On Harry Reid : Is there precedent for changing Senate Majority leaders between elections?

[RiverStone]

The degree to which Harry Reid needs a gut check was not obvious to me until we DEMS assumed the majority. To be fair, I believe he did a good job when we were the minority party on the Hill. I do struggle with dissing any true DEM, particularly our Majority Leader on the Senate floor; yet I do believe it would be better for our party to have a leader with the boldness and passion which reflects the will of We The People.

I have not a clue if changing Majority Leaders between an election cycle is unprecedented or not? Help there anyone?

Listening to James Webb yesterday as he introduced a bill to limit Shrub's trigger finger on Iran, I am reminded of the boldness and initiative we expect from a DEM leader.

watch here:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25238

And from the same site, Progressive Radio personality Taylor Marsh concurs - this is in reference to Harry Reid's response to James Webb's bill:

Harry Reid offered some drivel that went like this... "very, very confident ... in real generality ... that I can support" Webb's resolution. "In real generality"? What the hell does that mean? It's doubtful Reid even knows. In case I haven't made it clear before, I'm starting to wonder about our majority leader. He's been positively spineless on Iraq. If he can't support Webb's bill all bets are off with me.

I'm dedicated to our party and DEM values; I also am disappointed in Harry's leadership since taking over the post as Majority Leader. We need Feingold-type passion and guts to lead in the Senate. How about Russ as leader? Again, is it crazy to advocate for a new Majority Leader or is that shift a worthwhile and needed goal to reflect the true heart (and guts) of our party?



RiverStone~



On Edit: I was not suggesting that James Webb should be Majority leader (not as a Freshman Senator) though I see him as an archetype for the type of leader I believe the DEMS need on the Hill. I could see James Web running for the DEMS for President someday :)

[napi21]

1. I don't think so,not without a charge of some wrongdoing, but

if you're suggesting Webb replace Reid, forget it!

I WISH we could! I've been VERY impressed with Webb each time I've heard him speak, and when I heard him the other day, I said "There's a fast rising Star in our Party! HOWEVER, he's been in the Senate for 2 months! Good as he is, and as well as he speaks, he's green as a papper when it comes to KNOWING how the Senate works!

[RiverStone]

4. I see Webb as an archetype for the type...

of leader we need. I agree napi21, that as a Freshman Senator, Webb would not (nor should) be considered as a Majority leader (I'll amend my post to reflect that better - thanks)

Now Russ Feingold - that is who I wish were at the helm! :applause:

[LSK]

2. theres bold and theres smart

60 votes for cloture
60 votes for cloture
60 votes for cloture
60 votes for cloture
60 votes for cloture

[KittyWampus]

3. Reid is doing a GREAT job and it's hard to take anyone wanting his removal seriously

[RiverStone]

8. Reed has the power, but does he have the will

I am indeed serious in my expressing my concern's about Harry. Here is an OP that pretty much sums up my feelings:


Mr. Reid will continue to fund the Iraq war. Period. He said so emphatically last night on "Charlie Rose." Of course, he did give a verbal nod to senators wanting to "look" at the funding issue, but he said the Senate will continue the "tradition" of funding war. Simply stated, Harry Reid will not be the first majority leader in U.S. Senate history to break with that "tradition." Constitutional checks and balances on a runaway commander in chief mean nothing to the senator. So on the war will rage until Mr. Bush decides to end it. That is our fate as it stands today.

It is condemning our country and our troops to a certain hell, with the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard breaking apart at the seams. So be it.

But last night Mr. Reid sealed the deal in his refusal to act only through the "process" of legislation on the war. It makes him responsible for the war, because he is willingly allowing it to continue. It's called complicity, because by his very inaction he is choosing. Sweet words of calm delivery and his soothing cadence cannot hide this fact. Unfortunately, he has also doomed Democrats on Iraq, because the American people have spoken and the House can't do anything without him. The truth is that Reid isn't a war time political consiglieri. He's a bipartisan deal maker and Mr. Bush knows it.

Watching Harry Reid last night was one of the most frustrating experiences I've had lately. He stressed his "slim majority" and the importance of doing more bipartisanship work. Fine, but the most important issue we have is the Iraq war, so the only bipartisanship will be the soldiers of both parties dying in the desert in Iraq.

complete OP here:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25239

[ShaneGR]

5. 51-49 majority, with 1 senator sick and another on the fence....

Not exactly a "majority" in the truest sense of the word, currently he cant even get more than 50 votes out of his own side, even if every single dem voted for the legislation.

[LynneSin]

6. Um, why would I want to get rid of Harry Reid

He's been doing a great job knowing the odds are stacked against us with this extremely slim majority.

Republicans are going to obstruct just about anything and everything out there but Harry keeps pushing it.

[WI_DEM]

As long as the Senate Democratic caucus supports him his job is safe

and my feeling is that most Democratic Senators like Harry Reid and the job he is doing.

[bigtree]

7. you won't have my Senators' votes

not if I can help it

[RiverStone]

9. please clarify...

Which votes do you refer to bigtree?

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Reid's doing a great job, especially considering...

he's not really a "majority" leader with an independant, an absentee, and Lieberman. And Cheney voting the tiebreaker.

If we had 70 Senate seats, someone would still be bitching and moaning about how things still weren't going right-- it's the Senate and it's messy, and nothing ever gets done on time or very well.