You know what? If Senator Reid is the best for Senate Majority Leader that the Democrats can come up with, we're gonna have a few election problems come 2010 and 2012 because this piece of shit is one real worthless leader. But, we already knew that, didn't we?
DKos
by HGM MA Sun Dec 14, 2008
For months I’ve read other’s concerns regarding the ineffectiveness of Harry Reid as majority leader and even though I generally have agreed with this sentiment, I’ve always given Harry the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it’s the perpetual pragmatist I have become in my old age or the belief that continuity will allow President Obama to enact his agenda with broader support. In either case it led me to believe that with an increased majority the Senate Harry would be a better leader. The failure of the Senate to act in a responsible manner with regards to the auto industry bailout is the last straw! The only logical conclusion I’ve come to is; Harry is a Sniffling Winnie and must be replaced as Majority Leader.
It seemed to me that during the negotiations this past week to get a compromise in the Senate regarding the auto bailout Harry was deliberately absent in any substantive manner during negotiations between the UAW and Senator Corker. The UAW did agree to concessions to cut wages to correspond with Japanese automakers but with one condition, which ultimately exposed the Corker and the GOP for the being the deceitful political hacks that they are. The fundamental right to collective bargaining is the very essence of unionization, take away the leverage an existing contract has on employers and the union is broken. So when the UAW stated unequivocally that they would accept these concessions but not allow them to take place until their current contract expires in 2011, only the most unreasonable reactionaries from the extreme right wing of the GOP would take issue with this because they would have failed to break the union.
However a funny thing was developing the following day after the deal falling apart, which began to fester the previous night during Harry’s ominous sniffling speech on the Senate floor. One would assume that a Democratic Leader in this situation would rail against the rhetorical thugary being spewed by republican senators, accusing the UAW of killing this deal. No, Sniffles came up to the lectern and cried how he "dread(ed) looking at Wall Street tomorrow".....excuse me? Wall Street? Oh and not one word on how the UAW agreed to sacrifices in 2005, 2007 and their delegates voted to make additional sacrifices just the previous week? Instead of taking a real stand for working families, Sniffles allowed the GOP to set the media narrative by successfully blaming the UAW for the deal’s collapse. Most headlines the following morning led with some variation of: No Deal, UAW unwilling to agree to concessions.
Instead of sounding the alarm among Democrats that we are a pro-labor party and that we will not allow the demonetization of a workers right to sit at the bargaining table, Harry went with a conflated and convoluted message on how if the big three fail, all of America fails. This may be true, but the sign was obvious that he did not want to be seen as specifically supporting a labor agenda and be pigeon holed in case public sentiment goes against the UAW. The perception to me as a union person myself (SEIU Local 5000, NAGE Local 206), is that he let my brothers and sisters out to dry. I want a Majority Leader who is unabashedly pro-Union in rhetoric and action and I am surprised with his re-election bid coming in two years, where his success is very much dependent on support from organized labor in Nevada, he is being a bit gingerly at this time???
I have every confidence that President Obama will be enthusiastically pro-labor in his assistance with the auto bailout and whatever form a massive public works project materializes. Let’s remember what is at stake with this bailout or I guess what is now being called a "bridge loan" to January, where Obama has shown nothing but strong support for the men and women of the UAW. Harry on the other hand, needs to be reminded that three million jobs are at stake, thousands of businesses at risk, health care and pensions are risk for millions of workers; taxpayers at risk for these obligations if companies fail. I believe that Obama, being the deliberate cool cat that he is, would be better served with a firebrand unabashed liberal than a whiney moderate soft-talker.
In the last couple of days the current Administration has indicated that it would support a bridge loan to January coming from TARP funds which can be used for this purpose. Yet, the details have been rather vague and the only forceful sound bites in support of this are coming from the Administration?? Geez, is this some lame attempt to allow Bush some sort of legacy? I would assume that since the colossal failure of assisting working families lies on Harry’s shoulders, he would be more prudent within the public sphere and loudly advocating that TARP funds be disbursed ASAP!!!
Posts
