Reid v. Schumer on the Meaning of 60

On Sen. Al Franken's first day in Washington, ready for his swearing in tomorrow, we heard more from Harry Reid about how that magical number he's been fundraising off of for the last four years isn't so magical after all.

"If the last eight years have showed us anything it’s that the American people want us to work together," Reid said. "It’s up to them to decide if they want to continue to sit down and be the party of no or to sit down and work for the common good of the people. It’s up to them. I hope the party of no is coming to an end."

"We have and will continue to offer Republicans a seat at the negotiating table," Reid said.

Actually, what the last eight years showed us was that the American people finally recognized that Republicans are utterly incapable of governing, and they gave that job to Democrats, so that they could finally do something to make government work, to make the country work. And job number one is health care reform.

Contrast that, as Greg Sargent does with Chuck Schumer's statements about the public option:

"If you did a consensus within the Democratic Party, you would find the level-playing-field public option to be the answer," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "And now that we have 60 votes, it seems to me like we don’t have to turn it inside out for something we don’t like."

Reid is narrowly right that it’s still an uphill slog to 60 votes, and Reid wasn’t talking policy specifics. But the difference in tone is instructive. It’s unclear why Dems would concede the possibility of failure in advance. Seems like it makes more sense to stake out a strong position, say you’re going to the mat for it, avoid conceding any ground, and make opponents grapple with how to deal with it, as Schumer is doing.

Of course it make more sense to stake out a strong position heading into a debate, particularly when you DO have the numbers to make it a reality. Maybe Reid feels burned from the high expectations game he set up with the first Iraq war supplemental after the Dems narrowly won the Senate majority in 2006. It's different now. There's a Democratic president AND 60 Dem votes in the Senate, and the mandate of the American people--reflected in that Dem president and 60 vote majority--to get in there and govern already, dammit.