A few days ago, we discussed the latest cave-in by Senator Harry Reid, involving the lovefest for Senator Ted Stevens. While certain human courtesy is due even people like Stevens, the lovefest went way overboard. While people are not convinced that primarying Reid out is the answer (only 40% picked that solution), there is a growing consensus that something must be done about Harry Reid, who is a liability as majority leader, given the fact that he has established a systematic pattern of allowing people to walk all over him. In addition, Reid is one of the least progressive members of the Senate despite being in a state that is rapidly trending blue. Therefore, I submit that we should replace Reid as majority leader with someone who is much more progressive.
Listed below are the 14 most progressive Democrats in the Senate:
Whitehouse, Sheldon
Brown, Sherrod
Reed, Jack
Cardin, Benjamin L.
Menendez, Robert
Kennedy, Edward M.
Boxer, Barbara
Durbin, Richard
Lautenberg, Frank R.
Levin, Carl
Harkin, Tom
Klobuchar, Amy
Casey, Robert P., Jr.
Leahy, Patrick J.
Any one of these 14 would push through an agenda that is far more progressive than Harry Reid would in the Senate. Out of these, we know that Brown, Leahy, and Boxer voted against Lieberman; given the secret nature of the balloting, which does not pass the smell test, we do not know how any of the other Senators voted on this issue. This simply does not pass the smell test -- if we really want change, then we must insist that such votes be done out in the open so that we can hold our Senators accountable. Since they took this vote in secret, what do they have to hide?
Those people who claim or imply that Obama is in charge of the Senate and that it was his call to make completely misapprehend the nature of our government. Our country was founded on the concept of separation of powers; in other words, the executive and legislative branches are separate branches of government.
And we have to remember something else -- this is Daily Kos, not Daily Obama. Our job is not to march in lockstep with Obama, but to hold our elected officials accountable and insist that they do what we elected them to do. I fail to understand how keeping one of George Bush's biggest cheerleaders at Homeland Security can be construed as change. If we are going to be Daily Obama, then we might as well close this website down, close down every other progressive blog out there, and all sign up for Obama's site and post there. And recall that our Senators signed onto his agenda -- it was a delegation of 10 of them who went to Hillary in the primary and convinced her that her position was hopeless.
It is not our job to "walk on by" when our elected officials show tolerance for a convicted felon. If we really want change, then what are we doing standing on the sidelines and blindly letting our elected officials do their jobs? The time when we could blindly let the powers that be do their jobs is over -- that time passed after Bush lied to get us into war with Iraq. They gave up that privilege when they went along with that. It is not our job to "walk on by" until the last vestiges of the Bush administration's culture of corruption are all gone. And even then, we must maintain a constant state of vigilance so that they never take power again.
Harry Reid's actions, as evidenced by his caving in on the Lieberman issue and his turning over the Senate floor for five hours of Peace and Love for Ted Stevens amount to spit in the face to the American public. The fact that it has always been this way in the Senate does not mean jack shit -- we voted for change; therefore, we cannot do things the way that they were anymore. We must do things differently, or we risk losing power again in 2012 and beyond. 2010 is shaping up to be a good year for us by all accounts. But after that, we must play defense on more seats than they do because the Class of 2006 will be up for election.
Now, I realize that institutions are slow in changing -- that is why I see, and Kos sees this as a long-term project. That is why arguments that involve "wait another six months" do not hold water. There is always an excuse to wait. If we had taken up these excuses to wait in the 1950's and 1960's, then we would not have gotten Civil Rights in this country. We are in control of our own destiny. As long as we are alive in this world, we help shape our future as well as that of those who come after us. We must act now -- not some other time. Every delay of several months that we make in getting change to Washington could translate into years given the fact that institutions are so slow to change.
It's just like chess -- the leaders can't even move in the initial position (except for the Knights) until the pawns move. A Queen can't presume to jump over pieces and jump into the action when she is blocked by the pawns. And politics is just like chess in another respect -- if a protected pawn or a Bishop attacks a Queen, she must flee for safety; it is not like the ancient aristocracies, where everyone had to make way for the nobles and the kings. In the same respect, when we put sufficient pressure on our elected officials through the threat of primary challenges and challenges to their positions, then they must flee -- or face defeat at the polls. As Pithy Cherub stated, one act or one person can change the whole dynamic.
Now, there were polite ways of handling these sorts of situations. Reid could have told Obama that it was up to the caucus to decide Lieberman's fate, but that he would relay his views on to them. He could have refused to attend the Stevens lovefest, or not allowed it to take place. Sometimes, it's a matter of saying that we have to preserve the dignity of the Senate as an institution, and that we can't be party to a lovefest for a man who is a convicted criminal. He could even wish Stevens well in private -- no need to turn the Senate floor into a lovefest. What kind of message does it send our children when our elected officials condone lawbreaking by their implicit consent?
And there was another message sent when Reid turned the Senate floor over to Peace and Love for Ted Stevens, convicted felon. The message being sent was that the well-being of a convicted felon was more important than the well-being of the American people, who are struggling to pay the bills and barely getting by. What kind of a message does that send? Is Reid suggesting that if we work hard and play by the rules, we don't matter? Is that the kind of "change" that we voted for in the last election?
This is not a matter of political calculation -- this is a simple matter of right and wrong. Torture should not be a matter of political calculation. Entering a war of choice should not be a matter of political calculation. Taking away our protections against illegal searches and seizures should not be a matter of political calculation. Some things are a matter of right and wrong. And this is one of them. A refusal to allow the Senate floor to be turned into a lovefest for Stevens would have sent a message that the American people voted for change and that as their elected representative and as majority leader, Senator Reid was not going to associate the Senate as an institution with the condoning of Stevens' corruption. Put the Republicans on the defensive. Let them go on the floor when the Senate is adjourned like the House Republicans did over drilling -- a lot of good that did them, seeing that they lost 20 seats in the last election.
Harry Reid cares more about the poor hurt feelings of a convicted felon than he does about our well-being when we work hard, play by the rules, and make just enough to get by. What about the hurt feelings of millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in this crisis? How about those who are losing their life savings in the Stock Market? And Harry Reid's cave-ins have not been limited to small issues like Stevens. Consider what has happened on his watch:
Iraq
FISA
Roberts
Alito
Nuclear Option
Impeachment
Lieberman
While there were plenty of substantive cave-ins, Stevens is a perfect symbol of how out of whack Harry Reid's priorities are when he would prioritize the well-being of a convicted felon over that of the American people.
I will not "give it a rest." We voted for change. We did not vote for prioritizing the poor little hurt feelings of Ted Stevens over the economy. And Harry Reid had better FUCKING WELL get with the program, or he had better find another line of work. I think I speak for most Americans here, seeing that Congress' approval ratings are in the toilet. We are sick and tired of Harry Reid acting like a whipped puppy every time the Republicans want some kind of favors. So, no, I will not give it a rest. I will give it a rest when Reid stops bowing and scraping at the feet of George Bush, or whoever becomes the face of the right after he leaves office.
If Harry Reid wants our respect back, then he needs to earn it. And that means keeping the promises that he made to Cenk Uygur in this interview here:
If we are going to push the ouster of Reid as majority leader, then we need to do this as a community. That means that it can't be my decision; it must be your decision. We need a two-thirds majority to continue with this series of diaries. If we get it, then, in my next diary, I will poll the community on who Reid should be replaced with, with the top 14 progressive senators that I listed above. Anyone can nominate someone not on the list -- when someone places last, I will bump them off and put the new nominee on. I will also include a None of the Above option. If we decide not to pursue this, then we will take this issue up the next time Reid caves in.