Friday, September 26, 2008


We try hard to not actually call anyone names on this site -- it's counterproductive and doesn't really prove anything about the person; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to not say that Harry Reid is an idiot. It's rather embarrassing to claim him as a Nevadan because we don't want people from other states to wonder if all Nevadans are morons. But Harry's lack of both judgment and just plain common sense are becoming so obvious, that we feel compelled to state the obvious: Harry Reid is an idiot and he believes that we are all idiots.

It doesn't take a high I.Q. to read Harry's statements and figure out that not only are his own statements inconsistent with each other, he thinks that we will never catch on to the fact that his current political goals revolve around getting Obama elected and attempting to make McCain look incompetent.

Currently, Harry is blaming John McCain for the lack of an agreement on a Wall Street bailout. He's asking for McCain to leave Washington so that the Senate can get something done; McCain is, apparently, getting in their way. Truthfully, someone needs to get in their way. The Democrats are putting so many earmarks on the Wall Street bailout that it will far exceed the $700 billion that was proposed. Unfortunately for the Dems, Republicans know how to read and many House Republicans did read the proposal and refused to sign. Their decision had nothing to do with John McCain.

This won't be much of a shock, but Democrats are not being completely honest about the passing of the proposal. They don't need the House Republicans to approve the proposal; the Dem's are the majority party.

Additionally, John McCain has every right to be in Washington right now. He's paid to be a senator -- he should be in Washington.

It's beginning to look like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and perhaps some of Obama's camp have pre-planned this conspiracy to take down McCain. Why else would Harry say earlier this week that they needed McCain in Washington to help settle this bailout, only to turn around and condemn McCain when he actually shows up? Either Harry is losing his marbles, or the rest of us have lost ours.

Stephen F. Hayes wrote the following for The Daily Standard:
"Yesterday afternoon, I went to CNN to talk about bailout politics. When I arrived, I was surprised to learn from the other two panelists--CNN's Gloria Borger and the Washington Post's Dana Milbank--that a deal on an amended version of the Treasury Department's $700 billion bailout plan was close. I was surprised because I had been hearing the opposite--that House Republicans were increasingly opposed to a deal and that such a deal seemed less likely yesterday than it was when the plan was originally proposed. But others, including the Associated Press, were reporting that a deal was imminent.

"Then, earlier today, the AP reported that such a deal had, in fact, been reached. The Washington Post soon followed, in an article that strongly suggested McCain was irrelevant to the process and reported that he had arrived after a deal had been struck.
McCain's "Straight Talk Air" landed at National Airport just after noon, and McCain's motorcade sped toward the Senate. But by then, senior Democrats and Republicans colleagues were already announcing that a deal in principle had been reached.

"The Obama campaign gleefully sent the Post story out to reporters at 4:22 and affixed its own headline: 'Straight Talk Air' lands after deal was announced.'

"So what happened? I'm not sure anyone knows the full story, but here is my take. When John McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign, Democrats moved quickly to portray the decision as strictly political. (Senator Chuck Schumer said as much in an interview on CNN.) An important element of their case was convincing reporters that a deal was close and McCain presence was (a) unnecessary, (b) potentially detrimental, or (c) both.

"But that's a hard case for them to make for two reasons. First, Harry Reid. On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had explicitly called for McCain to use his influence as party leader to bring House Republicans along. 'We need, now, the Republicans to start producing some votes for us,' Reid said. 'We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do.' Reid explained that McCain was crucial to any deal because his approval of a deal would give congressional Republicans political cover necessary to sign on to a bipartisan agreement. The second reason: House Republicans were never on board. Earlier this week, they gave Vice President Dick Cheney an earful about their opposition to the deal. Yesterday morning, a group of about 50 conservative House Republicans got together and when one speaker asked for a show of hands from those who support the bailout, less than a handful said they were likely to support it. One staffer for a Republican in House leadership said: 'Understand one thing. House Republicans were never on board.'

"By this morning, Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank--the two lead congressional Democrats on this issue--were telling reporters that a deal was close. But according to House sources, those claims were nonsense. 'This was a smart political move by Senator McCain--working in a bipartisan fashion to try to get something done,' says a senior House Republican aide. 'It's something he's done in the past.' Democrats, this Republican says, immediately began plotting to deny McCain credit for a deal if one was reached and to blame him if a deal was not reached.

"At least temporarily, we are seeing an interesting partnership between House Republicans and John McCain. When I asked one GOP Hill staffer whether McCain was serving as a proxy for House Republicans, I was told that such a claim would be too strong but that McCain is, at the very least, trying to give voice to House Republicans skeptical of the bailout. And if that's true, McCain will have an opportunity to bring them along--or some of them--to get a deal.

"The real question, in the face of increasingly intense media hostility, is whether he'll actually get credit for doing so."

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

No comments: