent that not "punishing" (your term, I don't agree with it but I'm not going to argue) lieberman sets suggests a party that can be commandeered by...pretty much anybody who might vote with 'em sometimes!

outcome? outcome? the guy is unreliable, which means the dems don't know how he will vote on things which means (this may blow your mind)

the dems don't know what the outcome will be w/r/t to Joe lieberman anyway!!!

OMG!!!!

At this point it's possible to stop typing new things and instead quote sentences from the past few hours, because deej is stuck in a vicious cycle here.

otm

so if we strip lieberman of his power, you think evan bayh will be afraid to be out of step with the party?

lol @ one use of the term centrist reading as an all-caps outburst btw, well-played deej

so if we strip lieberman of his power, you think evan bayh will be afraid to be out of step with the party?

absolutely

it won't necessarily make HIM any less obstructionist (in my opinion, anyway). if that is what you're hanging your hat on here, then i don't disagree with you. but at least disciplining Lieberman will: (a) make it VERY CLEAR to anyone else who wants to cross the President in the future that there will be STRONG consequences to doing so; and (b) make it clear to anyone watching that Lieberman is for Lieberman, first and foremost, that Obama's (and the rest of the Democrats') tolerance for letting "Joe be Joe" has run out, to help to blunt the P.R. advantages that the Republicans exploited vis-a-vis Lieberman's frequent outbursts, and basically tell Lieberman to piss or get off the pot wr2 his flirting with the GOP already.

Q:i very genuinely feel as if the position that this will 'increase party discipline' has not been articulated -- the idea that lieberman has pushed hard enough, that i get. but what is the strategic outcome of hammering him?

A: are you familiar with the concept of punishment? as in, step out of line on major shit and we publicly go after you? it's not just for the punished but also to intimidate people from not fucking up in the first place. a flaw of obama's is no once is afraid he'll punish them. making an example of lieberman would have helped with party discipline, and somewhat rallied the troops fed up with the plutocratic bullshit going on. it's not a "feel good" measure; it's a political tactic. - Kamerad

+ the long view, which is if you make it known that all you have to do to the Democratic party is dangle your vote in front of them like a carrot & they'll basically line up to give you a rimjob every time, then you're really setting yourself up for terrible long-term consequences - j0hn D

No one knows what would have happened had Reid and the Dem caucus leaders had gone ahead with their threat to strip Leib of his committees last November. No one knows what will happen if you punish him for neutering this healthcare bill. But we know what the bill looks like now, and it's thanks to Lieb. Now, given this, isn't it enough reason to punish him to find out?

and moreover, if we don't, if gives bayh carte blanche to do whatever he likes - he'll know that there'll always be people who'll be saying "now, now, don't wanna piss off evan bayh, let him rewrite the bill so he can vote with us, even if the bill sucks at that point we'll be able to say we got a bill through"

I'm actually less upset about Nelson's cavils; the guy lives in a pretty red state and is trying to survive. THAT's politics. But not only has Lieberman a history of opposing his voters, he goes on the Sunday morning talk shows and whines about being misunderstood and actively campaigned for the GOP nominee. How much more evidence for punishment do you need?

So I'm behind this bill, because I think it's probably the best we can get, but I also don't totally understand the reconciliation option; part of me thinks there must be a reason they are not ditching this 60-vote filibuster proof version for a "better" version they can pass through reconciliation with 51 votes for a good reason. But what is it?

hey j0hn could you stop calling me a 'centrist' please? this was an argument about tactics, not ideology, so you really sound like an asshole

So I'm behind this bill, because I think it's probably the best we can get, but I also don't totally understand the reconciliation option; part of me thinks there must be a reason they are not ditching this 60-vote filibuster proof version for a "better" version they can pass through reconciliation with 51 votes for a good reason. But what is it?

― akm, Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:37 PM (11 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

reconciliation means you lose the 'no preexisting conditions' part of the bill

among other things.

Q:i very genuinely feel as if the position that this will 'increase party discipline' has not been articulated -- the idea that lieberman has pushed hard enough, that i get. but what is the strategic outcome of hammering him?

A: are you familiar with the concept of punishment? as in, step out of line on major shit and we publicly go after you? it's not just for the punished but also to intimidate people from not fucking up in the first place. a flaw of obama's is no once is afraid he'll punish them. making an example of lieberman would have helped with party discipline, and somewhat rallied the troops fed up with the plutocratic bullshit going on. it's not a "feel good" measure; it's a political tactic. - Kamerad

+ the long view, which is if you make it known that all you have to do to the Democratic party is dangle your vote in front of them like a carrot & they'll basically line up to give you a rimjob every time, then you're really setting yourself up for terrible long-term consequences - j0hn D

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:34 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

so in conclusion, you guys feel that the trade-off here -- 'maybe' votes for a 'definite no' votes from lieberman -- is worth it, and that making an example of him will pay off long term more than counting his vote for the bill we're about to pass

why do you loose that via reconciliation?

for an example of the kind of compromise you admire, here's Russ Feingold, saying he'll vote for the bill in its current form but won't let the White House forget it pussied out.

simple question. i dont really think i agree -- or at least, wait until this bill has been passed, because i think its more important than what i see as a rather abstract idea of party discipline. i think it makes more sense to wait til this bill is passed. then punish him. or maybe wait until you get the climate change bill, because 2 bills are better than one. i dont see how this is a super obvious deej-is-such-a-centrist-moron trade off! this feels like a legit, complicated catch-22 situation to me & im surprised you guys are all so certain about it

* 'definite no' isn't really known but his yeses aren't worth banking on anyway
* letting others know that their pet projects, committees, etc, will be taken from them if they oppose the party on important bills is not just "worth it" but very important for the party's future prospects to govern effectively, be taken seriously, solicit donations

^^^^i agree with these points -- but i think that the issue of WHEN to punish him is still therefore up in the air

haha

you must be fun after a couple of drinks

or maybe wait until you get the climate change bill

there'll be another one in line behind that

i mean j0hn, didnt you even say you wanted this bill passed? so in that case you're not in favor of punishing him immediately, but waiting til we pass this bill

you're such a centrist!!!

this is why I say it'll never be time with you: because it won't. I know you take that as an insult, I got nothing but love for you, but I honestly do not believe there'll ever be an in-the-present time where you won't be saying "there's another bill we need the possibility of this guy's v. categorical support on"

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh

deej, quit changing the goalposts. no one has said let's strip him of his power tomorrow. after the health care bill sounds like a wise idea to me

so because it will 'never be the time,' we should trash this health care bill in order to punish lieberman. thats what you're arguing

my feeling the last few days is if the national party is really going to sell out roe v. wade every damn time it's convenient, they can go to hell & take their "important" bills with them tbh, but that's not really germane here

deej, quit changing the goalposts. no one has said let's strip him of his power tomorrow.

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:45 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

pretty sure you said exactly that upthread -- 'no time like the present'??

LIEBERMAN CANNOT BE RELIED ON AT ALL -- his word is meaningless!!! waiting for him to draft and vote on the climate bill is not going to change that long-established pattern!

they should have stripped him before, yes; they should do it now, yes; experience tells me the senate is never as dramatic a place as we'd like it to be.

http://i48.tinypic.com/5a4yth.jpg

my feeling the last few days is if the national party is really going to sell out roe v. wade every damn time it's convenient, they can go to hell & take their "important" bills with them tbh, but that's not really germane here

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:46 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

they threw a bunch of dollars at ben nelson & selling out roe v. wade is no longer on the table afaik

we should trash this health care bill in order to punish lieberman. thats what you're arguing

http://www.gotfootage.com/preview/A-280/A280-063.thumb.jpg

"There you go again"

'no time like the present'??

I said that.

and yes, i DID say that Lieberman should be stripped of his power immediately -- but i made it clear that this was MY opinion, not necessarily the opinion of anyone else on this thread!!

'no time like the present'??

I said that.

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:48 PM (38 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ok, so switch the question to you

and yes, i DID say that Lieberman should be stripped of his power immediately -- but i made it clear that this was MY opinion, not necessarily the opinion of anyone else on this thread!!

― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:48 PM (50 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

so you guys dont all agree -- hey, looks like we're having a discussion about when it should happen! which is what ive been asking for!

no we are having a discussion about why you are so dense

yeah but for juvenile unrealistic totally-in-the-dark radicals like me the damage is done, I listened to a bunch of friendly Demos telling me how the nelson compromise was just going to have to do & am so completely disgusted with that position that the whole matter's kind of a joke to me now. all y'all were greasing the "I know it's not perfect but it deserves our support anyway" line for 48 public hours, I know how unimportant that stuff is to the nat'l party at this point. it's nice that they were willing to bribe nelson to placate loud donor types but as always it'd be nicer if they had something resembling a coherent political ideology on the question of a woman's rights as guaranteed by law

j0hn even krugman is pushing the "I know it's not perfect but it deserves our support anyway" -- unless you mean the abortion thing, in which case what are you complaining about? a few ppl repping for it? i wasnt one, btw

no we are having a discussion about why you are so dense

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:50 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hey dude as long as you've sided w/ the biggest team

I did say "No better time than the present" but that's because I couldn't think of a cliche that says the equivalent of "no better time than 2 seconds after the final vote on health care".

It would take an asshole of Herculean proportions for Lieberman to vote against the final bill after sabotaging it to get exactly what he wanted, against the wishes of virtually EVERYONE in the democratic party, but I wouldn't put it past him.

wait deej did I miss the point at which you said "if the nelson compromise is in place, I can't support this bill"? would be stoked if I had missed such a moment but would be shocked had there been one