Not all at once, now, because we don't want to break the search engine, but some time today go to the Search link up in the right column and click this link. It will give you the last three days of comments on this site about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. (You can choose an arbitrary period of them if you want; but bear in mind that that search alone just gave me 548 comments.) A small sample of them will give you the flavor of the attitude of people here towards him. It ain't pretty.
How and why and when does Harry Reid matter to us now? He'll be taking critical actions at several major points in the near future:
(1) He'll be deciding whether to include a public option in the "final" Senate bill, which it takes 60 votes to amend (both in a better and in a worse direction);
(2) He'll be deciding whether and how to split that "final" Senate bill so that the reconciliation process, which requires 51 votes but goes through the hostile Budget Committee, where Chair Kent Conrad, "reconciliation process purist" Robert Byrd, and a united Republican contingent oppose it;
(3) He'll be shepherding the final Senate version of a bill (or split bills), in whatever form, through final voting;
(4) He'll be appointing members of a conference Committee;
(5) He'll be shepherding the bill reported out by the conference committee through final passage in the Senate.
The message you're hearing now is that point (1) is critical. It isn't. Not even (2) is necessarily critical. (3) is critical. While we would have much to gain if we could get a good final version of the Senate bill into the conference committee, doing so wouldn't guarantee success and failing to do so wouldn't indicate failure. What would indicate failure is failing at point (3).
We will, though, probably get through point (3), whether with a good bill or a bad one. Why? Because the Senate leadership will compromise as much as necessary to get past point (3), because if we don't do that, the process dies. And what gets through point (3), while it would be nice if it were great, isn't all that important.
What's important, and what's in doubt, is point (4). That's the place where Reid has the most complete discretion: choosing the people who will fashion the final bill over which we will have one of the most hellacious fights in recent Senate history, for which we need 60 votes for cloture to prevail, at point (5). (Note: depending on what comes out of the conference committee, many of us won't even want him to succeed at point (5). He pretty much already knows that.)
That point, point (4), is where we need his goodwill. That's where, through sub rosa agreements with the conferees he appoints, he can save us or screw us. That's where it really is all in his hands. It's not just technically "all in his hands," like his ability to force a public option into the bill even if it means failing at step (3). It's really, truly, all in his hands.
That's where we depend on his good will.
Now I believe that he knows that his political fate, even more so than the rest of the party's, is tied to health care reform. He's a bright guy, knows his stuff, even though he tends to have the typical Democrat's concern for currying the favor of the right wing of the party in order to get 60 votes. He doesn't feel that way because he's an imbecile. He feels that way because he is concentrating on the bottom line, and fate has handed him at least nine or so Senators whose loyalty to the Democratic Party is that of a cat to its owner -- that of a very hungry cat to its comatose owner. (They'd eat us up in a second if they thought they could get away with it.)
Now we could take, basically, one of two approaches towards Reid. We can say this:
"Senator Reid, we need for you to concentrate on the bottom line. We don't care how you do it, but at the end of the day, we need you to pass a bill with a robust public option, which means getting the bill out of the Senate, appointing the right conferees, and then twisting the arms of any recalcitrant Senators in the caucus until their eyes pop out. We're counting on you to get it done."
Or we could say this:
Senator Reid, you are a knave and a failure and we can't wait to see you run out of office and we want to vote against you ourselves. We know that you are ready to betray us and we hate you. If you don't do what we want at stage (1), even if it means that we don't pass a bill at all at stage (3), you betray us.
Now, the second approach is really emotionally satisfying. But is it smart? Is there a strategy behind it?
Which one do you think you'll find predominating if you read the last three days -- or longer, or shorter -- of comments?
The search engine is safe, I think. You don't even have to click that link to answer that one, do you?
Look, folks, cool it on Reid and what he does at step (1). Pressure him like hell, absolutely, but only on the bottom line. Pressure him on appointing the conferees who will create the best possible bill and on doing whatever it takes to get the damn thing passed. Let him know that we expect him not to betray us.