Considering the gridlock in the House and Senate...

[kentuck]

...should the entire leadership in both Parties be changed?

Mitch McConnell may not have a say in the matter since he is in a very tight race in Kentucky, which he might lose? John Boehner has been nothing short of a disaster. Isn't it time for him to step aside also?

But the Democrats have nothing to brag about with the leadership of Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, in my opinion. Like it or not, they are part of the problem. Should they, for the benefit of the Party and the country, step aside and let some new blood with new ideas have a chance at a new beginning?

This is probably anathema for some folks to even think about?

[Recursion]

1. Whom would you pick to do a better job?

It's not like there's some magical parliamentary procedure that Reid has simply forgotten about (hell, he already nuked the filibuster, which I suspect will come back to haunt us at some point in the future). I'm not saying this is you, but a lot of people here really want a majority leader who will get very angry when he talks on TV because they think that will shame Republicans into going along with us, but I doubt the party is very interested in that theory.

[kentuck]

2. I don't think it matters much who we would we choose...

I just happen to think the well has been poisoned with Pelosi and Reid, as well as McConnell and Boehner.

It would be a new beginning.

[Recursion]

3. Unfortunately the next two in line in the Senate are Durbin and Cornyn

In the House it's Scalise (whom I don't really know at all) and Steny Hoyer. Not sure we'd be trading up in either case there...

[kentuck]

4. They don't have to go by seniority...

They could open it up for elections and let them choose new leadership.

[Fumesucker]

5. At this point gridlock is a feature not a bug

Gridlock really plays to the advantage of both parties, the Republicans can't do a lot of the stuff their base wants them to which they are glad because their base is nuts and a lot of that stuff even the Republicans know is a bad idea but they get to screech about it on the House floor and so on without ever having to do anything substantive.

On the other hand the Democrats can't do a lot of the stuff their base wants and they are glad because what their base wants, particularly economically, the ones who actually influence them don't want.

[customerserviceguy]

7. You're absolutely right about that

Many congresscritters get elected mainly to stop the agenda of the other side. They run on that, and when they deliver gridlock, they're rewarded with re-election.

The old days of the backroom deals where votes for major legislation were traded for bridges and other public works projects is gone, for better or worse.

[madokie]

6. What did Nancy do that warrants your ire?

I thought she done pretty good actually. we had some real pressing issues when she became speaker and she addressed them
She couldn't go after the dick and w cause that would have cost obama his head if she had cause the people would have seen that as the black man going after the white man and she understood that for what it is. We're deeply divided along racial lines here in this country and have been for a long time. Look at what the Caucasians did and are still doing to the Native Americans for proof of what I'm saying. Look at what they're doing to and have done to the Africian Americans for further proof.
Nancy tried and worked her ass off for us. That some of it never made it into law is not her fault

Going after the dick and w's crew of war criminals would have divided us beyond repair IMO. We have this thing that causes us much harm called the right wing noise machine to deal with. Thats the reality
the next Democratic President can go after the war criminals though and more than likely will.