Is It Time For Harry Reid To Step Down?

Is it time to call on Harry Reid to step down from his position as Senate Majority Leader?

This column poses the question, but admittedly, provides no clear answer. This is because I feel the subject is still one that is legitimately up for debate, but I also feel that the time has come to begin this debate. And let me be clear -- I am not suggesting he resign from the Senate, but rather that he hand the reins of Senate leadership over to a more able Democratic colleague.

I pose the question reluctantly, since infighting is generally counter-productive for a political party that wants to move its agenda forward. And Democrats admittedly have a bigger reputation for such infighting than Republicans. But sometimes a change in direction is the smartest plan of action in the long run.

Now, to be fair, Harry Reid can be very forceful and non-relenting. He's even come up with some political gimmicks which force the media to cover the Democratic point of view (the sleepover, to name one). And when he does so successfully, I have praised him. It wasn't so long ago (4/25/07) I wrote an article titled "Certain Portions Of Harry Reid's Anatomy May Be Rather Oversized And Possibly Composed Of Brass," for instance. I do give him credit when he deserves it, but sadly he hasn't done much to deserve it in the last few months.

Instead, he has been vacillating. The Republicans and the White House have seen this, and swarmed Reid like hungry piranhas. With little warning, Democratic voters have opened their morning papers to stories about how Reid has helped Bush fund the Iraq war, legalize warrantless wiretapping (just so Congress could go on vacation), and (most recently) Reid allowed a Senate vote to condemn MoveOn.org's controversial ad in the New York Times. Rumors are now flying that the next story to disappoint the rank and file of the party may be Democrats allowing Bush to retroactively give giant telecommunications companies immunity over lawsuits on the wiretapping they may have already done. My opinion (9/20/07) remains that even attempting to do so is unconstitutional ("No... ex post facto law shall be passed."), but this apparently doesn't even matter to congressional Democrats -- which is a shame, since such lawsuits may be the only way the public ever hears what has been done in their name.

Democrats cannot afford to get mugged in this fashion from here to election day 2008. The country cannot afford it, for several reasons. (1) There's a real war going on, and real people are dying out there while Congress dithers. (2) Civil liberties which stretch back hundreds of years are being callously tossed onto the garbage pile, and civil liberties are always harder to regain once they're gone. (3) There's an election going on, and the weaker the Democrats look in the Senate, the harder it's going to be for them to convince voters they're tough enough to run the country. (4) Because I'm tired of reading these embarrassing stories in the morning paper, dammit!

In Reid's defense, he has a much weaker hand to play than most people realize. Up until a few days ago, he didn't really have a 51-49 majority, what he had was a 48-1-1-49 razor-thin balancing act. One of those "ones" in the middle votes reliably with the Democrats, and one is Joe Lieberman (need I say more?). Which meant Reid was really working with a 49-50 minority. But now all Democrats are healthy and present and voting in the Senate, so that has changed to a 50-50 split. That's still pretty tough to get things done in a house where 60 votes is necessary to move anything forward. Minority rights in the Senate are much greater than in the House, which is why we need strong Democratic leadership that is willing to fight hard for Democratic positions. Instead, over and over again, Reid shows up to play polo while the Republicans arrive in full armor and ready to joust.

There are two schools of thought about how to get the 60 votes needed to move legislation. The first is to show backbone, tell Republicans they only get to vote on what Democrats present them with, and from a position of strength (complete with threats to use Republicans' votes against them on the campaign trail), convince enough Republicans that it's in their best interest to come across the aisle and vote with the Democrats. Senate Democrats should be driving the debate, and refusing to back down on key issues, in other words.

Instead, the Reid school of thought has been to compromise before the debate even begins. In a non-election year, with less controversial legislation, this might indeed be wise. But when fundamental issues like war and the Bill of Rights are concerned, Reid should hang tough. A lot tougher than he has been. As for "reaching across the aisle" -- these sort of negotiations should happen behind closed doors, in the weeks leading up to scheduled floor debates. They should not happen the Monday of Debate Week, and they definitely should not happen in the press (the way they recently have been). If such bipartisanship fails, then hold a press conference and say so (and repeat the word "obstructionist" in every sentence you speak), but only after the fact.

Take the budget, for instance. The New York Times ran an article today with some chilling quotes in it:

Mr. Bush's public comments suggest he is determined to veto one or more appropriations bills, to highlight what he describes as excessive spending. But neither side has a postveto strategy.

Democratic leaders in Congress say they have yet to resolve the most basic strategic question: Should they negotiate with the president or just send him bills reflecting their priorities and wait to see what happens?

"I don't think anyone knows how this is going to turn out," said Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

So let me get this straight. The budget is supposed to be passed and in place on October first, the start of the federal government's fiscal year. The House has passed all of the 12 appropriations bills which constitute the budget. The Senate has passed four of these, but (as is usual) has rewritten them slightly. None of these four have gone to conference committee, where such differences are hammered out. October first is a week away, making it all but impossible that even a significant fraction of the budget will be on Bush's desk by that point. And Democrats don't even have a strategy for how to handle it all?

This is pathetic. And it is a failure of leadership. Before summer, Democrats were optimistically saying they would pass some of these 12 bills and put them on Bush's desk before they adjourned for the month of August. That obviously didn't happen. Not only didn't it happen, but two months later, none of the bills has even made it to conference committee. That's a pretty poor excuse for a track record.

Democrats have some great ideas in their budget proposals -- ideas which are wildly popular with the voters -- and they should be using these ideas to rhetorically bash Bush upside the head every chance they can get in the mainstream media. Instead, we are exposed to the spectacle of Democrats not being able to get their act together, once again.

This is why the subject of new Senate leadership is now an imperative which should be up for discussion. It's not like the Democrats don't have some strong-willed leaders waiting in the wings, almost any of whom could do a better job of forcefully stating the Democrats' positions. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and Carl Levin spring immediately to mind. I would include Patrick Leahy on that list, but the glacial pace of forcing the White House to provide answers to his Judiciary Committee (and his apparent lack of urgency in doing so) makes me wary of him for now. We'll truly see his mettle in the upcoming confirmation hearings for the Attorney General nominee. But there are many senators who could show the country some Democratic backbone who also could be included on such a short list. Even Jim Webb (freshman from Virginia) seems like he'd do a better job at this point. Because we need a leader now who truly does have some fire in the belly, and isn't afraid to show it.

The four presidential candidates obviously wouldn't want to run for the position of Majority Leader right now, but it would be interesting to see which candidate they would support for the job. It would be a small measure of the direction they want to take the Democratic Party in -- kind of a "dry run" for selecting a Vice Presidential nominee to share the ticket with them, or even a mini-preview of what their cabinet might look like. Which, after all, is a test of their leadership. And we should not just hear from the four in the Senate (Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama), but also from the other Democratic candidates as well.

The question at hand is simple: can the Democratic Party afford the vacillation and inconsistency of Harry Reid right now? He is not responsible for all the ills of Congress, but if he stepped down it would provide a visible change and a fresh new face for the direction of the Senate Democrats. This would help show voters what the Democratic Party believes in, and what they're willing to stand up for. A visible change in leadership might also help reverse those rock-bottom poll numbers Congress is currently earning. Because what most pollsters and pundits miss is that the public is not just angry about the way the war debate has gone (although that is a huge factor in their dissatisfaction), they are also disappointed and disgusted with Democrats being timid and refusing to stand up to the Republicans, in any visible way.

We need a Senate Majority Leader who will believe in something, say so in a telegenic and charismatic fashion on television, and then back it up by fighting for it in the Senate. It's all about that intangible quality called leadership. A strong leader might lead us off a cliff, or into the wasteland of permanent minority status -- but they could also lead us back to being a party people can believe would stand up and fight for what is right.

The question remains: Is Harry Reid the right person to do so, right now? Or is it time for Harry to go?

I don't know the answer. I am not willing (yet) to forcefully call for his ouster. But I strongly feel that the question itself should be posed, discussed, and answered in a very short time -- for both the good of the party, and the good of the country.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[commonsensein08]

Chris,

Great blog -- I had been hoping someone would eventually do a piece on this subject.

I lived in Nevada for 6 years, and I'm a Democrat, yet when I heard in 2004 that Reid would succeed Tom Daschle as Minority Leader I cringed! There are a lot of great Democratic leaders, but Harry Reid ain't.

I'm sorry, but I consider him to be this big walking mound of mashed potatoes. He has the complete wrong look, demeanor and political approach to be the face of the Dems.

And now that he is the Majority Leader look what the result is. Sen. Reid is probably THE one responsible for so many people having a negative view of Congress. While Nancy Pelosi has SOME culpability, I think the jury is still out on her and people, at least some, are still giving her the benefit of the doubt. She certainly has picked things up of late.

But Reid -- no! He has set things back for us tremendously. It is amazing how brazen he is in his political games -- his approach comes very much being out of touch with the American people.

I read the cringe comments above about John Kerry. But I always thought that John Kerry's consolation prize for the '04 campaign should have been the Minority Leader post. Don't forget, he won, what, 59 million votes in the '04 election? That has to account for something. And, say what you will about Kerry, at least he has some PRESENCE and some PASSION.

But I also like your suggestion of Russ Feingold -- or how about Sherrod Brown? We need someone who is a little more youthful and speaks to the progressiveness of the Democratic Party. Instead we got one of the old guard.

Thanks for letting me speak my mind on this -- I hope the Dems listen and REPLACE HARRY REID!

Heck, if Obama doesn't make it to the White House (either Pres or VP) then he DEFINITELY should be selected to replace Reid.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

commonsensein08 -

Hey, I love Sherrod Brown, personally. He was the only member of Congress (both houses) to enthusiastically endorse my book. See:

http://www.pamphleteeringpress.com/

But he's a freshman Senator, so I doubt he'd garner enough support to be elected Majority Leader.

But thanks for writing. It's always interesting to me to hear what Democratic Silver Staters have to say about Harry Reid....

-CW

[IronDragon]

I see the consensus is that Harry has to go. He is not the man for the job. I agree, but I like Harry Reid. Will you -- CW -- be sending this column and the replies to the Democratic Caucus? Or to whomever makes the choice? Please do. The Dems may find it constructive.

[snaggster]

It hit me like a heart attack when you mentioned Kerry as a replacement. You know, they're probably stupid enough to do just that.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

You're probably right. I was momentarily blinded by his excellent performance on TV a few Sundays ago...

-CW

[Podewumun]

Blinded?...naaah, lulled into oblivion is more like it...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Podewumun]

Boy, ain't that the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!

[disgustedcitizen]

I would say yes, but I can not think of anyone other then say, Ted Kennedy, that would get down in the dirt to really fight the Repugs.

Everyone knows the Democrats have a razor thin majority, and I don't think anyone really expects all the Democratic bills to pass easily, or at all. However, be it Harry Reid or some other Democratic Senator, they have to do two things.

One, stop the closure nonsense. If the Repugs want to filibuster, then make them stand up and talk like in the old days.

Two, every time a bill on the Iraq war, or civil rights is defeated, they need to make a big noise in the press, and send the same bill through again, and again, and again.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't know, Levin's pretty feisty when interviewed. So is Feingold.

-CW

[Podewumun]

Should Harry Reid resign?

Weeeeeeeell, let me put it to you this way...this old southern gal grew up in a house where an AUTOGRAPHED picture of Harry Truman hung to one side of that classic (and incorrect ethnicity-wise...) color reproduction of our fair-haired, blue-eyed Jesus, and an AUTOGRAPHED photo of FDR hung on the other. That being said, here's your answer, and it's...HELL YES!!!

THESE DINOS OF THE DLC 'Old Guard' HAVE GOT TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE ARE NOT BEING SERVED! NONE OF US ARE. THE DEM'S ACTION ON THE MOVEON ISSUE WAS THE LAST STRAW FOR ME AND MANY OTHERS!

It's time to put a scrapper like Jim Webb or Russ Feingold in Harry's seat, dammit! The Republicans are playing for BLOOD! Put a worthy opponent in the ring!!!

Oh, and MoveOn, my check is in the mail!

[milo9]

Yep, the old guard has to go.

[milo9]

disgusted. I think Kennedy's time has past. If he still had the stones, the Constitution would have been better protected. He is after all a Kennedy.

[larry278]

Yes, Sen Reid should step down. While you have made a good faith attempt to be fair & unbiased, the failings & weak points which you note outweigh the alleged strengths & few accomplishments of Sen Reid as Senate Majority Leader you searched for & identified. It is almost like reading a work which seeks to damn Sen Reid with faint praise. While Sen Reid's supporters will accuse you of setting out to do a hatchet job on him-there were no great victories or accomplishments of Sen Reid as Senate Majority Leader you could cite. Sen Reid would have to improve 1000% as a leader to even reach the lowest level of what might be seen as a barely satisfactory Senate Majority Leader; that hasn't happened. Sen Reid doesn't even qualify as a hopeless mediocraty as a Senae Majority Leader. He's a one trick pony who is accomplished at rolling over to let W & the neo-cons walk over him & the Democratic Majority when W & the neo-cons oppose him. That is it. Sen Reid has learned nothing & done nothing of note as Senate Majority Leader.
It's far past time for Sen Reid to resign as Senate Majority Leader.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

"For Harry Reid is an honorable man..."?

Nah, you're right, I was trying to be fair. Hey, to be completely fair, he did get the minimum wage hike through. That was fine and good, but it's (so far) the sole major accomplishment.

Thanks for writing, your post gave me a laugh.

-CW

[Scarabus]

Give Reid a warning: You've exhibited a split personality, pal: Harry the wuss vs. Harry the lion. If *we* don't see more of the lion, then *you* won't see more our support.

Party ID isn't enough. You call yourself a Democrat? Big deal! We need Democrats who are true progressives, not "Republicans-lite."

We need to make sure those now in office know that-- if they don't push desperately to end the war and to take care of the middle and working classes-- we'll challenge them on the web, challenge them in letters to the editor, challenge them by withholding contributions, and most definitely challenge them in the primaries.

[Podewumun]

Even the tattered and forgotten remnants of the Democratic Party in the south know that Reid is a TOOTHLESS LION!!!

TIME FOR NEW BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[inthenitemare]

"Now, to be fair, Harry Reid can be very forceful and non-relenting." Sorry, but I've seen no evidence of this.

Actually, I think he's been very ineffective as majority leader and would like to see him step down. Someone mentioned Russ Feingold as majority leader and I think that would be a great choice.

[milo9]

Yea, maybe he could do it.

[RobertPaul]

Yes he should go.

But, I gotta tell you, I don't see a lot of strength waiting in the wings.

If nothing else, the MoveOn vote should have ended his leadership!

How could he allow that to come to a vote?

[FDRbyGodDemocrat]

Yes, please! Get that sad sack Reid back in his seat, and put someone up there who's not afraid to take a stand! Someone with great big iron balls.

[cautionbug]

CW: It's obvious Reid has got to step down. No need to waffle on it.

In pro sports, when the team is falling apart, losing games constantly, and generally looking shabby, the managers commonly shake things up by replacing the coach. Now, that practice can get common enough to be less impactful, but we're talking about the Senate, where it doesn't happen much. And in doing so, letting someone with bigger, brassier anatomy get behind the wheel, maybe we'd start FINALLY seeing the movements that have been so obvious to the rest of us for so long:

* Take Bush to task in the media. Thump the crap out of his stubborn refusal to cooperate (especially hammer the shit out of his anti-child position).
* Force Republicans to filibuster. Make them go on record, in public and for all to see, that they would rather piddle politics than actually accomplish what needs to get done. Let the 70% of America standing behind the anti-war movement get even louder over their politics-first bullshit.
* Don't pass anything the president sends over that asks for war money. Block everything he sends until it includes "withdrawal date of __" and "funds to ensure safe return home". Anything else should be thrown in the trash. If he runs out of money in the mean time, he's got them stranded in Iraq on HIS watch, not the next prez.

Just the basics, stuff that all us forum-whiners have been clamoring about for months, but Senate Democrats can't hear because their butt cheeks are squeezing their ears too tight.

Yes, Reid should step down. But maybe he's more Bush-like than any of them and will be too stubborn to admit his own failure to oust the Failure?

[wldnswmmr]

Amen, btw, to the idea of Dianne Feinstein taking a permanent powder, and I'm from California too. Her vote on the Move.On bill of attainder should be the last straw.
As for the question raised: "We need a Senate Majority Leader who will believe in something, say so in a telegenic and charismatic fashion on television, and then back it up by fighting for it in the Senate." This doesn't sound much like the Mr. Mumbles I've watched in action. Charisma? Telegenic? I've seen soggy loaves of bread with more TV potential. Maybe he has a thin majority, but he certainly commands 41 votes. So why allow abominations like the Move.On censure to advance to a vote, while the Republicans spank him by refusing to allow the Kerry Swiftboating and Cleland libel ads to pass without remark? What's wrong with this guy? Also: with 230 Reps or so to choose from, what the heck are we doing with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker? Are the Dems throwing this thing on purpose, or does it just look that way?

[milo9]

They're of a different age.

[Henry]

A boxer could throw a much better punch than Reid.

[cautionbug]

My grandmother (who's been dead 22 years) could throw a better punch than Reid has been.

[Podewumun]

And my granny could have done it with one hand behind her back....!!! REID...OUT!!!! Don't even bother to count...

[Podewumun]

"NO MAS, NO MAS!" could have thrown a better punch.

[JimR]

You posed the question, so here's my answer:

YES

[Desiderata]

These Senate Democrats voted with the Republicans on the resolution that condemned the Moveon ad. Therefore, none on this list should ever be considered for Senate Majority Leader.

Democrats who sided with Republicans to condemn Move-On Ad:

Arkansas: Lincoln & Pryor
California Feinstein
Colorado Salazar
Delaware Carper
Florida Nelson
Indiana Bayh
Louisiana Landrieu
Maryland Cardin & Mikulski
Minnesota Klobuchar
Missouri McCaskill
Montana Baucus & Tester
Nebraska Nelson
North Dakota Conrad & Dorgan
Pennsylvania Casey
South Dakota Johnson
Vermont Leahy
Virginia Webb
Wisconsin Kohl

[milo9]

The best that could happen to the American People is for Harry Reid to step down. And I would also include my Senator, Diane Feinstein,
and, dare I say it, Senator Kennedy. Feinstein and Kennedy sit on the Judiciary Committee, where the been consistently been rolled by the right wing forces of repression.

[Podewumun]

To the names listed below:

@ooooooooo~

YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? poop.

Shame, shame, shame on every last one of you mutts!

[nomobull]

ASAP

[mommadona]

YES - unequivicabley