Nov 20 2008
Conciliation We Can Believe In
It is one thing to want conciliation; it is an entirely other to claim it, after eating a big slice of humble pie.
Senator Harry Reid announced on Tuesday, that it was time to move forward and keep working, after his failed attempt to humiliate Senator Joe Lieberman for exercising his freedom of speech. Reid bravely told his own story, involving a valiant effort to lock away and hide his anger — which he wasn’t that successful at doing. The entire reason the Lieberman witch-hunt was set into motion was Reid’s seething remarks that come election day, Senator Lieberman was going to face a reckoning. It was because of the backroom support of fellow Democrats, not Senator Reid, that Senator Lieberman won the overwhelming confidence of Democrats. The final vote tally was 42-13, in Lieberman’s favor, leaving him with his coveted chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee. I have a good guess as to who one of the losing 13 was.
Perhaps Reid realized that an unfavorable verdict on Tuesday could have pushed Senator Lieberman into the Republican caucus, effectively leaving the Democrats with a maximum of 59, not 60 votes, or one vote shy of the coveted filibuster-proof free Senate. If Reid was ever truly interested in a real spirit of post-election bipartisanship, he never would have set this failed vote up, or at least would have canceled the vote in the days leading up to it. Because he failed to do either, Reid showed that he is not serious about any such benevolent spirit.
Senator Reid can pompously declare a win for as long as he likes; revisionists often have a knack for changing reality to fit their view of what should have been, versus what actually was. What happened on Tuesday was a stunning win for the good Senator from Connecticut, compounded by the fact that even anonymously, his fellow Senators overwhelmingly voted confidence in his abilities as a leader.
3 Responses to “Conciliation We Can Believe In”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
Personally, I think it was just as big a win for Obama. After all, he is the head of the Democratic Party, and is supposed to set the tone and the agenda for that party.
Reid was one of the top dogs, when there was no President in their party, but now (or at least in January) there is. He is going to have to learn to dance to another man’s tune, even tho he is nominally working for another independent branch of government.
But Party is separate from Government, and the Pres is the head of that party now, so I guess Reid is going to have to get used to that idea.
Looks like Obama pulled Reid horns in for him, doesn’t it? Or was that Emmanuel?
It’s an interesting question, rwahrens. Emmanuel has been pretty quietly lately, but there are two schools of thought on that. 1, that he is quietly getting ready to take on a more traditional role in his new leadership position, or 2., he has always been a rather quiet person, working big time behind the scenes.
From everything I’ve heard, it was a direct plea from Obama to embrace bipartisanship and not take away Senator Lieberman’s chairmanship. Good for Obama to stick to the message of working together. So yes it does indeed sound like Reid was pulled by the horns, obviously against his will, as he has been clamoring for blood since before the election. I remember hearing reports of how Reid planned to take action against Sen. Lieberman, but only after the election.
Obviously, Obama heard those same rumblings, and decided to take action. It is good that Reid got pulled back, as that would not have boded well for any sort of bipartisanship.
I’d say, look to see Reid to be out as a real mover and shaker if he continues to clamor for the traditional partisan wrangling. There is a new sheriff in town, and he likes to play nicer.