Why didn't they get rid of Harry Reid YEARS ago?

[Ken Burch]

Is there some reason our Senate caucus doesn't WANT an effective leader?

[sudopod]

1. the same reason they won't strip Lieberman of his comittee positions

and the same reason they won't kill the filibuster. It would break the system the Senate uses to dole out power, which is based solely on seniority. If they rock the boat, then the 10 or 20 years they've waited for "their turn" might be wasted.

TL;DR they're selfish bastards.

[greennina]

2. Because if politicians fixed things...

we'd no longer need them. They're just creating a need for themselves like lawyers and doctors do.

[leftstreet]

3. Good question

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Same reason we haven't got rid of him recently.

Something to do with a spine...

[LuvNewcastle]

5. Harry Reid is a timid little mouse.

When I think of a majority leader, I think of someone who can be intimidating at times. I can't imagine Reid being intimidating, even behind closed doors. We need someone who is more in-your-face and isn't afraid to carry the party banner. That's the kind of leader the Republicans will pick when they take back the Senate and you know what? They will get their bills passed.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Ummm, maybe because for years Reid was a major force...

in blocking some of Bush and the majority Republicans worst plans. He even filibustered back then, and defused the nuclear option.

Just because he's not a dictator and can't deliver exactly what you want doesn't make him the bad guy-- NOBODY can deliver exactly what you want exactly the way you want it.

[lamp_shade]

10. He's been called a brilliant parliamentarian and a master of parliamentary procedure...

... THE most important quality of a majority leader.

[LaPera]

7. Republicans infiltrated the democratic party many years ago, Repugs wanted a weak Senate Dem leader

and they got one in Reid....Blue-Dogs, Lieberman & others are simply infiltrated republicans...and now we are stuck with the extremely weak Reid as majority "leader" for as long as he's in the senate.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Because senators don't like strong leaders

They're all prima donnas and want somebody who will cater to them all individually rather than somebody who will really unite the caucus to push for the common good.

[jobycom]

9. Who the hell would want the job?

Seriously, would you want a job where shit got dumped on you all day long, that was more likely to end your political career than not having it by raising your visibility and holding you to hopeless standards, and where your allies hated you worse than your enemies?

Best line ever about politics in a movie came from "The Dark Knight." We get the heroes we deserve, not the ones we need.

And no, I'm not defending him or blaming people who attack him. We could have accomplished more with a more skilled leader (not the only office we can say that about). Just, seriously, who would want to take over that job?

[madokie]

11. Legislation can be one of two things

1: for the people
2: for the corporate boards

can't have both so for that reason harry stays cause he is bought and paid for. Lots of things harry is and squeaky clean is not one of them. imo

[TexasObserver]

12. Did you see the scene in Godfather II where Harry was in Fredo's place?

Oh, wait, that's fiction.

The least explicable event of the past 40 years in the Democratic party is the election of Reid as majority leader. How this bumbler ever got elected to any party position is a mystery.