Poll: how much responsibility does Reid have for the Senate's failure to stand up to Bush

OK this is an extension of my last diary. I am trying to get some information on kossacks' feelings about the Democratic Congressional leadership's performance. I intend to use it in a future diary
At the suggestion of fellow kossack hairspray, I am doing 2 diaries to find out how much responsibility that DK bloggers think the leaders of each house have for the widely-condemned failures of Congress to stand up to Bush on the war and warrantless wiretapping. Because there appears to be a limit of one poll per diary, I am going to have to do this in 2 diaries and I'm starting with Harry, because he is the leader of what is usually considered 'the upper chamber". Come back tomorrow for Nancy's turn.

•  Some, but not a lot

  The fact of the matter is that it takes 60 senators to end a filibuster, and 67 to override a veto.  Any efforts made without those numbers to back them up is just storm and noise signifying nothing.  It's another piece of evidence, in my opinion, that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

  (For an excellent book on that topic, read Sanford Levinson's Our Undemocratic Constitution.)

  by Jon Stafford on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:10:55 PM PDT

  •  Only need 41

    to stop a horrible law from passing.

    by jfern on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:12:00 PM PDT

    •  And there was no need to pass Bush's FISA bill

      Bottom line: Reid (1) was afraid of Mr. 29 Percent, (2) listened to the same consultants who have told him for years not to be seen as "weak on terrorism," (3) is an awful parliamentarian, and/or (4) has the debating skills of a mynah bird.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:15:24 PM PDT

      •  Agreed on all counts

        Reid is a poor leader.  But the Senate is a poor excuse for a democratic legislative body, anyway.

        Consider that, in Senate races between 2000 and 2004, Democratic candidates received 99,670,071 votes, versus 97,300,545 votes for Republicans.  Yet the post-2004 Senate was a 55-45 split in favor of the GOP.  That doesn't seem very democratic or representative to me.

        by Jon Stafford on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:22:24 PM PDT

        •  That is what happens in a winner take

          all election when the total electoral votes go to the winner of the state even though the spread could be less than 1%.  Tally up several small states like Idaho, Wyoming, South and North Dakota, etc and you have real power over big states like California for example.  

          by hairspray on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:28:53 PM PDT

          •  Right.

            And, IMHO, it's a piss-poor system.

            Whatever happened to one man, one vote?  That's democracy.

            Consider that the current Senate is made up of members elected in 2002, 2004, and 2006.  In those elections, Democrats received 97,433,360 votes, while Republicans received 87,476,922 votes (I'm counting Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman as Democrats for the purpose of this example).  If the Senate composition were reflective of that total, there would be 53 Democrats to 47 Republicans, instead of the current 51-49 split.  That may not seem like much, but that 2-seat difference would, for example, mean no longer having to be beholden to Lieberman for our majority.  More to the point, it's also just not democratic.

            More on this in a future diary.

            by Jon Stafford on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:39:14 PM PDT

            •  Good, and you might like to read

              Steven Hill's books on voting reform.  The bible is "Fixing Elections" but he has a new pocket book that is not as cumbersome as FE called "10 Steps to Repair our Democracy" (or close to that). It deals with the problem of winner take all.

              by hairspray on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:45:51 PM PDT

              •  As a trade...

                ...I would suggest Sanford Levinson's seminal 2006 book, Our Undemocratic Constitution.  He makes some excellent arguments regarding the structural shortcomings of the Constitution, including winner take all, the Electoral College, etc.

                by Jon Stafford on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:20:24 PM PDT

    •  Huh?

      Laws pass the Senate with a vote of 51.  But I presume you're talking about filibustering it?  Yes, that's a possibility.  But if you want to assign blame for not doing so, feel free to pick any senator.  For example, where was Bernie Sanders?  He's not even a Democrat, and his history and politics would certainly indicate the type of guy who'd be willing to put his neck out.

      None of them were, though.

      I believe that the Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic and flawed body.  Unfortunately, there's not much we can do about that, at least in the immediate future.  In Harry Reid they got exactly the leader they deserved.

      by Jon Stafford on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:19:28 PM PDT

  •  Doesn't he also hav ethe ability to keep bills

    from coming out of committee?

    by Tanya on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:35:43 PM PDT

•  Cats are better behaved than the Dem Senators

  

  by SallyCat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:17:31 PM PDT

  •  Cats? More like scared rabbits

    The Democratic "leadership" is 0-for-this administration in standing up to presidential bullying.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:18:51 PM PDT

    •  Every big vote I keep hoping for spine...

      and calling to encourage and we still get screwed over. Harry Reid must be standing there saying 'pretty please...vote the way we want...' or we'll make you stand in the corner for 30 seconds! aaaarrrggh!

      Scared rabbits works for me....now I have to go find a new picture!

      by SallyCat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:23:34 PM PDT

•  tip jar - better late than never:)

  by MikePhoenix on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:02:22 PM PDT

  •  Much cleaner question.

    And giving ranges always increases your information, although sometimes not a great deal. In a different situation you could try this one and also the one I suggested and possibly one or two other range options and see how much more info you get. The stem which is the question part should also be scoured for loaded words.  The less "stuff" you put in that part the clearer your question and the easier it is for someone to answer without conflict.

    by hairspray on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:35:54 PM PDT

•  Hey...something I don't have an answer for

  Your poll causes me to realize that I don't have a strong opinion about Harry, despite my nature to form strong opinions about most national political leaders. I don't even know much about him. There's a real dearth of commentary about Reid.

  by cas2 on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:33:44 PM PDT

•  Would anyone like a lesson

  on Lyndon Johnson as compared to Harry Reid?   No Democrat would have gotten away with thumbing a nose at party unity.  If one had done so, s/he would have been dealt with--his/her committee chairmanship taken away, pet projects "overlooked", bills shelved, etc.  Reid and Pelosi are not leaders.  They are cruise ship social directors.

  by miriam on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:43:11 PM PDT

  •  And most Senators and Congresspeople

    are not like they used to be either. It is the power of the lobbyists and their money which has corrupted all of them. Our country can not continue to function in this state. We have a few uncorrupted leaders, but only a few, the rest are all a bunch of crooks, and they walk around with a holier than thou attitude, we have to respect them because they are Senators or Congresspeople. My Mom always taught me you have to earn respect. They do nothing to earn the respect of the American people, and they are constantly underestimating our intelligence. We need change, and if we demand it we will get it. I am proud of the way the American people spoke in 2006, and I am confident our voices will be louder in 2008. I think we are all as mad as hell and we are not going to take it any more. That is the message we need to drive home to Democrats and Republicans alike. Howard Dean's "You have the Power" keeps echoing in my head.

    by Vera Lofaro on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:36:04 AM PDT

    •  I'm Mad as Hell!

      by forbodyandmind on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:37:38 PM PDT

•  Reid is far too accommodating..goes along.. n/t

  by quantumspin on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:30:21 AM PDT