Harry Reid is ANTI-CHOICE?!?!?! This is our future Senate Minority Leader?

Why the hell can't we have Durbin? This is pathetic. I am speechless.

www.senate.gov

E-mail all your Senators and tell them to make Dick Durbin the Senate Minority Leader. He was born in downstate Illinois, Catholic, and pro-choice. He is a much better pick.

http://durbin.senate.gov/ Read his address against the Federal Marriage Amendment. It's beautiful and highlighted on his website, just look to the right.

I had a link to the description of the duties of the minority leader, and it is not the exciting stuff everyone gets all huffed about.

It's stuff like scheduling.

Is it a figurehead position? Sure. But the reason Daschle kept getting it was because NO ONE ELSE WANTED IT. He ran unopposed.

Plus, everyone here was excited about Nancy Pelosi replacing Gep, and she's not been that spectacular either.

Sorry, had to get this in. I've lost all respect for her since that sniveling press conference two days ago.

She sounded like Mother Superior at a high school morals conference.

n/t

John Kerry is the ranking democrat at this point after having gotten the nomination. He lost but i really think we should give him the minority leader position.

She's not a good public speaker

But she's gotten rave reviews for her work as Dem leader. Democratic representatives in the House are far more united under her than under Gephardt. She's being hailed by the Democratic caucus for really uniting the caucus, making it coherent. She's driven the GOP nuts by stalling many of their pet projects by keeping Dems from defecting. And unlike Delay, she's able to enforce party unity without sacrificing the party's "big tent" - even conservatives in the party say she's been very attentive to their views.

She needs to work on her public speaking skills and delivery. But she's been very good and she would make an excellent speaker of the House.

Let's not take down Pelosi. She's the best party leader in Congress that we've got.

That would be interesting to read.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week189.asp

I was mistaken in that they are "elected by their respective party colleagues to be the spokesman for
their party on the Senate floor, and to the outside world", but again I'd say that Feingold, Corzine, etc. aren't running for these slots.

are picked because they can "accommodate" and get along with
everyone else. This might be a feel good thing for everyone
on the hill but we are ending up with people who don't seem like
fighters to the people. We are tired of limp, lackluster
figureheads. Oh please give us a fighter!

Reid has a mixed choice record, garnering 50% ratings from both NARAL and Right to Life foundation. In all other respects, he is a staunch Democratic partisan on nearly every other issue.

but Reid is old - I doubt he will run for re-election. That, and if he does Nevada has a growing Democratic majority.

why can't we have someone with energy and attitude?

We've learned nothing I guess

They wouldn't get behind VCIAA even though we warned them it was the only thing that would save the election.

Why put a bad guy, like Reid, in charge and make one of our all-time greatest senators, Durbin, a whip. That's plain stupid.

our party in the Senate and elsewhere. We've been robbed in broad daylight and few of our leaders seem to give a shit. That is a lot more serious problem than being pro-life.

does seem rather useless in some ways doesn't it?

This is ridiculous.

family. lots of interesting dealings involving money, influence peddling, stuff like that from what I can recall. Article also talked about a few other politicians involved in similar issues.

Not much credibility for him to be a leader of any sort if the times articles are true.

Msongs
Riverside Ca

I'm just sick about the democratic party.

Now they have teeth if they are bold enough to say they will not filibuster any judicial nominations.

Force the enemy into a position he really doesn't want to occupy and force them to react in one of two ways which results in a win regardless.

This is the strategy of divide and conquer. They are going to allow any judicial nominee to pass and threaten Roe. This will force a split between the hard right Republicans and the moderates. The moderates will be forced to cross the aisle and initate the filibuster. This allows Democrats who are vulnerable on the issue to vote in favor of the nominee while still protecting Roe and forcing the label of obstructionist on the Republicans and all the while claiming the title of bipartisanship for the Dems.

Sun Tzu smiles.

force women in the US back to the coat hanger and butcher in the back room because, in time, it will cause a split in the Repubs, geez! You are all heart!

They have made the only possible strategic move they could make to save Roe!

This single change in the Democratic Leadership moves the possibility of Roe being overturned from about 95% to about 20%.

Add to that a more moderate appointment to replace O'Connor and we could potentially come out ahead on the court!

The beauty is, the Republicans have to eat their own on this as the moderates will beg the Democrats to participate in a filibuster! This will cause their seats to be targeted by the core constuency and allow us an easier chance of picking up two more Senate seats in 2006 (both Chaffee's and Snowe's)! We get to pick and choose who participates in the filibuster so that means we protect OUR seats that are vulnerable on this issue!

This is WIN-WIN all the way around for us!

I've been begging for them to do this.

The Republicans in the Senate know overturning Roe is a horrible idea.

It'll never happen.

They just want to use it to win presidential elections and pick up more seats in the Senate.

and my apologies for misreading the strategy behind your post.

Who are the pro-choice republican moderates? John McCain is supposedly a 'moderate' Republican, but he's pro-life from a red state.

My main point of contention is that I think it's extremely unwise to count on Republicans to uphold D(d)emocratic principles. I have yet to see an instance of this in the last 4 years.

Whatever 'moderate' Republicans exist in the senate will be 'eaten by their own' constituencies, because 'moderate' Republicans only exist in blue states. And quite possibly the same will happen to Dems in red states (Daschle?).

But not because of this. If we're going to look at the moral issues, appealing to anti-Roe sentiments isn't as easy of a sell as gay marriage is.

The majority of people believe in choice. It's a lot easier for Republicans to appeal to the apparent American repulsion of graphic gay imagery to push forward their discriminatory agenda then waving around the same plastic fetus they were 20 years ago and calling women and doctors baby-killers. There's a very rational case to be made for choice that I think has been very successful for democrats, and I think it's something that the public accepts, even though they might not be inclinded to recommend it. Yes, I'm aware of the fundies as I say this. They're a lost cause, just as tree-huggers are for Republicans.

But I digress. There's going to be more battles ahead of us in the senate than just keeping RvW. There's going to be tax cuts, social security reform, and quite possibly more declarations of war requested. And you certainly can't count on the moderate Repukes to cross the aisle on all of these things.

This is why I think it's extremely important to keep strong leadership in the senate.

Either the 'moderates' will join us or they won't, but there is a certain principle and responsibility to the country that is our jobs to never waiver from, and elevating a senator who does not wholly-support the Democratic platform, not to mention the fact that we could have Daschle II if he did, is not in our interest. The Democrats in the senate are our last line of defense, I'd rather not get too cutesy on our overall strategy in favor of one tactical issue.

I believe that if either side will make gains or suffer losses it will not be about moral issues. It will be on economic and foreign policy grounds. Really, the only chance Democrats have to pick up seats in Congress in 2006 is if Republicans demostrably fail to protect us again or waste lives and billions in ridiculous wars during a recession.

Sorry, but Mainers love her. The Club for Growth went after her for not supporting Shrub's tax cuts 100% and ran an ad comparing her to Chirac, complete with French flag waving behind her. What they failed to understand is that a sizable percentage of the population in this state is Franco-American. That image locked up a lot of support for her here because we Mainers don't like being told how to vote by people from "away." For Democrats in Maine this is a double shot to the gut, because most of those F-A's are Democrats themselves, but they support Snowe.

We also have no candidate to run against her. Tom Allen and Mike Michaud are both safe in their House seats and have no desire to run an uphill fight against her. Governor Baldacci has a tough re-election bid coming in 2006. That's it for statewide office holders. The Democratic sacrificial lamb will be either someone from the business community (like the Repunblicans that got trounced by Allen and Michaud) or from the state legislature. They will have no name recognition and will likely get 20-30% of the vote.

The next chance we have to gain a Senate seat will be when Snowe decides to retire. She and Collins are safe, barring some drastic change.

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0561103
This is his record, I know also he was an instrumental in getting Jeffords to switch.

How is that not being really conservative?

Your pick Durbin according to this supports him 46%.
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H1201103
I would prefer Durbin to Reid too btw.

I want actual votes by Mr. Reid that make you think he's been collebrating with Bush.

I really would prefer Durbin to Reid but both guys are good. I actually applied to intern for Dick, I didnt get the job because i am only a high school student. Trying with Kerry and Sarbines now, hoping that works out.

alarmist slandering and exaggeration is a much less effective rhetorical tool than making yoru case and supporting it with facts? You can't lift your guy up in a democratic forum by tearing the other guy down with slogans and slander.

share my views I feel they often times think in black and white too much, I admit it, I think in shades of gray, I think theres not just two extremes but stuff in between them.

i disagree with him on abortion, but i'm pretty sure he isn't going to try ban it. everytime i have seen him he had been advocating for liberal causes and going after bush on those issues.

I loved his speech at the convention, he's the son of a gold miner and I am the great grandson of a coal miner. He actually has a mixed record in regards to it. I agree with you too.

What happy news (NOT)

From a strategic view, this was the best thing they could do and, quite likely, will save Roe vs. Wade in the process! We outdid them on the strategy they used when giving Specter the chair on the judicial committee! They now are unable to blame the Democrats and we will still likely save both Roe AND the SCOTUS from a hard move in any direction!

The Democrats have kicked George Bush's ass on this one!

Frankly I just see another Daschle type Bush ass kissing type deal on the horizon.

but Reid is in a much weaker position than Daschle was. He must give all appearances of an even weaker position in order to entice the Republicans to attack at the wrong time.

The beauty in this strategy is Karl Rove has conditioned the Republicans to attack whenever they see a weakness! Feign weakness at the right time and you pull your enemy into an attack on your terms. This allows you to choose the battlefield and fully prepare it before the enemy chooses to engage. This is the deception that yields victory in the face of defeat.

All war is deception.
---Sun Tzu, The Art of War

that is taking place in this situation, but if our side were so
damed intelligent with strategy why didn't they fix the voting
machines so we would have a fair game? I am wondering if our
leaders can lead anymore. Sorry but my heart is still broken.

of an effort to commit voter fraud in this election.

George Bush won fair and square, the sooner we get off the conspiracy theory crap and get on to altering strategies so that we win the better off we'll be.

Wasting our time on theories that go nowhere is pissing in the wind. I know this from personal experience.

have screwed us with terminology long enough. They call themselves the right and us the left. Harkening back to the days of sinistral (from sinister) for left. And of course, subliminally reinforcing the notion that they are "correct" when they are constantly referred to as the "right". Give them no quarter. Anti-choice, not pro-life. All of us are for life. They are not for choice.
And if and when at all possible, use correct, not right, to imply the opposite of wrong.
remember, they even managed to make "liberal" (broad-minded, tolerant) a bad word.
Fuck em. start beating them at their own game.

a more honest name would be the Woman Killers, because criminilizing abortion=Death For Women.

problems killing hundreds of thousands of civilians or thousands of our own troops. So they are not just women killers. They are for-profit killers of convenience.

though I like Woman Killers (it would never fly publicly, sadly too inflamatory)--but the constant disregard shown to "women's issues" SUCKS! If women realllly mattered, if people even talked about the real ramifications of anti-choice laws (in forums larger than Planned Parenthood), this goddamned DICKtator and company might have been seen for the evil they are sooner. GAG RULE=millions of dead woman and infants, particularly in impoverished nations(including us soon)--even countries where abortion is legal, due to economically killing WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINICS

in fact he was instrumental. Whatever his personal beliefs on abortion may be he obviously is in line with the pro-choice plank of the party.

I remember his blocking Estrada damn well, he was great in that. I am looking at some of his votes, includes opposition to the Bush tax cuts, for expanding the patients bill of rights, for CFR, against drilling in alaska, voted against confirming Ashcroft as AG, for hate crimes legislation, against trade promotion authority, and for the homeland security union. He wouldnt be my first pick for this job but Reid isnt a conservative democrat at all it seems.

That was primarily Reid's doing, working as the Senate Whip.

Is he a DINO? Not hardly. Does he march in lockstep with everything we belive in? No, but, then again, we at DU are the most liberal of the liberals.

He is pro-life in a state with a constitutional right to abortion, and anti-gay marriage in a state outlawing gay marriage. He voted to classify attacks on gays as hate crimes in a state without hate crimes legislation. He's been largely pro-environment (except when it comes to mining -- but a politician won't be a politician for long in Nevada w/o concessions to the mining industry). He doesn't have to agree with everything I believe in, just represent most of it, and represent it effectively.

He is soft-spoken, yet has been very vocal about his antipathy towards the Bush administration. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

Remeber also that he has to not only represent the Democrats in the Senate, but maintain a very diverse body of Democratic senators -- they need someone who they can all get along with.

Also, I am admittedly biased, since I am a Nevadan. Our little old state doesn't have much power; this will effectively stop Yucca mountain in its tracks (as it is, Reid has been the only thing stopping it for the last ten years). Give him 6 months. If he ends up to be a total wimp like Dashle, I will be the first one here to write his office and ask him to resign his position as Senate minority leader.

On the ballot here a few years ago, two back-to-back initiatives were legalizing medical marijuana and banning gay marriage, neither of which Harry had anything to do with.

The first passed, because what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody else's business.

The second failed, because what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes... Oh. Wait a second. Nevada's a weird frigging state, stuck somewhere between hypocrisy and lunacy.

And I'm on the record here at DU with the remarkably unpopular opinion that prostitution (and even pornography) is wrong and exploitive of women.

I am biased, because Harry's been good for this state. But I also think he might be an effective leader of the Senate. There are a lot of different types of Democrats, coming from a lot of different places, both physically and psychologically. I think it's important for the guy running the day to day operations in the Senate to be able to represent all of the senators from what is a very big tent. He also has to be someone whom the other 44 Democratic senators like and respect, feel that they can work with, and can look good on TV with in their home states. We have Obama, Kerry, and Clinton to lead our party in other ways and on other issues.

Clark County, BTW, has a monthly meeting for gay Democrats. I believe they meet at the Flamingo library. I know that there were a hell of a lot of them out rooting for Reid at Tuesday night's party (I made a few new acquaintances while discussing the Rio's decor -- they have fabulous lighting fixtures, 21st centruy meets the 1920's).

Anyway, if you made it this far, thanks for reading my post. "Concise" ain't in my lexicon. And if it makes you feel any better, if circumstancs allowed, I'd move to the San Francisco area in a heartbeat. There are reasons I don't still live in Texas.

I don't hold Reid responsible for the prevailing attitude in his state. He is a respected member of the senate and he's also been a formidable opponent.

And yeah..the hypocrisy is glaring.

Because if there isn't, he's perfectly entitled to take whatever stance he wants to, and is beholden to no one.

If Reid is just a boring, uninspiring leader, then that should be the reason why he would be ditched.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

in the doc.

...but ye can use it this once if ye like ;O)

Glad to see you are coming around.

I know you are joking, but Illinois Democratic leadership is what the DNC should take a long hard look at. We are on the few states to have rural counties go for Kerry. The party here is incredibly strong and has Midwestern roots. Let Illinois take control and spill over into Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Illinois: the Bluest of the Blue.

having Edwards on the 2008 ticket really put things in perspective for me. (Foreign policy experience will be the key factor for 2008, so Edwards doesn't qualify, and it's better to have him out of the way so that Obama, a person with no foreign policy experience can be president. Whazza? Of course you didn't write this contradictory nonsense in the same post.)

I had a friend who used to argue that Conservativism and being reactionary is basically a matter of drawing your circles of concern narrowly around yourself and your family. Liberals care about a wider circle of people, and they don't care if they're related to people or even live near them. They just recognize that we're all better off when we're all better off. Conservatives care about their families first, and then draw out the circle a little wider to include, say, their race or their social class, but would never draw out the circle so wide as to include all or even most Americans.

I don't see how you could consider yourself a liberal if your circle of concern goes no farther than the Illinois border.

We can't run Obama in 2008. He won't have enough experienced at that point. I'll be happy to post an anti-Obama in '08 thread if I feel the DU is overwhelmingly going for him.

My concerns go far past the Illinois border... I don't understand where you are getting anything else than that from...

... two more years experience in the senate than Edwards has now and likely little or no more foreign policy experience than Edwards?

If it's not from Illinois it's crap.

I guess you only know what you know. If you're not going to look beyond the IL border, we can't expect you to get your facts right about Edwards or Reid.

So no, not in 2012. 2016? Maybe, might be too early. Obama inspires a lot more people than Edwards though, so who knows.

Many states have their qualities, but right now Illinois is a Democratic stronghold and located in the Midwest, an area we desperatly need to take back and where there is the most potential. If you don't see that you are blind. Perhaps you would care to look beyond the states that border oceans? I have my facts straight about Reid.

He is a guy who favors anti-choice legislation and he is from a western red state. I don't know about you, but I think it's rather embarassing to lose your Senate leader and I think we need leaders who support the party platform on critical issues. Symbolically, I think this is a poor move. I'd be happy with other Senators from the Midwest besides Durbin. Harkin, Kohl, or Levin would be great choices too. Levin would especially be a great Minority Leader.

If you aren't going to look in the middle of the country, we can't expect you to pick a candidate that Midwesterns are going to feel more attracted to.

and are going to stop starting wars all over the world. Then Obama is going to be the perfect president.

It sounds hypocritical of you to argue that Obama could win and Edwards couldn't. They appeal to and rely on the same exact things. Middle class opportunity and optimism. And they divert attention from the same exact thing. Fear. You sound like a hypocrite when you argue for one and against the other.

Furthermore, Nevada and North Carolina are NOT Democratic strangleholds, and the party would do well to reach into the west and south. Illinois, pssst, looks pretty Democratic now. The Dems are doing just fine around the Great Lakes.

I'm not saying that Durbin wouldn't be fine. I'm just saying your nastiness for everything that isn't from Illinois (and your entire style of arguing) is a little tiresome.

Interesting...

Circuit. Jay Bybee. Reid is not only against choice but againt the environment. He also voted to let drug companies off the hook for poisoning children.

Bills are just too complicated, and unless you actually sponsor a bill, the job of a Senator is to react and to balance competing interests, and to mitigate damages, and not to set forth a policy agenda.

Abortion Issues
(Back to top)

2003-2004 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 55 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 29 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 30 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 66 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 57 percent of the time.

1996-2003 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood (Senate) considered to be the most important, Senator Reid voted their preferred position 56 percent of the time.
It appears Senator Reid has a mixed record on this issue. I believe it was also him who really helped persuade Jeffords to leave the GOP as well.

We don't need any more mealy-mouthed Daschle style apologists, please.

will help defeat SC nominees who may favor overturning Roe.

We can only hurt the party be becoming more conservative. Remember 2002?

that's over. In fact, forget birth control too- if live you in the South- that's going to be over too.

Abortion will go back to being a states' issue.

and we need to face reality. Might be a federal issue instead of state.

Hopefully, some state's will keep it. Unless of course it becomes a "capital punishment" issue as one of the new rep senators advocates.

He just got reelected with more than 60% of the vote, and he is getting up there in age, and I don't see him running for reelection six years from now.

Or dump the party. Seems we have a choice. I'm all but one moment away from renouncing the Dem party and working for 3rd party for the rest of my life.