Why Doesn't Reid Stop Senators Like Nelson, Landrieu & Lieberman?

These senators always line up with the republics (as * would say) and I'd like to know why Reid isn't using some muscle? There are ways to corral these senators, why aren't they being used? Enough already! Nelson handed Cheney a victory today.

It's a question I just put to his office. I also told them I was posting my question to a large democratic forum. Here are the numbers if you care to call also:

1-202-224-3542

(800) 862-5530 (800) 833-6354 (866) 340-9281 (866) 220-0044

From what I hear, he is quite the power in Nevada against the mob.

I remember when he forced the Senate into closed session to get his point across.

He has power. He just doesn't fling it around at every turn.

And he's not a dictator.

We rail against being make to march in lock step, and yet we want Reid to make the Senators march in lock step? This is still a democracy after all.

We here have been known to shout "Give em hell, Harry" on occasion, but somehow people always forget that stuff so quickly.

I have no idea why anybody ever supported these people for leadership roles. They simply don't like to lead. They don't like to speak up. Nancy doesn't take to the floor and rarely risks speaking forth at all. Harry only wants power to the extent that he can do the bidding of the casino owners. We finally get a chance to do something about Iraq, and he's working to secure long-term slave labor for casinos. We can do so much better.

and unelect them?

Reid is the leader of whoever the state voters send to the Senate. He doesn't get to choose them.

But, in his position of heading the senate in the best interests of the country at large, he has leverage such as committee chairs, committee assignments, support on bills they want to sponsor... It used to be a give and take situation, where you do this for us, like stand with your fellow dems and we will do this for you and your state.

I would also question whether these senators are acting in the best interests of their states or in their own best interests, like Lieberman for example

able to be a Strong Leader which is what is needed in his position. The same DINO Dems have been working with the Repugs to stop the rest of their party for too long. When Reid got the majority it was time for him to reign them in. He has the power...but always fails to use it. If he's tried and they've ignored him, then he isn't effective. His speaking voice alone ...doesn't command much attention, but I think many of us here had hoped that he was soft spoken but carried a big stick. Seems we were wrong...

I HATED that when the Pubs did it and I don't want to see the Dems do it either!

The memory of the prescription vote in the House is engraved in my brain, and I detested those tactics!

the last thing I want the Democrat Party doing is goose-stepping in formation to whatever the Leadership wants. People have different opinions, different constituents to please and, to some extent, should be allowed to vote their conscience. We're not mindless, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Republicans waiting for our marching orders ... are we?

Surely there are other options? Also, I would like to point out that if it was a matter of a vote here and there, that would be different, but there is a consistency of voting against the measures that the people of this country as a whole, not just the democrats have been clamoring for. 3/4 of the people in this country want the war ended, yet their voice is ignored in favor of the minority party's wishes. How is that representational? Further their own dem party's poll numbers are going down because of this as well.

Sorry I know it may seem nitpicky, but we can't be using their terms.

That was one horrible night. We must not emulate pugs. I never want our dems to be like them. Encouraged unity, yes; force, no.

.. they'll defect and become Reeps?

Didn't Joe Lieberman threaten to do that?

He's a worthless piece of shit anyway. Who wants him?

and ever since that election Lieberman has sided with the republics on major issues like the war. Just yesterday the senate let him have a go at Iran. So what difference would it make if they said either pay your dues for being allowed to head a powerful committee or we're going to boot you out of there?

so of course they always line up with the republics.

"This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

But, as I read some replies here on this thread it seems that asking for Dems to respect a leader they choose is beyong their capabilities in the last twenty years since we've been "in the wilderness" precisely because of weak leadership.

Take LBJ -- he was Majority Leader for six years. During that time, Eisenhower was president and Ike was, unlike the current occupant of the WH, someone who actually listened to reason and sought compromise, so he and LBJ were able to work together well. Moreover, for the last two years that LBJ was Majority Leader, the Democrats had a 65-35 margin in the Senate.

Even then, its not as if LBJ was able to "strong arm" Democrats into doing what he wanted. For example, attempts to pass strong Civil Rights legislation during that period failed in large part because southern democrats resisted and LBJ, as majority leader, couldn't sway them.


Another example: the first attempt to defund the VIetnam War was the Cooper-Church amendment in 1970. It was filibustered for seven months before being approved by the Senate even though there were then 57 Democrats in the Senate. And it lost in the House by a 237-153 margin, even though there were over 240 Democrats in the House at the time.

(Oh, and Dan Rostenkowski was never Speaker or even Minority leader -- he was Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee).

Thus it always has been and always will be.

"The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate," by Robert Caro.

It's an amazing book. I've just started reading it. I read the first part on the History of the Senate and skipped ahead to the end because I wanted to see how he handled the Thurmond filibuster.

outstanding book.

And what in it disproves my point? LBJ got a lot done. He twisted some arms. But he didn't successfully twist every arm and he had to make compromises to get things done, like agreeing to substantially weaken the 1957 Civil RIghts Act.

Reid can and does twist arms. The fact that not every arm can be successfully twisted doesn't distinguish him from LBJ.

edited to clarify my gibberish.

My point was that, in the context of this thread, it is good to consider LBJ's record in the Senate, as well as the House. In post #17, you had mentioned the House, and I think it is fair to say he became a more powerful leader in the Senate.

I would agree that it can be hard to compare a leader from one era, to another, especially on different issues. However, I do think that LBJ's leadership style was significantly different than that we witness today, and more, I think that LBJ's style might be more beneficial in the current state of affairs.

I did not intend to imply that you were not aware of LBJ in the Senate, and am sorry if my post sounded rude. I respect your opinion.

Like he did by cutting parts out of the 1957 Civil Rights Bill that the Dixiecrats objected to. He did break the Thrumond filibuster on the dispute over jury trials though after Thurmond refused to accept the compromise of jury trials for criminal cases but not for civil cases.

I don't think Reid has room to innovate the way Johnson did with his unprecedented use of unanimous consent agreements, and I don't see any evidence of him having the political skill of LBJ as Senate Majority Leader.

I think Reid's peformance has been mixed. Some of his tactics have been impressive and others haven't. I don't know if there is anyone in the caucus who could really do much better.

Oh wait, he didn't. Reagan was far more effective at getting his agenda passed under Tip O'Neill's congress than Jimmy Carter was. What does that say about Tip O'Neill's ability and willingness to herd the cats?

:shrug:

I don't get why that seems to be the only way people think Reid can get dem co-operation. Has the world come to such a place that it's thuggery or failure? Because if it is we may as well all pack up our bags right now. We've been at the mercy of certain dem senators and their votes for years now. The public is crying out for solutions and nothing gets done. If you can't get your members to vote with you there is no advantage to being the majority party, however small the majority.

do or believe what he wants is just like you making me do or believe what you want. That's lockstepping or am I missing something?

Landrieu isn't that bad. She's in a Southern state and well they are more conservative now. So what do you want Reid to stop her. WTF does that mean? all Democrats aren't the fucking same or so I've been told. Some are more liberal some are conservative and you can't just make someone or stop some one from doing or saying what they believe.

She wants help for her state and the ravages of Katrina. As I understand it Lieberman has been an obstacle. Reid says to her, I'll see what I can do, goes to Lieberman makes a different accommodation. She gets help, Lieberman gets something he wants and Reid gets their votes. Deal making was how many things got done in the senate, one hand washing the other to mutual benefit.

Try suggesting a different carrot, at least one that has a basis in reality.

I'm glad I'm sitting in my comfortable rocker as I read it.

Congressional "leadership" does not equal forcing democrats to function in "lock-step," as some of my friends seem to believe. It's not a matter of the Tom DeLay-style of tyranny. Rather, it can be the firm but focused leadership of an LBJ in the House and especially the Senate. That is the type of leadership that enhances every democratic official's power, by uniting the representatives and/or senators, like the fingers on a fist.

The current leadership is of a very different quality. I think it is safe to say that the party does not have leadership that creates the type of united front that is called for today.

one draw back to a democracy I guess.

When progressive/liberal Democrats were targeted -- Church and others who stood up against intelligence agencies, etc. -- they were replaced with Repug/Dems --

And we have truckloads of them in the Democratic Party --

I don't want to see any Democrat "whipped" -- but we should target them "Repug/Dems" and get them out of the party.

Will Reid do that??????????????????????????????

That's the question -- -

I didn't think Lieberman was a dem anymore. Isn't he an indy?

But allowed to keep the plum position of head of the Homeland Security Committee with no strings attached, that rightfully should be in the hands of a dem.

He doesn't have the skills for the job, plain and simple.

Here's a guy who actually crossed over to vote with the far right on the bankruptcy bill, for crissakes!

Just ask yourselves what would a Republican Senate majority leader- or even minority leader (like say Bob Dole) would do under the circumstances....

The others may be playing to some hometown prejudices.

the one that rightfully should have gone to a dem, but didn't because Lieberman made a deal, promising to vote with the dems in exchange for the committee chair

Piece of scum.

We'd ALL be better off if Republicans had control.

As it is- they might as well- plus the Dems are now garnering the blame.

The dems are now garnering the blame, despite the fact that the pugs have put up so many obstacles. And as to that they have come up with so many tactics to stall legislation I can't help wondering why the dems didn't do the same. We'd still have habeas corpus, maybe. Why didn't our side do those secret holds of bills, recomits and all the others? But with the pugs causing so many problems, it just exacerbated things when dems turn on their own party, time and again.

Besides which it takes 51 votes to expel someone from a committee mid-session.

Why don't the people who are yelling at John Conyers get their asses to some of these red states and educate these people so their senators can stop voting like dweebs.

Me is right there is a problem with the Democrats being able to form a coalition between themselves and I suspect the problem goes back to for whom they "work." There isn't any doubt that people are angry out here over the war, health care, and the most egregious and unconstitutional power grab in this nation's history. We don't even have an answer as to why something as constitutionally shredding as the Patriot act was passed and then extended. The lies and the overlooking of the lies is shocking. It would seem the Democrats are playing "foil" to the swordsman with their "going no where" and endless committee investigations. Unless they act upon the blatant ignoring of the Constitution and the laws of the nation by this President, they are in effect turning the country over to a dictatorship and it's a puzzle as to why. I don't think Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi can reign all the Democrats in, I don't even know if they are all Democrats or if Pelosi or Reid want to reign them in. I don't know who stands for this country anymore, really stands for the United States. No matter which party, they seem to be playing a game with the people, or they are playing one game and we think it should be another. No one has the rules.

I do think as a people we should keep up the pressure, I think Me has the best point, "find another way beside strong-arming" Motivation comes to mind, trade offs is another way.

I have said this repeatedly but I truly believe that politics is the human race's career path for psychopaths.

By the end of the year we'll have a shot at knowing which of our leaders stand with us, or not.

Two very "strict" Constitutionalists were on Moyers, one was from the Heritage Center and had written the first articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton and he said what Clinton did was NOTHING to what is going on now.He said people did not understand impeachment, Congress didn't understand, neither did the people nor grasp their power and the necessity to exercise their power. He said "impeachment is not a Constitutional Crisis, it's the way out of a Constitutional Crisis. It's not criminal charges, it is basically saying "we don't think you are fit to run this country." He said we have a duty to call our Congressmen and women, go to their offices, write them letters and demand impeachment of both Bush and Cheney and we, the people, have that constitutional right and a duty and that it was wrong for Nancy Pelosi to take impeachment off the table or to even say such a thing.These guys were outstanding

??

???

Do you think?