Harry Reid "The Gunslinger" - Rolling Stone

[Moooooo]

From The Rolling Stone:

In his first five months as minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid has come out swinging. The soft-spoken Nevadan has called George Bush a "loser," Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment" and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan a "political hack." He has held the Democrats together to oppose Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. And he stood up to Majority Leader Bill Frist and other radical Republicans who tried to deploy the "nuclear option" to overturn the Senate tradition of judicial filibusters. In the end, the Republicans blinked first, as seven moderates abandoned Frist to cut a deal with the Democrats on May 23rd. The following day, beneath the portrait of Mark Twain that hangs in his office in the Capitol building, Reid sat down to talk with ROLLING STONE.

Reid takes a look at the 2006 mid-term elections:


What kinds of gains will Democrats make in 2006?

Well, history's on our side. Presidents who have been in Bush's situation have lost from one to thirteen senators. We are going to be competitive in races in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island and Missouri.

Why did Kerry lose, and what do Democrats have to learn from that?

Everybody says it was about values, but I don't buy that. Senator Kerry lost because he ignored rural America. Take Nevada as an example. Ninety-one percent of the registered voters are in Reno and Las Vegas. So you would think that someone who carries those two counties by a nice margin would be the winner. Wrong. Kerry carried those counties -- but he got slaughtered in the other nine percent, where the turnout was huge. The rural vote went five-to-one against Kerry, and he lost the state by two percent. Democrats can no longer win elections in big cities. We have to go to places like Elko and Carson City and Ely and let people know who we are. Until we do that, we're going to continue to lose.

Is the deal real? Republicans are saying they will still go nuclear if you filibuster.

They're saying that to cover themselves. The nuclear option is history. Listen: The Republicans who signed that agreement, we should put up a statue to them someplace. That was a brave thing they did.

Why couldn't you and Frist agree on a deal yourselves to avert a showdown?

He couldn't do a deal. He's being driven by these right-wing zealots.

You've called Bush a loser.

And a liar.

You apologized for the loser comment.

But never for the liar, have I?

[dazzleman]

Some interesting comments.

From where I sit, it seems that the Democrats made a major concession in forswearing the future use of the filibuster against judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.

Previously, their position was that they would and could continue to filibuster the nominees at will.  They were obviously forced to make some deal with the Republicans because they would have preferred to keep things just the way they were, without the pressure of the nuclear option in the background.

Reid is right that Democrats can't win just by appealing to urban voters.  Beyond that, I part company with him.  I hope he meets the same fate as his predecessor.

[Moooooo]

At first I was critical of Reid, I thought he was a little too "soft".  Now Im beginning to really warm up to the guy.  He's a straight shooter that says what's on his mind and that's that. Since he has become sml the Democrats have won every PR battle that comes to mind.

[TheresNoMoney]

Reid was a great choice for Minority Leader. He's a former boxer, and he doesn't back down from the Republicans. He's a gentle looking guy, but a straight talker and a guy who gets right to the point.

[A18]

History was on their side in 2002. Thing is history doesn't like to help much.

[The Duke]

Red has led the Democrats down a dnagerous path, especially with the filibusters.  They will lose Seante seats.  Their only gain will be in PA, and given the self-destructive campaign Casey is running, even that no longer seems assured to me.

[opebo]

History was on their side in 2002. Thing is history doesn't like to help much.

The phoney 'war on terror' and the 9/11 based militarism had a lot to do with that.  Will the deception be sustainable into 2006?  Might require another big explosion!

[Rob]

They will lose Seante seats.

I seriously doubt that.

[TheresNoMoney]

Red has led the Democrats down a dnagerous path, especially with the filibusters.

Huh? Support was on the Democratic side.

Besides, 80%+ of the country doesn't give two sh*ts about a fillibuster. The majority of Americans don't even know what it is.

[MHS2002]

Red has led the Democrats down a dnagerous path, especially with the filibusters.

Huh? Support was on the Democratic side.

Besides, 80%+ of the country doesn't give two sh*ts about a fillibuster. The majority of Americans don't even know what it is.

If 80% of the country doesn't care about the filibuster, all that "Democratic support" isn't going to help much come 2006.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Everybody says it was about values, but I don't buy that. Senator Kerry lost because he ignored rural America. Take Nevada as an example. Ninety-one percent of the registered voters are in Reno and Las Vegas. So you would think that someone who carries those two counties by a nice margin would be the winner. Wrong. Kerry carried those counties -- but he got slaughtered in the other nine percent, where the turnout was huge. The rural vote went five-to-one against Kerry, and he lost the state by two percent. Democrats can no longer win elections in big cities. We have to go to places like Elko and Carson City and Ely and let people know who we are. Until we do that, we're going to continue to lose.

That's a weird way of putting it. Kerry lost Washoe (Reno) county, but won Clark (Las Vegas) county by enough that he won the sum of those two counties. Washoe had a Democratic swing, probably mainly due to being the closest part of a swing state to all of the people who volunteered from the bay area.

[A18]

They will lose Seante seats.

I seriously doubt that.

Looking at the races, it appears very possible.

[TheresNoMoney]

If 80% of the country doesn't care about the filibuster, all that "Democratic support" isn't going to help much come 2006.

Exactly. It won't make much of a difference either way.

[jokerman]

Harry Reid is pro-life.  I think he needs to embrace his populist views.  With the Republicans taking huge hits in public opinion, the time is right for Democrats to introduce a "contract with america."  That means an alternate social security plan, a new exit strategy for Iraq, and creating a new energy plan for America.

With the GOP brewing with corruption and the public full of discontent for it, the time is right for a 1994-style scenario.  On the other hand, we could let this opportunity go, not make any noise in the national media, and simply offer bland opposition to the Republicans and continue our failures.

[Jake]

When Harry met Roe

Fred Barnes wrote the above in December about Harry Reid. Interesting read on the "pro-life" minority leader.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Harry Reid is pro-life.  I think he needs to embrace his populist views.  With the Republicans taking huge hits in public opinion, the time is right for Democrats to introduce a "contract with america."  That means an alternate social security plan, a new exit strategy for Iraq, and creating a new energy plan for America.

With the GOP brewing with corruption and the public full of discontent for it, the time is right for a 1994-style scenario.  On the other hand, we could let this opportunity go, not make any noise in the national media, and simply offer bland opposition to the Republicans and continue our failures.

I'm not sure how much of a populist he is. He voted for the bankruptcy bill.

[A18]

Those items are not winning issues for the Dems, nor has the GOP taken major hits in public opinion.

Disagreeing with Democrats and actually having ideas does not count as corruption.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Those items are not winning issues for the Dems, nor has the GOP taken major hits in public opinion.

Yeah that Schiavo bill was real popular.

[A18]

Um, you intend to use a two year old event that no one really cares about to get people to vote against incumbents?

[The Duke]

They will lose Seante seats.

I seriously doubt that.

Don't doubt it for a second.  The map tells the story.  In 2002, 2004, and now 2006, I've predicted based almost solely on the map who would gain seats and who would lose.  The game has been played and won.

Red has led the Democrats down a dnagerous path, especially with the filibusters.

Huh? Support was on the Democratic side.

Besides, 80%+ of the country doesn't give two sh*ts about a fillibuster. The majority of Americans don't even know what it is.

I'd like to see one poll where people explicitly state they favor the Democratic position.  Of course the Democrats win when you ask people if they want to deploy the nuclear option on the Senate, but ask them straight away what they think the filibuster rules should, or whether an up or down vote on judges should be required, and the Republicans win.  Ever hear of a push poll?

Just in case no one else noticed, you contradict yourself when you say the people support the Democratic position on the filibuster, but then say the people don't know what the filibuster is.

Americans very much care about obstructionism, and do not reward it.  Just ask Newt about the Government Shutdown.

[Moooooo]

I'd like to see one poll where people explicitly state they favor the Democratic position.  Of course the Democrats win when you ask people if they want to deploy the nuclear option on the Senate, but ask them straight away what they think the filibuster rules should, or whether an up or down vote on judges should be required, and the Republicans win.  Ever hear of a push poll?

From Polling Report:

Time Poll  conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. May 10-12, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Some Republicans in the Senate want to eliminate the ability of Democrats to use the filibuster, or extended debate, to block the Senate from voting on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Do you think the Republicans should or should not be able to eliminate the filibuster in this case?"

Should: 28%
Should Not: 59%
Unsure: 14%

Americans very much care about obstructionism, and do not reward it.  Just ask Newt about the Government Shutdown.

I seriously doubt the American people will reward a party that changed the rules to get what they want either.

[A18]

It's not 'extended' debate. It's unlimited debate. That poll is a joke.

[Moooooo]

It's not 'extended' debate. It's unlimited debate. That poll is a joke.

That's the best you could find to discredit the poll... Wow.

[ATFFL]

We're a long way off from beign able to decide if he is a success or a dismal failure.

[Moooooo]

We're a long way off from beign able to decide if he is a success or a dismal failure.

I agree.  I think in some sense he's been playing Russian Roulette...  So far, so good.