I don’t pay much attention to state-level politics, even in my home-state of Pennsylvania, but Jon Ralston single-handedly makes Nevada politics compelling. He is assisted, of course, by the curious and unique history of the state, which makes for all manner of strange alliances and double-dealing. Of course, the fact that Nevada’s senior senator is the Majority Leader of the Senate and the second most powerful man in Congress also adds interest to that state’s local politics.
I enjoyed reading Ralston’s profile of Harry Reid in Politico Magazine, and I learned quite a bit that I didn’t know. For example, I didn’t know that Reid is no longer talking to Ralston because he’s angry about Ralston’s reporting on some of his children. I didn’t know that Reid put Governor Brian Sandoval on the federal bench to prevent him from running against him in 2010, or that he is trying to get Lucy Flores elected lieutenant governor so that Sandoval can’t resign to run against him in 2016. I also hadn’t really considered the idea that the DNC moved the Nevada caucuses to near the beginning of the primary calendar in 2008 in order to help Reid get organized for 2010. One thing is clear; Harry Reid plans ahead.
My feelings about Reid have evolved. In May 2009, I declared him “dead to me” over his position on the closing of the prison in Guantanamo Bay. He had said in a press conference “We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.” I still haven’t forgiven him for that, but I have learned better how Reid operates. He doesn’t move until he has the votes, and then he brings out the brass knuckles. I think he has also been evolving. I knew something had changed when he called President Bush a “liar” and “a loser.” I think the demographics of his state have changed to the point that he doesn’t feel like he has to project an image of independence or centrism anymore, and he appears liberated as a result. I think he’s also come to see the Republicans as people who you can’t compromise with, which is a foreign concept in an institution like the Senate. It’s given him some backbone that he seemed to lack in the middle of the last decade.
More than anything else, though, he reflects the sentiments of his caucus. And his caucus has moved to the left and learned to embrace a more combative style of politics. There is only so much you can do when you need the approval of people like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Kent Conrad. Now he has a new generation of senators like Chris Murphy, Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Mazie Hirono, Martin Heinrich, Tom Udall, and Bernie Sanders who are pushing him hard in a different direction.
The end result is that Harry Reid seems to be a better political leader and ally than he used to be.
He’s still needs to atone for that Gitmo thing, though. After releasing two Saudis today, there are still 160 prisoners languishing in that prison. That’s not Harry Reid’s fault, but he shares the blame because he buckled under and went over to the dark side back in May of 2009.
So exactly how are Harry Reid and his caucus going to “embrace the suck”?
I read Reid’s autobiography a few years back. It included a photo of Reid back in the early 1950s. He was wearing dungarees and a duck’s ass hair-do. No one could possibly look at that photo today and say, “Oh yeah, that’s Harry Reid.”
Reid has always reminded me of the almost too-soft spoken Dem majority leader Mike Mansfield, certainly in terms of being perceived as a quiet, congenial personality who nevertheless was able to operate effectively behind the scenes.
And like Reid, Mansfield had his detractors — early on in the ’60s when Kennedy’s domestic program seemed stalled in Congress and MM got some of the blame for ineffectiveness, and during LBJ’s VN buildup when the staunchly antiwar Mansfield refused to publicly criticize Johnson’s insane war. He looked better in retrospect to a great extent.
This could also be the case for Reid, and like Mansfield, who got a stronger more liberal Congress to work with following the 1964 election, Reid seems to be doing better as his hand is strengthened with a less conservative group of senate Dems. A darn sight better than Tom Daschle certainly.
That reflects the fact that majority leaders are elected by their caucus and too far a departure from their views causes turmoil and a new majority leader. It is only a personal quality to the extent that a majority leader resists it in the name of “principle”. Or to the extent that the majority leader must choose between the positions of two factions in a dramatically split caucus.
Leaders tend not to speak for themselves but for the institution they are leading, unless they hedge a statement with their own personal opinion that they are failing to follow. Which is why the backbenchers in the US Senate are more important to focus on than the grandstanders. More often than not, any compromises have to be made to them to get them on board.