POLL: Should Harry Reid Step Down?

Today in the Huffington Post, Chris Weigant asks:

Is it time to call on Harry Reid to step down from his position as Senate Majority Leader?

This column poses the question, but admittedly, provides no clear answer. This is because I feel the subject is still one that is legitimately up for debate, but I also feel that the time has come to begin this debate. And let me be clear -- I am not suggesting he resign from the Senate, but rather that he hand the reins of Senate leadership over to a more able Democratic colleague.

So what does the dailykos community think? We've seen Kos post polls for approve/disapprove for Reid and Pelosi. I think it's time for a poll on whether Reid should step down as Senate Majority Leader.

Harry Reid's approval ratings over the last 10 months:

Leadership poll results 11/2006:
Harry Reid (7,666 results)

Approve 80 (70)
Disapprove 19 (24)

Leadership poll results 2/2007:
Harry Reid (13,173 votes)

Approve 41 (80)
Disapprove 35 (19)
Undecided 23

Leadership poll results 5/2007:
Harry Reid (17,398 votes)

Approve 33 (41)
Disapprove 53 (35)
Undecided 12 (23)

As I pointed out a few days ago, and Kos brought up in a front page diary today, Harry Reid said this on May 24th, 2007:

In 1941 at an address to the Harrow School, Winston Churchill said, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never...."

My colleagues here in the Senate, particularly my Republican colleagues, should know that this is precisely my attitude when it comes to bringing about a change of course in Iraq. Although I did not get everything I sought in the bill before us, I will not give up until the supporters of the President's failed policy accept the realities on the ground in Iraq. They accept that the President's plan is not working, that this war must come to an end and that it is time to for our troops to come home in a safe and responsible way.

Paraphrasing the words of Winston Churchill, when it comes to forcing the President to change course in Iraq, Senate Democrats will never give in, never give in, never, never, never.

How many more times are we going to let him break his promise?

•  Harry Reid isn't the problem.

  Some of his Democratic colleagues are, as are a number of Republicans whose feet just aren't been held to the fire like they should.

  You'll be hearing more about all this in the coming weeks.

  by Newsie8200 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:03:29 PM PDT

  •  Re: Harry Reid isn't the problem

    He may not be the problem, but I would like to see him play a more assertive role in trying to be part of the solution.

    by Oxy Moron on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:13:12 PM PDT

    •  Nancy.

      Nancy should step down.  There.  I said it.  Right out loud.

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:01:14 PM PDT

      •  Perhaps she should

        by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:22:16 PM PDT

        •  No she shouldn't

          You think Steny Hoyer is going to do a better job?  And don't even kid yourself about the Speakership going to someone else.  He's second in line and he has built up the most support.  

          Diaries like this are a good example of just how utterly clueless the "netroots" can be.  

          by Asak on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 04:09:16 AM PDT

          •  False dichotomy

            Comments like this are a good example of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy, also known as false dilemma:

            Wikipedia:

            false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy, and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.

            Now please don't act so stupid and think you can get away wih it.

            by jesses on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:21:06 AM PDT

  •  By what metrics do you evaluate his performance?

    If not by his ability to move our agenda forward? What has he done that earns him the continued title of majority leader?

    by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:22:53 PM PDT

    •  I have my qualms with some of what he's done

      but there really isn't anything he can do to change the minds of some of his colleagues.

      by Newsie8200 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:27:48 PM PDT

      •  How Do We Evaluate This?

        I'm not challenging, I really don't know. It's hardly unknown to change coaches even when a losing sports team is weak on talent.

        I know why most Republicans won't move, they represent institutional power which is almost purely anti-Democrat. Bucking them to allow Democrats to succeed at anything important would jeopardize re-election as well as future careers.

        I don't know as clearly what's up with the Dems. Clearly fear of the right's message machine is part of it.

        by Gooserock on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:42:05 PM PDT

      •  changing minds

        is what leadership is about.  If there is really "nothing he can do to change the minds of some of his colleagues" then he lacks leadership ability and should resign his leadership post immediately.

        by Thought Crime on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:57:11 PM PDT

  •  Sorry Bud!

    I am not buying this.  WHAT Dem colleqgues, WHO?
    What I see happening is Sen Reid stepping down
    as soon as Hillary realizes she cannot get the
    nomination and drops out.
    Sound OK to you?  She'd make a great majority
    leader in the US Senate, and is the logical
    successor to Reid.
    jim/sfe

    by mrmyster on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:27:15 PM PDT

    •  lol.

      by Newsie8200 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:30:15 PM PDT

    •  Actually his logical successor is the assistant

      majority leader: Dick Durbin.

      by AUBoy2007 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:31:40 PM PDT

      •  How can you be so sure?

        There would need to be an election to choose a new leader. It's not automatic

        by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:41:59 PM PDT

    •  Sorry bud

      My opinion exactly!!! Hilary would make an excellent majority leader. The senate needs her knowledge, her skill, her smarts!

      My ticket would be Edwards/Obama. In my plan, Richardson would go to State and clean up that mess and put the U.S. back on the map as able to play the honest broker roll in the world. Biden was on CSpan the other day talking about his view of what needs to happen in Iraq. He was absolutely riveting - I say send him to DOD to clean up that mess! Dodd is a good man but I'm not sure yet what is his best role.

      Democrats have the best panel of candidates - and if only one can be president and perhaps another one be vice president, there is a necessary role for each of the others in a Democratic led government.

      by skilfor on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:37:52 PM PDT

•  Could you imagine: Russ Feingold?

  New senate majority leader Russ Feingold? How does that sound?

  by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:05:30 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like flying pigs

    As in, that'll happen when pigs fly. To be majority leader, you have to have a group of people who will support you--Russ Feingold is more of a brilliant solo artist with no backup band. He's great for taking principled stands, not so great at getting others to go along.

    by Alice in Florida on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:11:55 PM PDT

    •  So who should replace Reid should he step down?

      by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:23:26 PM PDT

      •  I don't know who should

        but I can say that Dick Durbin probably will.

        Frankly, I'm OK with Harry for the time being.

        by brownsox on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:54:35 PM PDT

    •  Then we need a jetplane for pigs.

      (Ok, that is not a figure of speech one can felicitously ring the changes upon... but my point is):

      As an assessment of the current Senate, that's a good and accurate comment.

      But mostly it reminds me how great it would be to elect a backup band of real progressives for Feingold in '08. His solo acts have a way of making me feel like there are 99 senators who just don't quite get it yet.

      by scardanelli on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:39:52 PM PDT

    •  yep

      the rest of the Senate Democrats don't like Feingold for pretty much the same reasons we love him.  And they get to pick their leader, not us.

      by mcfly on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:54:13 PM PDT

•  Not sure, yet

  But with the war-funding vote coming up, it is time for him to shit or get off the pot.

  by Oxy Moron on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:08:30 PM PDT

  •  Why would this war funding vote be any different?

    Nothing has changed between the last 5 or 10 times we capitulated. Bush will say he will veto any bill that doesn't give him anything he wants. Democrats, rather than give him nothing, concede without a fight.

    We've seen this play out too many times to be so naive.

    by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:11:39 PM PDT

    •  Re: war funding vote

      It probably won't be any different. Giving somebody one more last chance has always been one of my weaknesses. I'm just hoping he's learned that not passing the Bush's bill is the only way to end this thing.

      by Oxy Moron on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:15:52 PM PDT

      •  We have 7 days until the fiscal year runs out

        If we don't give chuckle-nuts a bill that he'll sign, then the government shuts down on October 1st. What do you think will happen?

        by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:16:56 PM PDT

        •  What will happen

          What I think will happen and what I think should happen are two different things. I know exactly what will happen. Harry huffs, then gives chuckle-nuts everything he asks for.

          by Oxy Moron on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:21:15 PM PDT

          •  what will happen

            is that the government will shutdown and Bush will get the blamed for it.  The Republican congress got the blame for the last government shutdown because they were trying to force cuts in popular programs, so the people sided with Bill Clinton who was defending those programs.  If Bush vetoes bill to prevent spending on popular programs (like SCHIP) then he will get the blame.  The idea that some how congress as an institution will get the blame because it's "the job of congress to fund the government" is nonsensical.  The American people don't blame institutions, they blame politicians, and they pick the ones they disagree with to pin the blame on.  

            A government shutdown at this point will hurt everybody, but it will hurt the Republicans worse.  Let them do it, and we will have the case for electing a veto proof Democratic majority sown up by the next election.  

            And before you say "but what about all the innocent people who will be hurt?" let me remind you that the whole point of fighting the Republicans tooth and nail is that innocent Americans are dying right now because of their policies.

            by Thought Crime on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:05:36 PM PDT

•  If he steps down...

  Durbin takes over...and while his rhetoric sounds great, let's remember that he was the weakling who could not take mean GOP insults before going to the floor of the Senate to cry and beg for an apology for daring to say that torture is un-American and only the likes of Nazi German do it.

  Doesn't speak so well of his spine either...

  by michael1104 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:11:05 PM PDT

  •  The successor is a different story

    The senate is full of people who would make a fine majority leader. We don't know for sure that anyone would get the spot if Reid steps down.

    The bottom line is, is it time for a change or are we going to let the Republicans beat us again?

    by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:12:45 PM PDT

    •  I'm not sure it matters....

      at the end of the day the majority leader can't force the other senators to vote the way they want.

      Do you think if Feingold was ML...the moveon.org thing wouldn't have passed? The senators are gonna vote the way they want at the end of the day...

      by michael1104 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:16:10 PM PDT

      •  Let's forget that for a minute

        Forget for a minute whether it matters or not. Do you think he should keep his job based solely on performance, execution, and results?

        If so, what are the results that he's delivered that warrant him keeping the majority leader in the senate?

        by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:20:12 PM PDT

        •  No, I don't think he does...

          but I don't think any replacement would be better...unless you wanna have rotating majority leaders every 3 months...because you will be disappointed with anyone.

          by michael1104 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:22:19 PM PDT

          •  Can we do worse than repeatedly failing?

            I honestly don't see how we could do worse than we've done so far.

            by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:24:53 PM PDT

•  Just for my education...

  How did he get to be leader anyway??

  (BTW, i voted a resounding yes)

  by malcolm on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:16:06 PM PDT

  •  By election

    The senators in the majority vote to elect a leader at the beginning of the congress.

    If you look at the poll results I put in the diary, you'll note that before this congress started, Reid had an 80% approval rating.

    The truth is that Reid was a decent senate minority leader. He was a fighter and a good parliamentarian. He did his best to obstruct the Republican agenda, and he got high approval ratings for it.

    Success in the opposition doesn't always translate to effectiveness in the majority. As we see with Republicans, they are much better at being a stubborn minority party than a governing majority. They use their minority status to scream oppression and big government and use that to win elections.

    If Reid can't be an effective leader in the majority then he needs to step down, for the good of the country and for the good of the party.

    by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:35:39 PM PDT

    •  Dems Are the Minority Party In Practice

      And their best agenda right now is obstructing.

      Republicans have the WH, veto and filibuster in the Senate, the empire and the media.

      It's their agenda the United States is pursuing.

      The role available to Reid is Effective Senate Minority Leader. Maybe his problem is that he's trying to play Majority Leader but there's no political majority to lead.

      I think if he went back to what you're describing as an aggressive minority leader we'd get somewhere.

      by Gooserock on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:45:40 PM PDT

      •  Actually that's an excellent point

        by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:51:52 PM PDT

•  no.... that would make david broder

  john solomon and some of their Village compatriots gloat. They hate Harry Reid. As long as Harry is there, they won't be happy.  I don't want them to be happy. Harry is fine. His colleagues need to grow spines.

  by dougymi on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:20:23 PM PDT

  •  I don't give a damn what David Broder thinks

    And neither should you. A winning strategy is not to wonder what bad names the other guys might call us and run chickenshit from it as if it matters.

    How many times has listening to David Broder helped us win elections?

    by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:21:45 PM PDT

    •  so it would be good strategy

      to not listen to you badmouth Harry Reid, too.

      Good night.

      by dougymi on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:26:50 PM PDT

      •  Badmouth?

        I'm opening an important policy debate that's crucial to the future of this country. If you think I'm badmouthing poor Harry Reid, then that's too damn bad. He's a United States Senator and an adult, he can take it.

        by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:28:27 PM PDT

•  He's marginally better than Tom Daschle

  I gave Daschle the grade of F-plus. Reid, so far, has earned a D-minus.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:28:50 PM PDT

  •  Agreed!

    by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:29:44 PM PDT

  •  Dude

    Even Daschle would have gotten sick of Bush enabling by now.

    by jfern on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:29:51 PM PDT

    •  Don't be so sure

      A comfortable, elite loser is still comfortable and elite.

      by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:31:44 PM PDT

•  Yes

  The 2nd worst Congressional leader in US history. Nancy Pelosi is the worst.

  by jfern on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:29:19 PM PDT

  •  Actually Nancy got a lot of stuff passed.

    The Sneate didn't go along and bush thretened ot veto (and has) msot of it that's beensent to him.

    Truth is, when you only have 51 Dems int he Senate, and oen of them is Lieberman, you have to rely on Repoubs to get stuff passed--adn the Repubs refuse to play along.

    by irishwitch on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:07:18 PM PDT

    •  Why can't we "refuse to play along"

      Start actively blocking legislation that doesn't conform with our agenda: stop the war being the most important.

      by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:25:42 PM PDT

      •  In Other Words, Go Back to Playing Minority Party

        which in pure power terms we still actually are.

        I'm beginning to like the idea that we still don't know what game we're playing or at best what position we're playing.

        by Gooserock on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:48:23 PM PDT

        •  True enough

          Almost every comment on the topic inevitably leads to "but we need 60 votes in the senate". This is wrong on several counts.

          1. We don't need 60 votes except to prevent a filibuster. A filibuster has never happened in this congressional term. We're backing down from a theoretical bluff.

          2. We don't need veto-proof legislation. Let the President veto our principled bills. We just need to make sure we win the war of media messaging. Control the message, make sure it plays out that the president is obstructing, the president is with-holding funds from the military, the president is shutting down the government, etc.

          3. We don't need any legislation at all. If we can't pass a bill that conforms to our agenda, then don't pass a bill! Start obstructing!  

          by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:12:39 PM PDT

          •  But the point is we DO need

            60 votes for cloture--and the Repubs have nmade it plain they WILL filibuster. I say, LET THEM. Let them talk till they all have laryngitis.  Let them look like the obstructionists they are.  Then when they are worn out, pass the bill with 51 votes and let Bush veto it...and start all over again every time. Make THEM the bad guy. YHEY will be the ones obstrcting.

            by irishwitch on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:45:20 AM PDT

  •  Wow

    Just wow.  I won't even offer any criticism, I am just too stunned to even try.  

    by Asak on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 04:12:12 AM PDT

•  I don't know if Harry should step down.

  But he most certainly has not stepped up.

  by Johnny Double Adams on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:41:15 PM PDT

•  Harry sets the agenda.

  He sets the tone.  He decides which bills get to be voted on.  For the Sense of the Senate vote about the MoveOn ad to even come to the floor for a vote is an indication of his weak and useless leadership.

  by Grannus on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:09:57 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    It's time to start bringing to a floor vote only those bills that drive our progressive agenda. Let the Republicans stand up and vote against the troops, vote for more war, and vote to rubber stamp Mr. 25%'s agenda.

    Better yet, let the obstructionist Republicans initiate an actual filibuster (invoke unlimited debate) and keep the senate in session for HOURS AND HOURS just to keep this war going.

    Send Bush a bill that he doesn't like and let him veto it. Let HIM be the one obstructing government. Blame Bush for shutting down the government. There is no reason the Republicans should be able to control the message on this.

    by jesses on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:39:30 PM PDT

•  He should not step down;

  he should be forced down.  Reid doesn't deserve the opportunity to leave leadership on his own terms.  He's been a completely invertebrate disaster.

  Reid stepping down would be a sign of weakness; forcing him out would be a sign of Democrats growing a spine for once.

  by cjmarshall on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:45:08 PM PDT

•  Chuck Schumer, Rham Emmanuel and Howard Dean

  had a strategy for getting Dems elected and it worked because there was enough distaste for the war to put them over the top. Unfortunately, the strategy (which was politically astute) was the obvious one of finding conservative Dem candidates to run in swing districts and for swing Senate seats (Virginia, Missouri) that had a good chance of unseating Repugs. I say unfortunately 'cause the result is we have a supposed Democratic majority that isn't real. There are so many blue dog Dems and newly elected ones from conservative districts that in reality the Repugs still call the shots and they have and will continue to do so.

  Having said that, I thought reid should have been replaced months ago because he still could be doing much more as leader than he has and he has the power to set the agenda and stop the funding of the war if he played Bush with any smarts. Reid and Pelosi are placeholders for real fighting Dems, they think all they need do is wait for Bush to go and K Street will be all theirs. They truly are the ones who MoveOn should label "Betray Us" because they have and will continue to do so as long as they are left to go their merry way. They make me want to give up even thinking of myself as a Democrat, at this point I would sooner vote for Hagel, at least he has some guts and integrity and despite his being as conservative as Ronald Reagan. At some point you have to decide who you would rather be in a foxhole with and it isn't Harry Reid!

  by Arctor on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:18:17 PM PDT

•  Here's an odd thought.

  for the late night cogitation...What if Reid and Pelosi are being told by bush if they evven try to cutail his programs he'll send the military into Iran on an unprovoked attack triggering what is likely to result in a horrific regional war and massive international financial disturbance all of which would severely threaten the United States.

  Bush has the Navy positioned, he has the supplies at hand, he has ground forces to shift from iraq to Iran quickly, he has an Air force on hand, ready to bombard the country.

  Comply or else.  The or else being what would amount to national suicide in Iran.

  What would you do if you were the majority leader confronted with this sort of madness and the coterie of clowns surrounding Bush backing him up fully?

  Just a thought.

  by boilerman10 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:42:50 PM PDT

  •  After re-reading this...

    man, am I glad I got some sleep!

    Long days do this to a guy I think.

    by boilerman10 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 03:03:54 AM PDT

  •  Loosen your tin foil hat please

    I thought we were having a serious policy debate, not talking about flying saucers and whatnot.

    by jesses on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:26:48 AM PDT

    •  See directly comment above.

      Save the quips.

      by boilerman10 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:09:35 AM PDT

•  No, it would make us look like fucking idiots

  If our majority leader suddenly stepped down it would be a huge embarrassment for the party.  It would just start up all the "Dems in disarray" headlines all over again.  

  Like him or not, Reid is here to stay 'till January 2009 at the earliest.  

  by Asak on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 04:07:46 AM PDT

  •  The danger and idiocy of moronic thinking

    Comments like this needs to be immediately ridiculed and marginalized. The idea that any attempt at progress is going to "embarrass" us is either insulting or offensively insulting, you choose.

    The media doesn't need any help with the "Dems in disarray" headlines. Don't you think for a minute that the dems in disarray headlines are going to stop no matter what we do. If you think that, you've been living under a rock for the past 25 years.

    Please lean back, take a deep breath, and pull your big head out of your tiny ass.

    by jesses on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:25:34 AM PDT

•  The Sense of the Senate - Kyle/Lieberman Does it

  That should never come to a vote. It should have been quietly destroyed in committee or not allowed on the calendar or any other preemptive strike.

  Forget the craven moveon attack, this is serious. This is somewhere between the Iraq Liberation Act and the authorization vote.

  Asking Reid to step down over it is mandatory.

  by Marion Delgado on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:38:49 PM PDT