The Reid Curse Strikes Again, This Time In MA

3:30 pm EST January 18th, 2010 | News | 23 Comments

If Scott Brown were to win the MA senate race (I happen to think that there’s a decent chance of Coakley still winning, though she’s such a “my turn” Massachusets Dem she’s made this race close), he’ll clearly be a wrench in the works of health care reform. Whose fault is this? Harry Reid. Health care reform should have been through the senate from this past summer. Reid allowed Baucus to dawdle and delay, while also courting Olympia Snowe for no good reason. Reid has failed at the basics of senate leadership in almost every way possible. I wasn’t the biggest Tom Daschle fan by any stretch, but I was saddened when he lost his seat to John Thune. I won’t feel the way if/when Harry Reid loses his seat this fall.

A smaller, more competent Democratic majority is superior to a larger, useless one.

Topic: Harry Reid

« Bible References Inscribed On Military Weapons
First Obama State Of The Union Coming Jan. 27 »

23 Responses to “The Reid Curse Strikes Again, This Time In MA”

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle says:

January 18, 2010 at 3:53 pm

A smaller, more competent Democratic majority is superior to a larger, useless one.

Isn’t that essentially what Sirota argued this morning?
Pryme says:

January 18, 2010 at 3:54 pm

The thing that gets me about this race is people saying that this is “Ted’s seat.” I liked Kennedy, and he was a passionate and effective Senator, but it’s no more “his seat” then the people who served before him.

That being said, I’d lay more of the blame on the Democrats in Mass. They had to have known that Kennedy was in poor health and should have made plans.

And Daschele was the guy who said we needed to “accept” Bush’s victory-by-Supreme Court. He was also a good person, but I wasn’t crying over his departure.
Pryme says:

January 18, 2010 at 3:59 pm

If that’s what he said, then Sirota must want some kind of purity test.
August J. Pollak says:

January 18, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Or, you know, Ted Kennedy could have retired after getting brain cancer instead of figuring that being physically incapable of going to work for four months was adequately providing representation to the people of Massachusetts.

But yeah, no horse in the overall race either… I’m glad to see so many right-wingers working hard to get us Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
Infidel753 says:

January 18, 2010 at 4:12 pm

How would a smaller, even if more competent, Democratic majority get anything done, given that under the current Senate rules it takes 60 votes to pass legislation, and the Republicans are determined to obstruct at every turn?
Jody says:

January 18, 2010 at 4:45 pm

A smaller, competent majority might force them to address the flaws in the system, such as abuse of the filibuster rule.

However, of Coakley loses the rest of the Senate Dems will be just as incompetent as ever.

There are competent Dems to be sure. But let’s not fool ourselves that a Coakley loss is going to lead to anything good.
Rex Mundane says:

January 18, 2010 at 4:52 pm

By, for instance, forcing Lieberman to actually go through with a monumentally unpopular, unprincipled, and embarassing filibuster on Health Care, waiting it out, and then voting on the bill the people want instead of taking out all of the meaningful reforms, going out of their way to prostrate themselves before the whims of one totalitarian cock-weasel who is playing transparently stupid games with the well-being of every American citizen out of petty revenge. A smaller democratic majority would, theoretically, know better than to spend a year pushing for something only to call full-stop and reverse because of one raging, gaping asshole and embarassing themselves to an absurd degree having to now justify why we have to pass something that just means having to wait even longer to pass anything useful.
Rex Mundane says:

January 18, 2010 at 4:53 pm

And lets also not fool ourselves into thinking that a Coakley win will lead there either.
jr says:

January 18, 2010 at 5:09 pm

Harry thought Olympia would leave Grover for him
anotherbozo says:

January 18, 2010 at 5:49 pm

A tad off-topic, but how likely that the health care bill get passed while Mass confirms the vote tallies?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/massachusetts-law-certificate-of-election-cant-come-for-at-least-10-days-probably-more.php?ref=fpa
JustMe says:

January 18, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Ted Kennedy could have retired after getting brain cancer instead of figuring that being physically incapable of going to work for four months was adequately providing representation to the people of Massachusetts.

We would like to think that people would act rationally, but lots of people, not just Senators, fantasize about dying while “at the wheel” of their life’s work and hold out hope that they will be one of the few to beat the odds when it comes to a terminal diagnosis.
Bijan Parsia says:

January 18, 2010 at 6:31 pm

I’m no big Reid fan, but I think you’ve been overstating the case for some time. In some ways, its amazing that Reid got things this far. Overblaming Reid is like overblaming Obama — there’s a fair bit of legitimate tactical grumbling to be had, but it’s very unclear that there was a strong alternative and that will (or the “basics of senate leadership”) would have produced better outcomes. I really wish the Dems had made it all about the Republican obstructionism. Recall when Gingrich shut down the govt it was good for Clinton (though bad for the country in the short term).

I really wish it were otherwise.
Jaim says:

January 18, 2010 at 7:18 pm

All the polling shows Coakley will go down in flames and with it passage of HCR in its current form, and possibly of HCR in any form.

This is a disaster and there’s plenty of blame to go around. But don’t blame me, I didn’t start passing out cigars when people thought the craptastic Obama-approved HCR bill was a sure thing oh so many weeks ago.
SaveFarris says:

January 18, 2010 at 7:44 pm

And who was it that put HCR in Harry Reid’s hands?

Obama COULD have been the point man on this, demanding benchmarks up front and unequivocaly. Fighting for *HIS* vision. Instead, he made the concious decision to leave it up to Reid & Pelosi, telling them “I don’t care what you send me, so long it’s called ‘Health Care Reform’”. That allowed the Liebermans, Nelsons, Landreius, Stupaks, et. al. to demand the moon, knowing that Obama didn’t care about the details.

Hillary was right: this guy just doesn’t have a clue how to lead.
fafaroo says:

January 18, 2010 at 8:05 pm

Save, are you actually criticizing Obama for not pushing harder for reforms you oppose in the first place? Really? Please just STFU.
LongHairedWeirdo says:

January 18, 2010 at 8:09 pm

And who was it that put HCR in Harry Reid’s hands?

The Constitution plus the Senate. HCR has to pass the Senate; the Senate set up its rules.

Any more dumb questions?
Jaim says:

January 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm

Obama wanted Baucus on board and gave him the proverbial keys. Obama also spent months tellng Reid to woo Snowe who we didn’t even get on board in the end. I’m hardly Reid’s biggest fan, but let’s stop pretending Obama didn’t make numerous errors of judgement himself.

And when he did get his bill why did he wait so long to twist arms? If we all agree that Reid is weak-tea it became critical for him to make more trips to the Capital, not fewer.

60 votes in the Senate and we might possibly get nothing re: HCR. We might still get the watery Obama/Lieberman bill at best. Either way presidential historians won’t be in a rush to tell us about Obama’s masterful domestic diplomacy.

And Oliver lamely scratches his head and bellows “Why is Jane Hamsher ruining Obama’s presidency?”
Dave in SoCal says:

January 19, 2010 at 4:45 pm

I really wish the Dems had made it all about the Republican obstructionism

Ah, yes. The dreaded “Republican Obstructionism”. “The Party of No”. “The Republicans are against everything Obama is trying to push forward”. Ad nauseum.

Remember when being “The Party of No” was something to be admired? To take pride in? To do so for purely partisan purposes?

Let’s set the wayback machine for August 2006, shall we?

“Like DeLay, who was also known for bruising rivalries within his party, Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. “Never. Is never good enough for you?” Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan.”

“Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose G.O.P. bills. By denying the G.O.P votes from across the aisle, Democrats have forced moderate Republicans to back bills like those cutting Medicaid and other social programs that fiscally conservative Republicans have insisted on, votes for which Democrats have then attacked moderate Republicans in television ads. Pelosi has also ordered Democrats not to work on bills or even hold press conferences with Republicans whom the party is trying to defeat in November.”

So make up your minds, hypocrites. Obstructing the majority party is either always wrong and evil or it’s noble and just. It’s an either/or.
Oliver Willis says:

January 19, 2010 at 5:37 pm

In 2006 the majority party was focused on screwing up America and getting Americans killed in Iraq. The only moral path was to block them as best we could – and they still got most of what they wanted through.
Dave in SoCal says:

January 20, 2010 at 11:16 am

In 2009 the majority party was focused on screwing up America (i.e. a failed trillion $ “stimulus”, record unemployment, economy-killing cap and trade, health care “reform” that will bankrupt us) and getting Americans killed in Afghanistan. The only moral path is to block them as best we can – and with Scott Brown’s capture of a Democrat-held seat (and there will be more to come in November) the tide has turned.
Dave in SoCal says:

January 20, 2010 at 11:20 am

And your attempted “moral imperative” excuse is a failure.
Dave in SoCal says:

January 20, 2010 at 11:28 am

And just to clearly demonstrate what a partisan hack you are, let’s look again at this paragraph:

Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose G.O.P. bills. By denying the G.O.P votes from across the aisle, Democrats have forced moderate Republicans to back bills like those cutting Medicaid and other social programs that fiscally conservative Republicans have insisted on, votes for which Democrats have then attacked moderate Republicans in television ads. Pelosi has also ordered Democrats not to work on bills or even hold press conferences with Republicans whom the party is trying to defeat in November.

She opposed ALL bills. Regardless of whether they were good or bad. So that they could run TV ads attacking the Republicans. And she ordered Dems to blacklist Repubs who they were trying to defeat in the next election. In other words, for purely partisan purposes. Which you weakly attempt to defend as a “moral path”.

Whatever Media Matters is paying you, they’re getting overcharged.
Oliver Willis says:

January 20, 2010 at 11:42 am

There weren’t any good bills coming out of the GOP congress. How can something be “good” and have Tom DeLay’s fingerprints on it?