If the Senate Democrats won't remove Harry Reid from his position as majority leader, I will be happy to have the Republicans do it.

You say: "Republicans have a 50-50 shot at defeating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D)"

I hear: "Majority Leader Dick Durbin!"

what is it about north carolina that they always have to have at least one frankenstein/dracula/wolfman archetype senator in the clown car senate at all times?

at least liddy dole is gone -- yah hoo!

and Jessie Helms enjoys "fireside chats" with Franco and Pinochet -- Yippie!

Karen Marie, I couldn't have said it better myself!

Funny, had a moderate wishy-washy majority leader, Tom Daschle, go down. Then another moderate wishy-washy one start sinking.

And the response seems to be ....

to become more "moderate" and wishy-washy.

The assumption that you must move the center and be bi-partisan is just overwhelming. No matter that most people are just not ideological. No matter that moving all the time makes you look shifty.

Lakoff and others have made these points over and over again. But the Rahm Emmanuel establishment just keeps going with them.

Or it's just an excuse to follow the money. Money given - move to the center rationalzed.

I can't actually see any sort of serious downside to Reid losing his seat to a Republican. Even with the magical 60 seats (59 temporarily) we are still talking about routine filibustering which Reid is too spineless to stop. I suppose I can imagine a worse Majority Leader, but it ain't easy. It would be better if we could replace him as leader without him losing an election, but obviously that would have happened by now if it was even possible. Almost anyone I think of would do a better job.

No more Harry Reid?! Oh noes! Whatever shall we do without his sterling leadership?

Oh...wait...we'll actually have leadership. I nominate Al Frankin as to take his place. At least I know that Al gives a damn about trying to do something. Wouldn't it be nice to have the same vital energy leading the Senate as there is in the White House? I don't agree with everything Obama's doing, but at least he's trying to do something without fear of loosing his job.

Former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) officially launched a primary campaign yesterday against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D).

You'd think he'd be trying for an appointment as czar of something or other instead.

If Reid loses it will be because of Democratic indifference rather than Republican competence. Reid hasn't just been a lackluster Majority Leader - he's been an anti-luster Majority Leader.

Man, we really don't like Reid, do we? I opened the comments to kick him around a little bit, but it looks like the job's been done.

I welcome the prospect of Reid's defeat, let's get a Majority Leader with some cojones!

Sanford, DeMint, and Wilson a trfecta of macaccas.

I was absent the day he became Leader. Will the Class Historian check the minutes, and tell me how he got the job? and WHY?

Who's in line for the position if Reid goes down? Might I recommend a senator from a safe blue state so the Republicans don't get to crow about taking down another Democratic senate majority (minority) leader?

And in an ominous item? Steve, you read the comments right? Not just this post, but every post with Harry Reid name in it. I'll give money to the primary and general election challengers.

Tell me how he got the job? and WHY?

I very strongly suspect he got it because no one else wanted it.

Let me be clear: I think Reid is a complete disaster as Majority Leader. However, I think herding Democratic Senators is *exactly* like herding cats - only cats with huge egos and thin skins. Can't be a fun job.

It's a matter of how one views the Senate. Is it a workplace first and a legislative body second, or a legislative body first and a workplace second?

Reid, clearly, believes the workplace comes first. He likes a convivial environment with minimal interpersonal conflict. He wants that more than he wants to pass legislation vital to the country. He certainly doesn't want to have to strong arm anyone, be the Bad Cop, be an actual authority figure. So he goes easy on folks.

We need someone who sees the Senate as a legislative body first and foremost; who understands they're there to do the nation's business.

So I won't be cryin' for Reid if he loses his seat. I'll be watching to see who replaces him as the majority leader.

"Ominous"? Hardly, not for any Dem who wants real leadership in the Senate.
Not sure if I would celebrate more for Reid's defeat, or Lieberman's in 2012. Both would be pretty damn sweet as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, they'll probably just turn around and make Ben Nelson the new majority leader.

I'll be watching to see who replaces him as the majority leader.
As long as his replacement is someone who isn't in thrall to big money, someone who will put the welfare of the nation first...
Never mind.

What do you mean there isn't a top-tier Republican challenger in Nevada? My favorite wingnut blogger, Mark Noonan, is in the running. I'm guessing his official campaign vehicle is a clown car.

Former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) officially launched a primary campaign yesterday against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D)....'

GOOD !
Bennet has been a Blu Dog since he was appointed
It owuld be nice to see him defeated in the primary

WHY can't someone challenge Diane Feinstein ?
She was 'going steady' with George Bush for EIGHT YEARS
Iraq War YES !
Wire tapping YES
Tax Cuts for the Rich YES
War with Iran YES
Deregulation YES

Public Option NO

Can some Democrat run AGAINST DiFi ?

Don't want to see Reid lose
But, I'd LOVE to see him REMOVED
Durbin's Fine
So is Babbara Boxer

Go Joe Sestak !!

OBAMA SPEECH

An excellent speech to Congress on health care reform. I regret lack of a strong demand for the public insurance option and for surtaxes on the rich but his presentation of his plans to the American people was impressive and effective.

However, one element puzzles me. The President called for a competitive insurance exchange, perhaps including a public option, to become available in four years. But would we not be demanding insurance coverage and insuring the uninsured before four years from now? These millions would then be buying coverage, often subsidized by taxpayers, from private insurers before competition results in lower premiums.

Is this interpretation correct? If so, why?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

The day after President Obama's health care speech, the DNC raised more than $1 million. Not bad, considering that no dedicated fundraising appeal went out yesterday.

Yesterday I was calling for the DNC, and personally raised a few thousand of that million.

Allow me to say, having called literally all 50 states, that the overwhelming majority of those I spoke with - even the ones who didn't donate - thought the President's speech was a good one, a speech that "set the record straight" as one older gent said. Several said they now felt reassured after having had their doubts about things.

Purely anecdotal and not a scientific poll, but the overwhelming majority of Democrats who have given before to the DNC liked what they heard, felt reassured, and a majority were ready to help move the issue forward.

I would take that as good news. Particularly since I was one of those - as anyone reading this site knows - who has had my doubts.

Jimmy Carter said it best (paraphrasing - don't remember if this is the exact quote) "One thing I have learned is that you can't win as a Democratic candidate without the left wing of the party."

Reid's problem is with Democrats - not Republicans or Independents.

Did Chris Christie really run over a motorcyclist, cuss him out, try to sue him, or somesuch - anyone know the scoop, is it true? I heard it was bad stuff and should be a big deal in the campaign.