Sen. Harry Reid in his private tax payer funded "war room" working on his solutions for America's future and national security. In this photo he is taking a break to show his democrat senators the finer strokes needed to smear their opponents.
Posted on 05/20/2005 3:10:25 PM PDT by yoe
The Associated Press recently reported: "In an institution that prides itself as a last bastion of civility, the Senate's new Democratic leader has on occasion turned to playground taunts and name-calling in his four-month tenure."
Color me shocked the AP characterized Reid that way.
It would indeed be fun to askole Harry what his model is for his whiny sniveling management style---when has it ever worked before? Do they teach it at UU? Altho it's counter productive and pretty much disgusting it will be fun to watch the slow implosion that's gonna happen.
Tom Daschle was allowed to “change the rules” by threats and cajolery and the MSM covered his unConstitutional foray into the bowels of the Senate cheering him on. Harry Reid is now carrying the baton and doing the exact same thing however, the MSM is beginning to waver and the citizens of this great nation are beginning to see the ruse of unConstitutional behavior. John McCain of AZ has joined with Ted Kennedy to work out a “compromise” – that is already unConstitutional. Read the note in bold letters, pass it on and keep up the drum roll for the Senate to act according to the United States Constitution, that is the only legal option these Senators have. The "rules" Shabby Harry is screaming about are the Tom Daschle rules in Bush's first term, he doesn't want them changed - they were unConstitutional then and they are unConstitutional now!
That an EXCELLENT point, yoe. And if you've made it before to me in a ping, I've somehow missed it and apologize.
How I wish I'd seen that because that is exactly what I would have said the several times I called Lindsey Graham's office.
I'll call Monday morning. Thank you for stating it so simply and well. And keep spamming the threads with that information IN BOLD on all the pertinent threads.
Dingy Harry. 'Nuff said.
You'll be happy to know that a wonderful letter to the editor just appeared in our local newspaper which pointed out exactly what you posted.
Color me shocked the AP characterized Reid that way.
Me too. However, it's a perfect description of Creepy Harry's behavior. He's all the more creepy because he whines his vicious little diatribes while hiding behind that Casper Milquetoast persona.
The "politics" you refer to is mindless hatred devoid of any alternative or recognizable agenda.
He and they are going headfirst into the sewer.
He and his party are bankrupt.
This hardly deserves cheery and animated expository.
This provides a disincentive to debate--meaning it's easier to obstruct now by just walking out and removing quorum, rather than requiring the minority to continue to debate any points of contention. This is hardly what the Founding Fathers intended.
Harry is like manna from heaven, he is over-the-top vicious and will continue to make these verbal blunders.
Also, Harry has some local dirt that is going to be dredged up pretty soon.
"The Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules, and does not say that the Senate must consider a nominee. By refusing to vote on the nominee, we are rejecting the nominee. This is Constitutional."
There we are. He said, she said. Both sides need more to prove their contentions. Why is the super-majority unconstitutional?
Nominations and treaties are two powers named in the part of the Constitution that gives power to the President. Senate consideration of Nominations impacts the power of the president to appoint the officers that he chooses to nominate. While the Senate is free to make rules that affect only it, it cannot make rules that diminish the power of another branch. The Senate has a DUTY to advice and consent, confirm or reject, each nominee; just as surely as it has a DUTY to render judgement in an impeachment trial. It cannot conduct the trial, and then refuse to vote. It cannot consider a nominee, and then refuse to vote.
In contrast, the power of each House to make its own rules clearly applies to matters PURELY internal to its workings. The language in the Constitution is, "shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members ... may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
RULE VI
QUORUM - ABSENT SENATORS MAY BE SENT FOR
Only if a case is brought to it. And at a glance, it is as likely as not the Supreme Court would find the matter non-justiciable. That's a fancy term for "we won't get into it because it is outside of the power of the court."
As a practical matter, this WILL be settled politically. But there are good arguments to get it into court, and if it got into court, it is on principle (i.e., if SCOTUS applied the Constitution), a slam dunk winner for the GOP.
The Senate made this mess. It is best if they clean it up themselves. If it is to go to court, the best plaintiff is the President. He's the one who is being denied his rightful power of choosing government officers, buth judicial and executive. If the Senate doesn't like his choices, they can vote to reject them -- the people deserve that feedback from their Senators.
What makes the argument tough to conceptualize is that it is easy to equate absence of decision (not voting) with rejection. The problem is, the president would have the officers of his choosing if the Senate would vote. Rejection by not voting is NOT the ssame thing as voting and letting the chips fall where they may.
The DEMs are perpetrating minority rule over the president's choices.
"Harry has some local dirt that is going to be dredged up pretty soon."
Cool.
Could it be what Rush has talked about, with some {{{very close to Reid}}} having dealt in business and legal matters that do come before the Senate - all to their great benefit?
Can you imagine the whining and moaning from him when it hits the fan? He will claim he is being punished for daring to stand up to the Bush-and-GOP power grab; that this is where true corruption lies - not in his "hiding in plain sight" dealings.
Get out your cryin' towels, folks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.