I’ve said it again and again over the years, I really dislike Harry Reid.  Now I’m just about at my wit’s end:

The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation.

Fuck you, Harry Reid.  Fuck you and your cowardly, spineless leadership in the face of a reactionary conservative mob.  America needs courageous, principled leaders; not mewling, accommodating hacks like you.  Please do us all a favor and beat Sharon Angle — then immediately resign.

I often wonder when my anger is more justified: (1) when looking at the xenophobia and irrationality on the right, or (2) when looking at the defensiveness, spinelessness and lack of basic political acumen on the left.  It’s hard to decide.

When you ask yourself why Republicans keep drumming up all sorts of fake poutrage over a limitless deluge of perceived offenses: IT WORKS — why should they stop?

Earlier: Harry Reid is a Cowardly, Weak-Kneed Tool
Why Harry Reid is a Tool, Part 3
Why I Think Harry Reid is a Tool

  1. Rupert Psmith says:

    Couldn't have said it better. The problem is his role in the senate leadership, not his being a senator per se (and of course Angle is a nightmare). If the caucus was smart they'd have a serious leadership vote after the midterms even if he wins reelection. I know both Durbin and Schumer are anxious for a chance to lead and would be less likely to say something dumb and demoralizing on a weekly basis.

  2. Gherald says:

    Howard Dean, former progressive darling and chairman of the Democratic party, has also come out against building this mosque. Are you going to make a fuck you post about him as well, or this just an excuse to pursue your vendetta against Harry Reid?

    A recent poll found that New Yorkers (everyone in the state) oppose the mosque by a 63-27 margin, but defend the constitutional right to build it by a 64-28 margin. I don't know the Nevada figures, but they're very likely worse. So it makes perfect sense for Harry Reid to adopt a stance that is compatible with his constituents'.

    I guess this difference between me and you is I don't expect politicians to be principled defenders of liberty or stake out unpopular views. Quite the contrary; I expect them to be illiberal and claim populist mandates for their statism, as is the case here.

    I don't feel any particular "fuck you" towards Harry Reid, and find your repeated attempts to discredit him amusing at best.

    I think a much more sensible approach is to direct these fuck yous towards politics and government in general, as it's chock full of Harry Reids. Your notion that it's not--that the Senate or the Democratic-controlled congress would somehow be better off if we could just replace Reid with fire-breathing progressive from a safe Democratic seat--is just silly. No one from a competitive state would go along with the policy positions of such a leader. Such a Senate leader would either rapidly become another Reid clone or be doomed to 30-70 legislative failures.

    • Metavirus says:

      Wow, that's a pretty strident little comment there. Yes, my 'fuck you'also extends to Howard Dean and the rest of the idiots that havegotten swept up in this. I've pointed out how shitty Harry Reid isbecause he's quite an easy target but of course there are scores ofother horrid people in politics. I really don't get what you're allbent out of shape about.

    • Metavirus says:

      p.s., if i'm reading you correctly, aren't you basically advocating political nihilism?

      • Gherald says:

        Not quite, but I'd say political nihilism makes more sense than repeatedly calling out an individual politician for engaging in the kind of unprincipled representational behavior that anyone who comes from a competitive district engages in.

        • Metavirus says:

          don't think i can buy into the idea of "well, boys will be boys". if we just let craven assholes slide on the shit that they do because they're "from a competitive district [sic]", haven't they won the battle? isn't that what they want? for all of us people to just shut the fuck up and let them run the country? i still naively believe that calling out "unprincipled representational behavior" is a valuable public service

    • Rupert Psmith says:

      Much of the anti-Reid animus came from his bungling of the Senate health care bill process (i.e. letting Max Baucus dick him around months longer than they had originally agreed to; letting Lieberman go rogue after a compromise that Lieberman himself had suggested two months earlier failed to end his blackmail; Reid's near blanket refusal to pass the bill under budget reconciliation in order not to piss off Byrd, etc.). ultimately (weakened) bills were passed and laws signed so Reid is not a failure in my book, but the messy process is not nothing. And he has a tendency to say stupid things (nowhere in the league of Steele or Palin or Gingrich, but still dumb stuff). As much as I love Al Franken I agree he would not be a good majority leader, but as far as tacticians go, I think either Durbin or Schumer could do a better job than Reid. Otherwise, I agree that you won't get a more progressive senator from Nevada than Reid any day soon.

      • Alex says:

        he is pro-life, but at the same time, he says he won’t work to overturn Roe v. Wade. Conservatives ride the fence too, pliyang to moderates in the Republcian party in much the same way as Reid.Incidentally, I think it’s great that you leave your comments turned on, and that you actually respond to people who write you. I happened upon your site via a mention on radio host in his “Reading Assignments” section. Your article on Reid was interesting, though again I tend to think you’re exaggerating his sinister qualities. Democrats would interpret his interest in radio as uncommon savviness. Republicans see it as trying to “silence” talk radio. Partisans of both sides always try to make “the enemy” appear in the worst possible light.

        • Metavirus says:

          hi alex, thanks for coming.  we're definitely a diverse group here and non-party-line thinking is greatly encouraged.  mind if i ask which radio host mentioned the blog?  that's pretty cool.

          to the substance, i grant you that i might be being a bit overwrought in this article about Harry Reid.  he's actually gotten better lately -- so i give him credit for that.  and really, my problem with him is really more of a general problem with democratic politicians -- i.e., standing up against things that are stupid and having a spine to really fight for things that aren't stupid.

  3. Metavirus says:

    Wholeheartedly concur with dear Rupert.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Your Vintners