TPMDC
How Harry Got His Groove Back: Reid Plays Hardball With The GOP...Finally
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
Share
Send to a friend!
You don't have to go back in time too far to remember when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ran the Senate in a way that drove progressive Democrats into fits of apoplexy: timidly, and unwilling to use the body's rules for political advantage. Suddenly, with health care reform behind him, and bleak political prospects for both himself and his party staring him in the face, Reid has decided that it's finally time to charge hard.
After quarterbacking health care reform through its tricky final moments in the Senate, Reid put the GOP on the spot yesterday, forcing them to filibuster a broadly popular Wall Street reform bill, and promises to do so over and over again. He's calling out deception, and turning his attention to issues--immigration--that marginalize his opponents, and cleave the Republican party in two.
"I think basically he made the mistake of trusting Joe Lieberman and the Republicans, and he got screwed by [them] and now he's learned," former DNC Chair Howard Dean told me in an interview this morning.
"I like Harry Reid a lot," Dean said. "He's a guy who wants to trust people [but] he knows the Republicans aren't going to cooperate with him based on his experince with him during the health care bill."
Dean discounted the extent to which Reid's own personal political prospects are guiding his new approach.
"Probably not that much," Dean told me. "I think in general, I think all of the Democrats are going to be helped by taking these issues on." Reid has suggested that he'll prioritize the politically charged issue of immigration over the more complex issue of climate change, once the Senate passes financial reform.
But it's not just issues: It's also rhetoric, and exploiting situations for procedural advantage.
Just this morning, on the Senate floor, Reid called the GOP's rhetoric on financial reform Orwellian--that if you want to know what's right and what's wrong about the push for financial reform, listen to what the Republicans say, and believe the opposite.
"Senator Reid is doing a great job bringing the Wall Street reform bill to the floor and showing the American people who's side Senators are on," says AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale. "Unfortunately so far every single Republican has chosen the side of Wall Street over Main Street."
Last night, after Republicans voted to sustain their filibuster of Wall Street reform legislation, Reid held an open quorum, forcing Republicans to return to the Senate floor, and then set the stage for revotes--to be held today and tomorrow--forcing the GOP to go on the record repeatedly opposing debate on finanial reform.
Looking back, some progressive leaders wish this Harry Reid had shepherded health care reform in the same way.
"Had Reid taken this approach in 2009, we'd be in a completely different place today," emails Markos Moulitsas, founder of the blog DailyKos, and a critic of Reid's leadership. "Not only would Democrats have more accomplishments to brag about, but they would've denied the Right the ability to mobilize as effectively as they did."
Moulitsas isn't quick to give Reid credit, but he does see early signs that Reid learned a thing or two since he took over as leader.
Not everything has gone perfectly since health care reform. Yesterday, one of his own rank and file members--Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)--voted with the Republicans to block debate on financial reform legislation. And after calling out his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell in a press conference last week, Reid took to the Senate floor yesterday to issue an apology. "Last week, I criticized the Republican leader for the way he was handling Wall Street Reform. I even criticized him for a series of meetings he held in New York and the result of the meetings. I want the record to be very clear, however, I was in no way impugning the integrity of my friend from Kentucky," Reid said. "[N]o one should take my disagreement with my friend to question his honesty."
But those are fairly minor hiccups in what has been a fairly consistent, weeks-long onslaught.
Says Moulitsas: "If he follows through and forces Republicans to make tough choices on good legislation, then [that] will obviously be a positive."
Comments (114) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Powkat
April 27, 2010 11:20 AM
Of course the headline in the business section of the Oregonian said, 'GOP Wins 1st Round of Finance Reform' So getting the message out is going to be as hard as it always it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drv
April 27, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to Powkat
It's not how you start, it's how you finish. The GOP won many rounds of the health care reform debate yet the bill passed in the end. Let's wait and see before we pronounce defeat here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
April 27, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to drv
The bill that passed WAS a GOP bill from 1994. The left didn't win anything there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
April 27, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to MNPundit
Beat me to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Shreiner
April 27, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to MNPundit
We sure did.
We got it passed, they didn't. Not now, not in 1994.
We won, they lost.
And we're gonna' beat 'em again with Wall St. reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to Rick Shreiner
goddamned right we are!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drv
April 28, 2010 9:19 AM in reply to Rick Shreiner
Thank you all for the back up.
Besides, I never said it was a victory for the Left. I know it isn't the bill the Left wanted. But the point is, it passed and it is better than what we had before. And, the GOP lost so that must mean the Democrats won. I don't think we should overlook the weight of that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USMC Jock
April 28, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to Rick Shreiner
huh? you can't pass anything you have no power. You don't control the agenda. It is amazing to me how much people spin. As an Independent, I care under who's party it passes, as will most Americans. Health Care Reform is WIDELY considered a domestic policy victory for Obama (whom I don't care for) and the Democrats. You're also taking a beating on Financial Reform as evidenced by Shelby's comment that they are gonna end the filibuster by midweek because the American people want FR. The GOP will not be able to claim victory on that either.
3rd generation US Marine SSgt Company 24 / 5 Bravo Semper Fi
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bright Creature
April 27, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to MNPundit
What we won was preventing a further rightward slide. Looking at the last few decades, sadly, halting further rightward movement is a win. It's all relative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clear
April 28, 2010 3:10 AM in reply to Bright Creature
No doubt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
April 27, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to drv
The health care reform bill WAS a defeat for Democrats. It was a victory for rehashed ideas from Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to expatjourno2
Maybe in your fucked up reality........troll.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
April 27, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to expatjourno2
What makes you think Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation actually wanted to pass that stuff? Putting up proposals that they have no intention of voting for is nothing new for the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
April 27, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to SqueakyRat
Bob Dole doesn't like you taking shots at Bob Dole. Bob Dole's gonna get mad! Bob Dole's gonna take a Viagra. Bob Dole takes a look at Liddy Dole. Bob Dole doesn't like. Bob Dole's gonna take a nap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
April 27, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to traitorjoe
OK, I didn't know that. Sorry!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NerdRage
April 27, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to expatjourno2
no, if it were a victory for rehashed ideas from Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation, repubs would have passed it back in '94
they didn't
so the dems picked up the pieces, did what they needed to, and pushed through a bill that serves as a foundation for further change.
the repubs never, ever did anything like that with healthcare, all they ever did was make empty promises and pocket the cash from the health care industry
dems win, repubs got their faces rubbed in it, and now they're frantic...and looking worse every day that passes
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
April 27, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to NerdRage
It's also virtually the same plan proposed by Dean, Edwards and Kerry in 2004.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
April 27, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to expatjourno2
It sure was and most of the Obamabots haven't figured out just how much of a giant GOP victory it was. It's complete failure to address any of the concerns the average American has had about healthcare (like the outrageous costs of insurance and deductibles)will make Democrats look incompetent and the Republicans will rejoice since their goal is to convince everyone that no government programs can work so it isn't even worth trying. Obama, Reid, et al did all they could to kiss the asses of the insurance companies and other greedy special interests allied with them in order to be the beneficiaries of their campaign cash. The insurance companies are now in firmer control than ever before of our healthcare system and they're going to squeeze the people until it kills them with impunity now for many years thanks to the likes of Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
April 27, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to oleeb
"It's complete failure to address any of the concerns the average American has had about healthcare "
Hyperbole from any part of the political spectrum makes me want to vomit.
/vomit
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
April 27, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to oleeb
What is wrong with you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USMC Jock
April 28, 2010 9:58 AM in reply to oleeb
...and previously uninsured people have health care! This is NOT a victory for the GOP and I ain't a lib!!! The GOP failed to take this up under their control. Instead, they fell flat on their face trying to overhaul social security and lost. With respect to domestic policy, what HAS the GOP done? Obama can't go out on the stump and claim victory on HCR as well as the GOP!! That's ludicrous. The fact and the bottom line is: HCR got done under a Democratic president. The technical bullshit you all are trying to spin won't wash with the American. It sure is hell is forcing Shelby's and Corker's hand on FR too already, by creating a record of no vote on debating FR. This looks very bad for GOP and now, Obama (whom I don't like) is out on stump pounding away at GOP that they won't even debate FR -- when Amerian's want it. IF HCR was a victory for the GOP, why are (1) the teabaggers and all republicans against it (2) republicans using it against Democrats ahead of the November elections and (3) the American people so against and as a result, the Democrats lost a seat in Congress and some governships? Both sides can't claim victory with the American public. Otherwise, it's just spin by Republicans. No this is a Democratic victory no matter how you spin it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
April 27, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to expatjourno2
Are you for real? You and your ilk did not win on health care.
What is wrong with you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
April 27, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to Powkat
That's not necessarily a bad message to have out there -- as long as the public understands that in this context "win" means "sucks on Wall Street's scrotum", which in this case I think they do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crystalstair
April 27, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Powkat
Here's a more complete view of the headlines this morning. Not pretty for the Republicans. The Oregonian must be owned by Rupert Murdoch. LOL
http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/201004270001
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
April 27, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to Powkat
That's because the MSM is not liberal. The MSM is doing all it can to destroy Obama and the Dems.
Sad to say, most Americans don't have a clue about what is really going on. They have been brainwashed by the repubs since Reagan. Disgusting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
April 27, 2010 11:20 AM
Give 'em hell, Harry! God willing, that's where most of them are headed anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to Effin Rightman
From your mouth to god's ears......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
April 27, 2010 11:28 AM
Can't help but wonder if Harry would be even this tough, if he were not in a tight re-election campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
April 27, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to GTFOOH
I don't actually see how putting the screws to the Republicans helps Reid all that much in his re-election campaign. In Nevada, he's got very few enemies on the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave Adams
April 28, 2010 12:59 AM in reply to SqueakyRat
I think he may have decided that if the voters of Nevada are going to vote for a moron anyway, he's going to try to get as much done for the country -and possibly leave a legacy- as he can before he's gone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
April 27, 2010 11:31 AM
Dear Harry Reid:
Speaking as the average Democratic voter...
STOP FUCKING APOLOGIZING!!
I work with a lot of people I feel no moral obligation to "respect". If you're just trying to "respect" your camaraderie with Mitch McConnell, then don't you expect us to respect someone like you, with such rotten judgment as to have such fucked-up "friends" in the first place.
Thank you. Proceed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
btmom
April 27, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to Barry Champlain
Seconded! Imagine where we'd be if we had someone like Nancy Pelosi as Majority Leader. There's a reason the Republicans hate her - because she takes no s**t and gets the job done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vertigo
April 27, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to btmom
Thirded. These repug clowns never apologize to Dems, no matter how outrageous their behavior. Let's play hardball, but CONSISTENTLY.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 27, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to btmom
The rules of the House and Senate are entirely different. It's not at all fair to compare them. The Speaker need 50% + 1 vote to pass anything. And the speaker has a much more significant say who sits on what committee and even frames the terms of debate through the Rules Committee.
If Reid behaved as if he were the House Speaker, that body would shut down. Old Dem bulls like Byrd wouldn't stand for it anymore than the GOP would.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
April 27, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to truth > spin
Yes, the Senate is different. But that doesn't mean Reid couldn't have been doing all along what he's starting to do now. Will the Senate shut down? If it does, let the Republicans take the heat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
April 27, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to truth > spin
If it were a matter of rules restraining any semblance of leadership from Reid then why weren't the Republicans vexed by those same rules? Because the argument about the rules is bullshit. Reid has plenty of tools to get the job done, but like most of his Democratic colleagues he is an obsequious, craven, cowardly politician looking out for wealth, privelege and power while masquerading as a Democrat. It is useful to Reid and the other corporate Democratic centrists to act powerless and submissive in the face of Republican opposition because then they don't have to actually "do" anything they say they're for and can still reap millions in contributions from the corporations they serve just as much as the Republicans do. This is the sad, ugly reality of what is going on in our imperial capitol.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 27, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to oleeb
Reid is actually quite liberal himself but as he gets elected in a very conservative state it is necessary for him to keep a middle of the road image. Your criticism is valid for the conservative Dems but not Harry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 27, 2010 7:50 PM in reply to oleeb
Tell us how you really feel, oleeb.
My view is that there are a number of reasons why Republicans were able to get more through with fewer Senators. Not the least of which is that they effectively passed much of the Democrat's agenda:
1. Massive expansion of Medicare - check.
2. Massive expansion of federal involvement in eduction - check.
3. Tax cuts that greatly increased the number of people who now pay zero federal income taxes and further shifted the burden on the "rich" - check.
That's the extent of the major domestic agenda items during the last 6 years of unified GOP control. It's no wonder then if you look at how those votes were built you'll see that the centrists of both parties largely supported them and then most of the GOP. Lott and then Frist were willing to brings votes up that were not going to get 100% of the conference if they could get more than an off-setting number of Dems.
Everything related to 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan and the PATRIOT Act was so tied into the "with us or against us" paradigm that no one on either side was crossing that line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 28, 2010 2:02 AM in reply to truth > spin
"tax cuts that..... shifted the burden on the rich"
When the hell was that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 28, 2010 9:48 AM in reply to hollywood
I am not going to go dig up the exact numbers for you, but there is no question that almost half of working Americans now pay zero federal income taxes and that the upper income now pay a greater share.
If the top 10% used to pay 60% of all income taxes and now pay 70%, isn't that shifting the burden? Especially if the increase in their proportion of payments outstrips the increase in their relative income gain?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 28, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to truth > spin
Jesus what a hateful piece of work you are. The rich have increased their share of income AND had their tax rates lowed by a nice chunk. Did you miss the Bush tax cuts? Not paying attention? The one and only reason the rich pay a bigger share is because they have had a huge increase in their incomes while EVERYONE ELSE HAS STAGNANT AND FALLING INCOME!
Why the bitterness toward poor and working people? We are being taken for idiots by the rich and super rich as they gobble up more and more of the national wealth, the middle class shrinks and their incomes go down, and you try to find some ass backward way to make it sound just the opposite ...... are you a billionaire or are you just stupid?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 28, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to hollywood
I am hateful how exactly? Because I pointed out the facts that a) far fewer people pay any income taxes now as a result of those tax cuts, and b) that the proportion of all income taxes paid has shifted more toward the high income?
I guess my questions to you are:
1. Who among the lowest 47% of filers who pay zero now do you want to start paying?
2. What proportion of taxes paid by the upper earners do you want their assessment lowered to?
I want everyone to earn more. That would be great with me. And I'd love to see everyone making so much that they paid income taxes. How about you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 29, 2010 12:29 AM in reply to truth > spin
You are hateful because you try to spin the myth that working poor are somehow riding the gravy train at the expense of the tragic filthy rich who are paying a bigger share ..... BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING A BIGGER SHARE! Why ride a statistic upside down to take a shot at the poor?
One more time .... the rich are paying a bigger share because they are taking a bigger share. They are paying a smaller percentage in taxes than they have in a generation on top of sucking a bigger and bigger share of everything into the top 1%. As people loose their jobs, their health insurance, their homes, their savings, as people near 70 years old postpone their retirement because they have been wiped out by bankers paying themselves BILLIONS in bonuses RECORD bonuses during the greatest downturn in 3 generations............. you need to get on a thread and shill for the rich and insult the poor. Good work. Sleep well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
April 27, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Absolutely
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
April 27, 2010 11:37 AM
Well it's not really an apology. But what I want to know is where has he been for the last 30 years? He's just figuring out NOW that Republicans are liars and cheaters? WTF?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to runfastandwin
Are you kidding me. He's been in the senate for 40+ years. I am sure he understands the GOP far better than you. People mistake his soft spoken ways for being weak. He always wins his elections in a red state and you know what, he's going to win again....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
April 27, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to chameleon
He was elected to the Senate in 1986. That's 24 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to oleeb
Yes, my mistake. He's been in politics for 49= years and he was in the House for a couple of years before the senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 27, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to chameleon
He understands the GOP? Think you can get him to act on this "understanding". He is simply not the man for the job - the Peter Principle in action.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 27, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to Cornelius
Do you think dealing with the Repubs is EASY??? They are total bold faced liars and well funded at that. Just because Harry is not 8 feet tall and beating his chest every hour you think he does not do the math on these issues? Go watch football or something ......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 27, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to hollywood
Football is on?
Hey, felt bad for Harry during HC sausage making when the Pres left him out there on his own, knowing he wasn't up to the job and a perfect patsy for marginalized legislation. Harry's a company man but not nearly enough of a prick to herd all the Senate cats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 28, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to Cornelius
Harry got the job done! Nancy just needed a simple majority, Obama just needed to be vague and positive, Harry needed to corral a thousand different conflicting interests and be exact and specific .... he did it! You mistake problems for personalities and live out your own nonsense bigotry.... fine have at it. The rest of us see a very smart determined man drag this mess across the finish line and say THANKS!
Sometimes the best person for the job is not the biggest mouth, the most handsome, or the bully, it is the smart guy who keeps his eye on the ball.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
April 27, 2010 11:39 AM
I'd also feel better if Harry rebutted the argument "we just need some more negotiations" with "why don't we have those negotiations in public during the debate on the bill". The Dems got hammered by the Repubs during HCR because of the "back room deals" and "out of the range of the cameras". Why don't we take that on and say that's what we're asking for: in public so the public can judge for itself the merits of the pieces the parties want in or out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
April 27, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to George C
Right on.
See, if Reid had any guts, he'd do something exactly like that.
He could also use his powers to block every little courtesy motion and appointment the Rethugs want. He could put the screws to them good but he won't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
April 27, 2010 11:45 AM
Reid is not a good 'majority' leader and while I hate for us to lose the senate seat and hope that Schumer will not be the one to take over... I would like to see a change in leadership while maintaining a democrat majority in the senate.
I know there is talk of new rules including having elections among the caucus for leadership and chairmanship roles. I would love to see that shake things up, though I am not sure in the end it will make any difference.
I think the democrats in congress and the administration have to take some responsibility for how they have emboldened the republicans by the way they have handled their majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
April 27, 2010 11:46 AM
Well, I'll still refer to Reid as the Wimpinator until he proves otherwise. So far -- and his "apology" to Mitch McConnell is a prime example -- Reid has a long way to go to show he's ready to play hard ball.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conniptionfit
April 27, 2010 11:49 AM
Yes. Pity the bill he's finally decided to fight for is such weak tea. But perhaps he will succeed in preventing the 'thugs from weakening it further. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
April 27, 2010 11:54 AM
Please. I'll believe Harriet has changed her leopardess spots when I see it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conniptionfit
April 27, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
Hey! No fair raggin' on the "girls"! Most girls I know have more stones than Harry. Harry's problem isn't that he acts like a Harriet, his problem is that he doesn't act like a Dick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
April 27, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to conniptionfit
I know that to be true as well. But "men" are always insulted when compared to females, and I'm just sooooo disappointed in Senator Reid. Capitulation isn't bipartisanship, and bad lessons are being taught by doing so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LFC
April 27, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
Pelosi has a significantly larger pair than Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conniptionfit
April 27, 2010 11:54 AM
Dean discounted the extent to which Reid's own personal political prospects are guiding his new approach.
"Probably not that much," Dean told me.
Funny how no politician will ever admit to the obvious.Would Harry ever work up a sweat if he weren't being outgunned by the Chicken lady? Another one they all love to tell us is :
"Sure I take gobs of money$$ from lobbyists, but I don't let it affect my vote!"
They think we all just fell off the turnip truck.
Nevertheless ist's good to see ol' Harry getting a stiffy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
April 27, 2010 11:59 AM
Let's just hope he keeps it up -- if there's one issue that should be used to dilate the rectums of every Republican in the Senate, it's this one.
Now if we could get Ben Nelson to pucker up a bit, we'd be getting somewhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conniptionfit
April 27, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to Peter Principle
Hee hee. There's an idea. Everyone donate a V1AGRA and send it to Harry. Dayum, we could bury him in stiffy pills!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
April 27, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to conniptionfit
I think in this case, the Dems have a blunt instrument that's a lot larger, and a lot more effective, than a mere body part.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
April 27, 2010 12:14 PM
This is absolutely the right thing to do and by the way, it wouldn't have worked on health care. Health care was a much more complicated bill with many more interest groups opposing various bits of the legislation, it wasn't popular as a bill except at the very beginning, and it was the democrats who were deeply split instead of the Republicans. When Democrats played big risky hardball on hcr in 1993 with that same set of circumstances the bill imploded and it ruined both the democratic majority and the Clinton administration.
We have a much better issue and time here with financial reform to start playing big risky hardball and if this first attempt at hardball is a success, it will make hardball easier on future issues...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LisB
April 27, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to mcc
Great comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
April 27, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to mcc
Bingo, mcc! I'd also add that health care reform is very different from financial reform in that health care reform was never going to be politically popular by the time members voted on the bill. Any health care reform involves taking a huge chunk of change out of one person's pockets and putting it into someone else's pockets. [See rating, community; mandate, individual; and benefits, mandated.] Also, does anyone believe that you can raise $90-$100 billion per year without such a measure having strenuous opposition?
Wall Street reform involves limiting the autonomy investors have to conduct their business. Americans -- correctly or incorrectly -- see Wall Street reform as affecting them personally only insofar as when taxpayers have to bail out these vaunted patrons of finance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kickbass
April 27, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to mcc
I'm inclined to think that the bipartisan approach to HCR was a unified strategy coordinated with the WH and the Dems in the Senate.
We know now that HCR barely passed even with reconciliation. Until Brown got elected the strategy was to get 60+ votes in the Senate, so while many were impatient with Reid and Obama, if you were paying attention, you saw a shift in rhetoric when reconciliation became the only option.
I find it suprising that:
1. So many on the left have so much trouble understanding that there are many in congress (i.e.; my Rep, Baron Hill IN-9) who almost certainly wouldn't get re-elected if he wasn't a Blue Dog (and this is a district that includes IU Bloomington). A Bush rubber-stamper was my Rep when I arrived in 2005.
2. What you are reacting to is a change in tactics that results in more agressive messaging. Reid (and Obama) sound bipartisan when it suits their purposes.
Reid hasn't really changed. Sure, he probably made some mistakes, but I think this is more a question of progressives not having the stomach for facing the harsh reality of the political process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cole_dranx
April 27, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to kickbass
Good point on the messaging shift around bipartisanship - also IN-9 represent! Whereabouts are you hailing from?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to mcc
Good luck teaching cranial, conniption and the rest of the Harry haters.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
April 27, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to mcc
You do have a point, but I still think holding the Repubs feet to the fire on health care reform would have worked if Reid (and Obama) had gone that way from the start.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
April 27, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to mcc
You do have a point, but I still think holding the Repubs feet to the fire on health care reform would have worked if Reid (and Obama) had gone that way from the start.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USMC Jock
April 28, 2010 10:13 AM in reply to SqueakyRat
I think you will see that now on FR and on the SCOTUS hearings. The Republicans are gonna every goddamned thing. "NO" to everything. NO to this. NO to that. The Democrats need to grow a set of take a "FUCK YOU" attitude towards the GOP. Just Do It! The GOP is not gonna agree on anything! The Republicans have no desire whatsoever at working together with bipartisanship.
3rd generation US Marine SSgt Company 24 / 5 Bravo Semper Fi
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sheerahkahn
April 27, 2010 12:16 PM
Well, I think we should all thank his wife for handing him the jar so he could remember what it is like to have a pair, but I think this all falls under the caveat of "Too little, too late."
Harry, you should have manned up eight years ago...sorry, bud, but the damage is done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
APeach
April 27, 2010 12:26 PM
I'm glad to see it.
What drives me mad, however, is to hear people like Savannah Guthrie on "The Daily Rundown" ask, with a straight face, whether "Democrats were playing politics" by scheduling a vote because "they knew the Republicans" wouldn't vote in favor of.
I. Kid. You. Not.
I absolutely wanted to scream. Does she have ANY idea how painfully stupid she sounds?
Jesus, this is not difficult. You either want Wall Street reform or you do not. There are proposals that will either achieve Wall Street reform or will not. This test vote was not a vote on compromising between good proposals. Our news media should be able to present the FACTS ABOUT THE PROPOSALS, which is NOT the same as presenting two opposing opinions about Wall Street reform.
And BTW: Voting is what Senators are elected to do. Who made repub Senators (and NE's Noxious Nelson) vote to block debate? Life is about choices, and they made one. You don't get to whine about it. And a media worth half a damn would point that out. It's not Guthrie's, or anyone else's job to shield Senators from doing their jobs.
But the media are completely cowed, so scared that some right-wing nut case will be mean to them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 27, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to APeach
RIght on! The false equivalency and the horse race bullshit completely obscure any discussion of the ACTUAL ISSUE AND THE ACTUAL FACTS! Reporters always want to seem like the INSIDE COOL KIDS who get the dirt on everybody and they completely forget to actually tell you the FACTS everyone needs to actually understand what the big fight is over. There should be a Media Personality Rating System that gives all these asshats a grade on fact reporting vs horserace bullshit. They you would at least have a reference to use to listen to those most inclined to tell you something you need to know instead of listening to them brag and bray about how they know everyone's personal dirt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to APeach
Oh please - Savannah Guthrie is only interested in playing to the cameras with all her drama. She wasnt bad when she was a field reporter but now that she's an anchor she's unwatchable. Her and that silly Chuckie..... Other than Rachel and Keith, MSNBC is unwatchable during the day.
Even Tamron Hall who I like but....she talks so fast and makes so many grammatical errors it makes me cringe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 27, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to chameleon
Got to agree with you Chameleon, Guthrie is all drama. Waiting for the habitual hair flip movement or see her on Dancing with the Stars. And Chuckie has lost whatever he had. Rachel and Keith, serious Obamabots, but OK - but was disappointed with Rachael's "partner". Was hoping for some hot 24 year old instead of an old hag. Love the lesbian stuff. Bummer. And Tamron, well she looks realll good to me. Now her and Rachael.... whoa Nellie!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 6:25 PM in reply to Cornelius
Yeah isn't it great we agree on all the important stuff.
The rest of your comments are pretty disgusting. It doesn't matter what you think about Rachel's partner - she's the only one who has to love her. That was pretty mean and cruel but then what would I expect from you.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 27, 2010 8:33 PM in reply to chameleon
mean and cruel - that's me and you know what - the chicks dig it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to Cornelius
In your dreams......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 27, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to chameleon
mustn't be a bad girl.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 27, 2010 7:47 PM in reply to Cornelius
What a sick fuck you are Darcy! Love is more than a "hot 24" whatever. Guess we know how much your opinion is worth now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 27, 2010 8:50 PM in reply to hollywood
"Love is more than a "hot 24" whatever". It is? Great, now you tell me! Just when I was getting comfortable as a shut in. I don't have to give up the porn, do I?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
April 27, 2010 12:30 PM
giv 'em hell, harry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EdA
April 27, 2010 12:51 PM
Unfortunately, Harry Reid is still the same poster child for Stockholm Syndrome that he has always been since becoming Senate Minority Leader. He still has not really realized that EVERY TIME he actually DID make the Republicans put their mouths where their mouths are, they have either backed down or backed themselves into even more of a corner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
April 27, 2010 1:02 PM
I'll try later but I couldn't bear to finish reading this.
Once again the Dem Party base is ignored by the smarty pants know-it-alls in the party hierarchy.
They may have pissed away their majorities and their ability to govern by being complete patsies to the Republicans. Will Reid fight hard beyond these two bills?
I am not hopeful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
You need to hookup with DarcyDancer, IndiePro, East West, Bluebell and the rest of the downers. You are all pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 27, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to chameleon
Which means we're making progress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 27, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
Reid fights hard every damn day! I think the appalling dishonesty of the opposition and their millions in propaganda funding would wake you up to the difficulty of the job ....... but oh it is so easy to defeat Rethuglicans ..... Harry just doesn't try ....... GROW UP!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to hollywood
He sure does Hollywood. I'm with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 27, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to hollywood
I agree. One of my hobbies is wargaming, and given what Ried has to work with I would have thrown in the towel long ago. When you see what he has actually achieved the last few years with his hand tied behind his back by stupid senate rules, its close to miraculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
April 27, 2010 1:26 PM
"listen to what the Republicans say, and believe the opposite."
Welcome to 1996.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
April 27, 2010 1:53 PM
I really hope Howard Dean runs for President again. I'd even like to see a hopeless primary challenge to Obama from him, if 2016 would make him too old for the main event.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to SqueakyRat
Not me. I liked him and supported him in the primaries but since then, he's shown me he has no balls to stand up to anyone. He made remarks about health care (right or wrong) but when called on his remarks, he backed down like a pussy. He doesn't have the mental fortitude to be president. Obama does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 27, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to chameleon
Dean in 2012! Your personality is showing Lousgirl - can't mistake it and you can't hide it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to Cornelius
You need to get on your meds.... what is it with you and lousgirl?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
April 27, 2010 2:02 PM
You call this playing hardball? Pathetic.
Hardball would include attacking the corrupt Republicans and forcing them immediately to truly fillibuster the many bills they have managed to cow Reid and the Democrats on by merely threatening to fillibuster.
Jesus friggin Christ! Is this timid first step at defying the all powerful Republicans gonna pass as playing hardball? Unbelievable!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 27, 2010 2:16 PM
yeah, anyone with legitimate criticism of Reid must be a blind Obama-basher. There's a real intelligent argument.
Face it, Reid let the whole HCR process drag out waaaay longer than he should have, with his fellow worthless idiot Baucus pointlessly engaged in secret negotiations with a few Repubs who had no intention of ever voting for a final bill. And now they're all scrambling to pass several major pieces of legislation in the next six months when they easily could have had a whole lot more time were it not for Harry the Flaccid and his sorry excuse for "leadership".
Oh, but he's been in the Senate for oh so long and and must have some secret plan that we should all blindly assume will succeed. Uh-huh.
Obama and Pelosi have earned a cerain level of my trust, Reid has not. Suddenly finding your spine after you see your re-election numbers tank, and on an issue that most Americans support doesn't qualify as leadership and isn't impressive.
It's about as tough as demanding a debate on an anti-kitten stomping bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
April 27, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to human
I cannot stand Reid and his limp wristed nonleadership, however, he didn't make a single move last year or this on HCR that wasn't in perfect coordination with the White House. It was Obama and Emmanuel that made sure Baucus and company fucked up healthcare. It wasn't Reid's weakness that did that. Obama is a politician cut from the very same lilly livered cloth as Reid's and don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
April 27, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to oleeb
You are spot-on with Obama during HCR. I'd argue that there wasn't much Reid could do with the WH going direct to the caucus and leaking against it every time Reid tried to push for the PO or national exchanges (to the point of finally just forcing a bullshit reconciliation bill written directly by the WH protecting their myriad bribes ... separation of powers my ass).
I personally like Reid. He isn't a shit talker, which pisses a lot of people off, but in my experience he is pretty damn tenacious. He must have "lost" a dozen times on Yucca Mountain and then out of nowhere their water would be cut, then their research budgets, then their water again. And ultimately, he outlasted them all.
He does good work for Nevada. He just isn't well equipped to go to war with the White House, and I'm not sure in his position if it would be completely correct to do so. So long as Obama is the primary force fighting against a progressive agenda, neither Reid nor Pelosi will be able to accomplish much of value. They are in a Catch-22.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
April 27, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to kgb999
They can push Obama left if they have the fellow legislators to do so. You tell me how this could be accomplished. You need a surge of voter enthusiasm to replace Republicans and DINOS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DES
April 27, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to kgb999
Noam Chomsky had Obama figured out well over a year before anyone else did. The man has one of the best minds out there. This is what he said in October before the election. "Well, I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions, because all the elevated rhetoric about change and hope and so on will dissolve into standard centrist Democratic policies if he takes office." Noam Chomsky October 2008
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 27, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to DES
I like Chomsky - but he doesn't like anyone so.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
April 27, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to oleeb
OTOH, HCR passed after repeated failures for over 50 years, so as much as I would have preferred single payer or at least a robust public option, we don't know what an alternative strategy would have produced, or if it would have even produced a bill that could have been passed by both Houses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
April 27, 2010 3:03 PM
I hope this will become SOP for the next Leader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
April 27, 2010 3:30 PM
Now, if he keeps up the fight, all Harry has to do is take down Sue 'Chicken Run' Lowden, but she might do that all on her own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
April 27, 2010 4:40 PM in reply to bibimimi
I'll pay 2 chicken heads and 3 chicken feet if someone will do it for her!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ibsteve2u
April 27, 2010 5:08 PM
"...playing hardball with the Republicans..."
I see a lot of phrases like that; all portraying the Republicans as the obstacle; as the group that stands between the American people and our future.
All misnomers, to my mind.
The "Republicans" are just the brand name of the preferred tools of the banks, Wall Street, and our multinational corporations; much as Black & Decker, Skil, and Craftsman are tool brands to a working American.
When a member of Congress stands up for the American people, they are "playing hardball" with Corporate America, not those pusillanimous puppets in Congress who so smoothly infer that raising the boats of the few ever higher will cause the tide to rise.
And if Ben Nelson is a Democrat, then Lizzie Borden is the ideal geriatric aide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AOW
April 27, 2010 5:23 PM
Alright Harry -- I think its is time for the nuclear option. You know, when majority ruled? End the filibuster and get financial reform passed.
Do the dems have the courage??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John
April 27, 2010 8:00 PM
Most of us wish for old fashion bipartisanship, but unfortunately that's just not where we're at these days. It's an era of Swiftboat attacks and of yelling "you lie!" and "baby killer!" Republicans don't deserve respect, let alone an olive branch. Time for Harry and the Democrats to be more like boxer Muhammad Ali, floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee. Harry should be spouting Ali quotes like, "If you even dream of beating me you'd better wake up and apologize!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USMC Jock
April 28, 2010 10:08 AM in reply to John
Well you will be happy to know, that a lot of the Goldman Sachs execs apparently pay zero taxes too: off of the billions made for their shoddy work ethics. This is part of Reagan's plan of trickle down economics that hasn't fallen on deaf ears over the last couple of weeks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Spleeny Lutheran
April 28, 2010 1:23 AM
Harry is doing a very good job, considering he is fighting on two fronts: (1) leading a rag-tag majority with a number of stealth conservatives (Lieberman, Nelson, etc) against brick wall of radical right and (2) trying not to seem too far left that would alieninate his state. Nevada has a big swing-vote who decide the elections. If you even look too far one direction or the other, you lose. Ensign, who is as far right as they come, spends a lot of media money hyping himself as a "moderate" each election and there are so many people new to the state, who don't know his history, he can usually get a win.
By being a moderate, Harry looks good with the swing-vote. Considering the competition, state senator and ex-TV star Sue Lowden with her "chickencare" or Danny Tarkanian who has never held office and is basically running on his dad's ex-UNLV basketball coach's name, Harry looks like a statesman. If the GOP were running a serious candidate, that would be a different story; but that "taking a chicken to pay the doctor" bit makes Lowden look like a joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?