Comments on: Just Wild About Harry

By: Otay

Otay — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:28:31 +0000

Of course it never occurred to this egotist that the reason for the increase of the Democratic caucus was that the GOP totally screwed up the country.

So Harry is quick to attribute success to himself for the total failure of others. Did it ever occur to Harry that Congress has a record low approval rating, and that much disapproval is directed to the Dems? That if the Dems had a high or even average approval rating, that they would have even more members in their caucus?

Of course not. Harry is on a self aggrandizing roll.

By: RonThompson

RonThompson — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:53:13 +0000

I think Reid could be ousted at any time by a simple majority vote of the Democratic caucus, though I wouldn’t hold my breath until it happens. But if there’s one thing we know about Harry Reid, it’s that he gives in to pressure. I don’t see a downside to relentless netroots criticism of his “leadership”. Maybe he’ll grow a pair, or maybe it will encourage someone who would be a decent leader (Dodd, Leahy, Reed, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Brown all come to mind) to challenge him. I’m from Wisconsin, and I don’t include Feingold aon that list because I think he’s better suited to being the conscience of the Senate than to be in a leadership position. And he obviously couldn’t get the votes.

By: rxbusa

rxbusa — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:22:44 +0000

oh then I guess in that Congresspedia quote (see my comment at 63) the “2006″ was a typo and should have been “2008″? I thought/hoped maybe the Dem caucus had voted right after they won the majority and then hadn’t voted yet for this term. rats.

By: hawkseye36

hawkseye36 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:24:17 +0000

I’ve defended Reid quite often, but no more. Harry needs to retire, at least as Majority Leader. My first choice would be Claire McCaskell (sp?) but she’s from a red state, so her seat might not be safe.

By: RonThompson

RonThompson — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:36:01 +0000

In the words of a man born 74 years ago today, “Thank you. Thank you very much!”

By: wagonjak

wagonjak — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:34:16 +0000

Wonderful post RonT….it describes the Dem dilemma perfectly…also the reason why no criminal in the Bush administration will EVER be held accountable…thanks!

By: RonThompson

RonThompson — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:29:18 +0000

Just to be clear, Reid is elected as the Democratic floor leader by the Democratic caucus. It has nothing to do with seniority. The election took place in November, and he was unopposed. It was at that same caucus that Lieberman was confirmed as chair of his committee. Reid was the Whip, and moved up to the top job after Sen. Daschle was defeated in 2004.
The problem goes deeper than Reid. We have all these wishy-washy Democrats–the Nelsons, Feinstein, Landrieu, Pryor, Jello Jay Rockefeller, Bayh, Baucus, Carper, Inouye, Mikulski. Many of them are from solidly Democratic states, but they’re Bush Dogs in bed with big business. For them, Harry Reid’s fecklessness is a feature, not a bug.

By: redX

redX — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:06:12 +0000

succinct.

And it would not be by accident either.

By: redX

redX — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:04:21 +0000

Knew these wet tisue leaders would take credit for this.

He did not do a damn thing but allow the country to be burned by R’s to get a few seats.

Bah, they are all in cahoots.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:14:03 +0000

From 45-59…and he still has his caucus doing nothing versus the Republican stalemate tactics. Pitiful. Now Reid will say that he can’t do anything because he doesn’t have the ~~“veto-proof” majority~~…filibuster proof majority.