"Some House Democrats I talked to... accuse Reid and his lieutenants of repeatedly placating Republicans to avoid a filibuster, rather than taking a stand on principle now and then," NYT reports. "Why not force centrist Democrats to vote against their party and let Republicans filibuster the agenda on national television? What would the voters think then?"
"A lot of folks would love an answer to this question," Sargent says. Count me among them. He goes on to say that "some of what's driving this is Reid's run for reelection," but this is just classic Harry Reid -- the guy really doesn't seem to have any stomach for conflict in congress. I know he used to be a boxer, but at any sign of opposition at all, he folds -- there's just no fight in the guy. It's like he thinks it's the legislative branch's job to pass bills as close to unanimously as possible, not to fight for the best bill.
While I don't doubt that Reid's re-election figures into this, I don't think you can call it the cause. The cause seems to be Harry's personality. His re-election campaign is just an aggravating condition.
1 comments:
I don't believe Harry Reid is the best the Democratic party can do in a position like Senate Majority Leader, especially when they can pretty much run all over republicans. But in the past few years under his watch, a democratic party majority has emerged that put Rove's dream of permanent majority to death.
Numbers under Reid's watch swelled dramatically, so whatever he's done or didn't do, has resulted in near complete control of the federal government. I, of course, argue that the Democratic majority emerged despite his best efforts to appease republicans.
But as far as I'm concerned, Harry Reid is the biggest obstructionist in congress. For centrist Democrats, that should be a good thing, but most "centrists" I speak to can't stand Reid, either. That sounds personal to me and it's become a distraction, or a burden.
But Centrists, or Blue Dogs, should just start their own party and take their status quo with them.
Reid represents the status quo and he's protecting the two party system.
Post a Comment