what are barack obama's flaws?

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

ooooh we showed him!! now he'll ... do exactly the same thing!

if only we'd told him who was boss -- hed vote pro on health care then for sure!

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.

Stripping a senior member of Senate of committee positions has an effect.

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

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

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.

aimless otm

deej: it isn't even about stripping lieberman of his positions so much as leveraging that threat

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.

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 ...?

dude

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??

the impression that obama's willing to risk his nice guy image for a medicare buy-in?

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

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?

you think #2 isnt happening anyway?

why do it in the middle of his term? why not just play nice until the election cycle?

I use the present tense cause yhwh knows how this dude is gonna act on other upcoming reforms if something isnt done

i dont think that stripping him of his position is going to cow him into behaving

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

this is different

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?

You guys, if we make Lieberman mad by stripping his position away, he could potentially SABOTAGE FUTURE REFORMS!

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

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?

HE ALREADY DOES THAT ALL OF THE TIME

sorry, caps lock OFF. :)

this is some cutting off your nose to spite your face shit

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, is your last name "Lieberman"?

* 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)