How many here opposed to Reid saw him stop Estrada?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

I did. He was great. It was his and Daschle's finest hour in the last Senate session.
He is a great fighter and will be a great asset to the Democrats' overall aims.

[VivaKerry]

1. I hope so, I hope so, I hope so

BUT the dem minority leader is the go to person for the media when really horrid legislation is on the floor... like the ANRW and well, the entire agenda in the senate.

Will Reid speak to the people.... or will he say on the sun talk shows: "well, it isn't what we hoped for but it's a start, and blah blah blah"???

My concern is this person's ability to LEAD the populace. It/we are the LAST hope of stopping bad legislation. Will he lead america?

[Atlant]

2. Great. He stopped *ONE*.

But the Democrats did nothing about many, many other bozos that Bush
nominated.

Atlant

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. You're forgetting Owen, Pickering, and Brown as well

but being in the habit of bashing Dems will do that.

[Atlant]

4. Golly! Four! So how many did he pass?

Hint:

Bush has appointed more than 200 judges to the Federal benches.

(Source: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/11/06/Opinion/Bush_s_bench.shtml )

But Reid stopped *FOUR*! Thank goodness!

Atlant

[geek tragedy]

7. Are you familiar with the concept of a minority party?

The President gets to pick the judges, and the Senate confirms them.

When the Senate and President belong to the same party, one should expect most nominees to get confirmed.

[FubarFly]

9. Instead of merely filabustering, they should have been

able to build a coalition with the "endangered" moderate Republicans to defeat the more odious proposals. That would have required vision, guile, and fortitude however, so nevermind.

[geek tragedy]

10. So now it's their fault that the Republicans voted for their own nominees?

[FubarFly]

11. Yes.

Under the theory that Northeastern moderate Republicans aren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of voting for extremists, but need a damn good reason to go against their Party, so let's give them one.

[Atlant]

13. Curiously enough, the Republicans were *VERY EFFECTIVE*...

Curiously enough, the Republicans were *VERY EFFECTIVE* at blocking
Clinton judicial appointees whereas the Democrats were almost totally
ineffective at blocking Bush appointees. Why is that?

Atlant

[geek tragedy]

15. Maybe because they controlled Congress?

Just a hunch.

[Atlant]

16. No, they just could manage 40 votes to block judges when necessary.

Too many DINOs haven't the balls to do that.

Atlant

[geek tragedy]

18. Never mind. You're not grasping the importance of controlling the Senate.

[Atlant]

22. I grasp it fine.

I also recognize that the Republicans, even when they were a
minority party, used to control judicial appointments far better
than we have been able to (as a minority party). Maybe it's because
our leadership (in a word) sucks?

Atlant

[blondeatlast]

23. A polite suggestion: Read the first couple of chapters of

Lou Dubose's "The Hammer" about Tom DeLay.

I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Senate, too, but the first chapter opened my eyes WIDE open.

We need to know what we are up against and it's far more than we really know.

[geek tragedy]

24. The Repubs were the minority party for only two years during Clinton's

presidency. After that, they were the majority party (a position they grossly abused).

[ohioan]

34. No - it's because the last time the Republicans were in the minority

under a Democratic president, times were very very different.

Can you name a single Clinton judge that Republicans blocked when they were in the minority in the Senate?

Take your time - we'll wait...

[ohioan]

33. Hmm. Could it be that Republicans were in the majority, they chaired

the Judiciary Committee and had full control of whether nominees even got hearings, much less made it to a floor vote?

THAT couldn't have been the reason, could it?

[ohioan]

32. Pryor, Kuhl, Haynes, etc.

As whip, Harry Reid did a HELL of a job whipping reluctant and nervous Democrats into joining filibusters against Bush's judicial nominees - HUGE political gambles for them. Reid whipped them into line and kept them there vote after vote after vote after vote.

There's more to being a good Senator and a strong Leader than jumping around on television ranting and raving like a maniac. The fact that so many DUers believe that Reid is a lapdog because he doesn't behave as if he has rabies says much more about the political ignorance of some of our Democratic brethren than it does about Sen. Reid's fitness to be Minority Leader.

[CatWoman]

8. Atlant -- you're such a grouch!!!!!!

:hi:

[Atlant]

14. No, I just expect my party to work as hard as "their" party.

Hi, M!

Atlant

[UTUSN]

5. Yep, the Dem Leaders Did What They Could

while being constantly over a barrel. But it looks like they and the Hispanic organizations are rolling over on GONZALEZ:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[FubarFly]

6. If you believe that stopping Estrada makes Reid a strong

leader, I know a bridge in Brooklyn that you can appease on the way down.

Some token resistance aside, our Democrats were steamrolled last session. Even when they did fight, they weren't very convincing- they allowed themselves to be painted as obstructionist villians. You can't selectively choose which principles to occasionally fight for and expect to gain ground.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. I direct you to.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1360162#1360450

[dr.strangelove]

17. What??

How did the dems get steamrolled in the last session with regard to judicial appointments? They filibustered 10 judicial nominees (four actually filibustered and 6 never went to a vote due to the threat of a filibuster). These were the extreme right wing judges.

The Senate's job is to confirm qualified judicial appointments. The ABA (American Bar Association) has rated 98% of bush's nominees as qualified or very qualified. Only one bush appointment, Bunnings son, was confirm who the ABA listed as not qualified. The ABA, which I am proudly a member, is considered liberal by the right wing, though I consider it an unbiased source.

If the President nominates a qualified judge with a record of decisions based on the law, do you actually want the senate not to confirm this person? bush put a few wackos up that we have been overwhelmingly successful in stopping. The other candidates are qualified judges, who the Senate better confirm or else I will be out of work, along with most of the liberal and democrat donor base of trial lawyers.

We are operating now at the lowest level of judicial vacancy in decades, and we are still backed up in the federal courts. We need judges on the bench. The dems will keep the unqualified hacks off the bench, but the qualified judges will be seated.

I'm not sure what else you want the dems to do.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. Thank you. Excellent post. eom

[dr.strangelove]

21. You are welcome

[angrydemocrat]

26. Excellent Post - dr. strangeglove

I have found alot of people around here seem to enjoy bashing Dems. You would think they were the ones who controlled this country and had all the power the way they carry on. Never seen anything like it it they sit and talk about how this party is screwed but yet the bash the members in it all the time. I guess they think that is going to help and everything will will be all rosey again.

[ohioan]

35. Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!

Implicit in your post is also an important caveat. As we oppose Bush judges, we have to mindful that we will not always be in the minority. If we set a precedent of attacking Bush's otherwise qualified judicial nominees SOLELY because their judicial philosophies don't jibe squarely with ours, we will set a dangerous precedent. It is no more appropriate to block a judge just because "she's conservative" than it would be for Republicans to block a Democratic judicial nominee because "he's a liberal."

Fortunately, Senate Democrats understand that they are not just fighting a day-to-day battle but are mindful of the longer term ramifications of everything they do.

[HootieMcBoob]

19. We got to hear him read from the book he wrote about

his town - Searchlight, NV. That was nice.

[CreekDog]

25. Go ahead, bash Reid, but get your facts straight (for once!)

Criticize him all you want, but get it right.

You're wrong on his tenacity in working to defeat the Republicans. Actually, you're wrong on Daschle for that too.

We have no power in Washington, none. How many majorities are made of 45%?!

Sometimes I think the folks who criticize the Dems act like they have power --the party does not. My only complaint with Dems is that they have not nationalized the elections so that they could take it back.

In the meantime, the strategy to head off damage in the Senate, albeit incrementally, is the best we can expect.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. kick

[CreekDog]

28. Thanks for this thread NewYorkerfromMass

It's a good example of what Reid has accomplished in recent years. Sadly, this thread was necessary because some Democrats here were bashing him, and not bashing him based on the fact.

So, I guess when it comes to some Democrats, they want an ideologically pure party, so pure in principle that it cannot win majorities. But that doesn't matter, because these same people seem to believe that a minority of the vote can accomplish as much as the majority. It's crazy.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. Thanks to everyone in this thread

we need to keep in mind the value of unity, and assembling what coalitions we need.

[ohioan]

36. Wasn't that a hoot?

(from my post in another thread)

Last year, when the Republicans announced their intention to spend 30 hours whining about how Democrats were picking on Bush's judicial nominees, Harry Reid took to the floor and spoke non-stop for NINE HOURS to protest!

During the nearly nine hours Reid held forth, not one spending bill was passed. Taxes weren't increased. No wilderness area was whored out. And not one of our bruised civil liberties was traded in the name of national security.
. . .
The fact only a few assistants and an occasional straggler were on hand to hear Nevada's senior senator hold forth did nothing to deter Reid, whose one-man marathon came in protest of the Republican majority's silly plan to stage 30 hours of partisan puffing over the Democrats' decision to hold up four of 172 of the Bush administration's nominees. But a 98 percent approval rating wasn't good enough, Reid chided. When Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., scheduled a talkfest for this evening, Reid took advantage of Senate rules that allow a member to hold up the process merely by refusing to yield the floor.
. . .
Mark Twain, who thankfully had only wicked things to say about men in Reid's racket, might have been proud of the senator's scatter-gun style and Mojave-dry sense of humor. Twain also would have appreciated Reid's self-promotion of the 1998 book, 'Searchlight: The Camp That Didn't Fail.' Those who missed it in hardback were treated to an audio version courtesy of the author. Reid read through five chapters, pausing along the way to extol the virtues of Searchlight and riff and rattle on everything from the town's early mining era to the nibbling nature of its cottontails and jackrabbits . . . Yes, but what he really wanted to talk about was the difficulty he and wife Landra were having keeping their Searchlight sanctuary landscaped in the wake of an invasion of indigenous rabbits.

'These rabbits are interesting animals,' Reid observed at approximately the seven-hour mark of his stand-up routine. 'I've developed a strong dislike for them.'
. . .
He broke from character only rarely to remind the empty room and the CSPAN2 camera of the important work that remained undone in the Senate, and that the economy, education, health care and homeland security ought not take a backseat to 30 hours of bluster. Because, as he illustrated, anyone can play that game.
Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada) November 12, 2003

[CityDem]

30. Will Reid block Estrada from the SCOTUS

Bush will nominate Estrada to the Supreme Court. Will Reid have the balls to block this nomination? I don't think he will.

[ohioan]

37. Why don't you try waiting to see what he does

rather than just deciding without any basis (in fact, contrary to his record) that he will no measure up to your standards?

[DELUSIONAL]

31. HE IS NOT A FRIEND TO WOMEN

He is another Zell Miller --

By his election -- the dems have signaled that they will become GOPig light.

The leadership is NOT the party of the people. They have moved away from the voters.

Plus they are too damned stupid to know that they had the election stolen.

The Senate Democrats just stabbed women in the back.

[DaveinMD]

38. he is not another Zell Miller

Miller is only Miller in the Senate Caucus. Miller votes for Bush on everything. Reid has been a very loyal Democrat. Or is it that if someone isn't perfect, they are another Zell Miller.

NARAL has not caused a stink about this. If they did,he wouldn't be leader.

[JohnKleeb]

39. right and Reid didnt hide the fact he supported Kerry in the election

meanwhile the Zellout made the RNC headline speech and tried to avoid being associated with Gore in 2000 when he first ran.