How Mainstream Media Spread The GOP's False Harry Reid Cancer Story

OLIVER WILLIS/Media Matters For America

Mainstream media outlets echoed a deceptive framing, created by the conservative media and amplified by House Republicans, of comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), leaving the false impression that he dismissed the plight of cancer-stricken patients denied care by the government shutdown.

Reid Pushed For Full Government Funding Over Piecemeal Legislation

House Republicans Adopt Piecemeal Strategy Of Funding Only Some Government Agencies, Including National Institutes Of Health. From The Washington Times:

House Republicans plan to keep trying their new piecemeal approach to solving the shutdown, setting up yet another round of votes Wednesday on bills that would fund veterans affairs and national parks -- and adding new bills to fund the National Institutes of Health and to pay the National Guard and the military reserves.

But the White House budget office said President Obama "strongly opposes" those bills and would veto them if they were to reach his desk. [Washington Times, 10/2/13]

Reid Responds: "Why Would We Want" To Pit Groups Against Each Other For Funding? During an October 2 Senate press conference, Reid decried the idea that legislators should "pick and choose" which parts of the government should be funded, reiterating his desire for legislation to fully fund the federal government without strings attached. After a reporter followed up by asking, "if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?" Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) interjected, asking"why pit one against the other?" Reid then chimed in, "why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own." From the press conference:

DANA BASH (CNN): You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that -- (off mic) -- given what you said, would you at least pass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political games as Republicans are?

SEN. REID: Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did it here, and he did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer. And it's this. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government's going to be funded? It's obvious what's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow.

What this is all about is "Obamacare." They are obsessed. I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know what other word I can use. They are obsessed with this "Obamacare" thing. As has been pointed on the floor the last few days, they did the same thing on Social Security. They did the same thing on Medicare. Now they're doing it on this.

It's working now, and it'll continue to work, and people will love it even more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

HARRY REID: Listen (INAUDIBLE) what do --

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why do they -- why -- why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- they have a few problems of their own. [Senate Press Conference, 10/2/13, via Nexis]

Reid: "Why Would We Have" Speaker Boehner "Cherry Pick What Stays Open And What Should Be Closed?" Reid later elaborated on the exchange. From an October 2 article in The Hill:

Later, in an interview with The Bill Press Show, Reid elaborated on the exchange.

"The whole answer is this -- why would we want to have the House of Representatives, John Boehner, cherry pick what stays open and what should be closed?" he said. "Listen, I gave a speech on the floor talking about the babies, 30 babies, little kids who are not going to have clinical trials. Of course I care about that. I have 16 of my own grandchildren and five of my own children."

Reid said that there are other agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that are just as important to fund and that he's working to get everything back online.

"What I told Dana Bash, who is a fine reporter, is that we care about all of these things," he continued. "We care about our state parks; we care about our veterans, but we can't fall into the trap ... of Cruz-led Republicans. That is this ... we'll cherry pick ... and finally at the end, everything will be open except for ObamaCare." [The Hill, 10/2/13]

Conservatives Distorted Reid's Comments

Free Beacon Deceptively Edits Transcript, Claims Reid Asked Why Democrats "Would Want To Fund The National Institutes Of Health To 'Help One Child Who Has Cancer.'" In reporting on the exchange, The Washington Free Beacon deceptively removed Schumer's interjection, suggesting that Sen. Reid was directly responding to Bash's question. From an October 2 post on The Washington Free Beacon:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) asked why Senate Democrats would want to fund the National Institutes of Health to "help one child who has cancer" Wednesday when asked that question by CNN reporter Dana Bash.[Washington Free Beacon, 10/2/13]

House Republicans Amplify False Framing And Edited Transcript. The website of House Speaker John Boehner published a post titled "Top Senate Democrat on Helping Kids With Cancer: 'Why Would We Want To Do That?.'" The post featured the following deceptively edited transcript:

CNN: "If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do that?"

Sen. Reid: "Why would we want to do that?" [Speaker.House.Gov, 10/2/13]

Some Media Adopt GOP's False Framing Of Reid's Comments...

CNN's Carol Costello: "What Harry Reid Said Was Awful." On the October 3 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Carol Costello aired video of the exchange and had the following remarks:

COSTELLO: Okay so Jason I'll start with you. So, the Democrats aren't they being a little hypocritical here because they passed a resolution to pay servicemembers?

JASON JOHNSON, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think so, look the whole point is that -

COSTELLO: But what Harry Reid said was awful.

JOHNSON: I'll never defend Harry Reid for anything. [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 10/3/13]

CBS' Nancy Cordes: Reid's Response To Funding Cancer Research "Was 'Why Would I Do That?'" From the October 2 edition of CBS Evening News With Scott Pelley:

CORDES: Senate Democrats say the only funding they'll agree to is a bill that funds the full government, no strings attached. In fact, Scott, today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked if he would be open to funding cancer research for kids only and his response was, "Why would I do that?" [CBS, CBS Evening News, 10/2/13, via Media Matters]

... While Other Media Outlets Explain Reid Is Being Taken Out Of Context

NY Times: Contrary To GOP Claims, Reid Was "Ineloquently Making A Point About The Need To Fund The Entire Government." From an October 3 New York Times article:

Mr. Reid's tendency to speak without inhibition or filter has created no shortage of complications and may have so alienated Republicans that they see no incentive to work with him. On Wednesday, Republican press offices, including Mr. Boehner's, and Tea Party groups circulated remarks from Mr. Reid in which he appeared to be dismissive of cancer-stricken children. (In fact, he was ineloquently making a point about the need to fund the entire government, not just parts that Republicans have selected for special appropriations bills as a way to ameliorate the effects of the shutdown.) [NY Times, 10/3/13]

Politico's Byers: "Even If You Got Rid Of Sen. Schumer's Remark, You'd Still Run Into A Little Thing Called 'Context.'"From an October 2 blog post by Politico's Dylan Byers:

I can't imagine the intellectual leaps and bounds you'd have to go through to arrive at the conclusion that Sen. Reid doesn't care about cancer patients. Even if you got rid of Sen. Schumer's remark, you'd still run into a little thing called "context." After getting rid of context, you'd probably run into the inconvenient fact that Sen. Reid's wife was diagnosed with breast cancer just two years ago.

...

The problem with separating quotes from context is that the effort usually comes back to bite you. Before you know it, you end up being depicted as someone who has to invent controversy because you're no longer capable of debating on substance. [Politico, 10/2/13]

The Atlantic: "It's Clear That Reid Was Responding To The Point Brought Up By Schumer." From an October 2 article inThe Atlantic:

In the video, it's clear that Reid was responding to the point brought up by Schumer -- why fund kids with cancer, while ignoring, say, other vulnerable kids, or other populations impacted by the shutdown? Why choose? This has been the Democrats' stock response to variations on this question, usually from Republicans on the House floor. But Reid's answer, with a testy tone and a follow-up insult to a reporters' intelligence, caught on. [The Atlantic, 10/2/13]

Everything You Need To Know About The ‘Nuclear Option’ And Harry Reid’s Plan To Fix The Senate

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took the first step to invoking the so-called “nuclear option,” a Senate procedure that will allow a majority of the Senate to effectively change its rules to limit widespread obstructionism by the minority. As the trigger for this reform involves seven executive branch nominees being held up by Senate Republican filibusters, the likely consequence of this round of rules reform will be to eliminate the minority’s ability to filibuster nominees to non-judicial jobs. Here’s what you need to know about the showdown in the Senate that will occur next week:

What Is The “Nuclear Option?”

Although the term “nuclear opinion” was embraced by its opponents in an effort to cast aspersions it — its supporters have at times preferred to call it the “constitutional option” or the “Byrd option” — this maneuver is deeply rooted in the Senate’s history. As an article published by the conservative Federalist Society explained in 2004, the basic mechanism was devised by Republicans in 1890 to defeat a Democratic filibuster of a bill permitting military intervention in southern states that prevented African-Americans from voting.

Under this 1890 plan, Sen. Nelson Aldrich (R-RI) proposed introducing a motion asserting that “[w]hen any bill, resolution, or other question shall have been under consideration for a considerable time, it shall be in order for any Senator to demand that debate thereon be closed.” Aldrich then envisioned a series of steps where the presiding officer of the Senate would reject the process proposed by his motion, and a simple majority of the Senate would reverse the presiding officer’s decision. Aldrich, however, never executed this plan because Democrats eventually caved and allowed a vote on the bill out of concerns that Aldrich would succeed.

More recently, in 1977, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) successfully used a similar process to prevent senators from forcing debate on amendments introduced purely for the purpose of delay. Under this maneuver, Byrd asked Vice President Walter Mondale, who was then presiding over the Senate, to rule that he was required to “take the initiative” to rule such dilatory amendments out of order. When Mondale sustained Byrd’s request, supporters of more delay appealed that decision, and Byrd led the Senate to table this appeal by a majority vote. Thus, Byrd effectively eliminated a mechanism allowing a minority of senators to prevent a vote on a matter the majority supports, just as Reid seeks to do now.

Indeed, in a memo provided to ThinkProgress, Sen. Jeff Merkley’s (D-OR) office identifies 17 additional times since Byrd originally executed this maneuver in 1977 when the Senate has changed its procedures by a majority vote. The most recent example occurred on October 6, 2011, when the Senate voted 51-48 that senators could not use “motions to suspend the rules in order to consider non-germane amendments post cloture” in order to delay a vote.

Wasn’t There A Big Fight Over This During The Bush Administration?

Yes. President George W. Bush nominated a number of unusually ideological judges to the federal appellate bench. As a Texas Supreme Court justice, for example, Judge Priscilla Owen took thousands of dollars worth of campaign donations from Enron, and then wrote an opinionreducing Enron’s taxes by $15 million. As Alabama’s Attorney General, Judge William Pryor defended handcuffing prisoners to a hitching post in the hot sun, and then making them remain there for up to seven hours with barely any water and no bathroom breaks. Judge Janice Rogers Brown compared liberalism to “slavery” and court decisions upholding the New Deal to a “socialist revolution.” Since joining the federal bench, she wrote an opinion suggesting that all labor, business or Wall Street regulation is constitutionally suspect. Democrats filibustered these nominees, and a handful of others.

Many Republicans who are now playing a key role in defending the filibuster labeled Democratic filibusters unconstitutional in 2005. Future Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) accused Democrats of wanting “to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.” Future Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) labeled Democrats’ actions an “unconstitutional use of the filibuster.” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who has since voted to filibuster several Obama nominees, declared that “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period.”

The Democrats’ filibusters did not last very long, however, in the so-called Gang of 14 agreement, seven Democrats agreed to a near total surrender to Republican demands — agreeing to permit Owen, Pryor and Brown to be confirmed to federal appeals courts. As an added bonus for Republicans, this agreement left the filibuster intact, thus allowing them to turn it against President Obama.

But Wait, Didn’t Democrats Oppose The Nuclear Option In 2005?

They did, but circumstances have changed quite a bit since then. Democrats filibustered nominees like Owen, Pryor and Brown because they viewed them as uniquely offensive nominees justifying the use of unusual tactics. Republicans under Obama, by contrast, say that there are some jobs that they will confirm no one to, no matter who President Obama nominates. Many Democrats who still believe that the filibuster can exist if it is only used, in the words of the Gang of 14 agreement, in “extraordinary circumstances,” now see that filibusters are being used in extraordinarily ordinary circumstances. They believe this is a bridge too far.

If Republicans succeed in maintaining the filibuster, moreover, it will cripple much of the government’s ability to function and lead to severe consequences for many American workers and consumers. By refusing to confirm anyone to the National Labor Relations Board, Republicans will likely shut down nearly all of federal labor law. Without the NLRB,

there will be no one to enforce workers’ rights to join a union without intimidation from their employer. No one to enforce workers’ rights to join together to oppose abusive work conditions. And no one to make an employer actually bargain with a union. Without an NLRB to enforce the law, it may be possible for an employer to round up all of their pro-union workers, fire them, and then replace them with anti-union scabs who will immediately call a vote to decertify the union.

Similarly, a Republican filibuster of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordary will likely shut down that agency’s new authority to regulate Wall Street. Anticipated filibusters of three nominees to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will enable Republicans to strike numerous rules promulgated by the Obama Administration to protect workers, consumers and the environment. The filibuster is no longer being used to block unusually offensive nominees, it’s being used to hobble America’s ability to govern itself.

Beyond these specific examples, there can be no doubt that filibusters spiked significantly since McConnell took over at the Senate’s Republican leader. A common mechanism used to measure the frequency of filibusters is to count the number of “cloture motions” filed in a particular Congress — cloture motions are the mechanism used to attempt to break a filibuster. The number of such motions spiked massively the minute McConnell became Minority Leader:

Indeed, nearly 3 in 10 of all cloture motions filed in the history of the Senate were filed during McConnell’s reign as Minority Leader.

With respect to filibusters of executive branch nominees, the issue likely to be addressed next week, the data shows a similar spike in McConnell-led filibusters once President Obama took office:

Why Is This Happening Now?

In the past three years, Democrats twice agreed to minor rules changes that did little to quell McConnell’s tactics. This time, however, they appear likely to pursue meaningful reform. This shift is likely due to a pair of court decisions by Republican judges that created a looming crisis Senate Democrats can no longer ignore.

The reason why the NLRB is in danger of going dark, stripping away much of American labor law in the process, are two decisions joined by five Republican judges that effectively strip away President Obama’s power to fill these seats via a recess appointment. And, while there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will uphold these decisions, the fact remains that there are five Republicans on the Supreme Court and only four Democrats.

If the NLRB goes dark, unscrupulous employers could do significant and irreversible damage to workers and the unions they rely upon to protect their livelihoods. Even if the Senate were eventually able to fill the open seats on the NLRB, the labor movement may never recover from the blow such employers could deal in the absence of an NLRB capable of enforcing federal law. Thus, the irony of the five Republican judges’ decisions stripping away much of the government’s ability to function is that it could ultimately have the opposite effect. Because Democrats no longer have the option to delay filibuster reform without risking permanent harms, robust reform is more likely today than it has ever been. And that will lead to a far more functional government than the one we have under Mitch McConnell’s preferred regime.

Senate Filibuster Reform Backed By Norm Ornstein

 By Michael McAuliff/Huffington Post

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) may have just landed an influential ally on the right in his potential new bid to reform the Senate's filibuster: the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein.

Ornstein, who in the past has opposed the so-called "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules with a simple majority, wrote Thursday in The Atlantic that after watching Republicans subject President Barack Obama to record delays for his judicial and administrative nominees, he was beginning to see things Reid's way.

Ornstein said what put him over the edge was watching Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) declare last week that Obama was trying to "pack" the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by trying to fill three vacant seats.

"Packing" was the phrase used to describe Franklin Roosevelt's bid to get favorable decisions out of the Supreme Court by expanding the number of justices and naming judges who agreed with him. It infamously failed, and Ornstein said the comparison actually made him laugh.

"I laughed for several reasons. One was wondering whether a senior senator and longtime member of the Judiciary Committee really had no idea what court packing is, or was he reaching for new heights of disingenuousness: How could a move by a president simply to fill long-standing existing vacancies on federal courts be termed court packing?" Ornstein wrote.

Given the historically unprecedented level of GOP obstruction, Ornstein argued that even though he is still uncomfortable with the nuclear option, the time may have come to use it. And Republicans would only have themselves to blame.

The fallout from such a move is unknown but would be substantial and deleterious. It would be far better to return to regular order, and to the use of filibusters as rare events, not routine ones. But if senators who know better -- like Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, and Saxby Chambliss -- jump when McConnell tells them and continue to obstruct nominations, they should expect to reap the whirlwind. And they, and their colleagues, will be the ones responsible for the damage done.

Some Senate insiders have told The Huffington Post that they suspect Reid is only floating a new major reform battle as a tactic to get a few more nominations through. But having a conservative like Ornstein come out on Reid's side could give the majority leader cover if he decides to go further.

"It speaks to the current level of dysfunction that longtime nonpartisan Washington observers like Ornstein are speaking out," said George Kohl, the senior director of the Communications Workers of America, and a member of the Fix the Senate Now coalition that favors filibuster reform. "They know that what we are witnessing is not normal and threatens the basic functioning of the Senate."

Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'

by Sam Stein and Ryan Grim/Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.

"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office. 

"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

The highest ranked Democrat in Congress, Reid is known more as a back room brawler than a public flamethrower. So his willingness to throw this private conversation into the media frenzy over Romney's taxes underscores the low opinion he has of the Republican candidate.

Tellingly, neither Reid nor his office would reveal who the investor was, making it impossible to verify if the accusation is true. And as his quote makes clear, he's uncertain if the information is accurate. The Romney campaign's press secretary, Andrea Saul, has previously denied rumors that Romney didn't pay "any taxes at all."

But there is limited political downside to the type of open speculation that Reid is making, so long as Romney refuses to budge on the issue of his tax returns. Increasingly, other Democrats are growing more assertive in their goading. In an appearance at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland argued that he could openly speculate as to whether Romney "is a tax avoider" or "cheat" because "his behavior invites such speculation."

Romney recently told ABC News that he couldn't recall if there were years when he paid below the 13.9 percent tax rate that he paid in 2010. Although he said he was "happy to go back and look," his campaign declined to do just that.

Asked for a response to Reid's latest comments, Romney campaign adviser Kevin Madden said his candidate had "gone above and beyond the disclosure requirements by releasing two years of personal tax returns in addition to the hundreds of pages of personal financial disclosure documents he has provided to the FEC and made public."

Madden added that it was "troubling and disappointing that Senator Reid would cite Governor Romney's father, George, as part of a personal attack against the governor. We have many substantive disagreements with the senator and his policies, but using insults about a father-son relationship is a step too far."

Reid has jabbed at Romney before. Indeed, during the HuffPost interview, he seemed to revel in the headlines and fallout his attacks have caused.

"It's interesting, my guy from Vegas wrote this. He's a snarky guy, [Las Vegas Sun political reporter] Jon Ralston. He's a center guy. I like Jon just fine, but he's cynical, and I guess that's what serves him well. So he criticizes me for saying that Romney couldn't be elected dogcatcher," Reid recalled.

"My wife said to me -- we don't talk politics very often -- she said, like, 'You shouldn't have said that.' So Stephanie Cutter [President Barack Obama's deputy campaign manager] comes down to talk about politics and outsourcing at my caucus. She said, 'I'm so grateful for Senator Reid, the best remark during the last week, was saying that he couldn't qualify to be dogcatcher.' I could hardly wait to get home to tell my wife."

Reid's assessment about the state of the political landscape didn't end at the borders of the presidential campaign. He spoke optimistically about the prospects of maintaining his role as Senate majority leader, offering up private polling data that he said showed four Democratic senatorial candidates ahead -- Rep. Mazie Hirono up 19 points in Hawaii, Sen. Jon Tester ahead by 5 points in Montana, Rep. Tammy Baldwin up 3 points in Wisconsin, and Elizabeth Warren leading by 4 points in Massachusetts.

"We feel comfortable in the Senate," he said. "Where the problem is, is this: Because of the Citizens United decision, Karl Rove and the Republicans are looking forward to a breakfast the day after the election. They are going to assemble 17 angry old white men for breakfast, some of them will slobber in their food, some will have scrambled eggs, some will have oatmeal, their teeth are gone. But these 17 angry old white men will say, 'Hey, we just bought America. Wasn't so bad. We still have a whole lot of money left.'"

"So that's the only problem we have with our candidates," Reid concluded, suggesting that virtually everything, his leadership position included, could be swept away by outside cash.

Reid accuses Republicans of trying to protect a handful of billionaires

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Monday questioned why Republicans in Congress believed wealthy individuals should be able to hide their political donations to campaign groups.

“Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘The end of democracy will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations,’” he said on the Senate floor. “Campaign finance reforms protected against the kind of corruption Jefferson foresaw by limiting political spending by corporations. Then the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United decision, rolling back a century of work to make elections transparent and credible. The result of Citizens United has been a flood of corporate, special-interest campaign spending by shadowy front groups with questionable motives. Not since the days of Teddy Roosevelt – a Republican who put a stop to unlimited corporate donations – has America seen this kind of out-of-control spending to influence elections.”

The DISCLOSE Act, which was up for a procedural vote in the Senate on Monday, would prevent outside campaign groups from hiding their donors. The bill would require organizations that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours and identify any donors who gave $10,000 or more. It would also require the head of any organization that puts out a political ad on TV or radio to publicly state that he or she approves the message, similar to what candidates must do now.

Senate Republicans voted to block the billon Monday. But Democrats said they plan to hold onto the Senate floor late into the night and force a second vote on the bill on Tuesday.

“Contrary to Republican claims, this legislation wouldn’t require organizations to turn over membership rosters or lists of grassroots donors,” Reid added. “Rather, it would prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from using front groups to shield their donations from disclosure. Yet my Republican colleagues – with rare exception – have lined up against this common-sense legislation.”

“Their newfound opposition to transparency makes one wonder who they’re trying to protect. Perhaps Republicans want to shield the handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election?”

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube by Senate Democrats, below:

Harry Reid finally gets fed up with ‘mindless’ Republican obstructionism

By Muriel Kane/Raw Story

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed (D-NV) may have finally gotten his fill of Republican obstructionism. In his soft-spoken way, he might even be described as absolutely furious over the refusal of Senate Republicans to pass a completely non-controversial reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank on the grounds that they wanted time to offer amendments.

“The bill that the House passed reflects a negotiated agreement that was struck between Democratic and Republican leaders,” Reid stated in a speech on Thursday evening. “They worked hard to come up with an agreement. As one would expect with an agreement of that nature, the House passed it with a very strong vote. The vote was 330 to 93. … Only the far right Tea Party wing of the House Republican conference voted against the bill.”

“It’s so unusual here,” Reid continued. “I have been here in Congress thirty years, but this is a new one. Even bills that they agree on, they want to mess around with. In years past, this would have gone through here just like this [snapping his fingers]. … The House passed something 330 to 93, and we’re here playing around with it? It should be done. We should have passed it yesterday. This thing is going to expire.”

“It’s hard to comprehend what the new mantra of the Republicans in the Senate, what it is,” he added. “I don’t get it.”

Reid pointed out that the Export-Import Bank is about to hits its lending limit and in any case has to be reauthorized by the end of May — but if the bill is amended in the Senate it will have to go back to the House, which is barely in session all this month. He also stated that he had glanced at the proposed amendments and that several of them seemed designed to gut or even eliminate the program.

Reid expressed regret that he had not supported a proposed change to the filibuster rule in January 2011, but had instead entered into a “gentleman’s agreement” with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to keep it intact.

“This is just absolutely mindless, what’s going on,” he concluded.

As the Huffington Post notes, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to change the filibuster rule now. If Reid is serious, however, his best opportunity may come next January, since at the start of each new session of Congress it is possible to alter rules with a simple majority vote.

This video from CSPAN-2 was uploaded to YouTube by HuffPostPolitics on May 10, 2012.

Sen. Harry Reid: Republicans living in a fantasy world

By Eric W. Dolan

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters on Tuesday that his Republican friends seem to be living in a fantasy world because of their views on deficit-reduction.

“Republicans should start accepting the hard truths we face and work with us to do the right thing for the middle class instead of protecting millionaires and big corporations at all costs,” he said.

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube by SenateDemocrats, below:

Republicans Use Senate Backlog They Created To Extort Tax Cuts For The Super-Rich

By Ian Millhiser

Earlier this week, every single Senate Republican released a letter indicating that they would block all Senate business until the wealthiest Americans receive additional tax cuts:

[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate’s attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.

Almost immediately, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) responded to the GOP’s obstruction on the Senate floor. “With this letter, they have simply put in writing the political strategy that the Republicans pursued this entire Congress: Namely, obstruct, delay action on critical matters, and then blame the Democrats for not addressing the needs of American people,” he said. And Reid is right. The sole reason why the Senate does not have enough time to complete the many pressing matters it still faces is because Republicans spent the last two years slowing Senate business to a near standstill.

GOPers claim that their most recent gambit is motivated by concern over the economy, but they don’t even attempt to defend their decision to block confirmation of one of the nation’s most important economic policy makers — Nobel Prize winner and Federal Reserve Board nominee Peter Diamond. Simply put, giving one of the world’s leading economists an opportunity to shape U.S. monetary policy would do a whole lot more to benefit the economy than giving yet another tax cut to Paris Hilton.

Similarly, it’s been more than two months since the Senate has held a single judicial confirmation vote, even though 34 nominees have already cleared the Judiciary Committee, 26 of them unanimously. Indeed, President Obama’s judges have been confirmed slower than any president’s in recent memory — and at less than half the rate of President Bush’s nominees. On the legislative side, the picture is just as bleak. Nearly 400 bills which passed the House of Representatives — many of them unanimously — have yet to even receive a vote in the Senate.

Republicans were able to create this logjam because the Senate rules enable them to force up to 30 hours of pointless delay before the Senate can vote on nearly anything. Thirty hours may not sound like a lot, but it is utterly crippling when multiplied across the hundreds of votes the Senate must take just to keep the country running. Indeed, at 30 hours per nominee, it would take more than two entire presidential terms to fill all the Senate-confirmed jobs a new president must fill, and that’s assuming that the Senate gets nothing else done during this entire nine year period:

The good news is that a brief window opens up next month which will allow the Senate to amend its rules with only 51 votes. Sadly, however, next year’s battleground is likely to shift to the House, where GOPer’s are already threatening to take the entire U.S. economy hostage if the nation does not agree to an as-yet unspecified list of demands.

Harry Reid Leads Sharron Angle In Nevada Senate Race (POLL)

From AP

LAS VEGAS — A new poll shows Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid with a slight edge over Republican opponent and tea party favorite Sharron Angle in the campaign leading to the November election.

The statewide telephone survey gives Reid a 44 percent to 37 percent lead over Angle, with a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Ten percent of 625 likely voters surveyed statewide Monday through Wednesday were undecided. Five percent said they would choose Nevada's none-of-the-above option, and 4 percent wanted someone else.

The poll was conducted by Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Las Vegas CBS affiliate KLAS-TV.

Group Run By Anti-Stimulus Crusaders Rove And Gillespie Airs Ad Attacking Reid For Lack Of Stimulus Money In NV

By Ben Armbruster

GOP operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie recently founded a network of right-wing attack groups to rival what they view as inept and ineffective Republican National Committee. One of those groups, American Crossroads, is a 527 committee, formed to spend tens of millions of dollars on House and Senate races this year.

The group recently launched an ad in Nevada attacking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D):

It’s bad enough that Nevada has the highest unemployment in the nation. And Harry Reid claims to be helping the jobs situation? Really Harry? Recent data show Nevada ranks 50th in the money received from Harry’s stimulus bill. That’s right — Senate leader Harry Reid has gotten his own state less help than every other state but one. And along with bailouts, deficits, and Obamacare, that’s what Harry Reid’s done for Nevada. Really Harry? That’s not the kinda help Nevada needs.

Watch it:

Is American Crossroads really concerned about who gets what monies from the Recovery Act? Here’s Rove and Gillespie attacking the stimulus:

GILLESPIE: The fact is that we’ve got unemployment at 9.5 percent. They said it wasn’t going to go above 8 when they passed the stimulus. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit. We have $13 trillion in debt.

ROVE: Look, the stimulus bill was not stimulative. The American economy is strong enough it’s gonna come out of recession. The question is did these policies impede or speed up its recovery. I think they impeded its recovery. I don’t think they sped it up.

Rove even attacked the stimulus for not creating jobs. “We’re approaching the anniversary of the stimulus package, and a recent poll shows, and I think it was 9 percent of the American people think the stimulus package has helped create jobs,” he said.

Moreover, Nevada is one of the smallest states in the U.S. and as the Atlantic’s Derek Thompson noted, “stimulus money went disproportionately to states with larger public sectors and higher Medicaid bills.” In fact, it’s Reid who has been trying to get unemployment benefits extended for out-of-work Americans, but Senate Republicans have been blocking it from getting though. “Almost two million people who are long-term unemployed. These are not numbers. They are people,” Reid said scolding the GOP for their obstruction.

“The ad is factually accurate, [but] It’s also an embarrassment,” Thompson noted. “Republicans have spent the last three months blocking a Sen. Reid-endorsed extension to unemployment insurance that would particularly help Nevada.”

Olbermann: ‘Cartoon-like’ Tea Partier’s win really a loss for GOP

By David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Supporters of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) are reportedly thrilled about the prospect of him running against former state legislator Sharron Angle, since they see her as a weak Tea Party candidate with a history of extremist views that will make it easy to focus the campaign on her record.

The strategy, according to Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, will be to "use her own words to paint her as, well, a complete whackjob."

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has already picked up on the emerging anti-Angle narrative. "Conventional wisdom was that Sue Lowden's come-from-ahead defeat to Tea Partier Sharron Angle would hurt Senator Harry Reid," he noted on Wednesday. "Turns out Ms. Lowden was the sensible one."

"Ms. Angle's resume is startling -- or, if you prefer, cartoon-like," Olbermann continued. "She told Liberty Watch magazine that she's opposed to legalizing alcohol. (Las Vegas!) Eleven years ago, she proposed a bill requiring doctors to tell women that research suggested abortions might increase their risk of breast cancer, even though, you know, it doesn't."

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank even suggested on Thursday that Angle's victory "would explain the uncharacteristic smile on Reid's face as he opened Wednesday morning's Senate session. Instead of his usual stemwinder denouncing the obstructionist minority, he engaged his Republican counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a celebration of the national pastime."

According to the Post's Dave Weigel, however, Angle backers like Club for Growth spokesman Mike Connolly, are describing their reaction to the wave of attacks on their candidate as "one big yawn."

"We know Sharron Angle pretty well," Connolly told Weigel. "A lot of folks around here have worked with her. We've endorsed her in the past. This tactic is neither new nor surprising."

Even if the tactic doesn't surprise Angle's backers, though, it could still prove damaging when played out before a national audience.

"She endorsed a plan for a prison drug treatment program that would be like sweat lodges, saunas with massage," Olbermann noted. "It would cost $15,000 per prisoner. It was developed in part by the Church of Scientology. ... Two weeks ago -- after BP! -- she said she favors more deregulation of the oil industry. Oh, and Ms. Angle also voted against fluoridizing the water, because she thinks the fluoride might be poison."

Connolly acknowledged to Weigel that he hadn't previously known of Angle's opposition to fluoridation but insisted that "this is what their campaign is going to be -- digging around in things she's said and taking them out of context. And the polls haven't moved for Harry Reid. He's been a dead man walking, politically, for months."

Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express and other Republicans also described the attacks on Angle as "stale stuff" and suggested that Angle should have no problems as long as she can avoid future gaffes.

It's true that Angle's support for the sauna idea might fairly be described as old news, since it goes back to 2003, but her Scientology connections recently came under renewed scrutiny when the Las Vegas Sun reported that Angle's website had "scrubbed" any mention of her having worked with actresses Kelly Preston and Jenna Elfman to promote legislation prohibiting schools from requiring students to take psychiatric drugs, such as anti-depressants. Both women are prominent Scientologists, and opposition to psychiatric drugs is a Scientological position.

This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast June 9, 2010.

Obama challenges GOP on health care, boosts Reid

By BEN FELLER

HENDERSON, Nev. – Days before hosting an intensive health care summit with both Republicans and Democrats, President Barack Obama made a fervent push for his overhaul, calling it critical not just for the millions without insurance but for the entire country's economic well-being.

"It is vital for our economy to change how health care works in this country," Obama said Friday at a town hall meeting in a high school gym. "Don't let the American people go another year, another 10 years, another 20 years without health insurance reform in this country."

The president's plea for his top domestic priority, which faces an uncertain fate after nearly a year of work in Congress, earned him huge applause. He said the drawn-out effort has cost him politically, and also has undercut the standing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Obama was in Nevada to help the Senate leader survive a tough re-election fight this year — a race that could have a big impact on the balance of power in Washington and the fate of Obama's own proposals on health care and beyond. Obama needs to protect every vote he can in the Senate if his own agenda is to succeed.

"Health care has been knocking me around pretty good," Obama said. "It's been knocking Harry around pretty good."

But the president suggested that was due more to misinformation about the plans than to general unpopularity of the overhaul, and he defended the Democratic bills that have passed both houses of Congress, but have not been reconciled into one piece of legislation.

The president's bipartisan summit is being held Thursday. He dared Republicans to present a proposal addressing the uninsured and rising medical costs, rather than merely saying no to Democratic approaches.

But the summit approaches with hardly a feeling of cooperation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Obama and the Democrats are offering "a partisan bill devoid of support from the American people."

Reid's Washington office said the senator will support allowing the government to sell health insurance in competition with private insurers if the White House and Democratic leaders decide to push a health bill with no GOP backing.

Many conservatives and some moderates oppose the so-called public option. It's in the bill the House passed last year, but not the Senate version. Some congressional Democrats say they doubt the White House will include a public option in the proposal it will unveil Monday.

The Nevada appearance was billed as focusing on the economy but turned into an extended campaign plug for Reid, seen as one of nation's most vulnerable incumbents in the November elections. Reid introduced Obama and then sat behind him, basking in each applause line.

Obama wrapped his arms around Reid at the start of the event and embraced his work throughout. The president rarely missed a chance — on the economic stimulus plan, on health care, on the effort to regulate big banks — to put himself and Reid in the same sentence.

The goal was to shift the emphasis from the unpopularity of some of Reid's votes to, in Obama's view, the courage it took to take expensive steps to save the economy. "Sometimes he takes his licks," Obama said of Reid. "But he gets back up. Harry Reid has never stopped fighting."

The Republican Party wasn't impressed. "Harry Reid has been nothing but a fierce partisan in Washington and a quick visit from President Obama won't save him this November," said Jahan Wilcox, spokesman for the Republican National Committee in Washington.

The seven questions Obama took focused heavily on health care and the economy, giving the president an opportunity to dig into his standard talking points on those topics and to link the two issues.

Outside the school, about three dozen protesters waved signs. They showed dissatisfaction over a variety of issues, including the economy, health care and illegal immigration. "Dump Reid and Obama," said one sign.

Carla Montemayor, 61, from Henderson said she voted for Obama in 2008 but probably would not do so again. "I feel that he wasted time wooing the Republicans, trying to woo them over," she said. "He forgot about the jobs."

The president's appearance served many missions.

• He announced a $1.5 billion boost in public money to help people struggling to afford their mortgages to keep their homes, targeting the five states, led by Nevada, that have been hit hardest by the foreclosure crisis. "Government alone can't solve this problem," Obama said. "But government can make a difference." It was the latest move by a White House determined to show it is helping families rebound from a deep recession that is taking an election-year toll on Obama and his party. The money for the new rescue effort will come from the $700 billion financial industry bailout program.

• Also helping Reid, Obama tried to soothe hard feelings in Las Vegas, where leaders say the president has singled out Sin City as a symbol of irresponsible spending, particularly when he said people shouldn't gamble in Vegas with their college funds. He capped his Las Vegas trip with a speech to the city's Chamber of Commerce, where he delivered an apology — of sorts.

"Let me set the record straight, I love Vegas — always have," he said.

"It wasn't meant to be a shot," Obama said of his college savings remark. "I think everybody would agree that the only place people should spend their college savings is in college. ... But I understand how hard things have been here."

CPAC will feature a Pelosi piñata and Reid punching bag. By Zaid Jilani at 9:56 am CPAC will feature a Pelosi piñata and Reid punching bag.

By Zaid Jilani

Tomorrow, conservatives from around the country will converge at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which serves as a “showcase of the heart and soul of American conservatism.” The Washington Scene reports that this year’s CPAC will prominently feature a Nancy Pelosi piñata and a Harry Reid punching bag for guests to take turns beating:

Attendees at a conservative conference in town this week will have the opportunity to whack a pinata of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Conservative Political Action Conference “CPAC” begins Thursday here in D.C. and will feature a party Friday evening where guests will have the opportunity to whack a Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pinata.

Keri Ann Meslar, director of development for the Greater Washington Sports Alliance and Katherine Kennedy of The Blonde Charity Mafia will be two of three famous D.C. residents taking a turn at the pinata during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which starts on Thursday. Meslar will be the guest “whacker” at a CPAC-sponsored party in Georgetown.

Mary Christopher, outreach coordinator for CivicForumPAC, said the Pelosi piñata will be filled with favorite Pelosi sayings, bills and candy. The party hopes to invite two other well-known D.C. residents to smash the piñata first, before others in attendance will be invited to try to take the Speaker down. “We’re hoping to have the females whack the piñata and males try their hand at a Harry Reid punching bag,” Christopher said.

CPAC will kick off tomorrow with a keynote speech by Florida GOP primary gubernatorial candidate Marco Rubio.

MCL comment: Let me get this right, these crack babies who spent the last eight years running this country into the ground are going to make pinatas out of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? If anything these human monkey testicles should be making pinatas out of each other because the problems this country face traces back to their screwy policies i.e tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country.