Now, Reid has a new breath of life with news that the Tea Party has qualified as a third party in Nevada and will have a candidate in the Senate race. That could easily split the Republican vote.
That brings up a tough question for me, given Reid’s ineffectiveness as majority leader. In the long run, will it be worse for the Democrats if he loses, or if he wins? I have to say, I think it would be worth the embarrassment of losing two majority leaders in 4 elections if it would mean Reid is no longer leading Democrats.
The folks that brought the change message to Washington failed to change what needs to be changed. Forgive my repetition, but they (Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Plouffe, etc.) should have suggested to the entire Democratic caucus that the change message would have to be painful for DEMOCRATS as well; that they were part of the problem during the Bush years and were at the very least complicit in tax breaks for the rich, war without end, and government protection for elites while everyone else is burdened with the empty promises of free-market capitalism.
They should have suggested that for the good of the country, Reid and Pelosi step down as part of a “regime change” (and if they wouldn’t, throw them under the bus for the good of the change agenda which is never going to go anywhere while Pelosi and Reid are in high leadership positions). Elevating progressives would have avoided the tragedy of the muddled message on health care that has nearly doomed the entire effort!
Instead, they left old, white folk in the same leadership positions that alienated the youth that led to Obama’s surge. Now everyone is scratching their heads as to why the folks that came out for Obama are no longer energized?
QUERY : Why do sports fans unabashedly call for the firing of a manager, yet Democrats are reluctant to call for Reid to step aside as Majority Leader ?
Comment : Recalling the Daschle race, it makes one wonder if he should have stepped aside as Leader at the start of the election year. McConnell also may have been impacted in his last campaign by constantly being on TV defending President Bush’s policies … the parallel is there.
Further, if the 2010 elections shift the balance to be closer to 54-46 that may actually produce less gridlock as currently even reasonable Senators like Voinovich Collins, and Snowe will not bolt the McConnell dictum. Unfortunately, the 46 would include DeMint, Coburn, Kyl and Cornyn.
That stated, be careful of what you wish for … I wonder today with Senator Franken occupying the seat, if MN-GOPers still think it was a good idea To Throw Coleman Under the Bus.
Also the Minnesota TEAM (TaxEnoughAlreadyMovement) is already impacting the election process. They have claimed victory in SD-26 … they’re telling Mike Parry ‘It’s folks like you that need to stop this’ and ‘Get this under control’ … plus Marty Seifert has already attended a couple of their events.
BTW … I noticed that the sidebar has a Tarkanian for Senate ad
The Tea Party movement, as much as those folks believe in what they are fighting for, will completely undermine the potential for the GOP to win back a bunch of seats in 2010. I’m amazed they don’t get that.
Word is that Daschle was disliked back home in 2006 because he was never seen there. He has basically become a permanent DC resident, and that doesn’t sit well with the folks in SoDak. Thune won’t make that mistake. He’s part of the Sioux Falls fabric more than he is a DC insider.
I don’t feel too sorry for Daschle, though. He has parlayed his Senate experience into a multi-million dollar career. He landed on his feet, I’d say. Reid would be able to do the same.
Hey, Daschle, you rich, corporate-accomplice SOB…the Dems are coming for YOU!
Keep that in mind, Harry, as you attempt to pass legislation prior to your second career.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/09/daschle2_video.html
That bastard.
When he was born, health insurance was 4% of GDP. When his children were born, it was 8%. When his grandchildren were born, it was 16%. He is told that when his great-grandchildren are born, health insurance will be 32% of GDP.
What is the common thread in that trend? An increasing level of government involvement in healthcare finance. When he was born, there was virtually none, except for VA benefits. When his grandchildren were born, government made up about 50% of the payer base.
So more is the answer?
“When he was born, health insurance was 4% of GDP. When his children were born, it was 8%. When his grandchildren were born, it was 16%. He is told that when his great-grandchildren are born, health insurance will be 32% of GDP.
What is the common thread in that trend? An increasing level of government involvement in healthcare finance”
Wildly inaccurate and a completely unjustified leap of logic. The common thread in the first paragraph is an upward trend of healthcare costs. If government involvement “caused” this, then U.S. healthcare costs would be LESS and not MORE than every other industrial nation, pretty much all of which have considerably MORE government involvement.
This is just another example of your closet conservatism- this is pure propagandistic thinking detached from reality, and it isn’t Liberal or Moderate.
Not so fast, theoko. I think i have a question worth an honest answer.
Medicare and Medicaid were introduced in 1965. Eligibility was extended to those with disabilities in 1972. Medicaid was expanded in 1986, Medicare expanded in 1989. Drug coverage was added to Medicare in 2004. All the time, the Medicare coverage base has been growing due to the aging of our population.
So why, as government influence has been expanded, as the pace of healthcare expenditures increased and not decreased? How should someone like me take the leap of faith that if our government paying for half of healthcare has poor results, if we just give them a chance to pay for it all things will get better?
“So why, as government influence has been expanded, as the pace of healthcare expenditures increased and not decreased?”
I see this as correlation rather than causation. There are a number of other changes in the country over this time period, most important of which is demographic: over the same time period, the median age of the country has gotten older. It’s the same problem that’s hitting Social Security so badly: when that program was initiated, the ratio number of people working versus those eligible for getting benefits was much better than it is now. At the time SS was set up, it worked fine due to the demographic composition of the U.S. An aging population is what threw that whole ratio out of whack (and I’ll briefly add that I am irritated with the political games Democrats/liberals have played over the issue; I am a believer in adjusting the retirement age upwards to get closer to the original ratio). An aging population drastically increases health care costs.
Further, your assumption that government intervention increases costs completely ignores the most important point of what I said: if government causes healthcare costs to grow, then why does the U.S. pay more as a proportion of GDP than countries with truly socialized medicine. Really, Dan: it’s a talking point that simply does not and cannot stand up to even the mildest criticism or analysis.
Don’t get too excited about a Reid win. This Tea Party political party is probably the result of actions of a single or a few of the Tea Party organizations active in the state. We all know that the group does not have much vertical organization, so I would doubt that this Tea Party candidate would take enough votes from Tarkanian (or any other GOPer) to tip the race to Reid. The Tea Party convention last week underscored the movement’s desire to work within the republican party. With that said, I would be happy to see Reid go as majority leader, however I would still like to see him retain his seat (if only that were possible)
Barack Obama and Harry Reid are both too nice to be leading federal political organizations. Nancy Pelosi has the aggression to lead; but she has never been a team player. On a national scale, Democrats are simply not singing off the same sheet. Actually, St. Paul doesn’t seem too much different…
As much as I fault the Democrats in Washington for being to willing to compromise with the Republicans. I am not convinced that mud wresting with right wing pigs is a solution. The pigs enjoy it and the Democrats get covered with right wing pig shit. The real question for Democrats is how to counter the downward spiral in confidence in American Constitutional government when one of the major parties is, as a matter of ideology, committed to the failure of American Constitutional government.
I am from Nevada, and I have no problem voting against Harry. It’s not just that he makes the Senate useless through his “leadership style”, he basically owns the Nevada Democratic Party. Except Dina Titus, no Dem in Nevada runs for major office without his rubber-stamp. And since he is not by any stretch of the term Progressive, this ensures Nevada Dems are just as spineless and “centrist” as he is. Personally, I would like it if Titus or Jack Carter (or anyone not beholden to Harry) take him out in a primary, but it won’t happen.
Best case scenario: A non-entity like Tarkanian (whose only electoral experience is being defeated for state senate and then SoS) takes out Harry purely on the basis of Anti-Reid sentiment, then Titus takes the seat back in 2016 (presuming she doesn’t get Ensign’s first).
Its a mess both ways.
Whether Reid was a good negotiator in the background doesn’t matter, if at the end of the day
the people he’s negotiating with are intractable buffoons, whether bluedogs or lockstep Republicans.
… provided Senate Dems learn their lesson this time around and don’t repeat the mistake. Again. Unless we hear a quote to the effect of “we strongly support Sen. Reid and hope the good people of Nevada see fit to send him to Washington one more time, but in such an event as they don’t, we have full confidence in [insert progressive]’s ability to serve as majority leader.”
Until that point, I’d say the next majority leader would more likely be named Landrieu, Lieberman, or Nelson than Feingold, Franken, or Levin.
Your prediction only comes true if leadership desires to end the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party’s support of people, money and ideas. Put Lieberman anywhere but out of office and you will see the DFL become a minor party faster than Farve can throw a pass. Landrieu and Nelson are just slightly more palatable with the end result that the party dies a slow death instead of a quick one.
QUERY : Who will the TEAM pick ? Will the TaxEnoughAlreadyMovement pick the GOP candidate or the TEA Party candidate ?
Here’s the latest campaign fundraising statement from Danny Tarkanian :
Good news! Glenn Beck just featured my campaign as the Tea Party “radical” campaign in Nevada, along with the campaigns of Marco Rubio in Florida and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.”
A Battle Royale !