Skip to main content

Harry Reid has been crying, "Uncle!" to the Republicans every time they so much as narrow their eyes at him ever since he was named Senate Majority Leader.  He falls to the ground and offers up his (and our) legislative lunch money every time the Republicans say, "Filibuster!"  For someone who is supposedly a boxer, he has absolutely no idea how to stand up to a bully.  And face it: bullies are exactly what the Republicans are.  Once someone -- anyone -- stands up to them, calls out the Republicans' drama queen tactics for what they are, and does so unfailingly, every single time, the Republicans will crumple, fold, spindle, and mutilate themselves in the manner of bullies everywhere when their childish temper-tantrum strategies are exposed.

Last week, when Harry hamstrung his own President, party, and the 76% of Americans who are shouting for health care reform, by opting not to have a health care vote before the August recess was the last straw.

So how do we get rid of the little sniveler Harry Reid?  How do we get someone with more backbone and resolve in the seat of the Senate Majority Leader?  I have looked high and low for an explanation of the process used by the Democrats to pick the Senate Majority Leader.  All I have been able to determine so far is that it is a mysterious, closed-door process.  For all I know, once the star chamber doors are closed, the Senate Majority Leader is picked via an interpretive dance contest, or by sniffing chicken guts, or through Thunderdome-style individual combat without the death.  What I have been able to determine is that there does not appear to be any way for We The People to influence the decision.

So how do We The People make it known that we want a Senate Majority Leader who knows how to enforce party discipline, get legislation moving without having to wait for 60 votes, and knows that important legislation does not always have to wait for the other side to finish their TV advertising blitz during the August recess?  What can We The People do to replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader?  What will it take to get some real leadership in the Senate?  There are at least half a dozen Democratic Senators who could do a better job han Harry Reid.  How do we get one of them into that position?

What do we do?  Who do we call?  What does it take to force a Senate Majority Leader replacement mid-session?

Originally posted to Idgie Threadgoode on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Is Harry Reid a citizen? (30+ / 0-)

    No one has ever seen his birth certificate. Maybe he was born in the country of Wimpistan.

    The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

    by beltane on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:02:25 AM PDT

  •  We don't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They will not vote to reshuffle the leadership in the middle of a term barring something MAJOR happening (like the Majority Leader publically stating that the counntry would be better off if we would have elected a segregationist to the Presidency in 1948) or a resignation/departure.

    These elections are internal party caucus votes that occur at the beginning of each session.

    Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

    by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:02:34 AM PDT

    •  Find the dirt.. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, golconda2, beltane

      ....and smear it on Harry, so we can get some real leadership!!!

      DARTH SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
      LANDO REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

      by LordMike on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:03:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Being from Nevada (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, corvo

        This guy's got to have done something bad over the course of his career. I'd rather he goes down, than that our country goes down.

        The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

        by beltane on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:06:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not gonna happen (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, buddabelly

        I agree that politically, I think Mitch McConnell keeps Reid's testicles in a jar on his desk as a conversation piece when his corporate overlords constituents visit.

        But personally, Reid is a very good person with an incredible life story and an impeccable record.  

        The only "dirt" you'll find was probably part of the floor of the one-room shack in the Nevadan mining camp in which he was raised.

        Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

        by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:07:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  he can be taken down. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and then there's his spirited defense of jay bybee, the torturer:

          As the spotlight grew more intense on federal Judge Jay Bybee, at least one senator stepped forward Tuesday to defend the Las Vegan and the opinion he signed that provided a legal green light for rough interrogations of terrorism suspects...

          Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was taking a wait-and-see approach, a spokesman said.

          "Judge Bybee has a good professional reputation in Nevada," Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in an e-mail. "While the memos that have been released are disturbing to Sen. Reid, at this point in time, he doesn’t think we should be making a rush to judgment.

          •  Well... if Nevada turns against him (0+ / 0-)

            then so be it.  But since he won his last election by 26 points, I think its an uphill fight.

            Is there another viable Democratic challenger out there making noise?

            Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

            by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:27:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  he's hurting right now though (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              his approval ratings are very low.
              of course, ensign's fucky-fucky antics may have given the dems a boost.

              god I'd love to see a challenger for hapless harry.

              •  I am THOUSANDS of miles away (0+ / 0-)

                (I live in DC)

                So I really don't know much about local Nevada politics.  I'll admit that straight out.

                Anyone have any on-the-ground knowledge of who the next most prominent State Dem is?

                I know the Governor is GOP.  The President of the State Senate is GOP.

                What about Barbara Buckley the Democratic Speaker of the NEvada House?  I think the NV AG is a Dem right?  Isn't the mayor of Vegas a Dem?

                Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

                by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:57:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I've got a better idea (0+ / 0-)

        How about we attack Republicans for a change instead of eating our own?

  •  Replaced by who? You'll possibly get worse. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    These are democrats after all.  We need true progressive leaders and a third party.

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:07:16 AM PDT

    •  If we had progressive leaders, that what is the (0+ / 0-)

      third party for?

      The only logical answer I could think of is somewhere for Republicans to defect to as their party dissapears into the history books.

      The Time is NOW:

      by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:08:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't get it? The "leaders" of the DP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        are in control and always will be.  They so far have learned how to castrate progressives.  Therefore get out and do something for a change!

        The only logical answer I could think of is somewhere for Republicans to defect to as their party dissapears into the history books.

        I see no "logic" here since thety are winning using the democratic party.  You must be missing the whole show.

        An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

        by don mikulecky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:13:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or we could just focus on the Dems (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Why are Dems so lazy, why do we let the Republicans and Conservatives in our own party control us?

          Is it in our DNA.

          Get it right, America is a 2-party country, always has been and always will be.

          Its up to us, the base of the party to crush those who seem hell bent on leading us to defeat.

          Sure when we allow our leaders to pander, bend over, even use knee pads when dealing with Republicans and corporate interests, we have noone to blame but OURSELVES.

          Third Parties are for quitters and lazy people.

          The Time is NOW:

          by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:17:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yassah Master Yassah! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Get it right, America is a 2-party country, always has been and always will be.

            Sorry I didn't get it right.  Please don't hurt me.

            An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

            by don mikulecky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:19:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And why not, I want my ideology to win (0+ / 0-)

              I am tired of America as a center-right country because liberals are too embarrassed to coalesce behind their beliefs.

              Like I said, third parties are simply for quitters and losers.

              Either change the system, or make a new system that has some sucess.

              The third parties of America are an embaressment, none of them are serious about policy or politics.
              If they were they would figure out a way to share votes on a national level like some states do.

              The Time is NOW:

              by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:46:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You then you certainly qualify (0+ / 0-)

                third parties are simply for quitters and losers.

                Sticking with a bunch of losers.

                We are talking about a new system.  The term "third party" is a way of expressing that.   The new system must be based on people's needs not the profit motive.  That means most present day Democrats are not part of the solution but are the problem.

                An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

                by don mikulecky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:58:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  that's not true george (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Garrett, golconda2

            Mid-19th Century Political Crisis:

            Disputes over slavery in the territories first erode, then destroy what had become America's second two-party system. The erosion began in the 1840s as various factions opposed to the post-Jackson Democratic political coalition begin to form.
            Liberty Party

            Free Soil Party

              1. Run abolitionist candidate James Birney, for president in 1844.
              2. Won only 2% of the vote but drew votes from the Whigs, especially in New York.

              1. Not abolitionist but opposed to expansion of slavery in the territories.
              2. Won 10% of the popular vote with Martin Van Buren as their candidate in 1848.
              3. Lost 50% of their support in 1852 when their candidate repudiated the Compromise of 1850


            American Party

            Split over slavery into:

              1. Southern, "Cotton" Whigs who eventually drifted into the Democratic Party.
              2. Northern, "Conscience" Whigs who moved to new parties, i.e. Free Soil and, later, into the Republican Party.

              1. Popularly known as the "Know Nothing" Party.
              2. Nativist party based on opposition to immigration and on temperance.
              3. Run Millard Fillmore in 1856 and win 21% of the popular vote.
              4. Absorbed into the Republican Party after 1856.

            Republican Party

              1. Formed in 1854 when a coalition of Independent Democrats, Free Soilers, and Conscience Whigs united in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
              2. Stressed free labor and opposed the extension of slavery in the territories ("Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men!").
              3. Moderates, like Abraham Lincoln, could, therefore, oppose slavery on "moral" grounds as wrong, while admitting that slavery had a "right" to exist where the Constitution originally allowed it to exist.
              4. John C. Fremont was the first Republican presidential candidate in the election of 1856.

            and follow me down memory lane to the Politics of the Gilded Age:

            Republicans & Democrats

              1. Party differences blur during this period with loyalties determined by region, religious, and ethnic differences.
              2. Voter turnout for presidential elections averaged over 78 percent of eligible voters; 60 to 80 percent in non-presidential years.
              3. Both parties were pro-business.
              4. Both parties were opposed to any type of economic radicalism or reform.
              5. Both parties advocated a "sound currency" and supported the status quo in the existing financial system.
              6. Federal government and, to some extent, state governments tended to do very little.
              7. Republicans dominate the Senate; Democrats dominate the House of Representatives.
              8. Republican Party splinter groups during this period: Stalwarts, Halfbreeds, Mugwumps.

            Populist Party

              1. Formed in 1891 by remnants of the Farmers' Alliances.
              2. Big government party with a healthy list of demands that included:
                     * free coinage of silver,
                     * government ownership of the railroads, telegraphs, and telephone lines,
                     * graduated income tax,
                     * direct election of U. S. senators,
                     * the use of initiative, referendum, and recall
              3. The party eventually fades because farmers' situation improved in the late 1890s and because their political agenda was assumed by the major parties.

            so no, sorry: you're wrong.

            •  Ok in Modern America until the culture wars are (0+ / 0-)

              over, and racism is erradicated etc etc we are a two party country.

              The conservatives win as they are able to unify over their ideology where Democrats splinter over ridiculous egoes and corporate interests.

              Someone needs to ask why a young liberal who is not as inclined to follow politics religiously is always so desperate to say they are a Libertarian or Green Party member?

              Excuse my bitterness, I was a sophmore in College when the incopetant Ralph Nader came in and captured many of my moron friends.
              And I got the kicks of my life watching all those suckers give Ron Paul millions.

              I will buy into the idea of third parties when I see one that is about WINNING and instituting policy, and not one that is litte more than a glorified academic circle jerk (ie the Libertarians)

              The Time is NOW:

              by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:43:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  third parties (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                i voted for nader in 1996, but not 2000. I agree that the 2000 nader voters were morons, but they were certainly justified in their anger: clinton fucked progressives on a whole host of issues. welfare reform anyone? nafta? gatt?

                if you'd like to see third parties that win, just look north to canada.  

                •  yeah, a 3 major party system (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  that splits the liberal vote enough so the conservatives have a minority and control of government.

                  "Biden's tears did more for the equality Of the sexes than Palin's presence" - Leah Renna

                  by edgeways on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:56:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Like I said, I prefer (0+ / 0-)

                    to improve a system that works.

                    I refuse to let the repbulicans and the DLC control my party.
                    We should run it.

                    Anyone flocking to a third party or Democracy Now radio show are simply lazy.

                    The only way for a liberal third party to have a chance in hell is to pool votes with the democrats.

                    The Time is NOW:

                    by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:59:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I dont discount the idea (0+ / 0-)

                  Personally I would love for their to be two liberal parties that had joint primaries and shared general elections as they do in many countries.

                  The 2000 Nader vote to me (remember I Was young then, hung out with a lot of college stoners, ravers, wannabe gangsters :D etc)  had nothing to do with Clinton screwing progressives.

                  I think it was the repeating of Nader saying "Bush and Gore are the same"
                  I was young then, so to me I heard their talking points and when Gore said Universal health care in stages based on age group, nader said universal right now.

                  My main problem with Nader, and even a republican named Ron Paul or a Democrat named Kucinich is that they are not serious about becoming a  President.

                  Take Nader for example, his most serious run was 2000.
                  Where the F was his VP?
                  It was some American Indian activist who maybe, just maybe went to one rally and that was it.

                  To me, Nader in 2000 was an insult to our process.
                  Call me a jerk, but I think only the serious should apply.

                  The Time is NOW:

                  by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:57:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  There are a few... (2+ / 0-)

      Chuck Schumer
      Barbara Boxer
      Russ Feingold (my senator! Yay!)
      Byron Dorgan
      Patrick Leahy

      Any of these would do a better job than Harry Reid.

    •  purity purity purity eh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Perhaps we should do as the republicans are doing? Lets have two small tents and not worry about everyone else.

      Swear to god, it's like watching chickens cut their own heads off.

      "Biden's tears did more for the equality Of the sexes than Palin's presence" - Leah Renna

      by edgeways on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:54:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let me add a couple more (2+ / 0-)

    Rahm (enough said)

    Sebelius (see Rahm)

    Baucus (there has to be someway to remove him from that committee, politics yes or no he is incompetent taking that long)

    Lieberman (remove from caucus, he lied to us and like the suckers we are we believed him, he kept his seniority and chairmanships under the guise he would fall in line 100%, like a good republican he lied and we bought it)

    Ross and Boren:  Two of many Congressmen who lied to our party as they ran as Democrats.  Here is a quote from Boren today:

    "The problem," he argued, "is in a state like Oklahoma, where we have a lot of private insurers, you have a public option come in and it drives everything else out and the only thing left is the public option and then you have rationed care."

    The Time is NOW:

    by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:07:41 AM PDT

    •  Rahm? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Sebelius?  What... these aren't even elected politicians.  If you want them gone, vote another President into the White House.

      Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

      by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:08:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well I am a citizen and I will smear them (0+ / 0-)

        as much as I can to get rid of them.

        Rahm picked Sebelius for two reasons:

        A- Crushes Obama and Dean's 50 state strategy, Sebelius was on her way to be the next Kentucky Senator, something that made DLC leaders sick to their stomachs

        B- Sebelius would STFU, notice has she is not a voice anywhere,  not even a single interview on Rachel Maddow's show?!?!?

        Now watch this video and tell me why Rahm and Sebelius refuse interviews on shows that broadcast to the base and not show up to any progressive forums like Netroots Nation or Americas Future Now conference?

        The Time is NOW:

        by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:11:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rahm does not want attention (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, littlebird33

          at all.  Ever.  He is not an elected official.  He will NOT allow himself to become a media target.  He is a behind the scenes connections worker that does everything in his power to make sure that what Obama wants actually happens.  

          Did you see Bolten and Card out on the talk show circuit while Bush was in office?

          As for Sebelius (and I assume you meant Kansas, not Kentucky).  I saw her on the Daily Show.  She also did the Sunday talk shows.  She will ONLY talk about Health Care and the White House has taken two positions on this:  first they tried to lay low and put the spotlight on Congress as the branch of government that would craft the specifics.  When they realized they needed to change that, the person that took to the stump was not a Cabinet Secretary... it was the 44th President of the United States himself.  

          Until he wraps up his road tour, you are not going to see people like Biden, Sebelius and others out there generating cross-talk.

          Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

          by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:19:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not Kentucky (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, AmericanRiverCanyon

          Kansas. But, yeah, I agree. She was pretty much our only hope of picking up a Senate seat in Kansas. And Napolitano was pretty much our only hope of knocking off John McCain in Arizona. Further proof that Democratic leadership PREFERS that we lose or not have too strong a position. After all, professional election losers get paid, no matter what happens.

          •  I hesitated in typing that, I knew I was wrong (0+ / 0-)

            by a 50% chance.
            Oh well thats what you get with the speed of Daily Kos :D

            I know it sounds conspiratorial but I am convinced Rahm did not drop his anti-dnc, anti-base, and anti-Dean/Obama tirade simply when he dissed Dean for the last time.

            There were tons of equally qualified folks for HHS, aside from the bastard Howard Dean.

            The DLC is a bitter and senile bunch, if Obama doesn't do his best to decapitate them it will be his loss.

            Also, I never even knew Nepalitano was a contender against McCain, that makes all the sense in the world.
            Damn you Rahm.

            The Time is NOW:

            by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:50:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Sebelius is Kansan, not Kentuckian, and I won't (0+ / 0-)

          ... click on anything, ever, that has a link that requires me to watch a video if they person does that does not summarize the point of the video-   a GIGANTIC waste of time, and lazy.

          We know these two are corporate conservatives. We get that part.  Eastern Kansas and the suburban Kansas City Kansas side metro area to the south of the river, where a lot of the suburban, not rural, population is,  is pretty upscale, wealthy, and conservative.

          The President picked them to cement his support with the Republican crossovers, even tho they're Dems.

          However, let's get back to the Senate- that is the main problem.

          "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

          by AmericanRiverCanyon on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ok to prove that I am not lazy (0+ / 0-)

            Here is the embedded video (no click necessary) of
            Rahm and Bff Sebelius addressing the DLC.
            Sure they never mention public option, nor do they mention the unthinkable amount of political capital the Democrats could achieve with sucessful healthcare reform.

            But the simple point here is why during the SAME month did they not address the Americas's Future Now Conference in DC?  There interests of labor, health, manufaturing, media and politicians were all there.  the base of the party?

            Why would they not be addressing and pumping up the base activists at netroots nation next month?
            What are we not Democrats too?

            Why is the DLC so important?

            The Time is NOW:

            by George Pirpiris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:53:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  don't say that there isn't common ground (0+ / 0-)

          between Democrats and Republicans. See? Republicans smear Democratic politicians and it turns out so do some Democrats.

  •  I am willing to replace him with a turnip. (13+ / 0-)

    An eggplant.  A decorative floor-lamp.  The fender from a 1988 Volvo.  A bag of cotton balls.  Whatever we can pull out of a drier's lint filter.  A corn dog.

    Anything.  Anything would be more effective than that limp, grey, whispering little washrag.  I think the man's overdosed on mild.  He's so passive he probably has to drink three Red Bulls just to work up the impetus to fart.

    It's embarrassing, having that guy as one of our "leaders."  It makes us look ridiculous.  

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:13:00 AM PDT

    •  LMAO! (2+ / 0-)

      OK, that was hilarious.

      I don't often laugh out loud reading this site, but that one got to me. Especially the part about the Red Bulls.

      That is a top comment for sure.

      "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

      by Brooke In Seattle on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:31:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with every last seriously funny (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Front Toward Enemy

      word Front. However, we can rail and insult Reid ad infinitum, while collecting mojo on the way.  The truth is that it's completely a senatorial decision:  until someone challenges Reid and convinces a majority of dem senators to support him/her we basically can do little but exhort and support another dem running against him.

  •  Oh and btw (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Garrett, askew

    You do know that as recently as November 18th, 2008 he was elected Majority Leader with a unanimous 57-0 vote and didn't even have a single Democratic challenger to his position.

    There is not an actual sentiment among the caucus for a leadership change.

    Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

    by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:13:29 AM PDT

    •  It's probably not true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that Reid had unanimous support.  No doubt the vote was staged to demonstrate party unity (heh), after who knows how much backroom arm wrestling.

      •  Im just saying that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        any other Dem could have thrown their name in for leadership.  (Durbin?  Murray?) this isn't unheard of... its not a sign of a fractured party.  Sometimes people will nominate themselves knowing that they will lose (and lose badly) just to get their name out there as a likely successor.

        Look at the House... Murtha and Hoyer got into a blood fued over the Majority Leader position.

        NO ONE stepped up to offer an alternative to Reid.  He is exactly who they wanted in that position.

        Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

        by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:22:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  he's got a conflict of interest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    no, not money (they all do)..but he's up for re-election in a very tight fight in a "purple state".  So, he can't be a ballbuster, or won't be, because it would hurt his chances to get another term.  I;m not syaing he would have otherwise been, but it just makes it worse. That's why the Majority Leader, besides being an in your face progressive, needs to be someone from a blue state, with a safe seat, not up this time.  I like Schumer, most of the time anyway, because he can talk, he's tough, he's a TV hog, and his seat is safe. But mainly,he's the guy who rammed us up to 60 in the Senate.  

  •  In order to replace Reid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    metal prophet, hopalong, Greasy Grant

    we would have to replace a majority of those Democratic Party Senators currently serving.

    Remember: They made him Majority Leader.

    Let me rephrase that: Reid is exactly what they want.

  •  I'd guess it's by interpretive dance. (0+ / 0-)

    Just think of the moves you could make without a spine.

  •  Any Ideas On Who Is In The Senate (0+ / 0-)

    for the Dems who is like a Tom Delay or LBJ in his Majority Leader days?

    We need somebody that can do some slapping around and twist other's arms off if needed.

    Right now, all we get are Dems that say NO and a Majority Leader who says (with a Sarah Palen accent) the equivalent of "Okie Dokie, Your Right".

    I'm Here From The American News Media and Vow to Give You Worthless News

    by hopalong on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28:35 AM PDT

    •  I was always hoping Clinton would take the post. (0+ / 0-)

      She can and would have kicked some serious ass.

      Whitehouse?  Dorgan?  Boxer?

      Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

      by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:38:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh... and one point (0+ / 0-)

      LBJ - yes... but DeLay was in the House.  You can be a lot more controlling in the House since the Speaker can virtually RUN the place.

      The Senate, by design, can not be dominated by one person regardless of what leadership position they do or do not hold.

      Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

      by Wisper on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:40:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He forgets his title is Senate *Majority* Leader (5+ / 0-)

    It's inherently a partisan position, he seems to forget that he is the leader of the Democrats first.  Why he seems more concerned about massaging egos of Republicans, as if they would work with him on anything important, is a total mystery to me.

  •  Reid's a closet Republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Being a minority religion myself, I'm loathe to make observations that most of the members of his church are staunch Republicans, but I don't think it's any different to say "most Evangelicals vote Republican" than "most Mormons vote Republican."  There is a very dangerous slope here, the "Catholics would show allegiance to the Vatican instead of the US" or "Jews would show allegiance to Israel instead of the US" nonsense creeps up, so it's a dangerous argument to make.  But I'll make it and take the TR's that would come with it.

    However even if you take that out of it, looking at how he acted as Minority leader and then Majority leader, I believe there is a decent chance that he is a Republican who is there to make sure that nothing liberal actually gets passed (today) and that no neocon policy would get opposed (under Bush).

    What do you expect though, from a club that allows Joe Lieberman to be a member?

    Do you guys remember all the "we must keep our powder dry" debates from back in the 2004/2005/2006 timeframe?  How "even though we have the Senate and the House we don't control the White House so can't advance our agenda and must advance Bush's" under Reid in 2007/2008?  I don't think there is any logical explanation for how inept Reid is... no, it's not inept.  It's malicious.  The guy is proactively trying to destroy the party and the country.

    Forget Baucus, Reid is the one who should be recalled.

    But I've been saying this for years, nothing new.



    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

    by FredFred on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:39:21 AM PDT

    •  Agree w/ your comments on Reid (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And your comments on the political alignment of his church are of course accurate, albeit politically incorrect.  So be it.

      Doesn't mean I dont respect his Church....I have great respect for it, and its members can align themselves politically however they want.  But the reality is, most of them are conservatives, if not Republicans.  So be it.

      "In every revolution, there's one man with a vision." -James T. Kirk

      by The Navigator on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:56:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He'll never be replaced. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Navigator

    And that's too damned bad.

    Ever since the days of Armando, I have been complaining about the ineffectiveness of poor Harry, and everyone here thought I was nuts. Glad to see some folks are finally waking up.

  •  Yes, dump Reid... (0+ / 0-)

    ...then Pelosi, the most cravenly political and dishonest speaker since, well, the last one.

    "In every revolution, there's one man with a vision." -James T. Kirk

    by The Navigator on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:53:46 AM PDT

  •  I asked this question last week. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm very serious-might it be worthwhile to get a Republican in Reid's seat (given the numerical advantage the Democrats have currently) just to replace Reid as Maj. Leader? What do you people think? He's been stunningly ineffectual.

    Let tyrants fear.-Queen Elizabeth I

    by Virginia mom on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20:02 PM PDT

  •  He's worthless! (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, by all means, let's get a new Senate Majority Leader . . . but how?  I wrote to my senator, Barbara Boxer, and urged her to lead a revolt against Reid, and I got a very generic, unresponsive form letter in reply that did not even mention Reid's name.  I don't think any Senate Dems are planning to get rid of that feckless little shit.

    "There's no one dumber than a dumb guy who thinks he's smart." - Oliver Hardy

    by flyingwedge on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:36:26 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site