Reid had a theory of politics that was different from other Dem leaders. A big part of it was that he gave absolutely zero fucks about what the Beltway crowd thought about him, or whether his actions met their approval. There’s only one other leader in DC of whom that is true.
On the worst days, Reid would get absolutely flayed. I would come in feeling like I’d failed. And he would just laugh. Not like, a laughing-on-the-outside-while-crying-on-the-inside kinda thing. Like: hearing about his bad press at the end of the bad day would *improve* his mood.
Reid grew up in a house made of railroad ties, in the middle of the desert. He learned to swim in a brothel pool (his mom did its laundry). He was self-aware about what he had attained. He kept his family close and cared very little about what anyone else thought.
He shunned the DC scene. In his four decades in Congress I think he went to the WH correspondents’ dinner once, as a favor to his son who was trying to impress a date. He lived in the Ritz - never apologized for it, he earned it - but wouldn’t even go to events held there.
Once when I asked him why he was so committed to the ACA, he told me about how when his brother broke his leg, his family’s only option was to let him lay on the bed in their house in the desert, in agonizing pain, until it healed.
I was like oh, okay. That’s, uh, a good reason.
In the press office, we dutifully compiled massive clips documents every day but he wouldn’t read them. We joked that the “Reid surround sound” option was to get stories in NPR & the PBS NewsHour, because that was the news he consumed, and the only way we could be sure he saw it.
I’m not here to argue that Reid possessed every great quality. Leaders can have other, important qualities. But in a leader, an innate dispassion for what the Beltway crowd thinks of you is a superpower. Caring about their reflexive verdict on you clouds your strategic vision.
The other leader is McConnell. Kudos to @katia04 who got it first. McConnell has always embraced his “grim reaper” image - in the 90s, he was labeled Darth Vader & embraced it then too. As I said upthread, other leaders have other qualities. But giving zero fucks is a superpower.
Your words, not mine. Here it is for reference. He delivered a speech along these lines from the Senate floor a few days later. usnews.com/news/politics/…
It’s worth reflecting on how much ink was spilled over the last few months about how S1 didn’t have 50 votes, and how lots of Dems had reservations beyond Manchin & Sinema. Yet when the vote was called and it was time for senators to go on record, lo and behold! S1 got 50 votes.
Everyone always has complaints. The tricky part is separating the showstoppers from secondary complaints and people just jockeying for position. Worth recalling the DADT repeal vote in 2010 which Reid brought up over the objections of the bill’s own sponsors. Yet, It passed!
Right, but this is the point. I don’t recall reading any stories about how Endless Frontiers was dead because some senators wanted changes and amendments to the bill. This is how it works (as you know): you get on the bill, make changes if you can, then see where thing stand.
The question of whether to reform the filibuster boils down to whether we want a functional government or a dysfunctional one. This is how the Framers saw it. This is why they opposed the filibuster or anything like it, and why they created the Senate as a majority-rule body. 1/
Madison called majority rule the “republican principle.” He was consistent, from when he was a young man crafting the Constitution until the 1830s, when he was asked to respond to Calhoun’s argument that the minority should get to wield a veto over the majority (Madison said no).
Madison zeroed in on the principle that if the minority were allowed to wield a veto over the majority, “the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.”
The reason? “The power would be transferred to the minority,” he said.
Since we’re all about gangs this week, please step into my TED talk about how the Gang of 14 was one of Democrats’ worst strategic mistakes of the past few decades.
The year is 2005. Republicans really, really want to go nuclear to confirm Bush’s judges. Like, really want to.
Bush, Cheney and Frist were all eager to go nuclear. The floor general for the fight was a young comer named Addison Mitch McConnell. In May, on the Senate floor, McConnell announced that the “Senate is prepared to restore the Senate’s traditions and precedents,” and go nuclear.
To lay the intellectual groundwork for the effort, former Baker counsel and all-around Senate guru Martin Gold penned a law review article dubbing it the “constitutional option.” It’s good! Makes a strong case the Framers would’ve opposed the filibuster 😊 faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/353/35…
Another one! All these senators trying to play it coy by [checks notes] reaching out to the reporter after the interview to be 100% clear that she does, in fact, support reform
Sinema went from Green Party candidate to a curiously enthusiastic defender of the filibuster based on what is, at best, a rough and deeply flawed grasp of Senate history and procedure. In the process, she appears perfectly willing to throw Arizona Democrats under the bus.
There’s two options at this point: either Sinema has some insight that eludes everyone else, or she’s playing politics worse than any senator in recent memory. Manchin is from a state Trump won by 30+. She’s from a state Biden won - and where credible primary challengers exist.
Maybe, but that would probably be a mistake. With her voting record she can’t win a GOP primary in AZ for dogcatcher. Nor is she at all likely to win statewide as an independent - she doesn’t have anything g close to the stature or name ID. It’s a very curious case.
The Senate was designed to give the minority input, but the Framers rejected a supermajority threshold because it gives the minority a veto. Madison wanted the minority to have a voice, Calhoun wanted a veto. Manchin is defending Calhoun's vision of the Senate, not Madison's.
Madison called majority rule the “republican principle” and said that a supermajority threshold would cause “the fundamental principle of free government to be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.”
Hamilton said that while you may think a supermajority threshold promotes compromise “what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison.” The “real operation” of a supermajority threshold is to “embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government.”