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 (fourteen years ago) link
if only a flipped coin was voting in the senate!!
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
party discipline vs. being able to pass bills
― deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:02 (fourteen years ago) link
no way an obama flaw: not stripping a senator of his chairmanship in the middle of his termif 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 (fourteen years ago) link
party discipline and ability to pass bills aren't remotely mutually exclusive
― kamerad, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:03 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
lieberman is an 'independent democrat' who caucuses with the dems
― deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:10 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
the dems stripping him of power can't hurt
― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:15 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
Blooooooooooooooooooooooooooood.jpg
― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:32 (fourteen years ago) link
― 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 (fourteen years ago) link
i mean, duh i was talking about his obstructionism on the health care bill dudes ...
― deej, Sunday, 20 December 2009 23:35 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
― 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 (fourteen years ago) link
― 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 (fourteen years ago) link
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
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
― 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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
he's not going to adhere to the party line anyway & a cherry-picked list of his votes doesn't equal "we can't get by without him"
― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:21 (fourteen years ago) link
Yeah, rlly! The longer Dems feed his ego by thinking they need his vote, the more assholic he becomes.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:39 (fourteen years ago) link
folks upthread have stated the pros/cons re how making Lieberman walk in line w/ President Obama would strengthen Obama's hand (if wants such a strong hand), and there's little i can add to that. i emphasize, however, and to the point of sounding like a broken record, that Lieberman has been pulling this sort of obstructionist shit HIS ENTIRE SENATORIAL CAREER. his entire REP is based on him being the Democrat who Republicans count on to stick it to the Democratic Party at certain crucial junctures, and to go onto the Gasbag Pundit circuit every Sunday to pontificate about doing just that. when you look at it that way, then whether Lieberman's overall record is fairly liberal or not is not that important -- what is MUCH more important is that he's willing to shill for the Republicans, and what will the rest of the party do about it?!? seriously, does ANYONE not think at this point that Lieberman's antics AREN'T demoralizing -- not just for the Dems in the Congress, but for regular rank-and-file?!? he doesn't even have the fig leaf of living in an otherwise Republican state (like Sen. Nelson) -- Lieberman acts the way he does out of pique and to satiate his twisted ego and not because of a need to survive a competitive election (at least up until 2006, that is).
― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:43 (fourteen years ago) link
to the point: there's no reason to trust Lieberman ever -- not just because of what he's done wr2 health care reform, but just on reviewing his actions throughout his time in the Senate -- and it's foolish to think that stroking his ego NOW is going to stop him from fucking over the rest of the party and President Obama at any other point in the future. and doing nothing about Lieberman emboldens other obstructionist Dems to pull the same sort of shit at other critical junctures.
― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:48 (fourteen years ago) link
― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:20 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
you mean ... because it makes you feel better
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 00:56 (fourteen years ago) link
i mean "because hes an asshole" isnt a reason
actually, it is.
― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:56 (fourteen years ago) link
deej, if Eisbaer's posts didn't convince you, goodbye.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:57 (fourteen years ago) link
― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:43 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this is exactly the kind of argument im looking for!!
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 00:58 (fourteen years ago) link
I don't know how old you were, deej, but Gore picked Lieberman as his veep nominee because he was already a pompous, sanctimonious reactionary who, like Gore, never let allegiances stand in his way.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 December 2009 00:58 (fourteen years ago) link
see if j0hn or alfred could actually make a rational argument along those lines instead of popping up like "obama's such an asshole hes always fucking up fuck him he should stab lieberman in the eye" ... its like yeah express yr upset-ed-ness but when someone asks you for a little more, you know, explication on how this strategic thought will help things it would be cool if you could articulate those things
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:00 (fourteen years ago) link
― deej, Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:56 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
"unless I get a big paragraph I'm just going to pretend you said something you didn't even come close to saying"
― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:00 (fourteen years ago) link
here's one thing you ignored that's actually valid
here's another
― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:01 (fourteen years ago) link
several xposts
As has been stated several times over the last hour, the reason to strip Lieberman of power is to make clear that you can't sabotage the party with which you caucus without consequences:
...it's not about spiting him, it's about drawing a line in the sand and establishing party discipline......What Lieberman just did sets a horrible, horrible precedent......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 - what a horrendous look......does ANYONE not think at this point that Lieberman's antics AREN'T demoralizing......doing nothing about Lieberman emboldens other obstructionist Dems to pull the same sort of shit at other critical junctures...
― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:01 (fourteen years ago) link
― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:00 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yes, unless you articulate a sensible argument im going to 'pretend' that what youre saying is kneejerk dem therapeutic juvenilia about sticking it to the man!! every time things arent working out the way they should
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:01 (fourteen years ago) link
I'm pretty sure if you stitched together everything I've said here, the US politics, and GOP thread, plus what I've written elsewhere, you'll have a pretty good idea of what I how I feel about the senior senator from Connecticut.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:02 (fourteen years ago) link
― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:01 PM (13 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
& the question i bring to those points is, when is the best time for action? immediately? what results in the best possible outcome? i would think the best time would have been the lamont situation
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:02 (fourteen years ago) link
& yeah, a thoughtful paragraph >>>> DEEJ IS TROLLING & WANTS TO MAKE OUT WITH OBAMA
― deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:03 (fourteen years ago) link