Harry reid on twitter announced dems will sell out to GOP

[Robbins]

so they can work with republicans.

[Narraback]

1. Is this the tweet you are mean?

Senator Harry Reid @SenatorReid · 21m 21 minutes ago

I’ve been minority leader before, and have been able to strike compromises with my Republican colleagues. I’m ready to do it again.
0 replies 55 retweets 43 favorites

[Robbins]

3. Yep

As democray ends dems don't even want to fight.

[arely staircase]

91. you have got to be kidding

that's it?

[Xyzse]

4. Ok, now I am willing to say Reid has got to go.

Ugh.

[belzabubba333]

2. it's what happens when dems dont vote. you send a message to the party

here comes keystone say goodbye to freshwwater but dont worry there will be some republican to sell bottles of it to you

[Ykcutnek]

5. Yep. The non-participants made their voice heard.

And tied the hands of the opposition.

GOP policies, full speed ahead.

[truebluegreen]

30. I have to conclude that the Democratic party leadership

wants their hands to be tied, since they always work so hard to attain and maintain that status.

[Jamastiene]

60. Exactly.

It is a racket. They want it this way. It is obvious now.

[earthside]

8. When leadership doesn't lead ...

... Democrats and progressives don't vote.

Let's be honest, in 2014 Democratic Party leaders/candidates did not give base voters anything to vote for -- Democrats are not like Repuglicans, they need to be motivated to vote.

My Senator did everything he could to avoid talking about Keystone XL or global warming or anything ... except birth control. When folks even in then Democratic Party started calling him 'Mark Uterus' we all knew he was in big trouble.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the Democrats' losses in 2014, but Pres. Obama, the alleged chair of the DNC, the strategists and tacticians of the national party bear a big chunk of responsibility. I'm not big on blaming average, ordinary, economically stressed voters when their leaders are so politically incompetent.

[belzabubba333]

19. most of what you said makes me want to pull my hair and run screaming off a cliff

so much cutting off your nose to spite your face. it's why we rarely win and why the dems are forever being pulled to the right

[Maedhros]

28. You're taking a page from the Republicans:

The Party can't fail, it can only be failed.

[belzabubba333]

32. im taking a page from - i want scotus under democratic party control

i see too many trying sink the party cause it's not absolutely perfect enough for them to bother with voting

"i need something to vote for" as if keeping the cons from doing what theyre about to do isnt voting for something.

the party may not be what you want, it isnt everything i want. but letting cons have the goverment is so self-destructive...

ok youve sat out the election now what. now what - what did that get you.now what are you gonna do. you just sent them the message of 2010 now what

[earthside]

42. Quite the opposite.

Democrats won in 2006, in 2008 and in 2012 because our candidates ran on a clear, understandable platform and spoke to the needs of working and middle class Americans -- turnout was very good.

Democrats lost in 2010 and this year because the candidates got frightened of their own shadows and their own base; they decided to try an be clever and run U.S. Senate campaigns like local elections.

Castigating and demeaning base Democratic and progressive voters by pointing a finger at them and whining that it is all their fault is a prescription for greater defeats in the future.

Those of us who are hardcore progressive voters must insist that our candidates be bold and progressive.
The last thing we really need right now are tired, old, has been, risk averse 'leaders' like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton.

[malokvale77]

58. ^^^ this ^^^

and I'm sick to death of being blamed for their incompetence.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

If you want right wing policy, change parties. Reagan Democrats my ass. You are Republicans. Get the hell out of my party.

[treestar]

75. If it were that simple, they'd do it

You're just plain wrong. Anyone who doesn't vote is of no interest.

I never had to be motivated - it's a right and privilege and I'm glad I live in a country where I get to do it. I would never dream of sitting it out can't understand this mentality.

[FoxNewsSucks]

13. Maybe, but what happened in 2006 when

Democrats won a bigger "wave" than this one and unexpectedly took the Senate? Reid got everyone enthused, then settled for mainly spamming out Give 'em Hell Harry fundraising emails, after basically ceding effective control back to the republicons.

Where does he keep all that "dry powder", anyway? Does anyone really think it will still take 60 votes to move anything starting next January?

I voted Democratic, and will again. But their failure to act like a majority party, or an effective opposition party, makes it hard to motivate any voter.

[rusty fender]

16. Keystone was a done deal way before the GOP won

So is TPP. Dems who push GOP policies is why we lost. DUH!

[belzabubba333]

25. we lost b/c dems didnt vote

[truebluegreen]

31. We lost because dems didn't have anything to vote for except

"Not As Crazy As Those Other Guys!"

[belzabubba333]

35. you had democratic reps to vote for. stop it with that lame excuse

[truebluegreen]

70. Actually, I had one Democratic rep to vote for, and I voted for him.

People less politically motivated than myself (and similar people on this board) clearly weren't feeling the inspiration.

Did you vote multiple times, or are you just pretending to be a republican with that statement?

[belzabubba333]

90. well then i wasnt refering to you since you voted

i

[truebluegreen]

94. So. What's your solution for an uninspired electorate?

Browbeating? "Eat your peas"? Or standing up and fighting for what the people want or need? (i.e. unlike what Reid just did). Just curious.

[belzabubba333]

104. idk im just so frustrated - people dont seem to care and this is so important.

"Or standing up and fighting for what the people want or need? &quot i.e. unlike what Reid just did) I agree with this they should be fighting and we should be voting for them to show them we have their back and maybe that would give them the intestinal fortitude to do what we want. in politics there's safety in numbers

[truebluegreen]

107. I guess it is a question of the chicken or the egg--which (needs to) come first.

I think in this case the answer is pretty clear: the Party needs to reform itself before people will vote for it. Unfortunately, it is a long-standing problem (a study done recently, on data from 1980 to 2000, showed that what the people wanted had "near zero" influence on how decisions were made in Washington, by either party), the PTB are just fine with the status quo and wresting power from them would require an horrific crisis....

I thought we had that, in 2008...but nothing changed on the economic level--if anything it got worse--and all the elites are complicit. We have an even greater crisis in climate change, but it is a slow-moving one which makes it 1) harder to see as a "crisis", and 2) easier to deny.

Personally, I don't have a lot of hope that the American system can be fixed--there is so much money awash in it--and when a handful of families/individuals (75? I think) own as much of the world's wealth as 3.5 BILLION people then it is clear our cannibalistic capitalism has spread around the globe. So I don't have any answers. But I think something is going to snap, and soon.

[upaloopa]

39. So thanks for TPP, ending net neutrality, Keystone XL,

losing health care for millions and for bringing the Koch brothers to Congress.
Your fault because you saw nothing to vote for!

[Bandit]

43. That's telling em, now they will be sure to get out and vote for more of the same.

Democrats have been an abysmal failure. They were handed the keys to the kingdom in 2008 and squandered them away. Why would anyone vote for that again?

[upaloopa]

47. You don't deserve a reply.

[malokvale77]

61. Yet you replied. (nt)

[truebluegreen]

73. That is exactly right. We had a generational opportunity and totally blew it. nt

[truebluegreen]

71. Remarkably silly response.

[LondonReign2]

83. Wouldn't have been cool if any of our candidates actually campaigned on those issues?

Heck, then maybe the voters would have known who to vote for.

Landrieu is campaigning FOR Keystone. Grimes campaigned FOR coal and guns. Udall forgot about every issues other than uteruses.

But yeah, maybe our candidates should have mentioned a few of those topics.

[wandy]

51. In a perfect world you would have two parties serving the will of the people............

but taking different approaches.

What we have is "Not As Crazy As Those Other Guys!" as apposed to Dog barking crazy, totally owned an operated by the greeder dog barking crazier.
Those that held out for the pony may find it was the wrong choice.

[truebluegreen]

72. Tell them that. I'm sure it will win you a lot of votes--like it just did....oh, wait.

Nobody expects a perfect world...but it would be nice to have ONE party serving the will of the people. We don't even have that.

[wandy]

79. When all you have is the lesser of two evils............

Listen, I'm about as tired of this one party system as anyone else.
One of the reasons the Democrats had little to offer is no doubt that in viewing the crazy offered by the other side they got lazy.

So by inaction we have accepted the crazy offered by the other side.

[truebluegreen]

80. Very true.

I read an article last week that talked about how the identity politics the Democratic Party has hung its hat on (women, gays, minorities) failed because they have not differentiated themselves on economic (and I would say, foreign policy) issues. And since the last crash, the economy has moved front and center. Our party had 6 years to, if not fix things, at least make the case as to why we should be in charge of fixing them...and we didn't do it. Over and over again we accepted and worked with the crazy on the other side. As Reid is now, just trying to get along.

It is fugging embarrassing.

[Cleita]

17. To be fair many Democrats who always could vote found themselves not

able to vote because of increasingly restrictive voting laws.

[belzabubba333]

22. even more of a reason for those who CAN vote to go vote

[upaloopa]

36. Keystone, end of net neutrality and TPP

brought to you by those who saw nothing to vote for. Or their pet pony wasn't on the ballot.

[belzabubba333]

37. it's unreal isnt it- there gonna get them now b/c WE THE PEOPLE sent the dems a message

nothing was learned from 2010

Elizabeth Warren warns: Corporations are taking over the courts with GOP’s help
but there's nothing to vote for the dems are giving us nothing to vote for......

[upaloopa]

45. I think the "nothing to vote for" thing is a

convenient excuse for not voting.

[belzabubba333]

49. that's exactly what it is and i hear it so much here

[upaloopa]

52. And please don't call them on it because

it will make them feel bad and they may not vote next time either.

[malokvale77]

63. If you knew anything at all...

You would STFU.

[upaloopa]

105. I guess you are right. Let's just forget

the last election ever happened and give equal time to everyone who complains about the actions of the repubs for the next two years. Those who voted and those who didn't deserve equal time.
Fuck that you STFU!

[TheKentuckian]

103. No you aren't. You are using people that donate, vote every election, and volunteer that you

browbeat, demean, blame, and accuse in proxy for those that didn't vote it begins to seem because there is a deep desperation not to change to mobilize not only the cried about chickens that hadn't hatched as well as some of those birds in the bush.

It is time to stop killing the messengers and to start digesting the message.

Way past time to actually think through some things, like why is it enraging and frustrating when your message is effective, for more than 20 years we actually run on not being very different to be like fucking mystified that folks don't think you are very different is confusing.
Doubly so when there is a fervent effort to continue to play it the exact same way.

Magnified in scope of the failure by the supposed targets of the bipartisan/"80% agreement" horseshit either don't buy it at all and keep voting TeaPubliKlan or those that do get sold do the same or flip back and forth with the wind or what may as well be a coin flip (and sometimes literally may be).

[arcane1]

53. Yep, it's the same old "clean it up for me" bullshit that got us here.

[GeorgeGist]

54. Those ponies sure as fuck weren't on the ballot.

[upaloopa]

57. You know as well as I only with Dems in control

of the Senate was there a chance they would not get passed.

[malokvale77]

67. Huh?

Were ponies on the ballot?

Are you a machine?

[truebluegreen]

78. Just out of curiosity, what was "on the ballot" that the average voter (not us) would know about?

What did the Democratic party stand for, fight for, push for? Other than "Not As Crazy...?"

Was anybody in the party and particularly in the leadership or the White House talking about climate change, stopping the Keystone pipeline, a living wage, ending wars, Medicare For All, expanding Social Security, immigration reform, reining in NSA, pushing civil rights, voting rights, making college affordable for all, prosecuting bankers or torturers, net neutrality, ending the war on drugs, any of that? ....Bueller? Bueller?

Did they? No. They heard a bunch of people trying not to identify with actual Democratic policies, and succeeding in standing for nothing at all. You can say, from your lofty seat of wisdom, that they should have voted but just didn't 'cause there wasn't a pony! but you would be wrong. There was no there there, as Senate Majority Leader Reid just amply demonstrated. No wonder they stayed home.

[upaloopa]

81. To me voting against the repubs was reason enough

to vote.

[truebluegreen]

84. Yeah, "to you." "To me" too.

But it is not about motivating US, it is about motivating the general public by giving them something to vote FOR, not against. Something inspiring. And our party most emphatically did not do that.

[upaloopa]

86. So they along with us get screwed. Real fucking smart!

In 2016 they will not have anything to vote for either because we don't have any power. I have no respect for that opinion or idea.

[truebluegreen]

88. So. Where will you now direct your anger?

At uninspired voters, or an uninspiring Party? Just curious.

ETA: We don't necessarily need power, or accomplishments, to inspire voters. We need to stand for, and stand up for, the things they want! My whole point is we didn't even try to make the case! "Not As Crazy!" is not a winning slogan.

[upaloopa]

89. You should vote it is your duty.

I don't buy the excuse they had nothing to motivate them
They did not vote and cannot pass the buck.
I have no respect for them.
They are the reason we lost.

[truebluegreen]

92. Yup. As I suspected. Have fun storming the castle. nt

[upaloopa]

95. Why is your opinion superior? Please explain

[truebluegreen]

96. One works.

Dog Almighty--of COURSE it is people's duty to vote. But how do you get them to do it if what they vote for doesn't make a lick of difference? If "their" party doesn't do ANYTHING in terms of policy to distance itself from obviously crazy people? Instead, like Reid, they want to hold hands and just get along. We could use some passion and some principles and fighters on our side of the aisle--then people would come out and vote. Getting mad at them? Not inspirational.

[upaloopa]

99. Not voting is a conscience decision.

Those who made that decision must find it superior to mine to vote. Will they take responsibility for it?

[upaloopa]

100. You give them every benefit of the doubt.

Give them something to vote for, don't yell at them.
We don't deal the hand. We play the cards we are given. We don't hold out until we get better cards if we keep losing our anti.
We try to win if we can.
We deserve to lose because we have people on our side with no personal commitment. I am doubly disappointed with our party. One we stand for nothing and two we have people who need a reason to do what they are supposed to do.
We will keep losing I'm afraid. Reid will play footsie with repubs. It is too much to take right now.

[truebluegreen]

101. Damn straight I give voters the benefit of the doubt: we need them on our side

and yelling at them won't get them there. The pathetic leadership in Congress and the Party? Not so much. From where I sit they are staunch defenders of the status quo and if there were ever a time in history when the opposite was needed, this is it.

[upaloopa]

97. I'm waiting. Explain why not voting in the last

election was a better move than voting. Make a case and don't say it because there was nothing to vote for. Tell me why having that opinion is a good thing. What positive outcome does it bring? I need to know. Tell me!
Not voting was a decision people made. A conscience decision. What good will come from making that decision?
Take responsibility for the decision.

[LondonReign2]

85. Which candidates made these center pieces of their campaigns?

[tridim]

6. Compromise is not necessarily selling out.

Compromise is how our government is supposed to work, and thus the Republican's worst nightmare.

This statement by Reid is quite savvy even though it apparently went way over your head.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Why bother...

this place is not generally known for its sophisticated understanding of how things work.

[Dawgs]

38. You lecture others on "how things work" and don't realize that the GOP will never compromise.

They will get everything they want, and Democrats will "compromise" and get nothing.

[bananas]

64. Have to agree with you there.

It can be pretty damn frustrating.

[Robbins]

10. COmpromise In this age means

Dems giving GOP.

Republicans don't compromise.

[tridim]

11. Republicans don't govern or compromise.

That is what Harry Reid just said, and what you apparently don't understand.

Get a fucking clue......

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Shhh ...

you're harshing our speculative whining!

[WinkyDink]

21. Where have Republicans compromised?

[Jamastiene]

66. *crickets*

They never have.

[treestar]

77. Go ask some

I hear plenty of complaints from them along the same lines. Along with the same illogic that Mitt say could have won had he been more conservative.

[Andy823]

23. You are right

However way to many here seem to think like the teaparty nuts in their "no compromise", my way or the highway" way of thinking. Until people understand that nothing will get done as long as both parties play the "no compromise" game, this country is screwed.

If democrats try, and republicans refuse, to work together on some things, republicans will pay dearly in 2016. It won't be easy trying to get those teaparty nuts to do anything, and that too will hurt republicans.

[AZ Progressive]

29. Republicans don't compromise and Democrats compromise = Republicans getting their way

[LondonReign2]

34. Why is it not suprising that the conservadems are all for compromising

with the Republicans?

[Dawgs]

40. Compromise to Republicans is getting everything they want.

Compromise to Democrats is giving Republicans everything they want.

If you're not "savvy" enough to know this then I feel sorry for you.

[cascadiance]

44. I'd just adjust that slightly. Both parties give corporations everything they want!

It's just that Democrat constituencies care more to not do this, while Republicans don't really care too much about being screwed financially. They just want to screw over women, gays, minorities and others they hate and keep their guns to help with that.

[pampango]

46. Democrats seem to understand that. Republicans not so much.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/12/little-enthusiasm-familiar-divisions-after-the-gops-big-midterm-victory/

[arcane1]

55. Republicans are going to start compromising now?

[tridim]

62. Some will, most wont. Reid knows that, the OP doesn't.

So, everyone freak out and trash the Democrats!!!1 Or something.

[arcane1]

68. We'll find out soon enough!

But voting "yes" for the Keystone pipeline won't be compromise. It will be surrender.

[Jamastiene]

65. Too bad so many Democrats think "compromise" and capitulation are the same thing. n/t

[tridim]

69. Which current Democrats think "compromise" and "capitulation" are the same thing?

Since there are "so many" it should be easy for you to list a dozen or so without even thinking.

[Xyzse]

74. I absolutely get that.

My issue is, with the current times you have to be a heck of a lot more blunt spoken otherwise the electorate just doesn't get it.
To me that votes, I vote for the one I know will do less damage and who is not actively trying to screw me over.

To others less invested in politics, it gives them less incentive to vote for Democrats when they effectively capitulate to Republican demands which then show very little differentiation on regards to their governing styles. People tune out all their speeches and belly-aching, the effect is usually the same.

It was only when they finally stuck to their positions near 2012 during the last Presidential elections that individuals had a better view on Harry.

Pelosi, I do not mind, and I'd even support her bid to go for Minority Leader in the House. Such a position by Reid at this early period sounds so inauspicious that it is just depressing... Even if he means that he is going to make deals and negotiate hard.

Harry has been minority leader before, however it is not the same type of Senate any more.
The electorate values the brave... This is such a sniveling reaction that it is bordering pathetic.

So no, I think I'll go with a hard opposition at this time, with rhetoric to match. I can understand the calls for constraint, but frankly I am a bit tired of it. Well, give me a few more months, I might feel differently.

[treestar]

76. True, there is some black and white thinking on that subject

Republicans likely get the same thing from their side, from people who think there has been too much compromise on their part.

[Skittles]

87. compromise is one thing, compromise with repukes totally another

"compromise" with them means THEIR WAY

[stevenleser]

93. I also disagree with OP's interpretation. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. As usual.

[CanonRay]

12. I just threw up in my mouth

Lord I hate this Party some days. This is one of them. Who does he think he's getting points with, Republicans?

[99th_Monkey]

14. Proposition: the leadership of the Democratic Party is happy the way things are

Proposition: the leadership of the Democratic Party is happy the way things are
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025806444

[ChisolmTrailDem]

15. Yea, I was watching that feed. It's time for him to go. May as well take all

the other Dem leaders with him and let's start fresh.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Yes ...

it would have been far better for Reid to tweet:

"F@#% them, one and all ... I pledge to do everything possible to ensure that the state of governance remains as f@#%ed up as it has been for the past 6+ years."

Which would be met with equal parts of:

"Pretty tweet ... I don't believe him" and "You tell 'em Harry ... Shut government down!" ... Followed by, both groups wondering, "Why isn't anything getting done in DC?"

[WinkyDink]

20. I have never, ever read such a Milquetoast message by a Republican.

[B Calm]

24. After all the shit the republicans have been throwing at us! They never learn!!

[JEB]

27. We are not the opposition party.

We are the accommodation party. Really inspiring. Not.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Hmmm....

....

[img][/img]

[cascadiance]

41. Time for Jeff Merkley to replace Reid who should retire!

That way in 2016, we'll have a sensible Senate Majority Leader who won't be bought like Reid apparently has been and have the filibuster rules set right to get things done then hopefully for a president Warren in office!

[nc4bo]

48. SSDD.

Nothing new.

[get the red out]

50. Harry Reid has never impressed me

He has never been a good leader of the Senate Democrats.

[rwheeler31]

56. The Republicans can destroy things all by themselves people will get sick of their crap

very quickly we just need to cooperate by watching.

[Jamastiene]

59. Don't you just hate it when the spineless bunch opens their mouths?

They always state the obvious that the rest of us already knew.

[mylye2222]

82. It will not be the first time.

Reid had always accointances with corporates.

[bigwillq]

98. Reid needs to resign (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

102. There is only one "opposition party" in this country.

When the republicans are not in power, they act like an opposition party. When the Democrats are not in power, they work with the party in power, not against it.

[Azathoth]

106. Keystone was always a losing issue

Progressives latched onto it and talked about it like it was some kind of apocalyptic struggle for the very survival of the human race, when it was really nothing more than a symbolic, token issue designed to "send a message" that the US was serious about moving away from fossil fuels. It's not a surprise it was the first issue the Dems offered up as a compromise.