Here's why Harry Reid is a poor choice for Senate leader

[CTLawGuy]

1. He is too connected to Tom Daschle. I had thought that Tom Dachle losing would send a wake-up call to the Dems that they need to change course. Harry Reid, because he was Daschle's deputy, is essentially the poster boy for "let's stay on the same course."

2. He is from a red state. I don't care that nevada was close, it still means in the back of his mind, Harry realizes he has to appeal to people in his state who will otherwise vote Repug in order to be reelected, even if that is in 2010. That will affect his leadership. We should have picked someone from a safe blue state. Do you think the Repugs would ever nominate someone like Arlen Specter as their leader?

3. He is anti-choice. That means he will offend a huge segment of the Democratic base, pro-choice feminist men and women. What will happen when Bush nominates anti-choice judges to the Court? What will harry do? Again, would the republicans nominate pro-choice Arlen Specter as leader and expect their fundie base to shut up and take it? that would be suicide for them.

4. He voted FOR the Iraq war. If he can't stand up against a war that is obviously a terrible idea, what good is he going to be to us? What will happen when Bush wants to invade Iran?

5. He wants to avoid the "obstructionist" label. We elect Democrats to stand up against the Republican agenda, not to let it pass more easily. Our leaders need to be more concerned about what policies get sent to the president's desk rather than what the Repug media thinks of them.

[pmbryant]

1. Here's why you're wrong

(1) Daschle lost. Reid won. Reid is no longer connected to Daschle. And indeed, Reid is committed to the same course of blocking Bush's extreme judicial nominees, among other things. I suspect that is not a course you want to change.

(2) Nevada is not a "red state". Bush won with 50.5% of the vote. Reid won on the same day with 60%. Reid doesn't run again until 2010, at which time Bush will not be on the national ticket, and will only be a memory.

(3) Reid has been in the Dem leadership a long time and has not crusaded against abortion. On the contrary, he has helped lead the fight against Bush's judicial nominees.

(4) He did not vote FOR the war. That is GOP spin. The same spin used against Kerry. Anyway, a lot of Democrats voted the same, and a lot of grassroots Democrats supported those votes.

(5) This is just rhetoric. Reid is a fighter. Of course he doesn't want a bad label. He will still fight when necessary.


Peter

[CTLawGuy]

7. ok

(1) Reid IS connected to Daschle because he was Daschle's DEPUTY.

(2) Nevada IS a red state. It voted for Bush twice in 4 years. It doesn't matter that Bush is not on the ticket in 2010. The same voters that voted for him will be, unless they all leave.

(3) "2003 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 29 percent of the time."
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0561103

How is that "not crusading against abortion?"

(4) yes he did. He voted to allow Bush to go to war, which is in my mind, and the mind of millions of progressives who called and faxed into the capitol begging their reps to vote against the resolution, a vote for the war. he had a responsibility to try to stop Bush from going to war and he didn't do it.

(5) that is small comfort to me.

[pmbryant]

10. 2010

(1) Daschle is gone. Reid's connection to him is of historical interest only. Dick Durbin will be Reid's "deputy", and Reid has said the leadership will be a team. Perhaps that will comfort you.

(2) I hope you see the difference between a state that gives Bush a margin of 21% and a state that gives Bush a margin of 2%. Bush won a smaller percentage in Nevada than in the country as a whole. And a lot more people voted for Reid on Nov. 2 than voted for Bush. Finally, he isn't running again until 2010. That's a long way away.

(3) He did not use his leadership post to fight abortion rights. Again, he led the fight to filibuster Bush's extreme judicial nominees. That is where the main pro-choice fight is these days, and he was on the right side of that battle.

(4) We'll never agree on this. I hope you would at least realize that a large number of Democrats disagree with you on this. Given who won our Presidential primaries, perhaps a majority of Democrats.

(5) Give him a chance.

Peter

[Warpy]

14. Unless the DNC is playing Judo (which I don't think they're smart

enough to do) by giving the extremists everything they want and using their own actions against them, Reid is a rotten choice.

Shoot, if they wanted a DINO, why didn't they just go all the way and appoint Zell Miller? They're equivalent assholes.

[pmbryant]

16. Please read my posts

Anybody who equates Reid with Zell Miller is not living on the same planet I'm on.

--Peter

[SteppingRazor]

2. Yes, but...

1. He and Dashcle famously clashed over Senate policy.

2. He's from a red state where he routinely stomps his opponent, this year winning 61/35, unlike Tom, who was always close.

3. If our base is so ready to jump because a leader disagrees on one issue, we're in more trouble than we thought.

4. please. So did Kerry. Did you support him? Who voted against the war that you would rather see in charge?

5. He wants to avoid the "obstructionist" label? Says who? He has already said he's willing to grant "few, if any" concessions to Republicans, particularly on social security.


I'm not, like, a Harry Reid supporter or anything. Don't really care one way or the other. But I think we make a big mistake in prejudging our leaders before they even get a chance to lead. Remember, Reid doesn't take over till Tom goes. Give him a freaking chance, will ya?

[CTLawGuy]

4. says Sen. Nelson

1. When did he clash with daschle over senate policy? doesn't sound like a very effective leadership team to me.

2. He tromps his opponent because he can appeal to Bush voters, and he does this by being more conservative than most dems.

3. This is an important issue. I invite you to go up to NOW HQ and tell them their reproductive rights are "one issue".

4. I voted against Bush by checking Kerry/Edwards. I would rather see a Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Pat Leahy, or Barbara Boxer as leader, they all voted against the war.


5. Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, who delivered one of the nominating speeches on Reid's behalf in the private caucus, told reporters he had said the Nevada lawmaker "will lead this caucus into a new era and oppose where necessary, compromise where possible and avoid the obstructionist label ."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_go_co/new_congress

[Warpy]

15. More than half your "base" is female

and for us, that issue is a CRUCIAL issue.

You dump it, you dump us. We'll stay home or vote Green.

[charlie]

13. About #2

Reid won his last reelection (1998) by less than 500 votes.

[Armstead2]

3. I agree.

I like Harry Reid, and he was good in his previous role.

But he's too much of the "same old, same old" to be one of the most public faces of the Democrats. He doesn't have charisma and is just going to look like an even milder version of Daschle.

[smartasspol]

5. the beauty

of it is that republican talking points will have to go WAY far to the right to criticize this man. That'll just make them look stupid.

[ibegurpard]

9. Explain how this has stopped the Republicans in the past.

eom

[smartasspol]

18. good point

but i'm keeping hope alive

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. A majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq War Res.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[CTLawGuy]

8. yes

and that makes me unhappy as well. However, most democratic voters were against the war.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Were they against the war in Oct. 2002?

:shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

17. yes,

hence the massive outpouring of pleas to stop Bush's resolution.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Do you have stats to back that up?

What percentage of Democrats opposed the war back in Oct. 2002?

[formernaderite]

12. It doesn't matter....the democrats in the Senate seem to live....

...in a parallel universe where the publics perception means nothing. Reid, Vilsak....I'm probably not alone wondering why I put so much energy into this last election. Time for me to get back to my roots I guess.