Is Harry Reid a Bush Sock Puppet?

by Gary Boatwright, Sun May 08, 2005 at 09:13:20 AM EDT

Say it ain't so Harry! From the WaPo, Reid Says He Doesn't Intend to Filibuster:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has privately told individual Republicans he doesn't intend to block votes on any Supreme Court nominees except in extreme cases, according to officials familiar with the conversations.

Isn't that special. Harry Reid making nice with the enemy. What in the hell do people see in this guy?

The disclosures illustrate the challenge facing the Nevada Democrat, who is struggling against a GOP attempt to change Senate procedures so court candidates can no longer be subjected to the 60-vote requirement of a filibuster.

As leader of a minority, Reid needs the support of wavering GOP senators if he is to force a compromise or win a showdown on the Senate floor. Yet he also must take into account members of his own rank and file as well as activist groups that are adamant about preserving their right to block votes on Bush's current and future nominees.

At least his own party and "activist groups" rate an afterthought. Is there anybody in the Democratic party with a full set of balls? Where do all of these eunichs come from?

Reid upset some of the Democrats' customary allies recently when he offered to allow confirmation of three of the seven stalled nominees in exchange for concessions from Republicans. Chief among the concessions would be a guarantee to leave the filibuster rules unchanged.

One Republican, describing a private conversation with Reid, said the Nevada Democrat left the clear impression that, barring an extreme case, he wouldn't sanction a filibuster against a future Supreme Court nominee. But he also refused to make a no-filibuster pledge when asked, according to the senator, who spoke only on condition of anonymity and remains publicly uncommitted on the vote.

Senate aides said they knew of similar conversations with other senators.

The O.C. Register picks up the same theme in a N.Y. Times piece, Filibuster fireworks may go off this week: The fuse over judicial nominees in the Senate has long since been lit, and both sides are bracing for imminent showdown.

The issue has already surfaced in what is shaping up to be a hotly contested Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race, where Sen. Rick Santorum, a chief Republican advocate of eliminating judicial filibusters, differs with his opponent, Robert P. Casey Jr., the Democratic state treasurer, over the tactic. But it could also be potent in races in states such as Nebraska, North Dakota and Florida, which are now represented by Democrats but were won by Bush.

Depending on how the fight plays out, it could ultimately figure into the presidential prospects of Frist and other Senate Republicans, not to mention the aspirations of Senate Democrats such as Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Evan Bayh of Indiana.

What the hell does that mean? Are Hillary, Kerry and Bayh filibuster weenies too? It looks more and more like the Swiftboat vets were right about Kerry and Harry Reid is taking political advice from Tom DeLay:

Rep. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who is backing Senate Republicans in their anti-filibuster push, said he doubted Democrats would summon the nerve to retaliate after suffering losses in the last two elections. "I don't think they can afford politically to do it," he said last week.

Money quote from the L.A. Times, Why Senate Is Taking Filibusters to the Mat:

The big question is whether Democrats, if they lose the fight over the filibuster, will have the political stamina to sustain those disruptive tactics. Republicans are gambling that they will not.

At this point, it looks like the Republicans are making a pretty good bet. It's starting to look like Kerry and Reid are both cut from the same spineless cloth.

And if Democrats do stick with it, they could pay a price in the 2006 elections, Republicans say. GOP leaders note that in the aftermath of the government shutdown, their party lost three House seats in the 1996 vote -- an election they expected would deliver gains.

Still, some Republicans fear their party would be blamed for a stalled Senate.

"To the extent that government is dysfunctional, it has proven in the past to work to the disadvantage of those perceived to be in control," said Meyer, the former Gingrich aide.

The way Harry Reid is running things, Republicans don't have a whole lot to worry about. Harry will make darn sure the Senate keeps running like a top so Bush can get more of his legislative wish list passed in the Senate:

Other Republicans are growing anxious about the legislative initiatives that could be at risk, such as Bush's push to establish a new national energy policy.

"There are other things that need to be done" aside from banning the filibuster for judicial nominees, said a senior Republican Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was expressing a dissenting view. "There are those who have been around here a long time who are saying,'Don't we have better things to be doing right now?'"

Bush has plenty of things he wants done. Can anyone name a single piece of legislation that Democrats want to get passed? Why is Harry Reid afraid of tying the Senate up in knots?

It's time for the DLC Democrats to step to the back of the bus and time for the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus to take the driver's seat.

DLC Motto:Extremism in defense of mediocrity is no vice!

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

5 Comments

Sort by

permalink

God, not again!!!

Gary, more whining about the DLC? It's getting quite old. Also, is the word sockpuppet your new word for the day? Believe me Gary, not every Democrat who agrees with Bush on something is a sockpuppet. The Democrats will pick and choose their fights. To do anymore would tell the American people that the party doesn't have any ideas of it's own. (Does it Gary??)

by liebermanlives 2005-05-08 01:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: God, not again!!!

I dont agree with much of what liebermanlives posts, but I must concur with my colleague on this one. If there is one thing that has been said time and time again about Reid is that he's an excellent parliamentaryman. I'm giving Reid the benefit of the doubt and chalking this one up to him being politically very strategic and savvy.

He's fought better than Daschle and he's positioned the party, not as obstructionist, but as staving off a power grab by offering a compromise while the Repubs want the whole damn thing.

However, I'm still bitter over Reid voting for that screw the uninsured bankruptcy legislation. I'm hoping there was a damn good reason for it...

by dayspring 2005-05-08 02:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: God, not again!!!

I've said several times that Reid has the reputation of being the second best Democratic parliamentarian in the Senate; right behind Sen. Byrd.

You are absolutely right that Reid supported bankrutpcy restrictions. I don't think there is any question that bankruptcy restrictions were greased through the Senate with Reid's help so the legislation didn't get caught up in the filibuster stalemate that everybody saw coming.

Let's not forget Class Action Lawsuit restrictions that required the votes of eighteen Democrats, including Feinstein, Obama, Schumer and Dodd. That one doesn't pass without support from Harry Reid either.

Exactly how has Harry utilized his legendary parliamentarian skills? I was very hopeful when Harry was made Sen. Minority Leader, The Baddest Man in D.C.. I'm still waiting for Harry to tell GOPers to "Make My Day."

I am astounded and dismayed at all of the signs that Democrats are getting ready to cave. How do you explain Harry's limp wristed efforts to compromise on the filibuster? Is that the kind of leadership you want from Harry Reid?

Atrios has a blogroll on the left side of his web page that links to The Dirty Thirty One who voted for both abolishing the estate tax and bankruptcy restrictions:

I don't care if you call yourself a member of the "New Democrat Coalition" or whatever other CYA label you want to give yourself. If you vote for the extremely wealthy yesterday and for the banks today, where I come from they call you a Republican.

Yeah, I'm getting pretty fed up at Republican victories with a Democrat stamp on them. Are you pretty happy with the way things are going this session?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-08 05:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Wow, this diary is incredibly stupid

Here's what Harry said: He will only filibuster extreme Supreme Court nominees. And as an article you quoted said, he specifically refused to make a no-filibuster pledge.

That is the current strategy with judges. We only filibuster the extreme ones, and let the moderates through. It makes sense; we can't filibuster everyone.

If Bush nominates an extremist to the SC, we know what Harry Reid will do: filibuster. But if Bush nominates a moderate, Democrats will not try to filibuster that nominee. And why would they?

If you think Harry is going to give in on the "nuclear option," as your diary implies, read this:

Reid says the fight over Senate rules and the filibuster is the "most important" issue he has worked on. "There have always been filibusters. If they do this, it will change our basic framework," he said. "It will make the Senate an extension of the House of Representatives. "I will never give up the right for extended debate," Reid said. "I'd rather they try the nuclear option and show what a real abuse of power is."

Yeah, a regular old Tom Daschle there.

I've seen an ungodly amount of whining in the left blogosphere about this article, but I just don't get why. How is threatening to filibuster extreme nominees "making nice with the enemy"?

I guess nothing is ever enough for those who insist on throwing a fit every time a Dem responds to the GOP with anything less than physical assault.

by punishinglemur 2005-05-08 01:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wow, this response is incredibly stupid

Maybe you should try reading the whole thing. For example, I don't link to one article. I link to three articles in three newspapers that all contain similar conclusions. How does Harry define "extreme nominees""?

From on of my blockquotes (those are the cool grey boxes that are added from special emphasis):

Reid upset some of the Democrats' customary allies recently when he offered to allow confirmation of three of the seven stalled nominees in exchange for concessions from Republican.

I'm hardly the only one disappointed with Harry Reid's willingness to compromise. He wants to give the GOPers three out of seven stalled judges? Why?

Harry Reid should be hammering GOPers instead of talking to them behind the scenes and trying to compromise with Frist.

I guess nothing is ever enough for those who insist on throwing a fit every time a Dem responds to the GOP with anything less than physical assault.

What would it take for you to be critical of Harry? A big fat slobbery kiss from Bush like the one Bush gave Lieberman? I think I've got some pretty damned good reasons for being fed up with Harry Reid.

Specifically, what are Harry's accomplishments this session that explain your admiration? Name three things Harry has actually done.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-08 06:06PM | 0 recs