Tweet
SENATE DEMOCRATS SHOULD DITCH THEIR LEADER
By Jurek Martin
FT
September 28 2010 19:44
Harry Reid should lose his job. By that, I do not mean as the
US senator from Nevada, because his defeat by Sharron Angle, the
Republican Tea Party darling, in November would be an insult to the
intelligence of all with half a brain. But his time as the Democratic
leader in the "world's greatest deliberative (but dysfunctional)
body" needs to come to an end.
Consider what has been happening on his watch in the last week alone.
It makes no sense for the US not to have an ambassador in Azerbaijan,
a sensitive corner of the world, especially when there is a highly
qualified professional diplomat, not some used car dealer fat cat,
named for the job. But a senator up for re-election from the state
where expatriate Armenians, who do not like Azeris, most congregate
has put the nomination on hold.
But his nomination also stands in limbo because another senator,
who does not have to run again until 2014, will not allow it to be
considered until the government drops its temporary ban on off-shore
oil drilling.
Both these senators are Democrats - Barbara Boxer of California
and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - and both ignore Senator Reid with
impunity. It is also suspected that Ms Boxer prevailed on him not to
bring up for a vote, before the midterm elections, the contentious
measures that would extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class
though not for the richest Americans.
Even those with half a brain could be excused for thinking this was
a no-brainer as an election issue for the Democrats, one that could
rally the discontented faithful and put Republicans in the awkward
position of filibustering a proposal that would benefit the many at
the expense of the few.
The House of Representatives stands ready to pass such a bill;
President Barack Obama wants it enacted. But the Senate is the black
hole into which even good ideas disappear without trace or, if they
finally do emerge, like healthcare reform and financial deregulation,
do so in highly compromised form. And Mr Reid has consigned the tax
bill to a lame-duck session after the elections, when he is likely
to have fewer votes than he does now. I cannot figure this out.
The dysfunction of the Senate reflects many factors, all explored in a
searing article in The New Yorker this summer by George Packer. They
include outright Republican obstructionism, which, enabled by
obscure Senate rules and procedures such as filibusters and "holds" on
nominations, translates into the tyranny of the minority. The demise of
moderate Republicans willing to cross the aisle has not helped either.
But the Democrats in the chamber have just as much to answer for,
too many of them in hock to their own special interests and too many
seeming to think they should be president, on the Obama principle.
Certainly, too few identify with the man in the White House, especially
if, as this year, he cannot guarantee their re-election.
It should be soup and nuts for a strong majority leader to navigate
such choppy waters. But Mr Reid forever thinks small, delegating where
he should direct, deferential to a fault to party colleagues like Max
Baucus on healthcare and Chris Dodd on financial deregulation, whose
own leadership has been found sorely wanting in their supposed areas
of expertise. Whatever else may be said of her, much of it unkind,
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, at least knows
how to crack whips.
Last week, Mr Reid could not even get the defence spending bill
passed, not because of opposition to funding the military but because
he insisted on attaching to the bill two hot button issues - to end
discrimination against gays serving in uniform and, in the "Dream
Act", to give the children of illegal immigrants access to education
and a path to citizenship through military service.
Both are worthy causes but the Christmas tree method he employed almost
guaranteed uniform Republican opposition, exemplified by John McCain
in his grumpy old man mode, and Democratic defections. Indeed, given
the burgeoning Hispanic population in Nevada, you could be excused
for thinking he had his own re-election mostly in mind.
The quality of the Senate, in both parties, has rarely been lower,
but the Democrats, whether in majority or minority, can do better. A
personal shortlist to succeed Mr Reid would include Dick Durbin
of Illinois, Carl Levin of Michigan and the two Rhode Islanders,
Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, serious men all - but not, under
any circumstances, Charles Schumer of New York, though he doubtless
covets it.
If there is no shake-up at the top, then talent lower down the Senate
Democratic ranks, like the Udall cousins from New Mexico and Colorado
and Al Franken from Minnesota, will walk away from national politics,
disillusioned by the experience. You could hardly blame them.
From: A. Papazian
By Jurek Martin
FT
September 28 2010 19:44
Harry Reid should lose his job. By that, I do not mean as the
US senator from Nevada, because his defeat by Sharron Angle, the
Republican Tea Party darling, in November would be an insult to the
intelligence of all with half a brain. But his time as the Democratic
leader in the "world's greatest deliberative (but dysfunctional)
body" needs to come to an end.
Consider what has been happening on his watch in the last week alone.
It makes no sense for the US not to have an ambassador in Azerbaijan,
a sensitive corner of the world, especially when there is a highly
qualified professional diplomat, not some used car dealer fat cat,
named for the job. But a senator up for re-election from the state
where expatriate Armenians, who do not like Azeris, most congregate
has put the nomination on hold.
But his nomination also stands in limbo because another senator,
who does not have to run again until 2014, will not allow it to be
considered until the government drops its temporary ban on off-shore
oil drilling.
Both these senators are Democrats - Barbara Boxer of California
and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - and both ignore Senator Reid with
impunity. It is also suspected that Ms Boxer prevailed on him not to
bring up for a vote, before the midterm elections, the contentious
measures that would extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class
though not for the richest Americans.
Even those with half a brain could be excused for thinking this was
a no-brainer as an election issue for the Democrats, one that could
rally the discontented faithful and put Republicans in the awkward
position of filibustering a proposal that would benefit the many at
the expense of the few.
The House of Representatives stands ready to pass such a bill;
President Barack Obama wants it enacted. But the Senate is the black
hole into which even good ideas disappear without trace or, if they
finally do emerge, like healthcare reform and financial deregulation,
do so in highly compromised form. And Mr Reid has consigned the tax
bill to a lame-duck session after the elections, when he is likely
to have fewer votes than he does now. I cannot figure this out.
The dysfunction of the Senate reflects many factors, all explored in a
searing article in The New Yorker this summer by George Packer. They
include outright Republican obstructionism, which, enabled by
obscure Senate rules and procedures such as filibusters and "holds" on
nominations, translates into the tyranny of the minority. The demise of
moderate Republicans willing to cross the aisle has not helped either.
But the Democrats in the chamber have just as much to answer for,
too many of them in hock to their own special interests and too many
seeming to think they should be president, on the Obama principle.
Certainly, too few identify with the man in the White House, especially
if, as this year, he cannot guarantee their re-election.
It should be soup and nuts for a strong majority leader to navigate
such choppy waters. But Mr Reid forever thinks small, delegating where
he should direct, deferential to a fault to party colleagues like Max
Baucus on healthcare and Chris Dodd on financial deregulation, whose
own leadership has been found sorely wanting in their supposed areas
of expertise. Whatever else may be said of her, much of it unkind,
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, at least knows
how to crack whips.
Last week, Mr Reid could not even get the defence spending bill
passed, not because of opposition to funding the military but because
he insisted on attaching to the bill two hot button issues - to end
discrimination against gays serving in uniform and, in the "Dream
Act", to give the children of illegal immigrants access to education
and a path to citizenship through military service.
Both are worthy causes but the Christmas tree method he employed almost
guaranteed uniform Republican opposition, exemplified by John McCain
in his grumpy old man mode, and Democratic defections. Indeed, given
the burgeoning Hispanic population in Nevada, you could be excused
for thinking he had his own re-election mostly in mind.
The quality of the Senate, in both parties, has rarely been lower,
but the Democrats, whether in majority or minority, can do better. A
personal shortlist to succeed Mr Reid would include Dick Durbin
of Illinois, Carl Levin of Michigan and the two Rhode Islanders,
Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, serious men all - but not, under
any circumstances, Charles Schumer of New York, though he doubtless
covets it.
If there is no shake-up at the top, then talent lower down the Senate
Democratic ranks, like the Udall cousins from New Mexico and Colorado
and Al Franken from Minnesota, will walk away from national politics,
disillusioned by the experience. You could hardly blame them.
From: A. Papazian