what are barack obama's flaws?

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

this is how i feel

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/paying-the-liebergeld/

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

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

dude--they actually cant get everything passed through reconciliation

I'm aware they'd have to alter the legislation, but if they could keep some version of the public option...

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.

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)

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.

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.

ugh. okay yeah that's not a good trade-off.

wow, maybe complaining works

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/a_chastened_lieberman_defends_himself.php

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

not "negotiate," sorry, "embarrass"

wow, maybe complaining works

I don't see him recanting his position

i don't see him saying he's "still dissatisfied" either, which is what i expected

there are 5 google hits for the exact phrase, "in the tent, pissing in"

2 are about joe lieberman

google missed this one

HEALTHCARE THREAD

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

this probably won't work but I lol'd and approve

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

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)

^^^yeah really. I wonder how many Republicans are worried about losing their seats/"being outside the mainstream"

Obama deserves some kudos for this imho

You're joking, right?

hell no! this is huge!

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.

bye

suicide by cop

certainly the most inept poster since ___________

possibly all time

Inept (of all time)? Pierce, Buchannan, Taft, W, Polk, really??

Wait, Polk?

Polk wasn't inept at all, not even at growing a mullet.

I can't deconstruct Shakey's praise of Bam's latest non-achievement.

Thanks for asking. Maybe it was a joke after all.

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.

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.

i dont really understand that

How to break heads? Dude, you smash them together. You'll hear a crunching sound. Simple.

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

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.

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.

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.

well, the fact is that figuratively stabbing him doesnt really change the fact that hes voting on all bills that pass thru the senate

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)

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.

as with all post-Reagan Democrats, he needs to stop being a Republican.

He Won't.

Also, he wears a fucking flag pin.

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.

i dont see how stripping him of his position changes anything john!! thats all im saying