Reid vows to be watchdog: Sets Democratic hearings on GOP

I think this is good news ...

WASHINGTON -- Incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Monday announced plans for a series of Democratic hearings beginning next month into alleged corruption in the Bush administration.

Reid said the hearings are necessary because the Republican majority has refused to schedule regular committee hearings on issues such as prisoner abuse in Iraq and the effectiveness of the No Child Left Behind education program.

"We have a constitutional duty of oversight," said Reid, D-Nev. "We have a public responsibility to find out what the administration is doing."

The hearings, which will be conducted by the Democratic Policy Committee, appear to be the latest salvo by Reid against Republicans and the Bush administration as he prepares to become his party's leader in the Senate when Congress reconvenes next month.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Dec-14-Tue-2004/news/25472242.html

this is indeed a very good sign

:D :kick:

and have missed most of the news ...including the Peterson trial ...


but I was glad to read this about Reid just now ...I hope he keeps it up

thanks for the great news!

I only wish Daschle had thought of it a couple years ago. These should be wide-ranging, open, and TAKE NO PRISONERS.
:grr:

I don't understand why some people here aren't willing to give Reid the benefit of the doubt. Yesterday he took a strong stand against the nuclear option on judicial nominees, the kind that's needed to make wavering GOP moderates think twice and today this. I like this early, aggressive action to get out in front on these issues.

Reid has always been underestimated imo.

He's in a tough spot, and I'm not going to knock the guy before he's done anything, Here's what I'm looking at: if he can somehow stop this nuclear option and prevent the Republicans from appointing a conservative swing judge to replace O'Connor, that's good. If he can somehow force them to pick a more moderate judge to replace Rehnquist, that's outstanding.

He also needs to stop the privitization of Social Security in the Senate and he needs to unite the Senate Dems against lending approval to any more elective wars. If he can do that in the next session of Congress, he's done his job. Then we need to do our jobs and get some more Democrats elected in 2006.

Some people here aren't going to be satisfied unless he shuts down the government over the Rice and Gonzales nominations and the ascension of Scalia to Chief Justice. I just think those aren't the battles we want to pick. Guess it's understandable though given the way that the Dems in Congress caved in on Iraq. Reid and the other leaders in Congress have to earn back trust among the rank and file. I just hope people have an open mind.

Any thoughts on the news that Reid and Pelosi are supporting (out of the Blue, or should i say Red) Tim Roemer for DNC Chair?
Not enough qualified candidates in the mix yet? I thought there were a few progressives, a few clintonistas, and several very competent former mayors).

Pelosi and Reid seem to want more of the same. Republican lite.

Scalia threw the election to pugs in 2000. we can quibble over his fitness to serve in the role of chief justice, but to assert that it isn't a fight we should pick is just too painful to contemplate. A CHief Justice who would causally subvert constitutional principles to serve his own ambition and keep his family employed.

Gonzalez? We should abide by an attorney general who was a point man for the only national leader in history who tried to find loopholes in the geneva convention? and not fight that tooth and nail? Tell me how that improves our international standing?

Please share a few examples of fights we should pick. It might help me to understand your faith that Harry Reid is somehow the leader we seem to lack in the legislative branch.

Roemer never impressed me as a congressman, and he surely didn't help out my opinion of him with his overall performance (handwringing capitulation to the demands of the pugs- Rice, testifying not under oath- make that Sec'y of State Rice; Bush and Cheney holding hands, not under oath).

whalerider55

We need a ball cracker to take on Bush and Co.