Moe Lane

…so he’ll just cry about it:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called freshman GOP Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) a “schoolyard bully” during a contentious exchange Monday on the Senate floor.

The two senators bickered as Cruz rose to object to Reid’s motion to appoint conferees to a House-Senate budget committee.

Cruz’s great sin? “He asked that Reid amend his motion to go to conference to make out of order any provisions raising taxes or raising the debt ceiling.” …No, I’m not exactly sure where the term ‘bully’ would apply, there.  I could conceivably see ‘pain in Harry Reid’s ass’ – which is indeed Ted Cruz’s intent, and possibly chief amusement while on the Senate floor – but ‘bully’ implies that a man who has spent a quarter-century in the Senate is somehow innately intimidated by a first-term junior Senator from Texas.

What a… fascinating revelation.  And potentially one that’s useful, as well.

Moe Lane

I can’t believe that Harry Reid actually said this (bolding mine):

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he shares colleagues’ concerns that the Affordable Care Act could become a “train wreck” if it’s not implemented properly.

Reid warned that people will not be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if federal authorities lack the resources to set them up and educate the public.

The stress must be getting to him.

Moe Lane

PS: Yes, I’m sure that the Hill was paraphrasing whatever it was that Reid had actually said.  The real point is this: the Democrats are as scared as all get-out about how Obamacare is threatening to unfold on them.  As well they should be.

Call it a “fighting retreat.” Or a disinclination to fight in a burning house.

So, the big news today is that Harry Reid apparently voluntarily spit out some of his fangs on the filibuster.  They’re modifying the rules to give the minority party a bit more input in the process:

…the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendment that also can’t be filibustered. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.

Apparently, some of the anti-filibuster people are livid, given that Reid’s given up a bit, not least of which is (in at least some cases) his time-honored trick of filling up the amendment tree (ie, not allowing Republican Senators the option to offer amendments to bills).  And, sure, they’re marketing this as a win – but, realistically?  The Democrats aren’t actually able to pass legislation right now that’s unacceptable to the House, so why not run things the way that they like in the Senate anyway? (more…)

Gimme one good reason why I, or any Republican, should do Harry Reid a favor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had promised Nevada’s gambling industry a federal law to legalize Internet poker by the end of 2012, calling it the state’s “most important issue” since the nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain was scuttled.

But in the end, Reid rolled snake eyes. And as the 113th Congress gets under way, the odds of legislation passing are even worse.

After all, as the article later notes Harry Reid himself thought that this bill was less important than getting Shelley Berkley elected over Dean Heller.  The GOP is under no actual obligation to put policy over politics when the Other Side has openly abandoned the former for the latter; but if Reid really wants this bill to pass, well, there are ways.  First, we pass a budget: then Harry Reid can find existing spending to cut that would offset the costs of this bill, plus a little bit extra of spending cuts – that’s for the house, you understand.  Reid’s from Nevada, technically: he should understand the concept.

Let me translate this The New Republic article on how Barack Obama simultaneously caved, and backstabbed Harry Reid, on the tax cut deal:

Once upon a time there was an evil, wicked Senate Majority Leader who thought that he had the Senate Minority Leader in a cleft stick over the looming expiration of existing marginal tax rates.  Thanks to the Speaker of the House being unable to keep his caucus united on opposition to changing the tax rate, the Senate Majority Leader decided to draw a line in the sand – a line one half-step away from the fiscal cliff – then dare the Senate Minority Leader to step over it.  However, the Senate Minority Leader instead went to the Vice President, the Vice President went to the President, the President panicked and told the Vice President to make a deal with the Senate Minority Leader, and the Senate Majority Leader ended up swinging in the breeze by his suddenly-bare buttocks.

Somewhere in all of this, the Speaker of the House stopped by and told the Senate Majority Leader to go [expletive deleted] himself.  Which detail The New Republic did not mention, most likely because they’d rather that the Speaker of the House had said it to the President.

I think that this covers it, no? (more…)

Now that it’s official that John Boehner has won the Speakership again – which, by the way, was a foregone conclusion, given that nobody wanted to go on the record as being an opposition candidate – let us note very quickly this little bit of profane drama from last week:

House Speaker John Boehner couldn’t hold back when he spotted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the White House lobby last Friday.

It was only a few days before the nation would go over the fiscal cliff, no bipartisan agreement was in sight, and Reid had just publicly accused Boehner of running a “dictatorship” in the House and caring more about holding onto his gavel than striking a deal.

“Go f— yourself,” Boehner sniped as he pointed his finger at Reid, according to multiple sources present.

Reid, a bit startled, replied: “What are you talking about?”

Boehner repeated: “Go f— yourself.”

(more…)

My original title was rather more direct. Only three words, too: two of which were “Harry Reid.”

Harry Reid, 11/02/2012:

Harry Reid Dismisses Mitt Romney’s ‘Fantasy’ of Bipartisanship

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that Democrats would try to block Mitt Romney’s agenda next year if he wins the presidency on Tuesday.

Harry Reid, 11/24/2012:

Reid faces task of mending fences with Republicans after campaign attacks

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) infuriated Republicans during the campaign with his harsh partisan attacks and now faces the delicate task of mending his relationship with the GOP.

Well, you know what they say: “what goes around, comes around.” Also… now would be a good time for Democrats to ask themselves if they really think that Harry Reid is going to get them anything that they want in the next two years, given that for the last two years he’s gotten them nothing, up to and including an actual budget.

Moe Lane

Guess that Obama doesn’t want to get all mussed up, or anything.

The White House on Monday distanced President Obama from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s comments that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes in a decade.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Monday that Reid (D-Nev.) “speaks for himself” and had spoken on the issue without any guidance from Team Obama.

It must really suck, having to support a candidate who won’t fight without taking a poll first.  A pure tragedy, in fact.

Pure.

Moe Lane

PS: Make me stop laughing at them.

[UPDATE: Random politeness requests that I note that Ethics Alarms has splutteringly responded to me.  Random professional pride suggests that I note that my "let's add an 'as-near-as-I-can-tell' to that one" impulse did what it had to do: which is to say, handily avoid the need for a potentially embarrassing correction.  Random schadenfreude more or less demands that I cheerfully note that my larger message - that entire "self-absorbed, pretentious websites that hate hardcore social conservatives" thing - seems to have... hit the target pretty mostly on-target, nu?  It's so nice to have them admit that you've had an impact.  Particularly when doing so rips off any... pretenses... that might have existed.]

Via Instapundit comes this shocked, shocked, tut-tutting examination of the recent unforced error that Harry Reid has found himself in. The background: it was recently demonstrated that the Senate Minority Leader was and is apparently able to lie in public and get away with it. Specifically, Reid demonstrated that he could make up a story about Mitt Romney evading his income tax – see here for a brutally precise examination of why anybody who believes this attack by Reid should not be allowed to operate heavy financial institutions – and be… not humiliated and shamed for it. Alas for Harry Reid, there is a critical mass of people who are currently unwilling to simply let things like this slide, which is why Harry Reid’s name is currently being linked with pederasty even as we speak. Also, apparently Reid was unprepared for this, which is why his office did not actually, well, deny the charges*.
(more…)

No, I don’t know why I’m up this late, either.

Anyway, Dan Primack of CNN Money makes the case that the Senate Majority Leader is either blatantly making stuff up or passing along stuff that was blatantly made up about Romney’s tax returns (for those who haven’t heard, Reid rather bizarrely told people today that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes for ten years).  Primack points out that Bain investors wouldn’t have access to that kind of information about fund managers; Romney hasn’t been working at Bain for more than a decade; and that Bain doesn’t do its taxes in-house anyway.

To which I’ll add: Romney ran for Senate in the 1990s and Massachusetts governor in the 2000s.  Precisely how did Democrats manage to miss this amazing revelation, at the time?  I mean.  Seriously.  Doesn’t anybody in the Democratic party understand how business works?  People at Romney’s level are not permitted to simply wander away without paying taxes.  And the IRS isn’t going to forget to check.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Anyway… Harry Reid’s a little young yet to be having episodes, but at seventy-three he might be having the first flashes of them. Has he seen a neurologist lately?  Has he always been this irritable?  Even foul-mouthed? Or is this new?

Hey.  I’m just asking questions, right?

Moe lane

PS: I AM up late: I forgot to H/T Instapundit.

…can’t be all that bad.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, the Nevada Democrat savaged Bill Magwood, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when asked if he thought the Democrat had a chance to become NRC chairman.

“You know, when you’re in this government, this business of politics, the only thing that you have is your word,” said Reid, seated in his Capitol office. “I can be as partisan as I have to be, but I always try to be nice. I try never to say bad things about people. Bill Magwood is one of the” — Reid paused, deciding which adjective to reach for, before picking them all — “most unethical, prevaricating” — he paused again, this time for 10 full seconds — “incompetent people I’ve ever dealt with. The man sat in that chair — right there — and lied to me. I’ve never, ever in my life had anyone do that. Never.”

Actually, Reid, people lie to you all the time.  It’s just that usually you don’t catch them doing it to you.

Read the rest, even if it’s HuffPo: Reid completely loses his professionalism and dignity as a Senator in this one.  It’s funny! Particularly when he starts swearing.

That’s a rhetorical question: but since Senate Majority Leader apparently has enough free time to advocate this kind of trivial legislation then I think that it’s long past time that Harry Reid started doing his job.  Which is not ‘ignoring the Constitution.’

No, honest to God, it’s not.  I understand that the Democratic leadership act like it is, but that’s because they’re all yutzes far over their depth.  If we were in their shoes, the Democratic leadership would have been shown the door in 2011.