“The Democrats’ Gonzales”

Posted on April 27, 2007

If you haven’t read David Broder’s column thrashing Harry Reid in yesterday’s Washington Post, here is a link to it. Now, before you do, understand that Mr. Broder has no love lost for W or AG Gonzales. Yet, at the same time, he sets Harry Reid’s performance ablaze in a manner that shows some kind of evenhandedness that would zip right past your average liberal democrat.

What proves that very point is the puerile response put together in a hurry by the Senate Democratic Caucus, and, as it were, posted in its entirety at Daily Kos (because if it weren’t, who would even take notice of the SDC’s latest squeak of emotional PC protest against the truth?):

We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid’s leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column, “The Democrats’ Gonzales.”

In contrast to Mr. Broder’s insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb.

According to Webster’s online dictionary, aplomb is defined as follows:

Etymology: French, literally, perpendicularity, from Middle French, from a plomb, literally, according to the plummet
: complete and confident composure or self-assurance : POISE
synonym see CONFIDENCE

Some people obviously mistake hurling insults for aplomb because Harry R. uses invective without looking or sounding like a sissy. Big woop. Moving on…

Because Mr. Reid has the support of members of the caucus, is a good listener and has an amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together, the Senate has accomplished a great deal during his time as majority leader. Armed with his years of service in the Senate and with a mastery of procedure, Mr. Reid has led the chamber with a slim majority and a minority that is, at times, determined to stop legislation with which it disagrees.

“A good listener?” Since when does being able to keep your yap shut until someone else finishes their sentence count as anything else than a basic tenet of elemental politeness and civility? For crying out loud, I do that all the time, as my mother has taught me ever since I was a wee toddler; where’s my Senate seat?

“(…) an amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together (…)”: in other words, he can cut through the politicospeak BS when he’s not talking to the American people like we’re a bunch of retards and he can bribe and/or strong arm the Democrat senators into doing his bidding. It doesn’t make him great, it just makes him another longstanding politician with enough experience to go work as a capo for a mob crime family if he ever decides to retire (wait, he already is the capo of a mob crime family…)

In the first 100 days alone, we made great strides under his leadership on long-neglected legislation concerning stem cell research, the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations and the minimum wage, to name three. In addition, under Mr. Reid’s leadership, we have fulfilled our obligation, left uncompleted by last year’s Republican-led Senate, to fund the federal government. He has accomplished all of this in the face of stiff opposition and with a commitment to giving ideas full opportunity for debate.

Has our political leadership (and I use those words veeeeeeery loosely when it comes to Democrats, even though that is what they technically are) sunken so low into the abyss of nauseating incompetence that we are supposed to throw rose petals under their feet when they actually do their job, which includes some very basic items such as… fund the federal government? Sad, disgusting answer: yes, it seems.

Finally, in this age of scripted politicians speaking only to their base or claiming that they “don’t recall” anything, the fact that Mr. Reid speaks his mind should be applauded, not derided. His brand of straight talk is honest, comes from the heart and speaks directly to the people.

Please, spare me the scripted, boiler-plate “He speaks like the people, to the people, because he is of the people” bovine feces. but since straight talk is what is seemingly called for here, let me give Harry some blunt truth:

You are a coward, ruling on a platform of cowards. You are spineless, ruling on a spineless collection of ideas on how to run from a war, not run a war. You are a nauseating political swamp creature willing to sacrifice American servicemen and women, as well as Iraqi civilians, to get a more solid majority in Congress in the next elections. You are a corrupt, bribing, scheming glob of political shamelessness willing to tack on $20 billion to a bill that wouldn’t need it if it were really “what the American people want”. You are
the product of a party whose vision of global balance was to cut and run out of Somalia, not even have the courage to intervene during the genocide in Rwanda, and to display the lack of foresight to treat international terrorism as a domestic, criminal issue for 8 years (only to mention a few Democrat low points). You have approved a general officer appointed by the President to run a change in strategy and operations in Iraq, therefore implicitly giving your stamp of approval to a surge that you decry and deride as often as you can.

You, sir, are a Democrat.

You, sir, are a loser.

» Filed Under News, Politics As Usual

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to ““The Democrats’ Gonzales””

Nate Imbar on April 27th, 2007 2:50 pm

The important thing to remember is that Harry Reid called the war in Iraq a “quagmire” and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would “drag on” indefinitely, costing billions. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw. When “the body bags start coming home,” Reid said, it’s time to cut our losses.

Reid has talked about the need for peace. “The White House has bombed its way around the globe,” he sneered. “International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.” As for the current war plan, Reid complained that “no one wants us to be there” and that the president’s crusade “has harmed [our] standing in the world.”

And given the climate, I suppose Reid was pushing his luck when he urged Congress to de-fund the war and “pull out the forces we now have in the region.” What’s worse, Reid basically made the United States look like the bad guy. Once a U.S.-led coalition “starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop?” Reid asked. He charged that we were “starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army” and portrayed our mission as an “occupation by foreigners.”

Are all of these comments harsh? Do they undermine the troops while they’re in harm’s way? Do they amount, literally, to “treason”?