Why Can't Democrats Give Reid A Chance?

[latteromden]

Why Can’t Democrats Give Reid A Chance?
Harry’s leadership gives us a better shot than Tom’s ever did

It seems that everywhere I go lately, I hear Democrats talking about how they miss Daschle and how disappointed they are that Harry Reid has been elected the new Minority Leader. I agree with some of them—of course I’m disappointed with the Daschle loss, and as a Minnesotan with family in and strong connections to South Dakota, maybe more disappointed than someone outside the Midwest who never had the chance to see what an asset Tom was to his state in person. I liked the guy as much as the next Democrat; driving through Iroquois, South Dakota, a few weeks ago, I came across a big Daschle sign on the side of a red shack and had to stop and take a picture of it. Needless to say, the Senate won’t be the same without him. However, that’s where I stop agreeing with many of the other members of my party.

I was, at first, dissatisfied with the choice of Reid as our Senate leader. I felt the same way others still do—a pro-lifer for Minority Leader? Are we crazy? Is this the beginning of a downward spiral for us, the beginning of the Democrats’ ultimate transformation into the GOP-lite party? Something about him, though, compelled me to listen, and to research, so I did.

Now, let me say one thing before I go on. I’m not a die hard Democrat. I am not loyal to the party in terms of my history of candidate support. I supported Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, Cobb, and then Kerry in 2004, and I would support McCain if he were to run against Hillary in 2008. I am a former Green, and not, at all, a rabid, partisan Democrat, and so it takes quite a bit of work for a Democrat to get my attention and support. Harry Reid has done just that, and my support of him does not stem in any way from party loyalty.

The first thing that made me turn my head and listen was a comment I heard him give, broadcast on, I believe, CNN. He was denouncing the current Clinton control of the party—something that I have been screaming for Democrats to do for a while now. The years America had under Bill Clinton were wonderful, but we’re simply not running against Bob Dole anymore, and Clinton’s people don’t have the winning formula any longer. Up to that point, I’d been pretty concerned about the future of our party in the Senate, but that comment caught my ear, you know, I thought, maybe this guy could really be something.

So I watched. And I listened some more. And every little bit I heard, I became more impressed. When I heard he had set up a war room—a communications room, whatever you want to call it, one of the major problems with the Democratic Party is that they cannot get their message across, it seems, and what Reid set up is exactly the remedy—I was ecstatic. He was taking steps forward. Finally!

Senator Reid not only provides the leadership we need, but also the strength and voice. Recently, on Meet the Press, he was confronted by Tim Russert about a statement he had made calling Bush a liar, saying that he had “betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.” Russert asked him if he regretted the comment and asked, “Is that rhetoric appropriate?” Reid stood firm and refused to apologize, responding, “I don’t know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That’s how I feel… people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.” He is not frightened to call this administration or its corporate friends what they really are: downright crooks and liars, and rejects the idea that Social Security should be dealt with by the “fat cats on Wall Street.” He calls No Child Left Behind a “disaster” and Clarence Thomas an “embarrassment.” He is obviously not going to tone down his message simply to appease Republicans.

As for judicial nominations, there has been some talk lately over Reid’s apparent “endorsement” of Antonin Scalia for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, on the same Meet the Press interview mentioned above. Well, I must point out that that was far from a ringing, enthusiastic endorsement—in fact, I don’t believe it was one at all. He called Scalia unethical and said that, while he did not agree with Scalia’s decisions, his logic was sound. It’s similar to the way I feel about Nader, it seems: I don’t like the guy, but he has every right to run for the presidency. That’s not an endorsement of Nader by any means.

Throughout Reid’s entire political career, he has been, well, misunderestimated. It still happens today; many Democrats claim he won’t be able or willing to stand up to the President and his handpicked, rubber stamp Congress. As Harry said, “I’d rather dance than fight,” (and as he is a former boxer, I can safely assume he doesn’t mean ballroom dancing) but he knows how to fight. As President Clinton said, “You know, Harry Reid never lifts his voice, he talks real soft. And pretty soon you're looking for your billfold.” And the Reno News and Review says of Reid, “The political highway is littered with the bodies of those who took Harry Reid too lightly. A mining lobbyist who crossed him soon found himself looking for work, and the head of Nevada's Yucca Mountain campaign came close to the same fate.” He has been described as “stubborn” and “determined” by his colleagues in the Senate.

There has also been much concern over Reid’s pro-life stand. Well, allow me to remind you, the Senate Minority Leader’s opinion does not a party platform make. Furthermore, there was much criticism of Bush voters this election season who decided to vote solely based on “values” issues: gay marriage, abortion, etc. If there is one thing I hate in politics, it’s out-and-out hypocrisy, which is exactly what this behavior shows. To refuse to take so much as a second look at Reid based on his abortion stance is hypocrisy of the highest level. There are pro-life Democrats, and they are no more or less Democratic than those who are pro-choice. Another reminder: our party was not founded and is not based on social issues such as abortion. It is based on equal opportunity, economic prosperity, strong global alliances; the list goes on. Mr. Reid holds our key values: he believes in strengthening our public schools and providing quality education, providing better access to health care, he is an advocate of raising the minimum wage and equal pay for women, a supporter of protection against hate crimes based on sexual orientation, an opponent of ANWR drilling, someone who believes that the best path to peace is keeping our allies close, a proponent of fair trade, a supporter of alternative fuels and renewable energy, pro-union, and a man who understands the need for fiscal responsibility. He is a Democrat, through and through, and, I’m pleased to point out, one very instrumental in Senator Jeffords’ switch from a Republican to and Independent (who caucuses with the Democrats, I might add!).

We also need to realize that, at least for the moment, the future of our party’s electoral success does not rest in the South. John Edwards could not, as the vice presidential nominee, bring us southern electoral votes—I doubt that Mark Warner or any other number of southern politicians could do so, either. No, our best bet is the southwestern part of the country. Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado; we were able to gain ground in those states in 2004, and that is where we should concentrate our efforts. The South holds little for us, save possibly a surprise upset in Virginia or Florida—and counting on Virginia to pull through for the Democrats is ridiculous. Reid can provide us with the strategies to win in the West, and therefore win nationwide.

None of this is to say, however, that Reid’s qualifications or capabilities should give him free, unchecked reign of our faction of the Senate. No, on the contrary; we must keep him accountable—write letters, faxes, emails, make calls to his office and leave message, let him know that the people are watching and counting on him. Any good leader must listen to the people, and I am certain that Harry Reid will make a good leader.

[incapsulated]

1. I only have one question

People miss Daschle?? Who are these "Democrats" he is talking to?

As for Reid, let's see what he does. I'm completely prepared to be bitterly disappointed, myself.

[No Mandate Here.]

2. He has given two completely different signals this week.

He has shown some real sounding backbone earlier in the week, and then says he can back Scumlia for chief of SCOTUS?

This is confusing, but Scalia??? Really??? Not only is he way too far right, his ethics are pretty far out there, too. Ducks, anyone?

[Hippo_Tron]

4. He said that Scalia would have to overcome ethical issues...

Before he would gain his support for Chief Justice. My big question for Mr. Reid is would he support someone like Scalia for a vacant Supreme Court seat when Roe v Wade hangs in the ballance.

[autorank]

7. Reid said Scalia's "ethics" had to be checked on Sunday/Russert.

Have some patience. This is tactical.

[ibegurpard]

3. did you write that?

Very good arguments.

Here's something that I heard about Reid that dismayed me: He agreed to release his "hold" on a number of Bush appointments in exchange for a person he wanted, who was against Yucca Mountain, being appointed to some commission that would directly affect that issue.
That seems to be me to be the work of a Senator working to make things better in Nevada and not one who is thinking of the entire party and the country as a whole.

[hayu_lol]

9. Reid appears to be just another DINO...

pretty useless for us...much like Lieberman, Geppy, Daschle(who has done nothing to stand up to Bush & Co)and more. These are all people we need to get rid of...even if we have to find fighters and fund them to run.

Any Dem who would even consider Scalia as Chief Justice is insane.

[ibegurpard]

13. I'm sorry but it's not quite as simple as you make it sound.

First of all, give the entire Scalia quote in context. Next, tell me how you think Democrats would be able to stop a Scalia as Chief-Justice nomination (or whatever the procedure is for a sitting justice to become Chief) when only five Democrats being peeled away would stop a filibuster in its tracks (I can think of several off the bat that would vote for cloture).
I'm willing to give Reid a chance based on his actions over time and not half-quotes I hear on websites.
However, I DO want to know what people think about the point I brought up.

[latteromden]

16. I did indeed, thanks, and

are you referring to Gregory Jaczko, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? I can see why that would be troubling (although Reid IS the junior senator from Nevada), but I was under the impression that he was blocking action on the nominees he was, er, well, blocking, UNTIL he got Jaczko appointed.

[ibegurpard]

22. Yes, that is what I was talking about

And the only payoff I see for expending that substantial amount of political capital is his own standing on an issue at home. How does that help the party in general? And how many of these nominees would be bad for the country in general and not just affect Nevada?

[latteromden]

36. I can see how

...it helps the party, as it is a major environmental battle (according to Dr. Arjun Makhijani, the president of the Institute for Energy and Environmetal Research, "Yucca is in most ways the worst from an environmental point of view.") that would be well worth winning.

The nominees, as I understand, were mainly ambassadors and employees of cabinet departments (minor enough so that there would be no/few other challenges to their appointments besides Reid's), and I figure it would be more helpful to wait and block a nominee for, say, Secretary of State (*cough*) than the third-in-command of the Transportation Department.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. This is the best post I have read concerning Reid

I think he will make a far better opposition leader than Daschle. While I liked Daschle for much of his career, I didn't think he was powerful enough in the face of the Bush machine.

[autorank]

6. Reid Deserves a Chance!!! Welcome to DU!

Reid opposes privatization which he calls a Wall street rip off.

Reid called * a "liar" and reiterated it on Russert Sunday.

Reid called Thomas "an embarrassment."

Reid gave Scalia a backhanded compliment; smart but must answer "ethical questions." This was Sunday.

Now, he's appearing to be the essence of reason and cooperation. Get a clue folks, this is tactical. Scalia may get in, but Reid will trash him along with his travel buddy Cheney< /b> in the hearings. AND nobody will be able to say Reid wasn't trying to cooperate. He will show shock at the "ethical problems" and even if Scalia gets in, he'll be ripe for impeachment.

LET THIS GUY WORK!!!

CORPORATE AMERICA controls the media and we get MANUFACTURED NEWS.
CORPORATE AMERICA now controls the voting machines and we get MANUFACTURED ELECTIONS.

[whalerider55]

17. Scalia will get in...

and then be ripe for impeachment?

we've had three straight elections stolen from us, with scalia as the driving force behind the one that set up the first of the "trifecta", and we need to appear reasonable and cooperative as a response?

i have to say i disagree.

i don't think that there is anything the dems could say or do that would put us in any worse position than we are. Than we've been put in. Than we've put ourselves in. Than we have accepted as our lot.

if we have to depend on the future impeachment of a CHief Justice Scalia as one of the tools for returning democracy to the people, then we are in a boatload of catpiss. if we have to depend on the impeachment of * by a republican congress, dream on. And if we have to depend on winning congress back in 2006 so that we can initiate congressional investigations that actually look for causes and address real issues, and think that our tepid and belated response to the widespread allegations of voter fraud in 2004 will inspire confidence, keep dreaming.

we have told millions of people that we don't hold their right to vote and have that vote counted sacred. we have told thousands of downticket candidates that we have a threshhold (apparently 119,000 votes, although it was double that when Kerry did the gentlemanly thing by throwing in the towel) at which we will fight for enfranchisement. tell that to a downticket dem who lost by a hundred votes in 2004- the third national election since 2000 where fraud was a major factor.

personally, i like leaders who lead. there is a time for tactics and trategy, but there a good leader knows that you attack on as many fronts as possible.

whalerider55

[autorank]

41. whalerider, I agree with most everything you say.

I want to see Scalia stopped and stopped in no uncertain terms. Reid is setting up a fight. Whether or not he wins that fight, he'll leave some bruises.

I'm assuming three things:

(a) The American people, the majority, are not idiots. There will be 55 to 60% soon who will be bitching about Iraq, the real economy, and raising questions about the election and voting machines.
(b) There will be so much scrutiny on the 2006 elections, we'll have a fair chance.
(c) There will be a blow out election like 1994 except we'll win.

I'm certain of (a), confident of (b), and, with work, strongly believe that (c) will accrue.

Given that, it will be time to go after "The Federalist" Society judges starting with Scalia. What Reid brings up now, directly or through surrogates, will play into that.

This is a long haul. Let's see this guy's moves and not believe that a tactical "feint" is his actual position, particularly when he's given strong clues to the contrary, i.e. "ethical problems".

[whalerider55]

44. your points are well-taken

part of my frustration was living through the original renquist nomination to the supreme court, and watching him be the lone wingnut for years until the masterstoke of moving him into the Chief Justices robes- I doubt if we've ever had a judge more tempermentally unfit for chief justice- and then to contemplate scalia, who is evil incarnate but also a very very bright man...
capable of supreme misconduct, as we've seen.

grrr.

i hope beyond hope that your abc hold true.
but you can't blame me for keeping my doubts about them to myself. Can you?

whalerider55

[autorank]

45. I share you doubts but I really believe those points.

And, geez, you brought up RehnKKKwist. I remember that...he was a f'ing racist Repig intimidating black voters.

One thing I like about DU is the ability to toss out stuff and use responses to help you think though a position.

Harassed minority voters in Arizona.

"Several witnesses have stated under oath that Justice Rehnquist harassed minority voters during the early 1960's. Justice Rehnquist denies he harassed minority voters. James Brosnahan, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Phoenix from 1961 to 1963, said in a statement delivered to Congress that on election day in 1962, he and several assistant U.S. attorneys were assigned the task of receiving complaints alleging illegal interference with the voting process. The group received several complaints from precincts in South Phoenix. The precincts were predominately black and Hispanic. The complaints involved Justice Rehnquist. Broshnahan visited one of the precincts. When he arrived he saw Justice Rehnquist. There were reports that poll watchers had to physically push Rehnquist out of polling places to stop him from interfering with the voting rights of the minority citizens. "

Alan Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 242 - 244 n. 37

When this one happened, we could have stopped it. I remember my outrage that this slime was even considered, let alone conformed.
Thank you Senate Democratic Majority leader (1971) Mike Mansfield!

Now you've got me saying ARRRRRGGGGGGGGGG

[JohnKleeb]

19. they dont want to

If their pick Durbin got in, Durbin would get crap for doing something too I bet you anything. I like Reid, I saw his DNC speech and was impressed, I have my differences with him but I did like the criticism of Thomas and the backhanded comment on Scalia.

[Momgonepostal]

8. Funny thing is, Repubs don't like him either

On FR the other day, they were calling him racist because of his comments about Clarence Thomas. Dorks.

As another LDS democrat, I wish Reid success and hope he well represents the party. I'm a little farther left leaning than he is, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

[papau]

20. GOP talking heads on Cable like Reid 'cause he won't block judges -so they

say.

He gets the benefit of the doubt for now.

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. He was smart enough to want Durbin as whip...

That's a positive sign, IMO...

[whalerider55]

11. i appreciate your thoughts...

but my question actually is why won't Reid give democrats a chance?

no matter what his own opinion is, it makes absolutely no fucking sense from any point of view that i can possibly get my mind around for him to express support for Scalia at this time.

and just to show i'm an equal opportunity pain in the ass, i thought that Leahy's comments that the Gonzalez nomination was on-track, however cryptic it was, reflected another example of tactical stupidity.

the leadership of this party no longer can be trusted at the national level. they have held to a commitment for comity where the republicans have abandoned it, and do not seem to be able to frame issues in a way that gets the party out ahead of sleazy gutterball.

i don't blame them for the situation we arer in; but i don't see any solutions coming from them... i don't even see a coherent strategy.

where is a shadow government? that would make a hell of a lot more sense as a creative response to this situation.

grrrrr.

whalerider55

[ooglymoogly]

12. yes i agree

there is one almost insurmountable problem. scalia, how could he be so stupid, and that is so truly scary it boggles the mind.....boggle, boggle, boggle

[ailsagirl]

14. For a purely personal reason...

He and repug Conrad Burns were responsible for attaching the rider to the House Appropriations Bill that would mean death to many thousands of horses and burros. They're trying to "sneak" it through.

I know not everyone loves animals like I do, but to me, that's absolutely unacceptable and anyone who would do that, has a huge, black mark next to his name.

[latteromden]

28. Agreed, but

This is exactly what I mean - write Reid and tell him that you think it's unacceptable, and, better yet, write Burns (who chairs the subcommittee that funds the Bureau of Land Management which handles this issue), too.

[leftyandproud]

15. mormon..pro-life...nuff said. *NT*

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Hey, let's all play 'sterotype Reid', just for fun!

:eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

21. we have a few mormon DUers

and many of my relatives are pro-life catholics, so are they bad democrats because of this even though they oppose the death penalty, support helping the unfortunate, and want to avoid wars.

[Momgonepostal]

38. I'm a Mormon DUer

I'd hate to think my opinions are dismissed on DU just because of my religious affiliation. I hope DUers can be more tolerant than that.

[ibegurpard]

42. Me too... at least in name

Although I haven't been to church in years and don't believe it. I was born and raised in it though.

[JohnKleeb]

49. I am Catholic so I know what its like

We have a few mormons in our neighborhood, nice people, I think one couple supported Kerry actually, my dad's good friends with them, and my youngest brother who is 3 is good friends with their little girl. Reid is a good guy, hes not perfect but everyone has their flaws.

[latteromden]

24. No, NOT enough said, really

I'm sick and tired of pro-life Democrats getting treated as badly as they do. I, personally, am pro-choice. HOWEVER, like I said, abortion is not the base of the Democratic Party. Whatever happened to celebrating diversity? Why should someone who may have a lot to contribute be shrugged off because of ONE stance on an issue?

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. Thank you for asking that question.

It's one we need to start asking more often.

[JohnKleeb]

27. I too am pro choice and have marched for reproductive rights

but I respect the pro life dems because often they have a huge conscience for helping the less fortunate.

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. I know a LOT of very progressive, pro-life Democrats

Sadly, some of our brethren here can't resist screaming 'Witch!', and trying to drive them out of the party. To our detriment, they've succeeded with far too many already.

[JohnKleeb]

40. we got a few here on DU

great people, we're also defenders of the Catholic faith together :D.

[T Town Jake]

23. I'm certainly prepared to give him a fair shake...

...but a lot of progressive Democrats felt betrayed by his predecessor, and Reid seems, ideologically, to be cut from much of the same cloth as the former(emphasis added) Senator from South Dakota.
I didn't buy into that entirely, but there was enough there that a case could be made.
But the 44 Senators in the Democratic caucus have made Reid their leader, and I'm going to defer to their judgment until the Senator of Nevada gives me some good reasons not to.

[Lefty48197]

25. I like Harry. I liked Tom too.

but Tom is gone. I like Harry Reid a lot. He speaks my language.

[hinachan]

29. "I would support McCain if he were to run against Hillary in 2008"?!?

Anyone who would support McCain over any Democrat is not the person I'm going to take political advice from. I'm from AZ, McCain is the biggest hypocrite polluting our local airwaves, he lets Bush f*** him up the butt and then PRETENDS (note the emphasis here) to be fighting against him in Congress, playing both sides of the political field.

If you're dumb enough to fall for that, you're dumb enough to fall for anything.

[latteromden]

30. The POINT was that I will not vote for just any Democrat

Good lord. I am not, thankyouverymuch, "dumb enough to fall for anything."

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Because we NEVER get to put a leftist in congressional leadership posts

And so far our centrist leadership has failed to win a majority in either house for the last 10 years. We've basically given up on the whole concept of "working with" the Bush administration, because we know that there is no good that can come from that, not to mention that they've given up on working with democrats. Reid's big downfall for progressives, like his predicessor's, and like John Kerry's is the Iraq War Resolution. That vote basically divided the caucus in half and in a sense divided the party in half. Progressives want somebody who says NO to almost everything the Bush administration does.

To give you an idea of who most progressives would like, my top choices would've been Dick Durbin, Jon Corzine, Barbara Boxer, and Russ Feingold. Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy would also be great but they're a bit too old and Kennedy comes with too much controversy.

I'll give Reid a fair chance because for the most part, I liked what he had to say on MTP and also Durbin got the number 2 spot.

[w4rma]

32. I like him. I honestly don't think there is anyone in Congress who could

do a better job than Sen. Reid. Ignore the loud obnoxious people here who don't know what they are talking about in reference to him.

[JohnKleeb]

33. he's quite persuasive I know

Very influential in bringing Jeffords to the party voting caucus. So this work with republicans thing could work out in our favor.

[hatrack]

35. I'm not holding my breath, but it's still too early to say

Reid and I part company on a couple of issues, but as I understand it he's not even officially Minority Leader until the new Congress is sworn in.

We haven't seen him react when he gets the GOP Blast-Fax Wedgie "Hates Freedom" Treatment, and that won't be for a little while yet. We'll know a lot more by March or April, particularly after Energy/ANWR bills come up again.

[Leilani]

37. The new Congress hasn't even really started yet

& people hate Reid.

I believe in giving people a chance, & let's see how he does.

As far as him being pro-life, & people rejecting him for that reason, or because of his religion, well, that's as bad as the Republicans.
He's entitled to his own beliefs...freedom...remember? I don't see where he's letting his personal beliefs get in the way of living with Roe v Wade.

As far as Scalia goes, Reid said he was smart, & though he disagreed with him on his conclusions, he could understand how he arrived at those conclusions. He also questioned his ethics. Seemed like a very fair evaluation, to me.

So, in the cause of fairness, let's give the guy a chance.

[kodi]

39. nope, nope, nope. its the principle of tasting wine

if the first sip tastes bad you don't have to down the whole bottle to know it won't get any better.

already reid has shown that he is more centrist than daschle and less prone to defend progressive principles if it gets his hair mussed.

that jazz about policies and strategies are meaningless if the leadership shows no courage of conviction.

like it or not the republicans smoked us and in significant part because the GOP was willing to gamble and play rough. until the democrats running the party are willing to take risks on behalf of their "alleged" progressive political stances they will be beaten like dogs at the polls.

[autorank]

43. kodi, Reid called Bush a "LIAR"....thats L I A R.

Never heard any Democrat do that on Meet the Press w/Spudhead.



Said privatization of Social Security was a rip off of public funds for Bush's Wall Street buddies. How many times have people hear screamed for a populist voice. Doesn't get any more populist than that!!!

Try this analogy. If you meet someone new and they say one thing that irks you, do you write them off forever? We'd all have a lot fewer friends.

A good leader follows his people when they're ready. Then he can lead. Let's wait for some real fights, not speculation on strategy and tactics.

CORPORATE AMERICA controls the media and we get MANUFACTURED NEWS.
CORPORATE AMERICA now controls the voting machines and we get MANUFACTURED ELECTIONS.

[kodi]

46. so what? even pat buchanan called bush a liar. should he lead the senate?

reid is a centrist in a time when the dems need an activist progressive as their senate leader.

so he called bush a liar........and so what happened, nothing. maybe had reid called bush a liar daily during the 2004 campaign or in the run-up to the war and on the floor of the senate during the 2002 debates on force authorization i might be impressed, but that type of talk is cheap and awful late to mean anything now.

the exasperation and tone of your post reveals that you must think that the rest of us outside your little world are stupid. there are many of us who know more than you imagine as to why we think reid is not the man for the job.

even as senate whip reid did nothing to articulate the differences between the democratic party and the GOP. he has actively blurred those lines, and at a time when a major criticism of the democratic party and democrats in general is the claim that people do not know where they stand on issues, we wind up with the equivalent of a deaf-mute as our champion for delineating our differences with the GOP.

my goal, and i hope yours is to get back to that time where the democratic party is the majority party in congress. reid is not the man to shorten the time for it to happen again.

[autorank]

47. OK

let's see, oh sure, i think buchanan should lead the senate and
"my goal, and i hope yours", no shit sherlock. of course i want a democratic majority in congress, on the court, and a real democrat in the white house...i also want to see us seriously 'investigate' and 'punish' all wrong doing by these folks and i'd like a purge of the federal judiciary to get rid of the cabal of ideologues who hand out justice based on instructions received at 'foundation' sponsored legal boondoggles. furthermore, i want all sorts of fundamental changes across the board in health, communications, civil rights, etc. etc.

BUT Reid is one of our key leaders right now, he's showing some fight and we ought to support him.

[kodi]

48. i don't follow leaders

you can if you want.

[autorank]

50. Me either...but I support people who can help me with part of

all of the positions I favor. If you don't follow leaders, why do you care who the Senate leader is. Just ignore them.