|
Why Can’t Democrats Give Reid A Chance? Harry’s leadership gives us a better shot than Tom’s ever did
It seems that everywhere I go lately, I hear Democrats talking about how they miss Daschle and how disappointed they are that Harry Reid has been elected the new Minority Leader. I agree with some of them—of course I’m disappointed with the Daschle loss, and as a Minnesotan with family in and strong connections to South Dakota, maybe more disappointed than someone outside the Midwest who never had the chance to see what an asset Tom was to his state in person. I liked the guy as much as the next Democrat; driving through Iroquois, South Dakota, a few weeks ago, I came across a big Daschle sign on the side of a red shack and had to stop and take a picture of it. Needless to say, the Senate won’t be the same without him. However, that’s where I stop agreeing with many of the other members of my party.
I was, at first, dissatisfied with the choice of Reid as our Senate leader. I felt the same way others still do—a pro-lifer for Minority Leader? Are we crazy? Is this the beginning of a downward spiral for us, the beginning of the Democrats’ ultimate transformation into the GOP-lite party? Something about him, though, compelled me to listen, and to research, so I did.
Now, let me say one thing before I go on. I’m not a die hard Democrat. I am not loyal to the party in terms of my history of candidate support. I supported Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, Cobb, and then Kerry in 2004, and I would support McCain if he were to run against Hillary in 2008. I am a former Green, and not, at all, a rabid, partisan Democrat, and so it takes quite a bit of work for a Democrat to get my attention and support. Harry Reid has done just that, and my support of him does not stem in any way from party loyalty.
The first thing that made me turn my head and listen was a comment I heard him give, broadcast on, I believe, CNN. He was denouncing the current Clinton control of the party—something that I have been screaming for Democrats to do for a while now. The years America had under Bill Clinton were wonderful, but we’re simply not running against Bob Dole anymore, and Clinton’s people don’t have the winning formula any longer. Up to that point, I’d been pretty concerned about the future of our party in the Senate, but that comment caught my ear, you know, I thought, maybe this guy could really be something.
So I watched. And I listened some more. And every little bit I heard, I became more impressed. When I heard he had set up a war room—a communications room, whatever you want to call it, one of the major problems with the Democratic Party is that they cannot get their message across, it seems, and what Reid set up is exactly the remedy—I was ecstatic. He was taking steps forward. Finally!
Senator Reid not only provides the leadership we need, but also the strength and voice. Recently, on Meet the Press, he was confronted by Tim Russert about a statement he had made calling Bush a liar, saying that he had “betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.” Russert asked him if he regretted the comment and asked, “Is that rhetoric appropriate?” Reid stood firm and refused to apologize, responding, “I don’t know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That’s how I feel… people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.” He is not frightened to call this administration or its corporate friends what they really are: downright crooks and liars, and rejects the idea that Social Security should be dealt with by the “fat cats on Wall Street.” He calls No Child Left Behind a “disaster” and Clarence Thomas an “embarrassment.” He is obviously not going to tone down his message simply to appease Republicans.
As for judicial nominations, there has been some talk lately over Reid’s apparent “endorsement” of Antonin Scalia for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, on the same Meet the Press interview mentioned above. Well, I must point out that that was far from a ringing, enthusiastic endorsement—in fact, I don’t believe it was one at all. He called Scalia unethical and said that, while he did not agree with Scalia’s decisions, his logic was sound. It’s similar to the way I feel about Nader, it seems: I don’t like the guy, but he has every right to run for the presidency. That’s not an endorsement of Nader by any means.
Throughout Reid’s entire political career, he has been, well, misunderestimated. It still happens today; many Democrats claim he won’t be able or willing to stand up to the President and his handpicked, rubber stamp Congress. As Harry said, “I’d rather dance than fight,” (and as he is a former boxer, I can safely assume he doesn’t mean ballroom dancing) but he knows how to fight. As President Clinton said, “You know, Harry Reid never lifts his voice, he talks real soft. And pretty soon you're looking for your billfold.” And the Reno News and Review says of Reid, “The political highway is littered with the bodies of those who took Harry Reid too lightly. A mining lobbyist who crossed him soon found himself looking for work, and the head of Nevada's Yucca Mountain campaign came close to the same fate.” He has been described as “stubborn” and “determined” by his colleagues in the Senate.
There has also been much concern over Reid’s pro-life stand. Well, allow me to remind you, the Senate Minority Leader’s opinion does not a party platform make. Furthermore, there was much criticism of Bush voters this election season who decided to vote solely based on “values” issues: gay marriage, abortion, etc. If there is one thing I hate in politics, it’s out-and-out hypocrisy, which is exactly what this behavior shows. To refuse to take so much as a second look at Reid based on his abortion stance is hypocrisy of the highest level. There are pro-life Democrats, and they are no more or less Democratic than those who are pro-choice. Another reminder: our party was not founded and is not based on social issues such as abortion. It is based on equal opportunity, economic prosperity, strong global alliances; the list goes on. Mr. Reid holds our key values: he believes in strengthening our public schools and providing quality education, providing better access to health care, he is an advocate of raising the minimum wage and equal pay for women, a supporter of protection against hate crimes based on sexual orientation, an opponent of ANWR drilling, someone who believes that the best path to peace is keeping our allies close, a proponent of fair trade, a supporter of alternative fuels and renewable energy, pro-union, and a man who understands the need for fiscal responsibility. He is a Democrat, through and through, and, I’m pleased to point out, one very instrumental in Senator Jeffords’ switch from a Republican to and Independent (who caucuses with the Democrats, I might add!).
We also need to realize that, at least for the moment, the future of our party’s electoral success does not rest in the South. John Edwards could not, as the vice presidential nominee, bring us southern electoral votes—I doubt that Mark Warner or any other number of southern politicians could do so, either. No, our best bet is the southwestern part of the country. Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado; we were able to gain ground in those states in 2004, and that is where we should concentrate our efforts. The South holds little for us, save possibly a surprise upset in Virginia or Florida—and counting on Virginia to pull through for the Democrats is ridiculous. Reid can provide us with the strategies to win in the West, and therefore win nationwide.
None of this is to say, however, that Reid’s qualifications or capabilities should give him free, unchecked reign of our faction of the Senate. No, on the contrary; we must keep him accountable—write letters, faxes, emails, make calls to his office and leave message, let him know that the people are watching and counting on him. Any good leader must listen to the people, and I am certain that Harry Reid will make a good leader.
|