WP: Reid and Kerry, With Swords Drawn

Reid and Kerry, With Swords Drawn

By Dan Balz and Mike Allen
Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A05

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan isn't the only one in town to get himself crosswise with Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Ask Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

Reid and Kerry crossed swords two weeks ago at a closed-door meeting of the Senate Democratic Steering and Coordination Committee with a group of labor leaders, and while accounts vary, there's little doubt that things got tense between the new Senate Democratic leader and the party's 2004 presidential nominee.

Kerry was unhappy with the posture of the Democrats and told Reid that they needed to be far more aggressive in fighting President Bush, needed to set up what amounted to a perpetual campaign and needed a plan to prevent Bush from seizing the middle ground in the Social Security fight.

Reid responded that he had set up a campaign-style war room and taken other steps to put the Democrats in fighting mode and made it clear he wasn't going to change course just because Kerry thought something different was needed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10395-2005Mar5.html

they SHOULD HAVE MADE KERRY MINORITY LEADER!

Edit for tense.

Kerry is better in committees and investigation type stuff, he wouldn't be able to do that type of stuff as Senate Leader which is more about dealing with many small details of Senate rules than being spokesperson. it's also very time consuming and gives less freedom to do your own thing.

My opinion of him could change, but my initial impression is slightly left of Holy Joe Lieberman--a guy who's willing to stand up for us until it's not advantageous to him. I'm going to watch him during this Social Security thing...if he doesn't bend, I'll change my opinion.

Maybe it's just a Massachusetts thing. :P

attack

They are both fighting and agressive. More like they are working towards the same goals. The idea that their "swords are crossed" may be more for drama than anyting else.

And of course, it always sounds good to make it appear that dems are infighting.

They are both fighting and agressive. More like they are working towards the same goals. The idea that their "swords are crossed" may be more for drama than anyting else.

And of course, it always sounds good to make it appear that dems are infighting.

The name of his tour is Social Security: "Fix it don't Nix it" Bush* has succeeded in establishing the agenda. We are on his turf now. We aren't talking about the Deficit or Health Care Crisis which truly is a crisis but we are talking about how the Republicans can fix social security. The ground work is layed. There will be "fixing " of social security and it will be on Republican grounds. A true Democrat would have taken it off the table completely until we have better representation on the matter. The Republicans have total control (almost, think filibuster) and won't even allow Democrats into the same room the issues are being addressed. This is not the time to allow tinkering with something of this magnitude. Democrats are very weak or stupid, one or the other. If Republicans are talking about Social Security being broken and Democrats are talking about Social Security being broken, what are the people to think? social Security is broken and since the Republicans are the ones in power let them fix it. We are fucked "Big time" If you believe the Democrats will save the day by a fillibuster ask yourself how many times have they fillibustered anything Bush* has proposed? Tax cuts for the wealthy which almost all economists told them would create huge deficits. Hell half of them voted for it.... Iraqi War...voted for it.. What has Bush* proposed that hasn't passed handily??

when kerry was in the grand canyon during the campain and the media asked him if he would have voted to give bush the authority to go into iraq knowing what he knows now, and kerry said yes, that told me that he NOT qualified to be the democratic nominee let alone the minority leader

reed is holding his own, but Boxer would be my choice

not the one that was asked. Apparently, it was difficult to hear the entire question and he thought he was answering the same question that was asked over over and over previously by the press. Give the guy a break, no one is perfect.

that displayed a lack of innate political perceptiveness. He could have used the question from the “idiot” for an attack on the entire Iraqi misadventure but Kerry and his campaign staff fell into an obvious Rove trap. My reaction upon hearing Kerry’s inept response was that the DNC had better concentrate on the senate races because Kerry was going to lose.

He didn't lose the anti-war vote by saying that. Incidentally the vote that put Bush over the top was white women voting out of "security" concerns.

hundreds of thousands -- maybe MILLIONS -- of voters were disenfranchised through polling place manipulations or discarded voter registrations.

The vote counting machines were responsible for the greatest number of Dem votes going to bush.....millions of "glitches" and malfunctions, as well as outright ballot tampering, is what pushed the election to bush.

Every time I hear some Democrat saying Kerry "lost", I just get more furious about the trap America has fallen into at the hands of these crooks. And, until Americans start rioting in the streets over black box voting, we're going to keep "losing" elections....and it's going to get deeper into the State and local governments, as well.

Now that the crooks know how easy it is to steal races, they're just going to be more emboldened to do more of it.

The republicans have ALREADY TOLD US they will have a filibuster-proof congress in 2006. They should know! They count the votes. They have just pulled off another coup in California by getting rid of Kevin Shelley, and you will now see California Democrats start "losing"....like Kerry did, through computerized vote stealing.

California is turning RED, and it ISN'T because the PEOPLE of California will be voting red. It's because the MACHINES will be COUNTING votes as red.

:kick::kick::kick:

the game is rigged, has been for quite some time now. i'll still vote dem, but my heart will be heavy in doing so, for why will it matter?:(

:mad:

Kerry told Reid that they needed to be far more aggressive in fighting President Bush,

No god damned male who is in the position to control women's lives like he has -- should EVER be put in a greater position of power.

He is an enemy of women. Period. end. Of. Discussion.

to oppose anti choice justices.

I hope it means you'll keep quiet while the rest of us talk.

I've been working out. Start out with a few cheap shots and one liners, and after a few minutes work my way up to all out character assassination.

Men are always so willing to sell the hard fought rights of women -- on a GOP light who is merely window dressing -- fake tough. Reid is probably in the closet kissing the ass of bush when he gets a chance.

Reid isn't a fighter -- he is a wimp. He will back down after putting on a show for all the gullible dems.

Reid is a useless bag of shit (not even good enough for manure).

He puts on a show but hasn't done a damned thing -- other than putting on a show which impresses the gullible dems.

So he "acts" tough --- but as long as he is willing to MURDER women by voting against women -- he is and will always be an enemy of women.

END. OF. DISCUSSION. PERIOD.

Expect me or another feminist to remind you MEN that Reid is a dangerous snake in the grass.


END. OF. DISCUSSION. PERIOD.

END. OF. DISCUSSION. PERIOD.


END. OF. DISCUSSION. PERIOD.

The debate continutes. PERIOD

and other women's rights grabbing right wing assholes lining up to replace Stevens and Ginsberg, so cut the guy some slack.
He's a good Democrat who knows how to be both pro-life AND pro-choice.

Meawhile... why the hell are we getting worked up over this idiotic WP article? Kerry and Reid are long time colleagues and know how to work together. I am sure they will agree on and proceed to execute a good strategy.

Bravo! I truly had a good chuckle over that one. :-)

In short, apparently quite unconsciously, you have summed up what is wrong with both Reid and the party.

When a person or party stands for both sides of an issue, it stands for nothing. And more of nothing is exactly what this wishy-washy, unprincipled politics is going to reap.

pro-choice - almost no oppressive laws to prevent women from control over their own reproductive health.
pro-life - social programs to help women take care of the baby so that they will not have an abortion over economic reasons. The promotion of adoption programs to help women find a home for the child if they make the choice to carry the child to term but do not want to take care of the child for whatever reason. Anti-death penalty. Anti-elective war. Anti-poverty. Pro-universal health care.

during the end of the election season just before the vote.

A local Western Shoshone stood to ask her a question and warned her that he was on the fence about his vote for Repub vs Dem. He warned her not to invoke the name of Harry Reid in her answer to his question that had to do with communicating openly with the Western Shoshone (who many feel were shafted by Reid and Congressman "liberals should be human shields" Gibbons on the Western Shoshone Claims signed into law by Bush in July 04)

Well, Elizabeth, being a class act, was able to invoke the name of Reid and win him over by her answer.

She told a story of how well known Senator Reid is at her house. He's been there to dinner and one day someone said Senator Reid's name in front of their youngest son. He went racing around the table shouting and invoking "Senator Reid! Senator Reid! Senator Reid!"

Love that woman!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Unlike your cluck-clucking interlocutors here, I am pleased to find a Democrat who knows what's worth fighting for.

And if the party won't fight for it, well, there are other parties....

four times does not make you more right.

Just like Coulter thinks she's right because she speaks loudly.

You are so over-the-top, you are not credible. How is he murdering women? Even though he's pro-life, obviously, he believes, as most pro-lifers do, that an abortion is fine if the mother's life in danger.

There are a plethora of good, Democratic politicians who don't believe that abortion is acceptable, as they view a fetus as a human being. Although, as a party, we feel that a woman's right to choose is paramount, we have members who feel that the right of life of the fetus is more important. They are entitled to their beliefs. Like the Republican's presidential and VP nominees are pro-life, ours will always be pro-choice. However, rank-and-file Democrats don't have to pass a litmus test!! It's shameful that Republicans let so many pro-choice politicians like Arnold, Rudy, Pataki, and more deliver prime-time addresses, while we didn't let pro-lifers like Casey even speak at all!!

Even though Reid is mostly pro-life, he still opposes Bush's RW justices. If he didn't, then I would be just as mad as him as you are!

I mean, if the discussion is ended, why not head out to the Dairy Queen or something?

Those M&M blizzard dealies rock.

:yourock:

That's some pretty strong language there. Are you sure you mean everything you said?

He's not out there actively trying to outlaw abortion.

Reid is doing a great job as minority leader. Would you prefer to have the spineless Daschle back as the leader? Ya know, Democrats can be just as bad as Republicans on this issue, being single-issue voters.

right up until he ran for POTUS?

And then said nope, not taking it back either. He's definitely the right Minority Leader for these times. He has the attitude for the job.

Why does the other Senior Senator from Mass.,Ted Kennedy, have no issues laying the truth out there? Ted isn't seeking opinion or consensus before hitting the long ball. :P

I cringed when I heard Reid would lead the Democrats but this is leaps and bounds better than I could have hoped!

He's my senator.

I had serious doubts about him.

If this discussion is true, then I agree with Kerry completely.

But in light of his recent string of statements - as you have mentioned just one - I am quite pleased with him and am confused as to why Kerry would allegedly have said that.

It would seem Reid is doing exactly as it is reported Kerry is supposed to have said.

Has anyone checked the source of this article to see whether Kerry really said such a thing? It would seem it is more disinformations from the whore media to make up a conflict where there is none.

According to that article, Reid is doing exactly what Kerry told me to. Maybe if the article had come out in November when the Democratic line was still "We'll work together" it would be more believable.

Quick! Fire up the Reich-Wing echo chamber!

I can hear PigBoy now......

not

Next up: Lieberman giving lessons in Joementum. ;-)

I'll think I'll go with the guy who calls Greenspan a political hack.

but ended up playing in the wrong game.

Sorry I got a little off-topic; just some residual anger seeping out.

Walk a mile in Kerry's shoes.

Pity for "poor","poor" Kerry. ?

lighten up.

the guy let the swifties destroy him. i've lost all respect for him, and i'm more than proud to close ranks around harry reid

This is a closed door fight about how hard to hit the Rethugs and over what issues. Isn't this exactly the type of heated discussion the Dems should be having? If you are going to fight, in a closed-door session, then it should actually be about something.

Gawd, why does everything have to be either or. Can't intelligent adults air their differences over something without it turning into an occasion for picking sides. Some fights are good for you, they clarify things.

...I agree. Sometimes a little bloodletting, helps to clear the waters. Well said.

It is exactly the type of discussion they should be having. And I certainly can't argue with anyone who wants to get tougher with the * administration. I think Reid is doing a good job thus far. He is the minority leader. Obviously he will have input from members of the party he leads. Of course they won't always agree. It's not either/or - they are both fighting the good fight, against this facist administration. Why do we always bash our own on here?

John Kerry wanted to respond to this group,but his campaign organization advised him against it saying it would fade away if it was left to run its course and the issue not addressed. The MSM made this story "big news" by playing it over and over again even after the campaign did aggressively pursue it. I am sorry you have no respect for John Kerry. I have an enormous amount of respect for him and also for Barbara Boxer.

If he wants to advise other people on how to be tough, maybe he could have shown it with people who he picked for his campaign. If he can't win an argument on his own team, then Reid would be better off looking elsewhere for lessons.

My exact sentiment - too!

it was a big mistake for him to go along with them and not his own first thoughts, but Kerry is a fighter and he thinks * and company are a bunch of thugs.

:kick:

If he would have read one of my 200 E-mails during the campaign he could have figured it out back then. I'll take my chances with Reid.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I really think Reid's been doing a fantastic job. He's been far more effective than most of us expected and far stronger than Daschle.

middle ground in the Social Security fight."

I like Harry and I agree that he has been much better then most of us expected. That doesn't make what Kerry wanted wrong.

I think it sounds pretty good --- "they needed to be far more aggressive in fighting President Bush, needed to set up what amounted to a perpetual campaign and needed a plan to prevent Bush from seizing the middle ground in the Social Security fight.

That sounds like what most of us here want.

What middle ground is there? One side wants to take trillions of dollars out of it, gutting it for personal accounts giving people the illusion of possible windfalls while drastically reducing their guaranteed benefits, while the other side wants to shore up the current system by raising the salary cap on contributions. Where's the middle ground between mindless, self-centered delusion and preserving the commitment of one generation to another?

I mean...If we fall into the trap of going to the middle ground, doesn't that mean we've inherently bought into the idea that there's a huge crisis, when there's not? Do we need to be dragged further towards an arbitrary middle that keeps drifting more and more to the right?

Or do we hold our ground and act the true opposition and say, "we're not playing your game, we're not playing by your rules, and we see through your bullsh!t. You want this, you're not going to get any help from us on getting it."

a dressed-up confrontation in a closed-door meeting always sells a few more papers

Seems to me both of them have been pretty aggressive lately, and that's a good thing. But I have no doubt there are "closed-door" Senate Democrat arguments on strategy all the damn time. It doesn't mean there's a lasting rift, it doesn't mean that one of them is Our Noble Rightful Hero and the other a Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey. It means there's a disagreement over strategy, that's all. And sometimes the most productive solutions to problems come out of arguments.

When was the last time you saw an article about infighting inside a Republican closed door meeting? Perhaps the corporate media would like to promote "divisiness within the Party" story for the general public's consumption?

and this is sounding an awful lot like the shit they've been throwing Dean's way, with Al From and Joe Lieberman

I saw Kerry and Reid on C-Span yesterday at the SSI event in NY. Presumably, this event happened after the disagreement that the WaPo article mentioned. Both Sens Reid and Kerry showed up and spoke passionately and well about the need to preserve SSI. Afterward, I saw Kerry and Reid talking together with lots of head nods and stuff.

Maybe they were trying to figure out where to take this strategy and what worked and what didn't in the presentation. Imagine that, Sens talking over strategy and how to proceed and possibly learning along the way. Wow! Wonder if the press will write an article on that.

me thinks.

Or maybe its the good cop - good cop?

A little over done in it's delivery.

:)

Frankly, I think this is a good sign. If the senators are badgering each other to be more aggressive, they will actually start doing something. This is great news. They are nagging each other in the right direction -- toward action, not submission.

The Democratic party needs to campaign continually against this administration. We have been lazy and ineffective in recent years as a party in my opinion. This has allowed the Republicans to gain the upper hand. I hope reid will consider what Kerry has suggested.

I have noticed in the past four years that Bush has pushed his view in the way that would get him the vote. The democrats didn't start the 2004 campaign until late 2003 (some can say early 2004), while Bush started it on January 20, 2001. Three and a half years of continuous bullshit is enough to make more than half of Americans believe the shit. The dems should do the same, except it will be the truth. If we push the truth like the repubs were pushing their lies, we would easily win. It's time to fight them to the character death, carry out a barrage of character assassinations, run ads in red states of bush's treason, and in three and a half (maybe even one and a half) years, we dems will do so well, we could even be surprised.
I agree Kerry has no reason to talk, but he learned a hard lesson, the hard way. He learned that even heartless corporations are moving left (because Bush Quixote is going crazy), and he learned about Bush's War for Reelection (the title of a book, I think).

We need to take opposition even farther. I wish Kerry had taken that advice HIMSELF a few months ago, but better late than never. That said, I don't like by any means airing this sort of disagreement in public, and whoever is responsible for that should be in trouble right now.

with all due respect to reid, i truly appreciate kerry thinking we ought to be fighting harder. Reid should listen to the man who got more votes then any democrat in history.

When I heard him smarm about how swell and experienced John Negroponte is, and he'd be happy to confirm him, I wanted to puke.

Nobody criticizes the sacred cow, Mr. Andrea Mitchell.

That's aggressive. Reid is right and he nailed him.

I worked hard, gave a lot to Kerry BUT he was not my model of aggressive in the campaign. Reid has done more attacking since 1/05 than Kerry did all campaign.

working with nancy pelosi in her post, with other party leaders to increase party unity, and continue to add to the increasing numbers of dems standing together against the right, those adopting deans progressive movement, including the lakoff elements,etc. I'm glad Reid's been agressive, but he needs to do his part to get the rest of the senate just as aggressive.

Here is what he did: 1) great legislative agenda (none of it will pass but it's a good outline of our program); 2) debated with Boxer on OH; 3) supported the Rice nays; 3) lead fight against Gonzales, voted nay; 4) put Social Security front & center and enforced discipline; 5) bitch-slapped Bush when the RNC did the hit piece on him (Daschle never did this); 6) is with Pelosi a lot and works with her.

We've got some real jerks in the Senate -- Lieberman & Feinstein to start. And some drama queens -- Biden & Shumer. Nelsons' are flakey too. I think he's done remarkably well for just 8 weeks. I wan't him to kick more ass. He's building up to a level that he can sustant. The Greenspan comment should not be underestimated...IT'S HUGE. Can you recall someone calling him a "hack" ever, someone other than Lyndon La Rouche?

Have some faith. The guy will pull it off.

and i do have faith in the guy. I'm very proud of his job so far, it's just time to crack the whip on the straying democrats. they've already started though, kerry obviously thinks the process shuold be sped up, i can't argue with that.

I agree though, the greenspan comment, is huge, oh so true, but huge none the less.

I just can't get over how badly written this WP piece is. :wtf:

and thus far, by any ojective measure- he's proven to be no more effective than Daschle.

My guess is that his bark will prove worse than his bite, and that under his leadership, a significant number of Dems will continue to sell us out to the far-right's agenda.

against the Social Security Privatization. He had sixteen against Condi. The nominations were a done deal but still there was protest that is a good thing. I think we are getting stronger. They better hang tough on bankruptcy though. We have trouble with both Senators from Delaware. Biden and Carper are kissing the butts of their banking constituents!

Seriously, thank you. The sad truth is, even if all 44 Democrats vote against something, that isn't going to stop it. But getting the protests on the record IS still important. I watched some of the bankruptcy debate going on Wed and Thursday, and it was both kind of inspiring and also really heartbreaking--the Dem unity was almost there, and that was nice, but what killed me was the substance of the amendments being proposed and shot down one after another--essentially, easing the Draconian rules for people with serious medical issues, people who lost income because they were serving in Iraq, identity theft victims...I mean, how can anybody vote against that? But the Republicans all did, in complete lockstep, with no hesitation. It just really hit me again what a ruthless machine our guys were up against. The futility of it gave me a lot of sympathy for them.

We're only two months into the 109th, and I think Reid's doing a good job so far. (But don't forget to give Durbin his props too! :thumbsup:)

Reid's usefulness will be a measure both of what he has to work with as well as how far he is willing to sacrifice his career to be effective. He does not look like a man willing to rock many boats.

And given his sold-out millionaire corporate-friendly troops, I wouldn't expect the Normandy landing. ;-)

Nothing printed in that rag is news, it's ALL Nazi ass-kissing propaganda.

I'll see you your war room, and raise you one ...


This is unconscionable, and the Democrats and the American People ought to raise hell ... these Radicals are totally out of control with power they stole ... the media can't help itself to say: well, Clinton did something like it, too ... its repertoire of American political history is awfully shallow ... I'm sick of that, too.


Bush Sets Up Social Security 'War Room'

March 05, 2005 10:35 PM EST

WASHINGTON - A new Social Security war room inside the Treasury Department is pumping out information to sell President Bush's plan, much like any political campaign might do. It's part of a coordinated effort by the Bush administration.

The internal, taxpayer-funded campaigning is backed up by television advertisements, grass-roots organizing and lobbying from business and other groups that support the Bush plan. The president's opponents are organized too, though they do not enjoy the resources of the White House or Treasury to sell their message.

For the administration, the communications effort is being coordinated out of Treasury's public affairs office through the new Social Security Information Center. Three people have been hired, with two more hires possible soon. The first three employees are veterans of the Bush-Cheney campaign or the Republican National Committee.

"The uber purpose is to centralize and coordinate the administration's public affairs and communication activities," said chief Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols. "Standing up this office demonstrates how important fixing Social Security is."

~snip~

Similar communications groups were used by President Clinton to promote his policies.

~snip~

http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20050305/42293cd0_3ca6_15526200503051395329880

This doesn't sound like a dispute. They both want to be more agressive. The columnist wanted to take an anti-Kerry shot abd say "Reid shot him down" BS.

Kerry and Reid (and other democrats) across the country need to combine their energies, resources, and strategies to fight off the real enemies to progressivism. GOP power-grabbing is the problem here in Indiana and across a Bushie infested US! We need to combine our energies to "nip" those Bushies "in the Bud"!

I remember him telling BushCo to 'Bring it On' several times...They brought it on alright and stomped all over him.

So when he uses words like "be far more aggressive," will I see him on 'Inside Politics' calling Greenspan a political hack like Reid did? I don't think so.

I wasn't very confident in Reid at first, but I think he's been doing a great job.

Kerry is serious about keeping SS out of GOP hands and he's been pounding Bush's privatization plan since before the debates. The quote is from Meet the Press.

John Kerry telling anyone that they need to be more aggressive fighting bushco. He is such a fraud, where was your fighting spirit in nov asshole?

the election. They were both rejected by the court. That's just one example. He fought a hard campaign.

work with these idoit fascists!

Take your own advice, Mr Concession man, and fight the GOP instead.
The effect is clearly seen in this thread; instead of all being united in defense of Social sec we have the Kerry people fighting it with the reid people. Mission accomplished - whoever pulls their strings.

divide and conquer is the republican way.

It only works if we let it.

The Democrats are winning the PR war on SS. They were winning even before Reid, Clinton, Shumer, Kerry, Lautenberg et al went out with a great presentation where each had their part, all spoke well and passionately about what SS was, why it's important, how there is no crisis and why Bush's plan is wrong. The NY panel was great, all of the Democrats went out of their way to compliment each other. Their seemed to be a real sense of camaraderie. (At the end when the Democrats were talking to each other, but there was no audio, Kerry was pleasantly talking to Reid, Clinton and Lautenberg - judging from facial expressions.)

This piece of 2 week old gossip, which seems over blown on the surface, seems designed to do three things.
- Change the subject from all the reasons why Bush's plan is bad
- Create dissension between different factions of the Democratic party.
- Attack 2 people who have gotten good press over the last week.

on the need for a perpetual campaign. The Republicans have had one since 1992, anyone notice?