Harry vs. Harry

graphic by twolf1

Laaaaaaaaadies and gentleman! Late night at Firedoglake, in association with Elephants on Parade, is proud to present a knock-down, dragged out. . . and out. . . fight for the undisputed title of defender of the public interest and leader of the US Senate’s Democratic majority!

In this corner, weighing in at five stones and a bag of loose change, the reigning Majority Leader, US Senator Harry Mason “Give ‘em Hell Harry” Reid:

Dear Friend,

Last Friday, I was pleased to participate in a tele-town hall with thousands of Nevadans. On Monday, I joined hundreds of constituents at a health care rally at UNLV. At each stop, I reaffirmed my commitment to a public health insurance option and heard from thousands of Nevadans who agree with me.

Opponents of reform have been taking to the airwaves in an attempt to derail our efforts. We’ve seen astro-turf protesters disrupting town halls that would otherwise be civil discussions, while shadowy third party groups spread half-truths, myths, and flat-out lies about our plans for reform.

But it doesn’t end there.

Just yesterday, another candidate in the race to represent Nevada in the Senate, attacked me for supporting the public option. Folks, it’s time to fight back, and I need your help to do just that. Please, click here to make a secure contribution online today and support my campaign to stand up for real reform.

And, in this corner, weighing about as much as a warm bucket of spit, in his Silver State silver trunks, the sitting US Senator from the great state of Nevada. . . um, Harry Mason “give ‘em hell harry” . . . Reid. . . .

During a Friday tele-town hall event, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told constituents that he doesn’t think the public option ought to be a government run program like Medicare, but instead favors a "private entity that has direction from the federal government so people that don’t fall within the parameters of being able to get insurance from their employers, they would have a place to go."

Now, for expert analysis, let’s go ringside:

OK, so, the first quote, the one from Harry Reid, came to me via an email on Thursday. Reid wants money (is the purse not enough?), so Reid flexes his protector of the public option muscles for his partisan and likely mostly out-of-state email list.

The other quote, which references the exact same tele-town hall, references what Reid told his local news outlets. Which version do you think hits closer to the bone?

Well, from the bobbing and weaving that Reid’s staff did after the call (some of which is apparent in the TPM link above), my guess is the latter.

And while the fancy footwork and rope-a-dope might be OK with over-weight coalitions (The public option “doesn’t have to be a government agency, though we’d prefer it,” said HCAN corner man Richard Kirsch), it sure doesn’t sound like a winning combination to me.

Indeed, it is shaping up to look like a lose-lose. Reid the Majority Leader has failed to whip Max Baucus and his Finance Committee into shape, while Reid the four-term Senator from a swing state trails any one of a variety of hypothetical GOP challengers in the upcoming 2010 contest.

And this fan of the sweet science isn’t the only one to notice. Reid was compared to another glass-jawed Majority Leader from the not too distant past by none other than the Wall Street Journal—and the “typo” in this paragraph is the closest thing you will ever see to a newspaper making a Freudian slip:

The Harry Jekyll and Harry Hyde routine has become so pronounced that these days Democrats are worrying if the real concern isn’t Harry Daschle. The former South Dakota senator and Democratic leader also tried this edgy double life, though his constituents got wise to his tendency to put his party’s obstructionist agenda ahead of their interests and threw him out in 2004. The thought of another humiliating leader defeat—this time with 60 Senate seats to their name, and in the first election cycle after Barack Obama’s victory—has Democratic leaders in a near panic.

Awesome, right? (I took a screen shot, just in case the WSJ gets around to fixing it.) But not an awesome right. . . according to the Journal, Reid “polls 13 percentage points worse than Nevadan Sen. John Ensign—who’s just admitted he’s had an affair.”

The Journal also laughs at the public option run by a “private entity” head-fake, but from the other corner of the ring (if not outside the ropes, way upstairs in the peanut gallery). And the WSJ noticed something else, too:

What is certain is that Mr. Reid’s life isn’t going to get less complicated. While liberal blogs and progressive groups, conscious of a Daschle redux, have largely given Mr. Reid’s Nevada outreach a pass, they’ve also made it clear that when Congress reconvenes they’ll expect to see the Harry Reid they’ve come to know and love.

They got it right there. I do expect to see the same old Harry Reid, though I haven’t “loved” him since the days when the champ was the challenger—when the Majority Leader was the Minority Leader. And there is no way I want to watch that one again—even with free pay-per-view.

It is actually hard to take the fight metaphor too far (what round are we in, anyway?)—even the Wall Street Journal slips easily into the gloves (and I swear I did not steal it from them—just ask twolf, who made the graphic for me over 24 hours ago):

To add to the mix, some Senate Democrats are watching their majority leader duck and dive the health-care debate, and they are wondering why they should take a punch if he won’t. Good question. Majority leaders are there to lead. To do that they first need to be honest about what they stand for.

Good question—and good closing. What does Reid stand for? Damn! When I find myself agreeing with the Journal, maybe it’s time to hang ‘em up. . . or at least take a standing eight count.

Or maybe it’s time for Reid—both of them—to finally come out punching. If not, perhaps Give ‘em Hash Harry should just throw in the towel. There are only so many rounds in this health care fight, and only so many minutes in each round. . . and the ref is counting. . .

1. . . 2. . . 3. . . 4. . . 5. . . .