I was pleasantly surprised by the toughness (relatively speaking) shown by Harry Reid on MTP yesterday. After the namby-pamby "We'll reach across the aisle" B.S. by Tom Daschle for the last four years, no matter how many times his hand was slapped, this is welcome.
Yes, Harry Reid opposes abortion, but he also realizes that his beliefs shouldn't be imposed on anyone else. And while it may not be saying much, this is the most balls I've seen out of a Democrat since the DNC drove Howard Dean out of the race.
Excerpts:
On the so-called "war room" he's setting up:
Well, I think war room designation is something that comes from inside Washington. What I've created is a communications center where we're going to take some of the resources that are already there and make sure that when someone comes to the Senate floor to give a speech, that talk radio stations know what that person had to say. We're going to communicate with the American people to make sure that they understand the Democrats are in tune with millions of Americans across the country. In fact, we represent the people of this country, and this communications center that we have will certainly be an indication of how we feel.
On storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain:
MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."
Is that rhetoric appropriate?
SEN. REID: I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt. I think to take that issue, Tim, to take the most poisonous substance known to man, plutonium, and haul 70,000 tons of it across the highways and railways of this country, past schools and churches and people's businesses is wrong. It's something that is being forced upon this country by the utilities, and it's wrong. And we have to stop it. And people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.
On the intelligence bill that the House is blocking:
MR. RUSSERT: The intelligence bill reforms which were recommended by the 9-11 Commission; now before the Senate and the House. Being held up by two Republican congressmen in the House. And now Senator John Warner, Republican from Virginia, said he has reservations. Will the intelligence reform bill pass this week in Congress?
SEN. REID: The Congress of the United States should not leave this town until we pass this. Governor Kean, Representative Hamilton were appointed by the president of the United States to give us some ideas as to what should be done following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. They told us what should be done. And we in the Senate and the House passed bills that were in keeping with what they wanted. Now, it's being held up because the speaker says he wants a majority--the majority to approve everything before they will pass it.
This legislation has enough votes in the House and the Senate to pass overwhelmingly. The president should intercede, as he I believe has an obligation to this country. We have people that want to be safe in America today. The secretary of Health and Human Service, Tommy Thompson, when he announced his resignation, said that the Americans' food and water supply is not safe. How can we leave town and not have this most important legislation passed? It may not be perfect, but no legislation's perfect. It's something that we need to do, and the people of America are depending on us to do it.
MR. RUSSERT: Stay through Christmas if necessary?
SEN. REID: Stay through the day before New Year's. We must pass this legislation. The people in Nevada want to be safe.
MR. RUSSERT: What must...
SEN. REID: The people in this country want to be safe.
MR. RUSSERT: What must the president do?
SEN. REID: The president, who controls both houses of Congress, should use his power. And he has said that he has power. He has a mandate. Let him pull a few bucks out of that pocket of mandate and give it to the House and Senate and say, "Here's part of my mandate. I want this legislation to pass."
I had to wince when I heard the word "mandate", but I see his point. I'm not sure that continued hue and cry about how a 51% vote is not a mandate is productive. Let's toss this so-called mandate back into Bush's lap and make him live with it.
On the immigration argument the House obstructionists are using (emphasis mine):
MR. RUSSERT: Republicans are saying they're concerned about the intelligence on the ground with our troops and they're concerned about driver's licenses that there are not a--without uniform standards, hijackers could easily obtain them from localities that did not maintain rigid standards.
SEN. REID: Tim, we dealt with immigration in this bill. This is not an immigration bill. Immigration is covered as recommended by the commission, and we've done that. This is a holdup. These are people who have committees, Sensenbrenner and Hunter, and they want to maintain power. Power--this is not about power. It's about keeping the American people safe. And the president, I repeat, should intercede any way that he can, and there are lots of ways he can. He hasn't even sent a letter yet. You know, you keep three or days--he hasn't even sent a letter to the congressional leaders saying he wants it passed. This should be passed as quickly as possible. Every day that goes by, the American people are not as safe.
This is simply astounding. When was the last time anyone in Washington came right out and called the opposition, essentially, motivated solely by the desire to retain power. Everyone knows it's true, but no one says it.
On Social Security:
Tim, I can remember as a little boy my widowed grandmother with eight children. She lived alone, but she felt independent because she got every month her old age pension check. That's what this is all about. The most successful social program in the history of the world is being hijacked by Wall Street. Yes, Social Security is a good program. And if the president has some ideas about trying to improve it, I'll talk to him, and we as Democrats will, but we are not going to let Wall Street hijack Social Security. It won't happen. They are trying to destroy Social Security.
MR. RUSSERT: No private accounts?
SEN. REID: They are trying to destroy Social Security by giving this money to the fat cats on Wall Street, and I think it's wrong.
And that's the 800 pound gorilla no one talks about; that Social Security reform isn't about tomorrow's retirees, it's about repaying the campaign donations of Wall Street firms. The Enron and related scandals should have shown ordinary Americans that they don't get to play on the same field that the big investors do. And now they want to bet their retirement on these guys?
He goes on:
Tim, all experts say that Social Security beneficiaries will receive every penny of their benefits that they're entitled to--100 percent of them--until the year 2055. After that, if we still do nothing, they'll draw 80 percent of their benefits. I want those beneficiaries after year 2055 to draw 100 percent of their benefits. But this does not require dismantling the program. For heaven's sakes, they're crying wolf a little too regularly here. There is not an emergency on Social Security. We can do this. The president should not try to jam this private accounts in an effort to destroy Social Security.
In the early--when Social Security came before the Congress, who opposed it? The Republicans. And they have a long memory. They've been trying to destroy Social Security for a long time and now they think they have an opening to do it.
Now this is great stuff. Why haven't any other Democrats said that this is NOT an emergency, that there's time to come up with something viable? And he reminds us that Republicans have always opposed this program, right from the beginning, so why should we rely on them to save it?
Then Russert tries to "trap" him into a Kerryesque "flip-flopper" meme:
MR. RUSSERT: You also said this back in 1994. "I believe in a consumption tax. ...The income tax is not working as well as it should. I think we should do away with it." Is that still your view?
[snip]
What I am concerned about that's happening with the talk that's coming from 17th and Pennsylvania Avenue is that they're talking about having a consumption tax and an income tax. That's the worst of all worlds. That's what they have in Europe where you have an income tax and you add on that the value-added tax. It's a terrible system. So what I say is if we can figure out a way to make our tax less burdensome and if we could go to a consumer based tax, I think it would be wonderful. But the transition rules of that are very difficult and I have looked into that. It's extremely difficult.
MR. RUSSERT: But the national sales tax or consumption tax is very regressive. Poor people get hit very hard with that as...
SEN. REID: No question.
MR. RUSSERT: ...to a progressive income tax.
SEN. REID: No question about it and I've learned a lot since the statement. I think if it's an ideal world, maybe we could work something out, but as I've learned in so many different areas, we...
MR. RUSSERT: You're less enthusiastic about a consumption tax now.
SEN. REID: Yeah.
AND THEN RUSSERT DROPS IT!! What a concept! There ya go, Mr. Kerry. You CAN change your mind over time and not get labelled a "flip-flopper." Just say, "Yes, I changed my mind after I thought about it more." Don't try to finesse it.
Then, after Reid deals with the abortion question by recognizing that he shouldn't impose his views on the rest of the country, he drops two stealth bombs so softly that Russert doesn't seem to know what hit him. First, he tars Antonin Scalia with the ethics brush:
MR. RUSSERT: Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?
SEN. REID: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems--you've talked about them; every people talk--every reporter's talked about them in town--where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this. I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy. And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute.
...and then he does the unthinkable according to Democratic conventional wisdom: He criticizes a black man, in this case Clarence Thomas:
I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.
That's a pretty strongly worded statement. Good for Reid!
Now I'm bumping up against the limits of fair use, so I'll just direct you to the whole thing. If you didn't see it, go check out the transcript. Nice work, Mr. Reid. More like this, please.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire