what are barack obama's flaws?

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)

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

hes an asshole, but there are plenty of opportunities for him to be an even bigger asshole

hes more like a bloody nose than a cannibalizing one

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

party discipline vs. being able to pass bills

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

party discipline and ability to pass bills aren't remotely mutually exclusive

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?

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

lieberman is an 'independent democrat' who caucuses with the dems

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.

i dunno it seems like lieberman's obstructionism is hurting his chances in '12 more than anything the dems could do.