Archive for Harry Reid

No Koch, Pepsi

Desperate. Just desperate:

“Republican senators have come to the floor to defend the Koch brothers’ attempt to buy our democracy,” Reid said. “Once again, Republicans are all in to protect their billionaire friends. … They have again and again defended the Koch brothers’ radical agenda — and it is radical, at least from the middle-class perspective. … And the Koch brothers are returning the favor with huge donations to Republican Senate candidates, either directly or indirectly.”

“Senate Republicans, madam president, are addicted to Koch,” Reid said, saying they “hardly need” the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the committee charged with electing Republicans to the Senate.

Reid accused the Kochs of “spending to rig the system” to benefit the wealthy, and for perpetrating a system in which “whoever has the most money gets the most free speech.”

Last week, Reid called the Koch brothers “un-American.”…

What say you, you un-Americans?

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips is taking exception to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) attacks on the Koch brothers, the conservative group’s major benefactors.

“It’s ironic to have someone like Harry Reid use the word ‘un-American’ about David and Charles Koch, because the Koch brothers, they create more prosperity for more Americans from more walks of life in a single year than a liberal politician like Harry Reid creates in a lifetime. And yet he has the gall to use the word ‘un-American,’ ” Phillips told The Hill on Friday.

“Does he really want to bring that committee back, the un-American Activities Committee?”

Reid took to the Senate floor last week to rip Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers specifically for their attacks, and doubled down on them on Tuesday.

“I guess if you make that much money, you can make these immoral decisions,” Reid said on Wednesday. “The Koch brothers are about as un-American as anyone I can imagine.”

As desperate as he is, he’s even more loathsome. Still, his death pangs are entertaining to watch.

Comments

What About Fairness?

Please hear fairness as I’m saying it: FAIIIRNESS

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday delayed action on legislation raising the minimum wage, the centerpiece of the Democrats’ 2014 agenda.

The Nevada Democrat made the surprising move amid escalating Democratic resistance in the wake of a Congressional Budget Office report released last week estimating that hiking the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could cost the equivalent of 500,000 jobs by late 2016.

That got your attention, did it, Dems? Half a million to a million jobs kaput because of your simpleminded meddling? Why is this situation different from everything else you’ve done?

Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), the chamber’s most vulnerable incumbent, has said he does not support the legislation. He does, however, back a pending plan in his home state to increase the minimum wage to $8.50.

Other Democrats up for reelection who have not co-sponsored the Harkin measure include Sens. Mark Warner (Va.), Kay Hagan (N.C.) and Mary Landrieu (La.).

Oh right, election year. The public has a limit on Democrat-induced job losses (from minimum wage, ObamaCare, tax hikes) before they vote en masse for the other party(-ies). You have no problem shrinking the labor force, but only up that point.

Reid blamed the delay on Republicans.

“The obstruction continues and it slows things down,” he said. “We’ve also been hampered by trying to get an extension of unemployment benefits. The slowdown has been a result of continued obstruction.”

Mm-hmm, yeah, sure. Obstruction, bad. See you in November, leper.

Comments

Black President Watch

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke publicly with the White House Wednesday on trade policy, instantly imperiling two major international trade deals and punching a hole in one piece of the economic agenda the president outlined in his State of the Union address a day earlier.

Mr. Reid told reporters he opposed legislation aimed at smoothing the passage of free-trade agreements, a vital component to negotiating any deal, and pointedly said supporters should back down.

“I’m against fast track,” Mr. Reid (D., Nev.) said, using the shorthand term for legislation that prevents overseas trade agreements from being amended during the congressional approval process. “I think everyone would be well-advised just not to push this right now.”

Sounds like typical Harry Reid bullying.

But we’re just kidding about Harry Reid not liking Obama because he’s black. We know what a fan of the president Reid is:

“He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”

No higher praise. And a lot nicer than the future First Husband:

Former President Bill Clinton’s efforts to persuade Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to endorse his wife’s presidential bid fell flat when Clinton told the Democratic lawmaker that just a few years ago, Obama would have been serving the pair coffee.

Bill Clinton is a serial abuser of women, a seducer of young interns, and a speaker of racist crap (if not a racist himself). Do the Democrats keep him around only to make Harry Reid (and Hillary) look good?

Comments (1)

Obamacare is for Little People

Leona Helmsley comes to Washington (by way of Nevada):

When it comes to Obamacare hypocrisy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has plenty of company. That masquerader’s club now includes Nevada’s junior senator, Republican Dean Heller.

Sen. Reid, D-Nev., made national headlines earlier this month when he exempted some of his top aides from buying health insurance through an Affordable Care Act exchange. As millions of Americans were being forced into plans they didn’t like and couldn’t afford, congressional committee and leadership staffs — some of the same people who helped Sen. Reid pass and relentlessly promote the unpopular law — were allowed to remain in a federal employee plan instead. They wanted no part of Obamacare exchange plans, and although Sen. Reid could have forced them to share in the country’s misery, he chose not to.

It was typical Washington “Do as I say, not as I do” politics. However, as proof that hypocrisy is a plague on both major parties, Sen. Heller has joined Sen. Reid in going against his word and doing the wrong thing.

Under the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress and their personal staffs are required to purchase the same high-deductible, high-cost, reduced-provider, mandate-heavy coverage Democrats forced on everyone else. But members of Congress and their staffs are eligible for premium subsidies intended for the lower-middle and lower classes, even though their high incomes otherwise would disqualify them.

A consistent Obamacare opponent who backed legislation to deny Affordable Care Act subsidies to lawmakers and their staffs, Sen. Heller has nonetheless lined up at the Capitol trough to take those subsidies anyway. As reported Monday by the Review-Journal’s Steve Tetreault, Sen. Heller’s office confirmed he signed up for insurance through the District of Columbia marketplace, which offers the subsidy to the political class. It’s worth up to 75 percent of total premiums, a maximum of $5,113 for an individual and $11,378 for a family.

Sen. Heller’s explanation: He’s in compliance with the law — and Democrats are hypocrites, too!

“I know people who voted against the Bush tax cuts and still took them,” Sen. Heller told Mr. Tetreault. “So you ought to ask those people why did they take the Bush tax cuts when they voted against them.”

Sen. Heller certainly is correct about the left’s bounty of bad faith. Democrats voted against reductions in income, capital gains and estate taxes more than a decade ago and railed against those breaks for years, all the while claiming every available deduction, never submitting a tax bill that totals what they claim they should pay, and creating trusts to completely avoid the estate tax they champion as a vehicle to reduce income inequality and dynastic wealth.

But using one party’s hypocrisy as justification for hypocrisy by the other is low-road politics. When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Reid and Sen. Heller could have followed the lead of other lawmakers in being true to the spirit of the law and their word — and they decided not to.

The author makes a nice try out of tarring Heller as worse than Reid. But Heller did all he could to see that this train wreck never happened. Reid did all he could to see that it did. There would be no hypocrisy had Heller’s party prevailed.

At least Leona did time for her evasions and lies. What time will Harry Reid do—except for eternity in whatever passes for Hell in Mormonism?

Comments

Sauce for the Goose?

Many of us frustrated by the unfair treatment of Israel by the Arab occupiers of their lands lash out angrily, and call for Israel to treat the AOTLs as the AOTLs treat them. Shell their kindergartens; stone their moms driving the kids to soccer practice; describe them as vermin, subhuman; glorify your mass-murderers as heros and heroines; board their buses and detonate bombs packed with nails and ball bearings—sounds like fun, no?

But no, we’re better than that. The Israelis are better than that.

Let’s hope the Republicans are not better than that:

Today’s Democrats have grown up in the Saul Alinsky tradition, and on Thursday they proved it with a partisan vote to break the Senate filibuster rule for confirming judges and executive-branch nominees. The new rules will empower the party’s liberals for as long as they control the White House and Senate, but they will also set a precedent for conservatives to exploit in the future.

[T]he great irony is that Democrats voted to end the practice of judicial filibusters that they pioneered when George W. Bush was President. As the minority from 2003-2005, Democrats demanded 60 votes to confirm executive-branch nominees like John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador.

The move shows how foolish Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch were to worry that if they broke the filibuster, Democrats would then do it too. Democrats did it anyway. The only way to deter bloody-minded Democratic behavior is to treat Democrats as they treat Republicans. Democrats sicced special prosecutors on GOP Presidents for years, but they gave up the independent-counsel statute only after Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton.

The immediate result of Harry Reid’s power play will be that President Obama has a freer hand to pursue his agenda through regulation and the courts. Democrats will now rush to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in particular, adding three new judges over GOP objection to a court that is already underworked.

The next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport. Imagine two or three more Clarence Thomases on the High Court confirmed with 51 Senate votes. Planned Parenthood can send its regrets to Harry Reid.

ObamaCare would never have passed if Mr. Franken hadn’t stolen the Minnesota recount and prosecutors hadn’t hidden exculpatory evidence to convict Alaska Republican Ted Stevens on false ethics charges. But liberals are showing that they’ll only need 51 votes, not 60, to pass the next ObamaCare.

Conservatives have more of a stake than liberals do in the legislative filibuster as a check on the political passions of the moment. But the Democrats who rewrote Senate rules on Thursday should also understand that they have now opened the door to repeal ObamaCare with only 51 votes.

It is true that sometimes the only way you can change an unwanted, antisocial behavior is to subject the violator to that same behavior. In which case a future Republican administration should not “line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport”, but members of the Aryan Brotherhood. Hey, if you’re going to be a bear, be a grizzly. Democrats can’t tell Federalist Society members from neo-Nazis anyway.

And I leave Israel with this suggestion: sneak into an Arab home and butcher everyone there—women, children, infants. Leave blood-spattered toys and dolls strewn around the crime scene. If you don’t want more Fogels, do unto the AOTLs as they did unto you. Don’t let faith or scruples muddle your thinking.

Comments

Left-Wing Civility Watch

By their words shall ye know them:

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

HARRY REID: … It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that?

As the Democrats have long demonstrated, sick children make great political weapons. Sorry about the cancer, kid, but it’s for the greater good. Sucks to be you.

Comments

Harry Reid or Tara Reid?

Hey, we all mix up our rights and lefts. Ups and downs are a little harder to explain, but maybe his lemonade sat out in the sun a little too long:


Speak up, Harry, he can’t hear you over all those flames!

“Ted Kennedy, I’m sure, is going to wait until next Friday, he’s going to smile at all of us,” Reid said, looking up to the sky, “because this is a remarkably good piece of work, something he tried to do for a long time.”

And that’s not a smile, Harry, but gas.

Though He’d certainly smile—or at least leer—at Tara Reid:

Comments

You Say “Train Wreck” Like It’s a Bad Thing

You say train wreck, I say menu. What’s the difference?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he shares colleagues’ concerns that the Affordable Care Act could become a “train wreck” if it’s not implemented properly.

Reid warned that people will not be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if federal authorities lack the resources to set them up and educate the public.

“Max said unless we implement this properly it’s going to be a train wreck and I agree with him,” Reid said, echoing a warning delivered last month by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Reid warned the federal government is not spending enough money to implement the law because of Republican opposition to ObamaCare. “Here’s what we have now, we have the menu but we don’t have any way to get to the menu,” Reid said.

A multi-thousand page menu. Which Kathleen Sibelius is rewriting and adding to like a medieval scribe high on black tea. But of course it’s the Republicans’ fault. They had nothing to do with writing it (all their suggestions were ignored), they didn’t vote for it, they told us it was a big mistake—let’s blame them. That’s the ticket.

Premiums are going up, hours worked are going down, doctors are retiring, existing plans are dumping members. Sorry to inform you, but that burning hulk by the side of the tracks is the already-wrecked train.

But Reid and Obama are cool. Forty-two percent of the people don’t even know ObamaCare is law. (The other 58% want its repeal.)

Comments (1)

You Know Who Gets To Keep Their Doctor? Members Of The Ruling Class

Harry Reid and John Boehner in “delicate negotiations” to exempt members of congress and staff from ObamaCare

I’ve written this as if it has already happened, but they are only in negotiations. So call and write every single congress critter plus the White House to protest. They dragged us into this miserable plan. They should live it.

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.
The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

A source close to the talks says: “Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get done.”
Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.

This is a problem for the geniuses who voted for this bill, but somehow not for the rest of us:

The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty.

By all means, go to the link and read it all. Then get busy. Liberals have tried for decades to make us more like Europe. They have largely succeeded. Soon we will have a special class of government officials who have very fine health care, you know, the kind that you and your family used to have. Below them will be well-heeled individuals who somehow know how to goose the system, are connected to the powerful, etc. And then the peasants. That’s you.

- Aggie

Comments (1)

Mormons Really DO Want to Take Over the World!

Starting with the Senate:

The rules of the Senate currently ensure a balanced approach to debating important matters. Among them is the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to end debate on a motion and move to a vote. The filibuster’s purpose is to force competing groups of senators to find compromise solutions rather than ram through items driven by the extremes of either party.

Yet Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to undo this system by eliminating the 60-vote threshold.

Under the current rules, the Senate’s minority party has limited opportunities to influence legislation. It can do so in three main ways: by offering amendments in committee, by offering amendments on the Senate floor, and by negotiating with the majority party before the so-called cloture vote to end debate.

Sen. Reid has already gutted two of these three opportunities, which is a major reason for today’s stalemate.

He has made unprecedented use of Senate Rule 14, for example, which allows the majority leader to bypass committees and write bills behind closed doors. Sen. Reid has used this rule to skip committees nearly 70 times, bringing bills straight to the floor—with zero input from members of the minority.

His other favorite maneuver, called “filling the tree,” involves filling all the slots for amendments on the Senate floor so that no other senator (of either party) can offer one. He has done this 69 times since becoming majority leader in 2007. That is more than twice as often as the last four majority leaders combined.

I was planning to write that since the filibuster is a Senate rule, the Senate is entitled to change it. And woe betide the Democrats if they change the rule and then fall into the minority. (When they’d only squeal like stuck pigs to change it back.)

But then I read the details, as outlined above. Harry Reid, like Nancy Pelosi when she was House Speaker, and Barack Obama in the White House, is a Democrat who doesn’t believe in democracy. Czars, railroading, “deeming”, taxes that aren’t taxes, recess appointments—Republicans have engaged in some (though not all) of these tactics, but nowhere near to the degree of this Axis of Evil.

In their push to jettison the 60-vote threshold, they are peddling the false notion that they can change Senate rules with a simple majority as long as they do so at the beginning of a new Congress. In fact, a change to the rules always requires 67 votes. Otherwise, any group of 51 senators could change the rules whenever they liked. The Senate has never worked that way.

When they served in the Senate, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden fought against the very steps Sen. Reid is trying to take today. In 2005, then-Sen. Obama said: “If the majority chooses to end the filibuster—if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate—then the fighting and bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.” Then-Sen. Biden agreed, saying: “At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation.”

The Senate was designed to be the more deliberative body. With fewer members than the House, who serve terms three times longer, the Senate is meant to be cushioned from the violent swings of public sentiment. But under Reid, deliberation itself is under assault.

I always thought Harry Reid was just a partisan hack. Then I read his reprehensible comments about Mitt Romney and the faith they share, and I realized what a despicable human being he is. Now I read this, and I learn what the offspring of partisan hackery and reprehensible despicability looks like.

Comments

Vote Yes, or the Old Man Gets It

Harry Reid’s not-so-subtle urging:

Michael Grunwald’s “The New New Deal” details the $787 billion stimulus passed in the early days of President Barack Obama’s presidency, and offers the back story of Senate arm-twisting needed to secure the votes.

Among the revelations in Grunwald’s book is an anecdote recalling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attempt to push three veteran Republicans to vote for the bill — by guilt-tripping them over former Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer.

Without vote commitments from the Republicans he had hoped to push his direction, Reid brought Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Thad Chochran of Mississippi and Mike Enzi of Wyoming to his office to appeal for their votes.

When his initial plea did not work, Reid reportedly told the three Republicans that he needed their votes so that he would not need to bring Kennedy — at the time battling brain cancer — back to work to end a filibuster.

“He said if you can’t vote with us, we’re going to have to bring Kennedy to the floor, and it really could kill him,” Grassely said. “We looked at each other like: Huh?”

I can see Reid’s position. Kennedy was going to die soon anyway (he did), and it’s not as if the Kennedys are strangers to premature deaths (suffering them and causing them), so what would be the big deal?

Still, a bit gruesome, don’t you think?

Comments (1)

What Do David Plouffe, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Maureen Dowd, Fareed Zakaria, Eric Holder, And Elizabeth Warren Have In Common?

The press allows them to lie, plagiarize, even break the law, without comment

This is a terrific article by Victor Davis Hansen, historian of antiquity. He really gets at the hypocrisy of our era.

From Eliot Spitzer to Elizabeth Warren to Fareed Zakaria — what is wrong with our elites? Do they assume that because they are on record for the proverbial people, or because they have been branded with an Ivy League degree, or because they are habitués of the centers of power between New York and Washington, or because they write for the old (but now money-losing) blue-chip brands (Time magazine, the New York Times, etc.), or because we see them on public and cable TV, or because they rule us from the highest echelons of government that they are exempt from the sorts of common ethical constraints that the rest of us must adhere to — at least if a society as sophisticated as ours is to work?

Take affirmative action. Over-the-top and crude Ward Churchill at least bought the buckskin and beads to play out his con as an American Indian activist with various other associated academic frauds. But Elizabeth Warren’s “Cherokee”-constructed pedigree was far more subtle — and the sort of lie that Harvard could handle. She more wisely kept to the fast lane of tasteful liberal one-percenters, as she parlayed a false claim of Indian ancestry into a Harvard professorship. So whereas Churchill is now a much-lampooned figure, Warren may be headed to the U.S. Senate. To say that Elizabeth Warren is and was untruthful, and yet was a law professor who was supposed to inculcate respect for our jurisprudence, is to incur the charge of being a right-wing bigot. But reflect: how can someone who faked an entire identity — and one aimed at providing an edge in hiring to the disadvantage of others — not be completely ostracized? Again, Warren was successful precisely because she wore no beads or headband and did not affect a tribal name — the sort of hocus-pocus that makes faculty lounge liberals uncomfortable. It was precisely because she looked exactly like a blond, pink Harvard progressive that Warren’s constructed minority fraud was so effective.

That’s all you get from me, so go to the link. It’s well worth it, because he has links to back up his claims of lies, plagiarism, etc. Depressing, but worth it.

- Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »