what are barack obama's flaws?

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

haha

you must be fun after a couple of drinks

or maybe wait until you get the climate change bill

there'll be another one in line behind that

i mean j0hn, didnt you even say you wanted this bill passed? so in that case you're not in favor of punishing him immediately, but waiting til we pass this bill

you're such a centrist!!!

this is why I say it'll never be time with you: because it won't. I know you take that as an insult, I got nothing but love for you, but I honestly do not believe there'll ever be an in-the-present time where you won't be saying "there's another bill we need the possibility of this guy's v. categorical support on"

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh

deej, quit changing the goalposts. no one has said let's strip him of his power tomorrow. after the health care bill sounds like a wise idea to me

so because it will 'never be the time,' we should trash this health care bill in order to punish lieberman. thats what you're arguing

my feeling the last few days is if the national party is really going to sell out roe v. wade every damn time it's convenient, they can go to hell & take their "important" bills with them tbh, but that's not really germane here

deej, quit changing the goalposts. no one has said let's strip him of his power tomorrow.

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:45 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

pretty sure you said exactly that upthread -- 'no time like the present'??

LIEBERMAN CANNOT BE RELIED ON AT ALL -- his word is meaningless!!! waiting for him to draft and vote on the climate bill is not going to change that long-established pattern!

they should have stripped him before, yes; they should do it now, yes; experience tells me the senate is never as dramatic a place as we'd like it to be.

http://i48.tinypic.com/5a4yth.jpg

my feeling the last few days is if the national party is really going to sell out roe v. wade every damn time it's convenient, they can go to hell & take their "important" bills with them tbh, but that's not really germane here

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:46 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

they threw a bunch of dollars at ben nelson & selling out roe v. wade is no longer on the table afaik

we should trash this health care bill in order to punish lieberman. thats what you're arguing

http://www.gotfootage.com/preview/A-280/A280-063.thumb.jpg

"There you go again"

'no time like the present'??

I said that.

and yes, i DID say that Lieberman should be stripped of his power immediately -- but i made it clear that this was MY opinion, not necessarily the opinion of anyone else on this thread!!

'no time like the present'??

I said that.

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:48 PM (38 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ok, so switch the question to you

and yes, i DID say that Lieberman should be stripped of his power immediately -- but i made it clear that this was MY opinion, not necessarily the opinion of anyone else on this thread!!

― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:48 PM (50 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

so you guys dont all agree -- hey, looks like we're having a discussion about when it should happen! which is what ive been asking for!

no we are having a discussion about why you are so dense

yeah but for juvenile unrealistic totally-in-the-dark radicals like me the damage is done, I listened to a bunch of friendly Demos telling me how the nelson compromise was just going to have to do & am so completely disgusted with that position that the whole matter's kind of a joke to me now. all y'all were greasing the "I know it's not perfect but it deserves our support anyway" line for 48 public hours, I know how unimportant that stuff is to the nat'l party at this point. it's nice that they were willing to bribe nelson to placate loud donor types but as always it'd be nicer if they had something resembling a coherent political ideology on the question of a woman's rights as guaranteed by law

j0hn even krugman is pushing the "I know it's not perfect but it deserves our support anyway" -- unless you mean the abortion thing, in which case what are you complaining about? a few ppl repping for it? i wasnt one, btw

no we are having a discussion about why you are so dense

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:50 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hey dude as long as you've sided w/ the biggest team

I did say "No better time than the present" but that's because I couldn't think of a cliche that says the equivalent of "no better time than 2 seconds after the final vote on health care".

It would take an asshole of Herculean proportions for Lieberman to vote against the final bill after sabotaging it to get exactly what he wanted, against the wishes of virtually EVERYONE in the democratic party, but I wouldn't put it past him.

wait deej did I miss the point at which you said "if the nelson compromise is in place, I can't support this bill"? would be stoked if I had missed such a moment but would be shocked had there been one

i think hes more of a 'sniveling' asshole than the kind of total anti-hero that would require xp

wait deej did I miss the point at which you said "if the nelson compromise is in place, I can't support this bill"? would be stoked if I had missed such a moment but would be shocked had there been one

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:54 PM (20 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

sigh

sorry theres no smoking gun either way dude

youll have to trust me on this one

because what I was pretty certain you were saying a couple days back was "it's disappointing, but the bill still deserves support"

j0hn d. you should really check my NARAL rating

I saw you have the facebook widget in place for that, pretty dope I have to say

I have a few questions for the pro-punishment folks. Let me also say that I think Joe Lieberman is a huge cock who should be thrown off a cliff but

Do you really think that stripping him of his committee power is going to get him to be more in line? This sounds remarkably foolish to me. Personally, I think the guy would use it as a way to leverage even more power with the GOP if he didn't outright pull an Arlen Specter. If the general consensus is that Lieberman is spiting dems for not supporting him in CT... what the hell is this going to make him do? And sure his vote isn't reliable right now, but you can take 'unreliable' vs. 'never, ever, ever gonna happen'. It's a bad situation— seems like what everyone in this thread has been arguing about on various issues— but there are rarely good/great trades in politics, no?

Also, how does this set a precedent of Obama using force? For faux-Blue Dogs, what is Obama holding over their head? The threat of doing... something? But, what's that something? Is Obama just going to go around stripping everyone of their power if they break rank until it's just Chuck Schumer chairing every Senate committee? It doesn't seem like a very effective precedent.

And the last thing, as much as Lieberman has once again proved himself to be a dick politician of the highest order, do we really want a President setting the precedent of decimating party members who don't fall in line with him on big issues? If Obama were to smush Lieberman under his foot... would we not have to look back on this if no important Dem stood up to him on DOMA/Don't Ask, Don't Tell/rendition etc etc. I think "party discipline" is important in the abstract, but it's not good for the country as a whole to have one driving, powerful force governing. Fuck Joe Lieberman and all, but yeah.

Mostly, Obama's problem is that he let him have his committee powers back after he campaigned w/ McCain. Fucking him over now will, I think, exacerbate the problem, be ineffective as an enforcement tactic and set a potentially dangerous precedent going forward for when we are looking for Dems to oppose the party on a host of issues where they aren't up to snuff. If they wanna boot his ass, make sure he doesn't get re-elected. Evan Bayh, too.

And the last thing, as much as Lieberman has once again proved himself to be a dick politician of the highest order, do we really want a President setting the precedent of decimating party members who don't fall in line with him on big issues? If Obama were to smush Lieberman under his foot... would we not have to look back on this if no important Dem stood up to him on DOMA/Don't Ask, Don't Tell/rendition etc etc. I think "party discipline" is important in the abstract, but it's not good for the country as a whole to have one driving, powerful force governing. Fuck Joe Lieberman and all, but yeah.

Most people here have been clear in arguing that (a) Lieberman isn't inspired by politics at home or even contrarianism but sheer assholery; and (b) beyond the Beltway and the sneaky way in which Cokie and Sam have framed "support for healthcare reform," it's pretty popular, and, heartbreakingly, the "public option" was extraordinarily popular until last month. So don't kid yourself into thinking that Obama is going for Cheney-esque unitary executive nonsense here. Lieberman's position is based on pure cynicism.

and, heartbreakingly, the "public option" was extraordinarily popular until last month

Even after a months-long disinformation campaign, it's still pretty popular. According to that poll mentioned above, 58% support the public option (including 86% of democrats), 32% oppose, 10% not sure.

if the Obama presidency has demonstrated any axiom, it's that the GOP, the military-industrial complex, the public, and the Beltway punditocracy only buy the unitary executive when you flex your muscles overseas.

*unitary executive theory when he

i understand and respect where deej is coming from, but unfortunately i think that's also where a lot of dems in the Senate are coming from, too. it's neutral politics, fear of burning bridges, pragmatic gamesmanship, whatever. problem is that i think that outlook makes Senate dems look like they have no balls, and after this debacle that could lose them some elections. strip Lieberman after the bill passes, and let the voters think someone up there actually gives a shit about something. i don't want to see these dudes being chummy once they are off the field.

who are we trying to impress w/ our tremendous balls? i thought we were more concerned w/ legislative accomplishments

the stuff bar_non just said is a lot of what im trying to understand in this situation. even if u dont agree with me (or him/her) its hard for me to understand how some of that shit isnt even running through your minds

And the last thing, as much as Lieberman has once again proved himself to be a dick politician of the highest order, do we really want a President setting the precedent of decimating party members who don't fall in line with him on big issues? If Obama were to smush Lieberman under his foot... would we not have to look back on this if no important Dem stood up to him on DOMA/Don't Ask, Don't Tell/rendition etc etc. I think "party discipline" is important in the abstract, but it's not good for the country as a whole to have one driving, powerful force governing. Fuck Joe Lieberman and all, but yeah.

oh come on

how is having a democratic party playing by the same rulebook ----> MONOLITHIC GOVERNANCE/GROUPTHINK??

Right, I wasn't actually alluding to Bush/Cheney, just saying that there is a downside to extreme "party unity". He banishes Lieberman and no one takes further threats of punishment seriously or... people just stop opposing him on things they think are important? Idk.

Also, how does this set a precedent of Obama using force? For faux-Blue Dogs, what is Obama holding over their head? The threat of doing... something? But, what's that something? Is Obama just going to go around stripping everyone of their power if they break rank until it's just Chuck Schumer chairing every Senate committee? It doesn't seem like a very effective precedent.

And the last thing, as much as Lieberman has once again proved himself to be a dick politician of the highest order, do we really want a President setting the precedent of decimating party members who don't fall in line with him on big issues?

Kind of a false dichotomy here. Either Obama does nothing now, or he overdoses on 'roids and roundhouse kicks everyone in the face who looks at him twice, Chuck Norris-style, until it's just Obama and Schumer standing on a mountain of bloody corpses, afraid to make eye contact with each other?

Would Obama really be "decimating" Lieberman for not falling in lockstep with him, or would Lieberman be receiving something that was long overdue? I imagine that Lieberman was surprised as hell that he retained his chairmanship after campaigning for McCain. I can picture him cackling madly at his reflection in his haunted castle.

I'm being a bit of a smartass here, but I'm pretty sure there's some wiggle room between letting a conniving Connecticuter asshole sabotage an important of health care reform and controlling your party like marionettes.

My main prob with the proposed stoning of Lieberman is that it pretends there are "Democratic Party core values," and there ain't beyond the primacy of coddling corporate America.

btw you guys have turned this into just one more general hack political thread.

Is that why you're here