Harry Reid Complains Obama Avoids 'Confrontation' And Should Be 'More Forceful' With GOP (VIDEO)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid critiqued President Obama's "peacemaker" approach to policy-making and suggested he embrace a tougher posture toward Republicans in an exclusive interview with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston during the congressional recess.

"On a few occasions, I think he should have been more firm with those on the other side of the aisle," Reid explained. "He is a person who doesn't like confrontation. He's a peacemaker. And sometimes I think you have to be a little more forceful. And sometimes I don't think he is enough with the Republicans."

Reid used the long road to health care reform as a case-in-point.

"I think much of that early on scrimmaging was done in the Senate itself," Reid said. "And the White House didn't come in until later. Now, we came up with a great product, and I'm sure he can look back and say I was right, but boy for me down in the trenches, I know it was a time when I wanted a few folks in the White House behind me."

Despite the criticism, Reid also characterized Obama as "a very strong man" and as someone who's "calm," "cool," and "deliberate."

The one-on-one with Reid comes on the heels of the president's two-day trip to Nevada to campaign for the Senate leader, who is currently embroiled in an intense fight for re-election against Republican challenger Sharron Angle. Obama said the race was a top priority for the White House in 2010.

When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Reid's remarks on Monday, the Obama administration official declined to comment. "I don't have anything to say," he said.

WATCH: Harry Reid Critiques Obama, Discusses Wide Range Of Issues

Comments

[Marlyn]

07:22 PM on 07/18/2010

You know you're in trouble when Harry Reid tells you to get tough.

[Barbarosa1299]

01:10 PM on 07/15/2010

Obama is an appeaser
Not a left wing pleaser

If you wanted a Pres. with spine by the ton
You should have picked Hillary Clin-ton

[Tim1478]

10:12 PM on 07/14/2010

Harry Ried is right on target regarding President Obamas lack of forcefull intervention regarding a strong Health Care Bill, unemployment benefits, and closing the worst prison even Bush could have devised. He spends too much time mulling over things that just need to be finished. While he's at it, supena Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and Rove for crimes against humanity.

[dlaurels]

05:42 PM on 07/14/2010

Okay, Harry, why not have the President get tough with you and not campaign on your behalf? Would that be tough enough for you?

[Tribal Knowledge]

06:05 PM on 07/15/2010

Having Obama NOT campaign, as we all know from all the evidence, would GREATLY increase Reid's viability as a candidate.

[NJProgressiveIndie]

04:43 PM on 07/14/2010

You're right, Harry. Obama should unleash the "Angry Black Man" buried deep inside of him every now and then. It's the only thing your thug friends on the other side of the aisle understand and respect. Frankly, it's the only thing that will probably break the cycle of contempt, hatred and disrespect that has been dumped on the White House since he took charge. It certainly won't make him any less hated for the color of his skin than he already is.

By the same token, when the race between you and your opponent starts getting down and dirty, we'll be holding you to the same standard as the President. And we'll be watching to see just how much GOP/Tea Party happy horse**** you'll be willing to put up with before you start getting medieval on their asses.

I hope you can "walk the walk" as good as you "talk the talk."

[mseguin]

02:45 PM on 07/29/2010

why would someone flag this as abusive?

[ocatty]

03:18 PM on 07/14/2010

But then I thought: Why not? When the Dems were in the minority, they were too afraid to make generous use of the filibuster anyway. Bill Frist threatened to eliminate the procedure when the Dems were trying to prevent the appointments of some of the very worst of George W. Bush's judicial nominees, and the Dems, as usual, crumbled.
So the Republicans wound up with the best of all possible worlds. They successfully intimidated the Democrats by threatening to end the filibuster, and, as a result, packed the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, with right wing idealogues. And, now that they are in the minority, the Tea-Publicans are using the filibuster almost automatically to prevent every bit of proposed, progressive legislation that would help the poor, the consumer, the sick, the minorities, etc.
So, Mr,. Reid, if your party is too afraid to use this device when you are the minority, why not get rid of it now when, among other things, it is causing a million involuntarily unemployed people to wonder where their next dollar will come from?
Because, Mr. Reid, if you keep doing what you (rightfully) accused the President of doing (not being sufficiently confrontational with the obstructionists), you will not have the majority for long. And then, if I don't miss my guess, when the Republicans inevitably run roughshod over you guys, you will be too intimidated to use the filibuster to stop them. You know, "Heads I win, tales you lose."

[ocatty]

03:10 PM on 07/14/2010

Ed Schultz and Bill Press strongly reprimanded Harry Reid for these comments yesterday. However, as far as I'm concerned, Sen. Reid was right on (albeit totally classless by criticizing the President a whole two days after Mr. Obama had flown more than 2500 miles to campaign for him.) It has been infuriating to watch the President repeatedly prostrate himself before a gang of thugs who have not been shy to expressly promise that they will do anything within their power to make him "fail."
That said, I also agree with Big Ed and Bill Press that Sen. Reid should be careful because he is living in the quintessential glass house when it comes to not being sufficiently forceful and confrontational with the 41 people who are standing in the way of all progress in this country.
Sen. Reid could have singlehandedly eliminated the filibuster once and for all. Imagine the kind of legislation that President Obama and the Democratic Congress could have passed without the so called "necessity" of trying to compromise with Gushing Oil Party senators who did not have the slightest intention of participating in the process.
At first, the thought of eradicating the filibuster made me nervous because of the nightmare scenario of today's brand of Republicans gaining control of Congress and, in conjunction with a G.O.P. President, enacted an agenda that transported us directly back to medieval times.

[Tribal Knowledge]

02:27 AM on 07/14/2010

Obama is Harvey Milquetoast, the waffler, the ditherer...he can no more make decisions and be bold as the man in the moon.

Reid (no John Wayne, he) calling him out as a wimp is, well...precious.

[DrBlunt]

12:30 PM on 07/14/2010

zzZZ, zzzZZZ, zzzzZZZZZ

As you can see, I'm not very impressed with you comment!

"; -'?)

Joking aside; look where the "bold" decisions that the DICKK-n-BUSHH got us... Obama's a "Genius AND A Saint," compared to those two war criminals!

[Tribal Knowledge]

05:22 PM on 07/15/2010

Uh huh,

Yet, the "saintly genius" Obama is doing exactly the same thing Bush did, with the exception of vast escalation of the Afghan War.

[bluntobject]

01:52 AM on 07/14/2010

Harry's right for once. He is too soft on republakins. They deserve no consideration after what they have done to this country, and a slick politician knows that it would be OK to come out swinging against them. Obama is just too "nice" when it comes to steering this great ship of state.

[stereolab]

01:06 AM on 07/14/2010

Reid actually let a little truth in. Obama, he was I believe basicaly saying, is a wimp. Yep.

[janejoad]

12:57 AM on 07/14/2010

This thread is crawling with TROLLS...........Hunt and destroy.

[opinioned1]

10:04 PM on 07/13/2010

It`s called growing some balls and I agree with Harry. Obama should know by now there is zero chance of getting any of the GOP poltroons to vote anything other than "NO"

[Osmona]

11:33 PM on 07/13/2010

What choice did President Obama have when it takes 60 senate votes. The Repubs vote NO and at least 3 Dems keeps voting against him. In fact Dems NEVER had a majority because Lieberman was the 60th vote. And we ALL know what Lieberman does, he flip flops.

[stereolab]

01:10 AM on 07/14/2010

Then go down swinging by standing up for the people's interests and sooner or later, the gutless politicians will follow out of their own self-interest. But Obama too has been seduced by Washington groupthink. He is the Washington Post's wet dream, a mythical non-threatening center of Beltway discourse.

[Tribal Knowledge]

02:28 AM on 07/14/2010

WIMP. He's a wimp. Moaning that he has to have a Supermajority to DO ANYTHING only illustrates the point...thanks!

[respected]

09:51 PM on 07/13/2010

The only lion that roars is Nancy Pelosi.

[respected]

09:50 PM on 07/13/2010

Is this the pot calling the kettle? Harry is the biggest mouse in the Senate. He has been trampled in the past and the same things he said about Obama are relevant to him during his tenure.

[BillForObama]

09:16 PM on 07/13/2010

President took Reid to the "wood shed" at the White House.

[stereolab]

01:13 AM on 07/14/2010

But if Obama's number's keep dropping, how much clout will he still be able to wield against fellow Drem's who dare speak out?

[Tribal Knowledge]

02:28 AM on 07/14/2010

SURE he did. And begged forgiveness.