Harry Reid and the Perennial Weakness of the Democrats

What is this guy doing? What could he possibly be thinking? After years of rubber stamping Bush's policies in the senate he is now saying that he is going to use his political power to obstruct... Barack Obama? What possible reasoning could Harry Reid have in his head to be saying something like that at this point in time? What the hell is wrong with this guy? It's this kind of stupidity that gets the Democrats, and the country, into trouble. It is politicians like Harry Reid that make the Democrats the weaker party, even when they have the majority in the House and Senate.

I am all for dissenting opinions, I think it is a great thing to have opposing points of view, especially inside one party. One thing that irritates me, and quite frankly scares me, about the conservative movement is the fanatical, almost religious devotion with which they support their leaders, abandoning all logic or contrary viewpoints to preserve this cult-like loyalty. The problem with Harry Reid isn't that he won't blindly follow; it's that he conducts himself in a way that is detrimental to the Democrats and could be very damaging to Obama's presidency.

We are talking about a senate majority leader who in the last 2 years has talked tough on plenty occasions, but when push came to shove he, as well as many other Democratic senators, gave up everything to the Republicans. They were the consummate pushovers, but now he wants to be a true check and balance to the executive branch? After an election in which his party won, an election where the American people said, in essence, that they want Obama in the office of the presidency to fix the many, many messes that Bush created? This is even more startling considering that the Republicans have made it clear, not only through the actions of the last few years but also through the current rhetoric of leaders such as John Boehner, that they have no intention of doing what's best for the country or working with Democrats. So why is this guy saying he wants to work with Republicans against his part extremely popular President Elect? What could the country possibly have to gain from this?

The other thing is the timing. If this situation occurred during a "business as usual" type presidential transition, then that is fine. It would do harm to the new presidents agenda, but the country would survive it relatively well. However, right now, a time when the country is in such a dire situation, when what is necessary is a bold new agenda that needs as much support as possible, when we are in the kind of crisis mode that may, like it or not, call for more presidential power than many are comfortable with (not that it would be any more than the abuses of power Bush committed in non-crisis situations), obstructing the presidents agenda could lead to devastating results. This is a time for bold action, for supporting the president so he can do big things to get us out of a big mess, especially if you are a Democrat, and the words of Harry Reid are not only needless, but could be damaging to that goal.

Harry Reid, however, is just one example of a problem that has plagued the Democratic Party for years. For a long time now, Democrats have had people like Harry Reid in power, people who roll over and give in to everything the Republicans want when the Republicans are the ones in power, but then when a Democrat is elected, they stand firm in the name of checks and balances, or even stand with the Republicans in the name of bipartisanship, as if just to prove that they aren't completely spineless. The Republicans have caught on, completely ignoring the Democrats when they hold power, but clamoring for bipartisanship as soon as Obama was elected, and the cowardice of these democrats who refuse to stand up against them plays right into their hands.

These Democrats are useless, utterly useless, and it is the reason why when the Democrats are the minority they are completely irrelevant and when they are the majority they still appear to be the weaker party. Democrats always seem to have less influence and less support than their counterparts, constantly on the defensive, and as long as there are Senators or Congressmen like Harry Reid, it looks like it is going to stay that way.

Comments

[ouroborous]

Wow. You really don't see the parallels between Bush and Obama here, do you?

They get into office (or near office, in Obama's case) and there's an "overriding crisis" that requires blind obedience. In fact, some say it requires "more presidential power than many are comfortable with."

So now, when Congress is doing its *JOB* and acting as a check and balance on Presidential power, your response is to criticize?

Don't get me wrong. I'm as alarmed by current events as anyone. I hope that Reid's objections are cogent and will add to the discussion. But it's just as dangerous for us to cede virtually unlimited power to Obama as it was to cede this power to Bush. It's just as important to have multiple branches of government balancing each other.

Right now, times are scary and dissent is inconvenient. But that's how things work in this country, whether we like it or not.

Instead of shredding Harry (and trust me, I'm no fan of his; he abdicated his authority so many times during the Bush years that it's not even funny), you should be asking "what took you so long?"

Now, if Reid's objections are just pandering or not substantive in nature, I'll join your criticism of him. But if he's got a real point, if he's got a real issue that requires real debate, it's time we start encouraging Congress to do their jobs, even if that's inconvenient to "our guy."

[Aram Khayatpour - Huffpost Blogger]

Few things here.

First off, there was no crisis when Bush took office, there was one 9 months (including 96 Bush vacation days) after he took office.

Second, my problem isn't dissent, and I do hate blind allegiance, but Harry Reid is just causing undue trouble. Look, we all know this guy is all talk, he speaks loudly and carries the worlds smallest stick, but to talk tough against Obama right now is pointless.

Congress should do its job, and if a situation comes up where they need to limit some of Obama's power then I am all for them doing it, but there is no reason for Reid to try and take away from Obama's political capital at this moment, before he has even taken office. Reid is being nothing less than disruptive and destructive, as he always is. The problem is that he ONLY ever causes problems for the Democrats and never so much as raises a finger against the Republicans.

He, and people like him, keep the Democrats weak and beg the question, why are they Dems in the first place?

[JohnFromCensornati]

He didn't stand up to King George W. He didn't stand up to Blago. BHO needn't worry about Harry getting in the way.

[myskylark]

Hooray! At last, someone who is willing to describe what is so wrong with the Democratic Party. I was a Democrat all my life, but I changed my registration to "Not affiliated with any party" this September. I gave up after eight long years of watching my party cave ito the Republicans time after time. They have proven to be gutless and clueless. I will vote for liberal candidates and causes, but I cannot in good conscience continue to belong to a dysfunctional party. I will wait and watch, and if the time comes when I see some glimmer of organization and cogent ideas I will be happy to come back. Please, please! Surely there must be better leadership than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

[jameshat]

amen to that muskylark. how does someone like harry reid get into a postion of power? and how do democrats remove him, not because he's challenging BO but more for the past 4 years of ineptitude