TPMDC
« Minnesota Dems To Cornyn: Texas Doesn't Decide Who Represents Us In The Senate | Home | More on the Double-Standard Debate: Did GM Concede More? »

Will the Grassroots Drop their Anti-Blue Dog Campaigns?

On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid laid the smackdown on progressive grassroots groups that are marshaling their efforts against a group of conservative Democrats. But did the grassroots get the message?

It's becoming difficult not to conclude just that. When reports of Reid's statements broke, I put out calls to some of the more high-profile groups--including Campaign for America's Future (CAF), MoveOn, and Americans United for Change (AUC)--and the response has been...telling.

AUC has been running ads in the states of conservative Democrats urging constituents to "call congress" and "tell them to support President Obama's budget". Late Friday, they sent me a statement saying, "we agree with Senator Reid that Democrats should not be impeded from moving forward on this transformative budget and this is not a fight between Democrats." But the meat of Reid's remarks were anything but conciliatory. "These groups should leave [the "Moderate Dem Working Group] alone," Reid said. "It's not helpful to me. It's not helpful to the Democratic Caucus."

CAF, meanwhile, declines to comment on Reid's remarks altogether. Last week, the group featured their "Dog the Blue Dogs" campaign prominently on their website's home page, but today it's nowhere to be seen.

For their part, MoveOn did not respond to a request for comment. They've been running similar ads in many of the same districts as AUC, though MoveOn calls out the targeted senators and congressmen by name.

Two key questions are how long the campaigns will last and what, if anything, will take their place once they've run their course. I've put it to the groups, and will report back if and when they respond.

Late Update: The Americans United for Change ads expire tomorrow. A source there says a second wave might run at a "strategic" time, but the message has yet to be determined....


57 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Jonathan Chait's "Why Democrats can't govern" at TNR..worthwhile reading

user-pic

That was a fun article (link: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=07bd4a20-60a7-44a9-ab92-115eeb62bd92).

But didn't you find it a bit hyper-reactive? I think a follow-up to Chait (or any number of commentators, for that matter) might be "Why Liberal Columnists and Activists Panic When Democrats are in the Majority"

user-pic

I plan to contribute in the next primary election against these "Blue Dogs" for any progressive candidates they may oppose them. They are contributing to opposing Obama's agenda for their own political gain and I want to see a new path away from these conservadems!

user-pic

I second that. I'd like to replace these Republicans pretending to be Democrats with real Democrats, and if it ticks off Reid, that's just icing on the cake.

If the blue dogs don't like it, there is a simple solution -- start acting like they are on my team instead of the opposition.

user-pic

The Blue Dogs still delude themselves they got elected by their rich friends on the right, and it was the center-right of the middle class (read "working class", not the wingnut wing tyhey are pandering to.

I don't expect them to capitulate until they realize they are facing political purging.

But for now, they should all quit whining about the public outcry. And if they can't stand the public criticism, they should stay out of the public kitchen.

And Viva la Blogs!

user-pic

I am with Obama 1st. I am not contributing a dime to a conservadem. I have been railing against the likes of Mary Landrieu, Conrad and Ben Nelsen for years. I am not too happy about Mark Begich. I sent money to his campaign and a couple of others who have turned out to be disappointments for sure.
Fuck Harry Reid - that do nothing wimp.

user-pic

i just LOOOVE your characterization of it as a "smackdown".

he said and i quote, "It's not helpful."

awwww!!!! SNAP!!!!! he burned those pinkos good.

can you cut the sensationalism please?

user-pic

Um, OK, who gave this guy the keys to TPM posting abilities?

What IS this crap?

A mighty "smackdown" from Reid!! Yes, that's what happened. Will those stupid hippies finally shut up and let Reid's genius method of losing every fight he ever enters flourish? Let's hope so, and in the mean time, here's a totally bogus story about it based on absolutely NOTHING! yay.

user-pic

Awww, c'mon now, we were savaged. By a dead sheep.

user-pic

By a dead sheep

One time, they find you with a dead sheep, and forever after it's "There goes Shlomo, the dead sheep fucker..."

user-pic

Harry Reid just did more damage to the "moderates" than progressives could ever do (though they also do it to themselves all the time), by openly blabbing about how they're just posturing to tell their constituent what they want to hear. Ever wonder why so many voters think Democrats don't really mean what they say?

Harry Reid is also a conservative Dem who is not particularly representative of the mainstream of his caucus.

user-pic

The grass roots should expend ALL OF THEIR EFFORT, to primary out Reid.

user-pic

If they fold, it will be clear that the progressive movement in the Democratic Party is just for show, while centrists rule.

That they could not respond immediately with a rejection of the remarks shows that they have become wholly owned Dem Party organs, which, because the Dems are dominated by centrists, means these "progressives" are ineffective and just for show.

user-pic

I thought we were saving most of the infighting for the Republicans. Can't we all just get along? Or at least not overreact.

user-pic

Are The Grassroots Cowering In Face Of Reid's Smackdown?


This headline promotes the non-story to a non-story. The grassroots don't listen or respect harry anyway!

user-pic

OK, prerequisite disclaimers: not a fan at all of these "Blue Dogs," and not a defender of Reid.

Having said that - I'm really not sure what the big deal is. Seems to me the progressive groups are making a pragmatic decision, not because they're cowed but because they believe there will be bigger fish to fry. Certianly not all of the administration's wish list is going to get enacted, but this is going to be a budget everyone can live with.

More importanly, it could be a fantastic opportunity to get an at least somewhat progressive slant to spending priorities reinstituted in Congress, and leave the whining nay-saying Republicans in the dust. That would be ultimately more beneficial to progressive causes right now, and I think these groups sense that.

Let's try that for a while, then after a few years of success we can all declare a huge civil war on each other to determine whether there is a 7 or 10 percent increase in nondiscretionary spending....

user-pic

I'd actually like to hear some intelligent discussion of the inside baseball here, and I don't feel I'm getting enough from TPM. Can anyone recommend a source?

I seriously *do* want to pressure Bayh, Landrieu & other senators who have been reluctant to use the budget reconciliation process.

But I seriously don't want to be counterproductive, and I don't always trust the grassroots' assessment of what is and isn't counterproductive.

So where do I go to hear both sides of the inside baseball on this?

user-pic

Uh, did you mean to say, "nondiscretionary spending" or did you mean, "non-military discretionary spending?"

user-pic

these groups should leave [the "Moderate Dem Working Group] alone," Reid said. "It's not helpful to me. It's not helpful to the Democratic Caucus."

But a group formed with the intention of portraying Obama as a scary leftist is hugely helpful to Democratic Caucus.

Now I'm gonna have to blow the dust off my checkbook and send some money to the next group that goes after the Senate Blue Dogs.

PS- STFU, Harry.

user-pic

Senate Blue Dogs

Or, in the words of the inimitable John Boehner, the Senate Lap Dogs. . .

user-pic

Harry Reid?

The Leader who has been unable to Lead? The Leader who accomplished nothing?

That Harry Reid?

Why is *anyone* listening to him and why is he sill Leader?

user-pic

Geez, that's a lot more words than necessary to answer a headline question.

The simpler answer is "no."

user-pic

Fire up the Senate business card press. I think I see a new moniker for Reid:

Helpful Harry

user-pic

If he is annoyed, I am happy. If a group is targeting pretend democrats, they are my friend and will receive my donations. Any other questions?

user-pic

So why can't Reid find his Cajones,when Burris was seated,while Franken still needs to be seated,and when the GOP has been uncooperative?

I guess it's easier to fight his own !!

user-pic

Screw Reid. Congress deserves all the heat it can get for allowing the Iraq war and the financial crisis to happen. Problem with that Parliment of Whores is that they have always been too concerned about partisian politics and getting re-elected rather than looking our for the best interests of the country. They aren't fooling anybody.

user-pic

Co-sign, in full.

user-pic

Reid and his band of merry chihuahuas don't seem to realize that when people voted for change, that meant THEM TOO.

2010 should prove to be interesting.

user-pic

What Harry, his Blue Dog buddies, the GOP asswipes, and even the Obama Administration needs to understand is this: there's more Change where the last batch came from if they don't clean up their acts. I think Obama gets it, not to sure about the others, though.

Performance, honesty, and integrity are the new Red, White, and Blue. Get to work, children of Congress.

user-pic

Poor spineless Harry. And he has the temerity to send out Dem fundraising emails today. Here's your "smackdown," Harry--Deleted!!

user-pic

I'll bet Harry Reid has some redeeming qualities. Why does he hide them?

user-pic

I guess they will stop after the budget and flare up again around healthcare time.

user-pic

Those of you busting on moderate Dems and crying the limited extent to which your dream progressive agenda is being pursued... I suggest you talk to A LOT more Americans than your usual circle.

This IS a center right nation, that hasn't changed. Given the negatives on the Republican plate (the dragging on of the wars, collapse of the economy, lack of improvement in standard of living for avg Americans, lack of core support for McCain and the presence of other options like Ron Paul)... the election should have been a BLOW OUT.

It was not.

Instead of recognizing the inherent moderate right reality that is the American electorate, the lefty left is crowing that their narrow lead in the Senate and close election of a President is a mandate.

Don't you see that moving too far to the left and punishing Blue dogs etc. is just the mirror image of the Republican strategy that appears to be working soooo well for them (hint... that was sarcasm).

As reality-impaired as GWBush was, I think he still represents the emotional heart of many Amurrricans, and I still wager there are far more Amurrricans out there than folks that would agree with readers of TPM.

user-pic

Fine, let them support the Republican Party. I have no problem with people who are conservative as a matter of principle. The Blue Dogs have no principles. I want the American people to have a real choice. Otherwise, democracy is rather pointless.

user-pic

Why is being a fiscally conservative Democrat labeled 'having no principles'?

Sorry for teaching time... but limited to two viable parties - each party is going to house folks who are varying combinations conservative and liberal on economics and moral issues. And golly gee, some of us might even be moderate on many of the issues.

I'm all for punishing folks who essentially stab the party in the back (GA's Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman) - but if you want to actually win the Presidency occasionally and have sufficient majorities in Congress to get progressive things done, you are going to need to elect Democrats from districts that are not 'progressive' friendly.

Hey, I don't care how much venting and steam people blow off when upset that a member of the party isn't towing your issue... and you're free to support (financially and verbally) whoever you like. But the party leadership OUGHT to be interested in the bigger picture of not alienating moderates. It's the only way any progressive policies will get through.

user-pic

I agree. There's ideology and then there's politics, granted not as "pure" but rather the art of the possible and the art of getting bills actually passed. I agree with jofga--throwing every Republican they didn't agree with out of the right-wing Repub. party got them where they are today and the Democrats should not go down that road. A "big tent" is necessary and all the smart politicians understand that.

user-pic

Why is being a fiscally conservative Democrat labeled 'having no principles'?

You are full of shit. You tell me where they were when George Bush was running up the biggest deficits in history.

user-pic

This election was not a blow-out? What planet, please? President Obama carried Indiana, North Carolina, Nevada, etc. etc. Democrats picked up all kinds of Senate seats for the second election in a row . . . This was as much of a blow-out as you're ever going to see, in the teeth of corporate media and Republican election-rigging.

"Moving too far to the left"---what the hell does that mean? President Obama surrounds himself with Wall Street shills as economic advisers; he adopts a standard imperialist foreign policy . . . and you worry about moving too far to the left???

"The inherent moderate right that is the American electorate"---what does that cryptic formula mean? There is NO moderate right, only an extremist right in this country's politics; typified by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. There is NO LEFT at all worth the name; these terms can't even be defined in any sensible fashion. Maybe Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Russ Feingold from Wisconsin signify a sort of left-liberal politics. As Mr. Feingold understood years ago, until you get the big money out of the electoral and legislative process, it will be well-nigh impossible to make real progress economically, environmentally, and with health care and other pressing social issues.

What you seem to consider "the left" is an aggregation of politicians who make Richard Nixon seem like a socialist. The label "Democrat" doesn't mean a thing. Not a thing.

This is not a matter of "punishing Blue Dogs." It is trying to get politicians to listen to those people who turned out and voted IN A LANDSLIDE to change direction away from the reign of error. You prate about the "center-right"---I wonder how many people would have shown up for the inauguration if McCain had won. Two million? Not a tenth of that! The center has shifted . . . but if the political pimps sell the people out, then disillusionment will set in. It could result in a backlash against all Democrats from President Obama down. Mr. Obama wants to model himself on Lincoln. And so he has Larry Summers as his millstone---Obama's General McClellan.

Lincoln had to get radical. To win the war, he had to free the slaves. Obama must get radical. To save the economy, he needs to favor single-payer health care---and get 'er done! AND he needs to restore New Deal-style regulatory policy! AND figure out how to begin producing goods again instead of basing an economy on speculation and just shuffling money around.

It is not a matter of "moving left"---an almost meaningless phrase. It is a matter of getting to the roots of the problem: getting radical. And "Blue Dogs" or anyone else who doesn't "get it" need to hear from the citizens who do!

user-pic

I consider blow out or landslide as enough House and Senate seats that you don't need to suck up to every precious moderate and possible moderate in the other party to get legislation through and enough popular votes (and electoral college sensitive combo) that the Pres. clearly has a MANDATE.

What you got was a Democratic president who ran as 'post-partisan', moderate, with strong appeal to independents... and that earned him:

A 53% to 46% popular vote, important states like FLA (27 electoral votes) at 51 - 49
Indiana (11 EV) at 50-49
N. Carolina (15 EV) at 50 -49
and a host of other states at rations in the 50s-40s...

Senate 58 - 41 (and Minnesota so close as to still be stuck in the courts).

This is not a mandate (not that other previously claimed BS 'mandates' weren't also laughable), especially when you consider the apathy in the Republican party, the enthusiasm in the Democratic party, and the negatives from the Bush years.

It's not that I don't agree that some of the policies (in particular the financial bailout) don't seem a tad TOO conservative...

But in my humble opinion... Democrats aren't good at getting an emotional 'buy in' from voters, too many of whom ARE the people you ridicule.

Feel morally superior as much as you want to in thinking you are on the right side of history - but don't lose sight of how many of your fellow citizens and voters do NOT agree with you. It is especially important to not push for candidates too liberal to be elected in their districts. What does that get you?

A morally superior position of no power - I'd rather take the weak soup of moderation to the previous 8 years, Clinton with Republican Congress, and Reagan.

user-pic

Well, I don't agree with your definition, or rather, we're at different points on a scale of what constitutes a "blow out." The Dems certainly are in a position which with capable leadership would give them a HEFTY advantage in Congress. I don't know where you got the notion that I express some "moral superiority." I was discussing politics, not morality. I discuss with all kinds of people, in real life not so much online, and that includes those who don't agree with me! I don't do opinion polls, just get an unscientific impression from such conversation. But the conditions you seem to want are unrealistic---such lop-sided advantages are a luxury most administrations don't have.

Do you disagree that a successful solution to the crisis must be one that gets to the root of the problem? Arguments by historical analogy of course are not conclusive, yet why can't we try to learn from history? As I see it, Lincoln and FDR succeeded to the extent that they went to the root of the problem. Certainly the broken health care system in USA is a huge drag on the economy. And just as certainly, real wealth can only come from production, not speculation and usury.

Of course, politics is the "art of the possible." But politicians, almost all, are quite willing to FOLLOW rather than lead, and to shift their own positions to protect their political careers. So the task that you and I can both agree on is to get to those politicians' constituents and try to encourage the constituents to change the Blue Dogs' attitudes in a progressive direction.

By the way, even a 50.5-49.5 margin in Indiana or North Caroline, for an African-descended man demonized as a Muslim and a gun-grabber, is NOT TOO SHABBY.

And those "Amurricans" as you call them are losing their jobs and their homes at a scary clip. If the Dems can't give them something more than promises of hope, there'll be a backlash as they follow a scapegoating demagogue . . . a Limbaugh-type, for instance. That's why I conclude that Reid shouldn't capitulate to the Blue Dogs and let them sabotage things. Reid ought to be grateful to the citizen activists.

We citizens are sovereign. We want problems solved. We don't want alibis from Reid. All he can ever do is explain why he can't do anything!

user-pic

First, I apologize if I smeared you as holier than thou... it wasn't targeted at you specifically and it was a personal over-reaction. As a moderate I get sick of moderates being accused of having no principles - just cause our principles might be different.

I guess I measure what I consider a blow-out by vague childhood memories of Ronald Reagan - it seems frighteningly easy for conservative Republicans to get these kind of majorities where they can fundamentally create a generation of devotees.

I DO fear that impoverished Americans are far more likely to follow a demagogue (or even more scary a true believer like Sarah Palin) than they are to change their mistaken fears of 'SOCIALISM' and Godless, bleeding heart liberals. They are all still convinced that Democrats are gonna gut defense and tax the good, moral, productive Americans (themselves) to give to lazy, degenerate, welfare cheats (naturally the 'other guy' and never corporate welfare recipients and tax cheats).

I think the Democrats have been given, not a mandate but, the tentative hand from someone who while standing on a breaking rope bridge reaches for the person they just the minute before were sure was the enemy.

So I'm all for whatever it takes to get some semblance of an economic improvement by midterm elections - even if it means forgoing the wishlist we're accused of having. If we can slowly improve things over 4 years, perhaps we can HOPE for a second term and over 8 years begin to CHANGE the psychological programming the Reagan years seemed to start.

I fear trying for anything too radical will lead to failure and the last thing we need is for HOPE to give way to a false reinforcing of 'Government is the Problem' dogma.

But - that's why I'm glad I'm not in charge. I'm the poo-pooing Debbie Downer, thrilled when I'm proven wrong. To me its amazing what the Obama team has already accomplished and can get done in the next two years - but I think fundamental to that ability is his ability to APPEAR to be a populist reformer rather than a radical revolutionary (all terms sufficiently deflated to reflect the narrow spectrum available in US politics). All the better if we get significant reforms that I thought were too much to hope for. It never ceases to amaze me how AUDACIOUS he is.

So - on point to the economy... Somehow I think returning the idea of a progressive tax code being a GOOD thing and undoing the Republican economic voodoo are almost too much to hope for.

Getting fundamentally at the structural hold of big money (corporate and finance) - well, the most I hope for is getting transactions like CDSs regulated, tougher enforcement of existing regulations.

A return of the separation of financial superstores into smaller entities... MAYBE, if we can keep the pressure on Too Big too Fail meaning privatization of profit and socialization of pain.

*********************

I think we do agree on trying to change the political spectrum in the US... I think you're more interested in getting out progressive voters and progressive LEADERS and I have a more molasses-like goal of changing the opinions and 'conventional wisdom' that supports Americans not seeing how the nice poetry of Reagan results in bad policies.

user-pic

The attitudes you ascribe to the electorate-at-large are held largely because they reflect the incessant propaganda emanating from radio and t.v. opinion-shapers. This consists of 90 to 95% articulation and repetition of reactionary talking points (cf. Alterman's book "What Left Wing Media?")

I don't see "moderates" as a group which holds any principle except timidity, although I don't mean that in an unfriendly or derogatory way. "Moderates" who deeply study and reflect about the issues are the exception. Most "moderates" I have met tend to be TEMPERAMENTALLY moderate, and not all that interested in political controversy. As a group, I think they tend to follow whichever ideological faction seems most energetic and appealing. That is why leadership matters. We need some "alpha" types on our side.

Again, when I advocate radical solutions, I don't do so for ideological purposes, but rather because I read history as telling us that ONLY by getting to the root, can you fix the kind of crisis we face. Radical means getting to the root. In Lincoln's case, it meant abolishing slavery and letting black soldiers enlist. Lincoln had no intention of doing either, when he first took office.

As far as these Blue Dogs, I think they are like most politicians. They hold positions out of political calculation, not philosophy. Their positions can be adjusted. But it might hurt their feelings to tell them that they are not the center of the universe---so Harry Reid can't bring himself to play hardball with them. If Reid is the best the Senate Dems can do, then they are a caucus of second-raters. Not up to the nation's needs. Because in a national crisis, the proper political response to politicians who put their own parochial interests ahead of the nation's is to call them out---not to capitulate. We want these Dogs to play on Obama's team, not Bayh's team. Is that so unreasonable? where's the "difficulty" in that?

Senators are elected from the states, but they serve the whole nation. when they act as if they are indispensable, somebody has to tell them otherwise.

And public opinion is often inconsistent and malleable. So to refrain from doing what needs to be done due to a fear of public opinion, is foolish. If it needs to be done, do it and make a serious effort to summon the support of public opinion by explaining what you're doing.

user-pic

Center-right? Overwhelming support for the environment, health care reform and pulling out of Iraq makes the U.S. a center-right nation?

Horseshit.

user-pic

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/why_the_left_thinks_obama_cant_govern.php

A response to the Chait article that makes my point more eloquently.

"the single largest reason why Democrats don't display as much party loyalty as Republicans: the Democratic coalition is inherently more diverse and less homogenous than the Republican coalition. That's true in the Democratic voting coalition: as I pointed out in a post last week, liberals constitute only about one-third of self-identified Democrats, while conservatives comprise about two-thirds of self-identified Republicans."

I do agree with Chait that some of the moderate Dems need to get on board and support the transformational nature of the Obama agenda.

I just think that there's often too much labelling as 'DINOs' - those from districts where moderates Dems are the only one's your going to get.

user-pic

If they are holding their water, it is not for Harry. It is because they don't want to do damage to Obama's policies. Let Evan and his gang push the administration's policies off the track and you will see a backlash that very well may include running Harry's ass out on a rail!

user-pic

If you can take a short pause in the circular firing squad, this is what's actually coming up in Congress (from Crooks and Liar's interview today with Sen. Jeff Merkley (Oregon):

The budget
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 16:27 — Senator Jeff Merkley

The budget resolution only requires a majority vote. On Thursday night there will be a process often called "vote-a-rama", in which numerous amendments will be considered with little advanced knowledge of their contents and very limited debate.

I think though you might be referring to the use of reconciliation to address major issues such as health care, cap and trade, and education. Right now there is a debate underway as to whether coherant legislation can be passed on these topics using reconciliation. The problem is that any part of a bill that doesn't have a budget impact, can be thrown out of the bill by the parliamentarian. This can leave a policy bill somewhat scrambled.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the opponents fiercely oppose the use of reconciliation because it reduces the required votes from 60 to 50. I personally think that every legitimate mechanism should be fully explored to pass legislation in these important areas.

user-pic

Thanks for the good review of the game...

I'm torn on reconciliation. It looks like something we should avoid if at ALL possible (bad smell to it) - but if it is REALLY necessary to get such a centerpiece as the budget through I trust the leadership to weigh the political +s/-s.

But on needing 60 votes, is this AGAIN like so many other things where we don't REALLY need 60, but need 60 to ensure cloture in the face of a filibuster?

Does regular ol' budget require 60 votes (like a treaty)?

Even though I learned on TPM that the filibuster doesn't actually have to be anything more exciting than one guy repeatedly calling a quorum vote - I do think that some of these times, we SHOULD make the 'Party of No' demonstrate their obstructionism.

user-pic

avoid if at ALL possible

Right then, carry on.

(shorter response:ain't possible...)

user-pic

This is all just so much bull puckey! I'm baffled when I see references to these Republicans in disguise called "moderates" or "centrists". Has the language been so degraded that these Blue Dogs can't be properly identified as extreme right wing nuts? Confucius said, "If things are not called by their right names, the people will stand about in helpless confusion."

Reid himself has already shown he is another Republican lap dog -- under his leadership Bush got more than he could have dreamed of. Why this man is the Mahority Leader is beyond comprehension.

user-pic

To hell with Harry Reid ! Those blue dog democrats had better tow the line. We voted for change. Those democrats that don`t want to get onboard with President Obama`s agenda for change for the betterment of the american people, will have hell to pay in 2010`.... Harry Reid`s butt is in the fire now in his state of Nevada, so he had better take heed, and wake up and smell the coffee !!!!

user-pic

tow the line

And the barge. And lift that bale, too.

And, they better fall in, line-up, umm, toe the line.....

user-pic

It's just possible that progressive groups have not responded to Reid's statement because nobody cares what Harry Reid says.

user-pic

Harry is definately part of the problem that we the people have with moving our democracy in the direction that we want.
It's hard to tell just who is a democrat any longer. Blue dogs need a slapping down and the grass root are those that need to press on.
Lets not listen to helpless harry.

user-pic

From a New Yorker profile of Harry Reid: Today in Searchlight, which is about a mile long, one can see the two-room cinder-block schoolhouse that Reid attended, a small casino on the main street, and a McDonald’s. Almost all the houses are double-wide mobile homes, with no landscaping.

There were about two hundred people left in the town when Reid was born, in 1939, the third of four sons of Harry Reid, Sr., a gold miner with an elementary-school education, and his wife, Inez, who did laundry for some of the local bordellos, which were by then the town’s primary business. Reid’s boyhood home was built out of scavenged railroad ties; it had no indoor toilet and no hot water. There were no telephones in Searchlight until the nineteen-fifties. When Reid’s younger brother, Larry, broke a leg in a bicycle accident, the leg was never set. “We didn’t go to doctors in those days unless it was a matter of life and death,” Reid said. “And he just lay there. It was so painful, and you couldn’t touch the bed. And that’s the way it just was for several days.” (Larry and another brother are retired; the third, an alcoholic, died in 1977.) Reid’s parents drank and his father often got into brawls. “He didn’t like people coming around and wouldn’t let us answer the door even if we were home,” Reid said. When he could no longer work, because of silicosis, a miner’s cough, Reid’s father stopped drinking, but at the age of fifty-eight he committed suicide, with a gunshot to the head. “He was always depressed,” Reid said, adding that his father’s depression was evident to him only in hindsight. “We always joke that Dad sobered up and killed himself.” His mother tacked to the wall a blue pillowcase with gold fringe and a message of perseverance that originated with Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “We can. We will. We must.”

Because the school in Searchlight went only up to eighth grade, every week Reid hitchhiked forty miles to Henderson, a factory town, where he boarded with relatives while he went to the public high school. “I always knew I wanted to get out of there,” he said of Searchlight. “I knew that from the time I was a little kid.” In Henderson, Reid met Landra Gould, the woman whom he eventually married. Reid said that Gould’s parents, who were Jewish, liked him until they realized how serious the couple was—“They wanted their daughter to marry a Jewish boy”—and tried to end the relationship. Her father, Landra Reid told me, “would tear up Harry’s letters, hang up the phone on him. They had a fight in the front yard.” Reid has said that the fight ended when he knocked his future father-in-law, a chiropractor, to the ground. Landra says, “I remember a lot of yelling and pushing.” In 1959, when Harry was twenty and Landra was nineteen, they eloped. After a honeymoon dinner at a Chinese restaurant in Las Vegas, Landra called home to report the news; within days, she got a letter from her parents saying that, despite their misgivings, their daughter’s happiness came first. Reid now wears his father-in-law’s ring.

In Henderson, Reid also met Donal (Mike) O’Callaghan, who arrived at the high school to teach government and boxing. O’Callaghan, who had lost a leg in the Korean War and was just ten years older than Reid, became a hero to Reid after he faced down a school bully. Reid, a catcher on the school’s championship baseball team and a guard on the football team, learned to box from O’Callaghan, who helped him win a partial athletic scholarship to a junior college in Utah and later helped pay his way through law school. O’Callaghan, like Reid, had larger ambitions: in the seventies, he served two terms as governor of Nevada, and he went on to become the executive editor of the Las Vegas Sun and a sometime columnist for the paper. When he died, last year, Reid eulogized him as the best friend he had ever had. McCue told me that the only time she ever saw Reid cry was at the news of O’Callaghan’s death.

While Harry was in college, he and Landra converted to Mormonism. “The thing that was so impressive to me—in addition to the spiritual aspects that I’d never experienced before—was the emphasis on family,” Reid said. “The biggest jump for me,” Landra Reid said, “was to try to understand the connection between Judaism and the Old Testament and the New Testament, and how to make any sense of how Christianity fit into it.” She added, “Before we got married, we had talked about it and decided we were not going to let religion divide us after what we’d been through. If we found something, we were going to find it together.” Until both of her parents died, Harry Reid said, the family observed the Jewish holidays. “My two oldest children have great affection for things Jewish, and my three younger children are aware of their mother’s lineage, and all of them are very proud of the fact that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.” On the doorway of their house in Searchlight, the Reids have a mezuzah.

The Reids’ house, a Mediterranean-style two-bedroom home that faces the open desert, is situated on a hundred acres at the end of a long dirt road. They had it built four years ago, after living for years in a double-wide. Reid’s friend Jay Brown, a Las Vegas lawyer and a Brooklyn native, said, “You should have seen the trailer,” and complained that simply getting there ruined the tires of his car. Reid is a former marathoner—he ran twelve races before an injury and then a fall sidelined him. Now he takes an hour-long walk each morning, often with Landra, whose presence appears to put him in a lighter mood.

user-pic

Jofga said "So - on point to the economy... Somehow I think returning the idea of a progressive tax code being a GOOD thing and undoing the Republican economic voodoo are almost too much to hope for."

"somehow"?... "too much to hope for"? ...well see thats your problem. i dont care how many democrats we have in congress. Im old enough to know whos been running the show for 30 years and it hasnt the majority. corporate money kills change and makes a mockery of "hope" . personally, im dead serious about it now. Im calling congresspersons and senators and telling them i know how much money evan bayh takes from insurance companies, its all over the web and im going to redouble my efforts now. i dont care if the campaign is making harrys job harder. i dont care if evan bayh would rather keep his wifes postion on the board of wellpoint health insurance company out of the argument. i, like millions of other americans, have got nothing left to lose.

user-pic

Listen Harry & staff who are reading this, [and I am told you are]:

Your efforts are not helping me either. I am a Democratic Party official at the grass roots level. If you don't like us knocking or banging on your door---TOOO F&#CK!^G bad. You are part of the elite that put us all in this friggin mess.

Make your decision, either get in line with the ordinary Americans or go over to the elite and protect them, but you can't do both.

I have told this to our Senators, onethis is the same surprised the status quo elite when Obama forces beat the elite Clinton. We are not afraid of contested races....By the way read Sikota's book on Uprising.

user-pic

I think that

1) seats are important

but

2) votes are too.

We need to prioritize which votes are a litmus test, which are forgivable, and which issues we need absolute discipline on. It can't be on everything -- we don't want to force these Blue Dogs to choose between leaving the eparty or losing their election.

But we need more pressure on the important votes.

Soem of that comes from chagning the electorate's views of issues, ferom getting out message out to them and coutnering the media spin.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address