Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category
Ed Rogers’ post highlights the lengths to which they’ll go to run away from Harry Reid:
Georgia’s Democratic Senate candidate, Michelle Nunn, recently suggested she might not vote for Harry Reid to be Democratic Senate leader if she wins her election. That the first vote Democratic senators would take would be to reelect Harry Reid, and thereby support and maintain the status quo in Washington, is a potent weapon for Republicans to use against Democratic candidates. In a well-rehearsed statement, Nunn told reporters that she “looks forward to changing the composition in the leadership of the Senate” and “will vote for the Democratic leader that…best represents our capacity to get things done.”
It’s impossible to take this seriously. If Ms. Nunn abstains from voting, Sen. Reid will know who abstained. That’s the moment at which she’ll be ostracized by Sen. Reid.
This type of posturing embodies the deceit Nunn’s entire campaign is based on. (Remember the leaked memo of her campaign strategy that exposed how contrived and fabricated her image really is?) But she is not the only Democrat who is resorting to these tactics in an attempt to get votes. If reelected, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is not going to stand up to the president and make a difference on the Keystone XL pipeline. Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes has already proven she doesn’t really care about coal, no matter what she says on the campaign trail. And the very notion that Nunn wouldn’t fall into lockstep with the Democrats as soon as she crossed into the Beltway is just ridiculous. Democratic candidates seem to be counting on voters being really stupid. It is painfully obvious that much of what they say is not sincere.
If Republicans don’t push Nunn, Grimes and Landrieu on their phoniness, they should be slapped silly. Lundergan-Grimes won’t push Sen. Reid or President Obama about coal. She’ll vote for the Democrats’ budget, which will give President Obama’s EPA the authority to decimate the coal industry. Landrieu won’t push President Obama over the Keystone XL Pipeline even though her state would benefit from building it.
Nunn, though, is the biggest phony of the trio, though. Sam Nunn was a truly moderate Democrat. His daughter, however, is a true believer in President Obama’s agenda. She’s also lacking his political skills.
This trio of Democrats come from famous political families. That’s the good news for Democrats. The bad news for Democrats is that they’re each as phony as a $3 bill. That might’ve worked in the 1990s but it doesn’t work in a TEA Party environment.
There’s now enough evidence to prove that Nancy Pelosi is as corrupt a Democrat as Harry Reid or President Obama. Last week, Pelosi’s PAC, which supports Democrat congressional candidates and incumbents, put together an ad so dishonest and defamatory that WDIO and KSTP, a pair of TV stations, pulled the ad. That didn’t stop Ms. Pelosi, though. Instead, Ms. Pelosi’s PAC doubled down by essentially running the same ad as a pop-up ad on RealClearPolitics. Here’s one of the ads from Pelosi’s PAC:
If dishonesty were diamonds, Pelosi’s PAC would be filthy rich.
Let’s get something straight from the start. Pelosi’s PAC doesn’t care about honesty. If they have to throw out integrity to defeat a Republican, that’s what they’ll do. While Democrats specialize in smearing Republicans, they aren’t that good at it.
When the House Majority PAC accused Stewart Mills of wanting tax cuts for his “wealthy friends,” I exposed that lie in this article in less than an hour. All it took was a quick visit to Stewart’s issues page on his campaign website. I proved that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had lied again.
Stewart’s position is that tax simplification would immediately help small businesses by dramatically reducing a ssmall business’s compliance costs. Reducing compliance costs frees up capital, which can then be used to expand the business and create jobs.
There’s no question that Democrats see Mills as a threat. First, Pelosi’s PAC put together a defamatory ad against him. Sunday night, I saw another dishonest ad from the Democrats smearing Stewart Mills, this one paid for by AFSCME PEOPLE. The ads were virtually the same. They even used the same narrator and virtually the same dishonest statements. AFSCME PEOPLE’s ad will certainly be taken down as quickly as the Pelosi PAC ad was last week.
The TV station running the AFSCME PEOPLE ad, in this instance WCCO-TV, would be in the same negative legal situation as KSTP and WDIO would’ve been in if they hadn’t pulled the ad. When a candidate runs an ad, the TV station can’t pull the ad, which means the TV station can’t be sued. When an independent expenditure organization or a PAC runs a defamatory ad, the TV station can pull the ad, which puts the TV station in legal risk.
Pelosi’s PAC and other Democratic front groups will undoubtedly keep attacking Stewart Mills because Rick Nolan can’t defeat Mills without driving Mills’ turnout down. The Democratic machine doesn’t care if they’re fined for defaming a Republican candidate after the election. Their only priority is winning that election.
Technorati: Rick Nolan, Nancy Pelosi, House Majority PAC, AFSCME PEOPLE, Independent Expenditure Group, Smear Campaign, President Obama, Harry Reid, Culture of Corruption, Special Interests, Democrats, Election 2014
Alison Lundergan-Grimes’ speech at the Fancy Farm Picnic wasn’t a speech as much as it was an 8-minute long temper tantrum:
The highlight of Ms. Grimes’ temper tantrum came 6:10 into her speech. Here’s what she said:
Now I want you to put aside the partisan attacks and you’ll see that one of us represents the Washington establishment and one of us represents Kentucky.
That’s rich. Ms. Lundergan-Grimes speech is one negative attack after another, one temper tantrum after another. It makes sense that the candidate making the hyperpartisan attacks would then tell the people to “put aside the partisan attacks.” The only other notable thing Ms. Lundergan-Grimes said was “Sen. McConnell, you seem to think that President Obama is on the ballot this year. He’s not.”
That’s Ms. Lundergan-Grimes feeble attempt to distance herself from the Democrats’ agenda. When Ms. Lundergan-Grimes wasn’t throwing an on-stage hissy fit, she was talking up President Obama’s and Sen. Reid’s agenda item-by-item.
I haven’t paid much attention to this race but after watching Ms. Lundergan-Grimes’ temper tantrum, it’s easy to understand why Sen. McConnell has criticized her. Her stump speech is high on energy, high on partisan whining and short on talking about a pro-coal agenda.
Ms. Lundergan-Grimes tried talking up her pro-coal credentials once. She even hired a British actor to wear a hard hat in her pro-coal ad. While defending herself, she said that she’d stand up to Harry Reid. When he held a fundraiser for her and other Democrat candidates, though, she was silent as a mouse.
Of course, she talked about labor’s right to organize. Al Franken’s doing the same thing here in Minnesota. Both stop short, though, of saying they’re pro-mining. They’re both trying to win the labor vote without being pro-labor on mining.
Here’s a hint to Ms. Lundergan-Grimes: you can’t be pro-labor and anti-mining. You can be one or the other. You can’t be both.
The US Senate doesn’t need another Elizabeth Warren. There’s already one too many of them in there. Barbara Mikulski and Barbara Boxer don’t need another companion pushing a hyperliberal agenda.
Kentucky needs a senator who will stand up to Harry Reid and President Obama. Kentucky needs a senator who’s fought the EPA’s anti-coal regulations.
Ms. Lundergan-Grimes didn’t stand up to Harry Reid when she had the chance and she certainly didn’t stand up for coal miners. That’s why Ms. Lundergan-Grimes is wrong for Kentucky.
Friday night, Greta van Susteren expressed her frustration with Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate. Here’s what she said:
You know, I don’t know what’s going to happen in this year’s midterms but I hope that the American people think long and hard, because if you’re gonna say that something is a humanitarian crisis and it’s so important for the nation and then you leave town, I can’t think of a greater way to not do your job.
Greta spoke while the House voted on the immigration bill. She spoke specifically about how the House was still in session while passing a bill to fix the border crisis. She highlighted the fact that she didn’t know if the Republican bill was a great bill or a terrible bill but she respected the fact that they were at least sticking around in an attempt to fix the problem.
She then lit into the Senate, saying that the Senate called the situation a humanitarian crisis before leaving for a 5-week vacation. Greta noted that they didn’t even stick around to try and work through the differences between the House bill and the Senate bill.
That isn’t surprising. Sen. Reid has practiced my-way-or-the-highway tactics since becoming Majority Leader. Sen. Reid is the chief source of the disintegrating attitude in DC. Between President Obama’s hostility and trash-talking and Sen. Reid’s daily lies, they’re a two-man wrecking crew with their sights set on demolishing bipartisanship.
The chief lesson to be learned from Sen. Reid’s irresponsible behavior is that Democrats aren’t nice people that we simply disagree with as Gov. Romney used to say. It’s that too many Democrat senators and congresscritters are despicable low-lifes who care more about winning political battles than they care about doing what’s right for the nation.
Their priorities show in their my-way-or-the-highway style of governing. Their priorities show in how they turn 3 paragraphs and 128 words about economic growth into a 22-word sentence telling the world that “the rich” think they need another tax break.
Simply put, Harry Reid is a tyrant. He’s turned the Senate into a graveyard, a place with 358 bills have died without so much as a committee hearing or a debate. He’s taken away the right of Republicans to represent their states. For that matter, the Democrats don’t represent their states. They represent Sen. Reid, who represents President Obama.
What’s interesting is that Democrat senators haven’t complained that they represent President Obama instead of representing their states. Since that’s the case, perhaps it’s time those states noticed that they aren’t being represented. Perhaps it’s time they elected someone willing to represent them, rather than electing someone who represents a tyrant and a power hungry president.
When Congress passed the bill reforming the VA hospital system, it became the first bipartisan reform bill passed during the Obama administration.
The Senate gave final approval Thursday to sweeping legislation aimed at fixing the troubled Department of Veterans Affairs, marking a rare moment of bipartisan accord triggered by the widespread treatment delays veterans faced at agency facilities.
The legislation passed 91-3 a day after the House overwhelmingly approved the package. It now goes to President Obama’s desk.
The $17 billion measure is intended help veterans avoid long waits for health care, hire more doctors and nurses to treat them, and make it easier to fire senior executives at the Veterans Affairs Department.
As with any bipartisan bill, this isn’t a great bill. It definitely is flawed. With that being said, Republicans got Democrats to include the Republicans’ top priorities in the bill.
First, the bill includes a provision that lets vets opt out of the VA system. Those opting out will get a voucher giving them the right to go to a private clinic or hospital. This provision isn’t available to all vets, though it’s available to a significant number of vets.
It’s also a great first step towards demolishing the corrupt VA hospital system.
The other major concession Republicans won was a provision that gives the VA secretary the right to fire employees who aren’t doing their jobs. Again, this is a major concession from Democrats, mostly because this gives Republicans the impetus to pass legislation that gives all cabinet secretaries this right.
Democrats will find it difficult to argue that only the VA secretary should have that authority, especially considering how popular this provision is with taxpayers. They’re tired of hearing about people like Lois Lerner committing crimes, then getting put on paid administrative leave while the department conducts their investigation. Taxpayers want heads to roll.
It’s pretty pathetic that the first truly bipartisan reform bill didn’t pass until the sixth year of this Democratic administration. It’s quite the indictment against President Obama’s administration and Harry Reid’s my-way-or-the-highway leadership. It’s the best proof that Washington, DC needs a Republican majority in the US Senate. Without a GOP majority, there won’t be another bipartisan bill passed during this administration.
Sean Davis’s article utterly demolishes the Left’s argument that the DC Circuit was willing to throw millions of people off health care because of a “drafting error.” Here’s a key portion of Davis’s demolition of that argument:
Let’s take a step back to see how plausible that explanation is. There are two types of exchanges: state-established, and federally established. The statutory authority for state-based exchanges comes in section 1311 of Obamacare. The statutory authority for a federal exchange in the event that a state chose not to establish one comes from section 1321(c) of Obamacare. Right off the bat, we have two discrete sections pertaining to two discrete types of health exchange. Was that a “drafting error”?
Then we have the specific construction of section 1321(c), which allows for the creation of a federal exchange. Nowhere does this section say that an exchange created under its authority will have the same treatment as a state-based exchange created under section 1311. At no point does it say that section 1321 plans are equivalent. Why, it’s almost as though the exchanges and the plans offered by them were not intended to receive the same treatment. Was that another “drafting error”?
Most important, we have the sections of the law providing for tax credits to help offset the cost of Obamacare’s health care plans: sections 1401, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1415. And how do those sections establish authority to provide those tax credits? Why, they specifically state ten separate times that tax credits are available to offset the costs of state health exchange plans authorized by section 1311. And how many times are section 1321 federal exchange plans mentioned? Zero. Was that yet another “drafting error”?
Either these progressive pundits are the worst liars in the world or the person who wrote the legislation is the most inept person ever to draft legislation. I’m voting for the former, not the latter.
It’s obvious that the bill was written properly. It’s obvious that Democrats didn’t think 36 states would opt out of establishing a state-run health insurance exchange, aka HIX.
The media’s fiction that this was a drafting error is intellectually dishonest intended at painting the judges as hate-filled conservatives who don’t care about poor people. The truth is that it’s Democrats that intentionally played politics with poor people’s lives.
They’re the people who wrote the law to not include subsidies for people buying insurance through Healthcare.gov. They’re the people who didn’t see anything wrong with the bill until after it became obvious that they’d miscalculated the popularity of the HIXs. They’re the people who made faulty assumptions.
Mr. Davis has written and/or proofed standalone legislation and legislative amendments:
When I worked in the Senate, I spent countless hours reading through various appropriation and spending bills. I also drafted hundreds of amendments, as well as a standalone public law. During the years I spent reading through proposed legislation, it was not uncommon to find obvious errors in bills and amendments. Sometimes you would see a date written as 3015 instead of 2015. Sometimes a non-existent section would be referenced, or a section number in a table of contents might be wrong. Other times, you might see a dollar figure that had too few or too many zeroes (seriously, that happened). You might even find a misspelled word or an incorrect line number every now and again. Those were true “drafting errors,” the typos of the legislative world.
The deliberate creation of a separate section to authorize a separate federal entity is not a drafting error. The repeated and deliberate reference to one section but not another is not a drafting error. The refusal to grant equal authority to two programs authorized by two separate sections is not a drafting error. The decision to specifically reference section X but not section Y in a portion of a law that grants spending or tax authority is not a drafting error.
Simply put, the Left knows that they’re in real danger of having the heart of the ACA ripped from the bill. If the subsidies disappear, the ACA, aka Obamacare, disappears, too. They know that they can’t argue the law. Arguing that is foolish. Appealing to the judges’ partisanship is the only avenue they have for winning.
At the heart of this matter is the fact that Democrats made a faulty assumption. At the heart of this matter is the fact that Democrats thought this bill would be much more popular than it is. They wrote the law based on the opinion that the ACA would pressure Republicans into supporting a terrible bill.
Democrats were wrong about that.
I wrote this post to highlight Democratic senators’ biggest problem is Harry Reid, not President Obama. When I found out this morning that the RNC is starting a #FireReid campaign on social media, I got excited. This indicates that they’re aware that Sen.Reid is toxic. This article gives us some details into the RNC’s campaign:
A banner unfurled outside of the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington is providing an unsubtle hint about the GOP’s goals for this fall. In bold letters it reads, “Stop Obama” and “Fire Reid.”
In another sign that Republicans are trying to nationalize competitive Senate races in a political environment unfavorable to Democrats, the RNC on Tuesday announced the start of its “#FireReid” campaign, aimed at winning control of the Senate and thus demoting Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“Beginning this week, we will launch robocalls in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Virginia,” RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said in a memo about the initiative.
The robo-call script will assert that a vote for the Democratic candidate, in many cases an incumbent, amounts to providing a “rubber stamp” for President Obama and Reid’s “partisan agenda.”
Additionally, the anti-Reid campaign will include “research briefings, social media, videos, interviews, and infographics” highlighting the Nevada lawmaker’s position on such issues as the Keystone XL pipeline and the Affordable Care Act.
It isn’t that Harry Reid is nationally well-known…yet. It’s that he’s said a ton of offensive and/or dishonest things that the RNC will use to paint Reid as the tyrant he is. My suggestion is that they highlight Sen. Reid’s dishonesty, his hyperpartisanship and his fierce loyalty to President Obama’s agenda.
Further, I hope the RNC shows how often Democrat senators vote with Sen. Reid, then quantify the impact they’ve had on families. Rattling off a string of statistics won’t cut it. Personalizing things is required. If the RNC does that, then Democrats will have a difficult time defending their rubber stamping the Obama/Reid agenda.
According to the RNC announcement, the GOP will also seek to depict Reid as obedient “to billionaire SuperPAC donors like Tom Steyer [who] have hurt our country and the democratic process.”
That campaign might not have the same impact as the #FireReid campaign but it might be helpful in the sense that it’ll portray Democrats as listening more to the special interests than to rank-and-file unions that want the Keystone XL Pipeline built.
The whining on the left hasn’t stopped since the DC Circuit Court’s ruling on Halbig v. Burwell. This article is a perfect example of the Left’s whining:
The Affordable Care Act was designed to offer premium tax credits (subsidies) to people to purchase private health insurance on government-run exchanges — at least those earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level. The belief among legislators was that the exchanges would be state-based, so the section of the law authorized subsidies to those enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State.”
Simply put, this is proof that the people writing the ACA wanted one thing but didn’t write the bill properly. If they wanted everyone “earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level” to get premium supports regardless of which exchange they bought it through, they should’ve written that into the law.
The assumption that “the exchanges would be state-based” is a sloppy assumption. Sloppy assumptions make terrible laws. It isn’t the judges’ fault that Max Baucus didn’t write the bill properly. Further, it isn’t the judges’ fault that the writing of the law was shrouded in secrecy.
Had this been a transparent operation, someone might’ve caught Sen. Baucus’s mistake. Had Sen. Baucus not made a terrible assumption, if that’s what it was, the bill might’ve been written with more clarity.
Blaming Democrats’ mistakes on Republicans is pathetic. Sen. Baucus, Sen. Reid and then-Speaker Pelosi made a series of decisions that produced sloppyily-written legislation. That’s on their heads, not the judges’ heads. It’s one thing to argue intent when the legislative language isn’t clear. It’s another to argue when the legislative language includes a straightforward, declarative statement.
At that point, that straightforward, declarative statement is what judges should base their opinion on. The Democrats’ attorneys argument is essentially that Baucus, Reid and Pelosi made a mistake in writing the bill, therefore the judges should clean up their mistake.
That isn’t the court’s responsibility. If Obama, Reid and Pelosi want to fix the law, the only constitutional remedy is to submit the correction to the legislative process. I wrote yesterday that the Democrats don’t want to do that because House Republicans might actually want to include other provisions in the bill that Democrats don’t like. That’s tough. If Obama, Reid and Pelosi didn’t want Republicans to have that type of leverage, they should’ve written the bill right the first time.
Their whining now just indicates that they’re looking for a skapegoat to blame for their mistakes. It’s time for them to put on their big boy pants and accept the fact that they put together a sloppy piece of legislation. It isn’t the court’s responsibility to clean up politicians’ messes. That’s the politician’s responsibility.
Technorati: Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, President Obama, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Legislative Intent, Halbig v. Burwell, DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Democrats, Legislative Process, Legislative Branch
I’ve spent the last half of Tuesday illustrating the fact that Section 36B is clearly written. In this clip, Charles Krauthammer explains that the bill’s language is exceptionally straightforward:
The language in the bill simply states that the subsidies are ony available to people purchasing health insurance through state-run exchanges. This doesn’t require guessing. It just requires the ability to believe what you’ve heard.
After Charles’ explanation, Kirsten Powers argued that the language was ambiguous. She essentially said that the intent was clear if you read the entire section. This doesn’t have anything to do with reading the entire section. The only context that’s required is the simple declarative statement.
The statement isn’t filled with caveats. It’s straightforward. It’s declarative.
What the administration and its apologists are arguing is that we should a) accept their word that they really meant for everyone of a certain income level to qualify for subsidies and b) ignore the straightforward language of the bill.
My response to that is simple. I don’t read minds to determine legislative intent and I don’t trust liberals who say that federal statutes really mean whatever liberals insist they mean at any point in history. Liberal constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley agrees with me on that. Here’s what he said:
I’d love hearing Kirsten Powers or Ron Fournier dispute Professor Turley’s explanation. Ultimately, though, Prof. Turley is right in saying that this is about more than the ACA. It’s about which branch of government has the responsibility to correct the law. Ultimately, the question is whether the executive branch can usurp the legislative branch’s authority to write new laws.
Dishonest progressives argue that the executive branch isn’t writing new laws. They’re lying about that. The plain language of the bill says one thing and they’re saying that the straightforward wording isn’t what they meant.
Let’s remember that the ACA was written by Max Baucus in Harry Reid’s office. Dishonest progressives want me to believe that Sen. Baucus was so inept that he accidentally slipped that language into the bill. He’s written dozens of bills and hundreds of amendments to bills. I’m supposed to think that he mistakenly put in a straightforward-sounding statement runs contrary to his intent into the most important bill he ever wrote. Why would I buy into that?
Further, even if I thought that was the truth, I’d still argue that the executive branch, in this instance the IRS, has the authority to rewrite that language to mean what it wants the section to mean years after the fact. The language is clear. When the language is clear, the intent is clear.
I don’t need a clairvoyant to determine what Sen. Baucus meant. I just need a little common sense, a little reading ability and the ability to ignore misinformed liberals.
The illegal immigant crisis is still getting tons of attention, with Democrats looking particularly inept. According to John Sununu’s op-ed, this crisis has put Harry Reid in a box of his own making:
Harry Reid has a border problem. More accurately, America has a border problem that Reid, as Senate majority leader, will need to help solve in the next three weeks. The Nevada senator’s difficulties stem from his dislike of the bipartisan solution recently offered, disagreement with the approach suggested by President Obama, and disdain for anything passed by the House of Representatives.
Harry Reid’s biggest problem is that his actions are hurting his candidates in their re-election campaigns. The conventional wisdom is that President Obama’s unpopularity is hurting Democrats. In this instance, that conventional wisdom is right. There’s a new truth that’s emerging that should frighten senators like Mark Udall, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagans.
That new truth is that gridlock will continue as long as Harry Reid is the majority leader. The emerging truth is that bipartisanship is impossible with Reid acting like a tyrant.
If you’re Mike McFadden, why wouldn’t you ask Al Franken why he’s consistently suppported Harry Reid’s my-way-or-the-highway tactics? If you’re Tom Cotton, why wouldn’t you question Mark Pryor about why he’s let Harry Reid run roughshod over bipartisan, bicameral legislation? If you’re Corey Gardner, why wouldn’t you ask Mark Udall to explain why he hasn’t stood up to Harry Reid’s anti-American diatribes?
Naturally, Obama tried to throw some of the blame onto George W. Bush. Citing a 2008 law designed to prevent human trafficking, the president argued that rules requiring court hearings for minors coming from countries other than Mexico, such as Honduras and Guatemala, were preventing him from taking faster action.
This is typical Obama tactics. That being said, let’s highlight the BS factor in the Democrats’ non sequitur response. The 2008 law didn’t cause the flood of unaccompanied youths and adults from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to the Tex-Mex border. That flood was caused by President Obama telling Central America that he wouldn’t deport people if they got to the US.
The White House called for changes to that law to allow for faster reviews and deportations. In response, a bipartisan bill introduced by Republican Senator John Cornyn and Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar, both of Texas, would change the law to address those concerns and would provide additional resources for border enforcement and immigration hearings.
This is where Reid’s problems begin. He likes the law the way it is, and views the crisis quite differently than most of his colleagues. In an interview last week, he stated unequivocally, “The border is secure.”
This is where the Democrats’ problems start, too. Being led by a tyrant isn’t the image they want to project to their constituents right before a tough election. Still, that’s the hand they’re being dealt. That’s the hand Democrats are getting forced to play.
Simply put, Harry Reid is the bigger nightmare for Democratic senators than President Obama. He’s the my-way-or-the-highway tyrant that’s preventing a solution from being reached. If I were getting paid to advise Senate Republican candidates, I’d have hired a staffer finding statements where my Democrat opponent said he/she supported Harry Reid, then turning that into a video with Harry Reid saying that the “border is secure.” I’d finish that ad with this question: Do you want someone who listens to you or someone that defends Harry Reid?