Harry Reid, Hollow Man

It's a really cynical trick by Club Dems (4.00 / 1)

To give the Majority Leadership to someone from an unsafe, purple state. It guarantees that there will be continuous weak-kneed compromise with the Republicans, even after they have been soundly rejected.

But the Dems keep choosing leaders whose seats are at risk. Daschle, Reid. Not Schumer, Durbin, or Clinon - suggested by Reid - who could increase their home state margins by promoting core Democratic values and programs.

Republicans don't do that. Their leadership slots go to the McConnells and Lotts. They don't suck up to wavering Republicans, let alone to Dems.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 19:29:38 PM CDT

Good point (0.00 / 0)

But, as I recall, nobody wanted the job when Reid took it. He has had some good moments, but he is not a true Democratic leader, and as such I think he's outlived his usefulness. Time for a change.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:06:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

I very rarely disagree with you, Dean, but I feel you (and Kos) are off-base on your cure -- if not your diagnosis:

But none of that matters for Harry Reid unless he can make Olympia Snowe happy in front of the cameras.

Harry Reid is not making the reconciliation decision.  Barack Obama is.  Don't use Reid as your scapegoat.

I would like to see us use reconciliation procedures to pass a bill with a public option.  Have noted as much in previous diaries.  This is the preeminent domestic policy issue of our time, and we many not get another chance to implement reform for decades.  This mandates pulling out all the stops.

But I also realize that this "nuclear option" would make it extremely difficult to secure cooperation from moderates in both parties, and would damage the White House's ability to get climate change, etc., through the Senate.  There are significant risks involves.  

Bottom line: This is a strategic decision by the White House, not an abdication of leadership by Sen. Reid.

It doesn't matter to him that he might hand Americans a piece of junk health "reform".  It doesn't matter to him that this piece of junk will hand us a beating at the ballot box two Novembers hence.

This is not the reform that I want, either, but it's not a "piece of junk."  The Baucus Bill doesn't go nearly far enough on controlling costs, but it would provide significant subsidies for the working poor to purchase coverage through exchanges, and it would also mandate coverage of preventive and primary care as well as dental, prescription drug, mental health and vision services -- benefits which many insurance "providers" in today's marketplace don't offer.

It's far from perfect.  And it's definitely not what I want.  But it will make a very real difference for tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans.  It's no "piece of junk".

I sure wish some Democrat would step up to the plate in Nevada.  Because Reid's re-elex numbers are abysmal, and I'd rather not give money to the Republican candidate.  But either way, from the distance of snowy New Hampshire, I'll be rooting for Harry's defeat.

You don't want this.  Nevada is a swing state, and its breed of Republican (Ensign, Gibbons) is rather unappealing.  Reid might be a questionable leader, but he votes the right way on most issues, and is constructive (if not brave).

Instead, I'd like to see Reid leave his leadership position at the end of Congress -- shunt him off as a committee chairman, and let a savvy pro like Jon Tester or Mark Warner take the reins.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 19:43:27 PM CDT

At least you put "nuclear option" (4.00 / 1)

in quotes. Because that isn't what the reconciliation process IS.

The nuclear option has a very specific meaning - one that became so clear that Republicans started calling it "the Constitutional option" instead.

It means actually changing the rules of the Senate by a parliamentary maneuver, one that can be accomplished with 51 votes. The nuclear option was, according to lore, contemplated in the late 50s by LBJ - but it has never been used.

The reconciliation process, in contrast, doesn't require creative parliamentary rulings and is used every damn year. But it is controversial because the Beltway has different rules for different parties.

No more.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 20:12:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Howard Dean on KOS this morning made the point that (0.00 / 0)

there has to be something on the ground before the 2010 election.  Neither a full single payer, nor incorporating all uninsured into Medicare can be accomplished in that short a time frame.  So, he's suggesting a 50+ buy-in to Medicare with premiums that make the new entrants self-funding.  This can be accomplished during reconciliation and the $600+ billion Obama has in the budget will more than cover it.

Meanwhile, some things about Medicare have to be fixed.  I have no idea how the Medicare Advantage program got set up with Medicare providing a subsidy to insurance companies who get the elderly to sign up for "special" services, which seem to be constantly shrinking.  These subsidies need to be removed.  The prospect that this will be done seems to be what Medicare Advantage participants, who have been riled up by their "providers" are riled up about.  I think the original idea behind Medicare Advantage was that HMOs would screen and provide preventive programs and that would, in the long run, reduce the drain on Medicare.  But, it seems that all the HMOs ever did was collect a subsidy and impose a "preferred provider" mandate, which meant that the elderly needed to stay close to home.  The prescription management program restricted them even more.  But, people don't realize that until they get sick and can't move.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:23:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I could live with him in the Senate (0.00 / 0)

without his leadership position.

But right now we're stuck with him.

So I'm pleased as punch he's in serious trouble at home.  He can shape up, or get relieved of his job.

As for the WH pulling the strings, you may be right, but is so, then why is Pelosi showing such superior leadership on this?

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 20:43:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correlation? (4.00 / 1)

Interesting here at home, it was our House Leader that was public and out front on Marriage Equity and Senate Leadership was (at least publicly) more quiet.

Is there something about the institutions that engender this?

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:12:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why the Senate is different. . . . (0.00 / 0)

I can't speak for the gay marriage bill, but in DC the dynamics couldn't be more different.

Speaker Pelosi leads a far more progressive caucus.  And Leader Reid must operate under a web of rules that enable a miniscule minority of senators to shut down the work of the government.

Case in point: A single senator can put a "hold" on a presidential appointment, delaying -- or stopping -- confirmation until his/her conditions are met.  A significant number of President Obama's DOJ/State/Other appointments are still awaiting Senate approval.

I favor reconciliation because I believe that passage of a real, substantive reform program will determine the success of the Obama Administration, and will improve the lives of untold millions of Americans.  But there ARE real risks -- starting with a total breakdown of Senate procedure that would prompt Republicans to wreak havoc on ALL Obama appointments.  (This is likely, not merely feasible.)

While I don't believe Harry Reid is a strong leader, I do not blame this on him.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 14:08:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Explain, please (0.00 / 0)

Harry Reid is not making the reconciliation decision.  Barack Obama is.  Don't use Reid as your scapegoat.

Why? If you said they're on the same page about it, I'd agree with that. But Obama has been more forceful about getting something done, and therefore Reid (to this point) is the goat.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:08:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leader Reid has the option of putting it in the final bill. (0.00 / 0)

Bold mine

SCHUMER: I am very optimistic that we're going to get a strong public option. The House is standing firm on public option. And I think all of those, when they saw the vote in the finance committee who thought, "Oh, it's over," hadn't really read the situation correctly.

STEWART: Well, how do you get it done? How does it end up in the final bill?

SCHUMER: Well, first, Leader Reid has the option of putting it in the final bill. If he puts it in the final bill, in the combined bill, then you would need 60 votes to remove it. And there clearly are not 60 votes against the public option. If - and so, we're urging him to do that and he's seriously considering it.

Once it passes the Senate, if that were to happen, it's in the House bill, it's in the Senate bill, and it would have to be in the final product. So, it's very important to see if the public option is in the bill that Leader Reid puts together. He hasn't yet made up his mind, but many of us who believe in the public option are urging him to do so. And so far, we're getting - we're getting heard.

(h/t Jed Lewison)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com
www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 20:58:16 PM CDT

I'm beginning to think it's a snow-job, a variant on the rope-a-dope. (0.00 / 0)

Something's being made a controversy that isn't, so the real controversy can be solved behind the curtain.  The insurance industry is hesitant to talk about the Medicare Advantage program, which is about to be gutted, because if people find out how it really works, nobody will want it.  The Finance Committee doesn't want to talk about Medicare Advantage because they're getting ready to gut it.  That's where the $100 billion is coming from right off the top--subsidies to insurance companies for absolutely nothing.  Republicans probably don't even want to talk about it because it's such an embarrassment.
I think it's fair to compare it to those add-ons to home-owner insurance to cover $25,000 worth of jewelry.  If people have stuff that's worth that much, they keep it in a bank vault.  But, lots of people probably pay the extra premium 'cause it makes them feel important.
My 90 year old house guest has clued me into why people buy things. Things are not as fickle as people.  They don't turn on you and disappoint you, even if you don't take good care of them and they fall apart.  Things are a substitute for human connections.  Now he's got no interest in his things, except as a fall-back in case he's again disappointed by people.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:37:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't get the Snowe thing. (0.00 / 0)

Do we have 59 Democratic votes in the bag and 1 planning to filibuster? Because if that's not the case, who cares?

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 22:27:21 PM CDT

Obama cares (0.00 / 0)

He's been chasing the dream of bipartisanship - and seems to be willing to sell us out to get it.  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:16:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Harry Reid (4.00 / 4)

makes Tom Daschle look like a strong leader. I didnt think that was even possible.

---

by: dweingart @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 22:31:44 PM CDT

The Real Challenge (4.00 / 1)

That jackal Joe Lieberman, bought and paid for by the health insurance industry, is a problem. Not only doesn't he want a public option, he thinks reform should be slowed down AND incremental. (I'm not going to embed a Fox News video here but they have his Imus appearance on their website.) I'm sure a few Democrats will be problematic but Joe is an Independent and no longer refers to himself as a Democrats. If Democrats, cannot on this legislation, at least get a cloture vote from him then he should be, at a minimum, stripped of the chairmanship for someone who will vote with the party so they can get an up or down vote on major legislation. I see little downside in this threat to anyone caucusing with the Dems, because they have nothing to lose if the can't get a cloture vote.  

"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." -- Molly Ivins  

---

by: The Grand Panjandrum @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:23:13 AM CDT

Isn't The Senate (0.00 / 0)

Where good ideas go to die?

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 15:22:05 PM CDT