Harry Reid: Obama Should be "More Firm" With GOP

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Democrats

President Barack Obama waves alongside US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid during a fundraiser for Reid at the Aria Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, July 8, 2010.

(Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an interview with a Las Vegas television station that President Obama has at times been insufficiently forceful in his dealings with the Republican party.

"On a few occasions, I think he should have been more firm with those on the other side of the aisle," the Demotic Nevada senator told KSNV. "He is a person who doesn't like confrontation. He's a peacemaker. And sometimes I think you have to be a little more forceful. And sometimes I don't think he is."

The White House declined to comment on Reid's statements.

Reid pointed to the health care fight to back up his argument, saying there were times "when I wanted the folks in the White House behind me."

President Obama campaigned for Reid last week, raising $800,000 for his campaign. The senator is in a tough primary fight against Tea Party-aligned Republican Sharron Angle, who has cast Reid as more concerned with Washington dealmaking than his own constituents.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

13 Comments +

Add a Comment See all 13 Comments


by consciousnes July 14, 2010 8:32 AM EDT: They should use Harry Reid to plug the oil well in the gulf.; Reply to this comment


by MalloryDavis July 14, 2010 6:35 AM EDT: HE's a peace maker my fat AZZ!; Reply to this comment

by RobAla July 14, 2010 12:27 AM EDT

What??? Since when has Reid worked with Republicans on anything? I have news for the President, either he or Reid were elected to be Emperors with absolute power. This is supposed to be government for the people and by the people; not for King Obama and by his decree.

Reply to this comment


by pubsrtoast July 14, 2010 8:29 AM EDT: Hey Rob, just so you don't get the mistaken idea that this was a Democratic idea..
------------------------

Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01
In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Did you get that Robbie? Can you read? Let me repeat for you " Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution".


by formrusmcsgt July 13, 2010 8:59 PM EDT: I'm not a Reid fan by any means and will only vote for him this time because Angle is a basket case. I even wrote Reid's office months ago and told him I couldn't vote for him or Engle. Then Angle won the primary....

But here, I believe, Reid is addresing the perceived weakness by some about one who faces screaming, lathered critics with aplomb. Some mistake aplomb for weakness.....; Reply to this comment


by swenk22 July 13, 2010 8:02 PM EDT: snore...zzzz....; Reply to this comment


by kavehbc1 July 13, 2010 7:48 PM EDT: Sure, let's elect the Crazy republican Senate candidate? someone who wants to deny abortions to 13-year-old girls raped by their fathers; calls the BP victims' compensation fund a "slush fund," floats the possibility of armed rebellion; wants to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the EPA, and the IRS; and even disagrees with the legal status of alcohol. Sounds more like American Taliban...; Reply to this comment


by rightbehind July 13, 2010 7:33 PM EDT: A little late for that. He's played the centrist too long. He should have fired up his base. Instead he turned his back on them. The healthcare bill was way too compromised. It should have been the single payer system. He should have given the people a choice. He had the numbers to force a national referendum to let the people decide.; Reply to this comment


by OldProfessor July 13, 2010 7:07 PM EDT: The Republican posters are just not counting Obama's victories. They still cannot believe they lost the election. If only they could get past the mysterious birth certificate and community organizer issues THEY have raised, they would realize they have been flummoxed by a master politician. Obama doesn't have to hit you with a 2X4; he talks you to sleep. Sometimes that is known as hypnotism.; Reply to this comment


by LIBERALS-lie July 13, 2010 6:57 PM EDT: Reid will be gone after NOVEMBER 2010...; Reply to this comment

by cleric60 July 13, 2010 6:30 PM EDT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an interview with a Las Vegas television station that President Obama has at times been insufficiently forceful in his dealings with the Republican party.

Harry, Prez. Obama is a paper-tiger, much like his socialistic gang of supporters in Washington, DC. They "talk" tough but they are weak in their actions--look at this oil crisis.
By the way, how could Prez. Obama get more forceful??? Forbid the Republicans from expressing their opinions in public-you forget freedom of speech--or would you like to take away that citizen's freedom also.

Reply to this comment


by democracy5 July 14, 2010 7:31 AM EDT: Obama has been trying to find middle ground with the Republicans, while they refuse to do the same. Many parts of legislation under Obama have included a number of ideas originally proposed by Republicans, but they vote against them anyway, because they don't want Obama to has any success for purely political reasons. If they can't play ball, don't even bother with them.