Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has been using some special creative math recently to predict the outcome of this year’s mid-term election.  By factoring in Nevada’s elusive, election-spoiling voter option NOTA (which stands for “None Of The Above”), Harry stated on Monday that if the election were to be held then, he would win.  In Nevada, Harry Reid’s home state, voters can enter “None of the Above” on ballots where they don’t wish to vote for any other candidate.  Nevada is the only state that allows this option.  Back in 1998, Harry Reid beat John Ensign by a scant 1/10th of 1 percent (47.9%-47.8%), with the NOTA option coming in third at 1.8 percent.

Despite the fact that the influence of NOTA would most likely affect both parties equally, Reid remains confident.  Last week, when Reid formally announced his re-election campaign, he told a Nevada Newspaper “If the election were held today, I’d win.  Do the math.”  It’s possible that Reid’s special math is based more on theoretical quantities than real numbers.

The greatest threat against Reid, according to recent polls, is former Nevada State Senator Sue Lowden, who is currently 8 points ahead of the Senate Majority Leader.  But Reid may be banking on another potential spoiler, Jon Scott Ashjian, the candidate of Nevada’s newly-created official Tea Party.  Ashjian would be a volatile and risky candidate for the Republican party, for sure, but he may not be around to run in November.  Mainly because he is facing felony charges for writing bad checks and might just wind up being a ward of the state at election time.

With Scott Ashjian out of the picture, Reid is left facing Lowden along with Danny Tarkanian.  With Ashjian in the mix, Reid and Tarkanian tie at 39-39, according to a Las Vegas review Journal poll.  But Ashijan’s absence gives Tarkanian a sizable bump.  Additionally, although not included in the review Journal poll, Reid is also behind former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, who according the most recent Rasmussen Reports is ahead of Reid by 11 points.

Harry Reid is undoubtedly very powerful in Washington despite his unpopularity at home in Nevada.  The Las Vegas Sun called it a “political paradox,” and it became widely apparent during a 13-city tour of Nevada designed to initiate Harry Reid’s bid for re-election.  According to the Sun,

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s campaign tour stopped at a Minden coffee shop last week, he met rancher Nancy Park, who leaned toward him and said: “I respectfully disagree with what you’re doing for Nevada.”

At a Fernley pizza parlor, Robert Diffenderfer, 73, a veteran and biker, simply refused to shake the senator’s extended hand.

According to the Sun, the Reid caravan encountered protestors at numerous locations along its travels.  One protestor’s sign referred to Harry Reid’s campaign as the “Throw Nevada Under The Bus Tour.”

Senator Reid is suffering from the same fate that has plagued a number of powerful politicians in Washington.  The minority leadership roll he attained after Tom Daschle was voted out of office in 2004, and then the subsequent majority leadership in 2005, marked a distinct decline in Reid’s popularity.  Reid has tried to maintain the image of a local boy who still comes home to Searchlight to kick the rocks around and grab a cup of coffee at the local café.  But while Nevada suffers from the scourge of 10 percent unemployment and bares the brunt of the recession, Reid lives it up in Washington at the Ritz-Carlton.

And despite being in the position to do great things for the state, Nevada ranks 50th in the union per-capita in the money it received from Washington.  The Reid camp states that this is because the state government is required to match many of the funds that come from the federal government in order to receive them.  Because they are simply too cheap to do so, the money remains in Washington.

Harry Reid has never been more vulnerable than he is today.  If he really wishes to kick back and take in bucolic Nevada vistas and sip coffee in Searchlight cafes, why not give him a permanent vacation?  Vote Reid out of office in this year’s mid-term election.  Together we can, and will beat Reid.

Remember the Nevada maglev project?  It’s the superfast, high-tech magnetic levitating train that can make the trip from Las Vegas to Anaheim in 81 minutes.  Well, it’s back in the news, and southern Californians are once again salivating over the possibility of a railroad that can whisk them off to Las Vegas.  The maglev is a wonder of engineering, to be sure, but at around $12 billion, also extremely expensive.  Nevada senator Harry Reid was going to champion the cause of the next-generation train by marshaling a hefty subsidy from the federal government.  And, for a while, he stuck to that conviction.  Unfortunately, at least for the maglev, Harry’s enthusiasm fizzled out when a prominent republican (yes, republican) offered him a giant sum of money to incrassate his already swollen campaign chest.

The connection?  The republican in question, Sig Rogich, is the main man behind the maglev’s competition, a modernized version of existing steel wheel and rail trains, called the Desert Xpress, that goes to Victorville rather than all the way to Los Angeles.  (Supporters plan to connect the line to Palmdale, CA, linking Las Vegas to the California train system.)  You can read about Senator Reid’s abandonment of the maglev project here.

The maglev, meanwhile, fits the model of an energy-efficient, non-polluting, highly “green” means of transportation.  It’s just the type of thing that would go over with flying colors in the new green economy.  In fact, an announcement was made last Thursday that 31 states would be sharing in $8 billion as part of President Barack Obama’s plan to create jobs and infrastructure.  Nearly a quarter of the federal money, $2.34 billion, will go to California, with $2.25 billion going to a new high-speed system to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles and the remainder going to other rail projects in the state.

But no money will go to Nevada.  Why?  It depends on who you ask.  Nevada governor Jim Gibbons laid the blame clearly on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling the senator “asleep at the switch.”  Gibbons lambasted Senator Reid, saying it was “disgusting and disgraceful that Reid and Obama ignored our efforts.”

According to Reid, however, Nevada failed to get in line in the first place.  Reid’s representative, Jon Summers, told a Fox network affiliate (FOX5) that Nevada’s Department of Transportation never applied for the funding. “If Jim Gibbons wants to know why Maglev didn’t get any of the $8 billion in stimulus money announced today for high-speed rail, he should look in the mirror.  If anyone was asleep at the switch, it was Gov. Gibbons because his Department of Transportation failed to apply.”

The organization behind the maglev, the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, did apply, but “only states, groups of states, interstate compacts or public agencies” could apply for funding, according to a letter from the U.S. Department of Transportation released by Reid’s office.

Of course, the fact that the Desert Xpress is the project of a major Reid campaign contributor wasn’t mentioned in the letter.  Or anywhere, for that matter.

By Rick Charles
BeatReid.com
January 14, 2010

Harry is in a helluva jam these days.  He has proudly taken credit for forcing the healthcare fiasco down the throats of the American people, a program that a clear majority of folks of all political stripes find offensive and distasteful.  And thanks to Harry’s decision to link the bill to Edward Kennedy’s memory, for the first time since 1953, Kennedy’s seat is in serious danger of falling into Republican hands.  Who would have thunk it even a month ago.  (Note: Kennedy’s seat has not been Republican in almost 60 years, but John Kerry’s seat was last filled by the GOP in 1979).

Most egregious to this whole stinking process, however, is Hateful Harry’s complete disconnect with the American people and our values.  In the 21^st Century, few people think in terms of race and racial stereotypes.  Seriously.  We elected an African American to be our president for the very first time; by many accounts, voters embraced his race and voted for him because of it, not in spite of it.  When inappropriate remarks are made by public people that are degrading to a particular group or underscore long held negative stereotypes, it is often the Democratic party and their cronies - the liberal thought police - who protest loudest and often demand that nothing short of the head of the person misspeaking will correct the mistake.

For those out of the loop, long-winded Helium Harry has helped the Democratic ship of state take on still more water as we enter the new year (on top of healthcare, cap and tax, national security, and oh, that pesky jobless number and the continuing home foreclosure crisis) with the revelation of comments he made about Barack Obama recently revealed in the 2008 campaign manifesto Game Change. In addition to the expected jabs at Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign, the book’s authors report that Reid described in private during the campaign candidate Obama would be electable by the American people because he is “light skinned” and fortunately had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

If a Republican had said this, I think we all know what would have happened.  Remember Trent Lott?   At Strom Thurmond’s 100^th birthday celebration in 2002, then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (GOP) praised the ailing Thurmond with a comment that the United States would have avoided “all these problems” if his bid for the presidency on a segregationist platform in 1948 had been successful.  While the remarks were clearly meant to cheer the heart of an old man, the liberal media piled on, encouraging calls for Lott to step down from both sides of the aisle.

“He had no alternative,” said Reid at the time, claiming, “If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.” Fast-forward to 2010.  Rambling Reid wants the controversy to go away with his apology, and the old double standard has set in.  Those on the left accept the apology without question or demands for any kind of intervention or sensitivity training.  They just want to move on.  The wider perception, however, is that Harry is too old and too out of touch if he can make such remarks with a clear conscience, especially if they are private.  Even his most ardent critics don’t think he is himself racist, but the inappropriate remarks expose a more troubling soul.  The most liberal supporters of the president wince at Half-witted Harry’s archaic remarks, for they expose a pitiful man more interested in keeping power based on backroom deals, shady handshakes, dishonest and insincere promises and petty politics.  Sadly, these comments expose Abhorrent Harry’s greatest sin - his utter disrespect for the intelligence of the American people and their ability to see beyond a candidate for his skin color or his oratory abilities.  Just as Obama hero John F. Kennedy broke the religious barrier as the first Catholic president by fighting mindless stereotypes, so too has our current president had to battle stereotypes all African Americans face at one time or another.  How unfortunate for the president that the chorus of ignorance now emanates from the shepherd of his policies in the United States Senate.

In a reversal of roles, bloodthirsty members of the GOP are tightening up the last few coils on the rope with which they wish to hang Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  A predictable wildfire of political posturing and brouhaha has resulted from recently exposed comments made by Senator Reid about President Barack Obama.  Reid’s remarks were revealed in a new book, “Game Change” by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann about the 2008 presidential race. According to the book, Reid was impressed by Obama’s candidacy during the primaries, and said privately that the country was ready for a black president - particularly a “light-skinned” one “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” [Politico]

Comments about the ethnicity of high-level government officials have always been considered to be in bad taste.  In the case of Obama, they’re downright taboo, and for good reason.  When we Americans voted the first black person into the White House, most of us did so with the assumption that petty issues about race were finally behind us.  Or, at the very least, would be relegated to the dank and squalid outskirts of the Deep South.

Or so we thought.  Now, in a veritable political food-fight, Republicans normally on the defense over issues of race, are having a field day at their long-awaited turn at bat.  GOP National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, as well as National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn, has called on Reid to step down from his post as Senate Majority Leader.  They recite clamoring from the Democrats for the head of Trent Lott, back in 2002, after he lauded the late Senator Strom Thurmond during his 100^th birthday party.  Lott, unlike Reid, proceeded to resign his leadership post in the wake of the controversy.

Back in 2002, Lott’s statement was “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” To fully appreciate what all the fuss was over, remember that Strom Thurmond was a staunch segregationist.  In Thurmond’s own words,

“All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.”

On the surface, at least, there appears to be a distinct difference between the comments of Harry Reid and those of Trent Lott.  Harry Reid’s remarks seem to come from a man somewhat rooted in the past.  But the use of the word “negro” was more than just an unfortunate anachronism.  It was downright distasteful and insulting.  And, apparently, it’s a word that Reid reserves for his most private conversations.  He’s never said anything in public remotely like it.  Reid’s public oratory remains steadfastly PC, without any hint of words like “negro.”

But, it’s difficult to read the mind of a politician.  Take the comments of Trent Lott.  Did Lott really mean, from his heart of hearts, the praise and adulation he offered Strom Thurmond?  Or, was this just an example of a skilled politician paying panegyrical tribute to a life-long colleague on the night of his 100^th birthday?

In Washington, you just never know.

One thing we all do know, however, is that Senator Reid is up for re-election in November of this year.  And although the Senate Majority Leader is well prepared for the fight 10 months from now, the polls indicate that voters from his home state of Nevada are poised to get rid of Reid when given the opportunity.

Here are some of the latest numbers, according to a survey by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which interviewed 625 registered Nevada voters by telephone Jan. 5-7.   52 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 33 percent had a favorable view and another 15 percent said they’re neutral. In early December, a Mason-Dixon poll put his unfavorable-favorable rating at 49-38. The lowest Reid’s popularity had slipped before in the surveys was 50 percent — in October, August and May of 2009.  The poll also took a snapshot of how Reid would do against three potential GOP opponents. In each case it showed the senator losing with only 40 percent of voters supporting him

• Sue Lowden, former Nevada Republican Party chairwoman, would get 50 percent of the vote to Reid’s 40 percent with 10 percent undecided.
• Danny Tarkanian, a businessman and former UNLV basketball star, would gain 49 percent of the vote to Reid’s 41 percent.
• Sharron Angle, a former Reno assemblywoman, would get 45 percent of the vote to Reid’s 40 percent, a strong showing given her low name recognition statewide — 42 percent don’t know her.

In an attempt to point out partisan hypocrisy, and at the same time score a few points with the voters, Sue Lowden had this to say to Fox News on Monday: “(Reid) was one of the first ones to jump on Trent Lott, and surely if (Senate Republican Leader Mitch) McConnell said something like that he’d be one of the first ones to call for his resignation.  So it is a double standard. … The Democrats can get away with saying those things and the Republicans could never, never get away with saying something like that.”

Republicans aren’t the only ones excoriating Harry Reid for his remarks.  A few Democrats have also weighed in, but in a softer and more understanding manner.  Democratic New York Governor David Paterson, who is black, called Reid’s comment “reprehensible,” but said he should not have to resign his post over the controversy, according to New York’s Times Union.

Representative Barbara Lee, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, released a written statement Monday saying Reid “understands the gravity” of his comment but should remain as majority leader. She said Reid, unlike Republicans, works on behalf of poor and minority communities.

In some cases, democrats are actually coming to Harry Reid’s rescue. Eric Holder, the country’s first black attorney general, defended Reid in an interview with The Associated Press. “I don’t think that there is a prejudiced bone in his body,” he said.  Even President Obama reacted in his usual sober manner.  In an interview with TV One, he called Reid a “stalwart champion … of civil rights” and a “good man” who meant no offense.

“For him to have used some inartful language in trying to praise me, and for people to try to make hay out of that makes absolutely no sense…”  He continued, “He apologized, recognizing that he didn’t use appropriate language, but there was nothing mean-spirited in what he had to say and he’s always been on the right side of the issues.”

Harry Reid, although apologetic, is not backing down.  Despite calls for him to step down from his leadership position, or even from the senate altogether, he is still remaining steadfast.  And, he shows no signs of fear in the face of the up-coming mid-term elections.  The 70 year-old, four-term democrat had this to say in a statement:  “I am absolutely running for re-election.  These are difficult times for Nevada and as the majority leader of the Senate I have been able to take action to address those challenges. But I know there is more work to do to turn our state’s economy around and create jobs and I am committed to seeing it through.”

At the end of the day, what Reid said was not the be-all and end-all of horrifying statements.  Sandy Banks, in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, said “If anyone is insulted, it should be whites — whom Reid accused implicitly of being willing to vote for a black man only if he talks like them and is not too black.”  She points out that Obama’s appearance and avoidance of “Negro dialect” — except when reaching out to blacks — allowed white voters to feel comfortable with his politics and his intellect. Perhaps.

Or, after eight years of George W. Bush repeatedly butchering words, perhaps whites (and everyone else) are simply more comfortable with someone who speaks the king’s English and displays a level of intellect higher than most of the people in the room.

The fact is that Reid should, and given his public performances, does know better than to use words in the manner he did back in 2008.  And, though it maybe too much to ask that he voluntarily resign his position as Senate Majority Leader, he should receive his just deserts in the 2010 election.

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Senate Republicans can come up with is: ‘Slow down, stop everything and start over.’  If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said slow down, it’s too early, let’s wait, things aren’t bad enough.”

Good one, Harry.

The democratic Senate Majority Leader managed to show his elitist colors once again.   Racial bias has already been blamed for (some of the) GOP resistance to president Obama’s health care plan. Remember Jimmy Carter’s recent comment that an “overwhelming proportion” of resistance to Health Care Reform is rooted in racism?  The last thing democrats need to maintain credibility-and forward the cause of passing health care reform- is for Harry Reid to drop what is essentially the race card.

Republicans have come out swinging.  Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele responded by saying, “It was not a sober moment for Harry Reid at all. It was an ignorant moment.  I’m kind of sick and tired of the left and Democrats in this country. When they get into trouble and don’t get their way and their backs are up against the wall on legislation or whatever it is that they’re trying to do, they go to that card. They play that race card, that slavery card, that civil rights card.”

As Steele pointed out clearly, the debate over health care reform has nothing to do with the historic roots of slavery.  If democrats want success in making policy in Washington, they will have to change some minds.  Even with large democratic majorities in both the House and Senate you cannot expect to have unilateral party support over every piece of legislation that reaches the floor.  Tactics like throwing around accusations of racism, or comparing the arguments of the opposition to those made by the most egregious practitioners of racism in our country’s history only serve to divide.

Prominent Democrats in government would be wise to leave these tactics at the door when entering into political debate.  Especially when the so-called champions of civil rights, like Jimmy Carter, have a few skeletons in their own closets.  According to a book by Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Carter resisted desegregation as a Georgia School Board member by opposing a black school in Sumter county because it was “too close” to a white school.

The division, sadly, seems to be spread out on the usual party fault lines.  Another statement, from Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray said there were no critical remarks within the caucus and no discussion of Senator Reid offering an apology for the remarks he made Monday.  Maine senator Olympia Snowe was apparently outraged by the comment, which bodes poorly for Senator Reid as she is considered to be a rare and crucial swing vote in support of health care reform.  Senator Judd Gregg called the remark “foolish.”  And, the folks back home in Nevada had an equally harsh reaction.  The Las Vegas Sun made this statement:

“It is not a matter of if Reid will say something foolishly incendiary and politically damaging between now and November. It’s a case of how many times and how deep will the wounds be.”

It’s becoming increasingly dangerous to be a democrat.  A handful of republicans managed to bring up the fact that it was mostly democratic senators that filibustered the 1964 Civil rights Bill.  Among them was Robert Byrd, a former KKK member.

Meanwhile, the response from Harry Reid was “I think the point is quite clear, by this point, that at pivotal points in American history, the tactics of distortion, delay have certainly been present.  They’ve been used to stop progress. That’s what we’re talking about here. That’s what’s happening here. It’s very clear. That’s a point I made - no more, no less. Anyone who willingly distorts my comments is only proving my point.”  (Beat Reid gives the Senate Majority Leader an A+ for his use of the word “point” in a sentence.)

In all their over reactions to health care reform, calling a public insurance plan an attempt at a government takeover, etc., why hand the GOP yet another piece of meat to salivate over?  Even if they don’t believe, in their collective private thoughts, that Harry Reid is morally equating their resistance to health care reform to civil rights, slavery and racism, republicans will use this opportunity to cry foul on the part of democrats for unfair and immature tactics.

It’s impossible to expect any positive outcome from such elitist, arrogant and spiteful politicians like Harry Reid.  He continues to do and say whatever is necessary to retain power for himself.  He continues to perpetuate the alienation between the parties with incendiary comments like those made this week.  Senator Reid works the strings and switches behind the scenes to eradicate any and all competition, regardless of the venue.  And like a refractory, spoiled child, manages to get his own way most of the time.  About a year ago, Reid commented on the opening of the new Capital Visitors Center, a year behind schedule and millions over budget.  “My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway,” said Reid in his remarks. “In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it’s true.”

It’s hard to imagine any other politician getting away with a comment like that.

By Kathy Flynn
Monday, November 16, 2009
BeatReid.com

Most political movements focused on electing a candidate into, or an incumbent out of office are prone to fall pretty much along party lines.  Beat Reid is no different.  But, at least internally, we are more about giving someone else a chance in the soon-to-be-available Nevada senate seat than we are about conservative politics in general.

We are often asked what our reasons are for wanting Senator Reid out of office.  We can’t deny that it makes sense, at least on initial inquiry, that the motivation behind supporting one candidate over another stems from adherence to a political philosophy.  If a candidate espouses an ideology different from one’s own, one is against them.  To be truthful, that IS our motivation.  But, the ideology we are adhering to is not necessarily a conservative or liberal one.  We believe that when politicians put remaining in power, and reaping the benefits of that power, over serving those who elect them its time for them to go.

Our authors vary in their political leanings, we have democrats and republicans ranging from liberal to conservative on our staff.  Considering that Harry Reid is a Democrat, and one of considerable stature within the leadership, it comes as no surprise that we have more right-leaning authors than those on the left.  But the perspectives of democrats who recognize the need to remove Reid are important to us.  If you are a reader of Beat Reid, and also a democrat, or know a democrat who would like to see another politician (whether democrat or republican) sitting in the senate instead of Harry Reid let us know.  Write to us and share your opinions, give us your most compelling reasons why Nevadans should elect Harry Reid out of office in the 2010 election.

Harry Reid announced Monday that he would support health care reform, including the so-called public option, where the government would compete with private insurance companies with its own federally-run health insurance plan. We present here some of the theories as to exactly why Senator Reid has made what some consider to be an abrupt shift in his position on the controversial plan. One fact, however, brings clarity to the eyes of Beat Reid and gives us more reason than ever to suspect the true motivations of the Senate Majority Leader.

The version of the Public Option proposed by Harry Reid includes language that will allow individual states to opt out of the plan. One obvious reason for the option to opt out is to smooth the way for the more conservative members of the party to step into line and form a unified front against a GOP filibuster. With the onus of a real commitment to the Public Option falling into the hands if state leaders, democrats on the Hill have been given a free ride to achieving a 60% majority. Which they will need to secure cloture and countervail a filibuster. This also gives them the additional protection of being able to support a policy that might be unpopular within their constituencies and thus hurt their chances for re-election.

Here’s what Harry Reid had to say in a well-crafted statement on Monday: “While the public option is not a silver bullet, I believe it’s an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry,” Conspicuously missing is any comment on the battle raging on the senate floor. When asked about whether he will achieve the 60 votes necessary to thwart a GOP filibuster, he had no comment. He said that the bill will now move to the senate budget office to asses its fiscal impact.

As far as Senator Reid’s previous position on a government-run insurance option, he was believed to be mostly in support of the “trigger” option proposed my Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe. Predictably, Senator Snowe’s reaction was not a happy one. “I am deeply disappointed with the Majority Leader’s decision to include a public option as the focus of the legislation,” she said. It is a very real reality is that Harry Reid may have lost the support of Olympia Snowe, which could bode poorly in his attempt to get health care reform passed in the Senate.

An analysis by Rick Weissenstein, health-care analyst with the Washington Research Group, agrees with Beat Reid. “It appears that Reid’s plan is several votes short of 60 at the current time.” Inferring again that one prevailing theory is that Reid does not have the votes, and is making this move to nudge stubborn members of the Democratic Party to fall in line. The challenge to those party members is are you really willing to ignore party wishes considering the provision of an “out” for states that do not support the Public Option?

Of course, it could also be that Harry Reid is privy to “insider” information that the rest of us are not. Another Washington analyst, Daniel Clifton, the head of Washington policy analysis at Strategas Research Partners, believes that those senators most openly against the public plan (due to the unpopularity of it at home) have quietly agreed to vote for it. He cites two probable examples, Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. or Ben Nelson, D-Neb. “They’ll wait to review the bill, to see how the Congressional Budget Office reacts, but they may have given him the signal.”

Another possible reason for Harry Reid’s shift to support of the Public Option is the Democratic Party’s long history with the labor unions. The unions worked hard to get politicians in office under the assumption that they would support health care reform, including a government run option. That’s something Harry Reid cannot ignore if he is to rely on the unions’ support in the 2010 midterm elections.

Labor union officials are against taxation of the more expensive, high-end health insurance plans that many union members hold to get expanded health coverage. Labor officials were none too pleased with the Senate Finance Committee bill which relied heavily on taxing high-cost insurance plans, along with offering no public option whatsoever.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka made this clear in a press conference Monday morning. “We cannot be in favor of reform just for reform’s sake,” he told reporters. “The fight now is over what reform will look like. The American public overwhelmingly supports the public option. We need a robust public option that reduces premiums and keeps insurance companies honest by ensuring competition.” He emphasized that the unions aren’t backing down. Over the last two weeks, he says, over 100 AFL-CIO leaders have come to Washington and held over 100 meetings with congressional members or staffers.

They also sent around 42,000 letters and made thousands of phone calls. Trumka promised what he referred to as a “massive day of action,” to occur on November 5^th, during which they will lobby heavily for health care reform with a government sponsored public option. As far as Reid’s plan is concerned, Trumka says it “is a step in the right direction.”

Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, had this to say in an article in the Huffington Post: Will the Democratic team be held hostage by a handful of conservative senators, who are willing to deny their teammates the right to even vote for a truly affordable health-care plan? Are they willing to thwart the rest of the caucus, and most importantly, what the vast majority of Americans want?

And still another reason for Harry Reid’s support of the Public Option could be to take pressure off of Barack Obama himself. Obama may very well have made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that it is the duty of a leading democrat to support groundbreaking legislation and do whatever it takes to prevent the Republican defenses from taking it down.

Of course, according to the more liberal, progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Obama’s handling of the debate over the Public Option has been far too “hands off” as of late. They accuse him of letting his supporters take the bullets, while he remains more neutral and protected. Whether or not the president has had any Truman-esque “back to Jesus” meetings with leading Hill democrats is currently only a theory.

Senator Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, had these comments. “I hope the president speaks out strongly for the public option - this health care bill really becomes his at this point. [Reid] took the temperature of his caucus and found that he had to go with the public option,” added Brown. “And now it’s the president’s turn. … He needs to speak out strongly on a number of issues … affordability … the subsidy question - really on the whole package.”

That might be a necessary move for the president. The Public Option is popular amongst Americans as a whole. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll say 48% support a government run plan, while 42% oppose (4.4% margin of error), last month 46% supported and 48% opposed.

We all know that Harry Reid can count. Most importantly, he can count to 60. His support of the Public Option, with an Opt-Out clause for individual states makes the most sense in the light of the probability of a GOP filibuster of any Democratic health care reform bill. The magic bullet that will kill that filibuster and achieve cloture is to secure the necessary 60% majority vote in favor of the bill.

Joe Lieberman (I-Ct) recently announced that, even though he supports bringing the bill to the senate floor for debate, he will vote against any bill containing public option. This makes the possibility for cloture even more tentative, and cranks up the pressure on Reid and the rest of the democrats to fall in line if they want to see health care reform passed.

Lieberman’s position: “I’ve told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now I will vote against cloture,” he said.

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company. It’s just asking for trouble - in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people who have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Harry Reid, in a statement made Tuesday afternoon, replied this way. “I don’t have anyone that I have worked harder with, have more respect for in the Senate than Joe Lieberman. As you know, he’s my friend. There are a lot of senators, Democrat and Republicans, who don’t like part of what’s in this bill that we sent over to CBO. We’re going to see what the final product is. We’re not there yet. Sen. Lieberman will let us get on [to begin debating] the bill, and he’ll be involved in the amendment process.”

Again, Reid replies in a relatively passionless and cerebral manner. Not looking for a blood bath at this time, Senator Reid is playing the game of politics in a masterful way. Whether its enough to elevate his popularity in his home state of Nevada-and possibly secure a win in the 2010 elections-is still to be determined.

Of course, we at Beat Reid believe he can, and WILL, be defeated in the 2010 mid-terms.

Harry Reid announced Monday that he would support health care reform, including the so-called public option, where the government would compete with private insurance companies with its own federally-run health insurance plan. We present here some of the theories as to exactly why Senator Reid has made what some consider to be an abrupt shift in his position on the controversial plan. One fact, however, brings clarity to the eyes of Beat Reid and gives us more reason than ever to suspect the true motivations of the Senate Majority Leader.

The version of the Public Option proposed by Harry Reid includes language that will allow individual states to opt out of the plan. One obvious reason for the option to opt out is to smooth the way for the more conservative members of the party to step into line and form a unified front against a GOP filibuster. With the onus of a real commitment to the Public Option falling into the hands if state leaders, democrats on the Hill have been given a free ride to achieving a 60% majority. Which they will need to secure cloture and countervail a filibuster. This also gives them the additional protection of being able to support a policy that might be unpopular within their constituencies and thus hurt their chances for re-election.

Here’s what Harry Reid had to say in a well-crafted statement on Monday: “While the public option is not a silver bullet, I believe it’s an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry,” Conspicuously missing is any comment on the battle raging on the senate floor. When asked about whether he will achieve the 60 votes necessary to thwart a GOP filibuster, he had no comment. He said that the bill will now move to the senate budget office to asses its fiscal impact.

As far as Senator Reid’s previous position on a government-run insurance option, he was believed to be mostly in support of the “trigger” option proposed my Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe. Predictably, Senator Snowe’s reaction was not a happy one. “I am deeply disappointed with the Majority Leader’s decision to include a public option as the focus of the legislation,” she said. It is a very real reality is that Harry Reid may have lost the support of Olympia Snowe, which could bode poorly in his attempt to get health care reform passed in the Senate.

An analysis by Rick Weissenstein, health-care analyst with the Washington Research Group, agrees with Beat Reid. “It appears that Reid’s plan is several votes short of 60 at the current time.” Inferring again that one prevailing theory is that Reid does not have the votes, and is making this move to nudge stubborn members of the Democratic Party to fall in line. The challenge to those party members is are you really willing to ignore party wishes considering the provision of an “out” for states that do not support the Public Option?

Of course, it could also be that Harry Reid is privy to “insider” information that the rest of us are not. Another Washington analyst, Daniel Clifton, the head of Washington policy analysis at Strategas Research Partners, believes that those senators most openly against the public plan (due to the unpopularity of it at home) have quietly agreed to vote for it. He cites two probable examples, Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. or Ben Nelson, D-Neb. “They’ll wait to review the bill, to see how the Congressional Budget Office reacts, but they may have given him the signal”

Another possible reason for Harry Reid’s shift to support of the Public Option is the Democratic Party’s long history with the labor unions. The unions worked hard to get politicians in office under the assumption that they would support health care reform, including a government run option. That’s something Harry Reid cannot ignore if he is to rely on the unions’ support in the 2010 midterm elections.

Labor union officials are against taxation of the more expensive, high-end health insurance plans that many union members hold to get expanded health coverage. Labor officials were none too pleased with the Senate Finance Committee bill which relied heavily on taxing high-cost insurance plans, along with offering no public option whatsoever.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka made this clear in a press conference Monday morning. “We cannot be in favor of reform just for reform’s sake,” he told reporters. “The fight now is over what reform will look like. The American public overwhelmingly supports the public option. We need a robust public option that reduces premiums and keeps insurance companies honest by ensuring competition.” He emphasized that the unions aren’t backing down. Over the last two weeks, he says, over 100 AFL-CIO leaders have come to Washington and held over 100 meetings with congressional members or staffers.

They also sent around 42,000 letters and made thousands of phone calls. Trumka promised what he referred to as a “massive day of action,” to occur on November 5^th, during which they will lobby heavily for health care reform with a government sponsored public option. As far as Reid’s plan is concerned, Trumka says it “is a step in the right direction.”

Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, had this to say in an article in the Huffington Post: Will the Democratic team be held hostage by a handful of conservative senators, who are willing to deny their teammates the right to even vote for a truly affordable health-care plan? Are they willing to thwart the rest of the caucus, and most importantly, what the vast majority of Americans want?

And still another reason for Harry Reid’s support of the Public Option could be to take pressure off of Barack Obama himself. Obama may very well have made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that it is the duty of a leading democrat to support groundbreaking legislation and do whatever it takes to prevent the Republican defenses from taking it down.

Of course, according to the more liberal, progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Obama’s handling of the debate over the Public Option has been far too “hands off” as of late. They accuse him of letting his supporters take the bullets, while he remains more neutral and protected. Whether or not the president has had any Truman-esque “back to Jesus” meetings with leading Hill democrats is currently only a theory.

Senator Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, had these comments. “I hope the president speaks out strongly for the public option - this health care bill really becomes his at this point. [Reid] took the temperature of his caucus and found that he had to go with the public option,” added Brown. “And now it’s the president’s turn. … He needs to speak out strongly on a number of issues … affordability … the subsidy question - really on the whole package.”

That might be a necessary move for the president. The Public Option is popular amongst Americans as a whole. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll say 48% support a government run plan, while 42% oppose (4.4% margin of error), last month 46% supported and 48% opposed.

We all know that Harry Reid can count. Most importantly, he can count to 60. His support of the Public Option, with an Opt-Out clause for individual states makes the most sense in the light of the probability of a GOP filibuster of any Democratic health care reform bill. The magic bullet that will kill that filibuster and achieve cloture is to secure the necessary 60% majority vote in favor of the bill.

Joe Lieberman (I-Ct) recently announced that, even though he supports bringing the bill to the senate floor for debate, he will vote against any bill containing public option. This makes the possibility for cloture even more tentative, and cranks up the pressure on Reid and the rest of the democrats to fall in line if they want to see health care reform passed.

Lieberman’s position: “I’ve told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now I will vote against cloture,” he said.

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company. It’s just asking for trouble - in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people who have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Harry Reid, in a statement made Tuesday afternoon, replied this way. “I don’t have anyone that I have worked harder with, have more respect for in the Senate than Joe Lieberman. As you know, he’s my friend. There are a lot of senators, Democrat and Republicans, who don’t like part of what’s in this bill that we sent over to CBO. We’re going to see what the final product is. We’re not there yet. Sen. Lieberman will let us get on [to begin debating] the bill, and he’ll be involved in the amendment process.”

Again, Reid replies in a relatively passionless and cerebral manner. Not looking for a blood bath at this time, Senator Reid is playing the game of politics in a masterful way. Whether its enough to elevate his popularity in his home state of Nevada-and possibly secure a win in the 2010 elections-is still to be determined.

Of course, we at Beat Reid believe he can, and WILL, be defeated in the 2010 mid-terms.