what are barack obama's flaws?

xps to j0hn

que that argument sounds a lot like 'because he deserves it' instead of, 'because smart strategic thinking suggests now is the time'

well that's you reading between the lines, isn't it?

what is so hard about the upside of setting an example by stripping the twat of his privileges outweighing the risk of his future votes being crucial (esp. when he's likely to try to fuck up your plan anyway)?

like I say man, I would bet money on it. I cannot conceive of you thinking the party should do anything that might cost them one (possible, unreliable) vote on a bill.

my argument is what it is

if you guys could get off the language of repudiation / revenge, and into the sort of 'here is the best way to achieve the best possible ends' i would be a lot more sympathetic. in some ways this is more a matter of your approach to the argument than the actual position you're taking!!

"i don't like your tone, so i'm disagreeing with it"

like I say man, I would bet money on it. I cannot conceive of you thinking the party should do anything that might cost them one (possible, unreliable) vote on a bill.

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:19 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude.

1) im not resolutely against stripping him of his positions now. im just asking for a smart argument in favor of it that isnt "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!"

2) if you're wondering about my general approach i do prefer "passing bills" to "standing up for my principles and passing nothing"

"i don't like your tone, so i'm disagreeing with it"

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:20 PM (45 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

its not about fucking 'tone' its about your justification for the argument

like i said, i don't owe you an argument or a justification

ok, then stfu?

1) im not resolutely against stripping him of his positions now. im just asking for a smart argument in favor of it that isnt "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!"

You already expressed this view, and in response several of us highlighted the many points posted over the past couple of hours that are not "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!" but are in fact "BECAUSE IT'S WELL PAST THE TIME THAT A SEMBLANCE OF PARTY DISCIPLINE IS IN ORDER"

if you can't see by his actions & the way he killed the public option plan of this health care bill, just fucking tanked it even though he agreed with the *same* position a couple of months ago, if you can't see why that is a) being an obstructionist asshole which b) leads to unreliability, then i can't help you. if you really think the dems can rely on him, then you are nuts.

i mean what more do you need

i prefer passing bills, too! in fact, i'm more often accused of being too much the pragmatist and not enough the guy who argues for standing on principle. and i think that i've stated my argument as to WHY letting Lieberman get away with his antics will NOT lead to Obama passing more of his bills -- if anything, punishing him may make it easier to do so b/c there will be one less obstructionist and less incentive to be obstructionist.

do you really think he is a reliable senator, a reliable vote for the democrats? he's not, dude.

i certainly dont think the dems can rely on him

deej all the arguments have been presented in so many forms at this point that there's hardly any point in rephrasing them but:

1. he isn't a reliable vote; it's damaging to party unity & strategy to be constantly kowtowing to a guy who may or may not vote with you & you never really know except increasingly you do
2. the future consequences of letting any asshole who likes camera time know that he is free to singlehandedly tell the party how they'll rewrite bills to make him happy are CATASTROPHIC.

there are about 6 more that've been presented to you also but only one had had all the anger surgically removed so those ones you dismiss as immature I guess.

if anything, punishing him may make it easier to do so b/c there will be one less obstructionist and less incentive to be obstructionist.

― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:25 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark

im not arguing here -- im asking for explanation

how does punishing him make him less obstructionist? serious question

History of the past 2 hours, Ch. II

At which point you moved on to "I'm just trying to figure out when is the best strategic time to strip him of power. Dems should probably wait until important votes are over."

In trying to explain why he can't be trusted and it's best just to strip him of power NOW, and long overdue at that, we were forced to make reference to what an hypocritical asshole Lieberman has historically been. Which leads us back to "I'm just asking for a smart argument in favor of it that isnt "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!"

deej all the arguments have been presented in so many forms at this point that there's hardly any point in rephrasing them but:

1. he isn't a reliable vote; it's damaging to party unity & strategy to be constantly kowtowing to a guy who may or may not vote with you & you never really know except increasingly you do
2. the future consequences of letting any asshole who likes camera time know that he is free to singlehandedly tell the party how they'll rewrite bills to make him happy are CATASTROPHIC.

there are about 6 more that've been presented to you also but only one had had all the anger surgically removed so those ones you dismiss as immature I guess.

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:25 PM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah but none of these are reasons to punish him -- they're arguments that punishing him wont have negative consequences. so what is the positive outcome of 'increasing party discipline' ... evan bayh will no longer say stupid things? i might by that -- can you explain to me that aspect of this argument? im genuinely curious to know how punshing him will result in a positive outcome! not questioning that idea that it will -- asking what it would be! because i dont know!

many xposts

*might buy that

At which point you moved on to "I'm just trying to figure out when is the best strategic time to strip him of power. Dems should probably wait until important votes are over."

In trying to explain why he can't be trusted and it's best just to strip him of power NOW, and long overdue at that, we were forced to make reference to what an hypocritical asshole Lieberman has historically been. Which leads us back to "I'm just asking for a smart argument in favor of it that isnt "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!"

OTM

i very genuinely feel as if the position that this will 'increase party discipline' has not been articulated -- the idea that lieberman has pushed hard enough, that i get. but what is the strategic outcome of hammering him?

"well it would increase party discipline"
"which would do what?"
"WHY CANT YOU STOP BEING A CENTRIST DO U WANT TO MARRY LIEBERMAN AND OBAMA IN SOME KIND OF CENTRIST GAY WEDDING"

im genuinely curious to know how punshing him will result in a positive outcome! not questioning that idea that it will -- asking what it would be! because i dont know!

who here besides Eisbar is saying punishing him will result in a "positive outcome." the only reason i am advocating punishment is because he's been unreliable.

At this point it's possible to stop typing new things and instead quote sentences from the past few hours, because deej is stuck in a vicious cycle here.

dude come on, are you not listening? look into the damn future. there are more joe liebermans waiting in the wings. politics is almost entirely about precedent. the precedent that not "punishing" (your term, I don't agree with it but I'm not going to argue) lieberman sets suggests a party that can be commandeered by...pretty much anybody who might vote with 'em sometimes!

outcome? outcome? the guy is unreliable, which means the dems don't know how he will vote on things which means (this may blow your mind)

the dems don't know what the outcome will be w/r/t to Joe lieberman anyway!!!

OMG!!!!

At this point it's possible to stop typing new things and instead quote sentences from the past few hours, because deej is stuck in a vicious cycle here.

otm

so if we strip lieberman of his power, you think evan bayh will be afraid to be out of step with the party?

lol @ one use of the term centrist reading as an all-caps outburst btw, well-played deej

so if we strip lieberman of his power, you think evan bayh will be afraid to be out of step with the party?

absolutely

it won't necessarily make HIM any less obstructionist (in my opinion, anyway). if that is what you're hanging your hat on here, then i don't disagree with you. but at least disciplining Lieberman will: (a) make it VERY CLEAR to anyone else who wants to cross the President in the future that there will be STRONG consequences to doing so; and (b) make it clear to anyone watching that Lieberman is for Lieberman, first and foremost, that Obama's (and the rest of the Democrats') tolerance for letting "Joe be Joe" has run out, to help to blunt the P.R. advantages that the Republicans exploited vis-a-vis Lieberman's frequent outbursts, and basically tell Lieberman to piss or get off the pot wr2 his flirting with the GOP already.

Q:i very genuinely feel as if the position that this will 'increase party discipline' has not been articulated -- the idea that lieberman has pushed hard enough, that i get. but what is the strategic outcome of hammering him?

A: are you familiar with the concept of punishment? as in, step out of line on major shit and we publicly go after you? it's not just for the punished but also to intimidate people from not fucking up in the first place. a flaw of obama's is no once is afraid he'll punish them. making an example of lieberman would have helped with party discipline, and somewhat rallied the troops fed up with the plutocratic bullshit going on. it's not a "feel good" measure; it's a political tactic. - Kamerad

+ the long view, which is if you make it known that all you have to do to the Democratic party is dangle your vote in front of them like a carrot & they'll basically line up to give you a rimjob every time, then you're really setting yourself up for terrible long-term consequences - j0hn D

No one knows what would have happened had Reid and the Dem caucus leaders had gone ahead with their threat to strip Leib of his committees last November. No one knows what will happen if you punish him for neutering this healthcare bill. But we know what the bill looks like now, and it's thanks to Lieb. Now, given this, isn't it enough reason to punish him to find out?

and moreover, if we don't, if gives bayh carte blanche to do whatever he likes - he'll know that there'll always be people who'll be saying "now, now, don't wanna piss off evan bayh, let him rewrite the bill so he can vote with us, even if the bill sucks at that point we'll be able to say we got a bill through"

I'm actually less upset about Nelson's cavils; the guy lives in a pretty red state and is trying to survive. THAT's politics. But not only has Lieberman a history of opposing his voters, he goes on the Sunday morning talk shows and whines about being misunderstood and actively campaigned for the GOP nominee. How much more evidence for punishment do you need?

So I'm behind this bill, because I think it's probably the best we can get, but I also don't totally understand the reconciliation option; part of me thinks there must be a reason they are not ditching this 60-vote filibuster proof version for a "better" version they can pass through reconciliation with 51 votes for a good reason. But what is it?

hey j0hn could you stop calling me a 'centrist' please? this was an argument about tactics, not ideology, so you really sound like an asshole

So I'm behind this bill, because I think it's probably the best we can get, but I also don't totally understand the reconciliation option; part of me thinks there must be a reason they are not ditching this 60-vote filibuster proof version for a "better" version they can pass through reconciliation with 51 votes for a good reason. But what is it?

― akm, Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:37 PM (11 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

reconciliation means you lose the 'no preexisting conditions' part of the bill

among other things.

Q:i very genuinely feel as if the position that this will 'increase party discipline' has not been articulated -- the idea that lieberman has pushed hard enough, that i get. but what is the strategic outcome of hammering him?

A: are you familiar with the concept of punishment? as in, step out of line on major shit and we publicly go after you? it's not just for the punished but also to intimidate people from not fucking up in the first place. a flaw of obama's is no once is afraid he'll punish them. making an example of lieberman would have helped with party discipline, and somewhat rallied the troops fed up with the plutocratic bullshit going on. it's not a "feel good" measure; it's a political tactic. - Kamerad

+ the long view, which is if you make it known that all you have to do to the Democratic party is dangle your vote in front of them like a carrot & they'll basically line up to give you a rimjob every time, then you're really setting yourself up for terrible long-term consequences - j0hn D

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:34 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

so in conclusion, you guys feel that the trade-off here -- 'maybe' votes for a 'definite no' votes from lieberman -- is worth it, and that making an example of him will pay off long term more than counting his vote for the bill we're about to pass

why do you loose that via reconciliation?

for an example of the kind of compromise you admire, here's Russ Feingold, saying he'll vote for the bill in its current form but won't let the White House forget it pussied out.

simple question. i dont really think i agree -- or at least, wait until this bill has been passed, because i think its more important than what i see as a rather abstract idea of party discipline. i think it makes more sense to wait til this bill is passed. then punish him. or maybe wait until you get the climate change bill, because 2 bills are better than one. i dont see how this is a super obvious deej-is-such-a-centrist-moron trade off! this feels like a legit, complicated catch-22 situation to me & im surprised you guys are all so certain about it

* 'definite no' isn't really known but his yeses aren't worth banking on anyway
* letting others know that their pet projects, committees, etc, will be taken from them if they oppose the party on important bills is not just "worth it" but very important for the party's future prospects to govern effectively, be taken seriously, solicit donations

^^^^i agree with these points -- but i think that the issue of WHEN to punish him is still therefore up in the air