Is it time for Reid to step down?

[kentuck]

Is this latest decision of his to not change the filibuster rule the last straw? Has he not put the President's entire 2nd term agenda in jeopardy? Does anyone, other than Harry Reid, really think that Mitch McConnell is going to do anything different than in the past?

Should we just overlook this and move on?

[MADem]

1. Reid is a tough SOB and extraordinarily effective.

It's not for us to decide if he should step down--unless we happen to be members of the US Senate. I don't think we have many, if any, here.

Reid is put in the leadership job by his PEERS. They vote for him to lead them. We have no input into the process of selection.

I think they have made a superb choice.

[kentuck]

2. WTF!

We put them in office - all of them. It is up to us to decide. What kind of nonsense is that?

[MADem]

5. You don't understand, apparently, how the leadership is chosen in the House and Senate.

You or I do not get to vote on who is Majority Leader OR Speaker of the House.

We send our Delegation to Congress, and THEY make the pick--not us.

There's a mini-election within the walls of Congress and the Democrats choose their leaders, and the GOP chooses theirs. In the House, the party that holds the majority gets their choice as the "Speaker."

The only way Reid is going to leave the ML slot is if his constituents fail to re-elect him.

Don't "WTF" me on this like I've said something shocking or untoward--that IS the way it works.

The Senate Majority and Minority Leaders are two United States Senators who are elected by the party conferences that hold the majority and the minority respectively.

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

[kentuck]

6. So...

I am very impressed by your wikipedia knowledge. Everyone knows how the Majority Leader is chosen.

[MADem]

7. I don't mean to be rude, but your comments upthread suggested that you did not.

You're going on about dumping Reid like you have input into the decision and power to effect a change. You don't.

He has been chosen by members of his conference to lead them. They like him, that's why they picked him.

I provided the Wikipedia link to demonstrate to you that I wasn't talking out my ass. Would you like me to google more links for you to peruse?

Good grief.

[kentuck]

10. This comment struck me as something that might be said in a banana republic.

"It's not for us to decide if he should step down--unless we happen to be members of the US Senate."

As if we, the People, have nothing to say about what goes on in the US Senate. I understand how the system works.

[MADem]

13. It strikes me as a comment that reflects how the leaders are chosen in their respective Houses.

Nothing more.

Good gravy---this has nothing to do with Banana Republics--and your saying so suggests you still don't have an appreciation of the process, your protestations notwithstanding.

You can "say" all you want about what goes on in the Senate. Knock yourself out. But here's the bottom line--YOU do NOT choose the leadership. You just don't. Your input does not matter. The sitting Senators choose the leadership. You choose your two Senators--that's where your contribution to the internal management process ENDS.

I challenge you to point to a single instance of a candidate being rejected by his constituency because he voted for a legislative leader not to the constituency's liking. You can't--because it's never happened and it never will happen. That's just too "inside baseball" for any voting bloc.

The Senators need to be organized in order to effectively manage their legislative duties. They hold these leadership elections in order to manage themselves appropriately to do the work they were sent to DC to do. But you--or I--don't get a vote on that. We never have, we never will. Harry Reid will never appear on any ballot that I receive on election day--because I do not live in Nevada.

[kentuck]

17. Yes, there is nothing we can do.

Why waste our breath?

[Atman]

18. MAD, you're being ridiculous

The Senators WE voted for have phones, e-mail accounts and even fax machines. Perhaps we could let them know how WE feel since, you know, WE elected them! What a concept!

[MADem]

21. You can let them know--and I said that if you bothered to read my post instead of calling me

'ridiculous.'

But the bottom line is this--neither, you nor I nor the OP of this ill-advised whine of a thread has any actual input into the selection of the leadership.

You can call me names all day, it doesn't change that fact.

The day a ballot is placed in my hands that provides me a slot to vote for the Majority Leader, we can talk. That day will never come unless I am elected to the US Senate.

[Atman]

23. But that wasn't the original question, was it?

No one suggested that YOU don't vote for Reid. The question was, 'do you feel he should be replaced?'

[MADem]

28. The ultimate question was "Should we just overlook this and move on?"

That's the last sentence in the OP, the exhortation to the group, here.

As if "we" have the power to vote the guy out. "We" don't.

The Senators elect their internal leadership -- it's really more "management"--and "we" do not. It has been ever thus.

[kentuck]

34. For the record...

When I say "we", I am referring to we, as a Party. The question was simple and straight-forward but some chose to make a big deal of it.

[MADem]

41. You took your time articulating that clarifying adjustment to your remarks.

If your question was so simple and straight-forward you wouldn't have gotten any commentary about the personal perspective you appeared to be taking, and continued to take in our conversation.

You doubled down on me at the outset, when it would have been so simple to say what you've said here, 33 posts into this mess.

[Bonobo]

76. More anally retentive than ridiculous IMO. nt

[MADem]

111. Real nice hit-n-run. Classy, as always. nt

[The Wizard]

48. Harry Reid effectively

nullified an election that was a clear Democratic victory. Everyone knows that dealing in good faith with Mitch McConnell is akin to pissing into the wind. Harry sold out the Americans who voted in the last election. Now the Democrats have an excuse to not get anything done for the next four years. Reid also all but guaranteed a Republican sweep in the 2014 midterms. Remember the 2010 Republican sweep was because Democrats disgusted by the lack of a public option in the Affordable Health Care Act chose to stay home on election day. Harry just pulled the rug out from the people who elected Democrats to the Senate. He's as much a disgrace as McConnell.

[MADem]

59. OK, in 2014, we'll see if you're right. I don't think you are. nt

[Plucketeer]

92. Well - here's someone a little closer to the kitchen

But he's probably ignorant too, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101794295

[MADem]

93. He didn't back you up, though. Did you hear what Bernie actually said about Reid?

I suspect that he believes that WE DO NOT HAVE the 51 votes that we'll need for the Constitutional option.

You want he should pull those votes out of his ass? Or are you magically better at getting blood from a stone?

If you're going to throw around words like "ignorant" at least watch the full clip and take note of the full context contained therein.

[Plucketeer]

98. There's flying, and there's THINKING about flying

If only THINKING about flying was the preferred route, alot of nests would be stuffed with fat fledglings. That's why the senate's agenda is stuffed with ideas unflown.

[MADem]

99. I think Harry Reid, like LBJ, knows how to count. nt

[Plucketeer]

103. OK.

Of course, you are correct and ol' Kentuck and the rest of us doubting Thomas' have no business critisizing crafty dear senator Reid. Got it. He doesn't work for us, so how could we - with any validity - voice our notion that he erred.

Thing is, at 68, I'm not sure I'm gonna live long enough to see the day that the Dems "call", and then haul in that building pot from the middle of the card table.
Matter of fact, I sure hope someone slaps me on the back of my head (should I still be alive) come the day the first payoff of this strategy is marked up in the "win" column.

[MADem]

104. I'm no spring chicken either, and your mileage obviously varies on this issue.

It's not a question of "strategy"--it is a question, as Bernie Sanders said, of not having the damn votes to hit 51. Why not gripe at the holdouts?

We will simply have to agree to disagree, hopefully in a fashion that befits our age and stage and maturity level.

[Plucketeer]

106. Agree to disagree

That's why we're here. If there were some sort of "filter" that kept the erroneous replies from this forum one of us wouldn't be here.

If it's the "holdouts" that stand accused, so be it. Let's hear it from Harry's mouth. EITHER WAY...... Those folks are there at OUR behest (theoretically on our dime, no less - ha ha). And I'm willing to bet that the E-mails and phone calls to the various Dem reps were urging for the simple majority route as opposed to obstructionist empowerment retreat. But I'm to resign myself that we have nothing to say about how they do our work?

You know - the truth is, Reid's action (inactions?) really add to my building resignation that what I do in the voting booth is really nothing more than marking my ballot for the lesser of evils. As federal senators go, I think we (our state) have a couple of decent ladies. I want to assure myself that neither of them would've held Harry back. I CAN say that they got notice of my preferances regarding the 60 vote boat anchor. Maybe I need to start watching FOX. That way, my low expectations would be met. Maybe I should tackle reading my Webster's Unabridged from cover to cover. I could try to read it as a novel. Surely the plot line would make more sense than what the Democratic story line affords.

[MADem]

110. Heh, you probably won't like this 'un, either!

If Harry started dissing the holdouts, he wouldn't last long as a leader. The best leaders keep those disagreements very private, and display a patina of unanimity to the general public at all times.

It could be that he's horsetrading with a holdout or three for a vote on something down the line.

They generally don't tell how the sausage is made. We have to resort to chatting up gabby chiefs of staff or other senior aides to get the full flavor of who is holding out on any issue, and the "why?" behind it.

[Plucketeer]

120. Call me old fashioned

but if one tells me they're gonna do something (you know - kinda like this "handshake" agreement Harry's supposed to been a partner to) and they DON'T deliver - then I'm owed an explanation. Yeah, I know - according to you, I'm 'sposed to be content with the fact they have a (D) next to their name and happily scarf down whatever scraps they toss my way.
BTW, I've actually been misfortunate enough to have worked in a sausage factory. It can seem gross to watch what gets pressed into the skins as the process hums along. But even the sausage makers wouldn't knowingly add BS into the stuffing. Even THEY had more pride in their product than some politicians do.

[MADem]

124. You will likely find out, and soon, too.

But it won't be Harry calling out his fellow senators--it'll come from elsewhere. A staffer, maybe, or an admission by a holdout. There's a protocol to how information flows. It won't remain a big secret for long.

[Botany]

64. Well Harry made it so we don't have to worry about laws covering:

Regulations on Assault Weapons and 100 round magazines

Global Warming

Single Payer Health Care

Wall Street and Bank Reform

and lots of other things.



Thanx shit loads Harry.

Reid added: “If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the
filibuster rules, because it’s been abused, abused, abused. 5/10/12

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76189.html#ixzz2IzqUgURa

[GoCubsGo]

112. No. He didn't.

The people who gave us the GOP majority in the House of Representatives nullified the election. Whether or not Reid changed the filibuster rules is rather moot. Anything of substance that gets passed in the Senate will die with the Teabagger House. AFAIC, the ones who "pulled the rug out from the people" are the ones who stayed home in 2010, and stuck us with this gerrymandered piece of shit of a House of Representatives.

[MADem]

115. Very well said. nt

[warrprayer]

118. ^^^^^^^^^

+ 1000

[NorthCarolina]

45. Sarcasm??? nt

[MADem]

47. You plainly didn't read through the thread before you asked that one word question.

When you do, you'll have your answer.

[nonoxy9]

65. Since he's chosen again and again by his peers in the senate

Then maybe it's the democrats in the senate we need to be pissed at for choosing such a milquetoast.

[MADem]

68. You're free to express your ire to them.

I don't think they'll pay much, if any attention, to you.

The delegation's choice of leadership has, as I have said previously, never been a reelection issue for a legislator.

He's not a dictator, though a lot of people here are focusing their indignation at him and taking the attitude that he is. He's a cat herder, an aggregator, a consensus-builder, and a deal-maker. He does not act unilaterally.

[phleshdef]

105. You're not wrong. And I admire the fact that you have the guts to say it.

The real problem with a lot of DUers is they aren't nearly as good as counting as Harry Reid is and they won't ever accept that. Harry Reid IS tough. He has performed some fairly heroic cat herding and he knows his way around the Senate processes better than just about anyone. He knows how to get the doable done and pick fights that aren't fruitless. Anyone that really understands the Senate and understands the political realities of the present day would completely agree with everything you just said. Anyone that doesn't agree with you, simply doesn't understand the whole picture of what they are forming an opinion about.

[MADem]

114. Thank you.

I am no Senate expert, but I spent a little time up on the Hill as somewhat of a dogsbody to my seniors at the Pentagon, so I got to see a little of the sausage making. I never lost my sense of surprise, but I did learn a few "down in the weeds" things (and the odd bit of gossip, all stale by now!).

[trueblue2007]

113. get rid of reid now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HE LIED TO US ALL

[Bucky]

3. No. The time was last month, before the filibuster negotiations started.

We have to overlook this and move on. There's not a choice.

[The Wizard]

49. My choice

is to ignore all requests for donations from the DSCC. Epic failure should not be encouraged.

[zeemike]

71. Good choice

But never fear, they really don't need your money...little people trickle money to them...big people give in a gush.
And all you got to do is vote like they like on a few bills.

[dmosh42]

4. I don't know if it would be a plus to replace Reid, because the Dems have too many useless senators.

that are bold enough to want change. We just wasted four years of watching needed legislation being blocked by a wacked out minority. Now we can continue with more of the same.

[lamp_shade]

8. Nope. I trust that Harry knows what he's doing. Time to move on.

[graham4anything]

9. No, he is doing a great job and knows the intricacies and minutia of how things work

and he like President Obama is always looking 10 steps ahead

the game is long term

a baseball game is not decided in the top of the first
a football game not decided in the first minute
a tennis match not decided in the first serve

and it takes a seed years to grow into a majestic redwood

same old don't like Harry Reid, don't like Obama want instant gratificaction yada yada snore
snorefest

same ones most likely voted for Ralph Nader and Ron Paul and Ross Perot

yawn.

and its only 651am in the morning on a cold January day and the sun hasn't even come up

[lamp_shade]

11. ^

[Atman]

22. Ah, the graham4anything-lampshade brain trust.

Aren't you guys late for Young Republicans meeting?

[peace frog]

25. Bwa ha ha ha ha!

Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning.

[Kolesar]

55. Well that's a bit much...eom

[lamp_shade]

73. Typical childish Atman snotty retort... no surprise there.

[kentuck]

12. Yeah, sure.

They are so much smarter than everyone else. Just bite your tongue and keep the faith. Your storyline is simple and long past ripe.

[graham4anything]

19. The burn it down,get nothing, Nader thirdparty meme is dated and marked expired NEVER AGAIN

ralph nader ron paul 3rd party philosophy
forever now expired and stale
[img][/img]

[lamp_shade]

35. ^

[MADem]

15. +1 nt

[patrice]

57. Thank you, graham4anything.

[Myrina]

62. Well, how dry IS Harry's powder now?

He's been sitting on it for 6+ years ...

[daa]

63. Just like he did with health care

Letting the repugs screw around for 6 months, never being serious and totally losing momentum.

There are so many unintended consequences like everybody being moved to part time or hiring only part time ( Lowes 43,000 part timers). Smokers being charged a 50% premium. How many of them will keep insurance? Adjunct professors, the list goes on. Reid is a failure to act like we won the election. Nobody voted to continue to let 40 republican senators bring the country to a standstill.

[Plucketeer]

74. Well - this changes everything

I can die in the next twenty years - smug in the knowledge that in 2013, Senator Reid set us up to declare "Checkmate!" somewhere about 2040 or so. And I now see the worth of the PAST four years to the "game". I now realize it only LOOKED as tho nothing got done. I guess I need to adopt that old axiom anout how a watched pot never boils. As an aside, maybe I've gained more insight into why McConnell is called turtle. Tho turtles seem pretty speedy when compared to the Senate!

[A Simple Game]

78. Ok, you almost convinced me. Just tell me what seed did Senator Reid plant in

regards to the filibuster?

Whoa! That looks like a picture of Lyndon Johnson in your post, if it is, you should know better than to post what you did. Why don't you ask yourself what Johnson would have done in Reid's place. I'll give you a hint in case you can't figure it out. We would have had new filibuster rules in place and there would be quite a few Senators, Democratic and probably Republican too, rubbing the soreness out of their butts.

[avebury]

14. Reid is jus doing his job. Afterall, everyone knows

that Democrats are their own worst enemies. Did we really think that President Obama would get a clean shot at meeting his second term goals? It is not Reid's job to make the President's job easier. The only way that the Republicans can get ahead is to lie, cheat, obfuscate, and steal. If the filibuster blows up in Reid's face, he is not the only one who will pay for that mistake, we will all pay for it.

I am trying my best to tune it all out. I watch a minimal amount of news shows. I give Washington DC just 4 years. If the Democrats in Congress cannot get their act together and slap the Republicans down I will stay home in 2016. I have been thinking for a long time about retiring overseas (mostly to find someplace with a better climate and less expensive cost of living) so I have no problem with focusing on my own long term game plan. I cannot change what is taking place here, I can only change how I react to it and to make my own plans.

[catbyte]

30. You really don't think Reid's job is to help the President?!? Wow. No wonder we're weak.

[avebury]

123. The fact is that Reid's job should be to help the President.

The problem is that, caving to the Republicans on filibuster reformation does not help the President. Democrats cave into the Republicans far too often. The Democrats in the Senate need a Majority Leader more along the lines of Nancy Pelosi.

[KharmaTrain]

16. That's Up To 55 Democratic Senators...

Reid isn't a magician...he can't make votes show up that aren't there. He can't beat people or do much more than try to form consensus. He serves at their facilitator as much as leader and if they weren't satisfied with the job he's doing, you'd have seen a challenge for his leadership post following last year's elections...and you didn't.

If you're pissed the place to look is at those who push Reid to accept the status quo and didn't support the Merkley plan. It's working to elect more liberal/progressives to the House and Senate to have a bigger voice. Reid doesn't operate in a vacuum.

[MADem]

24. Precisely. nt

[NorthCarolina]

46. Just so everyone knows, those Democratic Senators that blocked reform are:

Mark Pryor, Max Baucus, Patrick Leahy, Joe Manchin, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer.

[KharmaTrain]

53. Thus...

...to make it a little clearer, there wouldn't have been the 51 votes needed to pass the talking filibuster. Last week I had read that about 30 Senators were on board but that's not enough. This isn't a zero sum game...some concessions were made, including the lifting of holds on judicial nominees...so time will tell how good or bad of a deal this really is.

[The Wizard]

52. Reid is no LBJ

Johnson got the Democrats in the Senate to do the right thing and he had enough power to sway Republicans too. Harry just tucked tail and surrendered after winning the election. Something stinks on ice.

[KharmaTrain]

54. LBJ Had A Different World To Deal With...

...he had reasonable, moderate northeastern Republicans who, hard as it is to believe today, were socially liberal on many issues. Johnson's biggest fight was with the Dixiecrats in his own party. Reid faces a far more polarized and partisan situation with a block of so-called "moderates" that truly hold the balance of power in that body.

[MADem]

61. Precisely--many of those "Republicans" behaved more like Democrats. And many of the

Democrats were wingnutty, meanspirited racists who eventually left the party to join the GOP team.

Hard to believe that Trent Lott was a Democrat while he was cheerleading in college, for example.

It was a very different world back then.

[jeff47]

69. He had 51 for the 41-vote-to-sustain plan

The plan Reid himself was pushing would be far better than the crap he agreed to. And he claimed to have 51 votes for it. No talking filibuster, but lots of other improvements.

[riqster]

20. A better focus would be on electing more progressive Senators

But with so many purple and red states, that is a tough job, and of course does nothing to help us now.

Think long term - Reid made a gentlemen's agreement with McConnell, and McConnell violated that agreement. Reid made sure everyone knew that the Reeps were serial obstructionist extremists. That was a good part of the reason for Dem pickups in both parts of Congress.

Now another compromise has been reached. There'll get you five, the Reeps pull the same shit. Thereby increasing the Dem majority in two more years.

Harry is a crafty old sonofabitch.

[CincyDem]

26. Nope - that time was about 4 weeks ago. n/t

[Cigar11]

27. Obama may as well just go play Golf for the next 4 years

Reid just handed the keys to the Republicans to just say NO to EVERYTHING Obama promised the American people this week. For the last 2 years Reid bullshitted us by saying we need Filibuster Reform ... then folded like a tent when had the POWER to do so. There been over 300 Filibusters since Reid as been a Leader. Imagine what this President could have gotten done.

Reid FAILED The American people.

Good Luck on anything getting done for the next 4 years, thank Harry ... you can take comfort in knowing you took the responsibility away from the Republicans and place it on yourself. When John Boehner told you to go Fuck Yourself, he didn't say Fuck the Democratic Party.

Fuck You vary much Harry

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I'm still waiting for an answer for why we're going after Harry Reid and not the 7 senators,

among them, Barbara Boxer and Jack Reed, two liberals who were opposed to filibuster reform.

I've not gotten a response yet. Shouldn't we be bombarding them with calls?

BTW, I continue to argue that the Democrats may very well lose the Senate in 2014. After getting over my initial disappointment in Harry Reid, I've come to realize that he must know how things will shape out for Senate Dems in the future.

[MADem]

31. Because Harry Reid is a convenient whipping boy for those who do not understand the process. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

83. Thanks. Thought so.

[Cha]

116. Exactly. the pitchfork mentality that got an OP

hidden yesterday because it was frothing at the mouth with stupid foam.

[jeff47]

72. Because they opposed Udall/Markley, which was only one of the 3 plans.

Udall/Markley had the talking filibuster, 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and a host of other changes.

Reid's plan from two days ago had 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and a few other changes. And Reid said he had 51 votes for it.

McCain/Levin was the weak crap we got yesterday. Except their plan still wrote it down, as opposed to yet another handshake agreement.

BTW, I continue to argue that the Democrats may very well lose the Senate in 2014. After getting over my initial disappointment in Harry Reid, I've come to realize that he must know how things will shape out for Senate Dems in the future.

If you think the Republicans will keep the filibuster if they get a majority, I've got a dozen bridges to sell you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. I never said that the Republicans will keep the majority. Where did I say that? I said that Dems

will lose the Senate in 2014. Why haven't you called those senators who opposed reform?

[jeff47]

122. Because there were 51 votes for reform.

Next time, could you actually read my post before replying?

[RandiFan1290]

32. Limo "libs" got their way

Bush tax cuts extended, again!!

Now STFU and vote in 2014!!

[cali]

33. lol. it doesn't matter whether we "overlook this and move on" or not.

Just to inform you: There is jackshit "we" can do about the Senate leadership. duh. And if you think Senators are going to vote for the leadership that a few in the public want, you know zip about the process. Nothing. Nada.

gad.

[kentuck]

37. I think some Senators are on record as being against Harry's decision?

So this is not all idle chatter.

[cali]

50. so what? just because a small group of Senators is against this decision

doesn't mean they want to oust him as leader. Dollars to doughnuts that none of them do.

[onenote]

101. Do you really think that every senator always agrees with every decision made by the majority leader

I doubt you do.

Majority leader, minority leader, Speaker, etc. etc.: they never can please all of the members in their caucus all of the time and thus they rarely try. And the members get that, even if some people here on DU seem oblivious to it.

[onenote]

36. since I haven't seen a single senator calling for him to do so, the answer seems to be no

[nineteen50]

38. Someone got the best of both worlds

want that legislation dead filibuster, want it passed lean on a few Republicans. Corporatist got just what they wanted more of the same.

[Honeycombe8]

39. People don't step down from power positions. They have to be forced. No one will do that.

If the Senate Dems vote to remove him, and he wins, then they'll be stuck with a leader who resents them and keeps them from committee appointments and such.

Looks like we're stuck with him. Unless he loses his election in his state (is that Nevada?). And if he loses, he'll probably lose to a Republican.

So there you go. We're screwed.

[kentuck]

40. Gloom, despair and agony on me...

[Honeycombe8]

121. Deep, dark, depression, excessive misery! So true! And that's the way it is. nt

[butterfly77]

42. A long time ago...

he has always stop every major thing the Dems have tried to do,he and Mitch mcconnell are buddies he is just pretending.

Hit him on guns or most things republiCONS love and he always tries to pretend that he is working it out he is afraid to put things on the floor for votes.

I have been asking this question for a long time why is he the majority leader he is weak and a bluedog/republiCON he is only there to block what the majority want along with Steny Hoyer and others.

[kentuck]

43. Remember Tom Daschle?

I guess that is what will have to happen?

[butterfly77]

51. Yes,another weakling

Now,everytime you see him or Evan Bayh they are hanging with their republicon buddies because they are working with them and for them all along.Bipartisan bullshit!

[Kolesar]

60. Daschle pulled Jim Jeffords out of the gop caucus over an "education bill"

IIRC, the dems took the majority in the Senate that time.

[RandiFan1290]

108. Oh yeah Daschle!

He sponsored the Iraq war resolution! A nice little gift for Bush

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.Res45:

[Fuddnik]

44. No, it's long past time.

[mtasselin]

56. Reid

I will no longer donating to the Democratic party, I have had enough of this caving in. Reid should give his title of majority leader to McConnel so he can get paid the extra money. The repukes act like they are always in charge and we let them, totally fed up with this bullshit so please Democratic party do not embarrass your self any more by calling me.

[MineralMan]

66. How do you suppose he became the Majority Leader?

I think you'll have to address the people who elected him to that position, not DU. We didn't vote for him to have that position.

[Romulox]

81. Going along to get along.

[MineralMan]

84. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Romulox]

85. LOL. Your feelings are hurt so easily. This is a discussion forum, not your personal blog. nt

[MineralMan]

89. No, really. I appreciate your taking the time to reply to me.

[Romulox]

94. More *at* you, really. nt

[MineralMan]

95. It's interesting that you're talking about me,

instead of Senator Reid. What's that about? Certainly not the subject of the thread.

[Romulox]

96. As usual, YOU are the one who made YOU the subject. My initial response was 100% about Reid.

[Indyfan53]

67. We need to move on.

The republicans are hoping we're getting divided over this. They're hoping that this will discourage us from voting in 2014 and 2016. Let's prove them wrong, shall we? Lets vote in 2014 and 2016. Let's fight for the super majority in the senate and take back the house. I am not giving up and neither should anyone else. If you don't like who is running for office, vote for a better candidate in the primaries and even run against them if you can. Now is not the time to sit and mope.

[nonoxy9]

70. "Reid declares peace in the senate"! "They're playing

3 dimensional chess." "Forget 2010, just trust our brilliant leaders and wait (again)." "It's all of you who won't tow the line that are to blame, not the leadership in the democratic party."
Have I missed anything?

[coldbeer]

75. No

I like Harry. The filibuster rule is now common knowledge
and if the pugs keep using it, it is to their detriment. Red
is getting a violet hue (red mixed with blue) and the pugs
know it!

[lamp_shade]

77. ^

[uponit7771]

90. GOP doesn't have to care, they're gerrymandered in the house and there's no way...

...they're going to lose red state elections unless they run stupid baggers.

[titanicdave]

79. Yes Yes Yes......

it is way past time for Harry Reid to move on and get some fresh blood as a leader. Harry has become a Casper Milktoast

[Romulox]

80. No. Reid is incredible effective. At both getting what he wants AND managing expectations.

He played "the Left" like a fiddle on this so-called "filibuster reform". He never wanted it!

[Oilwellian]

86. Yes! Because...

"playing the left" is so incredibly effective!

[Romulox]

97. Don't shoot the messenger. Reid plays his role as well as anyone could. nt

[rsmith6621]

87. Patty Murray For Senate Leader

...She has the backbone to call people out.

[woo me with science]

88. The problem is not just one person.

The problem is a system that is purchased and deliberately manipulated to *pretend* to represent voters, while working for corporatists every time.

[GoCubsGo]

109. Yep.

I'm having a difficult time getting all upset at Harry Reid over this. Or any other Dem in the Senate, for that matter. Anything that gets passed in the Senate will die in the House anyway. The majority of people from all shades want things, like gun reform, that will not happen thanks to GOP obstructionism. Maybe now, those low information voters that are still voting GOP against their own interests, are getting two more years of evidence that will cause them to wake the fuck up.

[Dragonfli]

91. He has hurt the party as leader since he began his brand of capitulation

Every time it looks like our party can break through obstruction he goes out of his way to throw the game.
What is it they call boxers that throw the fight for money?

When we needed to filibuster he wouldn't because he claimed it would be rude, he folded this way his entire time as minority Senate leader. Roberts and Alito must have sent him a fruit basket.

When he needed to end the filibusters use on every damn thing, he caved because stopping it's abuse would be as rude as us using the filibuster for some reason.

The only consistency is that he always throws the fight for the other side, ON BOTH SIDES of the same issue.

Why would you bet on a boxer that will always take a dive for the other guy's promoter?
Why did he take a dive yet again even though he had the votes for better?

A boxer without honor, that takes a dive is called a bum,
we don't need a bum working for the opposition by helping to guarantee the continued abuse of the filibuster to stop our agenda from ever being passed while paradoxically refusing to use the filibuster when in the minority (perhaps to insure the their agenda is passed.)

[SCantiGOP]

100. Yes!!

Schumer for Senate leader.

[Lesmoderesstupides]

102. Remember Pres Obama’s Speech Monday and how it got everyone pumped up and excited?

Harry just crapped all over it, Pres Obama might as well play golf and do photo ops for the next 2 years because nothing will get done, sure the GOP may filibuster less so they only do it 375 times instead of the 400+ times they did in the past.

Thanks Harry for f-ing over America becasue you felt like it.

[Tatiana]

107. I like Schumer.

Reid just isn't the kind of leader we need at this time. We need an arm-twister and someone prepared to take risks and incur the anger of chambermates in order to get legislation passed.

[warrprayer]

117. I think Reid

got his orders from higher up.

[rhett o rick]

119. Be nice if we could blame one person rather than admit that what

Reid did was what the Senate Democrats wanted. They continue to have him as their leader for a reason. Face it, Democratic Senators have been kissing Republican ass for over a decade. We need more progressive Senators and dont hold your breath waiting for the Democratic Party to help in that quest. Thank Dog that we have moveon.org, PDA, DFA, and the PCCC to work to get progressive Senators elected.