I enjoy ripping Harry Reid as much as the next effete liberal. And generally I regard his leadership style to have been stripped straight from the playbook of French generals. The next time he forces his members to live in a state of constant fear as a result of fostering an environment of irrational, random terror (a la former Minority Leader Tom Delay) will be the first. But when it comes to questioning Reid's manhood it's also important to keep in mind the sheer size and scope of health care reform and the makeup of the Democratic Senate caucus.
Passing tax cuts like the Republicans did in 2001 through reconciliation was a nice parliamentary trick that since has been banned. No longer can the Senate use a simple majority to approve legislation that will add to the deficit. Now going the reconciliation route is much harder while making for bad PR. It should never be the first option. So not only are the rules different, but the radioactive nature of the legislation is different. Who the hell doesn't want a tax cut? At a certain point the need to get 60 votes to prevent a filibuster has to be weighed against the understandable desire of liberal bloggers to command an all-out assault on Blue Dogs. Recognition has to be paid to the fact that this country isn't sharing a border with Sweden and Ben Nelson is a Democrat with an address in a state that takes 4-H way too seriously:
That's not to diminish the importance of 60 seats: If Democrats didn't have 60 seats, then passing health-care reform (or anything big) through the normal Senate order would simply be impossible because Republicans would kill it no matter what they were promised. Because Democrats do have 60 seats, passing health-care reform (or anything big) means making a lot of unpleasant compromises with the few members of your coalition who will scuttle the bill if their demands aren't met.That's the ball game. Sixty seats has never ensured 60 votes. Governing is hard. Certainly harder than writing Twitter-esque blog posts that make the process sound overly simple. Getting Olympia Snowe on board protects the right flank of Democratic Senators in deep red states. With that said, sure Harry Reid is a ginormous wimp and a large part of me agrees with this sentiment: "I'll take a Chuck Schumer-run Senate with 57 Democrats (bye bye Reid, Lieberman, and Lincoln) than a Harry Reid-run one with 75 Democrats." In fact, I've basically said those very words while verbally-sparring with Reid apologists during happy hours.Democrats don't have 60 votes so much as they have 56 votes with the option for four or five more. And exercising that option is not a pleasant or dignity-preserving experience.
But flexing a giant liberal boner doesn't escape the fact that 60 votes are needed to defeat a filibuster on health care reform and 60 seats are what we have. It's an oddity to see liberals demand the same deference of their members toward party leaders that Republicans expect. It's even odder still when you consider how far to the right this country remains in many respects and how ideologically diverse the Democratic Party is.
As a result of agreeing in principle to an imperfect piece of legislation it looks like we're on the cusp of passing sweeping health care reform. FDR couldn't do it. Neither LBJ. But still the base acts betrayed, wailing for the purity that a simpleton like George W. Bush could deliver with a simple idea like cutting taxes. I guess the base is playing its part. But sometimes it's worth pointing out that Harry Reid is also playing his:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared before the Judiciary Committee today in an unusual capacity: as a witness. He was there to argue that the Senate should repeal the insurance industry's exemption from anti-trust statutes (an exemption that they share only with Major League Baseball). "Insurance companies have become so large they dominate entire regions of the country," Reid said. "They have become so powerful they block start-up businesses from entering the market, and they put smaller companies out of business. They have become so dominant that they dictate business practices. They are so influential that they exert tremendous influence over public policy.”But Reid isn't an expert on anti-trust law, and as Senate Majority Leader, he doesn't spur legislative action by testifying before Senate Committees. He was really there to send a clear and unmistakable signal to the insurance industry in the aftermath of Monday's assault on health-care reform: Attack us, and we'll hurt you. Badly.
And now that I've given a glancing defense of Reid, I'm looking forward to him caving during reform negotiations.
-- Update --
No sooner do I write this:
So it comes as some surprise that two prominent progressive figures, approached by TPMDC, said that much has changed since the summer--and particularly in the last couple weeks--and that Reid is working the inside game for the public option.
"Reid and/or his staff has been in practically hourly conversations with a whole set of progressive players re how best to make sure we position ourselves to get a strong public option coming out of conference committee," said one progressive strategist, who asked not to be named. "He hasn't made any final procedural decisions yet RE how to get that done, but he's having really honest conversations [about] all his major options, pros and cons of each, etc. I'm actually pretty impressed, at least right now."
