Trouble brewing between Reid and Durbin?

[jillan]

Durbin did break with Reid to support Kerry/Feingold

Interesting read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060625/ap_on_el_ge/senate_iraq_politics

snips:

"I'm doing the right thing for the policy in the region. I will never make a decision about national security based on politics," Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, said in a recent interview. Feingold, for his part, characterized the proposal as "a reasonable plan to finish the Iraq mission."

With two proposals fueling criticism of a divided party in an election year, Democratic leaders pulled both sides together in a series of meetings to try come up with one position that satisfied all senators.

But officials said it quickly became clear that Kerry and Feingold were adamant that any
proposal include a deadline, a deal-breaker for Levin and other senators focused on 2006.
------------------------
At one point, Republican officials said Reid told them he was trying to discourage Kerry from pushing for a vote on his proposal. After they heard this, Republicans brought up Kerry's proposal and quickly dispatched it in what Democrats criticized as political gamesmanship.
--------------------------------------------------------
Reid, officials said, was infuriated by Durbin's defection as well as a presentation the Illinois senator made to the caucus Tuesday during Democrats' weekly policy lunch.

The wide-ranging presentation on various issues included a poll that showed the American public leaning toward candidates who favor pulling out of Iraq in the next year — exactly the position of Kerry and Feingold.

[TayTay]

1. Reid, Levin and Schumer think they can sell the moderate

line to the public this fall and they are still trying to protect Joe Lieberman. Geesh, this is just sad. The moderate approach is what will kill the chances this fall as Dems are again seen as the party of appeasement instead of the party of bold ideas.

Kudos to Durbin for voting for the Kerry/Feingold amendment. I have heard that Reid can be quite nasty when crossed, so we shall see what happens with Durbin.

[jillan]

4. I hope Reid doesn't take it out on Durbin

Durbin is definitely one of my favorites.
He is such a sweety, I hope Reid doesn't lay into him.

[karynnj]

2. Thanks for posting this

At least this "insider" article has Kerry and Feingold both working to keep the deadline in - unlike the idiotic gossipy NYT article. The Kerry quote that it's not politics was good. It also shows Reid and Schumer treating this as just politics. (So soldiers have to die while politicians do nothing till after November - when the country has turned.)

What's infuiating - is the writer even gets the number of votes for K/F wrong - it says 12, instead of 13 - small difference, but this is easy to get information. Her concern that the vote would hurt Liberman is touching and mystifing. I sure everyone in CT knows Lieberman is pro-war. This was an easy vote for him and couldn't possibly hurt him. The ones for which there could be concern would be a moderate in a red state who wanted to vote for one or both of these.

[jillan]

3. I liked the way the article was summed up

paraphrasing here -
K/F represented what the people want.

[karynnj]

6. good point

This means that Reid/Schumer were not only considering politics on an issue where they shouldn't, but they did it badly.

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. 8 Dems co-sponsored the Levin amendment

Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Feinstein
Obama
Reed
Rockefeller
Salazar

What is up with Obama lately, is he being pulled in a direction by a certain few?

[beachmom]

12. Does this have to do with freshman senator status?

I was thinking that Obama does not want to make too many waves so early in his senate career, and is probably focusing on other issues (domestic)? I don't know. I know that Kerry went full throttle at the beginning of his Senate career and stumbled a bit. Is Obama avoiding that here?

[Blaukraut]

5. interesting development

We may actually see the dynamics change a lot between the Senate Dems. Reid and his moderates might soon find themselves in the minority - at least when it comes to the issue of Iraq.

[ginnyinWI]

8. stabbed in the back!

If what the Republicans said was true, that is--that Reid spilled the beans and they took advantage of it--what did he have to do that for? Of course, I'd like this confirmed with a better source!

Don't they all realize that Kerry's plan was better? Durbin did--and good for him!


It's more like we have four political parties instead of two: the Democrats are split and so are the Republicans. We have Moderate Dems, Liberal Dems, Moderate Republicans (the true conservatives), and the Moon-bat RW Fanatics.

[ray of light]

23. the more parties the better. Unfortunately, the republicans

and nutty fundies have aligned. So that means it's more like 3 partys. Easier to capture the majority.

[blm]

9. Needs to be in GD - but

it will blow up at some point into an attack on Reid - I'm not happy about it, just realistic.

[ProSense]

10. You know

I don't doubt that there is a debate going on in the party, but I'm really starting to question the details in some of these articles. Why are we not getting these kinds of article about Republicans? For example, 47 House Republicans voted to strip permanent bases from the defense bill, 180 voted with the Democrats, what's that about? What's up with McCain's call for more troops, when everyone else in the world (even if some of it is spin) is focused on withdrawal? We get absolutely no inside tension about the GOP and they are in serious trouble.

At one point, Republican officials said Reid told them he was trying to discourage Kerry from pushing for a vote on his proposal. After they heard this, Republicans brought up Kerry's proposal and quickly dispatched it in what Democrats criticized as political gamesmanship.

WTF?

I think the fact that only 13 Democrats voted for Kerry's amendment sucks, and the other Democrats should be ashamed. I want to know what's behind this! But whatever division the vote represents, the MSM is playing up the tension and disunity a bit too much for me to trust, especially in light of the impression that Republicans are unified.

JMO

[wisteria]

21. You noticed that too? It is always gossip about Dem's never

Repub's. Of course, this is all done to creat the very impression you mention. We don't have control of the media message and they do.It stinks.

[jillan]

11. thinking about this article -- Now I understand why Kerry/Russ

got so few votes.

look at this:
Democratic officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss the turn of events, said Reid's effort to get his rank-and-file in sync on Iraq began weeks ago with Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, as they worked on an Iraq resolution that a Democratic majority could support.

and this
With two proposals fueling criticism of a divided party in an election year, Democratic leaders pulled both sides together in a series of meetings to try come up with one position that satisfied all senators.

But officials said it quickly became clear that Kerry and Feingold were adamant that any proposal include a deadline, a deal-breaker for Levin and other senators focused on 2006.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who's in charge of the Senate Democrats' campaign efforts, told Democrats that he did not want Kerry's proposal to come up for a vote because it would put moderates running this year in a tough spot. The fate of candidates like Lieberman and Cantwell is never far from Schumer's mind, and he only wanted a vote on Levin's resolution.

Over the course of two weeks, officials said, senators repeatedly asked Kerry not to push for a vote. Under pressure, he wavered at one point but ultimately decided to follow through.

Reid, for his part, held his regular meeting last week with his rank-and-file up for re-election this year, and Democratic officials said he pitched them Levin's resolution.


by K/F standing up for what they believed in - Reid would have nothing to do with it, strongly encouraged the other senators to vote for Levin. No wonder why Reid is so disappointed with Durbin.

I have had enough of Reid.

[wisteria]

22. Schumer too. Even though he is raising lots of money for the Senate,

I think it is less him, then the times right now. The NYT hit piece claimed Schumer thought none of the "divisions" would affect the party in Nov.. At the time I read it I thought that was an unusually statement for him to make- very cagey to down play the whole thing and wise too. Now, I think maybe he was in some ways responsible for the hit piece and that little reference to his comments was added as cover for his actions.

[beachmom]

13. I'm not sure what to think. Is there any truth in this article?

One interesting development was Senator Warner's decision to debate Sen. Kerry on Wednesday night. There was a bit of rebellion to it, wasn't there? It was a rebellion against BOTH leaderships. Sen. Kerry had refused to bend to Reid's will offering his amendment and Sen. Warner refused to belittle Kerry's proposal which was HIS leadership's strategy. If this article is true, then the McConnell amendment last week was the machinations of BOTH leaderships against one Senator Kerry. That's an incredible accusation I have made there, but I can't quite dismiss it out of hand.

Stabbed in the back is right.

Alas, this is Washington, and within a week we'll see Reid playing nice again with that crisis behind him.

There is a pattern here now. In one instance I think Reid was right (social security), but in the other two, Kerry was right:

1. Social security -- Reid said they should just say no to Bush's plan, but Kerry wanted a rival plan. Reid was reportedly cold to Kerry, and told him "I am the leader and this is how we're doing it". That was from Time magazine.

2. Iraq Democratic "wars" Part 1 -- the Democratic response was to be made by Sen. Reed, but Kerry had schedules a conference at the same time. Reid was reportedly mad; a compromise was made and they had a joint conference.

3. Iraq Democratic "wars" Part 2 -- Kerry/Feingold amendment -- see above.

Just remember that Kos represents Harry Reid. I truly believe that, so we should watch carefully when Kos comments on the Senate.

[jillan]

14. You'll have to fill me in on what Kos says -

Not a big fan, only go over there if Kerry posts, or if one
of the Kerrycrats asks for help over there.

[beachmom]

15. Kos did a post about the Levin/Reed amendment, talking

about Dems coming together COMPLETELY ignoring the Kerry/Feingold amendment. (He ALWAYS sides with Harry Reid, it seems) I commented over there, calling him on it, and noticed that several people over there (not us) recommended my comment, so not everyone there is a full "Kossak". I'll be honest with you guys -- there are some really smart people over there and a smaller percentage of the "tin foil hat moonbats" common here on DU. I enjoy discussions about Iraq better at dKos than DU. There are exceptions, of course, but I find the people in this forum to be a greater sum of minds than out in GD land. Just because Kos is an idiot, that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of good, smart people over at dKos. But you gotta pick the right topics.

[wisteria]

24. Reid may go on, but I will not forget what he did.

I even think Kerry wasn't exactly wrong on SS. Reid seems to have ideas other than letting the Repub's run themselves in the ground. It may work in some cases and for a little while, but sooner or later you have to offer the people something different to keep then coming back. Reid, seems only interested in instant satisfaction, not long term.

[jillan]

25. Didn't Kerry and Reid have some tension between them about 1 yr ago?

Maybe there is still something there.

I am totally speculating here, but maybe Kerry is a little frustrated with Reid's weak leadership?
I know I am, and I'm just an observer.

[wisteria]

26. Yes, I remember reading something about a little tension.

I also remember reading that Kerry didn't want Reid as Leader, he wanted Durbin. Reid is Clinton's guy.Whatever the reason for the tension, he seems too afraid to take chances- he is too cautious.Maybe it was the small stroke he had about a year ago or the elections coming up,but
weak leadership like his has got to be frustrating for Kerry.Senator Kerry has suffered through the brunt of the Republican tricks and he knows how they play mean and dirty politics with everything.They have the Dem's figured out- or so they think. Kerry, IMO realizes we need to constantly change strategy and know what the Repubs are up to in order to gain ground on them. Reid, is complacent and willing to just pick up some crumbs left over from Republican mistakes.

[karynnj]

27. Also starting in 2004, the unelected party leaders

set out to deny Kerry any role at all as a party leader. When you consider that Kerry was selected by a commanding majority of the primary voters over the choices the party leaders would have preferred, likely Lieberman, Clark and Edwards, this was as much a coup within the Democratic party as Bush's selection in 2000 was on a national level. (Although the Gore proponents have said he was made an outcast, that was not true - he chose to disappear, but at least into 2002, the CW was that if he wanted it, 2004 was his. This may have reflected that the Clintons felt it was unwinnable.)

Reid has thrown every high profile lead to someone other than Kerry. Unless I've forgotten something the only time Reid even listed Kerry as being a Democratic spokesman was when he gave his CFR speech on national security. So, Kerry choice was to essentially fade from public visibility or to lead his own effort and risk being called a non- team player. Everything Kerry has done is in line with the issues he ran on in 2004 - that were ratified by Democrats.

Reid was NOT elected as a Democratic leader by us, the base. He was the choice of the Clinton Democrats and (I think) was the person in line to get the position. I think he's been very erratic. There have been times he has been cheered on by Kos et al for fiery statements, but when you look at what he chooses to fight for and what he ignores - I really don't see that he has done a good job and he does not come across well on tv.

I think Alito was one of his worst mistakes. Kerry was right it was winnable. It could also have defined the party - Kerry was about the only Senator (Feingold was one of the few to ask questions on any of this.) who saw the issue primarily in terms of how Alito would shift power - from the Congress to the President and from people to the government. If Alito was stopped, Bush would nominate another pro-life person - that was a foregone conclusion. The difference was that Alito was unusually bad on balance of powers.)

On Alito, Reid's leadership lost:
-A victory that really was there for the taking - and other than SS, Democrats had few
-The opportunity to define the Republicans as consolidating power under the President while diminishing the rights of the people. (This has to be a libertarian issue).
-Taking a pricipled stand

On Iraq, the case is less clear. There likely is genuine division in the party. What I think was wrong here was that he valued unity over conscience. I don't see the Republicans bashing eith Hagel or McCain who regularly define their differences with Bush. Kerry, Feingold and the others had every fight to argue their plan and the others had every right to vote against it. What is wrong is the constant gossipy back stabbing. The fact that these same stories happen all the time and are reported by Dkos, the NYT, the WP .... implies that this is the way Reid operates - and it's not commendable. That Kerry is the victim of his wrath, even when Feingold and others oppose him just as often. (Consider - the last Patriot act vote was doomed. Reid commended Feingold on it even though it was a lost cause. Thsnks to Reid's own faux pas, being against the PA was already being spun against the Democrats. You didn't hear Reid commending Kerry and Feingold on following their conscience on Iraq, even though they knew it would lose.)

I suspect that the problem is that Reid knows that Kerry is a leader with the eloquence and charisma to move people, while he, in spite of his title, is a bureaucrat chosen because he put in his time and was non-controversial.

[beachmom]

28. Kerry will stand up for what he believes, while McCain and Hagel

just talk, talk, talk. McCain has an Iraq plan and it is very different from Bush's. It is not stay the course; it is escalate the war. I may sound crazy here, but I'm at the point where we need to do something rash in Iraq. I highly disagree with McCain's plan, but I would VERY much like to see it come to a vote in the U.S. Senate. But as far as I've heard, McCain has NOT offered a resolution. Perhaps that is wise for the Republicans, but . . .

The Democratic party is the OPPOSITION party. We have NO excuse for staying quiet. I don't see why it's so great the Democrats are unified in a position that is just as wishy washy and weak as Bush's (especially since it's obvious that he changes the level of troops based on electoral politics, NOT conditions on the ground or agreements with the Iraqis).

Anyway, excellent assessment of Reid, Karynnj. It's the reality, but not so surprising in Washington. There was this part when Warner offered to debate Kerry, that Kerry first said he didn't have questions since Warner hadn't said anything outrageous. Kerry was sort of laughing while he said it, but . . . despite the fact that he is tough as nails and can handle whatever is thrown at him . . . you could hear hurt and frustration in his voice. Damnit all, he's human, and he really had a tough two weeks at the job, what with him being sabotaged from both sides of the aisle. Plus the time problems addressed earlier in the evening, he had a rough time. Politicians are human, you know. It's just unlike all of us at work, sometimes they're on camera and you can see how the unbelievable "mobbing" (German characterization when people are out to get you) on Kerry was beginning to take its toll. Warner's act of kindness allowed Kerry to show his emotions a little.

[karynnj]

29. The Warner/Kerry interface was interesting to see

I think you're right. That moment when Kerry said that he had no questions for Warner because he hadn't said anything outrageous was emotional - when first watching it, I simply saw Kerry's grin and laugh, it was almost like Warner's treating him respectfully allowed him to relax and not stay behind a wall of dignity as he had throughout the day when he was attacked.

In another post, you said that Warner's debate and his kindness and respect was an act of rebellion against the Republican establishment. It might only be that the Republicans pushed things so far that he questioned whether they had any decency. His defense of Kerry's Silver Star which was way off topic and his subtle push for Kerry to speak of his feelings about the soldiers excecuted where Warner in his comment credited Kerry for caring about the soldiers. Warner also mentioned that Kerry went to the hospitals. These are all things Kerry NEVER talks about. They are not political and he won't exploit them. All these things blow up all the RW nonsense on and off the Senate floor. Kerry's 2004 surrogates, in general were less good than this.

The other thing Warner did was to say that the amendment was serious and had some well thought out ideas. Warner's questions on some provisions - even when he disagreed - were better than what many Democrats did, in that they implictly said the amendment was worth considering. I had no real view of Warner before. I knew he was married to Liz Taylor at one time and I remembered that unlike the clueless Roberts and Biden, he immediately understood Kerry's solution on how to accomodate Biden's amendment into his Prisons bill - and he told the others to work with Kerry.

[whometense]

31. I love what you wrote here -

and I feel exactly the same way. The interchange between Warner and Kerry was so stunningly different form what we've come to expect day in and day out on the senate floor that I think I heald my breath through the entire thing.

I think it was an act of rebellion on Warner's part - there was not one other republican who spoke who wavered from the party line (except Hagel, but I don't think he personally addressed Kerry). It seemed that Warner felt the attacks on Kerry had been below the belt, undignified and just plain wrong.

I totally agree that if Kerry's 2004 surrogates had even approached the respect for Kerry that Warner showed last week, the outcome of the election might have been very different.

As a democrat, I'm getting more and more angry with the pressure to toe the party line, as seen by the Clintonistas. I don't particularly like or respect their approach to politics, and I really resent feeling strongarmed. If they want to win my vote for Hillary, this is not the approach they should be taking. But maybe it's just me...

[wisteria]

30. I wrote Reid and told him that IMO, he was responsible more than

anyone else for the "divisions" being played up in the media. All he had to do was allow both amendments to come to a vote without much comment. On one level, I think he is a puppet of the DLC faction of the party and they want things played out their way. On the other, he isn't fond of Kerry and resents being crossed. He considers it an assault on his power to control his party.

[jillan]

32. I don't understand why Reid mentioned to the repubs that

he didn't want Kerry to put his amendment forward.

I am infuriated. nasty nasty politics especially when it's directed at one of your own.
I am glad tho that there were people from the dems that came forward to report what had happened.

[ray of light]

16. this actually shows that the NYT's hit article was not a lie.

AND that someone WANTED it out there prior to the debate.

[karynnj]

19. The Feingold willing to get rid of deadline likely was a lie

Reid's actions appear to be true. Reid did seem snarky when he asked time for Byrd (for his own amendment) and Lieberman.

[ray of light]

17. btw...I spam called Reid's and levins office and told them the same thing

that Americans support the K/F proposal and that their pandering was the opposite of what American's want. I also told them almost exactly, "Americans hate the Republican policies, so why would you put out a Republican-lite Iraq bill when more than 65% want us out NOW and 53 % support a bill like K/F's compared to 41 % for Levin-Reids. Get your ego out of this and do what the American people want. Vote YES on the K/F bill."

They didn't listen.

[karynnj]

20. What's surprising is those are American, not Democratic numbers

[wisteria]

18. IMO. Reid needs to go! He is a puppet of the DLC and is out

of touch with where we are as a party.

[whometense]

33. IMHO, Durbin totally blew it on This Week

when George S. asked him about Lieberman. Was this his way of getting back in Reid's good graces?? I don't know, but judge for yourself:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/25/durbin-wont-commit-to-supporting-the-democratic-winner-in-ct/

(with video)

[karynnj]

34. I did like Feingold's answer so much better

Even if Durbin wanted to back Lieberman in the primary, I can't see not immediately saying that of course he would back the Democrat. I just don't understand it - Schumer went even further to say Lieberman losing in the primary would hurt the Democratic party in the red states.

Durbin is usually so good on these shows, that it's a surprise. Your guess sounds really good - Reid is likely with Schumer and maybe Durbin didn't want to add fuel to fire.