Harry Reid Demonstrates The Weak Tea Effect

3:20 pm EST December 4th, 2009 | News | 8 Comments

harry reidHarry Reid’s numbers in Nevada are bad

Just 38 percent of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Senate majority leader, the same percentage as in October and 1 point higher than in August.

The reason for this is making the democratic leader in the senate someone from a purple state, which he responds to by being too conservative and cautious, which then makes him look weak and turns off progressives in the base. Also, Harry Reid is just an amazingly ineffectual leader in the senate, not even the shadow of people like LBJ.

If Reid loses I won’t be sad, because maybe then the senate will put someone in a leadership role more complementary to Speaker Pelosi (Dick Durbin? Chuck Schumer?). Also if he loses, he’ll be the second Democratic leader in the Senate to get taken out within a decade.

Get a clue, guys.

Topic: ,

Related Posts

«
»

8 Responses to “Harry Reid Demonstrates The Weak Tea Effect”

  1. Alan says:
    December 4, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    I’m trying to decide who would be the absolute worst person to elevate to Democratic senate leader if when Reid gets tossed out next year. I’m assuming it will have to be a moderate from a red state who won’t be up for reelection until 2014 to allow for the maximum amount of rat-fucking time. Suggestions?

    BTW, notice I didn’t say Senate Majority Leader, because I still think it possible we can manage to lose ten Senate seats in 2010, or failing that, we lose enough to where Lieberman, Nelson and maybe one or two other fifth columnists can switch to the Republican side because of “fiscal responsibility” or some such tripe.

  2. mike in dc says:
    December 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    I’d say Schumer or Durbin should probably be the new leader. I’d like it to be someone willing to play hardball with the moderates, because otherwise it will quickly develop into “more of the same” from them.

  3. jr says:
    December 4, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Milquetoast doesn’t do a body good

  4. Oliver Willis says:
    December 4, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Prolly someone like Kent Conrad. Ugh.

  5. Colorado Dave says:
    December 4, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    I’ve never understood why the Democratic Party chooses vulnerable Senators to be party leaders. When Reid succeeded Daschle I knew it was a mistake if only because Reid was from Nevada. With Reid the Democrats made the same mistake they made with Daschle.

    Tom Daschle and Harry Reid are both from very conservative states. Neither South Dakota nor Nevada can claim strong liberal populations. For Christ’s sake, Nevada was the birthplace of the Sagebrush Rebellion back in the ’80s. Picking a leader from a small state with a conservative population guarantees that the major planks of the Democratic Party will not be fought for with vigor and gusto. Reid knows, as Daschle before him knew, that a full-throated endorsement of Democratic principles will likely cost him his seat. If he wasn’t majority leader he would likely be a Blue Dog.

    The Republicans don’t do this they pick staunch conservatives from extremely conservative states. Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell had the freedom to be as balls to the wall conservative as they wanted knowing full well that they faced no electoral challenge back home.

    The Democratic leader of the Senate should come from a safe seat. The Democrats should choose their leaders from California, New York or Massachusetts. Seniority is not an issue because when Reid was chosen there were 10 Democratic Senators with more seniority.

  6. SpiderJ says:
    December 4, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    I’d agree with you about Massachusetts except I no longer trust John Kerry to breathe fire when it counts and Ted Kennedy is gone.

    I agree with Mike–Durbin or Schumer.

  7. Colorado Dave says:
    December 5, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    I was thinking more along the lines of safe seats as opposed to individuals.

    If I were to pick an individual I would say the Democrats should have chosen Senator Clinton from New York in January of 2007. At the very least they should have made her Majority Leader after her showing in the primaries. While she has been a refreshing change of voice at State had she been Senate Majority Leader President Obama would have signed true health care reform into law by now.

  8. Colorado Dave says:
    December 5, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Wow imagine Pelosi as Speaker, Clinton as Majority Leader and Obama as President…now there is a trifecta that could get stuff done.