Should Harry Reid be replaced as majority leader after 2010?

[Radical Activist]

[bigwillq]

1. Why wait?

Do it now.

[Bluzmann57]

2. Assuming that the Dems hold on to the Senate

who should replace him?

[derby378]

4. Russ Feingold might make a good replacement

He's further to the left than Reid, and he's got a little gumption left in him. Plus, he's a veteran of the Senate.

[WI_DEM]

45. If Russ wins.

[WI_DEM]

46. Need a bare knuckles fighter--whoever it is and one not from a red state.

[karynnj]

48. In a body where you need to put together coalitions

to pass things, "a bare knuckles fighter" won't work when you are in the position of passing legislation. It might be exactly what is needed when you are the minority party. A bare knuckles fighter is likely to further separate the parties making it tougher to win bipartisan support. Over history, the extreme partisanship now (and for the last decade) is an aberration.

[karynnj]

47. I like Feingold, but he is an extremely unlikely candidate and he likely would not want it

He voted AGAINST the budget last year and was one of the Democrats who recently voted against the extention of unemployment when it included things like money to the states. He also voted to prohibit a climate change bill using reconciliation.

Given his stands on earmarks and his position as a deficit hawk, he is not clearly to the left - on economic issues - from Reid. What he is is more to the LIBERTARIAN extreme.

A while back, after someone posted a bizarre set of "progressive" scores - where Feingold was more progressive than Sanders or Sherrod Brown (whose score was similar to Kerry's )for 2009, I compared the votes of Kerry and Feingold for the first six months. (This was done as that thread attacked Kerry, but Kerry suffices here as someone whose votes in those 6 months were consistently left/progressive/liberal. I was able to group most of the votes that differed into clusters. I think that score confuses libertarian with progressive. I don't think the vote against the budget or the vote against job stimulus now are progressive.

Here is a link - http://journals.democraticunderground.com/karynnj/33

My conclusion there -

Kerry was a key ally to Obama in passing the budget and the supplemental budget. Failure to pass them would have doomed Obama's Presidency. Feingold was frankly not helpful.

I suspect that this site has a libertarian definition of "progressive". Being against gun control and against dealing with the problem of climate change are NOT progressive values. I also think that progressives should value having a diverse mass media - instead of the sea of RW radio and cable. On foreign policy, Kerry could be best described as an internationalist and someone committed to diplomacy.

[RBInMaine]

57. Feingold held out STUPIDLY on Wall St. reform out of crazy purity. NO FUCKING WAY.

[Hawkeye-X]

5. Al Franken

He'll take Rethugs and tear their hypocritical asses apart.

[vaberella]

30. I like this choice or Bernie Sanders. n/t

[Radical Activist]

6. Democrats will keep the Senate.

The idea that they'll lose 10 seats is media hype.

My vote is Dick Durbin. He more aggressive, more progressive and he knows how to leverage power.

[depakid]

21. Hey! You and I agree.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

75. Durbin's solid and would be my choice as well.

[Mass]

42. +1

[karynnj]

49. I second Durbin - for all the reasons you list

I would add that he is also VERY good as the face of the Democrats in the Senate as he always comes across as articulate, nice and down to earth.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Whoever said no needs their asses kicked.

Ineffective. Useless. Spineless.

He needs to step down and let someone with REAL balls and will kick Thugs' asses hard to get things done, including invoking the nuclear option.

Hawkeye-X

[Oceansaway]

7. yes, but not Durbin....he's a lapdog...nt

[Radical Activist]

9. WTF?

Durbin is the best choice. He was already gathering support for changing the filibuster rule months ago. He's great spokesperson for the party. We need someone with his intelligence and aggressiveness.

[Oceansaway]

23. i wasn't happy w/Dick when he flipped

Flop during the Lieberman fiasco....he was against Joe keeping

his chair until BO 'talked' to him....i call bullshit on that.....

[Perky]

22. I agree...WTF???

[DFLforever]

8. I don't think he will be unless the Dems lose control.

Which is unlikely. Then they'd pick a new "minority" leader

[ProSense]

10. People are never going to be happy with anyone in that position.

Every compromise will be blamed on them. Right now, I'm more interested in seeing Reid beat Angle.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. +1

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Does anyone here know what the majority Leader actually does?

Hint...

It's not kissing the collective asses of leftwing internet posters.

[Beetwasher]

17. Dude

:rofl: :thumbsup:

I don't think I've seen U round in ages, how the hell r ya?

[TreasonousBastard]

36. Great. You?

[Beetwasher]

62. I'm Stll An Asshole

n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. +1

[karynnj]

50. +1

[treestar]

79. Exactly what I was going to say

Whoever is in that position will be called "spineless" as soon as there is any compromise.

[27inCali]

11. How about Al Franken?

Bernie Sanders would be good too.

probably impossible, but I bet it make all of us here at DU happy as a puppy dog with two peckers.

if we actually retain the Senate, I will take it as a sign that the base DID show up and needs to be paid back for that, also as a sign that the country is drifting Left: either one would be a good reason for a more Liberal Majority Leader.

[Exilednight]

19. I would love to see Franken get the job, but they are not going to give it to a freshmen Senator.n/t

[karynnj]

51. Fraken is very new to the Senate and there is no really compelling

reason to think that he would be a good party leader. He might be, but so far he has not had the chance to gain that level of power. Frankly, if he were not already known from his entertainment career, I would bet that you might not have the image of him you do. As to Sanders, it would be rather unusual for a major party to pick their leader OUTSIDE the party.

As to liberal, you would find that the number 2 Democrat, Durbin, has a better liberal record than Franken.

[27inCali]

76. Durbin would be great, I have no doubt

[theothersnippywshrub]

12. Only if a majority of the Democratic Senators think someone else would do a better job.

Senate Majority Leaders typically are chosen based upon their ability to negotiate and compromise with the minority.

[Radical Activist]

14. Even based on that criteria

he doesn't appear to be doing an adequate job.

[theothersnippywshrub]

16. Maybe so. But there no longer are any Republicans who love their country more than their party.

It is hard to compromise with members of such a group.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. That's funny, most here seem to think he's doing too much of that.

And now you're suggesting he's doing too little. Weird.

[theothersnippywshrub]

52. I did not suggest that at all.

I merely identified the most important factor to most Senators when they vote for Majority Leader.

[Hawkeye-X]

32. No more compromises with the Thugs.

The Thugs have had their own way for over 30 years. It's time to end the domination of the Thugs, remove them from all consideration and reassigned them to the Subcommittee of the Subcommittee of the Subcommittee of the Subcommittee of the Subcommittee of Who the Hell Cares? (budget of $0.01 assigned to that subcommittee)

[NorthCarolina]

18. Franken, Feingold, or Sanders would suit me fine, eom

[vaberella]

31. Sanders my pick. Franken is great, but too young. Feingold, no way. n/t

[karynnj]

56. None are remotely likely - they might be among the three least likely in the Senate

Sanders - is not a Democrat. Do you think they will go outside the party?

Feingold - is a loner, more of a maverick than McCain. Do you really see him wanting to help define the compromises that can pass the Senate? He voted AGAINST the 2009 budget and he voted against the broader bill to help the states and extend unemployment benefits.

Franken - has been Senator for around a year. Frankly, I suspect that it was his prior career - not his Senate achievements - that lead you to list him.

[Sebastian Doyle]

20. Absolutely.

And NOT by that fucking snake in the grass Schumer or any other DLC/corporatist tool, or another spineless coward like Reid or Dasshole.

Russ Feingold. Bernie Sanders. Barbara Boxer. Those are the names I'd put on the ballot for Majority Leader.

[saltpoint]

24. In last week's NEW YORKER magazine is a profile piece on

a likely contender for Majority Leader -- Charles Schumer.

The piece is clear and fair, highlighting both Schumer's virtues and faults.

In one passage, the author implies that Schumer is interested in the position and is Reid's most probable challenger.

[karynnj]

58. Makes me want to keep Reid

I really don't trust Schumer at all and have reasons for that. He also would be a terrible face for the party as leader. I do agree that he has been angling for this and that he wants it. He is really smart, but I wonder how many Senators he has stabbed in the back when he saw a benefit to himself. I am still stunned that he was in the group that pushed Obama to run, even as publicly he was solidly behind Clinton. That and his extreme position on the Middle East are problems for me.

[saltpoint]

74. Hi, karynnj. I think Harry Reid is going to begin to pull

away from Angle in Nevada and eventually defeat her by a significant margin. I don't think she's Senate-caliber folk. I'm not even convinced she's a sentient being.

Schumer may sense that with a Reid win in Nevada that his colleagues may not want to upset the apple cart, and he may cool his heels.

I'd like to see Sheldon Whitehouse become as influential in the Senate as possible.

[AlinPA]

25. Could be a moot point after the NV senate election.

[rasputin1952]

26. Angle was a gift...

I cannot see her being elected...she is seriously gaff prone, with the intellect of a bowling ball. Hard to see the good people of NV launching her into the Senate...:hi:

[Scarsdale Vibe]

27. Get 100% of caucus to vote for most progressive major legislation in decades.

Get thrown under bus by progressives while Pelosi is lauded for getting 80% of caucus.

Oh progressives, you so crazy.

[dsc]

29. that really isn't an entirely fair comparision

with the exception of the financial regulation bill where some house provisions were better and some worse (in terms of progressiveness) every other bill that passed both chambers was more progressive leaving the house than it was leaving the senate. In addition several bills have passed only the house that were quite progressive. I don't blame Reid for this but it is very misleading to act as if what Reid got the Senate to do is equal or even in the ballpark of what Pelosi got the House to do.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. Don't act as if Reid didn't HAVE to get 100% participation

Because it wouldn't matter one whit what the House passed if the Senate couldn't pass anything.

Never forget that it is Republican obstructionism that's forcing the hand here.

[dsc]

63. I;m not but you are being dishonest when you equate what the progressiveness of those bills

which your post does.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

66. I'm not being one iota dishonest.

It has everything to do with the progressiveness of the bills.

[theothersnippywshrub]

53. Reid accomplished more than Pelosi. It is no accomplishment to order something done

when you have total power. The Speaker of the House has nearly complete control over what gets done in the House. The Senate Majority has virtually no power over what gets done in the Senate.

[karynnj]

60. You ignore that you need 60% of the Senate under current rules to pass things

In the House you need just 50%. If Reid had the luxury of being able to pass bills with just 50 Senators, the bills WOULD be more liberal. If Pelosi needed 60% of the House, her bills would be less progressive.

[dsc]

67. Where did I say otherwise

all I was saying is that the person's post made it sound like what Reid's bills said and what Pelosi's bills said were the same. They weren't.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. +1

[karynnj]

59. Nicely said!

So few here even see that his job is tougher - and now even needs 102% of the caucus.

[dsc]

28. The problem isn't Reid it is the filibuster rule

until that is changed, we could have whomever as leader and the results would be the same or worse. The only person with a bully pulpit big enough to possibly make the Maine and Massachusetts GOP Senators actually be moderates has refused to play real hardball with them (when Obama vacationed in Maine he should have literally camped out at unemployment offices while those Senators refused to extend unemployment benes). Failing that, Reid has done about as well as humanly possible with this situation. I do fault him for letting the GOP filibuster on the cheap at times but there is a downside to that as well. The bills that don't get passed while the Senate is grounding to a halt have to be passed eventually and thus while harder to conduct the filibuster ends up being even more effective. Bottom line, the threshold has to be dropped. The founders never envisioned the partisan misbehavior that the GOP has engaged in.

[Radical Activist]

33. Durbin and others advocated a change to the filibuster rule.

Where's Reid? Why doesn't he change the rule, keep the Senate in session, force votes, and make them actually filibuster? He's weak.

[dsc]

34. It would take 67 senators to change the rules now

which we clearly wouldn't have. I doubt we have 50 for a partisan change of the rules. Senators that have been there a while, even very liberal ones, aren't in favor of the rule change. The only long term Senator in favor of rule change that I know of is Harkin. Reid is by no means perfect, I think he could and should force more real filibusters to take place, but given the rules we now have I don't think the results would have been significantly better if someone else had been Majority leader.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. For the umpteenth time, you can't force a Jimmy Stewart filibuster. (nt)

[Mass]

43. True, but you can make it painful.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. And get nothing else done in the process at a time when we have a lot to get done.

No such thing as a free lunch, unfortunately.

[dsc]

65. I never said he could

but it is easier to lie about my posts than read them evidently. To take one example, this week the Senate passed a bill to increase the criminal penalties for making marijuana brownies. That bill shouldn't have seen the light of day until we got an up and down vote on the increase in aid to states.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. Then explain this line, which you wrote

"I do fault him for letting the GOP filibuster on the cheap at times"

How, exactly, does one allow a filibuster "on the cheap"?

[dsc]

70. I gave you an example but shock of shocks you chose not to read it

but here it is again. A bill was passed this week that doubled the penalty for marijuana brownies. That bill, and every other bill should have not seen the light of day while the filibuster of the state funding bill was going on. That is what I mean by filibustering on the cheap. They get to pass other legislation while they filibuster what they want to filibuster.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

71. Who, exactly, are you penalizing by doing that?

Here's a hint - it's not the Republicans who will be voting "no" to almost everything anyway. It's us, for not getting anything done during that duration.

[dsc]

72. they want to fund wars, which we also did while the filibuster was on

they wanted that law more than we did. No there aren't a ton of things they want to do but there are some.

[akbacchus_BC]

35. Why should Harry Reid be replaced? I thought he was doing great!

I did not vote in your poll!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

54. I think after the Nov elections there should be new blood

[RBInMaine]

55. STUPID idea, and WRONG to post this when he is working to defeat this nutjob Angle. Any criticism

for the RePUKES here at all? Or just keep bashing Democrats? Fucking stupid and crazy thinking.

[TreasonousBastard]

64. Never trash an enemy when there's a friend with a handy back to stab.

[Arkana]

61. That's a big ten-four, but he won't be

because that just doesn't happen.

My pick for SML would be Leahy of Vermont or Kerry--they have some time in the Senate under their belt (which I think precludes the Frankens and the Sanderses from getting it) and they seem much more willing to push for things they want than Reid ever has been.

Let me be clear--I have no problem with Senator Harry Reid. I have a problem with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, however.

[harun]

69. If someone else will get rid of the fililibuster, then yes. If not, don't care/won't matter.

Or at least change the filibuster. Make it so 60 are needed to close debate before X days, if X days elapse a simple majority can close debate.

Filibuster has changed many times over the years and now is clearly a time to change it again.

[Phx_Dem]

73. I've always thought Harry was a bit wimpy, but he's gotten a helluva lot done

since Obama was elected. He's doing a great job in spite of being obstructed by Repukes at every turn.

I vote to keep him as ML.

[old mark]

77. No. I think he is doing as well as anyone could given the egos and agendas of the Senate,

as well as the republican assholishness. Whoever would replace him would probably not do as well.

mark

[beac]

78. I voted "Yes" but the

142 Mexican Whooping Llamas in my kitchen want to hear more about that Swedish vacation...