Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Harry Reid’s tin ear
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Harry Reid about the MoveOn.org Senate resolution:
Senator HARRY REID (Democrat, Majority Leader): No one over here endorses the ad that was in that newspaper. None of us do. But we want to talk about the war. They want to talk about an ad in a newspaper.
But apparently when it is about an out of context Limbaugh quote, it is definitely something worth talking about in the Senate:
"Freedom of speech is one of our country’s most cherished values,'' Reid told the Senate. "Nothing sets us further apart than the countries and regimes we oppose than our belief that everyone’s opinion matters, and everyone has the right to express it.

"That is why, when we hear things on the radio that are offensive, by and large, we tolerate them. But last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line – and while we respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments cannot be ignored.''
With displays of hypocrisy like that, is it any wonder the credibility ratings for Congress are at the lowest point in the history of such ratings? Used car salesmen rank above it.

And, anyone, any guess as to which organization (besides Media Matters) drove this manufactured outrage by Reid right out onto the Senate floor?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Reid certainly is acting hypocritically. But to avoid being a hypocrite, one has to either: a) say the Senate should address NEITHER issue; or b) say the Senate should address BOTH issues. If one says the Senate should ignore Rush Limbaugh and not the moveon.org ad, then that person would equal Reid in in hypocricy.

I go for "a." Talking about newspaper ads or talk radio hosts is ridiculous. They are irrelevant to the business of the Senate.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"That is why, when we hear things on the radio that are offensive, by and large, we tolerate them. But last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line - and while we respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments cannot be ignored."
I guess there’s not much chance he was looking directly at Murtha when he said this. Too bad.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
say the Senate should address NEITHER issue;
That would be my vote...

I also think it’s hysterical that Harkin is taking the position he is taking...

How can he even talk with a straight face??
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Well, I think the big difference here is that the moveon.org ad was actually unpatriotic and slanderous, while Rush’s comments and meaning were not.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
If only Senator Reid were the Majority Leader, he could have stopped the MoveOn bill from even coming to the floor. Cry me a river Harry...
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
And who is Reid to questions someone’s patriotism? I thought people’s patriotism is off limits?

Guess only if you have (D) after your name, and no one actually questioned your patriotism.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
Ah...
Now, these are the guys who draft reams and reams of legislation and spending bills.

And they’re reading comprehension, if they bothered to read what Limbaugh said at all, is right up there with the average 5th grader, maybe.
We’re supposed to trust that they understand foreign leaders, who themselves in many cases have been translated for conversations they have about international policy issues?

And we’re supposed to trust these guys to run our government?
These are the our ’brightest lights’, our leaders.

Brilliant. Absolutely farging brilliant.
Let the entertainment commence.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Reid certainly is acting hypocritically. But to avoid being a hypocrite, one has to either: a) say the Senate should address NEITHER issue; or b) say the Senate should address BOTH issues. If one says the Senate should ignore Rush Limbaugh and not the moveon.org ad, then that person would equal Reid in in hypocricy.
False Scott. One of those events was not like the other. MoveOn’s add was vile, Rush didn’t say anything wrong.

That said, I think the Senate should ignore both events. Although it is also fair to question individual Senators about their position on the MoveOn add.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Yes, it’s one thing for those in Congress to say something in front of the press, quite another when they spend legislative time debating such non-sense.

I mean, it’s not like they don’t have other business to do, like pass a budget...

But, hey, they got an extension (the debt ceiling increased,) so they can put off their term project until the last minute.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
his unpatriotic comments cannot be ignored
What ever happend to "don’t question my patriotism" and all that stuff?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
False Scott. One of those events was not like the other. MoveOn’s add was vile, Rush didn’t say anything wrong.
While your claim can be contended (and of course is), even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to the point: the Senate shouldn’t worry about newspaper ads or what someone says on talk radio. The Senate shouldn’t be in the business of parsing partisan words and arguing about which was worse. Rush says the Democrats are waving the flag of defeat and trying to undercut our troops, regardless of whether or not he has attacked the troops (and if he did I’m sure he didn’t mean to). I don’t see anyway to say his rhetoric is in general any more honest and any less vile than that of moveon.org. You just don’t mind it when it comes from your side.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Two points:

1: "The Troops" in this case, means such as Jesse MacBeth. Funny, how you keep forgetting that, Erb... just like Soros’ chimps. It’s gotta be in the water, huh?

2: The problem here is what doesn’t get quoted of Reid’s letter:

“Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted.” — Senate Plurality Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
Oh?

So, now Reid is willing to admit that this is a war for freedom that he and his fellow Democrats want us to cut and run from? Amazing what you can get him to say when you back him into a corner.
So, Harry Reid decides to give the attempt to get us to cut and run, the bite of government, and instead takes a bite out of his own backside. Slick move, Harry. I wonder how many of the democrats signing onto this piece of Mr. Reed’s, really understand the admission they’re signing onto.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
While your claim can be contended (and of course is), even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to the point: the Senate shouldn’t worry about newspaper ads or what someone says on talk radio. The Senate shouldn’t be in the business of parsing partisan words and arguing about which was worse.
Obviously my claim is contended; there is no basis for the attack on Rush, but the attack will continue.

As far as the Senate is concearned, it is worth considering that all this began when the Democrats and the vile MoveOn add were strangly in synch. Rush was only pulled into this to change the subject, except that sorta backfired.
Rush says the Democrats are waving the flag of defeat and trying to undercut our troops, regardless of whether or not he has attacked the troops (and if he did I’m sure he didn’t mean to). I don’t see anyway to say his rhetoric is in general any more honest and any less vile than that of moveon.org. You just don’t mind it when it comes from your side.
Actually, I don’t listen to much in the way of talk radio. And I generally don’t care for Rush’s style; I prefer more careful analysis and less showmanship. But to say: "the Democrats are waving the flag of defeat and trying to undercut our troops" seems quite accurate.

And there is a significant difference between attacking Democrats, Republicans, and the troops. The Democrats attack Bush all the time, and it is mostly noted as BDS, but attacking a general simply to kill his anticipated positive message (that deaths are down!) is pathetic.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
But to say: "the Democrats are waving the flag of defeat and trying to undercut our troops" seems quite accurate.
Just as accurate as portraying Petraeus as a Bush lacky. There are different views of what is best for the country, and both sides have American interests in mind. It’s an important issue, but one doesn’t have to think those with a different position are somehow bad.

And, in fact, that’s the strength of democracy, you don’t have to have one particular acceptable view in order to support your country.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
you don’t have to have one particular acceptable view in order to support your country
When you make stuff up, isn’t that propaganda?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Just as accurate as portraying Petraeus as a Bush lacky.
Nope, the Dems were poisoning the well with Petraeus. And in the process proving the point: "the Democrats are waving the flag of defeat and trying to undercut our troops"
There are different views of what is best for the country, and both sides have American interests in mind.
There are different views, and some of them are reasonable. For some reason the Democrats have trouble latching onto the reasonable ones.
It’s an important issue, but one doesn’t have to think those with a different position are somehow bad.
Well, when someone stridently takes the wrong view despite the evidence, I’m inclined to think there is something wrong with them, and that they are likely bad.

The war is a complicated thing; rather, the aftermath of the war is complicated. Perhaps we shouldn’t have invaded, I have yet to be convinced on this point. The key thing is that Iraq eventually depends upon Iraqis to be a success, and that isn’t something we control.

However, the dissenting voices among the Democrats seem more interested in defeat in Iraq than victory or success. Bush and the Republicans might be wrong, but the dissenting Democrats are typically both wrong and wrongheaded.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The Dems are such idiots to try to take on Limbaugh. He’s more than a match for that collective braintrust
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The Dems are such idiots to try to take on Limbaugh. He’s more than a match for that collective braintrust.
Don’t they know not to pick a fight with someone who has a bigger microphone then they do.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Microphone envy ya think?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I don’t think you can blame "the Dems" for what moveon.org does — that’s like blaming the Republicans for everything some conservative activist group does. No one will look good if that happens.
Well, when someone stridently takes the wrong view despite the evidence, I’m inclined to think there is something wrong with them, and that they are likely bad.
Based on ones interpretation of evidence. I’m convinced the Iraq war was a fiasco, one of the worst decisions in American foreign policy history. I base that on the evidence. It seems to me that the pro-war side has been ignoring the huge cost, and has no rationale for the war.

Yet, I know there is another perspective. I think it’s wrong, but I know there are reasons you and others think the war is necessary. So rather than consider you evil or bad for supporting what I think is a horrible and immoral policy, I recognize that you consider it morally sound and even necessary. I recognize that we can disagree on issues without having to make it personal.

Therefore I think your next comment is totally legitimate:

The war is a complicated thing; rather, the aftermath of the war is complicated. Perhaps we shouldn’t have invaded, I have yet to be convinced on this point. The key thing is that Iraq eventually depends upon Iraqis to be a success, and that isn’t something we control.
Fair enough.
However, the dissenting voices among the Democrats seem more interested in defeat in Iraq than victory or success. Bush and the Republicans might be wrong, but the dissenting Democrats are typically both wrong and wrongheaded.
I think most Democrats think that the cost of continuing isn’t worth it, and isn’t likely going to bring benefits. I don’t think they see it as defeat — indeed, one could argue we already won. We defeated Saddam’s army, we won the military battle. We didn’t "win" the social engineering experiment to try to design a governmental system for Iraq and shift their culture to one that is pro-western and democratic. But I doubt that’s something you can ask a military to do. Like all big government social engineering programs, it probably won’t work as planned.

Perhaps I’m wrong — the surge has been more effective at meeting its goals than I thought would happen. However over the last four and a half years I’ve seen too many wrong claims of improvement overall from the pro-war side that one has to be skeptical of any claim that Iraq is really on the right path now.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Small Steps, Erb . . Small Steps . .

Damn, there goes that echo again!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I think most Democrats think that the cost of continuing isn’t worth it, and isn’t likely going to bring benefits. I don’t think they see it as defeat
It all depends on what you mean by most Democrats and "they."

And there-in lies the failure of most debate these days. Over generalization of both the parties involved and the views/plans that are put forth.

We are divided in purpose. We should be shooting for success in Iraq. We can disagree on the means of achieving our goals, but we ought to be agreeing to what goals we are trying to achieve.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
what goals we are trying to achieve
Heck, they’re united then, they both want control of as many branches of the US Government as they can manage.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
We are divided in purpose. We should be shooting for success in Iraq. We can disagree on the means of achieving our goals, but we ought to be agreeing to what goals we are trying to achieve.
But if someone doesn’t believe that the goal should be "success in Iraq," then what? What if someone claims that "we should be doing what best supports the national interest," and believes that getting out of Iraq quickly and extricating ourselves from the situation is best for the US? Many people do think that, including people who have served in Iraq and who are experts on foreign affairs.

So I think we probably agree on the goal: we should do what is in the national interest (and with some kind of moral responsibility), and the disagreement is on the tactics to achieve that larger goal, including whether or not to stay in Iraq.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider