• comment on a post The Worries of Joe Lieberman over 4 years ago

    Joe Lieberman is the abusive boyfriend of the Democratic Party.  He wouldn't have to hit us if we weren't wearing that slutty health reform dress.

    My impression is that this is how it's going to be with Joe, and we might as well get used to it.  He'll threaten to side with the Republicans, Reid will make concessions, and he'll drop it until next time he wants something.

    The worse option would be if the insurance bigs simply bought him off.

  • on a comment on The Worries of Joe Lieberman over 4 years ago

    I'd rather have infighting than a party of robots.

  • comment on a post "The War on Faux" over 4 years ago

    I don't post much anymore... honestly I feel like we accomplished what we needed to do, and the only people with a lot of energy for political blogging here are the haters.

    I stop by now and then to talk some sense, though.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    This is what QTG said:

    There are Senators and Members of Congress who share your distorted view of the Constitution

    Which gets translated into "these lawmakers don't believe in democracy."  

    Sorry, but no.  What QTG is saying is that the lawmakers in question want Obama to come out and lay the whole thing out for them, to give them cover.  This isn't, constitutionally, Obama's job.  Obama's constitutional job is to either sign the bill when it comes across his desk or to veto it.  Technically, that's it.  Now, we culturally might expect more of him, like to threaten to keep Congress from going on vacation until they get a bill he likes to him, like Bush did, but it isn't a strict requirement.

    We've gotten so used to presidents who use every tool at their disposal to make sure that their agenda, and only their agenda, is achieved.  The Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution checks and balances to try and make sure that this does not happen, but somewhere along the way our politicians left their spines at the base of Capitol Hill.

    So I guess I would caution on going off on this "unconstitutional" tangent that bruh3 is trying to push, because it's an invented controversy, like Obama's supposed "war" with Fox News.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    I never said that his public words were "proof."  I said that they were "supporting evidence" that he was pro-public option.  "Evidence" is the thing that leads to "proof."  It's the accumulation of evidence that makes a juror decide whether or not the case is proven or not.

    In this case, I believe the burden of proof has been satisfied.  You don't.  You put higher credence on unnamed sources than I do.  That's fine.  A little foolish, in my book, since there's a lot of people out there with a lot of different agendas, and being an unnamed source is a cheap and safe way of trying to push a narrative (not unlike being an anonymous poster on the internet) without actually having to live up to one's words.

    Anyway, feel free to have the last word.  I'm going to go have a beer in toast of the living public option.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you can have a constitutional problem, like believing that it's the President's role (as opposed to the Legislature's) to formulate law, without somehow hating democracy.

    If you're going to jump all over us for not living up to the specific corner case logical scenarios that you come up with, the least you could do is not intentionally misrepresent what we're saying.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    QTG didn't say that.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    It matters regarding whether that left flank can find that the president is working at crosshairs to the progressive agenda.

    Pics or it didn't happen.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    Your problem is that you're being a stickler for our logic, without backing up your own.

    You're trying to assert that "it happened, therefore it happened despite him," which doesn't pass the smell test for a number of reasons.

    A) Obama has been in the corner of the public option since before he was president.  It is implausable that he would turn against it now, not to mention unsupported by any evidence.

    B) Obama has clearly and publically supported this kind of reform, most blatantly in his nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress.

    C) Obama has had congressional leadership in closed meetings.

    D) Obama has a Chief of Staff who is a tough ex-legislator and a notorious strongarm.

    E) None of this would even be possible were Obama not elected president, and it was one of his campaign promises.  Obama is clearly an ambitious politician who knows what his self-interest is.

    Now, I never claimed that Obama did this all by himself.  If you think that's what Obama supporters believe, then you're way off base.  Part of Obama's appeal is that he's actually a leader instead of simply an authority, and part of leadership is getting people to do their jobs.

    You've been the first to admit that Reid hasn't exactly been the paragon of fighters or obvious leadership.  I'd say that there's definitely an overflow effect, owing partially (not entirely, of course) to Obama's leadership.

    The world is a complicated place, and you can't always point at the cumulation of years of work and say it happened for one reason and one reason only.  Wise people know that it's usually a combination of factors.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    I'm a bleeding heart liberal before I'm an Obama supporter or a Democrat for that matter.  As an example, I was extremely upset about Obama's FISA stance, even if I understood it.

    I'm strong enough in my beliefs to see the big picture and realize that Obama, for all of his career, has been working for the betterment of his better man AND the furtherance of his ambition.  Right now the two goals are one and the same because of the sorry state of the country he inherited.  Assuming the worst out of him just seems naive under the circumstances.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    I wasn't aware that this diary was about job loss.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    You said that Obama is touting a lack of cost containment, I mentioned that the bill currently has the public option cost containment, you said that this was Reid's doing, not Obama's, and I expressed satisfaction that everything worked out the way we wanted it to.

    Now, if Obama were to veto the bill because there's a public option, and I were to somehow defend that as a victory for progressives, then you might have a valid point.  He's not going to do that, and I wouldn't do that, so the point is moot.

    Not for your benefit, but for rational people who might be reading this and undecided on the issue, Obama has laid out what he wanted to see in the final bill.  He was willing to accept less if it decreased the risk of failure, which is understandable, because a failure here would undermine his delicate success ratio.

    Reid, who is the majority leader despite being a sucking void of charisma, almost has to have his numbers in order, and the behind-the-scenes weight to put down opposition in his own caucus.  He also knows that he's going to be facing a tough re-election campaign next year.  He put the effort in and informed the President that he could do him one better, that he should chill out, because they have the votes to get a better result.  

    The President differed to his Majority Leader's assessment of the state of the legislative branch, because that's how politics is supposed to work.

    To suggest that somehow Obama was working at odds with Reid when he was simply acknowledging that a somewhat less-than-optimal bill would still be acceptable as a starting point for later reform is FAR more trolly than me implying that they were working together to get whatever they could get.

    There was a fantastic episode of Futurama years ago, where Bender meets a galactic computer that might be God.  At the end of the episode, everything works out for the best, and the computer says, "If you've done it right, people won't know you've done anything at all."  The same applies here.  Logic dictates that Obama was involved with the process, since he's been involved with the process from the start.  While he might not be Lyndon Johnsoning the hell out of the Legislative branch, the current apparent success suggests that whatever he was doing, whether that be making deals or simply giving the Congress room to grow up and do their jobs, is working.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    I admit that I'm not always up to speed on every muckraking Huffington Post article that comes down the pike, but I like to think that I have a reasonable understanding of civics and how the government is supposed to work.  

    I'm okay with you thinking that I'm ignorant.  You don't seem to have anyone's best interests at heart at all, so your utter cynicism and disregard for my opinion is ultimately a non-issue for me.

    I hope whatever anguish that keeps you banging your head against the door labeled "optimism" will someday subside, and allow you to simply open it.

  • on a comment on LEADERLESS over 4 years ago

    I blame Bush for turning the presidency into a blunt intstrument when it's best used as a scalpel.  People don't understand subtlety anymore.

  • It doesn't pay to take chances, and the higher his eventual lead, the greater his "political capital" after the election.  Plus it made him look both brave (for going on a hostile network) and magnanamous (for finally conceding to their requests despite reservations).

    Nowendays he has plenty of opportunities to do those things without giving any credibility to Fox.  I know you don't like the guy, but he is clearly an excellent strategist.


Advertise Blogads