I've sometimes thought that Harry Reid's not responsible for the failure of the Senate Democrats to accomplish more with their overwhelming majority in the face of the moribund Republican caucus.
But now I'm reading Robert Caro's wonderful trilogy on Lyndon Johnson, The Years of Lyndon Johnson (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2002), and some of the excuses I've used for Reid don't sound so good.
How was Johnson able to work a tiny majority in the Senate (48-47 with one independent in the democratic caucus) into Democratic dominance of the institution, while Reid achieves so little with his huge majority?
Some things C-SPAN addicts have become used to in past years are suggestive.