You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Sen. Harry Reid’ tag.
He has now done it again on the floor of the Senate.
Using his leadership position on the floor of the United States Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has once again made statements about GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, casting aspersions as to whether the former Massachusetts Governor paid any taxes during a 10 year period. Of course, in the botching of words, many in the media cross the line further by saying that Harry Reid has implied that Romney did not file taxes.
Citing an anonymous source that said “something” to a Bain Capital representative, who, of course, are Obama2012 Campaign fundraisers, Reid’s comments allege that there are improprieties in Romney’s taxes, and that the Governor’s father, the late former Michigan Gov. George Romney would be “embarassed” by his son’s actions. For the record, George Romney, when running for the Presidency in 1968, released 12 years of tax returns.
For the Majority Leader to take to the floor of the Senate, with his leadership role as a backdrop, is politically callous. But to further denegrate Mitt Romney with comments about his late father simply goes beyond the pale.
Attack Romney on his record as the Massachusetts Governor. Take shots at his domestic policy plans or his foreign policy experience (both of which candidate Barack Obama purely lacked in 2008, but which the media glossed over). But to trash Romney with comments about his father and with unsubstantiated claims from unknown sources about his tax returns— as one commentator said today “Senator, have you no SHAME!!”
For the record, it has been reported that Jimmy Carter only released one year of tax returns when running for the Presidency, as did Ronald Reagan, and Sen. John McCain released 2 years of returns in 2008 when running against Barack Obama.
Lost in the hubbub over President Obama’s State of the Union speech was the quiet death of liberal Democratic hopes to “reform” the Senate filibuster. Those hopes officially expired at 10:20 p.m. Tuesday, as lawmakers prepared the leave the Capitol after the president’s speech, when the Senate adjourned for the first time this year.
For months, some Democrats had been working on a plan to use a parliamentary maneuver called the “nuclear option” to put an end to minority Republicans’ ability to block Democratic initiatives. Under that scenario, on the first day of its session — and only on the first day — the Senate would be able to change its rules regarding filibusters with a simple majority vote. Normally, it takes 67 votes to change the Senate’s rules, but on the first day, Democrats believed, they could kill the filibuster with just a 51-vote majority.
Of course, the first day the Senate was in session was January 3. Most people would assume that such first-day changes, even if they were possible, would have to be made on that day. But in the Senate, “first day” can be a flexible term. So when the Senate finished business on January 3, Majority Leader Harry Reid did not adjourn the body, which would have meant the end of the day. Instead, Reid declared the Senate in recess, which meant that it remained, in technical Senate terms, in its “first day” until whenever Reid chose to call an adjournment.
Through January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 — through all those days the Senate was in recess and therefore still officially in its “first day.” That meant liberal Democrats could continue to maneuver and negotiate ways to end the filibuster and, if they could find 51 senators willing to go along with their scheme, take a vote on the Senate’s “first day.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/2011/01/senate-quiet-death-filibuster-reform#ixzz1CFv0xG9D
Thursday, September 30th at 11:00AM EDT
It seems a bit odd that Senate Democrats have agreed to use a rules technicality to prohibit the President from making any recess appointments between now and the election – particularly since Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL) seemed to be suggesting earlier this week that a recess appointment for blocked OMB nominee Jacob Lew would be possible if the hold on his nomination was still active. None the less, the prohibition is now in effect: and in exchange, the Republicans gave up…
No, really: as near as I can tell, we gave up nothing at all. All the GOP had to do was threaten to throw some pending nominations back to the White House for resubmission, and the Democrats simply folded like a cheap suit; thus making it impossible for the President to do one of the few things that he can do to mollify his base right now. This was pretty craven of Reid and his cadre; not that I’m objecting, but I was under the impression that the Democratic party controlled both the legislative and the executive branches of government these days. I mean, I’ll be expecting this gambit maybe next year (or maybe in 2013, or whenever is the next time where the GOP controls Congress but not the White House), but having it happen right now is a bit odd. Very welcome, but odd.
Moe Lane (Crosspost)
Mr. President, Special Interest Money Is Mainly Going To Schumer, Reid, Lincoln…The SCOTUS Decision Just Might Balance The Playing Field And You Can’t Have That.This post is in response to Schumer‘s, Obama‘s, and Nader’s call to pass legislation to basically veto today’s SCOTUS’ decision on McCain-Fingold. Obama made it a point to stress that industries will flood politics with money.
Plus, look how well the Dems made out by NOT adding TORT Reform to ObamaCare. I’ll say it again, it has always been about the money and power.