• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Harry Reid is a neutered leader

B

bdude

Golden Member
Seriously, how can he still be the Senate Majority Leader?

After the continuous failure in legislating and passing bills, it's time that he steps down and let someone else be the voice of the Senate.

With him as leader, the Senate in the Dems hands will continue to look and be ineffectual.
 
Agreed. He seems to be a pretty ineffective leader. Funding wasn't cut off for the war either, even if it is a risky thing to do it just shows that Dem leadership isn't willing to take those political risks.
 
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Agreed. He seems to be a pretty ineffective leader. Funding wasn't cut off for the war either, even if it is a risky thing to do it just shows that Dem leadership isn't willing to take those political risks.
Click to expand...

that's not a political risk, that's political suicide.

I'm not fan of Harry Reid and I wouldn't shed any tears if he were to get the boot (and I <3 Jim Webb... he's a dragon slayer), but I think people really underestimate what it's possible for a political party to do in the senate with a majority of 0 without invoking the nuclear option.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Harry Reid is nothing but a bought-and-paid for MoveOn.org parrot.
Click to expand...

if that were true and not just random trolling, the nuclear option would have been invoked, and funding would have been pulled.
 
The Dems seem to be sticking with Reid and I doubt anyone could do any better. Its going to be grid lock in the Senate until the GOP moderates desert GWB. The spring primaries move ever closer and time is on the side of the Democrats. At this point no news is good news for the GOP and any big developments are almost certain to work for the Democratic party.

GWB is not altering position and neither are the Democrats. If the GOP entertains the fantasy that the Dems will desert Reid and join GWB, they are deluding themselves. To a certain extent the Dems have the opposite fantasy, but I still predict the GOP moderates will blink first.

But now things move to the Democratic strong side and we will see how much time the Patraeus report will buy GWB in terms of funding and what benchmarks GWB will have to sign on to before he gets the funding? We all have to remember, the majority of the American people are opposed to the Iraqi war staying stuck on stupid. And Reid can't afford to desert that majority and the GOP will ignore that same majority at their own peril.
 
Originally posted by: bdude
Topic Title: Harry Reid is a neutered leader
Topic Summary: Dems need someone new

Seriously, how can he still be the Senate Majority Leader?

After the continuous failure in legislating and passing bills, it's time that he steps down and let someone else be the voice of the Senate.

With him as leader, the Senate in the Dems hands will continue to look and be ineffectual.
Click to expand...

Just the fact you are talking about him means he is doing a heck of a job Reidi :thumbsup:
 
Some how I doubt the Senate Democrats will bother to consult with me and I know for certain Pabster is about the last person on earth the Democrats would seek advice from.

Maybe Pabster needs to be writing his man Mitch who does not get a vote either. After all, Mitch McConnell will need all the support he can get when his solid coalition starts to fall apart. When the choice is between GWB and getting re-elected, the GOP may need a better man than McConnell to keep the troops in line.
 
Originally posted by: bdude
Seriously, how can he still be the Senate Majority Leader?

After the continuous failure in legislating and passing bills, it's time that he steps down and let someone else be the voice of the Senate.

With him as leader, the Senate in the Dems hands will continue to look and be ineffectual.
Click to expand...

The Senate is NOT the House. The Senate has rules protecting the minority party, the house does not.

Cutting the funding off from the War went down in flames because theres not to many democratic Senators that can explain them cutting funding for the troops to their constitutients.

The Nuclear option wont work when NONE of the moderate dems will vote to cut funding of the troops. Doing so would be political suicide for most Democratic Senators.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Pabster
Harry Reid is nothing but a bought-and-paid for MoveOn.org parrot.
Click to expand...

if that were true and not just random trolling, the nuclear option would have been invoked, and funding would have been pulled.
Click to expand...

Yeah and the Dems would lose both the House and Senate in 08.
 
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: bdude
Seriously, how can he still be the Senate Majority Leader?

After the continuous failure in legislating and passing bills, it's time that he steps down and let someone else be the voice of the Senate.

With him as leader, the Senate in the Dems hands will continue to look and be ineffectual.
Click to expand...

The Senate is NOT the House. The Senate has rules protecting the minority party, the house does not.

Cutting the funding off from the War went down in flames because theres not to many democratic Senators that can explain them cutting funding for the troops to their constitutients.

The Nuclear option wont work when NONE of the moderate dems will vote to cut funding of the troops. Doing so would be political suicide for most Democratic Senators.
Click to expand...

11% and still falling...

I'd say the OP is right to be concerned. The Rs aren't doing anything to help themseves win next November but the Ds aren't exactly setting the world on fire either.

If this keeps up, 2008 will be the ultimate douche/shit sandwich election.
 
You people and your Nuclear option BULLSHIT!!!!!!

You need to educate yourself on the idea of the nuclear option.
The Senate makes its own rules and can get rid of the 60 vote minimum at ANY time. (Of course they need 60 votes to ditch it I believe)
Straight from the Constitution ?Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings??

There is NO nuclear option when it comes to Iraq funding or ANY budget bill or ANY bill at all for that matter.

The nuclear option idea ONLY exists when it comes to Presidential appointments.
The Constitution says ?by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,?

The idea behind the nuclear option is that by requiring a 60 vote margin BEFORE they vote an appointee either up or down the Senate is violating their obligation to approve or disapprove of Presidential appointees.
 
Lemon? six months ago everything was going against the GOP and the Democrats were very close to getting enough defectors to place some limitations on Bush?s actions in Iraq.

Today the Democrats can not even hold their own party together when it comes to the Iraq war.

There has been a HUGE shift in public perception of the war and its possible outcome. Unless there is a shift back the other way it is highly unlikely that the Democrats will be able to mount any type of challenge at all when it comes to the Iraq war and funding or a troop withdrawal. The Democrats had their chance, slim as it was, and missed it.

Bush got his way on Iraq, as he has since the start, and will almost certainly continue to get his way until the day he leaves office. About the only thing the Democrats can do now is to try and stay relevant when it comes to Iraq. The fact that the Democrats latest anti-Iraq war bill only got 47 votes shows you how ineffective and meaningless they have become.

Finally, if the American public was as opposed to the Iraq war as you wished they were the Democrats would not be LOSING the votes of their own members. Don?t forget that there are a LOT of Democrats (at least 30) who are sitting in congressional districts won by Bush in 2000 and 2004 that are worried about their reelection chances in 2008.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Pabster
Harry Reid is nothing but a bought-and-paid for MoveOn.org parrot.
Click to expand...
if that were true and not just random trolling, the nuclear option would have been invoked, and funding would have been pulled.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but that is a stupid statement.

Funding the war requires a 60 vote majority. Not funding the war does not require ANY votes.

There is no such thing as a vote to ?pull? funding. If the Democrats wanted to stop funding the war they could do so by not voting for more funding.

Also, as I said before, there is NO such thing as a nuclear option when it comes to funding the war.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Pabster
Harry Reid is nothing but a bought-and-paid for MoveOn.org parrot.
Click to expand...
if that were true and not just random trolling, the nuclear option would have been invoked, and funding would have been pulled.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but that is a stupid statement.

Funding the war requires a 60 vote majority. Not funding the war does not require ANY votes.

There is no such thing as a vote to ?pull? funding. If the Democrats wanted to stop funding the war they could do so by not voting for more funding.

Also, as I said before, there is NO such thing as a nuclear option when it comes to funding the war.
Click to expand...

Well, sorta. First of all there IS in fact a nuclear option for funding the war. All the nuclear option did was change the rules of the senate to require a simple majority vote for judicial nominees. The majority party could (in theory) change all the rules of the senate to require only majority votes, spending bills included. That's pretty nuclear-y to me... and it's necessary because of the next paragraph!

Insofar as not funding the war, your view isn't a very accurate one. True, Congress could literally refuse to pass any spending bills... but then they actually would be abandoning our troops in the field. Despite the hyper right's constant whining about "abandoning the troops", the Democratic leadership is far too responsible to do something like that. So, what they have to do is pass a spending bill that provides the funding for a responsible withdrawal. This unfortunately DOES require 60 votes. 66 probably, as Bush is almost certain to veto any bill that doesn't promise endless war.
 
Its not a problem of leadership, its more a problem caused by Joe Lieberman. A nominal Democrat, he is one of the Senate's most extreme warhawks (during the Paterus testimony, he was questioning the general as to when should we invade IRAN, for Pete's sake). Lieberman is one of GWB's stauntest supporters on Iraq and consistently votes in favor of anything to escalate the war. Not counting Lieberman the Dems have a practical minority in the Senate.

Given our pigheaded President and the actual fact situation in the Senate, it is no wonder little has been (or can be) accomplished.

Until the next Presidential election we are almost certainly stuck in Iraq. The concentration at this point should be make the public aware of the actual fact situation, so more of the bums can be thrown out in the next election, so a Dem president can more effecitvely save this country. Whining about the Dem Senate being unable to do anything now is pointless-especially given the alternative.
 
Ah, it is all Lieberman's fault now. :laugh:

I sense bitterness from the fact that Lieberman basically told the MoveOn.org party to suck wind.
 
Pabster, maybe you can explain the simple math a little differently to me so I understand your point of view-or is it just a snide comment of yours?

Presently the US Senate is composed of 49 Democrats, 49 GOP and two independents (who both caucus with the Dems). Lieberman is one of these two independents.
Current Senate makeup

It takes 6o votes to prevent a filibuster.

It takes 67 votes to overcome a Presidential veto.

Explain to me, in your wisdom, how Harry Reid or any other Dem leader can do to stop Bush's war given these numbers.

Lieberman isn't the only chump in the Senate by any means, but since he is from my state, and since he claims to be an "independent Democrat" who is always whining about bipartisanship, he especially galls me. In fact, without Joe Lieberman I would still be a registered independent, which I was for over thirty years before the recent election.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
Pabster, maybe you can explain the simple math a little differently to me so I understand your point of view-or is it just a snide comment of yours?

Presently the US Senate is composed of 49 Democrats, 49 GOP and two independents (who both caucus with the Dems). Lieberman is one of these two independents.
Current Senate makeup

It takes 6o votes to prevent a filibuster.

It takes 67 votes to overcome a Presidential veto.

Explain to me, in your wisdom, how Harry Reid or any other Dem leader can do to stop Bush's war given these numbers.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly expect and answer and an honest one? :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
Explain to me, in your wisdom, how Harry Reid or any other Dem leader can do to stop Bush's war given these numbers.
Click to expand...

If the war were as unpopular as many here preach, enough moderate Republicans would join with the 49 Democrats to overcome a Presidential Veto. Clearly, this is not the case.

Lieberman isn't the only chump in the Senate by any means, but since he is from my state, and since he claims to be an "independent Democrat" who is always whining about bipartisanship, he especially galls me. In fact, without Joe Lieberman I would still be a registered independent, which I was for over thirty years before the recent election.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes, like I said before. The MoveOn.org party tried to stab Lieberman in the back - but he got the last laugh. And he's still laughing, as he votes against Democratic sponsored measures in many cases - particularly war-related.
 
We are so focused on the Iraq war in this thread that we forget the fact that the Democrats have not been able to pass much of anything this year.

Outside of raising the minimum wage have the Democrats passed any other major pieces of legislation?
 
Republicans will be answering for their obstructionism in 2008, not just over Iraq.
By GOP logic, if the country is frustrated about the pace of change, they are going to vote for the people obstructing change?
 
Oh yeah, nuclear option needs to be put in immediately. There is no constitutional basis for requiring 60 votes in the Senate. It is a courtesy to a minority, a courtesy that the current minority is abusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top