Do we always turn on Majority Leaders and House Speakers?

[LittleClarkie]

Or is there one that people can agree did their job.

Harry Reid, the knee-jerk-every-time-I-see-your-name-I-will-automatically-say-something-unhelpful-and-snarky flavor of the month.

Don't worry Harry, they'll move onto someone else soon enough and you'll be "Give Em Hell" Harry once again.

Welcome to the rollercoaster.

I'm not sure what people want. Rambo in a business suit?

[WeDidIt]

1. Tip O'Neil

Best Speaker of the House EVER.

[LittleClarkie]

2. How much did he get done?

Wasn't part of his tenure during the Reagan years?

Or was he just popular?

[wyldwolf]

5. pure nostalgia or historical reverence

[WeDidIt]

7. He got a lot done

HE was brilliant in his role.

Foley made Pelosi seem almost as good as O'Neil.

Wright was worse than Foley.

[LiberalFighter]

32. There wasn't much stink during O'Neil until Gingrich started stinking

Sam Rayburn held the position of Speaker the longest during 3 different periods totaling 17 years.

O'Neill served the longest uninterrupted period with 10 years.


Dennis Hastert (R) - 8 years
Newt Gingrich (R) - 4 years
Tom Foley - 5.5 years
Jim Wright - 2.5 years
Tip O'Neill - 10 years
Carl Albert - 6 years
John William McCormack - 9 years
Sam Rayburn - 7 years
Joseph William Martin, Jr. (R) - 2 years
Sam Rayburn - 4 years
Joseph William Martin, Jr. (R) - 2 years
Sam Rayburn - 6 years
William B. Bankhead - 4 years
Joseph W. Byrns, Sr - 1.5 years
Henry T. Rainey - 2 years
John N Garner - 8 years
Nicholas Longworth (R) - 5+ years
Frederick H. Gillett (R) - 6 years

[WI_DEM]

15. I think that title belongs to Sam Rayburn, but Tip was good, too.

[PVnRT]

3. Not if they're doing their jobs

Their duties do not end at having a (D) behind their name and able to take solid food.

[LittleClarkie]

8. What constitutes doing one's job?

Pushing Democratic Party interests? Which ones? Left, right, centrist, or moderate Democratic Party interests? Helping to run the country to the best of their ability? Finding compromises to get things done? Screaming and hollering and stamping their feet?

[Raven]

We turn on them when they are spineless assholes. Tip O'N for sure. n/t

[polichick]

4. Do we turn on them or do they turn on us?

[merh]

6. we are free thinkers who believe in democracy and don't march in

lock step

We turn on everyone and anyone

[LittleClarkie]

9. But why do you turn on them?

What aren't they doing specifically?

Who would be the ideal Majority Leader in your eyes.

It's not about walking in lockstep. It's the unhelpful knee jerk snarky nature of the comments I see. All it takes is to see his name, apparently.

Why is Reid considered spineless. Who's agenda is he not pushing hard enough?

If the Democratic Party is full of free thinkers, that would likely mean they're all pointed in a different direction. So which direction should Harry head in?

Like herding cats.

[merh]

10. that statement was sarcastic

I didn't think I needed the emoticon - it seemed obvious enough to me.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Sorry about that..

I suspect there are those who would have agreed with that comment and not realized it was sarcastic.

[merh]

23. They don't agree with it as much as they use it to justify

their attacks and mockery.

It is their standard "defense".

[LittleClarkie]

25. True. And then there's the "how dare you abrogate my right to criticism" defense

Forgetting there's criticism and then there's snark and bashing.

Criticizing something specific is one thing, but just saying at the mention of his name "Oh, is he about the capitulate on something?" or somesuch is quite another.

[rateyes]

16. Harry sucks. And, that's not snark. He speaks like he's going

to stand on an issue without budging, and then budges from it almost every time. FISA, telecom immunity, the confirmation of judges, contempt citations, ad infinitum (and nauseum). Harry Reid was George Bush's best friend in the Senate for the past 2 years. He's an old "boxer" he says. Problem is, he steps in the ring, and almost without fail takes a dive.

[zulchzulu]

11. People seem to forget that the legislative process takes longer than most want

It's those %$#*ing Founding Fathers with their damn precise steps and hurdles to make laws happen!

:sarcasm:

[LittleClarkie]

12. It seems like people want a Cindy McKinney

or a Dennis Kucinich who ways and even does everything they agree with, that pass some purity test but have no hope in hell of getting anything done.

[zulchzulu]

30. It's called political grandstanding

Easy to yell about, hard to actually get done...

[Raven]

13. It's not that they took longer than I wanted, it's that they didn't do

anything and they certainly didn't do what they promised to do. Bottom line is that I think both House and Senate leaders have been very ineffective and full of a lot of hot air. I don't trust them.

[rateyes]

18. It takes no time to cave in. And, Harry does a good job of caving.

[Malikshah]

17. Allowing clear crimes to go uninvestigated...

What is this? Common Sense 101?

Pelosi and Reid are guilty of dereliction of duty. Thy are willing accomplices on the surface.

[rateyes]

19. Exactly. They are complicit, and while they talk tough,

they cave in order to cover each others' asses.

[Jennicut]

20. Pelosi is better then Gingrich and Delay but...

I think Mitchell and Daschle were both better then Reid. Anyone is better then Reid.

[Renew Deal]

21. Bullshit! I supported Reid up until the auto-bailout failure.

He has repeatedly shown himself to be a spineless coward. Over and over and over. How much of this can we take? Someone a little tougher should take the job. And tough shouldn't be mistaken for left or partisan.

[Peacetrain]

22. Always... because no one can fill all the niches

so no one will ever be good enough for everyone at anything. Just the way we are. We are a large tent organization.

[opihimoimoi]

24. Some complaints seem sincere...some nefarious...

There are those who bash Reid/Pelosi no end for Pol purps...they do it because its fun, its what they do, and/or because they are trolls paid to do it.

Other do it because they sincerely hate/despise/reject them

[LittleClarkie]

26. Perhaps to be fair I have to decide which one I'm reading when I read them

I tend to lump them all into group A, who annoy the stuffin's out of me, while B might have a point.

But sometimes they sound a tad alike, no?

[opihimoimoi]

31. Its very diff to detect unless quite obvious...peeps have learned to hide

under the radar..

It takes time i guess...they sound, as you say, alike sometimes......

[Raineyb]

27. How about a majority leader with a spine?

Rather than the spineless gutless wonder who couldn't stand up to a flea that is Harry Reid.

Regards

[TheKentuckian]

28. Reid is weak and rolls over at any threat of opposition

I'm not in love with his luke warm politics but the real problem is that he isn't a fighter and is completely uninspiring. He's miscast, a technocrat negotiator that does raise the ire of the opposition is sometimes ok if you are in the minority and are set up to get rolled but is worthless for a Majority Leader, especially one that needs to get complex things passed.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Thank you.

That was a very well-reasoned and specific reply that tells me exactly what you find to be the problem.

[anonymous171]

33. Exactly. The only thing worse than a centrist is a weak centrist.

[EconomicLiberal]

34. I seem to remember Democrats uniting behind Tip O'neill in the 80s.

He actually had a spine. Reid and Pelosi - not so much.

[jberryhill]

35. I personally have never turned one on

I don't even know if I'm Nancy Pelosi's type.