(Posting is going to be “up in the air” today, and it will probably start to trail off as we get closer to the holidays.)After spending way too much time here defending Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (including yesterday, for valid reasons I should add), I find myself utterly repulsed by his actions on the FISA bill that he plans to bring to the floor of the U.S. Senate today, as are many of you I'm sure (Sen. Russ Feingold has more here – h/t Atrios – and more is here from The Daily Kos; here and here are prior related posts, and I would call these numbers pretty decisive).
I can tolerate some of Reid's actions on legislation regarding Iraq, for example, since as we know all too well, the Democrats don’t have enough of a majority in that body to overcome Repug obstruction (to say nothing of not having a Democratic president). But the bill he plans to introduce that grants retroactive telecomm immunity is a cave-in, pure and simple.
Because of this, I’ve been reading up on a variety of sources to find out how or if he can be replaced as U.S. Senate Majority Leader. While it has been informative to learn a bit about the role of the majority leader as part of the arcane details of serving in that body, I haven’t really been able to find the answers I’m looking for.
However, I did come across this article from about five years ago concerning the fallout engulfing former Majority Leader Trent Lott because of his moronic “all these problems” remark at the birthday party for Strom Thurmond. The article tells us that, at first, one-time Lott ally and former Oklahoma Repug Senator Don Nickels…
…called for a new election. Several other senators backed this demand, and Lott agreed to hold a closed-door meeting of the Republican caucus on January 6 where the vote could be taken. On December 19, Senator William Frist of Tennessee announced he would challenge Lott in the caucus vote. With heavy backing from the Bush White House, Frist rapidly won the support of a majority of the 51 Republican senators. The next day Lott conceded the race, clearing the way for Frist to become Senate majority leader when the new Congress reconvenes.So it looks like what would be required in the case of Harry Reid would be for another Democratic senator to call for a new election, thus necessitating some kind of closed-door caucusing from which another Senator would challenge Reid. And in the case of Lott, the White House pretty much refereed the transition from Lott to Bill “Cat Killer” Frist.
But with Reid, there really is no “head of the Democratic Party” White House presence that would guide or enforce all of this activity. Also, it’s hard to imagine someone like Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy (my choices to replace Reid) garnering the support of “Democrats” like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln or Tom Carper in a caucus vote.
And none of this even touches on what would be the biggest problem, and that is that such an election to replace Reid would be a HUGE PR victory for the Repugs. This would enforce the “squabbling, divided Democrats” narrative into stone far better than any Fox “news story” or RNC-sponsored attack TV ad (as well as re-launch the whole “The Democrat Party is held hostage by MoveOn.org” cries once more). And Mitch McConnell would probably be the first to run to Reid’s side in his defense.
So it looks like we’re stuck with “the Senate Majority Leader We Have” who chooses not to respect holds by members of his own Party but instead allows those by opposition-party Senators (another h/t to Atrios for this).
I can’t think of a word to describe how pathetic this truly is (and I’m also starting to get concerned about the Democrats even being able to maintain control of that body after the next election, to say nothing of picking up additional seats).
Update: Sometimes I wish this were all just a bad dream...
6 comments:
cool. you guys will help us more leaving horrible harry in place than if you remove him. Thanks.
harry's MY senator from MY state... i've repeatedly written and telephoned his office pleading for his opposition to telecom immunity... what i've gotten back is exemplified by this: "I appreciate hearing from you, and I have noted your opposition to granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies..." great, harry... thanks a bunch...
This is for PARADISE (though I hear you too, Marcus)…
Just keep something in mind; despite the fumbling by the Dems in Congress, they still outpolled congressional Republicans (40 to 33 percent) and Dubya (32 percent) according to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll conducted Dec. 6th through the 9th (trending slightly in favor of the Dems since September, by the way, though within the statistical margin for error; I’d add the Media Matters link, but Blogger doesn’t do a good job with that).
So yeah, things definitely could be better, but you hardly have a reason to feel overconfident. And that worked so well for you last November, didn’t it?
doomsy, the last thing I am is over confident. But we are working real hard to get our party back to its roots. I hope that you will do the same. My comment was not meant to be mean spirited. I just think that Harry Reid is a lot worse than what your party can do. You have some really good people, who should be in charge. btw, I am a lifelong Democrat, who switched to the Republican party just a short time ago (about three years ago), and I have been a card carrying union member my whole life, but I don't know the Democratic party of Harry Reid and George Soros and Nancy Pelosi. I can tell you that grassroots Republicans are really working hard to regain the majority. It will take us quite a while in the Senate, not so long in the House, and who knows with the White House. I dislike the far left and the far right, but I especially dislike all the nastiness. Sorry if I came across that way.
Of course, I disagree with your political allegiance, but I do so with respect (I may have been a bit defensive also, but your earlier comment certainly sounded like a bit of a provocation, though Lord knows I’ve heard worse).
If you’re going to be civil, then you’re certainly owed that on my end also. I don’t know how you could be pro-union and pro-Republican, though (???), but again, that’s your choice.
And I have no doubt whatsoever that the Republican Party is working hard to regain its majority. Doing so in an issues-oriented manner without resorting to slime would be a refreshing change (not sure how that’s possible, though, especially since the Dems have mainly been trying to do housekeeping from the 109th, but stranger things have happened). And yes, I don’t favor extremism on either side as well; I would like to see moderation also…really, I would.
So no apology necessary, but thanks anyway.
Personally, I'd rather see a "divided party" "news" story than see any more of the enabling that this Congress has been doing so far. No action would be better than the activity shown by this bunch. I cant help but think that the Dems are afraid that if they hand Dubya bill after bill for him to veto that they think they'll end up looking bad like the Repubs did back in 97 (? maybe?) when Clinton vetoed their budget bill and the gov't ground to a halt. Somehow I dont think people would mind quite as much these days.
And I agree with Paradise, Harry's only nominally more on the Dem side than Lieberman is (though far less skeevy), at least judging by the legislation that comes out of the Senate chambers.
Post a Comment