Yes, I see your point as to why "levers" aren't needed with Reid... but I don't agree that ideologically he is a Bush clone. (Though, maybe I'm reading too much into your post?) He is definitely an overly self-serving man, but I don't think his personal interests are as aligned with the Bush Administration's interests as you would imply. Maybe insofar as they are all willing to pander to a monolithic corporate America. However, I would draw the line between exactly what interests and where they are located. As far as I can tell, Reid's not in with the big money military industrials, or the oil industry, but it doesn't matter; the Bush administration knows he can be "bought" and at a very low price.

To change tack a bit, it's clear that even as a democrat, Reid is far too "malleable" to provide any sort of opposition whatsoever to the President's policies. Reid's in it for the money and that's it; no domestic or foreign policies will ever hold water with Reid unless there is $$$ in it for him. And the political, i.e. financial cost to Reid of supporting any policy the Bush Admin opposes will be very high - because they know with the flip of a switch, they can really needle his family's financial-political connections. This isn't the case with Dodd.

Reid has no independent legs to stand on here.

Note also Kane's incoherent response to the literal question.

The questioner was puzzled by the phrase: "Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the decision had nothing to do with the efforts of Dodd and his allies."

The questioner wondered: "Can you fathom why this dismissive and seemingly disingenuous statement was made?"

Kane's response was, essentially, that Reid really believes that Dodd had nothing to do with the delay, because Dodd caused the delay for political reasons.

This sort of response betrays a stunning lack of respect for simple factuality. You can see why Manley would spin this way, but why would a reporter swallow this spin whole, and regurgitate it with his own endorsement?

Yesterday I received a hand-written holiday greeting from a former beautiful poster named, greysky, who said..."No more posting...because of the blowhards..."

greysky. yes.

J. M. Greysky,

after washed-up,

I lean that way too.

I get the sense that much of his frustration stems from what I'll call Aycharaychism: The stubborn belief that you are the center of the universe and everyone everywhere thinks exactly like you do.

You have it exactly backward.. I'm on the outside, looking in.

I've been an outsider all my life, hanging with outlaw bikers while riding a crotch rocket is but one example.

Do you really and truly believe that I'm deluded enough to think that everyone else shares my point of view?

Do you disagree with my position that anyone who votes for a politician who supports the drug war is assisting the continuing slide of the US of A into a form of fascism?

I predict you will not answer this question, why not surprise me?

it's only when dodd or feingold are running for president that they can command the media attention to undertake these constitutional stands. two small state democrats would be shouting at the wind without a presidential campaign beat reporter having to write about it.

perhaps its the media, and not the senators who are cynical about governing.

Feingold and Dodd are in that "Democrap" party.

Do I call Republicans Repukes? Yeah, and I probably shouldn't because their were once men of principle even in that party.

Here's the situation: even a cancerous tumor contains normal, healthy cells. Often, it can be quite a few normal cells. This does not mean that the tumor is not really cancerous and should be left alone or be allowed to remain. It has to go because even just a relative few malignant cancerous cells amongst normal "good" cells is enough to kill you.

Feingold and Dodd and Kennedy are good, healthy cells inside a very large malignant cancerous mass (the Democrap party). The tumor must go...just try to leave enough healthy tissue behind to allow recovery and minimize damage. The problem in this case is that the heart of the party, the "leadership" is cancerous and malignant. It is very difficult to simply splice out the cancerous tissue (Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Feinstein, Schumer, etc, etc, etc, etc) and leave behind a viable organ. I'm sorry, but I am beginning to believe that the entire organ must go to save the patient (the Republic).

Put another way, a few good apples cannot save a basket of really bad apples.

It is altogether fitting and proper that the press be skeptical of Senator Dodd's motives and Dodd's sincerity. (Note ,I'm endorsing open, skeptical inquiry, not dismissive mockery a la Shailagh Murray.)

Now if only they'd also be properly skeptical of the motives and sincerity of the Attorney General and the DNI who, according to Senator Feingold, lied about basic facts, during classified briefings to the U.S. Senate about why the telecoms need to be immunized.

But that won't happen. The narrative, the story repeated endlessly, will be that the Administration knows (classified) things which require telecom immunity. I heard a caller to a WNYC radio talk show sum it up, nicely. "If the Administration officials say that telecom immunity is essential for our safety, then it would be reckless to do otherwise. Now is not the time to question authority." (Not verbatim but this is very close to the exact words of the radio caller.)

Some of the Democrats may believe Feingold, and disbelieve the Administration, but they just don't have the guts to fight the narrative.

But what will Aycharych write about? drugs.

True freedom, something very few seem to understand.

The freedom which all liberals recognize in the abortion debate, the freedom to do with your own body as you please..

I never said an unkind word to you and yet you called me a creep.

Insults are the last refuge of those who have nothing substantive to say.