what are barack obama's flaws?

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.

the dems stripping him of power can't hurt

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?

i think what deej is saying is, let's wait until he does something really stupid, and then the Dems can act

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

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.

Blooooooooooooooooooooooooooood.jpg

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, December 20, 2009 5:19 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no, im saying hes already done something stupid

i mean, duh i was talking about his obstructionism on the health care bill dudes ...

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

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?

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..."

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.

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, 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

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), 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

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