Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category

Auto Maker Bailout “Doubtful”

November 14, 2008

A senior Democratic senator raised doubts on Thursday that an attempt to bail out U.S. automakers had enough support to clear Congress this year. 

As Republicans amplified their concerns about a bailout, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd raised the biggest red flag for fellow Democrats trying to craft a $25 billion rescue and pass it during a post-election session set to start next week.
.
By John Crawley and Rachelle Younglai, Reuters 

“Right now, I don’t think there are the votes,” Dodd of Connecticut told reporters about prospects in the Senate. “I want to be careful of bringing up a proposition that might fail,” he said.

Although Dodd said “we ought to do something” and personally backed using money from the ongoing $700 billion financial services rescue program to help Detroit, he was skeptical that enough Republicans would support a bailout.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, also cautioned that success of a bailout rests with Senate Republicans and the White House. With their slim majority, Democrats cannot force a measure through the Senate or trump a White House veto.

The White House opposes the approach being taken by congressional Democrats but has not threatened to block any bailout. Bush administration officials have said they would consider other steps Congress can take to help General Motors Corp, Ford Motor Co and Chrysler LLC.

Dodd said there have been “legitimate issues raised” about how to help.

Read the rest:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN1339
368420081114?rpc=44

Who Has Most Important Vote on Financial Issue? McCain.

September 24, 2008

Republicans want to know how he’ll vote.  Democrats want to know how he’ll vote.  And the man that has been speaking about putting the country first is in a spot:  How will he vote?

As the U.S. Congress works to approve, disapprove and modify the Treasury and Fed proposal, really the Bush proposal, to limit the damage in the financial crisis, which some have called a “Financial 9/11,” all are looking to one man to see how he’ll vote.

John McCain.

If the Democratic controlled congress revises the Executive Department’s fiscal plan, and brings it to a vote, two thing can happen: either the Republicans get behind it to produce a bipartisan solution or the Republicans, headed by presidential candidate John McCain, vote against it and then criticize the Democrats all the way to the Novemebr election.

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leadery, calls that last idea of two month of Republican criticism unacceptable and demagoguery.  He wants to know now how McCain will vote.

Reid said yesterday, “This is a Republican proposal, and we need some Republican votes,” to help it pass. “At this stage we [Democrats] are working with ourselves.”

“We now need Republicans to stand up,” Reid said. “We need the Republican nominee for president to say what he’s for,” said Harry Reid.

The world waits….

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to reporters ... 
Harry Reid: “This is a Republican proposal, and we need some Republican votes,” to help it pass. “At this stage we [Democrats] are working with ourselves….. We now need Republicans to stand up. We need the Republican nominee for president to say what he’s for.” REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats’ Year

December 20, 2007

 By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 20, 2007; Page A01

The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.

But Democrats’ failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.

Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush’s powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews

Democrats in Senate Block Iraq War Funding

November 16, 2007

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON – The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.

e 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.

The Republican measure failed 45-53, 15 short of the number of votes needed to go forward.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_
on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AktUSgzgsWwoI.
51czdbvACs0NUE

From Newt Gingrich: Don’t Legislate Defeat; Work Toward Victory

September 7, 2007

September 7, 2007

Dear Friend,

Next Monday, I will give a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) marking six years since 9/11 and outlining the larger war we should have been waging in order to defeat our terrorist enemies on a worldwide basis.

My speech at AEI is designed to make the case for a larger and more productive dialogue about what we need to accomplish in the Real War we’re engaged in — not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in dealing with our enemies on a larger strategic scale, including Iran, Syria, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and the worldwide forces of terrorism that want to destroy our civilization and eliminate our freedoms.
The reason I am speaking out is simple: We need a war-winning option, and today we do not have such an option.

Read it all at:
http://extendedremarks.blogspot.com/

Related:
Newt Gingrich For President

Excellent Gingrich Speech, National Press Club, Aug. 7, 2007

Spurning Criticism, Rove Puts Blame on Democrats

August 18, 2007

WACO, Tex., Aug. 18 — During the last eight years, Karl Rove has been lionized and vilified, heralded as making the unlikely election victories of President Bush possible and impugned as reaching too high from an unusually powerful White House perch.

In the eyes of his many detractors, he has helped to send the Bush presidency off track in the process.

But in an interview at an IHOP restaurant here, days after he announced his resignation as Mr. Bush’s top political adviser, Mr. Rove defiantly dismissed the rash of fresh critiques that have come his way in the last several days, blaming the Democrats for the divisive tone that has dominated Mr. Bush’s tenure and for which he has frequently taken the blame.

Read it all at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/us/19rove.html

GOP senators to chide Reid

July 24, 2007

By S.A. Miller
The Washington Times
July 24, 2007

Senate Republicans are preparing to take aim at Majority Leader Harry Reid over the August recess for being “all talk but no action” and helping drag the Democrat-led Congress’ approval rating to a historic low, according to a document distributed to caucus members.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, is meeting with members yesterday and today to disseminate a message critical of Democrats for endlessly debating the Iraq war, stalling judicial nominations and squandering time on at least 300 investigations of the Bush administration.

“We really ought to be asking why this Democrat leadership won’t allow Congress to move forward on serious policy debates,” Mr. Kyl said…

Read the rest at:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/NATION/107240074/1001&
template=nextpage

Our own Peace and Freedom take on Mister Reid includes some definitions surrounding his all night Senate sesson on the war in Iraq: even though he knew in advance he did not have the votes to do any legislative work.

Pillow fight: (noun) A derisive term being used by so called “talking heads” to describe the U.S. Senate’s all night Iraq debate.

Pillow talk: (noun leading to a verb) The discussion, usually between partners, that occurs in the bedroom. Usually means one person is attempting to have sex with another. In the case of the current U.S. Congress, the term refers to Senator Reid’s “all nighter” where each party was trying to screw the other. See “all nighter.”

All nighter: (noun) Term used by adolescents who have failed to do their coursework and homework usually in school. An effort to cram a semester or more into one night: often to no avail. See Harry Reid.

See:
Lingo of Failure: How to Decode Washington Political Speak

Also see Right Truth at http://righttruth.typepad.com/

Stock Market: Bullish on Bush

July 22, 2007

Lawrence Kudlow
July 22, 2007

It has been widely reported that President Bush simply refuses to turn against the surge in Iraq, or even compromise on it. At the same time he admonishes Congress to toss out troop-withdrawal timetables and to give Gen. David Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency plan time to work.

And you know what? While the Democrats stand against near all of the president’s wartime policies — and in the process court defeat — the stock market is standing with Mr. Bush, and the chance for victory.

Early last week, when the Democratic leadership …

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070722/
COMMENTARY04/107220022/1012/COMMENTARY

Lingo of Failure: How to Decode Washington Political Speak

July 21, 2007

By John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom 

The discussion of the war in Iraq has created or modified its own vocabulary, especially in the halls of Congress.

Below is our attempt at an easy to use pocket dictionary to help navigate the verbology being used today.

 THIS IS AN UNFINISHED WORK!  We need your input by comment to the blog or website you are reading or by email to:
jecarey2603@cox.net 

Redeploy: (verb) To reduce troops in one area in order to move them to another area. Usually connotes moving troops from combat to the rear. See: Murtha, Okinawa, retreat, surrender on the military goal. See also: Retreat, lose, loss, failure, enemy wins, back down, allies disheartened, terrorists emboldened.

Retreat: (verb or noun) In all prior wars this was an ugly word for Americans.  Indicates failure.  We retreat (we lose and the other guy wins).  Why has this word been moved to the back of the word train?  Because it has been easy to understand and clear for hundreds of years.  See: redeploy.

Lost: (as in “the war is lost”) (noun or past tense of the verb to lose) Indicates failure or in war, an inability or unwillingness to prevail in battle. Usage: “The war in Iraq is lost and the troop surge is failing” (Senator Harry Reid, reported by AFP, April 19, 2007). See also, “We have not lost a military battle in Iraq (Senator Barak Obama, reported by AP, July 20, 2007).

Mission creep: (noun and verb) The activity of expanding upon the existing military mission gradually.  Also used by some Democrats to describe people in support of the mission.  Example: “The General is a mission creep.”

Pillow fight: (noun) A derisive term being used by so called “talking heads” to describe the U.S. Senate’s all night Iraq debate.

Pillow talk: (noun leading to a verb) The discussion, usually between partners, that occurs in the bedroom. Usually means one person is attempting to have sex with another. In the case of the current U.S. Congress, the term refers to Senator Reid’s “all nighter” where each party was trying to screw the other. See “all nighter.”

All nighter: (noun) Term used by adolescents who have failed to do their coursework and homework usually in school. An effort to cram a semester or more into one night: often to no avail. See Harry Reid.

Surge: (noun and verb) A temporary increase in troop levels modulated by political restriction.  Not an attack but better than a retreat.

Support: (verb) As in “support the troops.” An often used and misused sign of patriotic zeal by Democrat Party member who really would do anything to downsize the Army. When used by Democrats, the word “support” seldomly means a plus-up in the budget.  Often used by Democrats in an attempt to bolster backing from the military, and potential red-state voters.

In reality, most Democrats only “support” the troops when they are a) deployed on U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping missions in Haiti, Bosnia, or New Orleans; or b) when a Democrat President is in office, and he needs to rattle the saber to divert attention from domestic problems.

Undercutting: (verb or noun) Usually refers to a disruption of normal structural support such as sawing off one leg of a stool. Am action leading to instability and uneasiness on the part of users of the structure. In Washington currently, refers to efforts to deny U.S. troops proper funding or support. See: treason.

Election season: (noun) That time when politicians can be trusted even less than “normal.” See all self anointed candidates for president (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Romney, Giuliani, McCain and a host of others).

Troop morale: (noun)  This word apparently does not appear in any Democrat dictionary.  It means, as any football coach can tell you, if you pull together as a team you have a chance to actually “win.” In April the Senate Majority Leader told our troop, the American people and our enemies that the war was “lost.”  Good luck, coach: you don’t get it.

Best interest of the United States: I am sorry but this term is no longer in vogue in the Congress (or anywhere else).

White Flag: (noun) Made famous by the French in WWII, the White Flag denoted surrender to the enemy so that the enemy would cease any operations against the unit displaying the white flag realizing that they had given up the fight without winning.  The White Flag Party now denotes the Democrats in Washington for the same reasons.
(Contributed to Peace and Freedom by Tom Boley)

[The work above is posted as an unfinished work.  Those that wish to contribute should email jecarey2603@cox.net  ]

COUNTERPOINT

Maybe the Rhetoric is too Harsh: The Phoney Debate

THE SENATE Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that’s far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq’s borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy, which was formulated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. Mr. Bush recently said that “it’s a position I’d like to see us in.”

The emerging consensus is driven by several inescapable facts. First, the Iraqi political reconciliation on which the current U.S. military surge is counting is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Second, the Pentagon cannot sustain the current level of forces in Iraq beyond next spring without rupturing current deployment practices and placing new demands on the already stretched Army and Marine Corps. Finally, a complete pullout from Iraq would invite genocide, regional war and a catastrophic setback to U.S. national security.

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible. But so was Mr. Reid’s answer when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the United States should manage the explosion of violence that the U.S. intelligence community agrees would follow a rapid pullout. “That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it,” the paper quoted the Democratic leader as saying.

For now Mr. Reid’s cynical politicking and willful blindness to the stakes in Iraq don’t matter so much. The result of his maneuvering was to postpone congressional debate until September, when Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will report on results of the surge — in other words, just the outcome the White House was hoping for. But then, as now, the country will desperately need a strategy for Iraq that can count on broad bipartisan support, one aimed at carrying the U.S. mission through the end of the Bush administration and beyond. There are serious issues still to resolve, such as whether a drawdown should begin this fall or next year, how closely it should be tied to Iraqi progress, how fast it can proceed and how the remaining forces should be deployed.

There’s no guarantee that Mr. Bush can agree with Congress on those points or that he will make the effort to do so. But a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible — and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.