The Combative Harry Reid

I must admit I love the combative Harry Reid. Wish he were more like this:

"By rejecting every good-faith bipartisan compromise -- including those from the White House and Senator Bob Corker -- it is now abundantly clear that Republicans have no interest in keeping the Big Three from collapsing.... Republicans may think that rejecting this legislation sent a message to the auto industry. Instead, they sent a message to every single American that they are more interested in settling scores than solving problems." -- Senator Harry Reid

It's plainly evident that the Republicans are not interested in solving problems but it's not clear to me at least what scores did the GOP settle today? If anything, I would hope that the American public will look at each other tonight and ask who are these clowns? How out of touch can they be?

Let's hope that today marks the day the GOP signed its own death warrant. Certainly any hopes of winning a mid-western state any time in the foreseeable future went out the window today.

An open thread.

Tags: Senator Dodd, Senator Harry Reid (all tags)

Comments

10 Comments

Re: The Combative Harry Reid

god I hope so.  It's not enough that these problems have been created by the party of George Bush, no oversight, no required responsibility, and so no looking forward to cars that will sell whatever the price of gas, and last into the future.  But a lot of Americans would rather suffer through a depression than be smart and practical too, it's what's wrong with Kansas.  

by anna shane 2008-12-12 04:48PM | 0 recs
The settled a "score"

with the UAW.  Its very existence is an affront to them.

by JJE 2008-12-12 05:23PM | 0 recs
"Combative"

It is too bad that after being "combative," the Senate always folds to Mr. 19%.

by ArtVanDelay1774 2008-12-12 05:53PM | 0 recs
so true...
And Mr. 38% (in Nevada) is the lead folder.
Reid was a better minority leader than majority leader.  He needs to follow through on this come January.
by esconded 2008-12-12 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: so true...

It's going to be a whole new ballgame come January when senate democrats move from 51 votes to 58 or 59 and from a republican in the Whitehouse to a democratic president. Lambasting senate democrats based on what they are able to do right now as the pundits do by raising questions like "democrats and obama won the election and what can they and he do now?" to effect change is mostly irrelevant.

They act as if Obama ought be able to work some sort of kum ba ya magic to bring people together when the senate republicans (especially the current lame duck senate republicans) are more interested in grandstanding than solving problems - no matter how pressing.

Right now we're stuck with the senate we had last session, not the senate we won in November. The new senate will be exceptionally different from the senate we had before, still have today and will have until early January.

by Quinton 2008-12-12 11:42PM | 0 recs
Re: "Combative"

This wasn't Mr. 19%.  Mr. 19% was actually on our side on this one.

No, the fault for this can be laid entirely on Senators 1-41... and quite honestly, there's not much Harry Reid can do about that now with a 50-seat plus Lieberman non-majority.

Next Senate, though, if he doesn't start laying down the law, I'll be really pissed.

by mistersite 2008-12-12 07:58PM | 0 recs
Democrats have a majority and still fold

This is why while I have no ideological problem with the system of taxation, I am opposed to higher taxes because Democrats do not do enough to fight Bushy handouts(the 700B bailout by Bush) while they compromise on their own causes(the auto bailout). Democrats should have included the auto bailout stuff as a condition to cooperate on the 700B bushy plan. Instead Democrats foolishly took coownership of sorts of a Bushy led bailout.

I was actually glad when the Republicans opposed the initial auto bailout. It forced the Democrats not to give detroit a blank check. But when the demand came down to 14B, the Democrats should have fought harder to get this passed or declare opposition to every single Republican handout. They should have held firm on taking 14B from the 700B and use it for this instead of even going down the path of using the green energy research money. Why didn't they remove corn Ethanol subsidies or something else? There's gotta be 14B of pork in our system elsewhere.

by Pravin 2008-12-12 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re:

Because when Democrats know a bill that wont pass will help Americans, they end up having to do whatever the Republicans say so they can help get that bill passed.

When Republicans hear this is going to hurt Americans if this doesn't get passed, they go...."So?"

by werd2406 2008-12-12 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats have a majority and still fold

Senate democrats couldn't do all those things because those things weren't up for a vote at the time and with 51 votes (at best) they couldn't bring them up against out of nowhere to tie them all together in the way you would like. There's a shit ton more pork than 14B out there, but it's not a part of a bill that's on the floor right now and they can't just pull things out of there ass as it becomes convenient and especially not with 51 votes. It's just not that easy...

by Quinton 2008-12-12 11:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The Combative Harry Reid

Part of it is South vs. North -- the South is getting to be about the only stronghold of the Repubs, and the Japanese and German car mfgrs have built a bunch of plants using cheap US non-union labor. Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania where the big 3 plants are are all Dem territory now.

Short-sighted to be sure, but that's their motto.

by Hong Kong Chevy 2008-12-14 07:32PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads