Do we really want a Majority Leader who is afraid of the Republicans?

[dansolo]

Everything that Harry Reid does seems to predicated by his fear of what the Republicans might do. They threaten to filibuster, he backs down. Bush threatens a veto, he backs down. And his whole charade with Burris seems to be based on his fear of what the Republicans will say in 2010. Well, listen up Harry. If you just did your fucking job, it wouldn't matter what the Republicans say because they will be irrelevant. But if you continue to be completely ineffective in getting anything done, then the public will be well justified in booting the Democrats out of office in 2010 (including you, Harry). I am afraid that Harry Reid is going to be more responsible for preventing Obama from getting anything done even more than the Republicans, since he has the authority to reign them in and he never uses it.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Reid is utterly worthless...

Has he done ANYTHING right beyond not letting bush make recess appointments?

[depakid]

19. The Democrats sustained a filibuster of the Enzi Bill- barely

Horrible bit of legislation.

http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/private-insurance/enzi/

Aside from that and the belated matter that you've mentioned, Reid has achived nothing -racking up the worst record for any majority/minority leader in modern history.

[BlooInBloo]

25. Since when does the majority filibuster?

EDIT: I was talking about Reid-as-majority leader, though I didn't say the actual words.

[depakid]

28. True, he was still a minority leader at that point

but had much more of a cushion than Bob Dole did in 1993-1995, when the Republicans managed to block a major pieces of Democratic legislation and send some Clinton nominees packing.

Reid's problem is that he lacks credibility- he backs down after mouthing off, and even members of his own party know that there won't be significant (if any) consequences for crossing him.

[backscatter712]

42. The Dems tried to filibuster FISA. Reid worked to break it.

Then, and only then does Reid show his fangs, threatening to make Feingold do a real read-the-dictionary filibuster, and breaking balls in his own damned party so Bush's precious violation of the Constitution can become law.

Did anyone forget to mention how much I loathe Harry Reid?

[truedelphi]

29. He has proven invaluable to the Republican agenda. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

33. Truer words have never been uttered.

[truedelphi]

36. When I lived in San Francisco area, and noticed the innumerable times that

Di Feinstein attended the Opera with the George Schultzes, I started realizing that something was up. (The Clintons having Supported GATT, NAFTA, the inflationary bailout for Mexican bankers that detroyed the middle incomed in Mexico, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the 1999 Banking Reform Act, etc that helped my realizations as well.)

Some people enter the circus tent on the side where the Carnie Barker's sign reads: "No abortion. Death to immigrants. Tax cuts for the wealthy."

And some enter the circus tent where the Carnie Barker's sign reads: End the Endless Wars. Support the middle incomed class. Protect the environment."

But in the end, we are all stuck inside of the same damn tent.

[hlthe2b]

2. I don't know whether that is the case...

Certainly the REPUGs have no shortage of potential leaders who are sociopathic in terms of their ruthlessness and ability to bully. By contrast, I think most of our Dems are honorable men and women and possibly lacking the ruthlessness gene. Obama's choice for Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanual seemed to be the exception among House leadership. Who in the Senate would you think could replicate that, assuming the issue/problem is as you state (and it may well be)?

[bertman]

41. In the case of Reid and Pelosi it has NOTHING to do with honor and everything to do

with failure to use the options available to them as majority leaders. During the runup to the FISA vote Reid would not back Dodd by allowing him to hold the bill up on a Senatorial point of procedure, something that is generally considered to be a done deal. Reid and Pelosi both are captives of the corporatocracy and will continue to be traitors to democracy and the Constitution that they swore to defend.

[nebenaube]

3. makes one wonder if...

Both Reid and Pelosi are/have been compromised over the course of the * administration and as a consequence and in reality; the GOP actually own them.

[hlthe2b]

5. My tinfoil alterego has long suspected that to be the case...

ROve was the king of the political hit dossiers, after all...

[truedelphi]

32. The Big Money Party is the party in control

Now and forever.

The countries that have decent health care, a socially just income or other tax structure, provide decent education etc are all countries wherein three and more parties are the norm.

And at this point it barely matters. After the Bailout strategies of Hank Paulson and his right hand man Kashkari, the Treasury is out 8.8 Trillion dollars. (Though another DU'er corrected me recently and said the figure is at least 7.5 Trillion dollars more than that.)

We are broke. It will be about six months beofre we realize it, but realize it we will.

[CrispyQ]

37. Both were told to play nice or you will face a well funded 'democratic' challenger

in your next re-election. I believe that's what happened.

You are right. They are owned.

[ixion]

4. Reid and Pelosi seem to continually provide cover for the opposition

and as such, I wouldn't be unhappy to see them dethroned.

[babylonsister]

6. Baloney.

You'd be critical regardless.

Don't forget, 50 Dems signed a statement asking Blago to resign. So now they should back away from that? Either way, you're calling them spineless, so it's lose/lose.

[Hawkowl]

10. Do you really support Reid?

You have many excellent informative posts, but Blago aside, you are beginning to sound like a Reid apologist? Do you REALLY think Reid is effective in any way shape or form?

Compared to historical majority leaders of the Senate, LBJ for example, or even milquetoast Tom Daschle, Reid has to be the weakest Senate leader in modern history.

Please tell me you don't think Reid the apologist for torture, illegal wiretapping, Joe Lieberman, and the Patriot Act is doing A GOOD FUCKING JOB.

[babylonsister]

11. I'm a realist and he's not going anywhere. Bitching and moaning

won't move him, will it.

As for Burris, I think Reid is right. Why should they accept any suggestion that comes from Blago, who is working for his own interests? The guy tried to sell a Senate seat from what I've heard. Why is that all okay with everyone? And yes, I know he's innocent for the moment, but I suspect that will be changing shortly.

As for Burris, he obviously doesn't have any integrity or he would never have fractured our party by agreeing to this. He's also in this for self-interest. What if he votes that way down the road? Who knows how he'll vote, on anything? I don't think this seat should have strings attached, and there are loads with Burris, at least that's my perception.

[dansolo]

12. Big deal. I wanted him to resign also.

Blagojevich is not the issue here. They asked him to resign, and he decided to be a prick and said no. Unless they can prove that this particular appointment is tainted, then they should seat Burris and move on. But until he voluntarily resigns, or is removed from office, then he still has the legal authority, and the Constitutional obligation, to select a replacement Senator. In my mind, if they were to succeed in blocking Burris' appointment, then they are setting up a very bad precedent. Do we really want to say that a governor can be essentially stripped of all of their legal authority by merely filing a criminal complaint against them?

[NOW tense]

7. This is why I think that the Majority Leader should be picked

by the most winning percentage of the election. If Senator so and so wins big he also becomes Majority Leader.

[Inuca]

15. Really?

If he wins "big" where? New York or Rhode Island? Do you have a specific algorithm in mind? And do you maybe think that other factors may also matter?

[NOW tense]

30. I think it is a better idea

then having the two weakest people in Congress run the show. I for one am tired of the seniority crap of our political system. Make way for the people that want to make a difference. Don't make them sit and wait their turn while they learn the "ways" of the government.

I do realize the flaws of my idea. I just want to have something different.

[Warpy]

8. Harry's a weenie because of where he's from

and he knows if he doesn't lick GOP boots, he can kiss his own cushy job in the Senate goodbye.

He's playing more to his constituents than anything else. He certainly isn't considering what's best for the country.

[mitchum]

9. If Reid had founded that Mormon cult, they would have never made it out of upstate New York

what a weakling

[MasonJar]

13. Why is it being a realist to agree with Reid? Reid needs to go as

Majority Leader. we can insist on it. He is no leader and he makes terrible choices. The explanation above of his constituency seems valid. Let him represent them, but not all of us. He is not the man we must have to deal with the problems facing America and certainly not with the GOPers. He practically is one. I believe there is a place for all at the dem table, but a majority leader should be representative of the majority. As I understand it, Reid isn't even pro-choice, which is just one example of his out of the mainstream policies.

[ananda]

14. Hell no!

Reid must go!

[western mass]

16. He's not afraid, he collaborates.

[Individualist]

18. Precisely!

Reid is a member of the neocon enabling DLC.

[malaise]

17. Is he merely afraid

or is he compromised.

[leftstreet]

20. I'm going with Door #2

:hi:

[Individualist]

21. He's not afraid of republicans

He's a DLC member.

"...DLC has made its name undermining Democrats for a very, very long time."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

[ZombieHorde]

22. This should have been a poll. I vote, 'no'.

[undeterred]

23. Reid was sitting in my veterinarian's office a few weeks ago.

When I picked my dog up later, he still had his testicles. There was a mixup.

[Cleita]

24. Frankly no but we can't elect the majority leader so we are stuck with him. n/t

[cali]

27. exactly.

there really isn't jack that we can do about getting rid of ol' harry. sadly.

[depakid]

31. At some point, the Dems are going to have to find a face saving way out

because the man's repeatedly shown himself to be ineffective (if not incompetent) -and that's unlikely to change between now and 2010.

[Cleita]

34. I dunno. In the Senate, they seem to have weekend slumber parties with

each other. I don't understand the coziness and protectiveness of each other in any other way, especially when it comes to the general welfare of all US citizens. Someone needs to knock down that ivory tower they are in.

[Alexander]

26. Given recent articles, it sounds like he's afraid of black people.

Harry Reid, a lifelong Mormon, apparently said that Emil Jones, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Danny K. Davis were all unacceptable - and now Roland Burris is too. All of these men are black.

The Mormons excluded black people from priesthood until 1978. Reid was nearly 40 when this happened.

It's not that hard to connect the dots.

[rhett o rick]

35. I am afraid Sen Reid accurately reflects the feelings of most of Senate Democrats.

So it won't help getting rid of Sen Reid even if it was possible.

[pl259]

38. I'd be overjoyed to have one who isn't afraid of MICE

:silly:

[natrat]

39. rather, "do we want a majority leader who is a republican crook in drag?"

what a piece of shit

[wildbilln864]

40. what we want doesn't mean squat to those in power!

Dem or pub makes no difference IMHO. :banghead:

[20score]

43. No, we don't.

K&R