Why didn't anyone want Reid?
Las Vegas City Life has an interesting piece on what they call an internet campaign against Harry Reid before he quickly secured the minority leaders position. From my point of view, the entire process seemed to be a non-fight to begin with. I was just glad to see a Westerner pick up the sword so quickly, even though his coronation was a bit fixed.
But, why did internet commentators, and otherwise, not want Reid in charge. Why did they champion more East Coast/industrial Midwest progressives that would speak for the anti-Iraq, pro-choice base of the party? The campaign against Reid is an example of what was wrong with the campaign of lowered expectations, run from our base of the Kerry campaign.
That Reid had just won a dominate victory in a state carried by Bush and won't have to run again until 2010 was lost on most. The most damning thing they could say was that he was inarticulate, wasn't liberal enough, and came from a red state. Nevada would only be a red state in comparison to the liberal northeast.
Reid, and other Western Democrats, are living proof that the Interior West can be so called blue states if the Democratic Party reaches out beyond the population losing East Coast/ind. Midwest. Electing Reid is a small step in that direction.
Emmett O'Connell | December 30, 2004 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
I like Reid, but two of the criticisms are valid in my opinion. Firstly, he is in a red state, so he may be in for the same treatment which Daschle got if he isnt' careful, and secondly, he is a bit of a bland character on the surface (although his background is a bit more exciting)
Now that I know him, I like him, and think he's the perfect guy for Minority Leader. I think the "internet people" are coming around too.
Posted by: Alex | Dec 30, 2004 1:11:08 PM
Some of Sen. Reid statements and stances preplex me, but I support him for the position of minority leader. For those from the east coast must be remembering, a fellow east coast politico wanted too do...suppress western representation.
The former representative from Pennsylvania, Gouverneur Morris; must be rolling in his grave. He wanted to limit the representation and the number of future states with the expansion of the western areas of the country. Others from Continental Congress stated the Republic stated that this would cause these new states to revolt against the Republic for the lack of representation.
Once again, the mighty Republic might be facing a Western Revolt, just 230 years after Continental Congress in a way that would make some members of this great meeting would be very proud and not scared of what the Western States might be up too.
Posted by: Aaron | Dec 30, 2004 4:02:13 PM
The biggest issue seems to be abortion, though apparently the NARAL folks are comfortable.
Abortion is the main issue on which Reid, a Mormon, differs from his party's orthodoxy. In 1999, he was one of two Senate Democrats to oppose an amendment expressing support for the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. He has voted to ban a procedure that opponents call "partial birth" abortion. But activists on both sides say he has never tried to persuade the Democratic caucus to join him in such stands.
"We have absolute faith" that he will oppose judicial nominees unless they "will protect individual liberties and not roll them back," said Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of the abortion-rights group NARAL. Her counterpart, Douglas Johnson, head of National Right to Life, said: "I would expect, as the [Democratic] leader, Reid would continue to work to obstruct or gut major pro-life legislation."
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 31, 2004 10:05:43 AM
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $11022. Isn't that crazy!
Posted by: Betsy Markum | Nov 16, 2005 11:01:00 AM
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $11022. Isn't that crazy!
Posted by: Betsy Markum | Nov 16, 2005 11:01:41 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
