Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category
Jim Geraghty’s post, titled If You’re Explaining, You Los- Eh, No, Wait, You’re Doing Your Job., demolishes Donald Trump’s fanatical rant that voters were disenfranchised. When Geraghty wrote “You vote for delegates at your precinct March 1; the delegates you elect vote among themselves for delegates to district and statewide conventions; at the district and statewide conventions, those delegates vote on who goes to Cleveland. Boom. Done.” he gutted Trump’s whining complaints with the greatest of ease.
Still, I’d add that Trump’s done something much more disgusting than just lie about the process. By saying that “one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined,” Trump essentially said that the 65,000 people that participated in Colorado’s precinct caucuses on March 1 don’t count as real Republicans. Shame on Mr. Trump. They did something he wasn’t willing to do. They participated in the political process. They didn’t just whine about how awful America is. They stepped forward. They offered solutions for fixing the mess left by 8 years of Barack Obama. By now, they’re working hard getting legislative and congressional candidates elected.
By comparison, Mr. Trump has flown around the country, held rallies where he complained about being treated unfairly, told people that they should punch protesters if they acted up and bragged about how he’s doing in the polls.
If saying outrageous things and lying are qualifications for being president, talk radio is filled with qualified presidential candidates.
Mr. Trump complains about the power brokers who’ve rigged the game in their favor while pretending to fight for working people. That’s another myth worth dispelling. Trump is for Trump. Period. If Trump cared about voters, he wouldn’t be disparaging them for their participation in the political process. Why isn’t he working as hard as they are in getting conservatives elected?
If Trump wants to make America great again, here’s a suggestion: don’t contribute to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Here’s another suggestion: stop supporting single-payer health care. Stop supporting tax increases. Stop supporting economic isolationism.
Comparatively speaking, Trump isn’t a patriot. In fact, Trump doesn’t fit the dictionary definition of patriot:
- a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
- a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.
Standing behind a podium and complaining isn’t defending “his nation and its interests with devotion.” That’s what whiners do. Here’s the definition of whiner:
to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way
It’s stunning that a man who’s received $2,000,000,000+ worth of free air time on TV and radio think that he’s being mistreated.
When Trump isn’t bragging about how good he’s doing in the polls, he’s complaining about getting mistreated. I can’t wait until we don’t have to deal with Trump’s complaining.
Comparing the GOP activists in Colorado with Trump isn’t fair. The activists work hard to make America the best it can possibly be. Trump complains, then passes the buck for his lack of leadership.
Last night on ‘On the Record’, host Greta van Susteren played a clip of Harry Reid saying something utterly outrageous, which isn’t surprising. Greta then asked her Political Panel why Democrats haven’t spoken up about Reid. Kirsten Powers’ response was the obligatory ‘Harry Reid has been effective’ chanting point.
I’m tired of getting that reply. There’s no justification for the disgusting things Sen. Reid has said, especially the lie that he told about Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years. I know that Sen. Reid is protected from litigation because his statements on the Senate floor are covered by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.
Harry Reid’s actions condemn him. Reid didn’t think about troop morale when he said that “the war is lost” shortly after President Bush ordered the start of the Surge. It didn’t take long for Sen. Reid to be proven wrong. The surge worked.
Key question: What type of dirt bag puts a higher priority on criticizing the commander-in-chief than the puts on maintaining the morale of true American patriots who are putting their lives on the line?
Harry Reid didn’t hesitate in lying about Mitt Romney. He didn’t have proof that Mitt didn’t pay taxes. He didn’t care. Sen. Reid put a higher priority on winning at all costs than he put on being a man of character.
Key question: What type of political party sits silent while their leader repeatedly lies about the other party’s presidential candidate?
Frankly, it’s disgusting that a political party wouldn’t criticize a dirt bag like Sen. Reid. Today’s Democratic Party isn’t just without character. They’re disgusting to the core. They’re unrepentant. Their first concern is accumulating and maintaining power. Their next priority is to never criticize a fellow Democrat no matter what they’ve done.
Edmund Burke said something that Democrats should think about if they still have a heart. He said “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Right now, the Democratic Party is filled with people who a) apparently don’t have a heart and b) haven’t lifted a finger to criticize one of the nastiest politicians that’s ever served in the US Senate.
Key question: Are there any Democrats still in the Senate or in Punditland that will excoriate Sen. Reid and run him out of DC?
Kirsten Powers has done some honorable things. Still, last night, she didn’t do a thing to excoriate Sen. Reid. She had the opportunity to criticize him and take down the nastiest man in the Senate. Ron Fournier had the same opportunity. He didn’t lift his voice to excoriate Sen. Reid, either.
Key principle: Americans shouldn’t trust a political party that doesn’t care about ethical behavior.
The Democratic Party is infested with disgusting people who don’t have the character required to consistently do the right thing. During the last 6 years, they’ve consistently put doing what their special interests wanted them to do ahead of doing what’s right for the American people.
If people with character within the Democratic Party don’t rip the party away from the Harry Reids of the world, then the Democratic Party should be vanquished to the trash heap of failed political parties. They will have earned it.
Juan Williams’ pro-Harry Reid blinders are on full display in Williams’ latest column:
Republicans campaigned last fall voicing a constant refrain that voters should free them from Reid’s control of the Senate. McConnell promised that Republicans would prove they could govern once Reid’s hold had been broken. As the cynics say, “How did that work out for you?”
Frankly, I’ll take Mitch McConnell’s attempting to get things done over Reid’s one-man legislative branch veto anytime and it isn’t close. Harry Reid was and is a tyrant who should be in prison. He shouldn’t be praised.
Reid is now in the minority. He has announced he will not run again. But the GOP’s inability to get anything done in the Senate for three months and counting is leading to new appreciation for the much-maligned Reid. Compare Reid’s record to the GOP’s ongoing failure to pass legislation to stop sex trafficking, to approve highway trust-fund spending or to confirm an attorney general.
There’s no place in America’s heartland where people have a new-found appreciation of Harry Reid. Since when do celebrate a person who essentially stopped the deliberative process? Why shouldn’t such a tyrant be vilified for essentially preventing red state senators from representing their constituents?
There’s nothing virtuous about that type of tyranny.
As for not passing the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, place that totally at the feet of the Democrats. I wrote this article to highlight the fact that the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and was on its way to winning full approval in the Senate when Democrat-aligned special interest groups told the Democrats that having the Hyde Amendment, a provision that was in the bill from the start, in the bill was a deal-breaker. Dutifully like all puppets do, the Democrats who both co-sponsored the bill, and who voted for it in committee, voted to filibuster the bill.
There’s nothing virtuous about a political party that’s so wedded to its special interest supporters that it’ll turn its backs on victims of sex trafficking in exchange for ideological purity and additional campaign contributions.
Selling one’s soul for political expediency has a name but that name isn’t virtue.
“The corrosion of the Senate took place over many years,” McConnell said in an e-mail to Jennifer Steinhauer of the Times. “So restoring the institution to allow members of both parties and their constituents to have a voice in the legislative process will take longer than three months. But we’re making progress.”
And who is responsible for that “corrosion”? McConnell’s “progress” is slowed by the same political divisions among Republicans that gummed up the works when Democrats had the majority. Maybe Republicans will now acknowledge that Reid was never the problem. The real issue all along has been the GOP’s antipathy to the president.
Let’s be blunt. Harry Reid worked to protect President Obama and Democratic senators. Sen. Reid prevented legislation that got overwhelming support in the House from even getting debated in the Senate. Sen. Reid wasn’t the Senate Majority Leader from 2007-2014. He was the self-appointed emperor of the Senate.
Sen. Reid didn’t let Republicans represent their constituents. I won’t appreciate a tyrant who won’t let elected officials represent their constituents. That’s who Juan Williams thinks we should find a new-found appreciation for.
The mission statement of contemporary Republican Senate politics was issued by McConnell himself in 2010. “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” he proclaimed. In response, Reid limited votes on amendments to rein in the political circus and focus attention on legislation that could win passage. “All I want to do is legislate,” a frustrated Reid told me and a small group of columnists last summer.
Harry Reid lied and Juan Williams was gullible enough to believe him. Listen to this sentence:
In response, Reid limited votes on amendments to rein in the political circus and focus attention on legislation that could win passage.
TRANSLATION: Reid shut down debate because he didn’t want debate on issues that the American people disagreed with Democrats on. This wasn’t about reining in “the political circus.” That’s pure spin. This has everything to do with a) preventing Republican from presenting their ideas and b) protecting hard-hearted Democrats who didn’t want to listen to the American people.
Sen. Reid and President Obama are only part of the Senate’s problem. The Democrats’ special interests are another part of the problem as is Sen. Schumer, Dick Durbin and their shrinking band of puppets. It’s long past time we exposed the real cancer in the Senate. We have a republic, not an autocracy.
Juan Williams’ column is filled with faulty premises. Here’s the first of Williams’ faulty premises:
Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) strategy for defeating Democrats in the final two years of the Obama administration is clear: divide and conquer.
There’s no doubt that Democrats are divided over Keystone. What Williams didn’t detect is that the people are incredibly united on the issue. Almost 70% of registered voters support building the Keystone XL Pipeline. A pathetic 25% of registered voters oppose building it.
If Democrats want to listen to the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party, that’s their right. If Democrats want to ignore the will of the American people, that’s their option, too. Just don’t try telling me that that’s divide and conquer. That’s giving people the option between doing the right thing and playing partisan politics.
Now he is testing Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) ability as minority leader to hold Senate Democrats together in opposition to a Republican agenda favoring the pipeline, halting immigration reform, lowering corporate taxes, and seeking to destroy Obamacare.
If significant numbers of Senate Democrats are willing to join with Republicans to force presidential vetoes, McConnell wins. He gains the power to paint himself as the good guy working across political lines. And he will smear the remaining Democrats as members of an out-of-the-mainstream party in the grips of leftist ideologues — Obama, Reid, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and possibly Hillary Clinton.
Sen. McConnell’s agenda this year consists of passing lots of things that 70+ percent of the American people support. Pundits call that picking off the low-hanging fruit. It’s the stuff that President Obama and Sen. Reid ignored the past 4 years.
It isn’t surprising that Republicans have a different agenda than President Obama and Sen. Reid. President Obama and Sen. Reid frequently thwarted the will of the American people. They weren’t just characterized as out-of-the-mainstream ideologues. It’s that President Obama and Sen. Reid have been out-of-the-mainstream ideologues.
In 2010, the American people spoke with a clear voice that they didn’t like President Obama’s and Sen. Reid’s agenda. This past November, they spoke with an even clearer voice. They rejected President Obama’s and Sen. Reid’s agenda.
Rather than listen to the American people, President Obama said that he isn’t interested in the American people’s agenda. President Obama and the Democrats have forcefully said that they’re interested only in their agenda.
Hooray for Sen. McConnell for putting the Democrats’ feet to the fire. It’s time to find out if they’re aligning with the American people or with the Democrats’ special interest allies.
When Ed Henry questioned WH Press Secretary Josh Earnest about Jonathan Gruber’s statements, Earnest’s reply was stunningly dishonest:
ED HENRY: While you’ve been here, the President has been here, there’s videotape from Jonathan Gruber, who was one of the architects when the law came out. Among the things he said was that the bill was originally written in a “very tortured way,” in his words, to kind of mislead people about the taxes in the law and other parts of the law. He went on to say, “A lack of transparency was a huge political advantage for the President…” in terms of selling it to the American people.
I thought it was just the opposite. Didn’t the President promise unprecedented transparency? Why would one of the architects of the law suggest that you were misleading people?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I’m not sure, frankly, Ed. The fact of the matter is the process associated with writing and passing and implementing the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent. We all sat through many town hall meetings and discussions where this piece of legislation was vigorously debated by people on both sides. There was even a meeting that the President convened at Blair House with Republicans to discuss this policy proposal. It was, as you know, broadcast by C-SPAN.
There was a steadfast commitment by this administration to make sure that people had good insight into the benefits of the law. The fact is we spent a lot of time talking about one of those benefits. And that is the fact that individuals could receive tax credits from the federal government to make their health care costs more affordable. The fact is, I think it’s actually Republicans who haven’t been particularly transparent or even honest about the true impact of those.
That’s a breathtakingly dishonest statement, especially in light of John Fund’s article for the WSJ at the time:
For Their Next Trick . . .
By John Fund
Updated Dec. 23, 2009 12:48 p.m. ET
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
When Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi rewrote the ACA from what it looked like after multiple committee hearings, they did so exclusively in their offices and without a Republican in sight. If that’s Mr. Earnest’s definition of being “extraordinarily transparent”, then he needs a dictionary. Here’s the definition of transparent:
Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if there were no intervening material.
Here’s the definition of extraordinary:
Highly exceptional; remarkable.
One of the 2 chief architects said that a lack of transparency was essential to passing the bill. That directly and emphatically contradicts Josh Earnest’s statements that the process was remarkably visible for all to see. But that isn’t enough. Then there’s this doubling down:
I do think that the question that you raised is about the commitment to transparency that was embodied in the process of writing and passing the Affordable Care Act. And again, I think the President is proud of the transparent process that was undertaken to pass that bill into law.
The Obama administration hasn’t had a press secretary. They’ve had willing liars delivering the daily White House briefings. Words don’t mean things to Mr. Earnest. He knows key buzzwords and he knows he should repeat them as often as possible, especially when they aren’t true.
There’s an unmistakable trend in the McConnell-Grimes race, a trend best illustrated by this morning’s RCP average of polls:
That’s what a consistently growing lead looks like. None of these polls show Lundergan-Grimes leading. In fact, none of these polls shows Sen. McConnell’s lead inside the polls’ margin of error. There’s nothing in this graphic that suggests any of these are outliers.
This weekend’s developments don’t hint that Sen. McConnell will become the next Senate Majority Leader. This weekend’s polls strongly suggest that Sen. McConnell will be the Senate Majority Leader sooner rather than later.
For instance, Joni Ernst got great news last night. This isn’t good news for Mark Udall:
The trend isn’t Mark Pryor’s friend in Arkansas:
That’s before talking about Montana, South Dakota or West Virginia, which are certainties. That’s before talking about Alaska or Louisiana, where Democrat incumbents appear to be living on borrowed time. To make matters worse for Democrats, that isn’t the full extent of their potential losses. Scott Brown has run a fantastic campaign in New Hampshire. Defeating Sen. Shaheen would be a mild upset but it wouldn’t stun people like his defeat of Martha Coakley in the 2010 special election. Mike McFadden’s run a solid campaign in Minnesota. While defeating Sen. Franken would be a major upset, it’s worth noting that momentum appears to be on McFadden’s side.
Monday, I’ll publish a post about a wave election’s definition. Yes, this year’s election fits that description.
Technorati: Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, Dan Sullivan, Cory Gardner, Bill Cassidy, GOP, Alison Lundergan-Grimes, Mark Pryor, Mark Udall, Mark Begich, Jeanne Shaheen, Al Franken, , Democrats, Election 2014
Predictably, South Dakota is rounding into shape:
Republican attacks on Democrat Rick Weiland and Independent Larry Pressler appear to have worked, making it more likely that the GOP will pick up the seat of retiring Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, as long expected. Republican Mike Rounds, a former two-term GOP governor, found himself in shockingly uncomfortable position earlier this month, but his standing has improved in the eyes of both strong and weak Republican voters, as well as among Independents.
Support for Pressler, a one-time GOP senator who has said that he would be a friend of Obama if elected to the Senate and has acknowledged that he voted for Obama, has melted away over the past few weeks.
Rounds’ improved position in the race, assuming that the trend holds, means GOP strategists will now have to worry primarily about only a couple of their own seats, in Kansas and Georgia, two red states where Republican nominees have handed ammunition to their opponents.
This was predictable, especially after this stunt:
Weiland never was a serious candidate. Pressler was a challenger…until he said that a) he’d vote to keep Harry Reid as majority leader, b) he supports Obamacare and c) he’s a personal friend of President Obama’s. It was downhill after that.
I know it isn’t the highest hurdle ever constructed but it’s apparent that some citizens are smarter than Sen. Franken when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Here’s proof:
“Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” This is a proposed constitutional amendment Sen. Al Franken supports along with 47 other Democratic senators. Hopefully in one of his remaining debates he will explain his reasoning for supporting this amendment and why incumbent congressmen like himself should be entrusted to set “reasonable limits.” Perhaps Democrats think we shouldn’t be exposed to too many ideas. It’s ironic his party supports such an amendment since the Democratic Party is far outspending the GOP in this year’s mid-term election.
This LTE hits the nail on the head in highlighting the silliness of thinking anyone in Washington, DC is capable of setting “reasonable limits” on fundraising spending during campaigns. To quote the great economist and philosopher Milton Friedman during his interview with Phil Donahue, “Just where do you suppose we’re going to find these angels who are going to organize society for us? I don’t even trust you to do that.”
The notion that government bureaucrats always care about families or individuals rights is myth. The sooner that myth is demolished, the better. The thought that an incumbent will set up election rules that don’t favor the incumbent is foolhardy. Thinking that Al Franken, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are interested in playing fair is intellectually insulting.
Yes, raising and spending money can be used to influence opinions and elections. That is what free speech is supposed to do.
It’s a beautiful thing. Shouldn’t “the rich” have the right to express their political opinions? If not, why not?
Actually, that’s just a trap. Who made any of us the impartial arbiter of what’s acceptable political speech? Is any of us so virtuous that we’d trust ourselves with never showing partiality? If you think that of yourself, then you’re either lying through your teeth or you’ve got a higher opinion of yourself than you should have.
Al that aside, the fact is that Sen. Franken has shown he isn’t the impartial arbiter of what’s acceptable political speech and what isn’t. He’s signed his name to a letter telling the IRS to crank up their investigation against conservative organizations by saying that they were involved in something suspicious. What that suspicious thing was wasn’t identified in Sen. Schumer’s letter.
What’s interesting is that Sen. Franken wants to give politicians the right to tell people that think differently than him that the First Amendment doesn’t protect them like it protects people that think like him. After that, he’s essentially saying that we should trust him with the authority to unlevel the political playing field.
This article suggests that Democrats’ worst nightmares are right around the corner:
Polling in recent weeks suggests turnout on Election Day could be very low, even by the standards of recent midterms. That’s bad news for Democrats because core groups in the liberal base are more likely to stay home than are people in the demographic segments that lean Republican.
A Gallup poll last week found that voters are less engaged in this year’s midterms than they were in 2010 and 2006. Only 33 percent of respondents said they were giving at least “some” thought to the upcoming midterms, compared to 46 percent in 2010 and 42 percent in 2006. Even more troubling for Democrats, Republicans held a 12-point advantage when those paying “some” attention were broken down by party.
The news isn’t all bad for the Democrats:
Turnout should be higher in states with high-profile competitive races. Michael McDonald, an associate professor at the University of Florida who specializes in elections, said that turnout may be low nationally simply because most of the county’s largest states, such as California and Texas, don’t have major competitive races.
This isn’t that great of news for Democrats. Most of the late-breaking races are breaking in the Republicans’ direction. It appears as though Harry Reid has given up on Sen. Udall:
This is potentially huge. Senate Majority PAC, the SuperPAC aiming to help Democrats keep their Senate majority, is cancelling $289,000 worth of broadcast-television advertising next week.
There’s such a thing as a domino effect late in elections. If people are noticing that the alphabets (DSCC, DNC, DCCC) are cancelling ad buys, it isn’t a stretch to think that they’re giving up on those races. It’s thought that pulling ad buys says that they’ve got better places to spend limited resources.
Similarly, races that aren’t attracting big names hint that they aren’t part of the top tier races.
This isn’t good news, either:
This election’s worst kept secret is that things aren’t breaking the Democrats’ direction. Cancelling ad buys in North Carolina and Colorado doesn’t indicate strength on the Democrats’ behalf.
Technorati: Mark Udall, Colorado, Kay Hagan, North Carolina, Harry Reid, Senate Majority PAC, Democrats, Cory Gardner, Thom Tillis, Enthusiasm Gap, GOP, Election 2014
After watching this CNN video on the Pat Roberts-Greg Orman Kansas Senate race, it’s starting to look like Sen. Roberts will hold the seat:
This poll isn’t good news for Orman:
1. As you may know, there will be no Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate on the ballot in Kansas this November. If the election for U.S. Senate were held today and the candidates were Greg Orman, the Independent, and Pat Roberts, the Republican, who would you be more likely to vote for? (IF UNSURE:) As of today, who do you lean more toward? (RANDOM ORDER)
Roberts Orman (vol.) (vol.) opinion
Roberts 49%, Orman 48%
Orman 49%, Roberts 46%
This isn’t good news for Democrats:
Two Republican incumbents are fighting to keep their jobs in Kansas. The new Fox News poll finds both of them, Sen. Pat Roberts and Gov. Sam Brownback, have jumped ahead of their challengers.
When the first batch of polling came out for Kansas, Democrats were practically giddy. They thought that Kansas would be a firewall in saving the Senate. Each week, several GOP senators campaign with Roberts. That appears to have changed the trajectory of the race. With more GOP senators on their way down the stretch and with significantly more registered Republicans than Democrats in Kansas, this race appears to be returning to normal order.
The Fox Poll didn’t bring good news for Democrats in other states either. Here’s an example:
Likely voters in Alaska are unhappy with President Obama and don’t think much of his health care plan. That helps give Republican Dan Sullivan a 44-40 percent advantage over Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Begich.
Then there’s Arkansas:
Republican challenger Tom Cotton is up seven points over Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor among Arkansas likely voters (46 percent vs. 39 percent).
After that, it’s Colorado:
Republicans in Colorado are much more enthusiastic than Democrats about the upcoming election, and that explains, at least in part, why the new poll shows Rep. Cory Gardner topping Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Udall by 43-37 percent.
Mitch McConnell didn’t increase his lead against Alison Lundergan-Grimes but she didn’t close it, either, which is good news for Sen. McConnell:
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is narrowly ahead of Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, 45-41 percent, among Kentucky likely voters.
Iowa is still a tight race but it looks like momentum is on Joni Ernst’s side:
The Marist poll shows Ernst up by three, 46 to 43 percent, which is an improvement on the 43 to 43 percent tie Marist posted when they last polled the race in July.
The Loras poll shows Ernst and Brady tied at 43 percent, which is a huge improvement on the 41 to 45 percent deficit Loras found when they last polled the race in September.
And the YouGov poll, which shows Ernst trailing 43 to 44 percent, is a small improvement for Ernst over YouGov’s August poll which had Braley up 44 to 42 percent.
If Republicans hold Kansas and Kentucky, which looks likely, Democrats will have a difficult time keeping their majority. If Ernst and Gardner win their races, which looks increasingly possible, Harry Reid should start packing because he’ll be in a smaller office next January.
In other news, Mary Landrieu fired her campaign manager. That isn’t the ideal way to inspire supporters. At this point, it’s possible that Republicans will pick up a net 8 seats in the Senate. If that happens, Republicans will celebrate momentarily. Then they’ll sit down and figure out how to push a positive, pro-growth economic agenda. That’s a gigantic change. It means Harry Reid won’t have a pocket veto over GOP legislation, which means Democrats will have to cast some difficult votes.