Harry Reid

Harry Reid rubber stamped most of the appointments made by the criminal in the White House without question. The criminal activity from the man in the White House is in no way comparable to that of Blagojevich. Yet, despite all of that, Reid gave Bush whatever he wanted.

Furthermore, Reid buckled to Lieberman despite Lieberman campaigning for over a year against Democrats.

Roland Burris seems like a fine public servant. He was one of the first African Americans elected to statewide office in Illinois. He is clean as a whistle. So clean, in fact, Barack Obama himself supported Roland Burris for Governor in the Democratic Primary in 2002.

The way I see it, Senate Democrats can't deny Mr. Burris his seat. This is based on precedent. Once in the senate, they can try to expel him, but on what grounds? Mr. Burris hasn't done anything illegal or unethical. I don't think they can go to the mat on this. Blagojevich played his cards and basically gave Reid his middle finger on this one. He has the legal authority and constitutional duty to make an appointment.

Reid always musters enough testicular fortitude to challenge Democrats, but not enough to actually challenge things that could have prevented this country from spiraling into the chaos we currently find ourselves embroiled in. He is good for nothing. I hope a Democrat emerges in NV to beat him in 2010.

I'm not sure it will - probably not. So I disagree with Reid and wanted this strength from him earlier.

My thoughts:

1. Blago is corrupt, but did he really try to sell the seat?
2. Blago probably does think he is doing the right thing for Illinois
3. Blago is within is his rights, and I always was suspicious of the probe's timing
4. If he does resign, no big deal

You forgot to add "progressive" before the word "Democrats."

Here are three I can think of:

- Kerry/Feingold, where Reid and teh Clinton wing all spoke of "cut and run" and vilified Kerry - then 6 or 7 months later it was their position.

- Filibustering Alito. The example of Alito was precisely why they wanted to preserve the filibuster

- Demanding the WMD Phase 2 report - on whether the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence - He was against Kerry's letter in June 2005 demanding it - which referenced the Downing Street Memos - then a year later, Reid took the Senate behind closed doors to argue for it.

Agreed.

Burris won't be seated. Forget it. You misunderestimate the influence of the president-elect.

It is considerable.

It's the law and last time I checked, no one is above it. The only way I see Burris not being seated is if Obama has a heart to heart with Burris and convinces him to withdraw his appointment.

Burris is an old black man. My dad is an old black man. If Burris is anything like my dad or uncles, there is no way Obama or anyone else is going to convince him to step down. If you don't believe me, see Rev Wright during the National Press Corps ceremony.

Blago sure is a smart cookie. Next I expect him to start pardoning the most corrupt people in the state. As long as he is in office he is going to be hardest working Governor in the country. He is going to work so hard that he is going to force the US Attorney to drop all charges. Blago can do a lot of damage to the state of Illinois while he is in office. THe US Attorney might want to jump on his sword and cut his losses early.

For those who think that this will affect the 2010 Senate race, I say see Rep. Murtha of PA. Some constituents are just a glutton for punishment. A democrat will hold the seat.

Bush's appointments went through confirmation. Some Democrats voted against those appointments. For example, Reid, unlike Schumer, voted against Mukasey.

and of course they went through confirmation, as it is constitutionally required. But obviously the process has been reduced to a mere formality if people like Mukasey, Gonzalez, and others managed to get through it. But in the end, Reid rubber stamped Bush's policies and appointments.

...have to do with your OP? Reid has one vote, and he voted against Mukasey and Gonzales. You say he rubberstamped Bush's appointments and that is false.

And my statement that you quoted was in reference to your statement about the confirmation process. You raised that issue, not I. In any case, the rubber stamp reference was a metaphor that I think most people reading it were able to pick up on.

The POINT was that Reid never actually ever fought for anything that matters with regard to Bush's WH activities.

You have no evidence that he did.

Sort of like, "Blago gave Reid the middle finger", but I have no proof that he actually extended his middle finger in Reid's direction. Again, the point is that Reid has been a Bush enabler.

people make shit up all the time to trash Dem leaders and there is always a group that joins in the chorus.

It is unfortunate that there is very little left of what the Democratic Party used to stand for.
Sadly, you will find many here and elsewhere that think he is a good leader.

The party has changed my friend and he is considered a good example of a Democratic Senator.
If you are only just now realizing this then I am sorry for what you are feeling and can only say "welcome to the MATRIX".

If you have known this for a while then you like me are trying to figure out just where the fuck we are supposed to go to find people to represent those of us that are not "the new improved" Democrats that are eerily similar to Republicans of old.

I don't have the answer - If you do ----- please advise!

:shrug:

Dems are looking at.

but - if he really is clean and likely not to run in 2010 - he might be the solution to a nasty problem. I have a problem with the insistence that Blago step down - he has not yet been either indicted or impeached. I think it unlikely that he is innocent, but that case really has to be made in court. Otherwise it is a bad precedent.

I believe him when he said he had nothing to do with Blagojevich's alleged scandals. The people of Illinois deserve to have a senator sooner rather than later and I don't see why Burris can't fit the bill.