Harry Reid is UNFIT to be Majority Leader
Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:13:32 PM PDT
The first half of this diary is snark. Read all the way through before commenting.
That’s it, I’m done, feed up finished. He’s been my favorite member of the Democratic leadership ever since I found out he once strangled someone for offering him a bribe. He’s run rings around the Senate Republican leaders as minority leader. Back when we were still in the minority, he put the Senate in closed scission and won a news cycle against the Republican majority at a time when America was finally waking up to what everyone here already knew.
But I found out today none of that matters
He’s joined Russ Feingold in leading the charge to end the Iraq War. He’s taken a hard line against the Boy King’s petulance, in the face of ridicule by the Beltway gasbag punditry, demanding Bush to sign the Congress’ bill as is, no compromise.
But none of that matters, because guess what, Harry Reid isn’t pro-choice. In fact, he’s pretty hostile to choice. He’s not quite out there in Bob Casey territory, and I’d hesitate to call him "anti-choice", but pro-a woman’s right to chose he ain’t.
Here’s Reid’s record. The main saving grace is that the anti-choice groups are about as luke warm to him as the pro-chioce ones, but if you look at his voting record, you’ll find things that make any one concerned about woman’s’ rights cringe.
As I learned today, this makes him unfit, not only to be majority leader, but to be a congressional Democrat.
Why is this? Apparently because
To the Kossacks who say those of us pro-choice women are just "single issue voters" when they complain that we can’t afford any more anti-choice Dems, WE WERE RIGHT. Taking back the House and the Senate was great—but it doesn’t do women any good if we don’t have a majority of PRO-CHOICE Dems who will protect our rights. We can’t count on pro-choice Republicans to vote with us—but we CAN count on the anti-choice Dems like Casey to cross the aisle as two did with the stem cell bill.
So say it loud and clear—It’s Pro-Choice or NO choice.
Pro-choice or NO Choice, it’s all so clear now.
Never mind that even though Reid voted for the partial-birth ban, it never would have come to a vote under a Democratic majority. Never mind that had Democrats been in charge in the last congress, the court would still be 5-4 in favor of a woman’s right to chose. Never mind that anti-choice Dems like Bob Casey never would have voted to confirm a judge like Samuel Alito because he’s as hostile to interests near and dear to their hearts (in Casey’s case labor) as he is to women. We’re better off with out Reid, with out Casey, with out any Senator or Representative who isn’t 100% on board with what you and I believe. We’re better off with out the whole stink’s lot, I say.
Let’s go back to a Republican majority. We were better off with a group of powerless but pure Democrats who couldn’t actually do anything to stop the dominionist hordes from running roughshod over woman’s rights and common sense, because by God, we’d be ideologically pure! That’s what really matters. Not actually protecting woman’s rights in reality, but in the abstract. Abstract liberty is the best kind of liberty! Hell, we’re liberals, we should love everything Edmund Burke hated anyway, right?
The fact I’ve invoked the name of a enlightenment political scientist should probably be my cue to cut the snark. It’s sort of my personal Godwin’s Law.
In all seriousness, I am disgusted with the myopia of some groups here and in the Democratic party at large (and this doesn't just apply to pro-choice groups, but also to environmentalists, and civil-rights, and labor etc.). People so fixated. This is the same mentality that lead NARAL to endorse Republican incumbents instead of pro-choice Democratic challengers, and actually send out fliers congratulating Joe Lieberman for his "brave" vote against Alito, never mind that supposedly "pro-choice" Lieberman voted for Alito on the only vote that mattered.
This is what lies at the center of my long-standing and continued outrage at the so-called "single issue" voters, many of whom are so wrapped up in their personal cause that they assume anyone not on board with them 100% is their enemy.
Bob Casey is anti-choice, but extremely pro-organized labor. Do you think someone like that would not have done everything in their power to prevent someone like Alito from rising to the highest court in the land? Do you think Harry Reid would go against the wishes of a majority of his caucus and allow an atrocity like the partial birth ban to come to the floor (and that’s ignoring the fact that the decision would likely be taken out of his hands by a Democratic committee chair)?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be concerned about the positions of Democratic congressional candidates on matters of woman’s rights (and certainly if any of them ran on a platform of dominionist style opposition to choice, that would be a deal breaker). However, their position on choice needs to be viewed on context, never in the abstract (Burke's seeping into my conscious again).
We need to learn to look at candidates’ values and positions on balance. We have to learn how to accept people with views different from, even hostile to our own. And we should not hesitate from using are considerable and increasing power to prevent someone like Bob Casey from taking the chair of a committee where he would be in a position to preside over issues of choice.
But we have to accept that we live in a world where if we demand 100% purity we will end up with 0% of what we want.
And in closing, as I recall (and someone correct my in the comments if I’m wrong), during the 1980s we had an anti-choice Democratic house speaker. But he never once let a constitutional amendment banning abortion come up for a vote.
Update [2007-4-20 18:2:5 by Goldfish]: So I was wrong to use Casey as an example of someone who would have agreed with Alito on choice, but would have voted against him for other reasons. As pointed out in the comments, Casey endorsed Alito's confrimintion, explictily mentioning Alito's hostility to labor, but saying he should be confirmed anyway. This, IMO, the same kind of myopia and fear of rocking the boat that leads to NARAL endorsing Republicans who end up voting for anti-choice judges. Irony upon irony.
Permalink | 60 comments