Harry Reid: "I don't work for Obama"

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Warning - Irony overload. After reading this, have chelation therapy

Harry Reid: "I don't work for Obama"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/harry-reid-i-dont-work-fo_n_155838.html
The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner | January 7, 2009 08:37 AM

In an interview with The Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would not roll over for the new president the way Republicans did for Bush.

Reid stated, "I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government."

"If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. ... I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him," he said.

[bdamomma]

1. and if you go over the bounds Harry I am sure Obama will tell you too.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Indeed: he clearly works for Bush

I don't recall him ever saying "I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government" to Bush during any of the executive powergrabs over the last eight years. Or did I miss something?

[City Lights]

20. Bingo! nt

[uponit7771]

21. +1

[truedelphi]

68. I'll ditto that. n/t

[leftstreet]

79. Yep

He had no problem with Bush "trumping everything"

[bunnies]

3. How do we get a new majority leader?

I'm done with Reid.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. The public can do nothing

The Senate is allowed by the Constitution to create its own rules of operation. Those rules allow for party caucuses, and allows each party caucus to chose from amongst themselves such officers as they want. The rules then give the officers of the party caucuses certain perqs and powers.

Other than getting Reid unelected, there is nothing the public can do.

[bunnies]

11. Gah. I was afraid of something like that.

That sucks.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Three ways: 1. Elect a Republican majority

2. Elect Democrats to the Senate who want a different Majority Leader

3. Convince the Democrats currently in the Senate to choose a different Majority Leader

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. 4. Elect a different Democrat in the primaries when Reid is up for reelection

And then work to get that different Democrat elected to the Senate. Not that this worked against Lieberman, but who knows? Even if Reid is returned as an independent, he won't be eligible for election as Majority Leader at least.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. He is up for reelection next year

The filing deadline is in May and the primary is in August.

[FriendlyReminder]

61. Exactly! The Primary process is how to send a message to Reid and anyone else

who wants to conduct themselves the way Reid has. NV democrats, hear the call and get someone in that seat that HAS A CLUE!

[Freddie Stubbs]

112. Pelosi had a primary challenge and a high-profile gneneral election challenger

Does anyone think she got the message?

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. At this point, between elections, #3 is the only practical option.

What would happen if everyone contacted their own Democratic senators and told them they stand to lose their next election if they don't move to replace Reid ASAP?

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. That will never happen

[Enrique]

60. I think they wouldn't believe you

they'd keep Reid. But who knows. Have you contacted your senators?

[onenote]

77. if by "everyone" you mean "everyone on DU", it won't matter

and if by "everyone" you literally mean "everyone" it will happen around the same time that everyon gets a pony.

[Enrique]

16. you want one that rubber stamps everything Obama does?

why?

[yardwork]

23. That's not the point. Did Reid ever say this to Bush?

[Enrique]

28. the point is that McConnell didn't say it to Bush

of course Reid is going to oppose Bush, but the GOP should show some independence as well, which they didn't, and Reid should act independently, though cooperatively, with Obama.

[yardwork]

35. Acting independently but cooperatively with the president comes with Reid's job description.

His saying it to the press would be like my standing up at a staff meeting and announcing that I will only follow my boss's orders if they are ethical and legal.

It goes without saying, and making a big deal out of it is unnecessarily adversarial.

[RaleighNCDUer]

If you think Reid "of course" opposed bush, then I can understand

why you aren't understanding the situation here.

[Enrique]

58. factually of course he opposed Bush nearly always

the rhetoric says he always caved but I'm talking about what actually happened.

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. Please, give me examples.

You mean like the time he stood before the senate and railed about the illegal concentration camp at Guantanamo?
Oh, yeah, never happened.
How about, once he became the majority leader, demanding something be done about the six years of deregulation that could lead to an economic meltdown?
Missed that, too.

WHEN has he EVER stood up to Bush?

Vote fraud in '04?
Torture?
Demanding compliance by WH staff with calls to testify before committees?

Bush, Rove, Cheney et al have thumbed their noses at congress for years.

[Enrique]

66. Social Security privatization

among many others.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. The only reason he bucked Bush on that was that half the

Republicans were ALSO against it - even THEY knew it was the third rail.

Reid is, has been, and always will be the Majority Follower, not the Majority Leader.

[Enrique]

75. that revisionism is just sad

Social Security was going to be privatized. The reason it wasn't is because people FOUGHT it. Groups like AARP and AFSCME and individual citizens like myself who contacted their representatives, and strong leadership from the democratic party. The DLC and the Republicans caved, deal with it.

Here's another one for you to have a go at: ANWR drilling. Spin away.

[RaleighNCDUer]

83. No spin necessary. Drilling ANWR doesn't make any economic

sense. There aren't enough reserves there to make any real impact on oil supplies, it would cost billions to create the infrastructure, in terms of pipelines, roads, permanent facilites, all of which would be abandoned after 10 years when ANWR ran dry. The only reason the oil companies kept harping on ANWR was because the expected rejection would give them an excuse to raise their prices.

You really think, with THIS administration, that if they really wanted to drill ANWR that anybody could have stopped them?

[Enrique]

95. it makes sense for the oil companies

because they would make a lot of money.

Those oil companies own Bush in a way that no industry has ever owned any president, and Bush did try very hard to help his masters, but he lost. He won some and lost some. And when he lost, it means that someone fought him and beat him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. but somehow the oil companies made record profits over the past few

years without drilling in ANWR, and without incurring the costs that opening new fields in extremely difficult terrain would entail.

And this way they also keep ANWR available as a political hot spot for next time around.

When oil gets to, and stays at, $125/bbl we WILL drill ANWR. The only reason we didn't was it was not profitable enough. The 'fight' over ANWR was just a distraction from the manipulation of world oil prices - watch the right hand, watch the right hand, watch the right hand, and WOW! where did that $4.50/gallon gas come from?

[bunnies]

37. No. I want one that doesnt have his head shoved up his ass.

Lets try that for a while.

[Captain Hilts]

90. This is the @#*! that conservative Dems did to Clinton in '93. It stinks. nt

[Enrique]

102. you talking about Gephardt opposing NAFTA?

i'm glad Gep didn't rubber stamp that one.

[Roxy66]

31. I wish WE could recruit Chris Dodd!!!!

[bunnies]

36. Agreed!

That would ROCK. :hi:

[Enrique]

57. go for it!

see if Dodd will do it.

[Enrique]

56. stop talking about it and do it

call Dodd and ask him why he hasn't run for majority leader.

Likely he will tell you he supports Reid, but you won't know unless you ask.

What's stopping everyone? All these calls for Reid to go, but no action.

[loudsue]

72. Why Chris Dodd? So that he could give the rest of our remaining treasury money to the

criminals who have brought our financial system to its knees? Chris Dodd has been a two-faced bad actor through the economic meltdown. He is just another piece of the problem.

[Jennicut]

4. He rolled over for Bush, he is an idiot!

[Blarch]

7. no shit.

How the hell can he say this crap ?

What a idiot.

[Moochy]

5. Now he finds his spine?

[yellowcanine]

8. Watch it Harry. You are up for reelection in 2010 and Obama carried Nevada.

Yes you are correct that you do not work for Obama. But maybe you could have found a more gracious way to say it or not said it at all.

[closeupready]

9. Reid strikes me as not a team player with regard specifically to Obama. I can't put my finger on why

but I definitely sense some real resistance from him, and it's infuriating. I hate to even speculate why, but there's something about Obama Reid is offended by.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. It's because Reid is playing on the DLC team, not the Democratic

team.

[closeupready]

47. Yup. That's probably it.

n/t

[stray cat]

10. or the way many of the democrats did for Bush - Although I do want an independent congress

[yy4me]

13. We voted for Obama, the chain of command goes down the

organization chart from there. Harry reid works for Obama because he works for us. I am so fed up with his wining and posturing. He and Pelosi need to listen up or go home.
The executive branch should have due influence on the likes of our congress-critters. To have him declare he does not work for Obama is, in my mind, quite insulting. It implies he will do whatever he wants and to heck with our new leader.

How did we get this spineless leader anyway? It has been so long, I have forgotten. Seniority?
Apple polishing? Same with Madame P. Is there some way they can both be deposed?

[Blarch]

15. Can we get rid of them ?

Reminds of an old Ollie North Quote ...

"If a Democrat doesn't have a secret problem we can control them with, then we will create one for them"

[Enrique]

17. how many times has this been asked?

three times in this thread alone, no doubt thousands since Reid has been leader. How do we get rid of them?

But no one ever does anything about it.

[Demit]

18. You need to brush up on the three branches of government part of the Constitution.

You have some odd ideas, there, with your 'chain of command' and 'organizational chart'.

[yy4me]

32. I am aware of the legislative, executive and judiciary branches

and of their Independence. I guess what I am driving at is the work for the common good. There seems to be so little of that within out government.

[Zywiec]

63. Do you know how our government works?

Please show me your "organization chart" where Obama is on top of all three branches of government.

Thanks.

[onenote]

78. harry reid doesn't work for obama and reid doesn't work for "us"

He works, as a Senator, for the people of Nevada. And he works, as majority leader, for the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

For that matter, Obama doesn't work for "us" -- if by us you mean people who voted for him (of which DU is a small, but not necessarily representative, sample). He now works for all of the people, those that voted for him and those that didn't.

[Hosnon]

99. What the hell? Ambition set against ambition...that's how it's supposed to work.

They only disturbing thing about Sen. Reid's statement is the absence of similar zeal prior to Nov. 4th.

[biopowertoday]

103. You best go back and re-take your civics classes.

[billyoc]

19. We know who you work for, Harry.

[Autumn]

22. Well he rolled over for Bush

all of the fucking time. So I guess we know who he does work for. Fuck him.

[globalvillage]

24. Good.

As it should be.

[Cary]

25. I'm willing to give Reid the benefit of the doubt.

After all, whatever Reid and Pelosi did the end result is the White House and larger Senate and House majorities. I do believe that was the real goal, since as things were Republicans could muck up anything they wanted to muck up and since some of the Democrats would have been vulnerable.

So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this particular statement. I too believe in our Constitution and three co-equal branches of government.

Reid doesn't have to work for Barack Obama. I believe he should work with him. As long as he does work with him, everything should be fine.

But if Reid fucks up. . .

[Blarch]

27. Your post implies...

That political power trumps the US Constitution.

[Cary]

45. Why is that? n/t

[firedupdem]

29. That's great Harry but why are you making statements like this?

What is he trying to prove? I truly think Dems and Repubs are afraid of the changes coming. A few of them seem to be going out of their way to make an "I'm a tough guy" statement.

[ChiciB1]

30. Too Bad He NEVER Had THE BALLS To Say The Same To THE IDIOT &

his COHORTS!! How the hell did Harry Reid EVER become Majority Leader... as I see him, he's an ENABLER for this PAST Administration for the most part. NOW, he has the GALL to say he DOESN'T work for the NEW President!! He really MUST go, along with so many other DLCer's!!!

[Renew Deal]

33. He's such a wimp he'll back off this too.

It's a matter of time.

[NV Whino]

34. True, Harry, but

we have yet to figure out who you do work for. It certainly isn't your constituents.

[kiva]

38. He's right.

I disagree with a lot of what Reid does, but he's right on this one.

[nsd]

39. +1

[polichick]

41. He couldn't say the same about Bush though. (DiFi couldn't either.)

[WI_DEM]

42. That would be fine if Reid didn't roll over repeatedly for Bush.

[Thrill]

43. Isn't this idiot the only Dem to vote against the Fair Pay for Women Act?

That alone should just disqualify him as Leader

[paulk]

98. Reid was one of the cosponsors of that bill,along with

44 other Democratic Senators.

Reid voted against it so that he could bring the bill up again. This is a common tactic by the majority and minority leaders. If you took some time to understand how the Senate actually works, you would know this.

[Danger Mouse]

48. Reid is full of shit. He'll cave to Obama just like he caved to Bush.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

49. Is it shallow of me to reply to this thread now just to get the flamey thing?

[Danger Mouse]

50. Probably.

:P
Seriously, though the first time Rahmbo sends Reid a dead fish, you'll see ole' Spineless Harry bow to Obama with such pants-wetting cowardice that it'll make you nauseated. :P

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

51. Hope you're right!

:hi:

[Danger Mouse]

52. Do you think Reid has the spine to stand up to Rahmbo?

:hi:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

53. Absolutely not - Rahmbo will make mincemeat of him in short order. nt

[Captain Hilts]

91. No way - Don't let the kids watch that fight!

[Enrique]

59. i agree Obama has an advantage over Reid

with Pelosi it's another matter...

[anonymous171]

97. We can only hope. nt

[Arugula Latte]

54. Way to take a stand against our own people, Harry!

Too bad you licked Bush's boots at every opportunity.

:grr:

[Vinca]

55. I cannot stand the sight of Harry Reid anymore.

The only time he shows a hint of spine is against members of his own party. He's totally worthless in the position he holds.

[Beacool]

62. Harry Reid: "I don't work for Obama",

I work for Bush.

:eyes:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

64. Darn right he doesn't work for Obama (or the Democrats)

He's worked so hard for Bush/GOP that I'm not really sure he knows what party he DOES work for. Oh, and his schtick about not believing in executive power trumping everything: WHERE THE HELL HAS HE BEEN FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS??????!!!!!!! :grr:

[Cha]

67. What about when Reid doesn't know his

ass from a hole in the ground? Like he's the perfect little shit.

[yellerpup]

69. If he was working for us

he would be deep in impeachment proceedings.

[d_b]

70. what's that?

All I heard from Reid was "nom nom conservative dicks taste yummy nom nom nom moar moar"

seriously, the guy is fucking garbage. send this asshole back to nevada.

[Cha]

73. How about working with Obama,

instead of the repukes?

[onenote]

80. Reid's agenda:

First ten bills introduced in the Senate -- which one's indicate that Reid isn't working with Obama?

S. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus package).

S. 2, the Middle Class Opportunity Act, sponsored by Senate Chuck Schumer (D-NY), is only described as including tax reform measures and provisions favored by labor;

S. 3, the Homeowner Protection Act, will impose a moratorium on foreclosures and is expected to include ‘cramdown’ language that would make it easier for bankruptcy courts to rework mortgages. Moreover, the bill could also include new regulations on the credit card and financial services industry;

S. 4 is expected to be a Sense of the Senate resolution expressing support for universal health care;

S. 5, the Cleaner, Greener, and Smarter American Act, is aimed at green investment and investment to upgrade infrastructure to make it more efficient;

S. 6 relates to foreign policy, including the changes that need to be made in Iraq (troop withdrawals) and puts an emphasis on Afghanistan;

S. 7 deals with education and, more specifically, early childhood education;

S. 8 calls for a review of the so-called ‘midnight’ regulations implemented by the Bush Administration;

S. 9 addresses border security and immigration reform; and

S. 10, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, is expected to restore ‘pay-as-you-go (or pay go) budget rules.

[Enrique]

82. what does that have to do with anything?

what is the relevance of what Reid does related to our opinions of him? :sarcasm:

[onenote]

85. you know, even with the sarcasm smilie, some here are going to believe what you said!!

[Cha]

84. That's what I'm saying..Reid doesn't

have to get all blustery and say he's not working for Obama..nobody said he was.

He's working with Obama.

[Captain Hilts]

92. There you go. Perfect! This is not time for Reid to be preening about how important he is...

he's an egotist with nothing to be egotistical about.

[guruoo]

74. What they said, and what they meant....

What they said:
'Reid said he would not roll over for the new president the way Republicans did for Bush'

What they meant:

'Reid said he would not roll over for the new president the way he did for Bush'

[onefreespiritedchick]

76. Typical Harry

If Reid did not roll over for Bush, the past 8 years his remark wouldn't be as offensive. Or perhaps he could have used some tact before speaking out.? Anyway, I am tired of ol' Harry. He's weak, hasn't been a voice for us since he's gotten majority leader nod. I have been less than impressed with his handling of the Burris fiasco and now this. Buh-bye.

[FrenchieCat]

81. Reid works for the American People, just Like Obama will.

They both are paid with taxpayer money that comes from all Americans.
Someone ought to tell Reid this.

Perhaps this bit will help Obama's rating that much more.
It ain't like anyone is impressed with Reid other than his fellow Senators anyways. :shrug:

[Enrique]

88. it's not about Obama

it's about the relationship between the branches of government.

[Sparkly]

86. I don't see what the problem with this is. Do you agree with BushCo?

Looks like it's "Hate Harry Reid" day on DU for some reason (I missed the reason), but if you disagree with what he said, you are agreeing with BushCo.

From The Hill itself:

In December, Vice President Dick Cheney said President-elect Obama will “appreciate” the expansion of the executive branch's power over the last eight years. During an interview on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Cheney predicted that Obama will not cede that authority back to Congress.

While Cheney has been a regular at the Senate GOP policy lunches over the past eight years, Reid recently said Vice President-elect Biden will not be allowed to sit in while Democrats discuss legislative strategies over lunch. The move is part of Reid’s attempt to separate the executive and legislative branches, which moved in unison between 2001 and 2006.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/i-dont-work-for-obama-2009-01-06.html

Why is this a problem?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

87. I am so pissed off!!!

They are going to continue to do what they did to Clinton and Bush, and that is to roll over and allow the Republicans to set the agenda. I didn't hear any of this tough talk coming from Reid or DiFi or Pelosi or any of them when Bush was in office. I didn't hear any of them vowing to presecute Bush for lying us into a senseless, illegal war. I didn't hear any of them talk tough about protecting the civil liberties and rights of Americans. They went along with the Republicans, approving the Patriot Act and FISA. I didn't hear any of this *checks and balances* talk when it came to holding Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz responsible for the lies and crimes they committed. And still today, KKKarl Rove is a free man despite the fact that he and Cheney had a direct role in the outing of a covert CIA agent (Valerie Plame Wilson), destroying her career and possibly endangering her life and those of her colleagues. And certainly when it came to torture and Guantanimo Bay, neither DiFi nor Rockefeller nor any of these Democrats in leadership positions held Bush/Cheney and the rest of them accountable for their involvement. They knew what was going on at Abu Ghraib and GB and did nothing.

Many of these spineless, whimpy Democrats simply rolled over and said to the Republicans, "thank you, sir, may I have another". They are quite simply cowards!! All of them!! The ones who bravely speak up are marginalized or ignored. The ones who walk in lockstep with the Republicans are praised. You'll see them on the Sunday morning talk shows. Interestingly enough, when the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, I never heard one word about them wanting to work with the Democrats. Nothing about bipartisanship. Nada. Zilch!! They controlled all levers of power and did what they and Bush wanted. Now I hear all this talk from Obama and the Democrats about how they want to work with the Republicans. How we have to have bipartisanship. Really? Are the Democrats that freaking stupid to believe that the Republicans will cave and give them what they ask for? The Democrats don't want to work with the Repuglicans. You watch. At every opportunity, they are going to go out of their way to appease the Republicans and concede defeat. That's what they are known for; they are excellent at it. And then they wonder why no one ever wants to vote for them. Demonstrate some leadership!!! Stand up for what you believe, dammit!!!

[Captain Hilts]

89. Technically, he's right. But he's also got to go. The sooner the better. He's worse than useless.

This is like the conservative Dems in '93 not voting for Clinton's budget, etc.

What a stupid - and badly timed - thing to say.

OUT!

[anonymous171]

93. But when it comes to Bush, Reid does what he's told.

Fuck that man. He's worse than Pelosi.

[AlinPA]

94. I don't like Reid at all. He is not a leader. He is weak. But, he is right here.

[Writer]

96. Doesn't anyone remember the "separation of powers?"

Reid doesn't, nor should EVER, work for Barack Obama.

[Sparkly]

100. Evidently not.

:shrug:

[uponit7771]

108. You mean like during the Bush admin...o wait, shit...still is the Bush admin...sigh

[indepat]

101. After all the good work the majority leader did for junior, you'd think he would give

the new president a little slack. :P

[donna123]

104. Why is this guy senate leader?

Is he really a dem?

He loves Lieberman and bent over backwards for him
He loves Ted Stevens, doesn't think he's done anything wrong

I don't know much about him but everything I hear him say makes me cringe yet again.
WHY are the dems so freaking spineless!!
He's going to stand up to Obama like Obama's the enemy. :eyes:
Not that I worship Obama, cause I don't but Harry Reid is so freaking ridiculous.
The dems need to pick a new senate leader.

[Political Heretic]

105. Yeah! You Tell him! Just like you told George Bush.... oh wait, I forgot, your a fucking fucktard.

How about my dick in your ear, asshole.

[backscatter712]

106. Obama slapped Reid down earlier today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/obama-gets-his-party-in-l_n_156136.html

Reid pretty much reversed direction on the Burris Circus and is looking for an excuse to let him be seated. That was after Obama called him and gave him an atomic wedgie for mishandling that mess.

Get that waistband off your forehead, Reid - you're embarrassing us!

[ejpoeta]

107. would have been nice if we heard all this stuff before.

like when he was rolling over and begging for treats from dubya. the republicans were rolling over for bush? i don't think anyone was rolling over more than harry friggin reid! i mean really!! they stand silent for EIGHT YEARS!!! while bush is trashing our constitution. while bush is destroying our reputation around the world. he at the very least sits and says nothing. but NOW he is going to stand on prinicpal. not be pushed around. he's going to fight tooth and nail a blogovich appointment. he's going to fight obama. that's so nice to hear harry. but that train left the station for you, pal! it doesn't work to stand up to your own guy. asshole!!

[DRoseDARs]

109. As a Nevadan, Sen. Reid works for me. As his boss, I am not pleased with his job performance.

Suck on that, Harry.

[Sebastian Doyle]

110. Harry Reid only works for three guys and nobody else

Elohim, our Heavenly Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Prophet Joseph Smith.

And they're all Republicans, of course. :eyes:

[treestar]

113. Picture if you will, the Repuke Party Head saying this about * in

2000 and 2004.

No, can't be done.