It was revealed this week that Harry Reid made a choice comment about Barack Obama back in 2008 during the Democrat primary.
Reid described Obama as a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Republicans immediately went on the attack, dredging up the Trent Lott fiasco of 2002. Reid immediately apologized. The Democrats immediately absolved Reid of his sins. The Republicans kept on whining.
This whole "scandal" is a sham. The Democrats didn't attack Trent Lott in 2002 because they thought he was a racist. They attacked him because he made a comment they could exploit for their own political purposes - and it was no surprise, really. Democrats just love to throw around the race card, and inevitably, the Republicans then wait for their opportunity to throw it back. The problem for the Republicans is that the Democrats' PR machine has been much more effective at branding Republicans as racists, which means that Republicans' attempts to play the race card typically end up coming off as clumsy and stupid.
The big issue is consistency. When Trent Lott made his comments, the Democrats and the media went into an uproar, demanding that Lott apologize. After he apologized, the Democrats and the media demanded that he resign from his leadership position. Lott apologized again...and again...and again...and even went on the cable network BET to apologize yet again...but it was to no avail. He finally bowed to the media pressure and resigned his leadership position.
When Reid's comments came to light, he immediately apologized, and that apology was immediately accepted by Obama, the Democrats, and the media at large (with the exception of conservative talk radio and possibly FOX News).
Personally, I care as much about what Reid said as I did about what Lott said, which is to say that I don't give a damn!!! The Democrats will always play the race card first, because it is one of the few strategies they have that actually works (some of the time) when they can't argue logically about the issues (which is most of the time). When Republicans start going on about the Democrats' double-standard, they just end up making themselves look stupid. They look stupid to Democrats because the Dems don't care about their opinions anyway, and they look stupid to conservatives because we're smart enough to know that the Dems don't care and aren't going to change...and there's no chance in hell that Harry Reid is giving up his power until either he dies, or the Democrat political machine decides he's no longer useful and offers him some sweetheart retirement deal. Should the Democrats be consistent? Yes, they should. If Lott's comments were bad enough that he disqualified himself from leadership, then Reid should step down, as well. But instead of bloviating about it until the public is sick of hearing about it, Republicans should voice their opinions for one day, and then start working on ads for the election...because honestly, no matter how offended the Republicans act, the vast majority of voters won't remember this incident come election day.
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
They're All Liars
It is now officially on the record: when the Democrats took power, they did so based on lies. When Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House, she promised that hers would be the most open, transparent Congress in history. When President Obama was campaigning, he promised that the process to push through health care reform would be carried live on C-SPAN.
As it turns out, they were both lying.
The head of C-SPAN sent an open letter to congressional leaders yesterday urging them to open up the health care negotiations and let the C-SPAN cameras televise the proceedings. Obama promised as much during his campaign...but when Nancy Pelosi was asked about the letter, she lied, saying "There has never been a more open process for any legislation." Her evidence: the town hall meetings that took place in August...the very town hall meetings where thousands upon thousands of Americans showed up to voice opposition to the health care take-over. In fact, Pelosi was a driving force behind the liberals trying to minimize the people's voice at the town hall meetings, calling those in opposition frightening and implying that they were some kind of neo-Nazis. And that was right before they called Congress back into session and put an end to the town halls because the liberals were getting too much bad press.
Pelosi knows that no matter what she or President Obama may have promised, the Democrat Party cannot afford to open up the health care negotiations. The only way the health care bill passed in the Senate was through Democrat bribes (Ben Nelson) and hijacking the legislative process to shut down debate. If they were truly being open and honest, the response from the people would be so deafening and undeniable that no Congressman who wished to stay in office would vote for the bill. Pelosi knows that. Harry Reid knows that. Obama knows that. And all of them are willing to push the bill in through the shadows and under the radar because all they truly care about is getting as much of their progressive agenda pushed through before the midterm elections.
As it turns out, they were both lying.
The head of C-SPAN sent an open letter to congressional leaders yesterday urging them to open up the health care negotiations and let the C-SPAN cameras televise the proceedings. Obama promised as much during his campaign...but when Nancy Pelosi was asked about the letter, she lied, saying "There has never been a more open process for any legislation." Her evidence: the town hall meetings that took place in August...the very town hall meetings where thousands upon thousands of Americans showed up to voice opposition to the health care take-over. In fact, Pelosi was a driving force behind the liberals trying to minimize the people's voice at the town hall meetings, calling those in opposition frightening and implying that they were some kind of neo-Nazis. And that was right before they called Congress back into session and put an end to the town halls because the liberals were getting too much bad press.
Pelosi knows that no matter what she or President Obama may have promised, the Democrat Party cannot afford to open up the health care negotiations. The only way the health care bill passed in the Senate was through Democrat bribes (Ben Nelson) and hijacking the legislative process to shut down debate. If they were truly being open and honest, the response from the people would be so deafening and undeniable that no Congressman who wished to stay in office would vote for the bill. Pelosi knows that. Harry Reid knows that. Obama knows that. And all of them are willing to push the bill in through the shadows and under the radar because all they truly care about is getting as much of their progressive agenda pushed through before the midterm elections.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Health Care is Here
On Christmas Eve, the Senate held their final vote for their version of the health care takeover. The vote came out 60-39, with the bill passing strictly along partisan lines.
The truth is, pretty much every vote on health care has been on partisan lines, because this is a partisan bill written for a partisan Congress on a partisan issue.
The Democrats have been complaining lately that the Republicans have done nothing but obstruct their health care legislation, as if that were a bad thing. Truth is, the Left has been trying to ram socialized health care down the throats of the American people for decades, but until now they've been stopped at every turn because too many people knew that "free" health care was a lie, a way for politicians to take more and more power away from the people, all the while setting the stage for socialism in America.
And the truth behind the Republicans' so-called obstructionism is that it isn't the real reason it took so long for the health care bill to pass. The entire issue of health care reform has been crafted in such a way that any Republican worth his salt would be insane to cast a vote for the bill at any step of the process. The people who have truly been holding up the process are the Democrats who disagreed with the bill for one reason or another - and the party leadership & the White House quite clearly showed their willingness to twist any arm and offer any bribe to push through their health care socialization. They bribed Ben Nelson by offering to pay his state's Medicare costs - around $45 million. Mary Landrieu was given $300 million for her state. Christopher Dodd was able to write $100 million into the bill for his state. The entire bill is full of nothing but socialism, waste and bribery.
The Republicans should be applauded for fighting tooth and nail to stop this bill. Any of the so-called "moderate" Democrats who voted for the bill should be run out of Washington on a rail, and count themselves fortunate that they got off that light. Any Senator who held out until funds were secured for their state should be put up on charges for accepting bribes, and the Senate leadership should be brought up on charges for bribing them...and then, any Senator who voted for the bill should be thrown out for violating their oath of office, in which they swore to support the Constitution of the United States.
The truth is, pretty much every vote on health care has been on partisan lines, because this is a partisan bill written for a partisan Congress on a partisan issue.
The Democrats have been complaining lately that the Republicans have done nothing but obstruct their health care legislation, as if that were a bad thing. Truth is, the Left has been trying to ram socialized health care down the throats of the American people for decades, but until now they've been stopped at every turn because too many people knew that "free" health care was a lie, a way for politicians to take more and more power away from the people, all the while setting the stage for socialism in America.
And the truth behind the Republicans' so-called obstructionism is that it isn't the real reason it took so long for the health care bill to pass. The entire issue of health care reform has been crafted in such a way that any Republican worth his salt would be insane to cast a vote for the bill at any step of the process. The people who have truly been holding up the process are the Democrats who disagreed with the bill for one reason or another - and the party leadership & the White House quite clearly showed their willingness to twist any arm and offer any bribe to push through their health care socialization. They bribed Ben Nelson by offering to pay his state's Medicare costs - around $45 million. Mary Landrieu was given $300 million for her state. Christopher Dodd was able to write $100 million into the bill for his state. The entire bill is full of nothing but socialism, waste and bribery.
The Republicans should be applauded for fighting tooth and nail to stop this bill. Any of the so-called "moderate" Democrats who voted for the bill should be run out of Washington on a rail, and count themselves fortunate that they got off that light. Any Senator who held out until funds were secured for their state should be put up on charges for accepting bribes, and the Senate leadership should be brought up on charges for bribing them...and then, any Senator who voted for the bill should be thrown out for violating their oath of office, in which they swore to support the Constitution of the United States.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Reid: Opponents of Health Care = Supporters of Slavery
Harry Reid is at it again: this time, he has compared opponents of Obamacare to those who supported slavery, opposed women's sufferage, and opposed the civil rights movement.
Now, besides just being patently absurd on their face, Reid's comments show his utter ignorance of history: it was the Republicans who led opposition to slavery, and a Democrat who tried to filibuster the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Conservatives and Republicans have historically stood on the side of liberty, and the situation with the health care bill is no different. Conservatives want to reform the health care system in a way that uses less regulation on the health care system to give the people more freedom and increase competition in the health care market, which will inevitably drive prices down. Liberals want to take power away from the people, impose higher taxes, and give the government further control over peoples' lives.
It's interesting how liberals try to ascribe a moral imperative to any piece of legislation that grants the government more power, no matter how much damage that legislation will do to the nation. When Republicans want to outlaw (or even just outlaw taxpayer-funded subsidies of) abortion, or want to outlaw gay marriage, we are routinely told that "you cannot legislate morality." When Democrats want to take over 1/6 of the nation's economy in a massive power-grab that will require all citizens to purchase health insurance or take a government health plan under penalty of fines and possible jail time, legislating morality is suddenly acceptable. President Obama has even quoted the Bible to justify the health care takeover, justifying federal wealth redistribution schemes by saying that we should "be our brother's keeper" (taken from Genesis 4:9). The irony is, Barack Obama's own brother lives in poverty in Africa.
But the moral imperative where health care is concerned is disingenuous on multiple fronts: we already have regulations in place requiring doctors to provide emergency care to patients in need, regardless of whether they can pay. With that statute in place, there is no reason for the power-grab to extent health insurance to everyone in America (by the way, many liberals are now calling the current bill "health insurance reform," since Americans started catching on to the fact that it does more to change the insurance system than the health care system). With emergency care required, we are already being "our brother's keeper."
The Progressives are only using the Biblical/moral (and in some cases, the race card) argument in an attempt to get the American people to hand over all of their freedoms to the progressive nanny state. What is the end game? That largely depends on which special interest is pushing which power grab at any particular time, but the bottom line is: keep ahold of power, no matter what.
Reids comments show clearly that they will say nearly anything to villianize anyone who opposes them.
Now, besides just being patently absurd on their face, Reid's comments show his utter ignorance of history: it was the Republicans who led opposition to slavery, and a Democrat who tried to filibuster the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Conservatives and Republicans have historically stood on the side of liberty, and the situation with the health care bill is no different. Conservatives want to reform the health care system in a way that uses less regulation on the health care system to give the people more freedom and increase competition in the health care market, which will inevitably drive prices down. Liberals want to take power away from the people, impose higher taxes, and give the government further control over peoples' lives.
It's interesting how liberals try to ascribe a moral imperative to any piece of legislation that grants the government more power, no matter how much damage that legislation will do to the nation. When Republicans want to outlaw (or even just outlaw taxpayer-funded subsidies of) abortion, or want to outlaw gay marriage, we are routinely told that "you cannot legislate morality." When Democrats want to take over 1/6 of the nation's economy in a massive power-grab that will require all citizens to purchase health insurance or take a government health plan under penalty of fines and possible jail time, legislating morality is suddenly acceptable. President Obama has even quoted the Bible to justify the health care takeover, justifying federal wealth redistribution schemes by saying that we should "be our brother's keeper" (taken from Genesis 4:9). The irony is, Barack Obama's own brother lives in poverty in Africa.
But the moral imperative where health care is concerned is disingenuous on multiple fronts: we already have regulations in place requiring doctors to provide emergency care to patients in need, regardless of whether they can pay. With that statute in place, there is no reason for the power-grab to extent health insurance to everyone in America (by the way, many liberals are now calling the current bill "health insurance reform," since Americans started catching on to the fact that it does more to change the insurance system than the health care system). With emergency care required, we are already being "our brother's keeper."
The Progressives are only using the Biblical/moral (and in some cases, the race card) argument in an attempt to get the American people to hand over all of their freedoms to the progressive nanny state. What is the end game? That largely depends on which special interest is pushing which power grab at any particular time, but the bottom line is: keep ahold of power, no matter what.
Reids comments show clearly that they will say nearly anything to villianize anyone who opposes them.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Obamacare is One Step Closer
In the interests of transparency and openness, the Senate decided to take an idea from Nancy Pelosi and hold their cloture vote for the health care power-grab as late on Saturday night as they possibly could.
According to Harry Reid, Republican opposition to cloture constitutes opposition to debate. This notion is, to put it simply, idiotic. America has already debated government health care. We debated it throughout the summer, when Senators and Congressmen went to their districts and held town halls. We debated it when people from across America journeyed to Washington to voice their opposition. We debated it in poll after poll, showing that an overwhelming majority of Americans don't want the government to run our health care.
This vote for cloture isn't about debate. It's about power. It's about manipulation. It's about the elitist politicians in Washington taking away the freedoms that our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought and died to protect.
This isn't about what the people want, it's about what the politicians want for the people...and no matter what they say, all they want for us is to have power over us and to control us in the interests of maintaining their power and ability to control.
The bottom line is this: a vote against cloture was a vote for the people of America. It is essential to the continuation of our freedoms that this health care bill be opposed at every turn. Once Obamacare is instituted, it will be permanent. As nice as the thought is that conservatives could take back control of the government in 2010 and/or 2012, even conservative majorities in the House and Senate, combined with conservative control of the White House cannot guarantee the repeal of any government program. Politicians are, by nature, stubborn, and once they gain power over some aspect of our lives, forcing them to give the power up is next to impossible.
According to Harry Reid, Republican opposition to cloture constitutes opposition to debate. This notion is, to put it simply, idiotic. America has already debated government health care. We debated it throughout the summer, when Senators and Congressmen went to their districts and held town halls. We debated it when people from across America journeyed to Washington to voice their opposition. We debated it in poll after poll, showing that an overwhelming majority of Americans don't want the government to run our health care.This vote for cloture isn't about debate. It's about power. It's about manipulation. It's about the elitist politicians in Washington taking away the freedoms that our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought and died to protect.
This isn't about what the people want, it's about what the politicians want for the people...and no matter what they say, all they want for us is to have power over us and to control us in the interests of maintaining their power and ability to control.
The bottom line is this: a vote against cloture was a vote for the people of America. It is essential to the continuation of our freedoms that this health care bill be opposed at every turn. Once Obamacare is instituted, it will be permanent. As nice as the thought is that conservatives could take back control of the government in 2010 and/or 2012, even conservative majorities in the House and Senate, combined with conservative control of the White House cannot guarantee the repeal of any government program. Politicians are, by nature, stubborn, and once they gain power over some aspect of our lives, forcing them to give the power up is next to impossible.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Reid's Flip-Flop
Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and liberal wacko extraordinaire has now officially reversed his position on the Iraq troop surge (now let's count the days until he changes positions yet again).
Earlier this year, in April, to be exact, Reid denounced the surge, saying that it would never work. Reid also publicly stated that the surge was a failure...before all of the troops had even been able to reach Iraq.
Now Reid has reversed his position...because maybe the troop surge wasn't such a bad idea, after all.
From News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
The truth is that the troop surge has been a great success. The situation in Iraq has never been perfect - not even close...but since the surge, troop deaths are down, civilian deaths are down, and real progress is being made - so much progress that even Harry Reid has to admit that the surge has been a good thing.
Earlier this year, in April, to be exact, Reid denounced the surge, saying that it would never work. Reid also publicly stated that the surge was a failure...before all of the troops had even been able to reach Iraq.
Now Reid has reversed his position...because maybe the troop surge wasn't such a bad idea, after all.
From News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
The president said, "Let's send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves." We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that.Ever the partisan, Reid's admission was colored with denunciations of President Bush and proselytizing for liberal spending programs...but for someone as partisan as Harry Reid, even a partial reversal is extremely significant.
The truth is that the troop surge has been a great success. The situation in Iraq has never been perfect - not even close...but since the surge, troop deaths are down, civilian deaths are down, and real progress is being made - so much progress that even Harry Reid has to admit that the surge has been a good thing.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Reid Blames Fires on Global Warming...And He's Right!
After his record in the recently-resolved Limbaugh smear letter fiasco, you'd think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would keep his mouth shut & stay under the radar for a little while...but no such luck.
Today, Reid told reporters that "one of the reasons we have the fires in California is global warming." When pressed on the matter, he kind of backed down from his assertion, essentially saying that global warming was one of many causes.
I have to say that I would agree with Harry Reid if only he added one word to his statement: "one of the reasons we have the fires in California is global warming hysteria."
The truth: global warming did not start this fire. The fire was started by an arsonist, possibly more than one. It has been labeled by many news organizations as a "super fire." The reason the fire is so wild and uncontrollable is because environmental lobbyist groups blocked the Healthy Forest Initiative, which was designed expressly for the purpose of reducing the severity of forest fires. Under the Healthy Forest Initiative, underbrush would be regularly cleared out of forests just like the one burning in souther California, giving any forest fires less fuel to feed on and making it easier for firefighters to contain any fires. Environmentalist lobbying groups blocked the initiative's implementation in California, claiming that clearing out any plants would contribute to global warming.
Global warming alarmism didn't start this fire, but it has been a major contributor to the tragedy that the fire has become. Global warming alarmists prevented the Forest Service from properly managing the forests, and this "super fire" is the direct result of their alarmist actions.
My question for the global warming alarmists is this: how much more pollution has been caused by this wildfire due to your meddling than has supposedly been prevented by allowing the forests to grow unchecked?
When it comes to the environment, modern science knows a lot...but many things are still unknown. When it comes to global warming, we only know one thing: the earth is getting warmer. The truth is that we don't really know why, and now we have concrete evidence that rabid environmentalism doesn't help anything, and is in fact a very bad thing.
Today, Reid told reporters that "one of the reasons we have the fires in California is global warming." When pressed on the matter, he kind of backed down from his assertion, essentially saying that global warming was one of many causes.
I have to say that I would agree with Harry Reid if only he added one word to his statement: "one of the reasons we have the fires in California is global warming hysteria."
The truth: global warming did not start this fire. The fire was started by an arsonist, possibly more than one. It has been labeled by many news organizations as a "super fire." The reason the fire is so wild and uncontrollable is because environmental lobbyist groups blocked the Healthy Forest Initiative, which was designed expressly for the purpose of reducing the severity of forest fires. Under the Healthy Forest Initiative, underbrush would be regularly cleared out of forests just like the one burning in souther California, giving any forest fires less fuel to feed on and making it easier for firefighters to contain any fires. Environmentalist lobbying groups blocked the initiative's implementation in California, claiming that clearing out any plants would contribute to global warming.
Global warming alarmism didn't start this fire, but it has been a major contributor to the tragedy that the fire has become. Global warming alarmists prevented the Forest Service from properly managing the forests, and this "super fire" is the direct result of their alarmist actions.
My question for the global warming alarmists is this: how much more pollution has been caused by this wildfire due to your meddling than has supposedly been prevented by allowing the forests to grow unchecked?
When it comes to the environment, modern science knows a lot...but many things are still unknown. When it comes to global warming, we only know one thing: the earth is getting warmer. The truth is that we don't really know why, and now we have concrete evidence that rabid environmentalism doesn't help anything, and is in fact a very bad thing.
Friday, October 19, 2007
The Auction Has Ended...and Harry Tries to Take Credit???
The ebay auction for the Harry Reid smear letter has ended...with a winning bid of $2,100,100. This means that because of Rush Limbaugh's efforts, $4,200,200 will be donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation (and that's not counting donations made by people who couldn't afford to bid on the letter itself).
I stated in my post yesterday, and I still believe, that this move by Rush is one of the most brilliant political maneuvers of our time...and today, Harry Reid himself tried to take credit for it.
On the floor of the Senate today, Reid stated:
So, let's get this straight: earlier this month, Harry Reid, in response to a smear campaign perpetrated by a left-wing attack organization, sent a letter to Mark Mays in an attempt to intimidate Mays into restricting just what Rush will and will not be allowed to say on the air. This letter was signed by Reid and 40 other Democrat senators.
Basically, the Senate tried to censor Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen.
In an act of defiance specifically aimed at embarrassing Harry Reid, Mark Mays gave the original copy of the letter to Rush, who in turn auctioned it off for charity.
And then, Harry Reid stood on the floor of the Senate and made a pathetic attempt to wipe the egg off of his face and fry it into an omlette. The way Reid talks, you'd think his purpose of writing the letter in the first place was to raise money for charity, and Mays and Limbaugh played along with his scheme.
The truth is that this campaign by Reid has been a lie since the beginning: the original smear by Media Matters was a lie, Reid and other Senate Democrats perpetrated that lie, and Limbaugh, who has been in the right on this from the beginning, threw it back in their faces...Harry Reid did nothing more than attempt to censor Rush Limbaugh, and now Harry Reid has the audacity to try and take credit for Limbaugh's raising money for charity!
When I first heard Reid's comments (as I was listening to Rush this morning), my head almost blew clean off of my shoulders, I got so angry. Harry Reid and 40 other Senate Democrats tried to weasel their way around the First Amendment and restrict a citizen's right to free speech, all based on a lie. Rush unmasked their lie and auctioned off the letter as concrete proof that the smear was false, and now Harry Reid is acting as though it was his idea from the beginning.
I've always thought of Harry Reid as a liberal blowhard, but how he's exposed his true nature: not only is he a liberal blowhard, but he is a despicable human being. His presence as a member of the US Senate is a stain on our nation.
***UPDATE***
The lies continue: ABC News has credited the Democrats with raising the money for the charity. So now not only has the left lied about Rush's comments and Harry Reid insinuated that the auction was his idea, but ABC News is turning Harry Reid's insinuation into yet another lie.
What's more, they make no mention of the fact that Rush is matching the donation.
I stated in my post yesterday, and I still believe, that this move by Rush is one of the most brilliant political maneuvers of our time...and today, Harry Reid himself tried to take credit for it.
On the floor of the Senate today, Reid stated:
Earlier this month, I came to the floor discussing comments made by Rush Limbaugh. Following my remarks, more than 40 of my Senate colleagues and I cosigned a letter to the chairman of Clear Channel, Mark May, telling him that we wanted him to confer with Rush Limbaugh regarding the statements he made. I've since spoken to Mark May about this. Mark May in fact called me regarding this letter.
This week, Rush Limbaugh put the original copy of that letter up for auction on eBay. Mr. President, we didn't have time or we could have gotten every Democratic Senator to sign that letter. But he put the letter up for auction on eBay. And I think very, very constructively, let the proceeds of that to go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. What is the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation? It provides scholarship assistance to children of Marines and federal law enforcement personnel whose parent dies in the line of duty, as well as health care assistance for disabled children of fallen troops. What could be a more worthwhile cause? And I think it's really good that this money on eBay is going to be raised for this purpose.
When I spoke to Mark May I think that he and I thought this would probably not raise much money, a letter by Democratic Senators complaining about something. This morning, the bid is more than two million on this. We've watched it during the week. It keeps going up and up and up, and there's only a little bit of time left on it. But it's certainly going to be more than two million. Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature. The cause, Madam President, extremely good.
Now, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don't agree on everything in life, and maybe that's kind of an understatement. But without qualification, Mark May, the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh, and Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they're auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a really worthwhile cause. I don't know what we could do more important than helping make sure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education. Think about this. More than $2 million, this is going to really help. And that's, again, an understatement. There's only a little bit of time left.
So I would ask those that are wanting to do more, that they can go to the Harry Reid, search -- actually go on say "Harry Reid letter," this will come up on eBay. I encourage anyone interested in this with the means to do so to consider bidding on this letter and contributing to this worthwhile cause. I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people.
(emphasis added)
So, let's get this straight: earlier this month, Harry Reid, in response to a smear campaign perpetrated by a left-wing attack organization, sent a letter to Mark Mays in an attempt to intimidate Mays into restricting just what Rush will and will not be allowed to say on the air. This letter was signed by Reid and 40 other Democrat senators.
Basically, the Senate tried to censor Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen.In an act of defiance specifically aimed at embarrassing Harry Reid, Mark Mays gave the original copy of the letter to Rush, who in turn auctioned it off for charity.
And then, Harry Reid stood on the floor of the Senate and made a pathetic attempt to wipe the egg off of his face and fry it into an omlette. The way Reid talks, you'd think his purpose of writing the letter in the first place was to raise money for charity, and Mays and Limbaugh played along with his scheme.
The truth is that this campaign by Reid has been a lie since the beginning: the original smear by Media Matters was a lie, Reid and other Senate Democrats perpetrated that lie, and Limbaugh, who has been in the right on this from the beginning, threw it back in their faces...Harry Reid did nothing more than attempt to censor Rush Limbaugh, and now Harry Reid has the audacity to try and take credit for Limbaugh's raising money for charity!
When I first heard Reid's comments (as I was listening to Rush this morning), my head almost blew clean off of my shoulders, I got so angry. Harry Reid and 40 other Senate Democrats tried to weasel their way around the First Amendment and restrict a citizen's right to free speech, all based on a lie. Rush unmasked their lie and auctioned off the letter as concrete proof that the smear was false, and now Harry Reid is acting as though it was his idea from the beginning.
I've always thought of Harry Reid as a liberal blowhard, but how he's exposed his true nature: not only is he a liberal blowhard, but he is a despicable human being. His presence as a member of the US Senate is a stain on our nation.
***UPDATE***
The lies continue: ABC News has credited the Democrats with raising the money for the charity. So now not only has the left lied about Rush's comments and Harry Reid insinuated that the auction was his idea, but ABC News is turning Harry Reid's insinuation into yet another lie.
What's more, they make no mention of the fact that Rush is matching the donation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)