HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Has Harry Reid finally ea...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:51 PM

Has Harry Reid finally earned a primary!?

In light of his constant capitulation. As well as his verbal damning of our our own freshman senators has Harry Reid outed him-self as head Blue Dog?

I think it's time we send a message to the "career senators" and let them know we are tired of this bullshit.

It's time to put up or shut up.


Rachel's' piece on it is very...invigorating...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#50582128

59 replies, 3066 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Has Harry Reid finally earned a primary!? (Original post)
DFab420 Jan 2013 OP
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #1
DFab420 Jan 2013 #2
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #3
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #4
DFab420 Jan 2013 #8
PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #51
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #53
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #52
Phlem Jan 2013 #5
Purveyor Jan 2013 #6
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #7
DFab420 Jan 2013 #10
randome Jan 2013 #15
jeff47 Jan 2013 #21
KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #33
jeff47 Jan 2013 #40
randome Jan 2013 #39
jeff47 Jan 2013 #41
randome Jan 2013 #45
jeff47 Jan 2013 #50
OKNancy Jan 2013 #9
DFab420 Jan 2013 #11
OKNancy Jan 2013 #14
Pab Sungenis Jan 2013 #27
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #46
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #54
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #59
onenote Jan 2013 #49
PFunk Jan 2013 #30
nobodyspecial Jan 2013 #12
bigwillq Jan 2013 #13
cali Jan 2013 #25
bigwillq Jan 2013 #36
cali Jan 2013 #48
randome Jan 2013 #16
KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #34
longship Jan 2013 #17
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #19
longship Jan 2013 #20
msongs Jan 2013 #42
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #55
jeff47 Jan 2013 #23
longship Jan 2013 #28
jeff47 Jan 2013 #32
longship Jan 2013 #37
jeff47 Jan 2013 #38
lefthandedskyhook Jan 2013 #58
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #18
jeff47 Jan 2013 #24
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #31
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #22
PFunk Jan 2013 #26
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #29
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #56
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #35
msongs Jan 2013 #43
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #44
Hulk Jan 2013 #47
madrchsod Jan 2013 #57

Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:51 PM

1. IMO, some of the fortunetellers have finally earned a tombstone as the ratfuckers they are>>>

but neither of those two things is going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:53 PM

2. ? I am confused by this post...are you implying something about me? or something in general?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:55 PM

3. in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:55 PM

4. No.


Senator Reid got the majority of what HE wanted in the rules change deal.

Sausage making is messy sometimes, but in the end it turns out good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:56 PM

8. What was what he wanted? I thought the 41 vote minority threshold wasn't in the bill?

Nor was the talking filibuster...

What's actually different?

(not trying to be snarky, just seeking information)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:00 PM

51. Reid apparently didn't really want to eliminate the requirement for a 60-vote supermajority

to pass a bill in the Senate.


"I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," Reid (D-Nev.) told me this morning, referring to the number of votes needed to halt a filibuster. "With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House."


From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:32 PM

53. Of course he neglects to point out

that the Senate is already not like the House, even without the filibuster. It is already weighted to protect the minority, since representation is by state and not by population.

The World's Greatest Deliberative Body is just a bastion to defend the status quo. It, and its current leader, are a cruel joke on a (supposed) democratic republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:28 PM

52. That's nice.

I guess he really didn't want to change anything of importance then.

By their deeds will you know them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:55 PM

5. yep.

I've been watching him for a long time. Reid = Fail

Sometimes you need to wait till the fans come to a realization that he's a fail and let them experience it. Then it's good to post something like this, other wise you become meat for the rabid clueless.



-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:55 PM

6. His current term ends in January 2017. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:56 PM

7. It's unlikely people will remember this tempest in a teapot temper tantrum in two weeks

Much less four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:58 PM

10. Failure to fix a major rule in the Senate, one he said he was going to fix..is a T to the 4th power?

Pretty sure if a Senator says he's going to do something, then does not, it's usually grounds for at least discussing their ability to lead/legislate/perform their job...

also I love the aliteration...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:13 PM

15. How does Reid 'fix' something? Is he Superman?

If he couldn't get the votes, he couldn't get the votes. How hard is this to understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:58 PM

21. Well, he said he had the votes

Not for full Udall/Markley, but for important reforms like the 41-vote-to-sustain rule.

So....either he watered down filibuster reform, or he's a liar covering for other senators so that their voters don't know what they are up to.

Either way, the failure of the next two years are his.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:34 PM

33. There Were 9 Senators Against Udall/Merkley

...including Senators Feinstein and Boxer. Sen Reid kept "the day" going while I'm sure arm twisting and deal making was going on. In the end this was the best deal he could get that would clear 51 or more votes. While he's the "Leader" he's also the consensus maker. We saw the opposite with Boner and the fiscal cliff bullshit...he couldn't get a consensus and the party fell apart. I strongly favored the talking filibuster...and still do...but there are a lot of skittish Senators in red and purple state up for re-election in two years (more Democrats than rushpublicans) and I suspect that's where your weak knees can be found.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KharmaTrain (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:53 PM

40. No, it was not the best deal. Or he's a liar.

He said he had the votes for 41-votes-to-sustain.

So either this isn't the best deal he could get, or he was lying.

Stop pretending that there were only 2 options. There were 3 reform plans. Reid chose the weakest, after claiming to have the votes for the middle plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:53 PM

39. How about he was just wrong about having the 51 votes? Or even...mistaken?

I'm not happy about the outcome, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:54 PM

41. So you're defending him by calling him incompetent? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:26 PM

45. He seems like a decent Democrat.

He often gives the GOP hell. Based on prior evidence and behavior, I don't think he deserves to be 'disowned'. The Democrats who would not go along with him are the ones deserving of derision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:52 AM

50. Except there's no evidence there were no Democrats who wouldn't go along with him.

He said he didn't have votes for Udall/Markley, but he said he had the votes for 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and for actually writing down the rules.

If he was lying, then those Democrats deserve derision.....as does Reid for covering for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:58 PM

9. Not unless you would prefer a Republican

Nevada is not a sure thing for a Democrat by any means. Their other Senatorial seat is held by a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:00 PM

11. So, if we could find a viable Senate candidate who could take the primary, would you be open to it?

Is Harry Reid a finger in the dyke? Or is he actually worth having around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:10 PM

14. It would be foolish to "primary" him

and the Democrats in Nevada are not going to, so I think you can forget about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:11 PM

27. What use is a Democrat

 

who helps the Republicans?

What would the net result of whomever beats Reid in a primary losing to a Republican? Not much different than things are now, other than we might have a fighting chance of getting a real majority leader out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:26 PM

46. There IS a difference between a Democrat, even if he's a Blue Dog, and a Republican.

A progressive is NOT going to win Reid's seat in the Senate. It's either a Blue Dog or a Republican. Those are the choices. Reid won because he's a long term popular incumbent who brings home bacon to his state. He has the power to do that. If Reid hadn't been the candidate, I think the opponent would have won.

It's all about the state of Nevada. They vote for who they think can bring home the bacon. For Nevada. It's a fairly conservative state, too.

The thing that people should be wanting is for Reid to lose his head of the Party status in the Senate, but that's almost impossible to do. Look at Boehner, who is unpopular with the reps right now. Even HE won the re-election of his head of his party in the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:36 PM

54. On the other hand, Nevada is increasingly Blue

and the Republican party there is wildly dysfunctional (Sharon Angle, anyone?). In 4 more years both of those things could be even more true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:43 PM

59. We can try and hope. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:28 PM

49. Arithmetic

The difference between a Democrat who votes with the party 95% of the time and a repub who virtually never votes with the Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:15 PM

30. Then yes, let Nevada go full repug.

and elect replacements from somewhere else (like a strong blue state w/a barely elected repug). Sometimes you just have to ditch bad luggage. Especially it it hurts the party (and maybe the country).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:05 PM

12. Remember what happened in Indiana

Lugar was not "right" enough so they primaried him. Mourdock was too batshit crazy for even Indiana and they now have a Dem senator. I say no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:06 PM

13. Yes

All incumbents should face a primary challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:06 PM

25. why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:44 PM

36. It's what democracy is all about.

Letting the people decide.

May the best man or woman win!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #36)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:07 PM

48. I disagree. It woudl be silly, for instance, for anyone to challenge

a good progressive incumbent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:14 PM

16. Voters don't elect a speaker of the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:35 PM

34. Civics...

...aren't a strong suit around here.

Cheers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:14 PM

17. Please define constant capitulation.

And please be precise in your definition so all of DU may have the same metric which you have.

Politics is messy. I would bet my bottom dollar that nobody has such a metric.

What it sounds like to me is that you do not like the filibuster deal, so you choose to malign the senate majority leader since you have nobody else to whom you can pin the blame.

I have a suggestion for all the Harry Reid haters here. Please let this play out before you start hating. Don't let your disappointment for the lack of a nuclear bomb in Senate rules to cloud your judgement. Nuclear weapons rarely do anything good.

I trust Harry Reid in spite of the fact that I would have very much liked a talking filibuster.

Do not presume a future which has not yet happened.

I R&K, regardless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:38 PM

19. I think I'm with you there.

I'm disappointed we didn't get Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibusters, but I think heaping all the blame on Reid and making him out to be an idiot or a wimp is firing at the wrong target.

If Reid couldn't get 51 votes, we need to be finding those DINOs who weren't working to find a way to make the Senate work. I'd suggest looking at Feinstein, Boxer, Levin, maybe Baucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:49 PM

20. Thanks, but I think Harry didn't want to lose the filibuster.

Nor did a good chunk of the caucus.

The reason? If they go nuclear, and the Republicans gain a majority in 2014, they'll make holy hell for the minority Democrats.

By making a deal:


Crap game put it just the way it came down, I suspect. In this case, they were Republicans.

The logic from fictional war movies is inescapable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:56 PM

42. you talk as if repubs have scruples.... if repubs gain majoirty they will screw all their appeasers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:40 PM

55. +100

The best way to prevent a Republican majority in the Senate is to SHOW Democratic Senators passing good, progressive legislation, while SHOWING the Republicans in both the Senate and the House holding it up.

If there are no clear lines of difference between the parties, why would anyone vote? And we know we win when we actually vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:01 PM

23. We did that two years ago.

I have a suggestion for all the Harry Reid haters here. Please let this play out before you start hating.

We did that two years ago, with his milquetoast "handshake agreement" with McConnell. It was a massive disaster.

Now he has another handshake agreement with McConnell and a few very minor changes.

You are telling us to let the same thing play out over the next two years.

Just how dumb are we supposed to be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:13 PM

28. This was no handshake, my friend.

It's a bipartisan vote. That makes it a binding rule of the Senate. I would have preferred something stronger, but we didn't get it.

As I said, Reid did not want to pull the nuclear trigger against a warlike opponent who would be only happy to launch missiles if we did. You want Reid to be Ronald "the missiles are on the way" Reagan, when I would prefer John Fitzgerald "Cuban Blockade gives Kruschev an out" Kennedy.

Not trying to be confrontational, but I will stand by my post.

We will both see, I imagine. No personal offense intended or taken. We can disagree without coming to blows. But I do disagree with you. That's okay with me, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:31 PM

32. You need to pay more attention to what's actually happened

The only change to the rules is the part limiting debate time after a filibuster of low-level nominees is broken.

That's it. All the rest of the deal is not part of the rules.

The "7 senators from each side or 2 amendments" is a standing order, not a rule. It automatically goes away in two years.

The "no anonymous filibusters" is a handshake deal....that the relevant leader will try to get their members to not do anonymous filibusters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:45 PM

37. I agree...

But neither you nor me knows how this will play out. So I am going to relax and observe things as they develope. Others can set their hair on fire and run around if they want, but none of them are in the well of the Senate. Nor am I; nor are you .

I refuse to project my fears onto the future events. That's just not how these things work out.

Let us see what happens. These people are not stupid, and the Republicans seem to be oozing ideology at every pour.

I am not willing to second guess anybody because of one event, or a collection of cherry-picked events.

I support my party even when they disappoint me. And I let them all know when they disappoint. If I disagree, I do so with respect.

That's what we do here. I would hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #37)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:51 PM

38. You would have an argument 2 years ago.

If you think the Republicans will honor a handshake agreement after the last two years, I have a dozen bridges to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:51 PM

58. Then let's raise hell...

if another anonymous filibuster occurs. The diseased ones tend to shrivel in sunlight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:19 PM

18. Is Harry Reid the correct target?

Sounds to me like he was trying, but he got undermined by other Democratic (or "Democratic") senators - Feinstein and Levin in particular, who weren't going to support filibuster reform.

One day, he's the Honey Badger, the next day, he's back in the tutu?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:04 PM

24. Yes.

He claimed he had 51 votes for strong reforms, such as 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. He did not have votes for a talking filibuster, but he claimed to have the votes for much stronger reforms than this deal.

Such as actually writing the reforms into the rules instead of relying on another handshake agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:23 PM

31. Yes, those senators could've been called out instead of staying on the side also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:00 PM

22. Well I called his office and left a message. I told him he sold his party out. I

 

also told them if they don't run any FDR democrats am not going to give money to the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:10 PM

26. Yes.

In fact it should have happened the last election round. But I think it's becoming clear that his time has past. He's now become one of the problems. Time to find a FDR-like replacement for both his seat and leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:15 PM

29. And here's another question: Is a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibuster reform the way to go?

Think about it. Who wins and who loses when you play the chessboard out a few moves?

Go back to the 60's. Back then, it was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington rules, and the bill that was getting filibustered was the Civil Rights Act.

Back then, it only took one senator to hold the floor in a filibuster, equipped with a dictionary and a catheter, and prepared to talk the bill down for as long as he can. That senator can, of course, give the floor to another senator. The Dixiecrats that filibustered the Civil Rights Act and similar legislation had a rotation set up. Two Dixiecrats were in Washington for 24 hours. One would filibuster for 12 hours, then pass the floor to the next one for 12 hours. Another pair would fly up to relieve them for the next day. And so it would continue - only two Dixiecrats filibustering per day in a planned rotation that they can keep up indefinitely, while the rest of them were at home in their states, sipping mint juleps. Of course, the filibustering senators would be making constant quorum calls (Remember, the magic words of a filibuster are "I suggest the absence of a quorum." which forces a roll call, which would result in adjournment if 51 senators didn't answer the call), so to keep the Senate from shutting down entirely, the good Democrats and the Republicans voting with them would have to be in Washington, camped out in their offices, ready to answer quorum calls 24/7.

Usually, the Dixiecrats won, because they could sip mint juleps while the majority had to live in the Capitol 24/7 answering 3am quorum calls. Civil rights legislation got kicked down the road over and over and over.

What we want is something where the filibusterer, and the majority getting filibustered, actually have a roughly even chance of winning, meaning neither side gets too much of an advantage in terms of being able to out-endure the other, and that the winning side has to earn their victory. Remember that down the road, the Republicans may get the majority, and we might be the ones filibustering when they're doing things like putting nazi assclowns in the Supreme Court, ramming through yet more violations of our constitutional rights, or crushing unions and slashing Medicare & Social Security, etc.

There are lots of proposals to reform the filibuster. Right now, the filibustering side has too much of an advantage - the senator doesn't even have to do the Mr. Smith thing - he just puts a hold on the bill and flies home for mint juleps. Without 60 votes for cloture, the bill is vetoed.

Maybe the suggestion of requiring 41 votes to sustain a filibuster (in other words, all 41+ members who wish to sustain a filibuster) to show up to quorum calls would be useful.

Here's another one: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/25/the-british-model-for-filibuster-reform.html - a sustained filibuster results in a bill being taken off the table for one, and only one election cycle. They can kill a bill for two years, but that bill is automatically put back on the floor for the session that starts immediately after the next election, and at that point, can no longer be filibustered. So if we filibuster a GOP bill that axes Social Security, we can go to the voters and say "Yes, we saved Social Security by filibustering the Senate bill that sends your checks to the Koch brothers." The voters, then, have the final say, in the form of throwing out the bastards and retaining the cool senators, which would alter the way the Senate votes on the bill when it comes up the January after the election. If the GOP, OTOH, filibusters a bill that would put the banksters in jail that defrauded billions from the people and caused the Great Recession, I'd like to see how they explain that to their constituents...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:45 PM

56. Visuals are important.

Let them be SEEN, in front of Dog and Everybody, opposing legislation that would benefit We the People.

No more secrets, no deniability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:39 PM

35. He and the rest of the part-time Demcrats and 3rd Way sell-outs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:57 PM

43. democracy = public and accountable votes on all issues and legislation in the senate nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:19 PM

44. YES!

Of course, I've been saying this for nearly a decade, most of which
Reid was kissing Bush Crime Family ass, turning "rolling over to GOP"
into how "business as usual" is done in the US Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:34 PM

47. Sorry...but he's old enough to just sail off into the sunset.

How did this clown ever end up as the leader of the Senate? It had to be year of service. Good riddance. We have to be care, again, in what we wish for. Remember, he barely beat the teabagger last time around. Does Nevada have someone worthy to withstand the far right's idiot? Reid barely did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:48 PM

57. he`s no mike mansfield

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread