Friday, January 2, 2015

Harry Reid Loses Face

Yesterday, soon to be ex-Senate majority leader Harry Reid had an accident on a piece of exercise equipment. He broke a few ribs and some bones in his face. He was hospitalized.

Matt Drudge's Schadenfreude was awakened and he offered this picture of Reid with the attached caption.

As much as I admire Drudge, he would have done better to say that Harry Reid had lost face.


Sam L. said...

A face that needed breaking.

Ares Olympus said...

I confess I don't see what admiration I should feel toward Matt Drudge.

"Reid broke several ribs and bones in his face when a piece of exercise equipment broke and he fell."

Looks like Drudge changed the picture, now one with a black eye, but no, that seems to be from a 2011 picture after falling.

Sam L. said...

No need to, Ares. Do you feel admiration for Harry?

Ares Olympus said...

Sam L, admiration?

I don't know Harry Reid the man, never met him or studied him in detail, but I suppose I'd feel proud to be active enough to fall on my face jogging or breaking exercise equipment into my 70's.

WHile in politics, I'm unhappy he helped shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site on purely political grounds. Harry Reid vs Yucca Mountain, Oct 31, 2014
"There is a very good chance that Republicans will take control of the U.S. Senate, and Harry Reid will be booted from his post as majority leader. That could create some impetus in Congress to push on reviving Yucca Mountain."

Now with Reid losing his majority leader position, I'll cross my fingers that Obama will feel his arms are tied, and vetoing a bill to reopen the YMP.

I mean Obama can still pretend he's against if, if there's some negotiation leverage somewhere, but if the Republicans can organize themselves enough to screw Nevada's NIMBY, I'm all for it.

1982-2010 is a long time to spend billions to do nothing. Will 2015 be the year?

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Reid has been a lapdog for Obama, sacrificing the institutional authority and integrity of the United States Senate in order to advance the Democratic Party's extreme Left-wing agenda. Heretofore, this had been unthinkable, because it was in the Senate's interest to protect its prerogatives, and in the people's interest to have strong separation of powers. Harry Reid destroyed all that, and changed the rules on the filibuster. When I read his profile in the book "This Town," I was amazed that such an introverted, angry little man could ever become Senate Majority Leader. I wasn't crazy about that standoff with the rancher and the Minutemen against the BLM out West that was in the news last year -- it seemed like lawlessness -- but I gotta tell ya that the insider deal Harry Reid's son got in that BLM action was disgustingly corrupt.

Matt Drudge is a headline-writing genius. That's his key to success. Democrats, the self-congratulatory self-appointed guardians of free speech, would love to shut down the Drudge Report, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, etc. if they could. Democrats still haven't accepted the fact that today we have more than three news networks and the New York Times. That's why I use the word "Lefties" over "Progressives" -- they don't believe in progress. Talk about Schadenfraude... every time I hear a Lefty complain about Fox News or Rupert Murdoch, it brings a smile to my face. Boo-hoo!

One last thing... Can we all just give up the saying "it's all politics," or "they're playing politics," etc. this year??? Politics is what they do in Washington. It's their job. That's their role. That's what politicians do: politics. And I think we need to all get really clear about what politics IS. What I'd prefer is that we all be responsible adults about it and acknowledge that's what they do, and that they don't know $&%# about any if the issues/matters they're talking about. That's why I'd like to see the Federal government go back to the specific, enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are largely out of scope, out of their capacity, out of their depth and some are out of their minds. They should have as little power as possible. I shouldn't have to care about Harry Reid! But these politicians (and, by extension, their staffs, bureaucrats and lobbyist friends, etc.) have their fingers in every area of our lives, and their actions do far more harm than good. The political sphere is the worst way for us to be allocating our society's resources. Our Federal government is too big, spends too much, and spends money it doesn't have. If the preposterously arrogant, scandalous, cowardly and deceptive behavior of Jonathan Gruber has taught us nothing else, it's that there are a lot of people who want a lot of control over our decisions (in all areas of life) and are unworthy of that responsibility because they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. They are not our rulers, they are not our betters, they are not the "experts" they claim to be. They can't care about us, they don't appreciate our dreams, and they don't feel our pain. No human can do that for 320 million people. They can only do that with what they are specifically tasked to do because it is an efficient societal organizing principle, but they cannot do everything, they can't know everything. I am not in any way an anarchist, but that doesn't mean I have confidence that this enormous, sprawling government can do 10% of what it claims it can do. No way. We have to get this Leviathan under control, or we're going to become subjects instead of citizens.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

In closing (or punctuating) my last comment above, I have a memory to put this in perspective... When I was in college, I would have long conversations with friends who were also political philosophy students. One friend became exasperated with me one night, and retorted "You're blame everything on a nameless, faceless bureaucrat!" I saw his perspective, and got where he was coming from. His father was a Federal judge, so I could appreciate this was personal for him. What I said in reply wat, "Yes, I hear what you're saying... I probably am laying all these regulatory complaints at the feet of a nameless, faceless bureaucrat. And I also blame the legislator -- the policy maker. But I gotta tell ya, I am a United States citizen, and I'll start appreciating these people on a personal level when they stop treating me like a nameless, faceless person and start treating me like a citizen of this country." I meant what I said. Call it cognitive dissonance, degrees of separation, or whatever. What I object to is this idea that I'm supposed to understand them, their motives and their circumstances. It's all ass-backwards. When are they going to understand what I'm trying to do out here??? And that's the rub... Bill Clinton had a way about him that seemed to personalize everything and seem so empathic... that he felt your pain. And I suppose that's the kind of thing we project onto the politicians we believe in. But Bill Clinton couldn't deliver, because the expectation/promise is impossible to fulfill. In fact, he proved to be sociopathic in many ways, cleverly maneuvering and absolving himself from any responsibility, to the point of wagging his finger in front of the news media and outright lying to the country (and his wife). The cold truth in all this is that we individual citizens are responsible for our own lives, and the government exists to organize what's in its realm of capability. But that's not what's going on anymore. We're handing over more responsibility, and the government actors are all too willing to take it on. And it's at such a scope and scale that we citizens become nameless and faceless. We lose our dignity as citizens of a republic. It's a shift in the mindset. As Anthony Keenedy said about ObamaCare in the Sebelius case: "This is a fundamental change in the relationship between the citizen and their government." The government can now require that we purchase a product for our own good! That's where we're at. That's what's at stake with Washington, D.C.. becoming so powerful, so wealthy and so disconnected from the republic it is supposed to serve. Pardon me if I see this as a core philosophical problem with enormous practical ramifications. The problem is real.

Sam L. said...

Ignatius, you ignite my admiration with your arguments.

Dennis said...

Sam L,

You stated what I was thinking when I started to comment. IAC did such a solid job of analysis it seemed pointless just to agree in my own words.

Dennis said...

Sam L and IAC,

I thought you both would enjoy this. It goes to the prior discussion.