Harry Reid lowers expectation for 60 vote majority....that didn't take long.

[madfloridian]

From The Plum Line:

Reid says not to expect too much

“We have 60 votes on paper,” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview. “But we cannot bulldoze anybody; it doesn’t work that way. My caucus doesn’t allow it. And we have a very diverse group of senators philosophically. I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles.”…

“One or two could peel off on any issue,” said Mr. Reid, who has seen the ranks of his party swell by 15 in the past two elections.

More about it:

That said, Reid’s comments raise a broader question: How much should Dems worry about the emerging Republican line right now, which is to raise expectations by pointing out that Dems now own the government — and its failures? As RNC chair Michael Steele put it: “I can say without hesitation that this government is totally theirs now, and everything that comes out of it and everything that results from it is on their plate.”

Why run away from this? Some Dems might point out a better response: “Damn right — everything we accomplish is the result of Democratic rule.” After all, Steele is right. The public did hand Dems a mandate to govern. Rather than worry about how the GOP is playing the “expectations game,” the other option is for Dems to embrace the public’s expectations of them, own their accomplishments, and seize on the GOP line to point out even Republicans are admitting that they’re irrelevant now.

Reid needs to start flexing his muscles in the right way for progressives who want the public option in health care.

Who's the gatekeeper on the public option in the Senate?

RE: The possibility of not bringing a public option to the floor. That's likely the preferred method for shielding "centrist" Dems from such a vote. Where to keep your eyes? If the HELP committee reports out the bill they've been promising, with a public option included, and the Finance committee doesn't, who reconciles the two and decides which package gets to the floor?

Harry Reid does.

In the FISA Senate battle at the end of 2007, the Intelligence committee and the Judiciary committee reported out different versions of the bill. That case, though, involved a sequential referral of a House bill, and Reid said he was relying on the custom of bringing up the bill that came out of the committee to get the first referral as the base bill, though the option was open to him as Majority Leader to change direction. But it at least made some sense, even if it was obvious that there was a conscious choice to refer the bill to the more receptive of the two committees first.

Health care isn't a referral, though. These are two original Senate bills competing for consideration. The Majority Leader has considerably more flexibility on this. He'll be guided by the chairmen of the committees in this, of course. But you'll learn an awful lot about who stands where if HELP includes a public option, Finance doesn't, and neither does whatever comes to the floor.

If we can't get real health care reform with this majority, then there is a problem.

[imdjh]

1. This appears to me the standard MO these days

We got a taste of this right after the inauguration- an immediate reach-out to make sure we weren't expecting "too much".

[liberal N proud]

2. Spineless Harry Reid needs to go!

[kenny blankenship]

26. Unfortunately they picked him because they know he's a limp noodle - and that's what they wanted.

You don't appoint yourself Senate Majority Leader. Other Senators of your caucus pick you. Reid was elected to the post of Leader by Democratic Senators who wanted to serve their patrons without guidance or interference from any Party philosophy or platform.

The Weak Reid is a symptom of the corruption within the Democratic Party, not the cause. You cut the weak reed out, but then what? Why will his replacement be stronger, or more ideologically motivated? How do you avoid having Reid replaced by another ineffectual scarecrow?

[depakid]

62. "How do you avoid having Reid replaced by another ineffectual scarecrow?"

By putting fear of defeat at the polls into them.

Oust Reid and the next pandering milquetoast who comes along thinks twice.

[The Magistrate]

3. Reid's Job, Ma'am, Is To see No One Peels Off On Any Specific Issue

If he cannot do this, or even see that it is what he must do, he needs to step aside for someone who can do the job.

[chicago legal pro]

53. Actually, no that is not his job.

That is the job of the Majority Whip, Dick Durbin.

[kenny blankenship]

80. Correct: Reid's job is to regularly issue the somber, sorrow-tinged reminders

that people's already depressed expectations are too high. Woefully, woefully high.

I mean, there's a reason this guy looks like an undertaker. Burying the hopes of the Democratic majority is his calling. You don't do that with balloons and sparklers and twinkling smiles. You have to look sad and wistful -but also resigned, like you've made peace with the fact that life sucks and it always ends the same way, and everyone else should be resigned too, so that a group decorum is maintained.

[chicago legal pro]

88. You got it.

[MasonJar]

91. Beautifully and amazingly apt description of Reid...unfortunately!

[The Magistrate]

96. The Whip Counts The Votes, Sir

And suggests at times means of persuasion. The means of persuasion are in the hands of the majority leader. It is Reid's job to see to it our caucus hangs together, that people pay forfeits and consequences for failing to vote with the administration, and those of sufficient weight to instill fear of transgressing in future. W need a fighting leader in the Senate, and Reid is anything but a fighter or a leader.

[The Green Manalishi]

105. Well said, sir!

We need another Lyndon Johnson.

[chicago legal pro]

117. You don't have a clue about the Whip job, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

119. Of Course Not, Sir: My Ignorance Is Legend

[CrownPrinceBandar]

98. Magistrate!!!!!!!........

Haven't seen you in a while. Hope things are well with you.

[The Magistrate]

120. As Well As Ever, Your Grace. a Pleasure To see You Again

[natrat]

106. you would think they would replace him to fool people similar to the obama scam

[WI_DEM]

4. well he is right with the two Nelsons, The Arkansas two, Lieberman, Specter and others

Conrad from ND, for instance, is big on these co-ops instead of a government plan. But the thing is Reid should be getting tough on these factions and start playing hard ball that if they don't back the majority on key issues they will face discipline of some kind.

[peace frog]

5. There's already a "problem"

actually several problems with Harry Reid, but thanks for posting this. It seems he has greater leverage regarding which bill comes to the floor than one might have assumed. Heads up, Harry: we're watching and waiting, and implore you not to disappoint us yet again.

[madfloridian]

17. Yes, he has a lot of leverage over the bills.

Unfortunately.

[tom_paine]

6. Reid is a grotesque disgrace. n/t

[atreides1]

7. Flexing his muscles?

The only thing Reid has ever flexed are his lips, usually just before he kisses some Republicans ass!!

Leader? The man couldn't lead a fleet of plastic battleships in a bath tub!

[catbyte]

10. He's seriously pissing me off

Reid really needs to just go away. I don't know whether he's a DINO or just a spineless wimp, but either way, he needs to be put out to pasture.

Gawd, he annoys the HELL out of me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Diane

Anishnabe and Proud

FREE LEONARD PELTIER

Leonard has a parole hearing on July 28, 2009. Please visit http://www.freepeltiernow.com to help free him. Megwetch.

[SoCalDem]

83. He's a "vulnerable" dem, just as Daschle was

the leader should be from a STRONG democratic state.

Harry is always on bended knee, because his own tenure is up for grabs because of is home state's swing-state nature.

Our leader should have strong support from his home state, and should never be worried about playing hardball.

republicans love to "bump off" a speaker or a senate leader. It should never be easy for them.

[asjr]

12. He should stick to the rubber duckies--that

is more his style.

[DireStrike]

15. Hahah yeah that jumped out at me

Hairless reed couldn't flex a bendy straw.

[Uncle Joe]

41. I strongly disagree, I believe Reid is more than capable in leading

a fleet of plastic battleships in a bath tub!

[jimshoes]

8. How was it that the repukes ran roughshod over the

dems with only 50 senators?

[madfloridian]

9. It's amazing, isn't it?

How that happens.

[FiveGoodMen]

34. The repukes showed determination. They were on their own (repuke) side

Harry's not really on our side.

[walldude]

11. "We need to work together in the spirit of bipartisanship

so that when the Republicans gain control over something they can shit all over us again, because I just didn't get enough of that in the last eight years".

I give up. We could have 90 seats, it wouldn't matter, greedy, spineless, cowardly, all apt descriptions of Congress. We're on our own folks.

[Life Long Dem]

13. I'm sure notes will be taken on anyone peeling off for a filibuster.

Good luck.

[DireStrike]

16. They might receive letters

And the letters might come close to expressing disapproval

[dembotoz]

14. This is like buying the sports car of your dreams only to pop the hood and find

the motor from a worn out chevy vega

[madfloridian]

18. Apt comparison

.

[Canuckistanian]

23. And the gearbox is stuck in reverse

It's not that Reid is doing NOTHING. It's that he seems to be actively working AGAINST meaningful change.

[Kermitt Gribble]

19. Let me decipher...

"The American people shouldn't expect us to do anything to their benefit - we are still cozily nestled in the pockets of the corporations. Oh, and for those who were wondering, yes, the majority of us in Congress are of the same party - the corporate money party."

Thanks, Harry. This majority is going to blow your, and all your money party buddies' cover.

[fascisthunter]

20. I really Think Reid is in Cahoots with the conservatives

on the other side of the aisle. Every fucking time we need the Senate to vote on something important, something the Dems have a really good chance in achieving, this piss ant seems to work against. Fuck him!

[Dr Fate]

37. No doubt about it. No need to "twist arms" when you are in agreement.

He does not "twist the arms" of Blue Dogs because he AGREES with them.

It's really pretty simple.

[Individualist]

68. Of course he is. That's what DLCers do.

[ControlledDemolition]

101. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas! n/t

[bullwinkle428]

21. This schmuckalunga is always looking for ways to snatch defeat

from the jaws of victory! Time for a Trump cobra strike!

[pleah]

22. I expected nothing less from "Harry has no balls".

[WeDidIt]

24. I have a higher approval rating of Dick Cheney than I do Harry Reid

At least Cheney has a spine.

[Marr]

25. There's no problem with Reid's spine, people.

The problem is that he isn't on our side. There's a reason he's occupying that position-- the powers that be find him acceptable. His job is to maneuver populist legislation into a losing position. His job is a lot more difficult than it used to be, and much more transparently obvious to anyone willing to see it.

[HughMoran]

27. It's Specter, Nelson and LIEberman and the independence of Dems that we should LOVE

How can we blame Reid for having trouble herding cats?

I bet there is no man/woman alive who could force anything down the Dems throats. And why would we want lockstep anyway - look how unpopular lockstep is on DU - does anybody realize how utterly hypocritical it is to blame Reid for having to deal with people that we on DU know can be ornery fucks!

[madfloridian]

29. I don't just blame Reid. I blame those who want to keep the GOP enabled.

And by my count right now, that is a hell of a lot of senators.

[Dr Fate]

46. Maybe Reid AGREES with Specter, Nelson and LIEberman to an extent.

That would go a long way in explaining why he has not challenged them in any meaningful way.

[Winterblues]

28. "We Don't Have the Votes"

"It's Off the Table" ... Pretty much the story of the Democratic Party

[Dr Fate]

39. Don't forget "Keep your powder dry for the next fight"- my personal fave for many years.

n/t

[Marr]

94. Yep-- that was so transparent.

You build political momentum by fighting; you stir it up and build support.

The notion that they only had some finite amount of fight to use, and therefore had to just allow the GOP to have it's way on issues is laughable on it's face.

[cascadiance]

30. It's those DLC/Blue Dogs and LAME Senator Reid that are AGAINST allowing more voices...

... to come to the floor when they in effect are *BLOCKING* cloture and SUPPORTING fillibusters if they don't demand that all Dems vote as a block JUST to not allow fillibustering to happen by always voting for cloture for the Democratic Party's bills.

Reid should DEMAND that his party's members all vote for cloture to allow those supported by the majority of his party to come to the floor for a vote. Now if in the general vote these blue dogs want to vote against a bill, then so be it. And they can be on record as to whether they really supported the bill or not, if they are worried about their stances with their constituency. But then they wouldn't be considered "obstructionist", which I DO consider them along with Republicans now as long as they don't commit to making sure that the Dems vote as a block for cloture now.

It is what the Republicans demanded in the past when Democratics *ON OCCASION* would do fillibusters on Republican bills. The same logic should apply here. LET THE SENATE VOTE ON THESE BILLS! And for that you have to have a commitment to cloture. And we need to see who are not ready to vote for cloture all of the time so that they can be VOTED OUT in the primaries as soon as possible!

We need to provide the opportunity for Byrd and Kennedy to be heroes on certain bills, and not have one of these DINO jerks standing in the way, much like Paul Engle did on when helping overcome fillibusters to pass civil rights legislation in the 60's. Of course Byrd was on the wrong side of the fence in those days, but today?...

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/02/ted-kennedy-rob...

[omega minimo]

31. "Harry Reid lowers expectations ......................" Say no more.

[madfloridian]

32. Kos posts about Harry: "Harry Reid, nothing but excuses"

Harry Reid, nothing but excuses

"During the Bush years, the Senate needed 50 votes (plus Cheney) to pass legislation. Once Democrats took the Senate, that obviously changed. 60 votes became the new threshold. And no one has been a more avid promoter of that new standard than the Senate Democratic leader himself, Harry Reid."

.."Just imagine how different things would be if McConnell had 60 votes. He'd be taking the bull by the horns, not making excuses about how 60 really isn't 60.

I'll be looking forward to DSCC fundraising emails these next couple of weeks, promising all sorts of wonderful things if only Democrats had ... 75 seats in the Senate? I wouldn't put it past Reid to make that the new threshold for Senate action on important legislation."

[Karmadillo]

33. Lowers expectations? Who had expectations?

nt

[LynneSin]

35. He's only been saying what many of us have been posting for months

60 is just a number. We have the possiblity of proventing a filibuster but that means we have people some of the Southern Democrats and Joe Lieberman playing ball with us.

I mean, did what I post a couple dozen time mean squat until it was made official by the voice of Harry Reid?

[Dr Fate]

40. You predicted that he would have an excuse. So did I.

You act like that was some great feat of insight.

Of COURSE Harry was going to say "We don't have the votes" instead of saying "here is what I'm going to do to GET the votes."

Harry is not a man of action- he is a man of multiple, chronic excuses.

Hell- no one disagreed with you about that.

[LynneSin]

42. I didn't predict he had an excuse...

I told the facts

60 is no guarentee ESPECIALLY since Joe Lieberman isn't even a member of our party

[Dr Fate]

44. Then you predicted wrong-b/c he did give excuses- and will continue to. My bad. n/t

n/t

[LynneSin]

45. Then you have your head in the sand

Our rather just elect senators that won't think for themselves.

[Dr Fate]

47. I realize that Harry Reid will not fight his fellow conservatives to get the votes.

Instead he will just cry "We don't have the votes."

It's an excuse-b/c he will not fight them. MAybe he does not fight them b/c he basically agrees with them.


I see exactly what is going on- you & I just have different ways of explaining it.

[LynneSin]

50. No, he was just pointing out the obvious

And any other democrat given Harry Reid's position would do the same thing.

Do you want leadership like Mitch McConnell and Dick Cheney were their members were threatened to keep in line else lose committee seats and/or earmarks? Why do you think Jim Jeffords left? Why do you think Arlen Specter left now. Why do you think Joe Lieberman never aligned with the republicans.

Because these are men who want to THINK and not be told "This is how you vote or else".

I'd take a thousand Harry Reids over one Mitch McConnell/Trent Lott or Dick Cheney.

[Dr Fate]

54. Yes- it's obvious that Harry will not fight his fellow conservatives. We both see that.

Instead of saying "Here is how I'll get the votes"- he will say "We don't have the votes."

Spare me the sob stories about those mean old Republicans- if a Senate Leader has to twist arms to make the people we elected do the right thing, so be it.

Where else are they gonna go? Over to the loser Republicans? LOL! It's not like we are asking them to cut off thir arms, or to support a war based on lies. Just to support the President and mainstream voters.

Enough with these tired, worn out excuses.

[DireStrike]

58. "the obvious" is that the Democrats in the senate are completely out of line

Reid's proper style would mean something if and only if the Republicans could be made to play by the same rules. They never will.

I would like it very much if we had mindless, ultra-partisan leftists in the senate like the right has mindless, ultra-partisan rightists. It would be much better than what we have now. Instead we have useless conservative vipers that claim to be leftists.

[madfloridian]

61. I gripe not just about Reid, but about all Dems that enable a Republican agenda

and won't stand up for what we really need to do.

[donco6]

55. Exactly.

The Republicans didn't let a lack of sure-fire votes stop them. They worked their asses off and made sure they got the votes they needed, when they needed them. I think Harry is just fucking lazy.

[Dr Fate]

56. Maybe Harry is not lazy- maybe he just AGREES with the other conservative DEMS.

It would explain things- there is no need to "twist arms" when you are in agreement.

[donco6]

75. There is that, to be sure.

But suggest that possibility around here and watch the sycophants come out of the woodwork.

[Dr Fate]

36. Harry Reid makes excuses instead of fighting conservatives? Golly- what a huge suprise.

Give us hell Harry! LOL!

[deaniac21]

38. Every single member of congress is bought.

[ControlledDemolition]

102. Except Jane Harman! She's only worth $400M+!! n/t

[theHandpuppet]

43. LBJ he ain't!

Reid has all the backbone of an egg noodle.

[ControlledDemolition]

103. LBJ had his own sister 'dealt with' with extreme prejudice. Any good he may have done...

... was in some way done to his own benefit.

[depakid]

48. Key words: "My caucus doesn’t allow it."

The smart thing to do is to withdraw support from this guy in 2010 and ensure he doesn't get re-elected, because he's proven over and over to be the best player of the Republican team. Bar none.

His loss is the party's immeasurable gain.

[LynneSin]

52. "My caucus doesn’t allow it."

Wow, you have no idea what that means - shame.

I'd rather have that then idiots like McConnell, Lott or Cheney running my party.

I like independant thought and I'd rather have that any day over election people who have no choice in how they vote.

[depakid]

57. Oh, I know EXACTLY what it means

We can just go tell Harry to kiss off- and we'll run with whatever our sponsors want us to do- after all, they're our constituents, not ordinary Americans. And best of all, there'll be no consequences whatsoever for that!

Sorry, but with respect to realpolitik- what you advocate is for losers. And losing these policy battles- over and over is therefore what you deserve.

Sadly, the rest of us end up having to suffer for it.

[madamesilverspurs]

49. He's lucky he made his remarks AFTER

the admins posted the T-shirt nominees for July. . .

[tekisui]

51. My expectations for Harry Reid cannot get any lower.

[kenny blankenship]

81. All he asks is that you try.

Time, traitors, and briefcases of corporate cash will do the rest.

[Joanne98]

59. Gawd! I hate his guts!

[Optical.Catalyst]

60. Preemptive excuses, plan for failure - then work towards it

I keep hoping Harry Reid will become somewhat more aggressive, but he continues to disappoint.

[martymar64]

63. Harry the Pussy strikes again!

He's such a wimp.

[RagAss]

64. Our Fearless fucking Leader !

[Dr Fate]

65. Makes you just swell up with pride, doesn't he? n/t

n/t

[Gman]

66. Democrats have 58 votes

Sanders can be counted on to be 59. Lieberman is independent but caucuses with the Dems.

[Canuckistanian]

67. Harry Reid - Buzzkill Artiste

Nobody throws cold water on a celebration like Harry Reid.

[B Calm]

69. What is the job of Senate Majority Leader ?

[Dr Fate]

71. To cave to conservatives, then make excuses. n/t

n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

70. Uh, it's time for that bulldozer, Harry.

Enough of the "we don't do that". If you won't do that, then nothing will get done, and you'll have given the middle finger to all the people who put Democrats in the Senate for a reason.

[grahamhgreen]

72. Reid seems determined to destroy his own party's majority by moving always to the right...

[mwooldri]

73. Calling Harry Reid's balls! Calling Harry Reid's balls!

1992 called. The balls want to come back.

[annabanana]

74. I mean.. Whaddaya gonna do?

It just happens some times

[Krashkopf]

76. DEMAND that your (D) Senators take Bernie Sanders' "I will not join a (R) Filibuster" pledge!

Democrats can disagree among themselves about the merits of any piece of legislation, but NO Democrat should join a Republican filibuster of ANY piece of Democratic-sponsored legislation.

Tell Harry Reid that EVERY piece of Democratic-sponsored legislation should get an UP OR DOWN vote, and that any Democrat who refuses to TAKE THE PLEDGE, or who "peels off" - joining a Republican filibuster should be punished to the full extent of the Majority Leader's power, AND, should be faced with a DSCC-sponsored primary challenger.

[and-justice-for-all]

77. Reid has got to go....this is unfucking believable...

we have all the numbers needed to bull stuff through the house and senate and Reid is acting like a fucking repuke!?

[bdamomma]

78. what a wimp.

I thought we were the majority party. we need a new majority leader.

[RBInMaine]

79. He nailed it though: "Senate Dems are ideologically diverse." Some are pretty conservative.

Which is not really a "bad" thing since we must be a big tent party with room for moderates, but it does create a lack of party discipline. However, public option in healthcare is so popular nationally, that is one issue where even R's, if they had any brains at all, should embrace wholeheartedly.

[BlooInBloo]

82. Bottom line: Reid is our greatest enemy at the moment.

[BolivarianHero]

84. I don't expect anything from Mormons...

Long before the evil of Proposition 8, those bastards stole my cousin's kids and raised them in their freaky right-wing hate cult.

[Kansas Wyatt]

85. Reid had better "peel" his head out of the sand (or his ass)

Because he is in for a rude awakening in the coming elections, with how many Americans decide to "peel off" from voting for Democratic candidates or "peel off" from even going to the polls.

[spanone]

86. it's now or never.

[WestSeattle2]

87. Remember that a LOT of the Democratic senators

were elected in conservative regions. Surely you weren't expecting them to match Dennis Kucinich vote for vote, were you?

Those of us who have been around the block, can assure you that when American's say they want change, they mean gradual, glacial change. When substantial change occurs too quickly they get nervous, very nervous, and start voting the other way. And have no doubt, this health care initiative will test their comfort zone, and many who voted Democratic last time around, will not again. The minute the House and Senate start marching in lock step with the left wing of the Democratic party, is the day we can kiss the House, Senate, and the White House good-bye.

Some may argue, "what's the point of a majority if we can't get what we want RIGHT NOW?!". The point is that we're in a position now to effect positive change, piece by piece. You try to grab the whole pie and you get your hand slapped....hard. Change, tempered by patience and strategic planning, keeps the peace and we get what we want, step by step.

It's clear from reading these threads that many DU members do not possess negotiating skills, and in fact many appear to care less about long term Democratic dominance. The shortsightedness of so many here, is a reflection, I believe, in the total lack of critical thinking skills taught in public schools, and in American homes.

[LooseWilly]

100. You may have a point... but a LOT of Democratic senators got elected on the promise of "change"

Denis Kucinich may be a handy example of stereotypical "liberalism"... but to all indications, the country is ready for a change in healthcare. I suspect that many of us who've "been around the block" carry with us a pile of baggage from the trip... and some of that "baggage" is filled with "souvenirs" that are no longer relevant. (Just to stick with your initial metaphor)

Yes, pushing for "too much change" in "too short of a time" can be a "dangerous prospect"... but I think there is a definite difference between the calls for change now and those 10 years ago... let alone 30 years ago... the country as a whole is more receptive to nearly all of the above... and the fact that the previous administration not only stalled all "progress", but the fact that they demonstrated the hollow insipidity of many of the notions that they championed "not changing"... means that the country, as a whole, is ready for some change at a rate at least 2x that of "glacial".

Not a progressive/ "far left" dream of willingness to embrace change.. but far greater than that after 12 years of Reagan/Poppy. I think us old timers ought to acknowledge... and even court... the young urge toward change (especially after the last 8 years)... if nothing else just in order to secure them young'ns as new Democratic voters. I know, at that age, if the Democratic Party had actually expended some effort on "young" issues of "change" and whatnot... I might not've found myself voting for Zappa despite his being dead... for Cthulu just so as not to settle for the lesser evil... or for Nader as a vaguely plausible potential 3rd party candidate...

Are you really going to argue for "glacial" change rates despite the turn-off factor for young voters... who were actually drawn into the process by Obama? Are you content to assume that if they voted for Obama (as I voted for Dukakis) that they will vote Democratic forever because Republican is the only alternative? (as I clearly did by voting for a dead man, an unconfirmed evil divinity, and a deranged blowhard)...

And, as for your claims that many Democrats don't posses negotiating skills... I find that your dismissal of the "left wing" of the Democratic Party to be an obvious example of that lack.. on your part... if you and your "ilk" can't be bothered to attend to the issues of the "left wing" of the Democratic Party... then not only am I happy to go back to voting for an unconfirmed evil divinity for president... but I'll do my level best to convince my son that he should continue that tradition... a prospect which might amuse him enough to actually begin to vote... which the party's hollow promises have thus far failed to convince him are worthwhile.

And make no mistake... once you've voted Cthulu for... well, any office... it just becomes easier every time after that.

So remember... in your calls for Democratic short stepping of progress... that insofar as you appease the older agents against change... you likewise alienate the young agents in favor of change...

So consider that, too, when you argue about long term Democratic Dominance... as if the young really give a damn about the label of the party in charge, rather than the activities of the party in charge. And remember that, while you may be thinking in terms of "negotiating" with the older generation... you would do well to also remember that your words are noticed and interpreted by many of the younger generation as well... creating a "virtual negotiation" even if you think they're not paying attention.

Argue for the dismissal of the interests of the current young (by arguing for glacial rate changes) at your own risk.

[WestSeattle2]

109. You and many others are simply misreading

the voting public. They endorse "universal care" because absolutely no one has told them exactly how much it will cost us out of pocket. Do you suppose that support for universal care, and Democrats, might erode, substantially, if paychecks are reduced by even $10 per pay period? You bet it will, instantly. The backlash will be felt for years. If universal care ends up costing the millions of Americans who currently HAVE insurance, anything more out of pocket than what is currently paid, we'll have a backlash on our hands that we haven't seen for decades.

Young people are always impatient, that's to be expected. What's not to be expected are older DU members who should know better, ranting, raving, and displaying a level of ignorance that is breath taking in its scope.

It will take decades to effect the kind of change most Democrats envision. In order to achieve that goal, long term Democratic dominance is required. If young people don't care about party dominance, they're inviting failure, in fact encouraging it.

I stand by my claim that many Democrats do not possess negotiating skills, or critical thinking skills. I would add that it's not only Democrats, but many Americans, period. The fact that I'm on the DU board highlighted shortsighted Democrats.

In closing I would just point to Bill Clinton who at the start of his term attempted to wave the magic wand and vanquish homophobia in the military. The backlash was immediate, harsh, and long lasting. We're still paying the price for that today. That one issue derailed his agenda for months, and some would argue years.

Oh wait, but people voted for change then too, didn't they? Weren't the voters demanding change after 12 years of republicans in the White House? Every Democrat just KNEW that each American who voted for Clinton was endorsing their personal world and national view.

Intelligent people learn from past mistakes, fools are doomed to repeat them. With universal care, you're talking about implementing change that will effect 300 million people.

Tread very carefully.

[B Calm]

104. Senator Bayh is suppose to be representing me. . . . .

[WestSeattle2]

107. Senator Bayh, along with most other

senators, represent millions of people, many of whom do not share your world or national view.

Taking the stance of "it's my way or the highway", is extremely counterproductive, and a losing strategy that does nothing but invite resistance and revenge.

Who else takes that approach? The religious Reich.

[Krashkopf]

110. What good is "long term Democratic dominance . . ."

if you don't use that "dominance" to advance a "Democratic" agenda.

How is having DLC-Democrats pushing GOP-lite policies significantly better than having the GOP in control?

[WestSeattle2]

111. Long term dominance provides a reasonable

chance of implementing comprehensive societal change. If all you're interested in is winning a battle but not the war, fine, just acknowledge where you're really coming from.

[fascisthunter]

114. yuh... let us know when that works out for us

[WestSeattle2]

115. If the administration and Congress employ the strategies

promoted by some on this board, we'll never have a chance to see how it works out, now will we?

[truebrit71]

89. Harry Reid is an embarassment and needs to be replaced...

..completely fucking useless...

[MasonJar]

90. Nothing like leadership! Nothing like it with Reid in charge. Does he think that

we are truly so imbecilic that he has to tell us that? He is just determined to be and stay a loser. Why is he still Majority Leader? What can be done to change that?

[The Stranger]

92. It's beyond incompetence and a failure of leadership -- he must be a mole for the GOP.

No one could be that much of a disaster.

All he has to do is smile and say something like, "We look forward to working with the President and the American People to move America forward."

Instead, this. He must be on the criminals' payroll. No other explanation.

[agent46]

93. At some point

at some point the American people will be tired of spineless "representatives" speaking for them. At some point the "real" American's will begin to speak with a powerful voice of their own. Accept it or reject it it. Now's the time.

[OwnedByFerrets]

95. I only got one rec when I posted this earlier today....

must be the name recognition LOL ^5 mad

[madfloridian]

99. No, things like that happen to me a lot.

Don't take it personally. A lot depends on when you post, or who is around at the time.

[OwnedByFerrets]

116. Trust me, I was laughing when I posted.

Truly not a big deal.

[BlooInBloo]

113. It happens for various reasons - mostly just luck of the draw.

[Yavin4]

97. Sen. Reid. You're Dead Wrong

Michael Steele, and I cannot believe that I am about to type this, is 100% correct. Dems own the govt, lock, stock, and barrel, and if they don't start producing positive legislation that benefits ALL Americans and improves the lives of every day Americans, then they will be tossed out on their rears.

[warren pease]

108. Of course there's a problem and it's called "campaign financing."

He's just dancing with thems that brung him. And that specifically excludes me and thee.

I keep writing and blathering about how campaign finance reform is the single lynchpin that's blocking complete, top to bottom reform of this entire banana republic-like corporatocracy.

Just watch these tortured, twisted, illogical Texas two-steps they do when trying to justify the concept that their Cadillac health care plans -- which will follow them and their extended families around for life -- are just too good for the peasantry.

But unless and until either a) MoveOn starts to flex its fund raising muscles to collect enough money to buy a few senators and a bakers dozen or so members of the house (a slim chance at best), or b) house and senate members (and their staffers) somehow all get "sanctified" and renounce their corporate employers in favor of doing the right thing for the people who elected them (no chance whatsoever)...

The peasantry -- which would be us -- is going to get the shitty end of the stick while our elite caste of corporate welfare queens whoosh by in their silent black limos, windows opaque against prying eyes, on their way to the local aerodrome where they'll board one of their finest executive toys, made by Lear or Gulfstream, and jet across "the pond" for another well-earned golfing vacation... this time touring Ireland and the Scottish coast.

It's windy over there and that comb-over is going to need a ton of axle grease to hold it in place, but what the hell...

Now does Harry still seem like a failure to anyone? Is he somehow derelict in his duties? You just need to understand which "people" get his full attention when he's figuring out how to run the senate for the common good "... of the people, by the people (and) for the people..."

Those people ain't us and never will be until we either buy them ourselves or demand that politicians and their sugar daddies part company for good.

And since they can't be trusted to take those steps without a huge kick in the ass pointing them in the right direction, we must learn to vote incumbents out each and every time one of these corporate tools comes up for reelection.

You can probably count the exceptions on both hands and feet with a couple of toes left over. They do not have names like Reid, Pelosi, Nelson (either one), Clinton, Emanuel, Hoyer, Landrieu, Harman, Carper, Baucus or (unfortunately) Obama or Biden. Nor do they hide behind that little "d" after their names and state IDs.

They do have names like Lee, Wexler, Kucinich, Waters, Sanders, Kennedy (maybe), Woolsey, Stark, Farr and (I hope) at least a dozen more.

And they sure as hell never, ever have a little "r" following them around like some code letter standing for "revolting" or "repugnant" or "reactionary." Or maybe a simple "rotten rat bastard" sums it all up nicely.


sf


(the former "Warren Pease" now writing as Steven Franklin because, well..., that's like sorta two-thirds of my real name. Close enough fer gummint work.)

[DailyGrind51]

112. If Reid was a true leader, it wouldn't be.

Reid should be persuading his colleagues, not convincing us to be content with lowered expectations.

[Snazzy]

118. a high fiber diet may help with that, Harry

"I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles.” Yikes.

[Arugula Latte]

121. Fucking milquetoast piece of crap wimp.

Gawd he disgusts me.