Harry's Bipartisan Moment
When the British stopped a major terrorist attack, Harry Reid missed a great opportunity to strike a bipartisan chord. So says
Sherman Frederick in this article:
It's my opinion that the main reason why Reid says this type of stuff is because he still thinks of the Democratic Party as a majority party, something that hasn't been true for almost a decade. Reid isn't the only Democratic leader to think that. Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Hillary all think that. Why else aren't they doing anything to expand their party?
My prediction is that Democrats won't retake power in any shape until they stop being the 'Party of Sourpusses'. I remember something Ben Stein wrote in October, 2004. He predicted that George Bush would be re-elected because he was in tune with the American people. The reason he believed that is because Americans, by nature, are an optimistic, 'can-do' lot. By comparison, Democrats are the party that talks like everything in America is awful and getting worse.
Posted Monday, August 21, 2006 1:50 AM
July 2006 Posts
No comments.
Some days I end up thinking the so-called "art of politics" has all the charm and constructive qualities of a grease fire. Such was my state of mind the day after British authorities foiled a terrorist plot to blow up several American jetliners bound for the United States. They saved the day with the help of Pakistan and the United States. Hooray, right? Great job, right? Chalk one up for the good guys, right?I commented on this earlier but I'm grateful that Mr. Frederick has reminded us of the Democrats' ugly partisanship when we should all be rejoicing in winning a major battle against Islamic terrorists. Some politicians are just tone deaf. Harry Reid is a career politician who must not understand that the majority of American people are happy that a terrorist plot of this magnitude was thwarted. He also must not understand that issuing this type of statement after bragging that he'd "killed the Patriot Act" won't endear him to many voters.
Wrong.
There was no rejoicing among key Democrats. In fact, for them, this was very bad news. Why? Because it undercuts a key point Democrats hope to use against Republicans in November's midterm elections. Democratic strategists want voters to think the United States is at greater risk of a terrorist attack under Republican leadership. Hence, following the breakup of this terrorist plot, we heard the Democratic power brokers employ tortured logic to spin good news into bad.
More's the pity, because Nevada's own Sen. Harry Reid was one of these folks. Thus sayeth Harry:
"As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be...The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."
It's my opinion that the main reason why Reid says this type of stuff is because he still thinks of the Democratic Party as a majority party, something that hasn't been true for almost a decade. Reid isn't the only Democratic leader to think that. Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Hillary all think that. Why else aren't they doing anything to expand their party?
My prediction is that Democrats won't retake power in any shape until they stop being the 'Party of Sourpusses'. I remember something Ben Stein wrote in October, 2004. He predicted that George Bush would be re-elected because he was in tune with the American people. The reason he believed that is because Americans, by nature, are an optimistic, 'can-do' lot. By comparison, Democrats are the party that talks like everything in America is awful and getting worse.
Beyond that, the unavoidable truth is that President Carter's view of the Middle East and most global issues is rapidly becoming the "mainstream" Democratic position. You need look no further than the Democratic establishment's glee at the primary defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman, (D-CT), for an example.I recall an article from this winter that showed Reid's JA Rating at 44%. That's almost the kiss of death for a legislator. I suspect that Reid will either retire when his term ends or he'll get defeated. If Reid keeps supporting Northeast ultraliberals like Ned Lamont, the people of Nevada will let him know in a hurry what they think of him. If Reid keeps steering towards the Nutroots wing of the Democratic Party, his ratings will be lower than George Bush's.
For Nevadans, the shame of this is that Sen. Harry Reid is a willing accomplice to all of it. As a card-carrying member of the Democratic power elite, he's helping move the party closer and closer to Jimmy Carter. At some point, you have to wonder when Nevadans who care about the well-being of Israel will begin to exact political punishment on Harry and the Democratic Party. For that matter, when does Rep. Shelley Berkley, (D-NV), (an ardent supporter of Israel) publicly tell Harry and her party that enough is enough?
Posted Monday, August 21, 2006 1:50 AM
July 2006 Posts
No comments.
