Harry Reid was Elected Majority Leader

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

He didn't just take over like Al Capone, or something.

Some liberals vote for a guy like Reid in the way some people start a fight only when they are confident someone will hold them back.

It is fun to be able to say all the right things while knowing that when push comes to shove you will never be held accountable.

There are more than 31 liberal Senators who would have no trouble electing a liberal majority leader.

I am not saying they SHOULD elect a liberal. There may be persuasive national political reasons for not doing so.

Just noting that if they wanted to they would have.

Politics is distasteful.

[Captain Hilts]

1. And before that, that wimpy tool Daschle. nt

[Arugula Latte]

2. Yeah, I thought it couldn't get worse than Daschle.

I was wrong.

[Captain Hilts]

3. True. Daschle wouldn't have said "I don't work for him," the day after the inauguration.

Though Daschle's being a mentor for Obama always had me worried, I'll admit that.

[ProSense]

4. Everyone should know that by now. And since a Senator can't do both, it's better to have

every progressive Dem in the Senate chairing a committee rather than handling the administrative and logistical maneuvers of the Senate. It certainly would have been been better to have a progressive in Baucus' seat. I know these are appointments based on seniority, but I've seen people championing progressive Democrats who hold committee chairs as Reid's replacement.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Reid will retain or shit-can every & any line of both bills at whim

The argument that all the progressives are needed to chair committees and would be wasted as leadership is hard to follow.

Since Reid can unilaterally pick and chose from Finance and HELP he is many times more important in POLICY terms than Dodd/Harkin or Baucus.

[ProSense]

6. Your notion of what Reid does is flawed.

The Majority Leader usually plays consensus builder or stalemate breaker. This is why Reid always appears weak, he's often being pulled in many different directions. When the 30 Senators wrote to him stating that they want the bill to include a strong public option, that was their lobby.

He is not the King of the Senate.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. If you find it so distasteful, why are you here? (nt)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Go fuck yourself

That's the only appropriate reply to "why are you here"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Ahh, so you yourself being distasteful means you find yourself at home with politics.

Got it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Love it or leave it doesn't go over well with everyone.

I find oncology distasteful, but it's the only way we have to treat cancer.

I would be delighted if so many circumstances of our lives were not determined by graft, ego and cowardice.

But to suggest to someone that if they find politics disgusting they oughtn't be involved in discussion of politics is seriously offensive, in a personal sort of way.

Granted, I was already honked off by Prosense's psychotic fugue that preceded your comment.

And perhaps you don't have the same perspective I do on what "why are you here" means on DU. Thuggish cliques have targeted and hounded away any number of really admirable DUers over the years.

If your question was one of simple curiosity with no arch suggestion implied, then I apologize.

And if not... well, you know the rest. :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. It's not that you "oughtn't" be involved"...

it's just baffling that you WOULD be involved. It's every bit your right to participate or not participate, but if you don't like the game, why play? I understand your oncology point to some extent, but you (probably) won't die if you don't participate. You'll just have a slightly worse chance at getting what you want from your government.

As far as "graft, ego and cowardice", well, frankly, they're involved in every facet of human existence - that politics is not exempt should come as no surprise.

And yes, my question was out of curiosity, though I can understand the "why are you here" thing - I know I've asked that question plenty of times for other reasons (such as clearly bashing Democrats on a perpetual basis in a manner that is far less than constructive, e.g. "Obama is Bush's Third Term".) But I thought the context of it was rather clear that I wasn't calling out someone on their politics. For that, I apologize for the lack of clarity.

[Mr. Sparkle]

11. Yeah, i too would like to echo Kurt's sentiments ...

Go Fuck Yourself!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Oooh! That hurt!!

But seriously, if politics are so distasteful to you, why do you bother partaking in the activity? It's actually a serious question, idiotic responses notwithstanding.

[Mr. Sparkle]

14. Im sorry, maybe you didn't hear me the first time.

Go Fuck yourself!

I hope that clears any further misunderstanding up you miserable leech.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I'm sorry, did you say something?

You might have, it's just that I don't care what you think so I wasn't paying attention.

[Mr. Sparkle]

10. I dont get it either, I like Harry Reid personally, but as a leader he sucks.

It is hard to believe he was elected among his colleague's. I guess they were drunk or wasted at the time as i dont get his leadership. He is virtually ineffective. The fact he keeps on saying we need 60 votes for everything these days says a lot.

Memo to Harry, Political theater, USE it sometimes !! it wont kill you.

[backscatter712]

23. I don't even like him personally. He's a spineless twat.

[butterfly77]

13. I wonder who they were...

because Reid is a little wimp who goes behind doors to help republiCONS..

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. It was unanimous

Reid was re-elected Majority Leader by the Democratic caucus without an opposition on November 18, 2008, winning all 57 votes.

[butterfly77]

22. Now, we know why we can never get things done..

because none of them seem to have any backbone a bunch of damn wimps..

[Phx_Dem]

18. Unbelievable isn't it? The Dems lfound the wimpiest guy in the room and

elected his ass majority leader.

Woo hoo! Good times.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

19. You've got a point there could it be without Reid we'd get Majority Leder Baucaus. eek...

Well I suppose one thing they wouldn't have the poltical courage to do that. If his seat goes down next November we have to petition strong and hard for Feingold or Gllibrand considering Pelosi has really found her feet now. Gillibrands profile says a potential candidate for president let's see what she can do.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Reid was re-elected Majority Leader in 2008 without opposition

"Reid was re-elected Majority Leader by the Democratic caucus without an opposition on November 18, 2008, winning all 57 votes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid

[PBS Poll-435]

24. It was a very cynical choice after the loss of more seats in 2004.

Lookie here!!! A Mormon from a red State!!! How could this possibly go wrong? :shrug:

[bvar22]

25. You got THAT right.

+1