Should Harry Reid Step Down?

This weekend, a quote surfaced from Harry Reid describing Barack Obama. The quote was from 2008 and, as Fox News reports,Harry Reid is quoted as "...describing Barack Obama as 'light-skinned' with 'no Negro dialect' unless he wants one." In the last few days Republicans have called on Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader. Senator Reid spent the weekend calling black leaders to get support for staying in his leadership position. The White House says the President is not offended by Reid's comments.

I personally think Reid's comments crossed a line. I don't think I would feel comfortable using the word "Negro" to describe a person, or a person's actions, in today's world. I think as an elected official, Reid needs to be a little more careful with his words than a private citizen. I also wonder if Reid's comments, as Senate Majority Leader, are suppose to represent the Democratic National Committee, and Senate Democrats. We know there is at least one previous member of the Klan who is a Senate Democrat (Byrd, D-WV).

Many have drawn a comparison to Trent Lott's comments in 2002. Lott was Senate Majority Leader as well, but Lott was also Republican from the south. Lott stepped down from the Senate Majority Leaders position when Democrats took offense at his comments at Sen. Strom Thurmond's birthday party. Reid was particularly clear when he said that Lott had no alternative but to step down from the leadership position.

A few months back Joe Wilson was accused of being racists because he accused the President of lying. President Obama said Don Imus should be fired for his comments about a particular girl's basketball team. Democrats demand repercussions for these comments, but there should be no repercussions for the Senate Majority Leader just because he is a Democrat?

A reader named Patrick made a comment on this site that I have heard used a number of times now. The argument goes: because Republicans used political tricks and closed door negotiations, we shouldn't be outraged when Democrats do it on health care. Those using this argument want to know why we didn't hold Republicans to this standard. I believe it was wrong of the Republicans and I would question supporters of Harry Reid today, "Why was it wrong for Lott to say something offensive, but not Reid? Why did the President think Imus should be fired, but Reid should retain his comfy position in the Senate?"

If Reid were to step down, he would still be a sitting Senator. The Democrats would have the same number of votes. Reid could still run for reelection this year. However, if Reid steps down, it might jeopardize the President's agenda because a new Majority Leader might not be as liberal, even though he would still be a Democrat. Does that mean that the President's feelings on race, and the Democratic Parties, have a price? Eric Holder has said we are cowards on race. Who was he referring too?

Harry Reid Forgets History

Once more I have to delay my Global Warming post. This time it's due to the inane comments of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat-NV). In my experience, when liberals start crying racism, it's because they have run out of any legitimate arguments. Today, Harry Reid attempted to call Republicans racist because they oppose Reid's 2,000+ page (and multi-Trillion dollar) health care bill. Reid said:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right... When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.

This comment appears to be a reference to history. Harry Reid either believes no-one will look it up, or no one remembers what he's talking about. Here are the two possible cases Reid may be speaking about.


First, he could have been speaking of Strom Thurmond's unsuccessful filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond, who was a Democrat at the time, was defeated by Republicans. Perhaps Reid isn't much of a history student and instead was discussing the debate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This would be particularly troublesome because the opposition to this bill was again led by Democrats. Even more embarrassing is that one of the most adamant opponents of the Civil Rights Act was Ku Klux Klansman, future Democrat Majority Leader, and current Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd. Byrd serves alongside Reid today. Jonathan Leaf, writing on the filibuster of 1964 says:

In total, the filibuster led by the "yellow dog" Democrats ran for ten million words over 534 hours, filling up 63,000 pages of the Congressional Record. Ultimately, 62 percent of Democratic congressmen and 60 percent of Democratic senators voted for the bill, compared to 80 percent of Republican congressman and 82 percent of Republican senators. {emphasis mine}

Reid should pay more attention to history, and not throw about labels that could be more accurately directed at his own party. The American public, and the voters of Nevada, don't want this health care bill. Reid can try to dance around the issue by smearing Republicans as racist while plugging his ears and ignoring the wishes of his own constituents. At the end of the day, this bill will hurt our economy far more than it will help it. On some level, Reid knows the dangers of this bill, and he knows it is unpopular. That's why he has resorted to calling Republicans racists when his arguments could easily be directed at his own party.

Instead of insulting Republicans, maybe Reid should try to listen to them.

I Support AIG Employees

“The vote by Congress to tax Wall Street bonuses out of existence was economic populism run amok. This was legislating by rage, fear, and panic.”

-New York Daily News Editorial

Yesterday was a dark day in the history of the U. S. Congress. Our Congress voted to write a law that would retro-actively attack a small group of private citizens. These are the very tactics our country fought against in the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Fathers specifically outlawed this behavior in the U. S. Constitution. The thugs in Congress have decided they don’t have to play by the rules of the Constitution (assuming any of them still know where to find it to read). Our Congress has ignored the example of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, and instead have chosen the example of King George during the 1700’s. One Republican even joked that these employees should kill themselves. Every single Republican and Democrat that voted to tax AIG employees at 90% yesterday should be forced to leave in disgrace.

According to varying news accounts, AIG paid out some $165 million in bonuses to between 73 and 463 employees. Most stories report the 73 number; I have seen one that reported the 463 employees. Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd want these people burned at the stake in the public square. Why? Because they had a contract with AIG, and they were arrogant enough to believe their employer would honor it. The employees fulfilled their end of the bargain, and expected AIG to pay them for it. I don’t know how many of you go to work and give your employer the option of paying you. I expect to be paid when I go to work and I know Congress expects the taxpayer to pay them.

Pelosi and other Democrats have stoked popular anger to the point that AIG employees are receiving death threats. According to the International Herald Tribune, “The Connecticut Working Families party, which has support from organized labor, was planning a bus tour Saturday of A.I.G. executives’ homes, with a stop at the company’s Wilton office.” The Democratically controlled Congress and Senate, in conjunction with some Republicans, and with the approval of President Obama are trying to steal money from private citizens simply because they have stoked public opinion against these people. Our elected representatives should be ashamed of what they have done, and we as citizens should be embarrassed by their behavior. Should anything ill happen to these employees, the blood will be squarely on the hands of Pelosi, Frank, President Obama, and their partners in this, “…populism run amok.”

Throwing More Money Away

As our government continues to spend money like it grows on trees, I continue to believe that our elected officials have no idea what they are doing. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and many Republicans seem to believe if the government throws enough money at a problem the problem will suddenly be solved. They aren't changing any of the laws that got us into this crisis, and they aren't asking business to change any of the practices that got them into this problem either.

The latest chapter in this tragedy started playing today. Treasury Secretary Paulson today said that the original, authorized, use of the $700 Billion bailout wasn't working fast enough. No the Treasury Secretary is going to focus on, "…direct capital injections into the struggling financial firms." The government is just going to buy pieces of these firms. This is the same Federal Reserve that refuses to identify how it has spent $2 Trillion in emergency loans already. Does anyone really feel comfortable with our government spending this money as fast as it can without any real accountability? The government does two things well: make war and waste money.

Today I saw an article where a number of different industries are going after the big bailout. The automakers are getting the biggest play on the news, but other groups like credit card companies, auto dealers, boat dealers, and several Hispanic business groups. The Hispanic business groups want to manage the homes the government might own as a part of this bail out. Pelosi and Reid are talking about using part of the bill for the auto industry, and there are signs the details of qualifying for help under the bailout may change under an Obama administration. This coupled with Paulson's desire to spend the money in a different way is probably the worst thing our government can do right now. They are creating more uncertainty. The Great Depression went on as long as it did because business had no idea what FDR was going to do next.

So far, there have been no talk of changing any of the practices that got us here, or making any changes in the way our government does business with financial institutions. If we really want to improve the economy, the government will stop issuing bailouts, and start cutting taxes. We will stop adding clauses and requirements to the auto industry, and start cutting the requirements we have on their manufacturing.

There is some small hope. Some Republicans are against more bailouts. Richard Shelby (Republican Senator from Alabama) has said, "I do not support the use of U. S. Taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers…" Amen.

Number One Issue in ’08: Gas Prices?

I have written a few times on this site about energy and gas prices being an issue this Presidential Election season. I am now convinced that it could be a very big factor in not just the Presidential election, but Congressional and Senatorial campaigns as well. Gas prices hit an all time high today for our national average at $4.11 a gallon. The Democrats campaigned on lowering energy and gas prices back in 2006. So far, they haven't done anything about it. $4.00 appears to be the point when most Americans begin to lose patience with the "environmental movement" and decide it is time to do something. A few days ago I saw a t-shirt selling on ebay. The shirt had a picture of a polar bear and said, "I'd drill through his A—, for cheaper gas!" I have always been amazed at the good PR the Polar Bear gets. Let's not forget that this is an animal known to stalk and kill people, and routinely eats seals. Why do you think the Polar Bear hangs out on ice?

I digress. Many Republicans are pushing hard to at least get a floor vote on off shore drilling. Pelosi and Reid are both playing this down. Neither of them wants a roll call vote with their members voting against off shore drilling come November. I'm not a professional campaign manager, but I bet a very effective add could be made with a Representative or Senator voting against drilling, and gas prices at $5 in November. Pelosi has said she won't allow any energy bills to see the floor for fear that an off shore drilling vote could come up. Reid has said he doesn't think anything will happen in the Senate, but Republicans and some Democrats don't agree with him.

There is a move in the Senate to create a "Gang of 14" style compromise. According to the Politico, this would show up in a bill that opens up the coast for drilling, but includes some conservation or alternative fuel measures. Depending on the language, there is a real opportunity to get some meaningful legislation passed here. There are already Democrats committing their support to this bill. If it passed in the Senate, there would be more pressure on the House to do something.

I called a U. S. Representative’s office today to discuss off shore drilling with them. I called as a simple voter, and not in any way associated with this blog. While discussing the merits of off shore drilling, and discussing alternative energy such as bio-fuels and nuclear power, the staffer I talked to wouldn’t commit one way or another for the Representative they worked for. At one point in the conversation, the aide even asked not to be quoted. I have never been told from an elected officials office that they didn't want to be quoted while talking to a voter. I took one very clear message from this: This particular Representative isn’t willing to commit one way or another on this issue. If that is true, then Reid and Pelosi may be in for a loss as Democrats work to craft a bill with Republicans against the Democratic Leadership’s wishes. This could make this years Congressional and Senatorial campaigns much closer than the conventional wisdom.

Democrats and Oil Just Don't Mix.

It would be hard for anyone alive not to know that gas prices are at an all time high. I would bet a gallon of gas that gas prices are going to factor big in the election this year. Everyone running for election or re-election this year is going to have to address the price of oil.

So, what do we do about the price of gas? To solve any problem, we must first find what may be the cause or causes of said problem. If the Republicans have any brains, they will make the argument that gas prices are directly the result of a Democratic Congress. Don't believe me? Sit back and prepare to be dazzled.

I did a little homework (something most members of Congress and the Senate fail to do). The price of a gallon of gas on January 22, 2001 was $1.46 per gallon. On June 9th, 2008, the price of a gallon of gas is $3.98. Today, most people are placing the average price of gas around $4.00 or $4.05 per gallon. It would be easy to look at this and say, "Well, we have two oil men in the White House, it must be their fault!" Of course, one would think that oil men would understand perfectly well how oil prices work. But lets dig a little deeper (no oil pun intended).

Over the course of the Bush Administration, the price has gone up 63% over seven years! That translates into 9% per year! Before my Democratic fans get outraged, I have more numbers to share. The price of gas on January 23, 2006 was $2.31 per gallon. That translates into an increase of $1.67 since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Reid, and the Democratic Congress took over. Again, on a per year basis, Pelosi and Reid can claim credit for a 21% increase per year in gas prices! And, worse still, if we give Bush credit for all the gas increase before the Democratic Congress, he gets 86 cents over 5 years. I think Pelosi and Reid still win.

Some of you out there might think I am skewing numbers to my own benefit. Let me end with a question based on what the Democrats want to do, and what most Republicans want to do.

Question 1 (Democratic Plan). Many Democrats are in favor of a "wind fall profit tax" on oil companies. What do you think this would do to the price of a gallon of gas?

Question 2 (Republican Plan). Most Republicans are in favor of domestic drilling. If Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Clinton had a press conference tomorrow and said they would remove all obstacles to domestic exploration of oil, what do you think would happen to the price of a gallon of gas?

Senate Reaches New Low

The actions by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and other Democratic Senators over the last 24 hours have reached a new low point for American politics. These 40 Democratic Senators, who suddenly develop outrage whenever their patriotism is questioned, have attacked Rush Limbaughs “unpatriotic and indefensible comments”. On the Senate floor, they disparaged Rush, and impugned his reputation. Remember, Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen. He is not an elected official. Rush would not be able to say the same thing about these Senators in Senate chambers as they said about him.

Agree with Rush Limbaugh or disagree with him, if you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. I disagree with the New York Times for running the Moveon.org ad. Therefore, I have no intention of buying the New York Times. Rush is a citizen of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment number One, which most liberals claim to cherish, guarantees Rush the ability to say whatever he wants on his own radio station. People can choose to listen to what he says or not.

As I said in a previous post, no one who objectively listens to the segment that Rush has been miss-quoted from can possibly come away with the impression that he was talking about soldiers who served in Iraq. There were stories about phony soldiers in other news outlets leading up to Rush’s comments. Senator Reid, Senator Clinton, and the other signatories of the letter to Mark Mays of Clear Channel or either not doing their homework, or are intentionally misleading the public. Either way, they have now publically embarrassed themselves and the U.S. Senate.

If we wish to be charitable and grant they haven’t done their homework, then all 40 members who signed this letter should resign from office in disgrace. To think that a U.S. Senator would ask a media agency to, “…publicly repudiate these comments…,” without doing his or her homework is beyond belief. This action comes very close to censoring a media outlet. Surely a Senator would do his homework before embarking on such a course. If he or she hasn’t, the Senator should be asked to leave office.

If, as is more likely, these 40 Democratic Senators are intentionally misleading the public, we should still demand they resign. A U.S. Senator is a public servant. Many Senators (both Republican and Democratic) have forgotten that. If they are going to go to the floor of the U.S. Senate and intentionally lie as a matter of cheap theatrics, we don’t need them in office. Surely intelligent adults from both sides of the political spectrum can agree that this debate was a colossal waste of time and public money. Do the Democrats who control the Senate believe this is the most pressing issue of the day?

Either these 40 Senators are too lazy to seek the truth in this matter, or they prefer to intentionally mislead the public with regards to Rush. These Senators owe Rush a formal apology from the floor of the Senate. Of course, that would require these Senators have some sort of honor. I seriously question that after seeing this letter.

The Two Faces of Harry

On Thursday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed to the world the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

For an elected official to declare to the world that the United States has lost a military conflict it is actively engaged in is irresponsible and shameful. There are no words to describe the aide this gives our enemies and the pain it causes our soldiers. However, one of the people who disputed the “war is lost” statement by the Senate Majority Leader is the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid.

This weekend, Senator Reid said, “…no one wants us to succeed more in Iraq than Democrats.” I will be the first to admit that I view myself as a conservative, and that I believe the Democrats look at the world through the wrong lens. However, I have trouble reconciling the two statements the Senator made in the span of a few days. Either the Senator has no idea what he thinks about the War in Iraq, he doesn’t care about Iraq and is only looking for political points, or the Senator has succumb to a mental disorder of some sort and needs immediate medical attention. Regardless of the true problem, one thing is certain: Senator Reid must resign his position as Senate Majority Leader, and should resign from the Senate.

I am not simply applying the same rule to the Democratic Senator as the Democrats would apply to any Republican in a similar position. There will be those who say, “You are only saying this because if the roles were reversed, the Democrats would want the Republican Senators head on a platter.” And perhaps my critics are correct about some small, subconscious part of my mind.

However, I say Senator Reid must resign because he has either decided a small political gain is worth more than a US victory in Iraq, or that the Senator needs to seek immediate medical attention. If it is the first reason, the people of Nevada deserve someone better than that representing them and the people of the United States deserve better than this kind of shameful conduct from a leader in the US Senate. If it is the second reason, my thoughts and prayers are with Harry Reid and his family during this difficult time.

Either way, Senator Reid no longer deserves the respect or trust of the people of the United States and must immediately resign.

Democrats in a Quagmire

CNN has an interesting article on their website entitled Democrats struggle with next step on Iraq. After passing a non-binding resolution in the House, and working the following weekend in the Senate without passing the resolution, the Democrats seem to be a little confused on how to proceed.

This week, Rep Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania began discussing legislation he would like to use to prevent any reinforcements from going to Iraq. He has said he will tie readiness requirements to funding bills for troop deployments. At face value this might not be a bad idea. Murtha would put requirements on how much training, equipment, and time away from Iraq any particular unit needed before it could be deployed to Iraq. Murtha has said the limits he has sent are unachievable, and would prevent any troops from being deployed to Iraq. Murtha’s message would be loud and clear: Troops, you are on your own.

However, the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are unsure how they want to proceed. Speaker Pelosi has been non-committal on Murtha’s proposal, but is quoted in the AP article as saying, “Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops.” Senate Majority Leader Reid wishes to table the discussion on Iraq entirely. He plans on taking up debate on the 9/11 commission. Discussing when the Senate might pick up the debate on Iraq, Reid said, “Iraq is going to be there – it’s just a question of when we get back to it.” The article also quotes him as saying it would be days and not weeks before the Senate came back to the issue. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) stated that he understood there were some that thought the Senate should continue the debate on Iraq. However, both Durbin and Reid think they can implement all of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations quickly. Because of the emotional nature of some of the recommendations, and the fact that they haven’t been implemented yet, it might take some time before the Senate could agree on what recommendations to implement.

The article illustrates that the Democratic leadership is confused and unsure when it comes to the Iraq debate. The Senate is moving on to other things. Pelosi and Reid seem to be on different pages on what to do next. All of this illustrates one point: The Founding Fathers were right to give power to carry out a war to the Commander in Chief and not to the Congress. If the Congress can’t even make up its collective minds on how to proceed with the debate, how are they possibly going to manage a war requiring quick decisions? Reid and Pelosi may want to direct how we proceed in Iraq, but the Constitution says only Bush gets to make that decision. I think the way Congress has acted over the last few weeks illustrates why the Constitution decided one person could make decisions quicker than a collection of hundreds.

What if we win?

Could the President’s new path forward be working? There are some early signs of success, but it is still too early to tell. There have been some significant clashes between US forces and insurgents, militia leaders have fled or gone underground, and the Iraqi government is saying that there has been a decline in the number of dead bodies the police forces are finding each day. At the same time, the terrorist are now using their own form of a dirty bomb.

I think whether you believe in the surge or not, most people hope and pray it works. Americans want success in Iraq. Americans don’t like to loose. Based on the comments from many Democrats, I wonder if the Democratic Party wants success, or is hoping for a defeat. The Democrats have announced they are going to try to prevent reinforcements from going to Iraq; and they are going to try to prevent the President from doing what he thinks he needs to do to win. To me, that doesn’t sound like the Democrats want a victory in Iraq. They either want defeat, or at best, just want us to leave. Which brings the question, what happens to those Democrats and Republicans who are against the war right now, and against the President’s new path, if we do win?

Most Democrats and a few Republicans seem to be betting their political career on a failed war in Iraq. I believe these elected officials are doing everything in their power (knowingly or not) to bring about the same end to this war that Vietnam suffered from. The US didn’t loose in Vietnam, we gave up. In Iraq, we can win, but we will have to stay with it, probably into the next presidency.

If the President’s policy works, then those Democrats like Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi who are doing everything they can to try and bleed our forces dry will be in a tough spot. In an interview this week, Vice President Cheney pointed out we have had successes in Iraq. We have removed Saddam from power. We have had elections in Iraq. There is a constitution written in Iraq. Saddam had his day in court, and was executed. If we are able to defeat the terrorist and insurgents now battling us in Iraq, and leave Iraq with the democratically elected government able to handle its own affairs, then we will have done something incredible in Iraq. The Democrats (and some Republicans) will be on the record saying there is no way for the surge to work. They will be on the record saying we should run away from Iraq. Will that affect their re-election chances? Will it affect the chances of a Democratic Nominee winning the White House in 2008 or even in 2012?

The Ried / Pelosi Doctrine

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to President Bush today. There has been a lot of speculation lately that Bush is ready to increase troop levels to coincide with a change in policy in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid sent a letter to Bush today begging him not to do it. Instead, Reid and Pelosi want to see a “…phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months…” In case some might misconstrue the Reid / Pelosi doctrine, they sum it up in the letter, “In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq…”

Since a victory in Iraq does not figure into the Reid / Pelosi first 100 hours of power, they are not willing to put any commitment into Iraq, and are ready to see us abandon Iraq. President Bush has been taking time to review the Iraq Study Group report, and other assorted reports from his different departments. The AP reported today that Bush’s strategy, “…is expected to entail new political, military and economic steps to win the war.” The Reid / Pelosi doctrine does not talk about victory or winning in Iraq. Instead, this doctrine wants to find an “end to the war in Iraq” or “[a] way forward”, maybe a “sustainable political settlement”, or at best, to “bring the war to a close.” The reports indicate that Bush has much grander things in mind: winning.

According to the AP, Bush is replacing the top two military leaders in Iraq. General Abizaid is to be replaced with Admiral William Fallon while General George Casey is to be replaced by Lt. General David Petraeus. Both of these military leaders have been pursuing the war on terror. Admiral Fallon has been the top US commander in the Pacific. He has gone on the record arguing that we are in a different type of fight. Admiral Fallon argues that our enemies will never defeat us in a “force versus force” type of fight. Instead, our enemies are currently using suicide bombers, IED’s, and the internet to try and sap our will to fight. Lt. Gen Petraeus was in charge of rebuilding Mosul with the 101st Airborne and in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi Army and police forces. His actions in Mosul and with the Iraqi Army and police have received a lot of praise.

In addition to the military shakeup, the AP reports the Bush is changing the make up of the ambassadors to Iraq and the UN, and will be putting Vice Admiral Mike McConnell in charge of Intelligence. These may or may not be the right moves to make. However, Bush is trying to put our troops in a position to win the war in Iraq. The Reid / Pelosi doctrine would have them come home in defeat, and give a victory to our enemies.