The Democrats’ anti-constitutional constitutional amendment. Updated

May 19, 2014
"Senate Grinch"

Hates free speech

Upset by court rulings that, in effect, declare that “free speech” really means free speech, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) introduced a constitutional amendment granting Congress sweeping powers to regulate campaign expenditures, both monetary and “in kind.” This amendment has the full support of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):

“The shadowy Koch brothers are attempting… a hostile takeover of American democracy,” Reid charged Thursday. “No one should be able to pump unlimited funds into a political campaign.”

Reid urged his fellow lawmakers to support a proposed constitutional amendment, written by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall and co-sponsored by 40 of the Senate’s 55 Democrats, that would give Congress the right to regulate all political contributions and all spending of any kind in all federal elections. (It would also give states the power to do the same in state elections.) The Supreme Court has held such far-reaching restrictions to be unconstitutional, which is why Reid wants to take the extreme step of changing the nation’s founding document.

“Amending our Constitution is not something we take lightly,” Reid said. “But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced.”

You know, I fully expect Reid to soon start ranting about strawberries. But, back to the Left’s latest assault on free speech, here’s the key excerpt from the proposed amendment:

Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including setting limits on (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, federal office, and (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Byron York is right, of course: this amendment has no chance of passing the Senate and House, where two-thirds votes are needed, nor has it any chance of being approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. It’s another attempt to find an issue that will get their base voters excited for the coming election and distract from the rolling Obamacare disaster by invoking two great liberal demons — the Koch brothers (1) and the Citizens United decision.

What is disturbing, however, is Reid and the Democrats’ willingness to put themselves on record as willing to curb our fundamental freedoms, free speech being a natural, unalienable right, in pursuit of short-term electoral goals. It’s emblematic of progressivism, which sees the Constitution as obsolete, and of the Democrats’ predilection for putting their narrow electoral interests ahead of the nation’s well-being — for instance, undercutting American forces even before they enter battle in order to oppose a Republican president. It’s not new, however; we’ve seen plenty of examples in recent years of anti-democratic Democrats, such as former Governor Perdue of North Carolina suggesting that congressional elections be delayed, something not even done during the Civil War, largely because her party was set to do poorly.

It’s not that this amendment would be unconstitutional –by the nature of the process, ratification would make it part of the Constitution and therefore “constitutional”– but its very nature is profoundly and disturbingly anti-constitutional, striking at the concepts of natural rights that are foundational to the Republic. Political speech must be free to have any meaning at all, and that includes expressing your political opinions by donating money and time or other property to further a cause or support a candidate. That the Democrats would think of attacking this fundamental freedom in order to excite their base speaks of a deep rot within their party (2), something that should concern us all.

PS: Take a look at this list of the biggest donors since 1989, and note a couple of things: first, 11 of the top 16 at least lean Democratic. You don’t find one that leans Republican until number 17. And the evil Koch brothers, whom Harry Reid denounces daily like Cato demanding the destruction of Carthage, only place 59th on the list. That alone reveals the vile cynicism of his bleatings: the Majority Leader of the United States Senate by name demagoguing against two American citizens, regardless of the truth. Second, the proposed amendment would require statutes passed by Congress to be implemented. Take a good look again at that donor list: unions and other groups have donated tens of millions to the Democrats, with unions also providing invaluable in-kind donations in the form of campaign volunteers. Does anyone think the Democrats, given half a chance, wouldn’t write implementing legislation that somehow allowed these groups to keep right on helping Democrats? If so, raise your hand; I have a bridge to sell you.

Footnotes:
(1) A pair of libertarian billionaires who are apparently plotting to take over the government with the horrifying goal of leaving us alone. Where do I sign up?
(2) Not that I wholly excuse Republicans. John McCain’s sponsorship of the hateful McCain-Feingold bill revealed him as a constitutional lightweight.

UPDATE: National Review’s Charles Cooke wrote about this a few days and had the following to say:

The move is the final act of a contrived and hamfisted morality play, whose purpose is to cast the Democratic party and its allies as champions of the people and the Kochs as a proxy for all that ails America. Lofty as its broader goal may seek to be, the whole endeavor nevertheless carries with it the ugly smack of the Bill of Attainder — of a change to the nation’s constitutional settlement that serves largely to punish two people that the man with the gavel disdains. Rambling in the general direction of a BuzzFeed reporter earlier this week, Reid inadvertently revealed something about his motivations. His reelection to the Senate in 1998, he griped, “was awful”: “I won it, but just barely. I felt it was corrupting, all this corporate money.” Translation: I almost lost my seat once, so I need the supreme law to protect me. Corruption, schmorruption. This is about power.

Do read the whole thing.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Obamacare Chronicles: To Harry Reid, this man is likely a liar

March 5, 2014
"Obamacare has arrived"

“Obamacare has arrived”

Remember kiddies, it was just a few days ago that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate said that all the Obamacare horror stories were untrue, asserting by implication that the people behind those stories were all liars. Then he softened it to “most.” (How gracious of him.) Many have already come forward to call out his arrant nonsense, but perhaps few stories are as frightening and maddening as that of Fred Rosamilia, who was told after his cancer surgery that his Obamacare “gold plan” would not pay his doctor bills:

The Rosamilia’s told Fred’s doctors that they had enrolled in the new plan. They were met with positive reactions from the doctors. The doctors told them that it was a great plan and that they accepted it.

After his surgery, the Rosamilia’s received their bills and were disappointed to find that their insurance company had only covered lower costing, high co-pay procedures.

Lynne then overheard the nurses saying that they would not be able to treat Fred for the next 60 days, now leaving them with huge medical bills.

Heckuva morale-booster for a guy fighting for his life, no?

Eventually the Rosamilia’s were allowed to switch to a “silver” plan that, it seems, will cover the future treatment (we hope), but they’re still on the hook for two months worth of medical bills. Imagine what that probably adds up to.

This kind of real-life American Horror Story is happening again and again across the nation, or so we’re told. To Harry Reid, a vile, shriveled fool if there ever was one, Mr. Rosamilia and all those like him are probably liars.

I wonder if he kicks puppies, too.

The only liars here are the Democrats and everyone who sold this anti-constitutional monstrosity as an improvement on the prior health-insurance system, that it would lead to wider coverage, lowered costs, and better treatment. That people could keep the plans they liked and the doctors they trusted. Lies, lies, and more lies. One lie after another, from the President on down, meant to sell snake oil to a nation that didn’t even want it — and still don’t.

Sideshow carnies have more integrity.

What the Democrats have done to the nation, what they are doing now to people like Fred Rosamilia, is unforgivable. They deserve nothing less than the electoral version of what Rome did to Carthage.

Bring on November.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Good God. Is Harry Reid really this stupid? UPDATE: Yes. He. Is.

October 19, 2011

I’m afraid the answer is “yes.” According to the Leader of the Majority Party in the US Senate (1), private-sector jobs are “doing fine.” It’s the public sector that is truly suffering in this economy. He’s either stupid, or a shameless and cynical hack pol who doesn’t give a damn about the truth.

I vote for (C), all of the above:

And in case you don’t believe your ears:

“The massive layoffs we’ve had in America today—of course they’re rooted in the last administration—and it’s very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. It’s the public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation’s all about. And it’s unfortunate my friend the Republican Leader is complaining about that.”

How’s that again, Harry?

"Private sector jobs are doing just fine." --Harry Reid

“Orwellian” comes to mind. If anything, the Stimulus Porkulus plan was intended to save the jobs of some of the Democrats’ biggest boosters, public sector employees and their union bosses.

More from Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: Here’s another chart to upset Dingy Harry’s version of reality, via PJM:

See? The private sector is okay! Hey, who are you going to believe? Harry Reid or your lying eyes?

Footnote:
(1) That hasn’t offered a budget in over 900 days, in violation of federal law. Now that’s leadership.


Leadership the Obama Way, then and now

July 31, 2011

Via Hot Air, here’s a commercial that will run in several markets to showcase Barack Obama’s rather… “flexible” positions on America’s debt:

And be sure to have a look at this Byron York article on the Democrats and the debt ceiling, which shows what partisan weasels(1) Reid, Durbin, and Obama have been.

Footnotes:
(1) Which fits with their behavior as sleazy, cheap, partisan weasels on the Iraq War, too. At least they’re consistent.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Harry Reid, Nanny-Stater of the month

March 2, 2011

Recently, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was invited to speak before the Nevada legislature. What did he talk about? The national debt? America’s budget woes? Other issues of national import?

Nope. Nanny Reid devoted his time to a cause that must have left his listeners scratching their heads. In a state famous for its small-government libertarian attitudes, Harry Reid wins Reason.TV‘s coveted Nanny of the Month award for arguing for a ban on legalized prostitution:

Talk about a kill-joy! And what’s he got against a girl making a living, eh?

Seriously, regardless of what one thinks of prostitution*, this was hardly a topic a United States senator needed to scold his legislators for, although Harry does seem to enjoy scolding. Prostitution typically falls under a state’s police powers; the federal government has no role in this, other than preventing cross-border sex trafficking. But that’s not at issue here: Nevada allows counties to license brothels as they see fit.  Reid’s hectoring is simply another example of federal officials inserting their noses into places they don’t belong, trying to impose one-size fits all policies to social issues where there may be strong regional differences in opinion. It’s not only nannyish, it goes against our federal system of divided powers.

So, knock it off, Harry. Let Nevada handle its own problems, and you deal with the national issues your voters elected you to deal with.

*For the record, I favor decriminalizing prostitution both because it is a consensual act† between individuals that shouldn’t be government’s concern and because I support a broad private right to make a contract between adults, including sex in return for payment. I also think that many of the problems associated with prostitution (STDs, white slavery, pimping) would be eliminated or greatly lessened by decriminalization. And it would allow more law enforcement resources to be directed toward genuine sex crimes, such as child pornography and child prostitution.

†On the other hand, I don’t agree with the idea of the legalization of hard drugs, since I haven’t been convinced that the social costs would be outweighed by the gain in individual liberty. Yet another reason why I’ll never be a “Big L” libertarian.

UPDATE: Edited to fix some really sloppy typing. Yeesh.


The arrogance of King Harry Reid

January 7, 2011

I wrote yesterday in my post about Steny Hoyer that the Democrats’ attitude toward those who oppose them is a form of oligarchical arrogance. Today, Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the inaptly named Democratic Party, provided another example: when asked about the coming House vote to repeal ObamaCare, he stamped his foot, said it would never come to a vote in the Senate, and told the Republicans to get a life:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made clear Thursday that as long as he’s in charge, no effort to repeal the health care law will see the light of day beyond the House, but Senate Democrats said they are open to changing parts of the law over the next year.

“The Republicans have to understand that the health care bill is not going to be repealed,” Reid said. “Are we saying the health care bill is perfect? Of course not. We’re willing to work in any way that’s constructive in nature to improve the health care delivery system in our country, but repealing health care, they should get a new lease on life and talk about something else.”

This, of course, is a continuation of the public war of words between the Senate Democratic leadership and the House Republicans, lead by newly-minted Speaker Boehner. But, did I say “arrogance?” Maybe “childish petulance” is more in order. Little Lord Harry isn’t just saying he will oppose the bill in debate and do all he can to defeat it in a manner befitting the world’s greatest democracy. Nope. He instead threw a tantrum and announced beforehand that he will not even allow it to be considered. Forget it. Don’t even try.

What’s next? Holding his hands to his ears and screaming I’M NOT LISTENING!! whenever someone brings it up?

In effect, Reid not only flipped a finger toward the House, but he (and his subordinates in the leadership) have told the American voters to take a hike; what they want does not matter. For over a year, and culminating in the Great Shellacking of 2010, the majority of American voters made one thing clear: they hate ObamaCare and they want it repealed. That is a very big part of why the Democrats lost control of the House, much of their majority in the Senate, over 600 state legislative seats, and a whole slough of governorships.

While I do believe there are times a leader must say “you’re wrong” to his constituents (such as a majority’s desire to deny the rights of the minority), this isn’t one of them. We’re talking about policy here, not unalienable rights derived from Natural Law, and a clear majority of Americans hate this policy with a passion and want Congress to repeal it — at the very least, bring it up for public debate.

But King Harry of Searchlight and his courtiers have said “no.”

You thought we were an angry, smelly mob before, Harry; you ain’t seen nothing, yet.

LINKS: I like this idea a lot.

PS: Dear Nevada, I realize Sharron Angle was a bit of an odd duck, but you honestly preferred Harry Reid? Really? Seriously??

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Does Chris Coons come with a leash, too?

September 16, 2010

I’m not sure being described as Harry Reid’s “favorite pet” is quite the endorsement Delaware’s Democratic nominee for US Senate had in mind:

“I’m going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate,” Reid said.

“Let me tell you about him: A graduate of Yale Divinity School. Yale Law School. A two-time national debate champion. He represents two-thirds of the state now, in an elected capacity. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen him or heard him speak, but he is a dynamic speaker. I don’t mean loud or long; he’s a communicator. So that’s how I feel about Delaware. I’ve always thought Chris Coons is going to win. I told him that and I tried to get him to run. I’m glad he’s running. I just think the world of him. He’s my pet.

Okay, not only is Harry Reid one of the most unpopular men in America, thus making his endorsement less than desirable, but how on Earth does it help a would-be senator to be described in a way that one associates with “docile” and “obedient?” That’ll go over big in an anti-establishment year.

But, more importantly, has he been housebroken?

LINKS: Exurban League works their Photoshop magic.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Is the race card the only one in their deck?

August 11, 2010

Because the Democrats seem to play it any chance they get. The latest example comes from US Senate Majority Leader Harry “Pinky” Reid, who said publicly he couldn’t see any reason why a Hispanic would vote Republican:

Get it? “Without us you campesinos would have nada, so shut up, get back on the hacienda, and vote the way we tell you!”

Harry Reid is one mean-spirited, condescending, arrogant, and petty old man. And those are his good points.

LINKS: See more on Harry Reid’s ethnic pandering and the Left’s contempt for ethnic conservatives. Also Hot Air, which suggests Harry might want to ask Nevada Republican gubernatorial nominee Brian Sandoval just why a Hispanic might dare be a conservative.

(via Legal Insurrection)

UPDATE: Florida US Senate Republican candidate Marco Rubio* reponds:

*(Psst, Harry! Don’t be alarmed, but Rubio is Cuban-American. You know, “Hispanic.” Just FYI.)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Karmic justice smacks Harry Reid in the face

August 9, 2010

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, spent roughly a year shoving nationalized health care down the throats of a nation that clearly did not want it, disregarding both the People’s wishes and the harmful effects it will have on the country.

Thus we savor the irony and schadenfreude tonight as we read that Senator Reid (D-Bitter Old Man) has suddenly discovered that he doesn’t like the health care bill he fought so hard to enact:

John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute details a few fun facts in this video about HealthCare.gov, but the one that sticks out is this, a letter from Majority Leader Harry Reid to HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius sent on July 21st. The letter seems to indicate that Reid has finally read the health care bill, and after discovering it hurts Nevada hospitals more than it helps them, is complaining to the administration. You can read the full Reid letter here:

  • In a July 21 letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Service Kathleen Sebelius, the Senate Majority Leader complains that ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare will “result in a net reduction in payment to Nevada’s hospitals when they are unable to absorb such a cut.” Furthermore, he questions the method used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to calculate the payments to hospitals, and is “very concerned about potential effects on beneficiary access if this regulation is finalized without adjustment.”

As Ben Domenech points out, what Reid is complaining about is the point of the whole danged bill! Half the costs of ObamaCare are (supposedly) paid for by cuts to Medicare. It was at the core of the bill, and yet it only now dawns on Harry that Nevada hospitals and patients will get the shaft?

We are truly lead by idiots, and November can’t come fast enough.

Meanwhile, consider donating to the woman who would like to replace him.


Credit Sharron Angle with a sense of humor

August 5, 2010

Sharron Angle‘s campaign to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada has stumbled badly in the first few weeks since she won the Republican nomination, making what should have been a runaway victory over the unpopular Senate Majority Leader a tight race, instead, with Harry enjoying a small lead.

But, I’ll give her this: whether her own people are coming up with them or she’s getting help from the national Republicans, her commercials are funny:

And effective. Reid’s tenure has been a disaster for Nevada, and the progressive policies he’s pushed in the face of strong national opposition have only made a bad situation worse. The stimulus package was sold a way to keep unemployment from rising above 8%, but the national rate is around 9.75% and Nevada’s is much worse than that. But, don’t worry, Silver Staters; at least the chimps are happy.

The Angle campaign is smart to keep hammering Pinky Reid on the economy; it’s where he’s the weakest and avoids some of Angle’s more controversial social-policy positions. And I’ve always said satire is one of the most effective weapons in the fight against a crappy politician.

Keep them laughing at him, Sharron. It’s Pinky’s glass jaw.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


This just in: Harry Reid is an idiot

May 12, 2010

Via David Freddoso, we read in wonder as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate has an out-of-reality experience of almost Biden-esque proportions:

In a recent Senate floor speech, Democratic Leader Harry Reid likened Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to another woman who sat on the court, Sandra Day O’Connor.

“One of my favorite Supreme Court Justices in recent years has been Sandra Day O’Connor, not because she’s a Republican, but because she was a good judge. I think one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience,” Reid said on May 11, 2010.

Um, not quite, Pinky. From the same article:

In 1975, O’Connor was elected a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, where she served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, according to her biography on the U.S. Supreme Court Web site. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated O’Connor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Want to try again, Harry?

Dear Nevada, do the nation a favor and elect this woman.


Hitler gets bad news from Nevada

February 20, 2010

More bad news in the bunker, when Der Fuehrer learns that Senator Harry Reid doesn’t have much of a chance at re-election:

(via The Jawa Report)


President Me! The Musical!

February 13, 2010

Andrew Klavan of PJTV has what he thinks is an idea for a sure-fire smash-hit on Broadway:

Katie Couric is sure to win a Tony for her solo performance, don’t you think?


Arrogance, corruption and stupidity

December 24, 2009

Early this morning Last night the Senate passed its version of health-care reform on a party-line 60-39 vote, the first time that’s happened on a truly major piece of legislation since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Thankfully, I’m not into omens, but how fitting that Nebraska should reprise its old role! The LA Times called the moment “historic.” Perhaps, but I would remind them of what Karl Marx once said about historic repetitions.

And yes, the oddity of me quoting Marx has not gone unnoticed. But the progress of this abominable bill through the Senate has brought us to an odd time, indeed, when even cats and dogs will ally.

I was all set to write a long screed about what a terrible piece of legislation this is and how rotten the process became, but Oklahoma’s Senator Tom Coburn, a physician, does it for me:

This vote is indeed historic. This Congress will be remembered for its arrogance, corruption and stupidity. In the year of 2009, a Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs and embarked on an ideological crusade to bring our nation as close to single-payer, government-run health care as possible. If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal. This bill will ration care, cut Medicare, increase premiums, fund abortion and bury our children in debt.

This process was not compromise. This process was corruption. This bill passed because votes were bought and sold using the issue of abortion as a bargaining chip. The abortion provision alone makes this bill the most arrogant piece of legislation I have seen in Congress. Only the most condescending politician can believe it is appropriate to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions and to coerce medical professional to take the lives of unborn children.

(via Gaius)

Go, read the rest. Some form of nationalized health care, whether the Senate’s, the House’s, or a compromise monstrosity, is almost certain to pass in the next few months. Regardless of which, just remember the arrogance, corruption, and stupidity of those who passed it when you go to vote next November.

RELATED: A powerful House Democrat is not impressed with ReidCare.


Senatorial sell-outs and the Jacksonian wave

December 21, 2009

Late last night, Senator Harry Reid found the last vote he needed and forced through a cloture motion to cut off debate over the Senate’s version of a health-care “reform” bill.  Under the rules, the bill is now scheduled to come to a final vote and all-but assured passage sometime on Christmas Eve. (And if you noted the profound irony of voting for a bill that includes federal money to fund abortions on Christmas Eve, you’re not alone.)

It wasn’t easy for Harry. Republicans are unanimously opposed, while Several “moderate” Democratic senators had qualms about the bill because of the cost or (try not to snicker) over principles.  So, the Majority Leader from Nevada had to wheedle and bribe work for his 60 votes. In the end, he got what he wanted, and we learned how much it would take for thoughtful moderates to set aside those concerns about wrecking the US budget costs and violating the Constitution principles. Don Surber shows us the price tags for a six-pack of senators:

Ben Nelson of Nebraska gets:

“As Part Of The Deal To Win Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s Support, The Federal Government Will Fund Nebraska’s New Medicaid Recipients.” (“Ben Nelson’s Medicaid Deal,” Politico, 12/19/09)

“In Addition To The Medicaid Carve Out, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) Negotiated An Exemption From The Insurance Tax For Non-Profit Insurers Based In His State. The Language Was Written In A Way That Only Mutual Of Omaha Insurance Company, As Well As Blue Cross Blue Shield Nonprofit Plans In Nebraska and Michigan, would qualify, according to a Democratic Senate aide.” (“Nelson Wins Insurance Tax Exemption, Too,” Politico, 12/19/09)

Read the rest to see what it took for the other five. Michelle Malkin has the complete list of bribes needed to get ObamaCare through the Senate.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat leadership are counting on creating a fait accompli, that once a national medical entitlement is in place, no matter how poorly crafted or harmful to the nation, the public will resist having it taken away. They may be right: one of the great weaknesses of democratic government is that the people can be bribed with their own money – and the Democrats know that. Speaker Pelosi is so sure that this reform will in the long run create a large class of voters beholden to the Democrat Party, thus ensuring that party a long-term majority, that she is willing to sacrifice Democratic seats in the near-term, even her majority, to get it.

She may get the first part of her wish.

Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics thinks we may be approaching one of our country’s periodic “Jacksonian moments,” when the public grows so disgusted with the ruling party in Washington that they throw the bums out en masse:

People in Congress and the lobbyists who court them have pretty good gigs. They have nice offices, make big salaries, and have lots of people hop to at their say so. Yet ultimately, all of their money, power, and prestige come from the people. The people are the sole source of sovereignty in our nation. Our Constitution opens, “We the people of the United States” – not “We the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of the United States” or “We the senior members of Congress with plum committee assignments.” Everything about our system is the way it is because the people allow it to be that way. This is why it’s best for the entrenched interests and the politicians to keep their under-handed means and particularistic ends from affecting the people. They can take it all away in a single instant – so the smart approach is not to give them a reason.

This Congress and this President seem hell-bent on ignoring that maxim. It started last year with TARP. It continued into this year with the pork-laden, wasteful stimulus bill. It moved to the auto bailouts, reckless deficit spending, and coziness with Wall Street. And now, it has moved to health care “reform.” The people are taking notice, they don’t like it, and they’re starting to blame the government for the weakened state of the union.

We might be on the verge of another Jacksonian moment: a time when the people awake from their slumber, angrily exercise their sovereign authority, and mercilessly fire the leaders who have for too long catered to the elites rather than average people. The first time this happened was in 1828 – when the people rallied to the cause of Old Hickory to avenge the “Corrupt Bargain” of four years prior. It’s happened several times throughout the centuries. Most relevant to today, it happened time and again in the 1880s and 1890s, as the people hired then fired one Republican and Democratic majority after another in search of leaders who could attend to the people’s interests instead of the special interests. That age saw the birth of the Populist Party. It was a time when so many felt so disgruntled by the political process that young William Jennings Bryan – just thirty-six years old and with only two terms in the House – came within a hundred thousand votes of the presidency.

I wonder if we’ve returned to that kind of dynamic. In true Jacksonian fashion, the country fired the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 because they bungled the war in Iraq and allowed the economy to sink into recession. They might soon have another Jacksonian moment, and fire these equally useless Democrats for hampering the recovery, exploding the deficit, and playing politics with health care.

Be sure to read the whole thing: it’s a long, angry fist-shake at our so-called leaders, who in their arrogance don’t seem to care a whit what we, the People think. In a similar vein, Michael Goodwin, a liberal who supported Hillary Clinton and voted for Obama, unleashes his own inner Jackson. I wonder how many people out there are similarly realizing they were duped by Obama and the Democrats?

We’ll find out next November.

As for the irrevocable fait accompli, I’m not so sure. To create the image that this bill is deficit-neutral in the first ten years, Reid has had to structure it so that all the new taxes come into play immediately, but the “benefits” don’t begin until 2014. That’s four years in which the people will suffer from more money being taken from their checks, but get nothing in return.  Assuming the Jacksonian wave hits in 2010 and/or 2012, this just might be one of those rare entitlements that gets repealed.

We can but hope.  Praying

LINKS: Fausta has a round-up of Cash for Cloture posts. By the way, did you know that, according to Senator Whitehouse (D-RI), you’re a racist Nazi hater if you oppose ObamaCare? No, really:

Remember, that’s the majority of Americans he’s talking about. Ed Morrissey talks about midnight votes. More at Blue Crab Boulevard.


Is Harry Reid a louse or just stupid?

December 8, 2009

I suppose both could be true, given the pettiness and ignorance needed to describe opponents of nationalized medicine as the equivalent of those who opposed civil rights or defended slavery:

Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery

Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.

“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,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite 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.”

That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond’s famous 1957 filibuster — the late senator switched parties several years later.

And if you need to see it to believe it, here’s the video:

Harry needs more than a few lessons in History. For  starters, when Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act, he was a Democrat. The act itself was proposed by President Eisenhower, a Republican.

But, let’s not stop there. The Democrats have a long and dirty history with civil rights that’s largely been swept under the carpet. Prior to the Civil War, it was the Democrats who defended the institution of slavery and pushed for its expansion. They were so closely tied to slavery that they had effectively married the issue and become almost a Southern regional party. After the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan and other White supremacist groups that attacked Black and other Republican citizens and office-holders was founded by Democrats and, after Reconstruction ended, functioned as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to enforce an apartheid regime in the Jim Crow South.

And that’s not all. Democrats fought against all federal anti-lynching legislation for 90 years until 1964. It was a Democratic “progressive” President, Woodrow Wilson, who introduced segregation to the Federal government.  FDR’s New Deal labor policies sent Black unemployment skyrocketing. And it was a Democratic senator, the honorable Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Oh, and he had been a recruiter for the Klan, too.

This is nowhere near the whole story of the Democrats, slavery, and race relations. Bruce Bartlett’s Wrong on Race is a well-written, heavily documented summary. I recommend it for a good eye-opening.

Really, though, Reid’s odious dismissals of legitimate political opposition are only the latest in a long line of attempts by Democrat leaders in recent years to defeat their opponents through smears and waving the bloody shirt, not through the strength of their policy arguments. The late Senator Kennedy infamously slandered Judge Robert Bork from the floor of the Senate upon learning of Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas was accused of being a base sexual harasser during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings. Senators Kennedy and Durbin compared American troops to Nazis and followers of Saddam Hussein during the abu Ghraib scandal, way out of proportion to what really happened. And this last summer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared American citizens exercising their legitimate rights to protest ObamaCare to Nazis.

And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans (and some fence-sitting Democrats?) who are representing their constituents -exercising legitimate opposition to nationalized health care and making use of all the parliamentary tools available to senators- are comparable to defenders of slavery and the oppression of women.

It just goes to show how bankrupt their arguments are. They can’t win on the merits of cost, economics, or politics – the facts are all against them, as are a majority of the American people. So, instead they hurl rhetorical bombs and hope that cows moderates and conservatives into submission.

How pathetic.

Regarding the question in the subject line, I still haven’t decided if it’s either-or or both, but it looks like Nevadans have realized they’re being represented by a schmuck: polls have the Majority Leader well behind both likely Republican opponents.

Good. Maybe they’ll finally rid the Senate of that smell.

LINKS: More from Legal Insurrection, Hot Air, and Big Government.

UPDATEReid doubles-down on his stupidity. (via Matt Lewis)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,846 other followers