Democrats in Disarray
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34783136...s-capitol_hill

Incredible how the Democrats have no idea what to do with the power they have gained, no surprise that many are already running for the hills (i.e. Dodd) and not running for re-election. Here is the next one to go and it can't be soon enough, I just wish Pelosi could have been part of this conversation so she can take herself out with Reid! Talk about out of touch with the American people!

It amazes me that Reid continues to shove this garbage healthcare bill down American's throats when his own constitutiency is making it clear that they are ready to boot him!

No doubt it's a double standard. Always is. Slimy Harry isn't going anywhere til this term is finished. If Pelosi wasn't forced out for lying about being told by the CIA about waterboarding, then this is nothing. I just think it is frikkin hilarious that he got bit by his own "political correctness" snake for merely speaking his own personal opinion.

The real problem with what he said is the stupidity on two fronts, first for actually thinking something so stupid, second for being stupid enough to actually say it to a reporter. Can't see how it is any different than the Lott situation and the result should be the same.

Probably more white people pi ss ed off about it than blacks. He lacks common sense. The Dems are the champs at getting away with the same things they pile on the Repubs for, but neither party will ever learn. If Palin said that she'd be done.

you don't see any difference between a comment on the electability of a black candidate and someone suggesting the u.s. would have been better off electing an avowed segregationist president?

they're the same thing?

i think one reason republican's are so lost when it comes to race is because they might sincerely believe this. reid's comment was stupid. lott's betrayed a lot more than mere stupidity.

What do you think of the chances of Barack Obama, and as black man, will have to be elected? I think because he's light-skinned and talks nice he has a chance.

What do you think of Senator Thurman's position that segregation should have stood in the US, and giving blacks rights have brought us to the disaster place we are now? I think Senator Thurman was right.

BTW, Palin has today been hired by Fox News.

As a political analyst and commentator.

Unfortunate that Steve Schmidt came out on 60 Minutes last night, and said publically that she has a problem telling the truth, and still does. But I doubt that will affect her FoxNews audience.

Her press release says she's so proud to be part of a "fair and balanced" news station.

There is absolutely no emoticon for what I am thinking about this right now :D

You two liberals are really not trying to suggest that Reid's comments are any less racist are you? Do you really believe that a light skinned African-American who talks white is more qualified to be elected than other African-Americans? There are degrees of racism? Just like a liberal to be two faced and defend their man while ready to gorge those who don't agree with their ridiculous philosophies and agendas.

Racist is racist, regardless of degree and we don't need people who think that way in powerful positions making decisions that affect real Americans.

Good luck trying to defend the indefensible. The good news for the rest of the county is that Reid will be out either in weeks or months, personally I am hoping for weeks!

Sorry, I'm still a moderate Republican ;) Not all "conservatives" only embrace the ultra-far right mindset. There is a range of political belief. We mods are currently homeless within the GOP, however, as the public GOP doesn't seem to want us right now (notice that the GOP campaign coffers are dangerously empty right now, and draw your own conclusions about what part of the GOP has always financially supported the party .... :rolleyes: )

When the question is, specifically, how will a black man get elected, how will THIS black man get elected, how do you not talk about the fact that this guy is indeed black, and his personal characteristics, in light of the history of racism in this country? Are you supposed to not talk about his being black? :zz:

What if the question was, "how will this Muslim get elected?". Is saying, "well, he doesn't kneel in his office on his prayer rug facing Mecca multiple times a day, and he doesn't have a Muslim-"sounding" name" - is that racist?

(and btw, we have Muslims elected on a national level)

You seriously cannot see a difference between that and saying you support segregation?

Racism implies one race is superior, or better, than another. Is that thought present in the first statement? In the second?

How about when Glenn Beck said, "The President is a racist" Was that racist? I don't think so. I think it was unsupported factually, thus a stupid thing to say, but not racist.

Michael Steele, RNC Chair, got raked over the coals a bit this past week for saying, "Honest injun" on a talk show. The Native American community went wild, calling that a racist statement. Do you think it was? I don't.

Yes, they are both racist and I condone neither. I don't believe in degrees of racism which by your comments aparently you do. Though, I think if the comments were reversed you would take the position that Reid should resign because Liberals like you only care about your agenda and what furthers it. I think Lott got what he deserved and now Reid should get what he deserves, a kick out the door.

reid's comment was essentially that white voter's were more likely to vote for obama because he was light skinned and spoke in a way familiar to them. it was impolitic for him to mention to a reporter that we're not ready to elect snoop president.

how is that the same as wishing the last 6 decades of racial progress never happened?

You just don't get it, they are both racist comments. The funny thing is that Reid was dead wrong about this country. It did not matter to Americans that Obama was African-American, has a Muslim name or that, to quote Mr. Reid, he has "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Americans proved that they are beyond such nonsense and Mr. Reid is way out of touch and should not be in a position to make important decisions regarding the American people if he thinks that way. He needs to go, plain and simple.

Keep trying to defend the indefensible, you are really cracking me up at this point!

lol at harry reid's racism. you can make an arguement that what he said was reverse racism since it assumes that white's still want to vote only for people that look and sound like them. an accurate assessment for many in this county. i guess i'm also a racist for thinking so.

harry reid was a boob for speaking an uncomfortable truth. but it's hardly calling for seperation of the races, a position trent lott seemed to endorse in his comments about strom thurmond.

again. this is why you folks have so much trouble on race. you actually beleive your own propaganda.

Stop trying to suggest that I somehow condone what Lott said as I have in no way suggested that, Lott's comments were wrong, but you just can't stomach that your hero has made stupid racist comments which bear on his fitness to serve. He should have been worried about his candidate's agenda, not the color of his skin or the way he speaks.

How dare you suggest you know anything about me and race, but it is not unlike liberal idots like yourself to make such careless stupid comments. Are you really saying that you condone these comments and that Reid is fit to serve in our government. Keep trying to defend him, it just gets funnier with every comment you post! :D

P.S. I don't put much stock in those who make arguments that can't spell the word.

Analysts and commentators give opinions. Like her or not she is a big name, has a solid base of supporters and will create buzz. Fox is a business and ratings do matter and she will almost certainly help in that area.

i already don't watch, her hiring won't change that. i don't care for her at all. but cannon's right, she'll attract viewers. as for the dialogue between pointman and god...this is why we don't have much discussion about race. as soon as anyone tries to say anything, they're shouted down by someone as being a racist. i doubt that harry reid was giving an opinion on his own thinking-but i think he's correct when he says that obama had a better shot than some would because of his look and bearing. i'm not quite sure how that means reid is a racist-but he certainly is smart enough to know they exist. and there's no comparison imo between his comments and lotts. lott said that had we elected thurmond, we wouldn't have so many problems-thurmond ran as a segregationist. lott appeared to be condoning that stance by what he said.

edit~ as an aside, joe biden said of his then-opponent that obama was clean and articulate, among other words he used. is that racist? obama must not think so, he chose biden for his running mate.

Reid is on borrowed time

As Spotlight Shines on Reid, Re-Election Prospects Dim
by Nate Silver

On the heels of last week's retirement announcements by Senators Chris Dodd and Bryon Dorgan, and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, it's natural to wonder which other Democrats might follow them into the Great Cloak Room in the Sky. And few Democrats are more vulnerable than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

It appeared for a while as though Reid, although his approval ratings have been challenging for some time, might avoid having to face a serious Republican opponent. And indeed, the candidates whom the Republicans have mustered up aren't much: a former state senator on the one hand (Sue Lowden), and son of a famous basketball coach (Danny Tarkanian) on the other, who has never held elected office. Nevertheless, Reid has trailed both Lowden and Tarkanian in every poll, although almost always by single-digit margins.

The weakness of the Republican candidates, along with more than $8 million in the bank, an extremely unpopular Republican incumbent governor, and control of the machine in a machine state, are what might allow Reid to keep the race competitive. But increasingly it seems as though his chances of a victory might hinge upon a significant gaffe or scandal on the part of Lowden or Tarkanian. There is a nontrivial chance of something like this happening; Lowden and Tarkanian are inexperienced campaigners, Nevada is a state where more politicians than not have skeletons in the closet, and $8 million pays for a lot of opposition research.

However, after revelations surfaced this weekend that Reid made impolitic remarks in 2008 concerning Barack Obama's skin tone, Reid's position has become more tenuous. Although Republicans may yet manage to minimize the cost of the gaffe through tone-deaf remarks of their own, the fact remains that Reid cannot withstand any erosion of support within the African-American community, which constitutes 10 percent of the electorate in Nevada and heretofore had been of his few remaining reservoirs of support. A September poll for Daily Kos by Research 2000, for example, showed Reid leading Tarkanian 74-5 among black voters, even while trailing him 40-45 overall. If, hypothetically, 10 percent of the black voters in that poll switched from Reid to Tarkanian as a result of his remarks, and another 20 percent decided not to vote, that would expand Tarkanian's lead to 47-38, a 9-point margin.

Are those pessimistic assumptions? I have no way in particular to know. But Reid's remarks have received a generally unsympathetic reaction among black political bloggers, even at the same time that black political leaders have been tripping over themselves to defend him. And as someone whose best-case scenario probably involved cobbling together 51-53 percent of the electorate, turning off even a small fraction of black voters could be highly injurious.

Reid's problems, however, predated his remarks about "Negro dialect", as well as the increasing unpopularity of the Democratic agenda over the past months. Las Vegas Review-Journal polling, in fact, found that the turnaround came at least two years ago

The causality here seems to be fairly clear. Reid's favorables dipped from 50/25 to about 45/40 after he took over as Senate Minority Leader in 2004. They then dropped further -- about to their present position of 35/50 -- after the Democrats took over the majority in 2006. The decline in Reid's numbers, ironically, came at a the time when most other Democrats were on the ascendancy and his party was winning almost every competitive election.

But being a majority leader, of late, has been hazardous to one's political health. Reid's predecessor, Bill Frist of Tennessee, retired rather than seek re-election in 2006; although Frist had pledged to serve only two terms, his approval ratings at the time of his retirement were in the 40s, and his re-election would have been highly uncertain. Preceding Frist was Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who famously lost to Republican John Thune, then Trent Lott of Mississippi, who stepped down from his leadership position after racial remarks of his own (although Lott did win re-election to the Senate, in 2006). Before Lott was Bob Dole of Kansas, who abandoned the position to concentrate on his losing Presidential bidl before Dole was George Mitchell of Maine, who quit politics at the relatively young age of 62 after being unable to produce legislative victories for Bill Clinton in 1993-94.

Whatever Reid's qualifications as a legislative point guard -- from my vantage point, much of the criticism has been deserved but much has not been -- it has been damaging to his electoral position in at least two ways. Firstly, Reid is not a naturally charismatic politician. Ordinarily, this is less fatal than you might think: meet a Congressman, and you'd be surprised at how often he fails to stand out from the crowd, instead surviving based a combination of organizational skills, constituent services, and a reputation for trustworthiness -- all of which Reid has in spades. But the party leadership position draws more attention to Reid's weaknesses, particularly in the Internet/cable era where it's harder to hide from the cameras.

Secondly Reid, who once was once regarded as something of a conservative and had National Journal ratings in the 60s, has been unable to publicly oppose elements of the Democratic agenda which he might find electorally disadvantageous. Although Nevada may have become bluer, its unorthodox demographics -- highly unionized and relatively nonwhite, but also somewhat libertarian and with a sizable Mormon minority -- do not lend themselves to a doctrinaire liberal (or conservative) position.

Indeed, some elements of the Democratic agenda, particularly health care, are not wearing well on Nevadans, and so a different Democratic candidate would hardly have a free pass. Nevertheless, considering the unimpressive Republican opposition, and that Democrats have developed a sizeable registration advantage in the state, we would probably characterize the contest as "Lean Democrat" if Reid were to be replaced by another candidate like NV-1 Representative Shelly Berkley or State Senate President Steven Horsford.

It's no business of ours whether Reid retires. Because he is the Majority Leader, there are a whole host of political considerations that come into play in addition to electoral ones, as well as the prospective impact on the news cycle. He does have some reasonable prospect of winning and he does have some advantages, notably his money and his polished, professional staff. And it would almost certainly be a terrible idea to announce a retirement within the next 45 days, while the fallout from his remarks to Mark Halperin lingers, and while Republicans could claim another scalp.

Nevertheless, this is a conversation that Democrats need to be having, if they aren't already. Reid's favorability ratings are quite similar to those of former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, who like Reid had an enormous monetary advantage, a good turnout operation, and a somewhat underwhelming Republican opponent, but ultimately gathered no more than 45 percent of the vote.

yes, reid is on borrowed time. he's not polling well, hasn't for a while in nevada. reminds me of tom daschle-all that power, and then gets the boot. i wonder if the democratic party doesn't ask to him to step down, just to get a more palatable candidate to run, rather than risk losing the seat.

Fox is already the most watched cable news channel, has been for some time.

As long as she reads what they write for her, she'll be fine. It won't matter that she thinks Africa is a country. She's on Bill O'Reilly tonight.

I doubt it, about the stepping down. He's just a nice guy.

The GOP has far more seats up for voting in this next election than the Dems, and the only Dem seats really at any risk are the ones from purple or red districts, who only went Dem the last Presidential election, anyway.

I think something would really have to change to see the GOP take more seats than the usual post-Pres first election changeover. Maybe if unemployment still is slow recovering.

I thought the republicans had the market cornered (pardon the capitalist pun) on Old Wrinkly White Dudes! I'm in no way calling Harry Reid(D Nev) a Nazi! I think I may have been defending his opinion. I don't happen to agree with his opinion, but I respect him for making himself out to be himself.

I think Harry is as entitled to his bad opinion just as much as any other citizen. Don't forget, we are all just citizens.

get the chip off your shoulder if you're going to post down here. taking anything i posted in this thread personally is laughably egotistical. when did i say anything about you? why would i bother?

getting back to the point. since you are insisting what reid said is racist, could you parse that out for me? what specifically was racist about it? explain it to me. you are the one insisting on putting an equal sign between what reid said and what lott said. i'm saying it isn't there and i already posted my thoughts on why.

don't keep coming on here saying it's obviously racist without explaining. i don't think it is. i think it's much closer to profiling of white voters. why am i wrong?

btw: i think i also misspelled "believe" in the earlier post.

thank the lord that the taxpayer got him a vacation in the sun..he looks darker now..and more trustworthy?..but ive got to call bs on the ried race comment..if he didnt have the vote on healthcare trump card..jezzy and sharpton would be on him like sharks..it stinks.. and by the way .. none has heard a peep from jessy or jessy jr sence he was involved with blago selling
osamas seat in the sen..hmm

both parties are tanking and i'm loving it...when the day comes with about 100 people left standing by the two parties...the country will be saved. the two CORRUPT parties are whats bringing us down. people are waking up (finally, because they sure are not that bright) its a divide and conquer system, its not democracy. as long as the suckers keep sucking to this two party system ...we are doomed in the long run

:tro:

If you need me to explain to you why his comments are racist, then you are more lost than I ever imagined. Not even Reid is making that contention and he apologized for a reason. You just can't admit that there is a double standard, if this was a Republican, people, like Harry Reid, would be calling for his/her head.

As for it being "closer to profiling of white voters," that is a nice try at a spin on it. Are you saying if it is true then the comments are not racist? When has that ever been a defense to racism? Do you really believe that racist whites are more apt to vote for a light skinned African-American candidate than a darker skinned candidate? There will always be idiots that will vote along racist lines, but the vast majority of whites made it clear by electing Obama that Reid's racist views are overwhelmingly not true, the mistake the majority of voters made was buying into Obama's flawed, unrealistic policies.

You, and many other Democrats, only defend Reid because he wants to put forward your flawed agenda which the American people are rejecting in droves. If you don't believe that Reid himself would not jump all over a Republican who made what some also consider to be a true but racially controversial statement, here is how Reid reacted:

Washington, DC — The following is a statement by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on William Bennett’s recent comments:

Yesterday, on his radio call-in show, former Reagan Secretary of Education, William Bennett made the following comment, “… you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”

“I am appalled by Mr. Bennett’s remarks and call on him to issue an immediate apology not only to African Americans but to the nation. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to recover from two devastating Hurricanes, now is the time to help one another, not feed the fires of racism. America can do better. The Republican Party has recently taken great pains to reach out to the African American community, and I hope that they will be swift in condemning Mr. Bennett’s comments as nothing short of callous and ignorant. They are reminiscent of a time our nation is still struggling to overcome.

Again, I call on him to issue an immediate apology to the nation for his insensitive remarks.”

So let's get to the point.

1- Reid's comments were racist.
2- there are IMO no degrees of "acceptable" racism as you argue.
3- you only defend Reid because he puts forth your flawed agenda.
4- Reid may want heed his own advice.

Reid is an idiot. But when you post things like this and try to say it's the same thing, you're doing a fine job of making sure Reid isn't the only one...

It's not "degrees of racism," as seems to be your buzzphrase-- they're two totally different things that you're clearly incapable of understanding, and that you just made even more obvious with the attempt to place some sort of equivalency between the comment above and Reid's.

and for all that furious typing, you still haven't explained how what reid said was racist. and i don't think you can.

stop throwing out the "it's so obvious i don't have to explain it" b.s. and spell it out for me. reid said that a lighter skinned black who spoke in a way white people find pleasant has more opportunity than a darker skinned man who doesn't.

what specifically is racist about that observation?

if you're going to come down here and type yourself into rhethorical corners, you should have some idea how to get out of them. i don't think you do.

just remember that fox has a fake controversy every day. you might not want to make a permanent record of your gullibility by commenting on them until you've actually thought it through for yourself.

What i am really, really going to enjoy is all the angst and whining when Obama gets re-elected. If he can survive about as brutal a year as a President can face trying to move often unpopular agendas along and STILL have a 50/50 approval rating, wait until the economy turns and the Health Care debate is a distant memory.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/...oll/index.html

Pollyanna!:p

Obama had a chance of winning because he was both "light-skinned" and didn't speak with a "negro dialect."

Judging a person's abilities by their racial physical characterics is racist.

"rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Discrimination or prejudice based on race." (Curtesy of Dictionary.com)

"Reid, an early Obama backer, immediately apologized 'for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments,'" (curtesy of cbsnews.com)

The "N" word he used is offensive to many African-Americans and alone is considered racist. His comments seem to fit the definition to me and many others. Even Reid does not deny that his comments were racist and apologizes specifically to African-Americans. Now explain how his comments were not racist.

Obama had a chance of winning because he was both "light-skinned" and didn't speak with a "negro dialect."

Judging a person's abilities by their racial physical characterics is racist.

the first line is handicapping.

the second line is a non-sequitur. he wasn't judging ability to do a job. only chances to get a job.

"The "N" word he used is offensive to many African-Americans and alone is considered racist. His comments seem to fit the definition to me and many others."

the "n" word is negro? why is it an official classification on the 2010 census form? someone needs to clue in the united negro college fund.

negro! negro! negro!

funny.

no asterisks. this is obviously a site that endorses racism.

your substitution of "n-word" for "negro" doesn't actually turn it into anything more than what it is. an antiquated term. harry reid's old. who knew?

please keep pounding away at something that even fox will discard next week for the next conservative flavor of the day. good luck.

It must have taken a lot of thought at such an intelligent response. You may need rest.

Okay, as a liberal, I will agree that what Reid said was poorly worded. What exactly is "negro dialect" God? If Sarah Palin was choosing Condoleeza Rice as her running mate in 2012 and said that one of the reasons she was doing so was because Condoleeza doesnt speak in "negro dialect" the press would have her head.

No? I certainly think the right is playing this one way out of context but at the same time what he said could be offensive.

i'm good. keep posting knee jerk right wing nonsense. i can always pick it up in the morning if i get tired.

This is a particularly thoughtful, academic look at the linguistics behind this.

So, basically, hi i'm god, read it and appreciate the analysis.

Pointman, say it's stupid without reading it critically, and we'll be all caught up.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/john-mcwhort...og-our-own-eye

That's "if" on the re-election. At least Obama has 90% of the media cheerleading for him. Approval rating is 46% according to a CBS poll. The only healthcare debate going on (except among citizens) is Harry and Nancy debating behind closed doors on how much to screw America.

article reminds me of people hearing that southern drawl and automatically assuming the speaker is less than intelligent, and knows how to skin and cook raccoons.

maybe reid could have spoken better, but if anyone takes a moment and a deep breath, and then reads his comments-then they might not have such a knee-jerk 'rush and fox said it's racist so it must be' reaction. this somewhat reminds me of when that fellow (a council member i think) used the word niggardly and got lambasted for it. demands for apology ensued-for what?! apparently for him using a word that some were unfamiliar with, and didn't understand...