Who would you like to see replace Reid as minority leader

More than 80% (in a previous poll) say Reid doesn't speak for them. As far as I can tell, Reid mostly votes to support Bush. He said he'd rather dance than fight and he and Bush have been doing a lot of up-close dancing. So which Democrat comes closer to speaking for you? If Reid stepped down, Durbin (the min whip) would be most likely to take his spot. Barbara has the best voting record. Durbin, Dayton, Kennnedy, Lautenberg, Harkin, Akaka, Kerry and Levin also have good voting records for Democratic Senators.

The poll question is who would you like to see replace Reid as minority leader.

But I think Durbin would do a better job.

Reid isn't so bad he needs to be dumped.

I saw Boxer and immediately voted for her. On second thought, I think Kennedy might have more Senate experience and could be better on that account.

It's leadership and an ability to keep Democrats on the reservation. It also involves successfully negotiating with Republicans. Picking the candidate who you or I most prefer ideologically is not what is most important for a Senate Majority leader.

Everyone was so insistent that only Dean would do for DNC chair. And now they are surprised he isn't' speaking out for the policies they want promoted. People need to keep in mind what these various jobs actually entail.

Thank you for making it plain.

Not because I believe Reid should be replaced at this time.

Give the guy a chance! If leaders change too often it makes us look like we're unsure of who our leaders are.

in which case she's my pres candidate.

when Daschle, there were zillions of identical, content-free posts/polls just like yours.

No real purpose for them, but there were tons of them.

An anti-Daschle drumbeat, perfectly in tune with the GOP's campaign against him.

Now, with Reid of course it will start up again.

As of yesterday, we know he is completely lacking in any kind of compassion for the middle class and that all his claims to be a Democrat were lip-service at last. You cannot vote to kick people with catastrophic medical conditions out of their homes, kick laid-off workers out of their homes, and kick Seniors who are having their SS benefits slashed out of their homes and still call yourself a Democrat. Until he's out of office, we should put him in a corner with Salazar and Nelson.

With any given leader, there will be let-downs, it doesn't matter who it is. Durbin, Byrd, Boxer, Feingold, all of them.

Same with Bush. If I wanted to play this game against Bush, I could go over to FreeRepublic and attack him from the right on any number of issues, gay marriage, immigration, abortion, whatever. Call him a "pink tutu", whatever.

It's just a game.

Most of the time, Reid votes to support Bush. Everyone you listed has a much better voting score than Reid. Even Byrd has a significantly better voting record than Reid.

Durbin, for example, has raved about Reid.

So, someone, if they wanted, could bash Durbin and those other dems for supporting this Bush ass-kisser Reid.

It's all so stupid and pointless.

(And I'm not talking about serious sincere criticism, I'm talking about this empty formulaic bashing.)

n/t

I understand it is being updated with the bankruptcy vote later today. That should push him to a -20. 0 means that a Senator votes half of the time for Bush and half of the time for us. -20 is really bad.

That 'think tank' only counts votes in which the majority of Democrats vote in the same manner Republicans do. PHTT only wants filibusters on bills that would pass even if every Dem voted against it--or bills that have bipartisan support. It's ridiculous, and it seems engineered to pit easily duped 'purity' dopes against the rest of the party.

for a local group of Dem activists (from the appearance of the information on the site). How many people actually are involved in the "think tank", in cherry picking votes to make their favorite members of Congress look good? Your universe of pure Dems seems to be around 10 Senators.

to bring down Republicans as trying to bring down Democrats, you might actually accomplish something useful to our party.

I think it's odd that people are planning his replacement now when he has stood up for us on a number of issues. He's been far more outspoken than I ever imagined he would be.

If we had someone who could enforce full party discipline, that would be great. But that isn't a quality that comes from ideological position. It's a personal trait. The kind of ruthless toughness that someone like Delay has. We as voters aren't in a position to know the personal qualities of these Senators when it comes to relating to their colleagues.

So do we want someone who stands up for Bush or for us?

are you talking about votes since he became Senate leader? Which votes are you referring to?
He was with the Dems on bankruptcy and the Gonzalez nomination.

on Gonzales; voted for Chertoff; voted for Yucca Mountain Bodman; voted for the bankruptcy bill and this is just the start of the year. Yet, he's found lots of ways to repeatedly vote against the American people. That's pretty bad.

I looked at the amendment votes to the bankruptcy bill, and he was with the Dem majority in all of those. For the bankruptcy bill I didn't check. I looked for Biden, cause I'm interested in how much he's influenced by the credit card companies.

Everyone but Boxer voted to seat the electors on Jan. 6. That point is less than compelling. I'm surprised on Yucca mountain. Don't Nevadans oppose that? When was that vote?

Remember that there is a distinction between his career as Senate Leader and when he was simply a Nevada Senator. Pelosi's record has become more moderate since becoming House leader. Reid has moved a bit away from the right. Leadership positions force them toward the majority party position.

I have to confess that I'm not informed enough to follow all this stuff on cloture. (But then, my screen name isn't genius either ;) I sure ain't no genius.) He voted against Gonzalez. Isn't that what is ultimately important?

I hadn't thought of those two things as seperate entities. He can be more conservative as the Nevada Senator if that's what he thinks he needs to be. But as Minority Leader he must reflect what the minority as a whole believes. Indeed, he's less conservative when he's wearing the ML hat than when he's wearing his Senatorial hat.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one.

Since all those Amendments to the bankruptcy bill went down, the final test of character and indication of where his heart is was his vote on the bill itself.

...is the test he failed.' You're looking for any reason to attack Democrats, genius. Unlike Daschle, Reid's actually done pretty well. And, for God's sake, Gonzales and Rice were done deals. The President *always* gets his cabinet. *Always.* Any 'no' vote would just be an idiotic protest that wouldn't help a thing, but would instead further the reputation of Democrats as pitiful obstructionists who would try to vote down Bush's order at McDonalds.

Reid talked Daschle into some of Daschel's bad moves. Daschle had some redeeming qualities. So far, Reid doesn't seem ot have any.

and that is the POV of the Patrick Henry Think Tank. I have my own POV, and I don't need some sophmoric club making self-important unanimous resolutions that mean squat in the real world telling me what I should think or how I should feel.

If you are opposed to the human rights pov then that's your option.

trying to find ways to make Democrats, who are stronger this cycle than they were last, look like weak-kneed colluders so that people who don't pay attention, rather than work to defeat Bush, work instead to defeat Democratic candidates.

I get the feeling that this site is actually run by covert Republicans trying to get the Democrats to form a circular firing squad.

Boxer is doing very well. The people who made the chart didn't force those senators to vote against human rights.

For comparison, check out the House chart where a sizable number of Democrats are at the highest possible score.

Before you start with the off-with-his-head stuff. Jeez.

young. Again a multiple post. Can we collapse this?

is actually a bunch of Republicans--the same way Nader was funded by Republicans. Any time someone gets us to attack our own, the Republicans win. They're the enemies. Not Lieberman, not Biden, certainly not Reid.

OVERALL I like his style and I'm not unhappy with the job he's doing as Minority Leader. I would still back him all the way against any Repub and I hope the good people of Nevada will do the same.


But with regard to your poll, of course I'd back Durbin. :thumbsup: He has a knack for connecting with moderates and centrists, although he is not one himself -- if Boxer were the Leader she'd have to tone herself down a bit and who wants to see that? Different skills for different jobs.

Dick Durbin, or even Kerry.

for weeks this board and dailykos have been nothing but praise for Reid. all of a sudden he votes for something that's going to pass anyway (and thus makes the smart political move to keep donations flowing) and he is crucified.

Just because he's a Socialist like you doesn't mean he can't lead the party. I believe he is a moderate Democrat but is not a corporate sellout and stands up for core party values. I'm very disappointed in his Bankruptcy Bill vote, but I still think he's good.

Reid is a great minority leader. I may not agree with him on many issues but I support him.

Why are you raising this issue? What's your point? This whole thread seems like flamebait to me.

turn Democrats against each other. I get the feeling he'd rather see a Senator who votes blue 70% of the time defeated by a Republican who votes blue 10% of the time than re-elected.

I think he's slightly less polarizing, and although I am a Bay Area denizen myself I'm not sure the party would be served by having BOTH our leaders in the House and Senate be from this area.

Durbin's a hard worker and I think the right tends to underestimate him.. I've seen him pack the serious rhetorical wallop.

Now he's a real minority
or maybe
BeetleJuice

He's done a better job of opposing Bush than Daschle ever did, and while we may not like a vote here or there, I think you ask too much.

So far, Reid has a big fat goose egg and the Dems have been steamrolled on every issue and vote that's come up! What has Reid done in the way of a "good job?" Zilch.

And before you say social security, you might want to put things in perspective. The fact that Bush is even trying to do this and making any headway at all, when 5 years ago backing this plan would have been tantamount to political suicide just goes to show what a dismal failure the Democratic "leadership" has been.

"Wining" social security- if we win, which is still very much an open question- isn't a "victory" at all- because it's a battle we should never have been put in the position to fight....

There's been one issue that's come up so far. ONE. ONE GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING ISSUE AND WE'RE FUCKING WINNING IT.

Reid wasn't in control when we lost the Senate. Reid wasn't in control when we lost the House, or lost the Presidency. Reid has only been in effective control of the Senate minority party since January, and we've managed to do pretty well for ourselves considering we're the MINORITY.

There have been two pieces of major legislation on Reid's watch.

A tort deform measure limiting class actions (many of which are filed against credit card companies who violate things like the truth in lending or the fair credit billing acts).

It passed- with Dem's supporting it- with little debate- and no filibuster.

The Bankruptcy bill- with Dems (including Reid himself) supporting it- again- with a little more debate- but not a lot- and of course, there was no way to try to muster a filibuster when the "opposition" party "leader" was voting with the Republicans!

Every unconscionable Bush nominee has been approved- under Reid's leadership- irrespecive of things like torture, lies and incompetence.

Reid hasn't done shit with respect to social security- becuase the legislation hasn't even been considered!

Nope. Harry Reid's record sports a big Fat ZERO.

Tort reform was a bipartisan issue--both parties were in favor of it, it was expected to pass, and it passed easily. Just because you disagree with the Democratic party line doesn't mean that Reid is doing a terrible job of enforcing it.

As for Bankruptcy, Reid believed the bill did more good than harm. He didn't support it entirely--he voted for many provisions to soften the harshest parts of it--but the truth is that most Americans were and are for this bill. Once again, sorry if you disagree with the Democratic party line, but his job is not so much to set policy as it is to make certain that our policy goes through. If he had tried to engineer a filibuster and failed, that would be a problem. This was not a problem.

As for appointees, that's a blatantly idiotic argument. Please, good sir. Go back 20 years and find me an appointee who was not easily slipped through. Bush would have gotten Gonzales no matter what. He especially would have gotten Rice through. It's pointless to spend all the political capital we've got on an ineffective protest.

Reid 'hasn't done shit?' Are you serious? Are you actually under the impression that the purpose of the Senate majority leader is to vote? Quick hint--it's not. It's to keep the Dems in line, negotiate with the Reps, and organize when we need to be organized. And, given that he has not one percent of the resources Bush does, he's managed to engineer a pretty effective counterfight to Social Security.

However, you don't have any evidence to support your position- all you seem to be able to do is muster opinions- which you're entitled to (however misguided they might be) and throw around vacuous labels like 'bipartisan' and 'political capital' which, to the extent that they have any meaning at all- distort the real issues.

As for apppointees- yes, let's look back. Do you honestly believe that were the tables reversed, that Clinton could have gotten nominees like Gonzales though? Please. It took him three tries to get an attorney general.

And it seems to me that by saying "it's a foreone conclusion" and that therefore outrages like advocating torture, undermining the geneva Convention, lying to Congress, etc, eyc, are acceptible behavior- you're degrading the entire purpose of the constitutional process of advice and consent.

As to the legislation- well, it seems to me that the Dems need to define where they stand. If they're going to vote for what ANY objective analyst would tell you is bad policy that is bound to result encourage corporate abuses- even criminal behavior- and result in individual injustices that,in the aggregate- will have detrimental effects on the economy- then they have no busines being in "leadership" positions in a party that supposedly represents honest, hard working Americans.... That's- to put it bluntly- corruption- and people aren't so blind that they can't see that.

Nope- the record thus far shows that Harry Reid hasn't been up to the task of either organizing opposition- or winning battles. I don't see any evidence or reason why the current pattern is likely to change....

of the minority leader is to lead the Democratic Caucus in working its will in the Senate. It isn't a popularity contest for activists. It is not about making policy nor is it about sardonic bomb-throwing in the media. Only 45 people in the country have a vote in this matter, that being the members of the Democratic Caucus. I believe that they possess far more knowledge and experience regarding the qualities needed in their leader than I or anyone else here possesses.

The position is one of a tactician who must be firmly rooted in Senate arcana. It is not a job that requires the purest ideology but the best mind for strategic and tactical operations in the Senate. The Caucus apparently believes that Reid is the best for the gig. I have no reason to disagree considering the parlimentary disadvantage that we have to endure until the next election.

Look at what Bob Dole managed to do in 1993-95- with a much greater parliamentary disadvantage

Filibustered the Fairness Doctrine, knocked off healthcare reform, held a united front against Clinton's economic plan, defeated two of Clinton's nominees, etc., etc.

Some tactician Reid is turning about to be- crosses party lines to vote with a minority of corrupt senators for a bill that will overwhemingly benefit Republicans- and add tons of money into their coffers, There's no defending that from any angle. That's not leadership- that "tactic" doesn't further any rational "strategy."

That's stupidity- it sets an example and encourages others to break down and cross party lines in the future, for what may be ostensibly better reasons. Even taken in isolation, that should disqualify the man from the position....

If Dems EVER want to win again, people are going to stop apologizing for their aberrant behavior like they were schoolchildren who got in trouble during recess.

it might should have been.

As soon as the democratic party reaches perfect ideological purity the GOP will win all 100 seats.

in almost the same terms that DUers complain about Reid. It's almost comical really.

They can't say anything about his voting record because it's a neocon voting record.

They complain that he's a wimp. They complain that he should act like his in the majority once in a while. I think it was his non-support of SS, though I can't be sure.

So the politically pure on the other side are displeased as well.

Interesting.

...sell out to the Big Corporations, there will also be ideological purity.

that regretted what they had become.

I wonder how Einstein would perceive this world. He was genius enough to go fishing, frequently!!!

and a better record of getting things done.

While I like Boxer's courage and integrity, I think Durbin has far better political skills for the job.

Sheesh.

and the Dems will live to regret it (if they aren't already).

It's almost hard to believe that the Dems aren't purposefully trying to self-destruct. It's like they suffer from low self esteem and some sort of collective personality disorder that causes them to self-injure

Personally, I was dismayed when Reid's name came up-

I mean, here's a guy from a little red state- of no consequence in the overall scheme of things (sort of like South Dakota) who's anti-choice and whose voting record indicates that he's willing to support the far right corporate agenda- and sell out the middle class and working poor (who comprise a majority of the consituents in his own state). About the only thing he has going for him is that he barks a lot and won't be up for re-election for 6 years.

I'm sure the Republicans were laughing all the way to the bank....

eom

you don't understand politics. Plain and simple. Reid's doing very well.

they need to follow the Gingrich blueprint.
The republicans didn't rout the Democrats from power by moving to the center or acommodating the Democrats.

No single Democrat should be excused for a YEA vote on this terrible bill. Even the senator from Delaware should have said,"Sorry guys, but this bill is so bad for the American people I can't vote for it because I AM A DEMOCRAT!! That means I care!!!

just to form a firing squad.

The enemies of our nation is bush and his minions.

Seems to me, as a member of this site, we should expend our energy at defeating the ludicrous proposals he comes up with. I spend a lot of PC time writing my congress critters, newspapers, and any other thing I can find,to ensure that our nation survives this administration.

Seems to me, fighting amonst ourselves serves little purpose.

Just my 2 cents as a member.

He speaks for the Democratic Caucus and the citizens of the State of Nevada.

And, so far, I don't hear any of them complaining . . .

She is a true Democrat.

Jax

Even with your push poll intro.

eom

That pretty much makes the whole arguement BS.

put up at du prior to this one.

;)