Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Bunning's Beanball

When I was a kid, there was a colloquialism that was still popular in baseball. It may not be in popular use anymore, but Sen. Jim Bunning, R–Ky., could be bringing it back.

The colloquialism is "beanball," which described a pitch that was deliberately thrown at the head of the batter at the plate. Sometimes, pitchers throw what is called a "brushback pitch" as a means of intimidating batters, but those pitches aren't intended to hit batters — and they usually don't unless the pitcher who throws them does not have good control of his pitches.

A beanball, though, is a pitch that is believed to be aimed deliberately at a batter's head, and, whether it hits its target or not, it often results in the ejection of the pitcher from the game and, frequently, suspensions from future games.

Decades ago, Bunning was a major–league pitcher. I don't think he had a reputation for throwing beanballs. He was known for having a repertoire of effective pitches at his command. When he was brought up to the majors by the Detroit Tigers, he was described as possessing "an excellent curve ball, a confusing delivery and a sneaky fast ball," and he used them to accomplish the rarest of feats for a pitcher — a perfect game — in 1964.

In those days, Bunning was believed to have great control over his array of pitches. Now, however, as Bunning, 78, is about to step down as a U.S. senator, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wonders, justifiably, if Bunning is "down to only one pitch: the screwball."

Recently, Bunning — utilizing one of the archaic rules of the Senate — loudly objected to an extension of unemployment benefits, supposedly because the source of funding for it had not been identified.

So, instead of taking steps that could ease, if only temporarily, the suffering facing the nation's unemployed, the door was flung wide open for more political infighting.

"[T]here were many ways in which Democrats could have passed the extension earlier," writes Milbank. "But then they would have missed the satisfaction of fighting with Bunning."

And 21st century Democrats appear to prefer to play the blame game instead of actually doing something about the troublesome problem of unemployment. Consequently, Bunning's objection played into their hands. "Democrats can hardly believe the gift Bunning has given them," Milbank writes.

"The fact is my friends on the other side of the aisle are opposing extending unemployment benefits for people who are out of work," declared Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — who has not decided to retire, although the voters of his state appear to be on the verge of making that decision for him.

Supposedly, no one in the Senate — not even Bunning — objects to extending the benefits. Bunning says he is making a stand against increasing the deficit. And that has given Democras like Vice President Joe Biden, whose party has had more than a year to encourage job creation but has not done so, an opportunity to say things like, "At a time when so many families are in so much pain we shouldn't be shutting the few valves of relief. ... We should be opening that spigot a little wider not shutting it down."

Hey, guys, would you do me — and the millions of other unemployed Americans — a favor?

When you get finished playing your word games and pointing your fingers, would you authorize that extension before you take your vacation?

We've got bills to pay.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

A Private Conversation


"That's a secret private world you're looking into out there. People do a lot of things in private they couldn't possibly explain in public."

Lt. Thomas J. Doyle
Rear Window (1954)

First of all, let me say I am not a fan of Harry Reid. But I don't live in Nevada. I have never lived in Nevada. I have never even been to Nevada. So I have never had to decide whether to vote for him or not. That decision has been left to others.

Nevertheless, it has been clear to observers, both inside and outside Nevada, for quite awhile now that Reid faces an uphill climb in his bid for re–election this year.

The Las Vegas Review–Journal recently reported that Reid trails three likely Republican challengers for his seat.

But Reid's problems with the electorate are independent of the latest flap he's found himself entangled in — which has left him groveling like a severely beaten dog.

I refer to remarks Reid apparently made privately during the 2008 presidential campaign, remarks that are being reported in a new book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.
"He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a 'light–skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.' "

Mark Halperin and John Heilemann
Game Change

People are getting all bent out of shape over something that Reid said in private.

I could understand the uproar if Reid had made the comments to a reporter who was holding a microphone in his/her hand. But I don't know if he did or not. Or if he had made the comments in a speech. I know he did not do that.

I haven't read the book so I don't know the context in which Reid made his remarks. Was he answering a question from someone else? Was he volunteering his thoughts on the matter? Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times reports that Reid "made the remark to the authors in the context of praising Mr. Obama's political skills," but that doesn't really answer my questions. Did Halperin and/or Heilemann ask for his assessment? Did he volunteer it?

Zeleny adds, "An aide to Mr. Reid said the comments about how he believed the country would accept Mr. Obama ... were not intended for use in the book."

What I do know is that Reid has dutifully carried the water for the Obama administration for nearly a year. He has been an advocate of health care reform. He supported the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. He supported the pork–laden stimulus package. Can anyone name a single thing that has originated in the Obama White House that Reid has not supported?

That's a secret private world ...

And, even if, as he now says, he "deeply regret[s]" his choice of words, he was making an assessment of a black politician's chances of winning a national election — something that had never happened before.

In order to make such an evaluation, it would be impossible not to use words that referred to Obama's race — just as, 50 years ago, it would have been impossible to evaluate John F. Kennedy's chances of being elected president without referring to his Catholicism. Like it or not, the issues Reid addressed were expected to be factors in a general election campaign that was months away.

Reid's assessment, by the way, was favorable, a point that seems to get lost in the knee–jerk reactions many on the left are having. "Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination," Halperin and Heilemann write.

Those who have insisted on making this an issue should be reminded that the economic meltdown — which most people believe was the point in the election chronology when Obama began to lock up his victory — didn't happen until after the conventions.

So Reid's concerns about the influence of race on the 2008 election were well founded — whether it is politically correct to acknowledge it today.

And that still doesn't change the fact that Reid's comments apparently were made in confidence, not in public.

That's a secret private world ...

Saturday, December 12, 2009

The Filibuster-Proof Senate Majority

You know that 60–seat, filibuster–proof majority the Democrats openly coveted in the Senate during the 2008 campaign? The one that, in the weeks just before his death, Ted Kennedy was so obsessed with preserving that he lobbied lawmakers in Massachusetts to change the rules so an interim senator could be appointed to take his place while others ran in the special election that will choose the person who will serve for the remainder of his unexpired term?

Well, more and more, it looks like actually holding those 60 seats (which includes two seats that are held by independent/third–party senators who caucus with the Democrats) in the 2010 midterm elections is going to be a tough sell.

If, as appears likely, the Democrats lose legislative ground next year, is that going to be a reflection on Barack Obama? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Obama's extremist agenda has been hard for some centrist Democrats to get behind — and is, therefore, something of an albatross for Democrats who will be on the ballot next year.

And no, because Obama is not the first personally popular president to face this situation. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both were personally popular presidents whose agendas were not popular. Both saw their parties lose ground in Congress during the midterms, but each rebounded enough to win second terms.

Such a fate may await Obama. Only time will tell. For that matter, only time will tell whether Obama's Democrats lose ground in Congress on a scale that approaches what Reagan, who also saw unemployment go into double digits on his watch, or Clinton experienced.

But public opinion surveys certainly suggest the enormity of the task facing the Democrats in the Senate.

Not that the filibuster–proof majority has proven to be as valuable to Democrats as they thought it would be. Unless Democrats can actually gain ground next year, they will continue to need folks like Joe Lieberman — who hasn't been shy about threatening to use the filibuster (which kind of defeats the purpose of having a "filibuster–proof" majority) on sensitive matters like health care reform.

When you consider the problems Senate Democrats have had keeping people in line on the tough questions, it is doubtful whether the filibuster–proof majority has done them much good. So maybe losing it wouldn't be so tragic for them — certainly not as tragic as another year of unemployment will be for their constituents.

Most of the senators whose seats will be on the 2010 ballots were elected in 2004. In that election — which may have been influenced by things like the swiftboating charges against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and a widely circulated message from Osama bin Laden the weekend before the election — Republicans picked up four seats.

If the 2010 Senate elections featured only the seats that would normally be on the ballot, Republicans would have to defend 19 seats and Democrats would have to defend 15. But Democrats also will have to defend the seats previously held by Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, which are currently held by caretakers. Thus, there will be 19 Republican seats and 17 Democratic seats technically in play in the midterms.

And many of those Democratic seats appear to be in jeopardy:
  • One of the most apparent problem seats for the Democrats is the one held by Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

    Dodd is a "dead senator walking," writes Mark Hemingway in the Washington Examiner. And recent polls, which show his GOP challengers in front — Rob Simmons by double digits and Linda McMahon by smaller margins — seem to support that conclusion.

    So, too, for that matter, does Vice President Joe Biden, who attended a fundraiser for Dodd in Connecticut recently but nevertheless commented — a tad undiplomatically, albeit truthfully — that the five–term senator is "getting the living hell beat out of him."

    That must be an astonishing development for Democrats as well as Republicans, given the facts that (a) three–fifths of Connecticut voters supported Barack Obama for president last year and (b) Dodd received the backing of nearly two–thirds of the state's voters when he was re–elected in 2004.

  • Dodd, though, is far from being the only endangered Democrat in the Senate.

    Sen. Arlen Specter, whose defection from the Republican Party in April enabled Democrats to cobble together their 60–seat majority (and, according to many political observers, permitted him to avoid a bruising battle for renomination), faces an uphill climb in Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey, the conservative former congressman who nearly denied Specter renomination in 2004, announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination a couple of weeks before Specter announced his party switch — and it was widely believed by many that Toomey would have a strong chance to win, given how many of the state's Republicans were disgruntled by Specter's support for the economic stimulus package.

    The assumption most of this year has been that Specter and Toomey will meet in the fall campaign, where the numbers seem to be more favorable for a Democratic candidate. Instead of appealing only to Republicans, as the two did in 2004, the audience this time would be more diverse — more than 50% of registered voters in Pennsylvania are Democrats compared to 37% who are Republicans.

    But the general election is not Specter's only concern. In spite of the fact that he has been in the Senate for nearly 30 years, the 80–year–old Specter can't necessarily count on being nominated by his new party. Joe Sestak, a two–term, moderate–to–liberal congressman (who, incidentally, is 58 years old today), does not pose a serious threat at this stage, but that may change when the campaign season is in full swing. At the very least, he may prove to be a persistent nuisance for Specter at a time when he would prefer to be setting aside his resources to fend off Toomey, who leads both potential Democratic rivals, according to recent polls.

  • Harry Reid is the majority leader, but that isn't necessarily going to help him when he faces the voters in Nevada.

    Sherman Frederick writes, in the Las Vegas Review–Journal, that Reid's prospects are bleak. "Reid's getting the thumbs down from 49 percent of Nevada voters," he writes, adding that polls show both of his potential Republican challengers would win the election if it were held today.

    That's quite a decline for a man who was re–elected with 61% of the vote in 2004.

  • Given their recent electoral successes, Democrats may have hoped to pick up the seat being vacated by Republican George Voinovich. But Republicans appear to be competitive in the battle for Voinovich's seat. The presumptive GOP nominee, Rob Portman, has been leading both of his Democratic rivals in recent polls.
Those are just four seats, but if Democrats lose even one (except for the Ohio seat, which is currently in Republican hands), their filibuster–proof majority will be gone (assuming Democrats fail to buck the historical trend and win a seat that is currently held by the Republicans).

And that doesn't take into account any seats that appear at least somewhat safe today but may not turn out to be as the 2010 election scenarios began to reveal themselves.

Assume nothing.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Wishing for the Good Old Days


"What we're in is not a Republican recession or a Democratic recession; both parties had much to do with bringing us where we are today. But we're facing a national situation which calls for the best which all of us can produce, because we know the results will be something which we will regret."

Mike Mansfield

I've heard it called the "good old days syndrome."

It is a desire one often hears expressed by older people, a longing for the heroes of the past. It tends to imply that modern leaders/heroes lack something that those from yesteryear had.

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. But, just so we're on the same page here, is there any better example of what I'm talking about than the exchange between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988?

Quayle compared his qualifications to John F. Kennedy's when asked what qualified him to be president. I suppose he could just as easily have compared his congressional experience to Walter Mondale's and Bob Dole's when they ran against each other for the vice presidency in 1976. But I guess Kennedy's iconic status was too tempting to resist. And Bentsen was waiting to pounce.

Anyway, this week, I've seen a couple of "good–old–days–syndrome" observations:
  • At Politico.com, Jake Sherman and Michael Calderone write that David Broder, a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist, believes that Harry Reid is no Mike Mansfield.

    In an ideologically driven era — and, trust me, there have been times in our history when the houses of Congress were led by lawmakers who put the interests of the nation ahead of ideology and party labels — Broder "favors pragmatists over fierce ideologues." He has expressed his admiration for legislators like Mansfield and Howard Baker, and he has been open in his criticism of Reid.

    Mansfield had to negotiate some choppy waters during his years as majority leader, and he took positions opposing the Vietnam War and supporting civil rights that weren't always popular. But he knew how to work with the members of the other party.

    I'll acknowledge that Reid often appears incapable of keeping his fellow Democrats in line. I almost feel like I'm watching a Woody Allen movie sometimes. Annie Hall Goes to Washington.

  • The other interesting article I've seen was written by John Nichols in The Nation.

    Nichols reflects on the presidential Thanksgiving proclamation and compares Barack Obama (unfavorably) to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    He finds Obama's proclamation to be "no more poetic, and no more adventurous, than those issued by George W. Bush."

    Ouch! Them's fightin' words when you're talking about a president whose speaking skills clearly set him apart from his predecessor.

    But I must admit that Obama's plain vanilla proclamation left a lot to be desired.

    And Nichols makes a good case for not "carrying on where Bush left off" but aiming higher. He sets as the target (unattainable as it may be) FDR's proclamation on Thanksgiving 68 years ago.
    "May we ask guidance in more surely learning the ancient truth that greed and selfishness and striving for undue riches can never bring lasting happiness or good to the individual or to his neighbors.

    "May we be grateful for the passing of dark days; for the new spirit of dependence one on another; for the closer unity of all parts of our wide land; for the greater friendship between employers and those who toil; for a clearer knowledge by all nations that we seek no conquests and ask only honorable engagements by all peoples to respect the lands and rights of their neighbors; for the brighter day to which we can win through by seeking the help of God in a more unselfish striving for the common bettering of mankind."


    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Thanksgiving 1941

    "Here was a president seeking not to deny economic turbulence but to offer a vision for responding to that turbulence as united citizenry rather than as isolated individuals," writes Nichols. "This message was a constant for Roosevelt as he implemented the New Deal."

    FDR was a tough act to follow, all right. But, for Obama, it seems to me the proclamation was his opportunity to engage the nation as Roosevelt did. As it was with his failure to speak about unemployment on Labor Day, though, Obama the orator came up short of expectations.

    I am reminded of an exchange of dialogue from the final episode of The West Wing. The newly elected president was about to take the oath of office and then deliver his inaugural address. He and the outgoing president were riding to the Capitol, engaging in a little chit–chat, and the outgoing president asked about the speech. The new president replied that it had a few good lines, but there was no "ask not what your country can do for you ..."

    The outgoing president smiled. "Yeah, JFK really screwed us on that one, didn't he?"
Well, there's a good reason why these guys are remembered. They were giants.

And they give today's leaders standards to aim for.

In some ways, I guess, the good old days were better than you might have thought.