Harry Reid has to go. NOW!

[XOKCowboy]

When will there be a vote on the Senate Majority Leader? Harry's a nice guy and all of that but a terrible leader. His latest blunder about seating both/either Franken and Burris should be the last straw. We've got the majority and the presidency now. We deserve a strong SML.

[thunder rising]

1. We have been soooo past that last straw, but there he is. Finger f@#$ us all.

[babylonsister]

2. Knee-jerk reactions don't help, but thanks for playing. nt

[XOKCowboy]

4. Is it just me that thinks the current Senate and House Dem leaders are weak and complacent?

I'd just like to see us act like the majority party for once. IMO Harry isn't the guy to lead us forward.

You're welcome.

[DJ13]

5. Not just you

But there are many Dems who dont like to rock the boat, so they think supporting the weaker choices is the safe choice.

[babylonsister]

7. You tell me.

What do you think we'd hear about til infinity if, after 50 Dems implored Blago to resign, they now accept his (2nd) decision for senator?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/All_50_Dem_senators_call_on_Blagojevich_to_resign.html

All 50 Dem senators call on Blagojevich to resign

[Usrename]

42. What does one thing have to do with the other?

The shreiking heads will continue to shreik no matter what they do.

Blago is a non-story. It certainly isn't a national story, with national intrigue.

Hillary and Barack will have replacements appointed by their respective governors. Why are they any different?

The way I understand it, Blagojevich hasn't been indicted for anything yet. And he won't be by next week. What's the big deal?

[babylonsister]

49. Everyone is so fond of claiming

Dems are spineless. They made a commitment to get Blago out, signed a letter calling for his resignation, now people want the Dems to cave?

That's what. We can't have it both ways.

[Usrename]

57. It's absurd.

What does the Senate have to do with removing governors, or telling them who they can or cannot select to fill vacancies?

They should have no say in this. Absolutely no say.

The Senate should try to focus more on doing their job. Poking their nose into this case does nothing to prove they have a spine.

Obama seems to have handled it properly. He says he thinks the guy should resign, and then he moves on. He knows it isn't his job to get involved.

[orleans]

86. exactly. how do a hoard of senators get off telling a governor to resign?

apparently it's easy for them to do as long as they are kicking another democrat up the ass.

and the blago crap vs. harry reid as a shit majority leader are apples and oranges.

[JDPriestly]

93. The Senate can't remove a governor, but it can prevent the seating

of an unqualified person for the Senate, meaning, for instance, someone who is not old enough to serve as a senator. If Blagojevich was still the governor of Illinois when he made the appointment, and if the person appointed meets the qualifications for a senator (not that difficult and not a matter of popularity among other senators), it would seem to me that Blagojevich's pick has to be seated and that, unless the Senate can show that pick is not qualified, the Senate can't do much about it.

[quakerboy]

85. We do have it both ways

Or rather, we do not seem to have it either way. If they were either spineless or had it together, I could accept that. But they are spineless when it hurts us, and not when it hurts us.

[mistertrickster]

89. Resigning and appointing are two different things. A bad man can make a good choice. nt

[JDPriestly]

90. The appointee should be judged on his or her own merits, not those of Blagojevich.

I don't know how the appointee measures up, but it would be unfair to paint this person with the same brush with which Blagojevich has been painted unless there is evidence that he is not qualified.

I believe that the Senate has the authority under the Constitution to judge the elections and qualifications of senators. I don't think that would mean that the Senate can just refuse to seat a qualified person who was appointed according to a lawful procedure.

Here are the applicable provisions of the Constitution:

Article I, section 5(1)

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business . . . .
(2) Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Amendment XVII (1913)

(1) The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote. . . . .
(2) When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the excutive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

. . . .

Those rules apply to both the Franken and Blagojevich situations.

[donco6]

33. Not just you - believe me. n/t

[Pastiche423]

58. You are not alone

[quidam56]

64. Harry take Nancy with you and go to HELL

The spineless bastards gave Bush full reign, America is in the shape it's in thanks to these two faciliators. http://www.wisecountyissues.com Appalachia is third world America thanks to greed. Hannity's America sure isn't My America.

[Grinchie]

69. No, it's not just you. There are lots of us who see them as proof there is no two party system

[Individualist]

73. No!

They're not complacent, they're complicit. DLC has corrupted the party.

[salguine]

83. Not "complacent"...COMPLICIT. Big difference.

[orleans]

97. i just found this. reid has a "conflict of interest"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010301719.html

Associated Press
Sunday, January 4, 2009; Page A02

CHICAGO, Jan. 3 -- Illinois's embattled governor said through his spokesman Saturday that Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has a conflict of interest regarding the Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Reid telephoned Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) in early December to discuss the seat, said Lucio Guerrero, a gubernatorial spokesman. Guerrero said he did not know firsthand which candidates Reid supported during the call, but added that he knows Reid's candidates did not include Roland W. Burris, the man Blagojevich picked.

--more at link

:wow: :wow: :wow:

[whopis01]

41. It is hardly a knee jerk reaction to be calling for his replacement at this point. n/t

[mistertrickster]

88. "Knee jerk" as in "if he's got a D next to his name, he must be good?" nt

[know_your_enemy]

3. I Think Obama Will Set Him Straight.

Does anyone notice how firm Obama looks when he is meeting with the Congress. Looks like the Bush games are over. No more Frat House!

[Double T]

6. mr. wimpy milk toast should have been gone long ago...........

and I hope he takes nancy with him.

[David Dunham]

8. Reid errred on Burris. We need Burris' vote NOW to defeat Rep fillibusters

[donco6]

34. We had to kiss Lieberman's ass, but Burris won't be seated?

C'mon . . .

[rhett o rick]

44. Defeating repuke filibusters is a pipe dream. First you need a leader

that will call the bastard's bluffs. Then you need a consistent 60 Senate votes. The Dems come a long way from 60 votes. Don't forget the Dino's that support repubs at every turn, can you spell DiFi. I am guessing that a tough majority leader could muster about 55 votes at the most. Well that lets the Demo Senators off the hook once more. No need to work on legislation. Let the republicans write it all.

[rwheeler31]

9. Do you want dems to be asshole arrogant repugs?

What do you want?

[nebenaube]

12. one need not be an arrogant asshole function assertively and wield power

Harry talks tough but face it... He's ineffective.

[donco6]

35. A spine for a fucking start.

One thing about Republican leadership, they didn't whine about how they didn't have 85 senators, and 5 bajillion representatives to overturn anything . . . they just did it with what they had. They had a coherent leadership who was able to persuade its membership on the best way to vote. Yeah, they were assholes, but they got their agenda through. Reid can't.

[Blarch]

38. Yep.

The first qualification for SML is a spine.

[XOKCowboy]

52. I don't want...

Dems to continue to be their own worst enemy. The Repugs abused their power. We need leaders in the Senate and House who will use our newly acquired majority to reverse the damage done the past 8 years. You don't have to be an asshole or arrogant. It's like Senator Boxer told Senator Inhofe: "elections have consequences".

[SoCalDem]

92. Boxer should be SML...not Reid

:)

[XOKCowboy]

96. I'd love that

She's the ideal but someone who represents the people and not the powers that be.

[Ken Burch]

72. Passion. Conviction. The guts to stand up to the bad guys.

Neither Reid nor Pelosi ever displayed any of the above.

And it's NOT being arrogant or an asshole to act as authoritatively as the GOP did. Especially since we wouldn't have been doing it on ugly issues like they did.

[fascisthunter]

107. no just the opposing party to the Repugs

and not complicit enablers of republicans, conservatives and their agendas...

[ProSense]

10. What blunder on seating Franken?

Reid or the Democrats have nothing to do with Cornyn's idle threat, and Cornyn is in no position to be making such threats.

The Texas senator was responding to comments made by Minnesota’s Democratic junior senator, Amy Klobuchar, suggesting Franken should be seated in the upper chamber if he is certified as the winner by the State Canvassing Board. The Board is scheduled to meet Saturday to count at least 1,350 absentee ballots.

The Repubs will have 41 votes in the 111th Congress. Cornyn is full of crap.

As for the Blagojevich situation. The Dems stated their position on Dec. 10, nearly three weeks before this fiasco of an appointment. At the time Burris was making the same arguments and calling for Blagojevich to be removed from offic. It was OK then. In fact, all the discussions on the left seemed to be centered on disqualifying Jesse Jackson Jr. because Blago mentioned his name. Some seemed determined to implicate Rahm and the Obama team in the scandal. When those two points were being discussed Blago was radioactive. Now that Burris made the foolish decision to inject himself into Blagojevich's warped reality, the Democrats are wrong for continuing to stand their ground.

All 50 Dem Senators Call On Blagojevich To Step Down

[tularetom]

11. Sheesh WTF do you want from a guy

Just because he

* Let Joe Loserman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee

* Praised the slimy crook Ted Stevens as a great senator

* Refused to seat the legally appointed senator designate from Illinois

Doesn't necessarily mean he's spineless. Could mean he's brainless.

However I'd bet the rest of the spineless senate Dems would not vote to throw Reid out. So I'm not optimistic that anything is gonna change very soon.

[babylonsister]

14. Yes,

* Lieberman is there for a reason, probably to avoid drama. If Obama didn't mind, think about it.

* Praised Stevens? So what? A senator for 40 years? A resume like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens

* What should Dems do when 50 Senators asked Blago to resign. Now it's okay? I think not.

[girl gone mad]

15. Kinda messed up that he..

let's BushCo. get away with torture, treason and corruption for years, but decides to take a stand and even go so far as to break the law over Burris, no?

[babylonsister]

17. He's not president. Have you read this? I imagine this admin

might address it, but I also think Holder is important for that process, and the rethugs want to block him.



Top Question on Obama's Website Asks Him If He Will Prosecute War Criminals



President Elect Obama's website at Change.gov currently shows this as the most popular question people are asking:

"Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor - ideally Patrick Fitzgerald - to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"
Bob Fertik, New York City

The voting may end at any time. You can still vote. So please go here, sign in, find the above question at the top of the "Additional" category, and click the check mark next to it.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38615

[WyldRogue]

80. As witness to the shape of the Government these past years.....

... after inauguration, it will be business as usual with slight changes to satiate the masses

[JDPriestly]

95. Burris should take the matter to the courts if he believes that the Senate

had no business removing him. I posted the Constitutional provisions that apply to his appointment above. I am not familiar with Illinois law, but unless Blagojevich was no longer the governor after being charged, his appointment of Burris is probably valid, and unless Burris is not qualified to be a senator (such as too young), or is guilty of misconduct, I don't know how the Senate has a basis not to seat him. It would be arbitrary for the Senate to refuse to seat a qualified senator just because the governor who appointed him is alleged to have committed a criminal act. Blagojevich is still innocent until proved guilty in a court of law after presenting all the evidence or unless he admits to guilt. He is still governor unless he resigns or is impeached and removed. What is the Senate's legal basis for refusing to seat Burris?

[tularetom]

18. Mass hysteria. It's actually none of their business

Blago as of now, while he might be a sleazy character has been found guilty of nothing. In fact he has not even been indicted and it is looking increasingly like he won't be indicted for at least a couple of months. While 50 Democratic Senators have a right to be concerned with Blago's conduct it is not in their job descriptions to act or call for any action regarding him. That is solely up to the people who put him in his job, namely the voters of Illinois. Or maybe the courts, if Fitzgerald ever backs up his dog and pony show with some real evidence. You could, I suppose make a case for Obama or Sen. Durbin calling for him to resign, but it isn't any business of Harry Reid or the other 47 Dem senators.

Harry panicked out of fear of what the press was gonna say. And he got the rest of them to go along with it.

I agree with you that the Loserman and Stevens things are largely symbolic, but the Repubs at least stick together in cases like this. They didn't treat Larry Craig as bad as Reid is porposing to do in Burris' case.

[babylonsister]

20. Bull.

So, 50 senators, DEMOCRATIC senators, who want Blago to resign, now embrace his decision of senator, when he's been accused of buying Obama's seat?

What am I missing?

[tularetom]

24. Accused accused accused

He hasn't been convicted of anything. Hell he hasn't even been formally accused yet.

Until he is convicted and removed from office he is the legally elected governor of a state. And as such he has the right to appoint whoever he pleases. I may have missed the part where Burris has been accused of buying the seat, and if so I apologize but otherwise there is no reason for any Dem senators to be involved in this.

Actually they can ask for Blagojevich to resign until they turn blue. But he doesn't work for them. He might be a pluperfect asshole but he's within his rights on this one.

[babylonsister]

27. He is a POS imo.

It's not about this country, it's about him and how many people he can convince, when he needs a jury to chat to.

He is a punk.

[babylonsister]

28. Okay. So address what I did instead of covering for Blago. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

37. You are missing that the US Senate has no say in

the internal governance of a state. Blagojevich's tenure in office is none of their damn business, it is the business of the people's representatives in the Illinois state legislature. Until they act, Blagojevich is the governor of the state and as such he is empowered to carry out all of the normal affairs of that office. He has not been indicted or convicted of anything. Until he is impeached and convicted by the state of Illinois, he is the governor and has all the normal authority of the office.

The Senate can refuse to seat Burris. Doing so would be a mistake.

[rhett o rick]

45. 50 senators wanting Blago to resign has nothing to do with accepting Burris.

It really doesn’t matter if the Demo senators “embrace” Burris or not he was appointed legally.
The Demo senators need to respect the process.
Blago is innocent at this point.

[WyoHiker]

79. I've looked into this a bit

and I'm very certain that, Constitutionally speaking, they must seat Burris because:

Even when Apply Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution,

A: Burris himself hasn't done anything wrong and
B: Blago hasn't been convicted or impeached, yet.
C: There's no taint specifically associated with Burris's appointment.
D: the 1969 Powell v. McCormack case indicates that the Supreme Court would find in favor of Burris.

So, if they don't seat the new Jr. Senator from Illinois, it will go to the courts, it will be a circus and a distraction and embarrassment, and the Senate leadership will ultimately lose.


(links and such avail on request.)

[orleans]

91. as far as i understand, burris has not been accused of buying the senate seat

and blago has not been accused of trying to sell it to burris.

did i miss something? maybe...

but from what i recall--all they have on blago is a bunch of talk. i don't recall reading that he accepted money for the senate seat or that anyone paid up.

and burris has a pretty good rep. in illinois

i don't know where i'm going with the following, but i found it on the google and thought it was interesting:

Washington, D.C.: The most important question is, can the Senate block the appointment? I seem to recall a case where the House refused to "seat" a corrupt member from Harlem in the 70s. What procedural options do they have?

Edward McClelland: The case you're referring to is Powell v. McCormack. In 1967, the House refused to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell of New York. Powell took his case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that Congress could only be the judge of a member's constitutional qualifications—in the case of a senator, whether he's 30 years old, nine years a citizen, and a resident of his state.

The Senate could refuse to seat Burris and invite a court challenge, hoping the current Supreme Court would give it more latitude in determining its' members qualifications.

Tying up the appointment in court could keep the seat empty until Blagojevich is removed from office. Then current Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn could make a competing appointment, which the Senate would seat. That, of course, might also be challenged in court by Burris.

~snip~

Bethesda, Md.: How will the fact that Mr. Burris has accepted Blagojevich's appointment, and thus gotten himself involved in this affair, affect Mr. Burris' reputation and political career?

Edward McClelland: Burris no longer had a political career in Illinois. He was an uninspiring but honest state office holder in the '80s and '90s, but since then, he had lost three races for governor and a race for mayor. Burris has long been looking for that last big office. He already has a tombstone which lists all of his accomplishments. He left a blank spot in the lower right hand corner, hoping to fill it with "governor." I think he'll be just as happy to put "senator" there.

~snip~

Edward McClelland: I think we'd all like to see transcripts of those conversations, but so far, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is holding them back. That's even complicating the work of the General Assembly, which wants to use the tapes in impeachment proceedings.

Obama and Blagojevich were never close. Blagojevich was seen as shady even before this episode, and Obama didn't invite him to the convention, or to Grant Park. Obama definitely took an interest in who would fill his old Senate seat, and used Rahm Emanuel to communicate Valerie Jarrett's name to Blagojevich. Actually, what I find inappopriate about that situation is that we had the soon-to-be leader of the executive branch trying to influence an appointment to the legislative branch. I also think it was inappropriate for Obama to back the Senate in refusing to seat Burris. He's the president-elect now. He has to respect the separation of powers and let the Senate police itself.

~snip~

Washington, D.C.: Any word on what Patrick Fitzgerald thinks about all of this? He's an interesting figure in this investigation—he seems determined not to let Blagojevich get away with his crimes. Has Fitzgerald ever investigated Burris for any reason?

Edward McClelland: Patrick Fitzgerald has never investigated Burris because Burris was out of office long before Fitzgerald arrived.

When Fitzgerald announced the complaint against Blagojevich, I wondered how much the timing had to do with the fact that a Democrat was about to take over the White House, and potentially choose a new U.S. Attorney. Obama had voiced admiration for Fitz before, but after this, he committed to keeping him on. It would have looked shady for a Chicago Democrat to throw out a Republican U.S. Attorney while he was investigating another Chicago Democrat.

Fitzgerald has refused to comment on the Senate appointment.

~snip~
So...: ...if the Senate rejects Burris, then what? A special election? An appointment by Harry Reid or Obama himself once he takes office? This all seems so over the top!

Edward McClelland: I would expect Burris to sue for this Senate seat.

Harry Reid or Obama can't make an appointment. It can only come from Illinois.

Bobby Rush is trying to rally the Congressional Black Caucus behind the appointment. It is over the top. On the Early Show, he was comparing Harry Reid to Orval Faubus and Bull Connor.

~snip~

What standard of conduct that existed prior to Fitzgerald's media event is Burris accused of violating?

Edward McClelland: Burris hasn't been accused of violating any standard of ethical conduct. It's guilt by association with Blagojevich. If Blagojevich is smart, he'll disappear and let this become about Roland Burris, a 71-year-old with an honest record as a public servant, the son of a railroad worker who grew up in a small town in central Illinois, and got started in politics by integrating the public pool. It's tough to be against a senator like that.


http://www.slate.com/id/2207751/

[JDPriestly]

103. Has Burris been accused of buying the seat? I haven't heard that.

What are you saying?

[JDPriestly]

101. Harry should have read the Constitution before saying some of the things

he said.

[rateyes]

39. Not to mention his brilliant work on the FISA bill...

the one that covered Pelosi's and Rockefeller's asses.

[Mithreal]

63. Your list is way short. nt

[bertman]

13. Reid and Pelosi are corporate hand puppets. Please read this piece by Jane Hamsher

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/reid-punkd-by-blago-over_b_154810.html

We need Congressional leaders who follow the rule of law and procedure.

[babylonsister]

19. Did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4755361&mesg_id=4755361

There could be change now that the balance of power has changed.

And I love FDL, usually.

[bertman]

23. Thanks for the link, babylonsister. I like derailing the obstructionism, but I also like

the idea that committee chairs don't become lifetime positions--whether Democrat or Republican.

Yes, FiDoLa is usually top notch.

[XOKCowboy]

29. That article is exactly what prompted this post

I should have provided the link. Thanks.

[wildbilln864]

16. absolutely agree! nt

[Kaleva]

21. What is this "we" stuff?

"We deserve a strong SML."

"We" don't vote for the Majority Leader. The only folks Sen. Reid has to worry about are the other Democrats in the Senate and the voters in his home state. If a majority of them are happy with him, there isn't much "we" can do about it.

[TankLV]

59. "We" are NOT "happy" with Reid as ouf senator. I don't know if it's a large enough majority...

and everytime he runs, his opposition is an appaling repuke no sane person could consider.

In the primaries, everyone is afraid to run against him - so usually there is no Democratic challenger...

Reid has strong state cronyism backing - and it stinks to high heaven...

[XOKCowboy]

87. I'd imagine that in Nevada he's a pretty big fish

I spend a lot of time in Reno and have heard about the GOB political network. I don't mind if he keeps his Senate seat, I just don't want him as SML.

[20score]

22. Should never been in that position. Durbin or Boxer would be good.

Someone with a backbone.

[TankLV]

60. Dicky "I can't apologize quickly enough" fucking Durbin? DURBIN!? You've got to be kidding...

Dicky "I'm sorry I even have an opinion on anything" durbin is THE poster boy for SPINELESSNESS!!!

Compared to spineless apologitic afraid of his own ghost dicky durbin, Harry Reid has balls of BRASS and a Steel Spine!!!

[20score]

76. Hahahaha

[Enrique]

71. those two probably both voted for Reid for majority leader

and if they don't support him, then neither of them had the "backbone" to challenge him for the position.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. The Senate Democratic Caucus will have leadership elections a week or two after

the 2010 elections.

[XOKCowboy]

54. After the 2010 elections? Oh Hell No!!

2 more years of Reid's "leadership"? Great.

[Doctor_J]

26. Yes, Harry never got the memo that we crushed the Repukes in November

he's still refusing to stand up to Bitch and Cornhole on anything. There has to be someone better than him for SML

[chill_wind]

30. Gotta keep that powder dry---

until sometime around the mid-century, perhaps...

[Marr]

31. Have you considered the idea that Reid doesn't *want* a strong majority?

I think people like Reid breathed a sigh of relief when they saw they didn't have a fillibuster-proof majority. I think they want the Republicans to have the ability to "obstruct", as it gives them cover for not pushing a populist agenda. When the establishment, corporate Dems like Reid don't have the Republicans to blame, they have to really bend over backwards to "lose".

Remember when Reid maneuvered that Republican bill to the floor for a vote, when he could've secured a victory by just not bringing it to the floor? I wish I could remember what bill it was right now, but I'm tired. Anyway, when I saw that, the score was pretty clear. He and his colleagues are not on our side. They're owned by the same people who own the Republicans.

[Kitty Herder]

36. You've got a good point. nt

[XOKCowboy]

53. Another reason he has to go...

Wasn't it telecom immunity? Nothing important. Better to just get along, right?

Wrong. Getting along is what got us into this mess.

[defendandprotect]

77. "They're owned by the same people who own the Republicans."

Why is this very obvious message about Reid and Pelosi so difficult

to get thru . . . ?

I watched when Sen. George Mitchell had a majority Senate and he turned

it over to Bob Dole--!!! Frightening . . . that long ago!!!

[natrat]

32. after 8 years of reid and pelosi dry humping the junta you have to be pretty stupid not to understan

whose team they play for. Literally every issue important to liberals has been thrown under the bus. At what point does the absurdity of the corruption smack you in the face with its obviousness. No, there is no defense for them, except by morons who see only a D before their names.

[Phred42]

40. "NOW" is at least 2 years past due.

Reid has been the Silent Partner of the Reich.

[sinkingfeeling]

43. Sorry, but the Democrats in the Senate voted for Reid to continue as Majority Leader on Nov. 20.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/DemSenLeaders.htm

[natrat]

70. yea and they also voted hundreds of billions to the banks w/no questions or strings

[WyoHiker]

82. Fabulous timing for that vote. eom

[mike_c]

46. and Pelosi, too....

Both of them are a waste of space in leadership positions.

[Jefferson23]

48. What a shame and agreed, they are each dreadful in their positions.

[XOKCowboy]

50. Unfortunately I agree with you..

I had a lot of hope when Pelosi was named but she and Reid have shown themselves to be terrible leaders.

[camera obscura]

47. Can't Obama ask for his resignation?

Just a pipe dream...

[Canuckistanian]

51. Obama's not his boss

He answers to no one except the Senate itself.

[camera obscura]

56. Not officially but I can't imagine him saying no to the President-Elect

[Enrique]

67. Obama agrees with him on this

[Freddie Stubbs]

104. He certainly could

How will you explain his failure to do so?

[silverlil]

55. Reid is a wimp!

At this crucial time in history, we must have a stronger leader. Isn't Reid up for re-election in 2010? If so, he will not have the time to do what we need done, especially during the next few months.
I agree with you. He needs to be replaced now.

[TankLV]

62. Yes he is - and his challenge is virtually non- existant if at all...

I know many here in NV would love to boot him - but too many others idolize him with all his "seniority" and "power" and all...you should hear the politicos here with all their blabbering...

and it's not enough that these DEMS blabber on about him - you know somethings ROTTEN when that repuke ensigne praises him and he returns the praise...

it's sickening...

[DS1]

61. I'm sick of these useless old retirement home dodgers trying to run things

[debbierlus]

65. He has majorly sucked from the start. He is AWFUL.

[CLANG]

66. Burris should be seated. Franken should be seated.

period

[harmonicon]

68. yeah, but what can you do?

The senate is a fucking joke. Remember that we voted for these people. We voted for the senators who voted for him. This is where compromise gets us. This is where voting for "moderates" (i.e. criminal enablers) so that "we" can win a majority gets us. Sad, but true.

[MasonJar]

74. Call his office. I tried today, but his mailbox was full. On Monday his staff

will hear from me. I am sick of his incompetence. He is useless and not even a very good dem. He is okay to represent his own personal ultra conservative constituency I guess, but he is way out of tune with the majority of Americans. Tell me whom to call to help relieve him of this post, I will do it gladly and often.

[Peregrine Took]

75. Plus he's totally wrong in his racist projections for the Illinois senate race.

The Dems are huge here and any black person they ran who had a decent record would have no problem getting elected.

Maybe he was thinking about the proclivities of his own state.

[defendandprotect]

78. Yes . . . Yes . . . Yes . .. !!!!

Especially after two years of non-change and re-funding the wars

in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . not bringing charges for TORTURE . . .

aiding in the bankrupting of our Treasury . .

[keepCAblue]

81. Just saw in another thread that Reid is a Mormon...

I didn't know that until just now. Explains a lot. After what the Mormons have done to the millions of GLBTQIs in this country with Prop 8, I frankly don't trust anyone who calls themself a Mormon AND a Democrat, and I certainly wouldn't trust one to lead the US Senate to make rational decisions regarding separation of church and state or with regard to civil or human rights.

Edit to add:

from wiki...

Reid is a first generation member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.<4> Reid and his wife, who was born to Jewish parents, converted to Mormonism while Reid was a college student.<5> He stated in an interview with Brigham Young University's Daily Universe that "I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican." He went on to say that the Democrats' emphasis on helping others, as opposed to what he considers Republican dogma to the contrary, is the reason he's a Democrat.<6> He delivered a speech at BYU to about 4,000 students on October 9, 2007 in which he affirmed that Democratic values mirror Mormon values.<7>

So Reid thinks Democratic values mirror Mormon values? Umm, so stripping the civil rights away from millions of Americans is a Democratic value? Destroying the marriages and families, through involunatary, forced divorce, of 18,000 legally married CA couples is a Democratic value. OMFG. If that is true, then I denounce the Democratic party this instant. If THESE are Democratic values, then how does one tell a Democrat from a Republican from a Nazi?

[WyoHiker]

84. The Vote has already happened.

As someone posted earlier in this thread, it took place on Nov. 20, 2008.

Unless there's some kind of revolt (unlikely and probably undesirable, imho) we are stuck with SML Reed until January of 2011.

(pass the bottle, please.)

[Freddie Stubbs]

105. I guess that Senate Democrats like Reid more than many DUers

But I suppose that those Senators just don't know Reid as well as his detractors on DU.

[iconicgnom]

94. I don't know about that "a nice guy and all of that"...

[JDPriestly]

98. You are so right.

He is a nervous nelly, a scaredy cat, not a leader.

[XOKCowboy]

99. Hmmmm It seems that I've struck a very sensitive nerve here...

I had just read Jane Hamsher's article at Firedoglake and I posted a simple rant in frustration. I went out to dinner and didn't get back on the computer till late and was surprised to see it on the Greatest Page. Now it's up to 100 replies and 44 recs. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks we should act like the Majority Party.

I was surprised by one thing. On November 20, 2008, Harry was reelected Senate Majority Leader by his colleagues. Why were there no posts like this then screaming in outrage? How did I miss his reelection? I had the same opinion of him then as now.

[ProSense]

100. All the Dems agreed on Dec. 10 that Blagojevich should not make the appointment and should resign.

Burris agreed with them. Durbin and Reid drafted the letter, which was signed by all the Democrats and Bernie Sanders.

Sanders: Blagojevich Situation A Disgrace:

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is calling the situation involving Illinois' Governor Rod Blagojevich trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat a "disgrace."

"What upsets me about that is it just makes young people look at the political process and think everybody is like this guy and it's certainly not the case," Sanders said. "It's a disgrace period. What we said in the Senate is we would not accept his nomination, that it's been tarnished."

Sanders hopes that Blagojevich will leave office soon.

On the issue of Blagojevich, the Dems are in full agreement.

Here is what Jane Hamsher wrote on Dec. 30:

Blago is playing one heck of a game of chicken -- the Senate ultimately decides who they will seat, and Harry Reid has suggested that they might not seat a Blagojevich pick.

That's a lot different from the outrage she expressed in her recent posts. In fact, she appears to acknowledge the Senate's authority.



edited format.

[iconicgnom]

102. "I was surprised by one thing."... yes, we don't watch the backrooms, do we.

[snappyturtle]

106. Kick! Reid's appearance on MTP was the LAST straw for me. He must

go. How does that work?