The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, either has an extremely poor memory, or he's a blatant hypocrite. In the last round of war funding debates, Reid whined about how the Republicans used the 60-vote requirement to block legislation to begin a retreat from Iraq, despite the long tradition of that particular Senate rule.
Here are Reid's own words, as reported by Hugh Hewitt:
After the pointless all-nighter in the Senate: "What went on last night was ridiculous. There’s no way to stop that unless…as the time ran. And we should change those rules, and I think it could be done with the Rules Committee. We may have to take a look at that. It just doesn’t help anybody."
From April of 2005, from the Senate Democrat’s press release on the web, then minority leader Reid said the following when discussing the potential Constitutional Option to change Senate rules in order to prevent judicial filibusters: "If they can't get everything they want, they try to break the rules. Based on the facts, it is clear that this attempt to strip away important checks and balances in our government is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power, and Senate Democrats are proud to stand with over 1 million Americans against this attempt to change the rules."
...But when the same rule worked in his favor...
From his own website, December 8th, 2006, Reid, applauding the Gang of 14 compromise deal on judicial filibusters, had this to say: "I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of the Senate rules. As Majority Leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules, and for the minority rights that the rules protect."
And this: "The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority. I’m sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of the Majority Leader next year. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and of the American people."
And this: "To be sure, there are times when I will need to use the rules to advance the Democratic agenda. But I will not resort to the nuclear option or any other illegitimate manipulation of the rules. When it is time to limit debate we will do so within the rules, under the terms of Rule XXII."
And this: "It is often said that laws are 'the system of wise restraints that set men free.' The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as Majority Leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution."
Hugh Hewitt summarizes: "Maybe Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee will remind Mr. Reid of his previous position on the importance of Senate rules. And then again, maybe an oak tree might spontaneously sprout out of my left elbow. Somehow, I don’t expect either one to happen anytime soon."
But, that's not all...
Let's look at Reid's comments on the War in Iraq as reported by Don Surber.
On Nov. 17, 2005: "This week, Senate Democrats and Republicans right here in this Senate voted overwhelmingly to send the President this message — it’s time to change course in Iraq."
On Jan. 18, 2006: "I really support Jack very much. He’s a good man. And we do agree that we must change course in Iraq and that the year 2006"
On Sept. 18, 2006: "For two years Democrats have offered constructive solutions to change course in Iraq, give our troops and the Iraqi people a chance for some type of stability and success"
The Surge began in June of 2007, and almost immediately showed signs of working. Did Reid change his course? No.
On July 9, 2007: "We believe that it’s time to change course."
Surber writes: "President Bush has changed course. The Surge began last month in an effort to tamp down the resistence. What hasn’t changed is Reid’s mantra of 'change course.'"
Is Reid's memory that faulty, or is he just playing politics? These are the facts, from Reid's own words...I'll let you decide.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment