Harry Reid's results
Yglesias makes the case for Harry Reid:
Liberals have rarely found themselves hailing Reid’s leadership. But the fact of the matter is that there’s almost no precedent for the legislative mission he’s been asked to accomplish of turning 59 Democrats, one loosely Democrat-aligned Independent, and two slightly moderate Republicans into 60 votes for a package that’s simultaneously a dramatic expansion of the welfare state and a measure that reduces both short- and long-term deficits.
On top of the intrinsically difficult nature of the task, he’s facing a really ugly political situation back home. Because Beltway mores dictate that you can never hold a member of congress morally culpable for actions undertaken in the name of raw politically self-interest, it must have been very tempting for Reid to get distracted. But he’s stayed on point and focused, dealt with the timid members of his caucus, dealt with the ignorant members of his caucus, dealt with the egomaniacal members of his caucus, and dealt with the all-too-typical Senatorial combination of policy ignorance, egomania, and political cowardice among some members. For his troubles it looks like we’re going to get a bill that liberals feel churlish about at best. But it’s really an extraordinary achievement.
People often compare Reid to Pelosi, and not favorably. But Pelosi got 50.5 percent of her chamber to vote for health-care reform. Reid looks like he'll get 60 percent. That's not to make the reverse comparison, as Reid made compromises that Pelosi didn't make. But it is to say that you can lead your chamber in a different way when you have 40 Democratic votes you can lose, as opposed to being able to lose zero votes, and given Lieberman's behavior, having to pick up one or two from the other side.
Photo credit: AP Photo/Harry Hamburg.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/harry_reids_results.html It's so easy to throw stones at Congress and the White House from outside.