Jeez.. get a grip. The fact is, we are the minority party.. and we can't be obstructionist. It will only hurt us more than we already are hurting. Reid will do fine. Some of you bloggers out there won't give anybody a chance.

Hell, people were cheering his interview on Meet the Press the other week.

Reid will be fine.. maybe we need to replace some bloggers?

i think that harry reid might surprise you..he is soft spoken but can be very tough and persuasive towards his point of view....i feel that you have misinterpreted what he meant about scalia..scalia like him or hate him.. is a bright guy..i myself can't stand him ...but like reid respect his intellect...wrong as i think he is on the issues...clarence thomas on the other hand is not very bright and got where he is because of affirmative action..not his intellect..all reid was saying was that scalia was bright..thomas is dumb..i agree with that....he did not say he was a supporter of scalia

hell, just because a clear majority of americans believe in abortion rights doesn't mean it's incumbent on senate dems to reflect this in their leadership. just because me-too republicanism has kept us out of power doesn't mean we shouldn't embrace it. someday it will pay off [/DLC]

P, at some point, somebody we don't agree with will become the new Chief Justice. Of the realistic candidates, Kennedy is the least objectionable, and the least likely to be selected.

Of the remaining two--Scalia and Thomas--Scalia is the less objectionable choice. He's brighter, and he's less reactionary. I know that's hard to believe, but it's true.

The proper way to read Reid's comments is "You'll get a big fight over Thomas; we won't be happy with Scalia, but we have to let you do it."

As much as I disdain and criticize accommodation and collaboration, I think we stay with Reid unless and until he betrays us, like Gephardt in the Rose Garden.

We are closer to parity in the senate, and there might well be important moments when the Democrats, plus a few Republicans, can make a difference. I would prefer not to throw that away.

Where things need to get hot is in the house. Congressional districts are less vulnerable and the members can and should be more partisan.

I do not think that we have to lose on Scalia. This man, more than any other, put GWB in the White House. He should not be rewarded for it. He is corrupt. He holds views wildly at odds with most Americans. He is divisive. He is radical. And he is an asshole who will not look that good on TV when he is confronted with these things.

He should be opposed as if the future of the country depended on it. And the Democratic Party, in the Senate, should stake their claim to the American people on this.

Even if we lose, it is one of those moments that we can use to show the whole country how we are different and why we are better than the Radical Right Republicans.

As a minority party in D.C., it'll be important which fights you pick. You can't pick all of them or even most of them. You have to decide which ones you can win or which ones you can impact.

Fighting over Scalia is small potatoes compared to the big fights that are coming. We'll need all of our energy focused for those.

All you're doing here is wasting energy.

I tend to agree with the others who are defending Reid on Scalia. What is Reid supposed to do? Thomas would be worse. By the same token, I tend to think Reid is a mistake. Time will tell.

Correction: Thomas was not elevated due to affirmative Action he was elevated to kill it. Pawns of the powerful are elevated for their known ideological positions not to redress social inequities. To characterize the Thomas’s selection for the Supreme Court as an Affirmative Action pick suggest a lack of understanding of the disingenuous and insidious motives behind his selection, motives which are clearly and completely antithetical to the progressive philosophical underpinnings of Affirmative Action.

The Democratic Party is at an important juncture and we must be more strategic in our thinking and how we organize.

The way I see it, Karl Rove has had some success merging Madison Ave, Oral Roberts with Slash and Burn Politics, but he still nearly lost against a less than optimal campaign organization . The issues are on our side, we must not give the GOP the cover of “ Faux Bipartisanship”, as they seek to crush the bedrock of American society. Party discipline is crucial to protect societal gains achieved under FDR , JFK and LBJ , we must be hard nosed and strategic if we are to turn the GOP tide, and we shall turn it .

As to Senator Harry Reid as Minority Leader, The Senator is a fine person and I applaud his years of service. That said, I feel leadership under him will suffer from the same constraints we often saw in the leadership of Tom Daschle , you can’t be an effective advocate for Democratics if you hail from a Republican leaning state ; Republicans have employed that strategy effectively , we must agree .


This is no time for interparty comity to supercede pragmatic intelligent strategic action , the GOP agenda puts our nation at risk. We need effective, fearless and unfettered leadership to counter it . I do not believe Senator Reid or anyone similarly positioned can fulfil that role.

Buzz left out this - I know why they did, but I think it adds some substance to Reid's view on how to put pressure on Scalia and his outright denunciation of Thomas. A one-two punch if you ask me.

RUSSERT: Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?

SEN. REID: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems--you've talked about them; every people talk--every reporter's talked about them in town--where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this.

I'd say Scalia will have a lot to answer for if he's nominated.

Goebbels once made a comment about the importance of there being an illusion of a free press -- that is, the illusion of discourse -- in terms of controlling public opinion.

Having just returned from a trip to Europe in which I witnessed *real* democracies and *real* free presses in action, it's pretty clear that the situation in the US is one of an illusion of discourse. The Democratic Party provides the illusion of opposition to Republican policies without providing any actual opposition. The American press provide an illusion of debate about topics of their choosing while many key issues (i.e. defense dept. budget cuts, aid to Israel) are never given public hearing.

There is a huge swelling of anti-Republican fervor in the US. And for the past 2 years all that fervor has been channelled into supporting Democrats. How convenient for Republicans. In retrospect, Election 2004 was a great distraction. What if instead that energy had been channeled into boycotts and legal acts of civil disruption?

Having just returned from a trip to Europe in which I witnessed *real* democracies and *real* free presses in action, it's pretty clear that the situation in the US is one of an illusion of discourse.

My brother and I heard the BBC World segment on NPR the other day, and some British woman interviewer was raking some AEI-type guy over the coals (at least by American standards). She would actually (gasp!) question his assertions.

I turned to him and said "can you imagine if we had just a couple interviewers like that in this country?"

He couldn't. I can't either.

clarence thomas on the other hand is not very bright and got where he is because of affirmative action..not his intellect

Actually, I think it was a parody of affirmativem action.

zappatero,

Thanks for posting what Reid actually said.

It is sad to see that many liberals will take what the media said for granted and not checked for a source.

I was very dubious about Reid when he was chosen, but he has shown me he knew how to fight and that fighting does not mean insulting friends and foes, but really posing the problems. The main reason why Scalia is not a good choice for the Supreme Court is not because we dont agree with him (Bush is not going to choose somebody we agree with), but because of ethics problems.

what is the difference we do or do not agree on ethics. that in itself is reason for veto. it is like we must accept the cripple in every category.
e.g. schumer is really brilliant but he is reactionary in the big way. america's actions are right no matter what. same for spitzer and hillary.
we endorse them because they are really capable on many levels but they are ultimately reactinary. and i do not expect them to change their stripes. but the problem is acute for the common joe. no protection on any level.

reid is an engima or another daschle, soft spoke with an sign 'walk all over me'
we have no choice other than wait and see the bush selection for supremes to commence. my stomach hurts already\

I don't see why Reid had to give his stamp of approval to either Scalia or Thomas - That was
Reid's opportunity to state exactly why either choice would be objectionable.
I too am not happy with Reid - nor with this even-more-submissive attitude on the part of our Dem 'leaders' since the election. Some big issues are coming up (e.g., Social Security), and the Dems had better find their cajones.
Why do the (questionable?) results of the election make them all walk around like wusses?

Check out Scalia and Self-Government. Excerpt:

"In the panel discussion and subsequent article Scalia explains his reasons for his belief that the death penalty is moral. His argument is that government - the State - is allowed to do things that regular people cannot do because government has a higher authority granted to it by God. He writes, "The death penalty is undoubtedly wrong unless one accords to the state a scope of moral action that goes beyond what is permitted to the individual." He believes God chooses humanity's leaders, and democracy obstructs God's wishes by imposing ordinary people as the decision-makers. He condemns the "tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government". "

What an absolutely unrealistic waste of space, as if a blogger's support or rejection can unseat anyone heading up anything in the U.S. Congress.
Dream on about how you 'didn't support Reid'. The Democrats in the Senate could give a crap.

You waste your energy trying to figure out a way to get another Democratic Senator to stick out his neck to his collegues, attack the head of the party in the Senate by demanding Reid be replaced, to them completely without cause, and then imagine how this Senator does this without having to watch his/her career in the Senate tank immediately afterward.

I live in Nevada. Don't be deceived by Harry Reid's soft spoken nature. He is tough as nails and a very shrewd politician. Can't think of a better person to lead the senate democrats.

i did not characterize thomas's elevation to the supreme court as an affimative action pick...his whole career was influenced more by affirmative action then his intellect...there is a difference....i personally believe his choice and others to come..have more to do with over turning roe vs. wade...a major goal of this republican party...these compassionate conservatives who are all for protecting human rights ..til you're born....that's when they have to reach into their pockets....that's when they become compassionate and conservative

"The death penalty is undoubtedly wrong unless one accords to the state a scope of moral action that goes beyond what is permitted to the individual."

Well, I have to say that this particular Scaliaism sounds about right. We do have to accord to the state broader scope; we wouldn't accord our fellow citizens the right to tax us, or to put us in prison, would we?

Whether it's moral scope, or just the advantage of being organized and armed, that gives the state these rights, is perhaps subject to debate, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the state has rights and powers that are coextensive with those of citizens.

Oh, also--enough of this "Clarence Thomas is dumb" bit. He's all fucked up, of course, but he's not dumb.

Yale Law, folks. I'm a smart fucker, and I probably wouldn't have gotten in there if I applied. Even if their admission formula gave him some points because he's black, they didn't give him THAT many.

Now, I'm not saying he's a first-rate legal mind, either. He doesn't belong on the Supreme Court, much less in the Chief Justice's chair. But the point isn't that he's dumb; it's that the Supreme Court should be a place for top legal minds, not a place for presidents to populate with ideologues.

Scalia, love him or hate him (and I hate him), is a top-flight legal thinker; there's just no way around it. When I read his opinions, they inevitably seem perfectly reasonable--almost inexorable in their logic. You find yourself wondering why you'd never supported states' rights before; and then you remember, it's because Scalia is evil.

Thomas is actually eviler in his views than Scalia in a lot of ways; he's just not as much of a badass in presenting them.

i don't see where in any of the above column anyone called clarence thomas dumb..i didn't...i said that affirmative action helped him more then his intellect...as far as getting into yale..that's nonsense..little bush went to harvard business school..how do you think he got in there..points????..he was a c student at yale...the man never accomplished anything in his entire life that being a member of the lucky sperm club didn't do...

as far as getting into yale..that's nonsense..little bush went to harvard business school

Somehow, I doubt that Clarence Thomas had quite the connections that G-Dub had.

perhaps nonsense was to strong a word..my only point is that people get into the ivy's for different reasons..most of them deserve it ..some don't....

Dennis , I agree Thomas’s has been the beneficiary of affirmative action and I thank you for the clarification .

Nevada , One of Reid's top priorities has to be looking out for gaming interest ; it has to be tough for him
to fight Bush and Frisk vigorously . He needs GOP support to be an effective caretaker of gaming interest does he not?

So what I'm getting from this so far is affirmative action is a bad thing. either that or under your liberal cloak beat the heartsof the true racists of this country.