Meet The New Boss--Same As The Old Boss

Call me uninspired. I've never been much for the Dale Carnegie approach to answering questions--saying the person's name as a preface to the answer--so I probably didn't give Ol' Harry Reid, the new Senate minority leader much of a chance in his first appearance on Meet the Press as minority leader. That said, I was un-im-pressed, not just with his style but with some of the content of his answers.

Style? Let's just say he was in tone and manner like his predecessor. In fact he was in tone and bearing a lot like Hatch and Frist, among others. Charismatic is not an adjective I would use to describe Senator Reid. Now maybe the test of a good (we can't hope for great can we?) minority leader is in the work he does that we don't see, so time will tell.

Content? Some good:

RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada, and he betrayed the country."

Is that rhetoric appropriate?

REID: I don't know if that rhetoric was appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt.

I think that -- take that issue, Tim, to take the most poisonous substance known to man, plutonium, and haul 70,000 tons of it across the highways and railways of this country, past schools and churches and people's businesses, is wrong. It's something that is being forced upon this country by the utilities, and it's wrong. And we have to stop it.

And people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.

Some, WTF?

This was the Associated Press about Harry Reid: "He voted with the Republicans to ban a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. And in 1999, he was one of two Senate Democrats who voted against an amendment expressing support for the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion."

Would you prefer to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, which allows legal abortions across the country?

REID: Tim, I have -- my views on abortion are very clear. I never tried to hide them. I think it's something that people understand about me.

But I also understand that this is a very complicated issue, very difficult issue. And, you know, in our caucus, our Democratic caucus, we have wide-ranging views. My sister, I don't have a sister, but as close as I have ever had to a sister is Barbara Boxer. Her views and my views differ.

But, you know, we don't have a litmus test with Senate Democrats. We don't do the so-called Specter test: You have to agree with us, or we won't let you be a chairman of the committee or subcommittee. We don't do that.

And so, I say that this is an issue that is not likely going to be resolved in the Congress of the United States. I think what we should do is all work toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, unintended pregnancies. I think we should do that. That would, of course, lead to fewer abortions. That should be a goal we all have.

And I think that this matter will be resolved. The Supreme Court has wrestled with this for years and years. And as you know, they're having a difficult time coming up with what should or shouldn't be done.

RUSSERT: What would happen, do you think, in the country if Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court?

REID: Oh, I think it would be a little -- it would be pretty difficult for everybody. So, I think -- and that's why the Supreme Court has wrestled with it.

Even sublime:

Again, Harry Reid on National Public Radio, November 19: "If they" -- the Bush White House -- "for example, gave us Clarence Thomas as chief justice, I personally feel that would be wrong. If they gave us Antonin Scalia, that's a little different question. I may not agree with some of his decisions, but I agree with the brilliance of his mind."

Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?

REID: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems, you've talked about them, every reporter has talked about them in town, where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this.

I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy. And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute.

Now I may come back to some of the other nonsense (like Bill Frist is a great guy, and what a public servant) and will definitely post on Supreme Court vacancies later, but I gotta tell you, these takes on abortion and Scalia are, well, out of step with where I think the party is right now.

I'm sure it is like herding cats and all, and even agree in principal with the big tent theory on important issues. Reducing the number of abortions isn't a bad idea (although they have gone up during Bush's four years) but, and this is a big one folks, he is saying that he doesn't agree with Roe v. Wade. If Roe was overturned it would be "pretty difficult"? You have got to be kidding me. I suppose back alleys are better for that sort of thing, huh Harry?

About Scalia he says you may not agree ith him but boy is that guy smart. Listen, the guy is probably the most divisive justice in the last half century and isn't bashful about saying some not-so-smart stuff, not to mention flying in a private plane to go on a junket with a party-litigant in a case pending before the Court, who happens to be the Vice Preznit.

Well lets just say this blogboy is going to be watching intently the gentleman from Nevada as he carries out his solemn obligation to institution and party.