Why is Reid the Senate Majority Leader? Seriously?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

The man doesn't project any strength or leadership at all, and he's in a leadership position.

It would seem that someone with the temperament of a Jim Webb or Barbara Boxer would be much better suited.

[TeamJordan23]

1. I agree. Is there anything we can do? nm

[demo dutch]

2. He got voted in by the Dems?

[polmaven]

31. But what would THEY know?

I'll bet not a single one of them asked for the opinion of DUers, and isn't THIS where he is best known? :shrug:

[CK_John]

3. It's a lousy job nobody wants. n/t

[trueblue2007]

4. Because he is an ASSHOLE and they senate just loves assholes

[rucky]

18. He may be an asshole, but not to the right people

[IndianaGreen]

5. Because Democrats lack the balls to elect John Kerry as Majority Leader

Kerry will kick Republican ass and pass legislation.

[camera obscura]

7. Or Durbin, or Boxer, or Feingold, or Leahy, or pretty much anyone but Reid...

[politicasista]

8. Yep

We can do better. Though P.O. will work with him.

[Enrique]

12. why didn't any of those people run?

[camera obscura]

22. I have no idea. Guess it's good-ol'-boy Senate mentality.

They'd rather stay buddies with Reid than help the party...

[Enrique]

23. then why would they be better leaders of the party?

[Enrique]

11. why didn't Kerry have the balls to run?

[politicasista]

13. Cause he likes being

Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and having an independent voice.

[Enrique]

20. why hasn't he ever criticized Reid's leadership?

[politicasista]

28. Ask him.

The balls comment is over the top.

[Enrique]

32. the balls comment was ironic

someone said the dems didn't have the balls to elect Kerry, I'm pointing out that Kerry didn't even run.

It's nothing about balls, all the dems that people think would be so much better than Reid, they actually all support Reid.

[politicasista]

35. Ok n/t.

[LittleClarkie]

17. It's not a matter of running. It's a matter of senority

It's a Senate thing.

[Enrique]

19. no, anyone can run

anyway, John Kerry is senior to Harry Reid.

So, why doesn't he have the balls to challenge Reid?

[ProSense]

24. It has nothing to do with "balls"

The majority leader cannot chair a committee. The majority leader spends most of the time in the Senate coordinating floor activities. No Senator would give up a chair for what amounts to an adminstrative position.

Also, since Reid was unopposed, it appears they wanted to keep him.

Reid was re-elected Majority Leader by the Democratic caucus without an opposition on November 18, 2008, winning all 57 votes.

US Senate Majority Leader

[malletgirl02]

25. I didn't know that

Thanks for posting.

[Enrique]

30. come on people stop these phony rationalizations

if the leadership is such an "administrative" one, then why are we all talking about Reid?

Total crapola.

[ProSense]

33. Ridiculous. I'm "talking about it" because of this thread. It's administrative. Period

Notice that Reid has no chairs or committee assignments. Kerry would not give up a chair for that position, especially not the SFRC chair:

MEMBERSHIP AND JURISDICTION

OF SUBCOMMITTEES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

FOREIGN RELATIONS

111th Congress 1st Session

UNITED STATES SENATE

JANUARY 2009

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Chairman



David McKean, Staff Director

Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director



JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

(Excerpted from Rules of the Committee)

Rule 1 — Jurisdiction

(a) Substantive. — In accordance with Senate Rule XXV.1(j)(1), the jurisdiction of the Committee shall extend to all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:

1. Acquisition of land and buildings for embassies and legations in foreign countries.

2. Boundaries of the United States.

3. Diplomatic service.

4. Foreign economic, military, technical, and humanitarian assistance.

5. Foreign loans.

6. International activities of the American National Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

7. International aspects of nuclear energy, including nuclear transfer policy.

8. International conferences and congresses.

9. International law as it relates to foreign policy.

10. International Monetary Fund and other international organizations established primarily for international monetary purposes (except that, at the request of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, any proposed legislation relating to such subjects reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations shall be referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs).

11. Intervention abroad and declarations of war.

12. Measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad.

13. National security and international aspects of trusteeships of the United States.

14. Ocean and international environmental and scientific affairs as they relate to foreign policy.

15. Protection of United States citizens abroad and expatriation.

16. Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally.

17. Treaties and executive agreements, except reciprocal trade agreements.

18. United Nations and its affiliated organizations.

19. World Bank group, the regional development banks, and other international organizations established primarily for development assistance purposes.

The Committee is also mandated by Senate Rule XXV.1(j)(2) to study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to the national security policy, foreign policy, and international economic policy as it relates to foreign policy of the United States, and matters relating to food, hunger, and nutrition in foreign countries, and report thereon from time to time.

(b) Oversight. — The Committee also has a responsibility under Senate Rule XXVI.8, which provides that “. . . each standing Committee . . . shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration, and execution of those laws or parts of laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee.”

(c) “Advice and Consent” Clauses. — The Committee has a special responsibility to assist the Senate in its constitutional function of providing ``advice and consent'' to all treaties entered into by the United States and all nominations to the principal executive branch positions in the field of foreign policy and diplomacy.

[Enrique]

36. so you're saying Kerry's chairmanship is more influential than Reid's leadership?

[ProSense]

38. No, you're saying (asking) that. I think Kerry is in the perfect spot.

Do you think Reid is qualified to be chair of the SRFC?

[LittleClarkie]

26. Anyone can run, I'm sure. But it seems to me the Senate puts tons of stock in seniority

Who's turn is it. Reid was Minority Whip, iirc, and so it was "his turn".

I think Kerry might have considered it in 2004, but he was somewhat toxic after his loss and had little chance.

As for now, my feelings are that we need his exactly where he is because of his foreign policy expertise. And I also agree with those who say he will function better as an outsider. He's freer at this point to be a loud voice.

[trueblue2007]

37. Then we need to get REID out and put KERRY in

Harry Reid makes me sick. If he was my senator, I would not vote for him. This man is not good enough to be linked to the same political party as Obama and Biden.

[Better Believe It]

6. Reid isn't the Senate leader. Senator Collins is the Senate leader

[Muttocracy]

39. that's what it looks like to me. nt

[CreekDog]

9. Point taken, but wrong day to say it: He played hardball today!

while the "moderates" were trying to cut more out of the bill, he said cuts to the tax portion (the parts the moderates and Republicans didn't want to cut) were on the table.

which pressed them to accept the current deal, or one close to it quickly, before it appeared they were losing the tax cuts they already had.

this wasn't stupid.

[kenny blankenship]

10. The answer is staring you in the face.

Who chooses the Senate leader?
How are these people who do the choosing elected to their positions?
What therefore are their motives?

Senators are elected individually, not as representatives of a national party as in a parliamentary system, and accordingly they behave with shocking selfishness in the Senate. In the US you vote for the person, not the party. Each Senator is in it for themselves, standing on their own reputation not their party's. Even if you say it's just a matter of emphasis, and Senators can rise or fall with their party, it must be admitted that compared to other countries' systems there's much more emphasis on the individual Senate candidate than on their party. Therefore Senators don't "owe" their party and their goal is usually to maintain as much independence from party as possible, unless their state is very strongly in one party's camp or the other. And these selfish actors come together to elect one of themselves as leader. People keep exploding in frustration with our leadership and remarking on how weak Harry Reid is - well now you know WHY he's the leader. He's weak. That's why they chose him.

Democrats didn't want a strong leader who would assemble a cadre of disciplined Senators who could threaten to block anything wanted by a non-team player and thus armtwist them into passing legislation. They wanted a weak leadership so that their individual vote would have as much value as possible and they could exact as high a bribe for their vote as possible in any given legislative situation. This is an arrangement that is great for bringing home the bacon, but it's a total disaster for enacting a coherent program of Democratic Party policies. Maybe it works OK for Republicans because bacon IS that party's philosophy, but it's poison for any party with a philosophy that isn't centered on and summed up by personal gain.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

16. Wow. Brilliant. I understand everything now.

When I consider the situation in this light, it makes perfect sense that Harry Reid is in the position he is.

I had actually never thought about it this way, I had just thought that whoever elected him as Leader were idiots.

He may be, but they're sure not if this is what they were up to.

This was a very good insight into the process, thanks, KB.

[AspenRose]

34. Exhibit A: Joseph Lieberman

"Therefore Senators don't "owe" their party and their goal is usually to maintain as much independence from party as possible, unless their state is very strongly in one party's camp or the other."

[Triana]

14. how can we get RID of this pantywaist twit?! n/t

[santamargarita]

15. "No Balls Harry" must go!

I want a leader that kicks a Republican's ass just to get his attention!

[ChiciB1]

21. Why Is A Good Question... But I Want To Know HOW He Became The Leader...

He reminds me of one of those accountants that you always see sitting in the back room of some company! I'm a die hard C-Span junkie, but for the life of me I can't remember when or how this came about.

Sure I can Google for the answer, just saying I missed it.

[Enrique]

27. after Daschle lost his seat

Reid was voted leader by the rest of the senate dems. No opposition as I recall.

[ChiciB1]

29. I Do Remember Daschle Losing... He Had Some Questionable Problems Back

then too, just wasn't watching when Harry slipped in! And I do remember Daschle as being a person I really supported... BUT, S--T Happens, I guess!

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

40. Beats me...

Dems need to boot that milque toast. I'd like Boxer.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Good question. Been asking myself that for a long time.

[HOLOS]

42. Totally Agree nt