Posts Tagged → Harry Reid
Nevada race too close to call
In one of the nation’s most scrutinized races, reigning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is locked in a dead heat with Tea Party-backed GOP candidate Sharron Angle. Depending on which poll you listen to, Reid and Angle are either tied, or leading each other by only one or two points, well within the margin of error.
Of course, Nevada Republicans aren’t thrilled Angle prevailed, as other candidates had been polling with a healthier lead over the scandal-plagued and controversial Reid, whom many have picked to become the second sitting Senate leader to lose his seat while leading the Senate for his party, in the last decade or so.
The previous Democratic leader to enjoy such ignominy was South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, who was unseating by Republican John Thune back in 2004. The only difference is that Daschle was the Senate Minority Leader; if he loses his seat, Reid would face greater ignominy as he is the Senate Majority Leader. The stress is enough to make a liberal leader like Reid consider diet energy pills, I’d imagine…
The Senate Seven, plus one
With two top Dems already announcing their retirement from the U.S. Senate despite their party holding a filibuster-proof 60-40 majority, things are looking sweet for a conservative revolution next November, so long as the GOP remembers its Reagan conservative roots. While over-confident Dems are already selecting office furniture for their re-election, there are at least seven vulnerable Dem seats that could change hands in a year – but only if the GOP remains humble, cagey and conservative.
Here’s the Top Seven Vulnerable Dem seats:
1. Connecticut – Christopher Dodd – OUT!
Facing strong challenges in a solidly blue state from Republican hopefuls Rob Simmons and former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, Dodd stepped down today, clearing a path for popular Connecticut state attorney general Sidney Blumenthal to step in and try to hold the seat for his party; no polls as yet indicate how Blumenthal would fare against McMahon or Simmons.
2. South Dakota – Brian Dorgan – OUT!
Dorgan, one of the somewhat moderate libs in the party, was getting destroyed by 19 points by SD Governor John Hoeven, and stepped down from pursuing a second term last week. No word on who might step forward to face off with Hoeven, but whispers center around former Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, though some are hoping for a fresher face that state voters haven’t rejected as recently as Daschle. Time will tell.
3. Colorado – Michael Bennet – Trailing by 10 points
Bennet has only 37 percent support and is facing off with popular former GOP Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, who has 46 percent support and growing. So far, Bennet sounds like he’ll be fighting to keep his seat.
4. Ohio – Lee Fisher – Trailing by 7 points.
This seat is actually held currently by retiring Republican Senator George Voinovich, but this is a state where Democrat Sherrod Brown won easily in 2008, riding the Obama coattails. So with Republican Rob Portman holding a lead larger than the poll’s margin of error, that spells trouble for Dems hoping to pick up a seat.
5. New York – Kirsten Gillibrand – Leading by only 0.2 percent… In NEW YORK!
Gillibrand’s case is a special one; appointed by controversial New York Governor David Paterson, Gillibrand is a by-the-book liberal who goes off-book on gun control. Facing a stiff challenge from popular former GOP Governor George Pataki, who has a history of winning in New York, if Pataki wins, it could be a watermark of where things will trend throughout the rest of the nation next November.
6. Pennsylvania – Arlen Specter – Trailing by 4 points
Specter, a former RINO who finally got honest and switch to the Dems, is facing a serious threat from GOP challenger Pat Toomey. Many voters still feel burned by Specter’s party-switch, and this is the first time he will be facing voters since the balance-shifting about-face in the Senate.
7. Arkansas – Blanche Lincoln – Support at 40 percent or lower
While the GOP is busy picking from among four candidates to oust her, all four potential challengers are polling well ahead of Ms. Lincoln. She may be paying the deepest price for her handling of health care, as well as other issues.
8. Nevada – Harry Reid – Polling in the mid-40s
The GOP is choosing from two strong contenders, but so far both poll well ahead of the sitting Senate Majority Leader, who has come under fire for his handling of health care and the Senate, as well as some local scandals that his people have tried to sweep under the rug.
While the GOP has several seats at stake as well, if conservatives can rally the party and take, say, five out of eight of these vulnerable seats at minimum, it could be enough to swing the Senate back to a balance of power that would force Dems to at least deal with a GOP minority, rather than shut them out entirely.
It might take two strong election cycles at minimum for Republicans to ever hope to win back the Senate, but they could gain a lot of ground next November; instead of a 60-40 Dem majority, there’s a chance the gap could narrow to as close as 53-47 next fall; that would put control of the Senate back up for grabs in 2012.
Unless, of course, the GOP finds a way to blow it. Nominating a bunch of Democrat-Lite candidates in the mold of John McCain would be a sign of a blown opportunity to come.
2010 midterms looking good for GOP
It’s going to be a tough fight, putting together a reform agenda, an economic plan that offers real hope, and taking advantage of Obama Disillusionment Syndrome, but the political textbooks say that mid-term elections are always hardest on first-term presidents and so far the cards seem to be stacking in the GOP’s favor.
At least 11 Democrat congressmen have announced their intent not to run, with more on the way, and there have already been a couple defections from the Dems to the GOP in the House. There are at least two vulnerable Dem seats in Congress that seem destined to change the party in control as both Harry Reid and Chris Dodd appear doomed to defeat; others could fall as well, if this ripple turns into a tidal wave if midterm discontent.
Of course, the biggest risk for the GOP is whether they will choose to sponsor Democrat-Lite candidates, or real conservatives that will offer voters a real choice in November. If the GOP returns to its Reagan roots, we could be looking at something akin to the 1994 GOP Revolt once again.
How sweet it might be…
His eventual opponent isn’t even chosen yet, but Nevada Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is already running weak enough to lose to either of them, according to recent polls. Both Republicans considering runs against Reid, a list that includes Danny Tarkanian and Sue Lowden, were shown to be polling significantly higher than the Democrat incumbant.
Of course, Nevada is typically GOP territory and Reid has been a business gifts-getting, major ass for the better part of his current six year term, so it ought not be surprising. Tark would best Reid 49-39, while Lowden would get the job done with a closer shave at 45-40.
Tarkanian seems the best bet to overcome any Reid resurgence. Get it done, Nevada GOP! Make it so.
Dems vow revenge if Coleman succeeds
If Norm Coleman succeeds in proving election fraud (which is pretty darn obvious in this race) in his re-election bid against SNL candidate Al Franken, the Democrats in Washington are so drunk with power that they have vowed to never give Senator Coleman a moments rest; they will hound him with ethics probes for the entire six years, or until they lose their majority, whichever comes first.
While otherwise acting like mold killer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who bears a distinct resemblance to the hindquarters of his party’s animal symbol, is proving that even in overwhelming victory, the Dems are sore losers.
We cannot tax our way to lower gas prices
It’s almost comical if it weren’t so serious: no matter what the issue, Democrats today offer the same solution for all ills: raising taxes “on the rich.”
Of course, they’ll never stop to tell you that to be considered rich, by them, all you need is a two-income family where each spouse makes an average of $45,000, no matter how many or how few kids they have.
The gas price crisis is the latest example of liberals’ one solution fits all approach to life and politics. With the recent $4.00/gallon gas price crisis, instead of embracing domestic drilling, Dems led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both voted to go on vacation rather than act on any measure with real solutions for the problem.
Their solution, other than a couple weeks in Maui following a week in Denver? Raising taxes on domestic oil companies.
OK, other than lining their personal pockets, how exactly does that bring down the price of gas? It doesn’t; in fact, it would skyrocket oil prices by at least another 50 cents. That’s no solution for real, working Americans.
For decades, Democrats have coasted on the false cliche that Republicans are “for the rich” and Dems are “fighting for the little guy.” That’s just not true, and this is the latest example.
Dems are not fighting for “the little guy” by stonewalling domestic drilling; they’re not even proposing to punish the right people with their tax increase. (It’s OPEC, not domestic oil companies, who are setting the world supply and price levels, after all.)
No, they’ll fight for the Sierra Club, Algore’s zittoheads, teachers unions and whoever else comes along. But if they ever till you they’re “for the little guy,” remember that it’s the single mom of two, working two jobs and still unable to make ends meet with fuel prices so high, who’s the sort of “regular Joe or Jane” getting hurt most by $4.00/gallon gas.
Oh, and that whole rationale about domestic drilling not bearing anything fruit for “at least five to seven years?” Well, on the first part, it’s false; but even if it were true, shouldn’t that be even more motivation to begin efforts now?
After all, gas prices have nearly doubled in just under two years; just imagine where they’ll be if we continue sitting on our hands and taking no action for the next “five to seven years.” Democrats shouldn’t even be trusted to sell acne products competently.
On Iraq: Dems predict 68 votes, get 47
The party of defeat, the Democrats, made Amer– er, make that MoveOn.org, who they are more interested in pleasing than actual Americans — let’s start over.
The party of defeat, the Democrats, promised MoveOn.org 68 veto-proof votes on an attempt to end the war in Iraq by Congressional subversion of the President’s role as commander in chief, but when roll call was taken, according to Politico.com’s in-house blog, The Crypt, the actual tally came to 47 in favor, 47 opposed and six abstaining from making their opinion known in a run-up to an election year.
The Crypt offers this analysis:
The rejection of the Levin-Reed [withdrawal from Iraq] proposal means the only amendment passed by the Senate this week was a resounding 72-25 condemnation of the now infamous MoveOn.org ad that portrayed Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.” While Republicans have enjoyed a good ride ripping MoveOn and the anti-war movement for the past two weeks, Democrats have scaled back the expectation that many Republicans would join them and vote on binding measures to end the war.
Some moderates that have been targeted by Democrats as possible vote-switchers on the war seem to be turned off with the no-compromise attitude of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Keep in mind, these are the same Democrats predicting they will gain 60 House seats and sweep the Senate races in ’08 to create a veto-proof, filibuster-proof Congressional majority.
Yeah. Right. That’ll happen, too. Sounds like SOME political party needs to put their 11-percent-approval-rating-ignoring ego on a hoodia diet.
Lowest ever for Congress!
The liberal-stream media love to point out President Bush’s low poll numbers, but the story you’re not hearing from Katie, Charles and Brian is this: Congress’ approval rating is worse by far under Democratic leaders Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, it’s at an historic low, matched only one or two other times since polls have started being taken. Only 18 percent approve of the Dem-controlled Congress. Where are the headlines? Can’t allow ‘em. Might hurt the Dems. Can’t have that, can we, Katie, Charles and Brian?
How low is 18 percent? Well, in certain backwater areas of Louisiana, you can still dig up about 18 percent of the people who think Hitler had some good ideas. That’s how low 18 percent is.
It’s so low that if Congressional pay were based on job approval, Pelosi and Reid would be dining in the Old Congressional Boiler Room instead of at executive desks.
By comparison, Bush is soaring! His approval numbers stand at 32 percent! Lofty, ain’t it?
What this may actually reveal is what the real “extremist” factions stand at in terms of real numbers.
Only 18 percent of the hardest-core of hardcore Democrats can stomach the current Dem-controlled Congress. Only 32 percent can stomach Bush. The 50 percent in between can’t stand either side.
I believe it was Voltaire who put this situation into words best: Hell is other people.
300 in 100 … Dems out of control
Forget the speechifying, forget the rhetoric and campaign pledges, forget the deceptive ads (otherwise known as network news.) What matters, what determines intent, is action, not talk.
Here’s the cold, hard facts of what the congressional Democrats, who flooded into office due to GOP fatigue and war concerns and promises not to bog things down in Washington with partisan nitpicking: in just around 100 days, Pelosi and Reid have launched, “over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews and they have had over 600 oversight hearings” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told the press on Friday.
While spokesmen for Pelosi and Reid deny this, they haven’t actually offered up any numbers of their own to prove the White House wrong. When history is written of this Congress, however, what will be most notable is that from day one, it was, for them, all about getting Republicans out of power.
Dismiss all yard markers to the contrary … This Congress is about bitterness and payback for 12 years out of power in Congress and seven years of Bush-Cheney. Nothing more.
Time for a meaningless Federal minimum wage hike
It doesn’t take anything as fancy as a grandfather clock to know what time it is in Washington, DC this week. The Democrats finally caved to the inevitable this week, passing a relatively clean war funding bill that contains no timetables, no deadlines and no benchmarks.
Common sense and military logic finally prevailed, as well as plummeting approval ratings for the Pelosi-led Congress and Reid-led Senate. Unable to offer any sort of War On Terror victory to their MoveOn.org puppet masters, Democrats fled to less controversial territory by attaching a significant minimum wage increase to the war funding bill, so that at least they had something to brag about.
While attaching unrelated riders to bills in this manner is always a disgusting practice, it could have been a lot worse: it could have been a timetable for leaving Iraq.
The federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour will be boosted to $7.25 per hour if Bush signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do. While pure conservatives might balk, it’s time to face facts: it doesn’t matter what the federal minimum wage is.
The federal minimum wage is almost irrelevant anyway. $5.15 per hour is a pittance and hasn’t been updated for over a decade, mostly because virtually no employer can pay that little and get any kind of qualified employee to fill a job anyway. Even at $7.25, most employers have to pay more than that these days to fill jobs, so who cares if it’s $5.15 or $7.25? It’s not like any employers … even fast food chains … pay that low anymore anyway.
Heck, most states have a higher state minimum wage than $7.25 an hour, so the federal change means nothing throughout most of the country. And if it’s enough of a victory to get the Democrats to pass a clean war funding bill with no timetables, deadlines or benchmarks, well… fine. It’s a pretty meaningless victory for them, and a big win for Bush, who proves that he’s no lame duck … not yet, anyway.
