Would anyone else be okay with Harry Reid losing; just to get a new leader?

[Dawgs]

I certainly don't want Angle, and I certainly want to keep as large a majority in the Senate as possible, but if he is this weak on such an important issue, wouldn't it be better to get someone that has the BALLS to take on the Republicans? And, maybe get someone that can take on the stupid filibuster rules?

Be nice!! :hi:

[pocoloco]

1. No brainer.

No principles, no balls, and America suffers because of him and Pelosi.

[Dawgs]

3. I disagree. Pelosi passed a bill with a public option and also an energy bill.

Not perfect, but it's the Senate that is stalling everything.

[backscatter712]

27. Exactly. Pelosi's actually doing her job.

Decent legislation actually cruises through the House most of the time - it's in the Senate where things get clusterfucked.

Nancy's on our side - she's liberal, she knows how to play the game, and she gets things done. We've got to do our damndest to keep her. Losing the House would be an under catastrophe.

[NorthCarolina]

28. She did...

but I am also sure she knew well in advance that the Senate would never adopt the PO, and that she would be pushing Romney care through the House in the end. Likely, the PO in the House version was all for a bit of show. Obama was half way there with the House passing it, and yet he never took to the bully pulpit to attempt to force the Senate into backing it. After all, he had 76% of the public behind a PO....an almost unprecedented majority.

[becxx]

54. That's right, the middle class was solidly behind PO and Obama sold us out

This's why I will never vote for Obama again. I think he is a phony.

[CTLawGuy]

59. right

because the "bully pulpit" would have made the Republicans and Joe Lieberman change their minds. :eyes:

[oasis]

2. "Someone that has the BALLS to take on the Republicans"

It would be great if we had a Democrat like that in the top spot. :think:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

4. Nah, I want his punk ass to win. Then hopefully the senate can vote for a new leader. I don't

think stupidity and insanity should be rewarded (reg. Angle). Of course one could also argue that incompetence shouldn't be rewarded either. But that Nevada lunatic is way too much for me.

[Dawgs]

5. Do you really think the Senate will replace Harry Reid?

I've seen no proof they have the guts to do anything; unless they are forced.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

6. I should have added "hopefully". It's really wishful thinking at this point. But I

get a feeling that Dick Durbin is making moves as we speak.

[a kennedy]

9. If Dems lose, yeah, the tan man will be the new leader.....

:mad: :mad: :mad: :puke: :puke: :puke: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

13. If you're talking about the Oompa Loompa. He's in the House not Senate. Yurtle The

Turtle will be the senate majority leader.

[a kennedy]

49. yeah, I know, just got a brain cramp just thinking about it....

the change in leadership I mean..... d*mn.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

56. I feel you. Thinking about Da Boner wull do that to people. nt

[Dawgs]

14. The "tan man" is in the House, not the Senate.

Agree that it would suck if they lost either house.

[a kennedy]

48. ooops, and I know that.......

:blush:

[saltpoint]

7. No. Strongly favor Reid over the brainless fool the

Pukes are running against him.

The Senate decides for itself who'll lead it.

[Yavin4]

8. Hell No, Because It Would Mean A Batshit Insane Member of the Senate

Every vote in the Senate is precious. To lose Reid's vote would be insanity.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Five words: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

[Dawgs]

15. NO!! I definitely want Reid to win if it meant losing the Senate, but...

If it's a difference between 54 Democrats and 53, what would be the difference if Reid was still majority leader? He'd still cave at every chance of a Republican filibuster. The number of Democrats wouldn't matter.

[Oceansaway]

11. as long as the new leader isn't

Dick(head) Durbin.....who flip-flopped on Lieberman and became BO's 1st lapdog

[Dawgs]

16. Agree. I don't see Durbin as being much better than Reid.

:hi:

[S_E_Fudd]

12. Gettin to the point where I don't care one way or the other...

Republicans are in defacto control now anyway...don't see that changing

[earthside]

22. Moot.

Reid might be thinking that joining the Repuglicans and Teabaggers on the mosque issue is smart politics ... but most voters don't like a politician who take positions just for political expediency.

Especially this year.

So, this will probably boomerang on Reid anyway.

And, sadly (as we are now seeing), Pres. Obama's 'clarification' is boomeranging on him.

My opinion is that Reid's re-election is a moot point -- he won't be.

[nevergiveup]

17. Whoa!

I understand your point but anything or anyone that can stop this bat-shit crazy woman from becoming a U.S. Senator has got to be good and that includes Harry Reid. This woman is so far off the deep end that the saying "the lessor of two evils" does not even apply because she is worse than evil. I am broke and I have zero love for Harry Reid but if I was a little younger and healthier I would pack my bags, hitchhike to Nevada and go door to door for Harry if I thought it would make a difference.

[Dawgs]

18. Agree to a point. Angle is scary, and she's the last person I want in the Senate, but..

As I said in an earlier post,...

"If it's a difference between 54 Democrats and 53, what would be the difference if Reid was still majority leader? He'd still cave at every chance of a Republican filibuster. The number of Democrats wouldn't matter."

If a new majority leader could get more done, then what would it matter if Reid was elected or not?

[S_E_Fudd]

19. Republicans are in defacto control now...

I don't see that changing...without Reid perhaps Dems remaining would finally get someone in there with a ball sac!!!

[truebrit71]

20. As much as i dislike Reid the gop has managed to make his re-election a necessity..

..due to the bat-shit crazy lump of stupid that is running against him..In almost any other scenario I would have been happy to see his spineless ass consigned to the scrapheap of gutless Democratic lapdogs..

[harun]

21. Only if new leader got rid of 60 vote filibuster rule. If not, doesn't matter

keep Reid.

[Dawgs]

23. Isn't that the point. Why keep because it GUARANTEES he won't change filibuster rules.

Without him at least there is a possibility.

[harun]

26. Do you know any Dem in the Senate advocating getting rid of it?

If so then I support them but I certainly don't hear anybody talking about it. Heck, even Feingold said he was against removing the rule.

[Dawgs]

33. I can tell you one thing. We know what we will get with Reid.

Someone else might not be perfect, but we can be sure that they won't be any worse.

[WI_DEM]

24. No. He can still win and dems could pick a new leader.

[Dawgs]

31. Again. The only way Dems pick a new leader is if they are forced to do it.

I don't see any other way of getting the Senate fixed. And, without a change in leadership things are guaranteed to stay the same.

[WI_DEM]

40. If he loses perhaps we won't be choosing a senate majority leader but a minority leader

and I'm not okay with that.

[Dawgs]

44. Agree. As I said earlier, I want Reid to win if it means keeping the house.

I never said any different.

[guardian]

25. A vertebrate would be nice for a change. n/t

[DevonRex]

29. Hell no. But we DO need to start a letter-writing campaign requesting his ouster as leader.

This is the last time he should be allowed to throw Obama and the rest of the Dems under the bus. He did it even before Obama was in office with his "I don't work for Obama" line. Then he did it with the time table for HCR, letting Baucus pretty much run the show and water it down to nothing. Enough is enough.

Nevada and the nation don't deserve to have Angle. BUT we deserve much, much better than Reid running the Senate.

[Dawgs]

32. Right, because letter writing campaigns (PO, DADT, Gitmo, etc..) have worked so well for us.

Without some major changes to the Senate nothing will change (no major bills or even something like DADT) for at least two years.

[DevonRex]

34. Well, we have to try something. We can't let Angle win. But we have to

let the Senate know that Reid doesn't speak for us and shouldn't be allowed to call the shots any longer.

And you know what, maybe it won't do any good. But we have to TRY, dammit. If they know we have their backs, then maybe they WILL do it. What's the protocol for this anyway? Will it take an act of God to remove him?

[AlinPA]

30. No. Angle is crazy.

[Deep13]

35. no. need every seat. nt

[Jennicut]

36. Well, that is up to the Nevada Dems who would have to put up with Angle, isn't it?

I dislike Reid, I am terrified by Angle.

[kiva]

37. No, but then I live in Nevada -

I know this is just a 'what if' but honestly it's up to Nevada voters, and frankly it's annoying for people outside the state to talk about it being OK for Reid to lose to the bat-shit crazy woman. The Senate just needs to vote for an effective leader - hint, not Harry.:hi:

[ljm2002]

38. No, I would not be okay with that.

It's up to the Senate Democrats who they want as their majority leader. I would put that in the "be careful what you wish for" category -- what you get could be much worse than Harry Reid.

Although I too am chagrined at the lack of principled leadership, I don't put it fully on Reid. Apart from all that, the thought of Sharon Angle in the Senate is not only embarrassing for Nevada, it will grant legislative power to someone with extreme right wing positions, with a dose of rabid religiosity thrown in. No, thank you! Harry Reid is much better than Sharon Angle.

[activa8tr]

39. SO do I understand your question? You are assuming Sharron Angle

would "win" in NV?

What a stupid plan THAT would be!

[BlueMTexpat]

41. No, I would NOT be OK with it.

Sharron Angle is not only insane, she would decrease the so-called Democratic majority and would give the Teabaggers momentum. We would also have another wingnut Republican Senator for SIX years. It's just not worth it.

I am not ready to cut off my nose to spite my face, thank you. And that is exactly what would happen.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Bad Angle

[John Agar]

43. Not sure. His opponent is a lunatic. That said...

I would be happy to see him replaced as leader after he gets re-elected.

[havocmom]

45. We don't have to hope Reid loses to get a new majority leader

:eyes:

What is with all these false choices being bantered about? Total hogwash. Life has a great many possibilities. Either/or is usually bogus way to try and stampede people instead of inspiring them to think.

[Phx_Dem]

46. Are you kidding?! NO.

Just what we need, Sharon "Dumb as a post" Angle in the Senate.

[babylonsister]

47. NO! nt

[Mass]

50. No, but I hope a victory by such a short margin that he has trouble justifying being majority leade

Schumer and Durbin want the position. If he is barely elected, they will make a move. But Angle is not somebody we can wish as a US Senator.

[racaulk]

51. I absolutely do not want Angle in the Senate.

The Senate could absolutely do without her batshit craziness for the next six years. Besides, if a Tea Party candidate is able to defeat the Democratic Senate Majority Leader who is a four-term incumbent, then that is only going to add more hot air to the perceived momentum of their movement. An Angle victory over Reid would make those crazies even more crazy.

I think Reid is a weak leader, but of the two options you posed, I think keeping him where he is is the better choice.

But to be honest, if Reid were running against a moderate Republican in the mold of someone like Olympia Snowe, I would probably care less if he lost the election. Just my opinion, of course.

:hi:

[depakid]

52. Harry Reid's been one of the best players on the Republican team

His no longer being Senate majority leader would be a net positive for the Dems..

[704wipes]

53. win or lose - we don't need Milquetoast Harry as Leader

nt

[ruggerson]

55. Obama is pretty weak on marriage equality

you want to dump him, too?

:hi:

[KingFlorez]

57. We don't need Sharron Angle in the Senate

The sort of message that would send is a dangerous one, one that says that radicalism is perfectly okay and isn't a deterrent in getting elected.

[Hekate]

58. Why not let the Senate vote him out of the leadership? Why wish Reid out of office?

That's psycho talk!

Hekate

[old mark]

60. No. I live in PA and I sent Harry a donation last month...Angle is fucking stupid,

and we have too much stupid in government-especially in congress-right now. FWIW, Reid is probably better than most at his job. The Democratic Party is just a bunch of money grasping trash - somewhat better than the cartoons the GOP likes to run, but very few really good people among all of congress.

The Democratic Party's motto should be "We ain't much, but we are somewhat better than the GOP."

mark

[SharonAnn]

61. No, he's a Dem and a good Senator. And, he's a good leader. I'd like a more

charismatic leader but the Senate is the Senate, after all.