Time to replace Harry Reid?

[Meldread]

I'm not going to say anything really bad about the man aside from the fact that I do not really believe he is a strong and effectual leader. If there was one weakness that Harry Reid had this would be it, and I really think that this is hurting the Democratic Party as a whole and could hurt our chances in 08.

So I'm putting the question out here for other DUers - is it time to replace Reid with a stronger Majority Leader?

If so, who would you nominate and why? (Presidential candidates are off the table for obvious reasons.)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. You should pro'ly spell his name correctly.

MKJ

[Meldread]

3. Woops. Caught and corrected. Thanks.

[LiberalFighter]

2. We don't get to make that decision

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. Might want to correct in the post, too. Or not. Accuracy doesn't seem to be of great

importance to you.

MKJ

[Zensea]

5. replace him with Harry Reid

Actually though, talk of replacing Reid is silly seeing as how nobody here really has any say in the matter and I would bet good money that the people who voted for him to be majority leader are very unlikely to pay any heed anyways.

Fight the battles you have some type of say and control over.

These kind of questions are basically just hot air and misplaced hubris.

[Meldread]

7. It's true that we have no real say...

...but that doesn't change the fact that he sucks as our Majority Leader, and that if enough people complain he might actually TRY and grow a moderately sized backbone.

[acmavm]

6. Well, if he's the dem that's mobbed up like Larry Flynt reports someone

to be, we won't have to worry about it, will we?

[Clintonista2]

11. I think that's a horrible thing to say

Do you really think that would benefit the Democratic party in any way? It would show Americans that Democrats are just as morally corrupt as Repigs.

[acmavm]

16. The rumors are out there. If it's true that a dem is really mobbed up, do

you think ignoring it will make it any better? It's like Jefferson of Louisiana. The evidence gathered in the search of his office and home got thrown out by the courts. Is he any less guilty? Should he remain in office?

[Clintonista2]

18. I think that *wishing* it was Harry Reid doesn't make it better.

Hoping that this man is the Democrat Flint hinted at, simply because it's better for you politically, is wrong.

[tularetom]

8. Nah, it's way past time

Russ Feingold, Boxer just to mention two.

[burrowowl]

9. Time to man the barricades!

Time to replace the whole enchilada!
Time to hang or put into stocks then prison for life every traitor to the CONSTITUTION!

[countmyvote4real]

10. Russ Feingold would be my choice to replace HR.

That's my opinion even if I don't get to vote on it. And that's as if our votes even count where they should.

[calimary]

12. I'd probably work on replacing Pelosi first.

There was a caller who contacted us a couple of evenings ago, claiming to be with the California Democratic Party. He of course immediately went into the appeal - well, y'know, we REALLY need your help to blah-blah-blah and Iraq-Iraq, and I just had enough, within mere seconds, really. I stopped him as diplomatically as I could, but told him what I'm now telling everyone who asks, including some presidential hopefuls, including those I otherwise like, "no IMPEACHMENT? No dough. No IMPEACHMENT? No money." Flat out. That's it. All she wrote. I'm likely to make an exception in the cases of Kucinich and/or Jim McDermott of Washington State, who's a solid platinum patriot and CAN use some financial help with his legal defense fund - under litigious attack from CONS. Both these gents have come out on record favoring IMPEACHMENT - mainly of cheney, but heck, it's a start. The guy tried to argue with me for one round. I repeated what I'd said - "no IMPEACHMENT? No money."

I hate feeling forced to do that. Hate it! But as is, I'm genuinely disappointed with the return on investment from last year. Investment of all kinds - not simply monetarily, since there are many types of "currency". And not just my own by any means, either. I already find myself fighting discouragement, wondering what the hell I spent that campaign donation money for - besides almost no results? If I continue doing so, am I throwing my money away with no satisfactory return on investment, and/or rewarding bad or unwanted behavior? And I find myself thinking about that a LOT these days. I throw this in when I call somebody on Capitol Hill. I ask them to pass on the phrase: "What the heck did I bust my butt for all last year, if THIS is what I get in return?"

I'm sure there's a BUNCH of us here regarding all our many and varied and heartfelt efforts up til last November who share the specific view that "This is NOT what I voted for and worked for and/or to which I contributed precious, hard-earned bucks." If they're gonna vote the way they've been doing, and the leadership is leading in the wrong direction, then they HAVE to hear it from us if we're disappointed. We're owed. We're Their Base. It's OUR work and OUR ideas and OUR contributions that helped them get wherever it is they are. We have a right, a duty, to let them know our views, especially since we're paying them now or have been doing so in the past. And the more reminders they get of this, the more effective the message, and the more satisfying the results.

OY. Too many and/ors. :D

[Totally Committed]

17. I couldn't agree more! Another nail hit squarely on the head...

I'm sure there's a BUNCH of us here regarding all our many and varied and heartfelt efforts up til last November who share the specific view that "This is NOT what I voted for and worked for and/or to which I contributed precious, hard-earned bucks." If they're gonna vote the way they've been doing, and the leadership is leading in the wrong direction, then they HAVE to hear it from us if we're disappointed. We're owed. We're Their Base. It's OUR work and OUR ideas and OUR contributions that helped them get wherever it is they are. We have a right, a duty, to let them know our views, especially since we're paying them now or have been doing so in the past. And the more reminders they get of this, the more effective the message, and the more satisfying the results.

I still don't think they give a sh*t about us or what we think, but yeah.... work on removing Pelosi first, or as well, and I'm behind you all the way!

TC

[MalloyLiberal]

13. We can't replace Harry Reid...the caucus chooses that

You have no power dude.

You lose.

They win.

Again.

[ISUGRADIA]

14. Yeah, and he's had such a huge majority of one to work with

These get rid of Reid threads that pop up from time to time get tiresome. He had a caucus of 51, one is Lieberman. The Senate is not a forum where members can be strong armed. I'm glad he's been able to get done what he's been able to. What's another majority leader supposed to be able to do that he cannot?

[beaconess]

15. Yeah - but it would feel so much better to have a raving, fist waving maniac throwing red meat to us

even if he got nothing done. The point is not so much to be effective, but to foam at the mouth on our behalf. We don't want half a loaf. If we can't have the whole loaf, we don't want nuttin'. And since there's no way Harry Reid can get us a whole loaf with his whopping one-person majority (especially when it takes 60 senators do just about anything), he does his best to get us our half. And in return, we call him weak and ineffective and demand that he be replaced.

We Democrats stand on principle - results be damned!

:sarcasm: