I have to say up front that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is one of my least favorite politicians. I find him to be dishonest, ultra-partisan, and corrupt. Having said that, Reid did make a few points during his Meet The Press interview yesterday that I agreed with. Not many, but a few. Because I'm such a non-partisan person, 
I'm not afraid to agree with Reid when he gets something right.
On the Israel-Hamas conflict:
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the ground invasion into Gaza. Do you think on the part of this Israeli–of the Israelis this was offensive or defensive?
SEN. REID: I spoke to Prime Minister Olmert a couple of days ago. He indicated that they would do the ground activities. Let’s understand the background. For eight years they’ve been firing rockets into Israel. They’ve become more intense the last few months. Israelis have been killed, maimed and injured. Sometimes more than 200 a day coming into Israel. If this were going on in the United States from Vancouver, Canada, into Seattle, would we react? Course we do. We would have to. I think what the Israelis are doing is very important. I think this terrorist organization, Hamas, has got to be put away. They’ve got to come to their senses. The Fatah group, which is–makes up part of Palestinian group, has a peace arrangement with Israel. Hamas should do the same.
MR. GREGORY: And they’re in power in the West Bank.
SEN. REID: That’s right. And, and, and Israel, for–since 1967, controlled Gaza. They gave it to the Palestinians as a gesture of peace. And all they got are a bunch of rockets in return.
Bingo. Score one for Harry Reid. I expected him to say "the war is lost", and that Israel should surrender. I interpret Reid's comments as a signal that Obama supports Israel.
On seating Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's appointee Roland Burris in the Senate:
MR. GREGORY: Back when this story first broke, when the charges of corruption were brought against Governor Blagojevich, you put him on notice. And you had a letter that was signed by all Senate Democrats that said, in part, the following: “We write to insist that you step down as governor of Illinois and under no circumstance make an appointment to fill the vacant Illinois Senate seat. Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request … and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article 1, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.” In other words, you can reject that appointment.
SEN. REID: Blagojevich obviously is a corrupt individual. I think that’s pretty clear. And the reason that he’s done what he’s done is to divert attention from the arrest that was just made of him and the indictment which will be coming in a few days, according to the U.S. attorney in Illinois. That’s why President-elect Obama agreed with us that Mr. Burris is tainted. Not as a result of anything that he’s done wrong. There’s–I don’t know a thing wrong with Mr. Burris. It’s not the person that has been appointed, it’s the appointee.
I agree with Reid up to this point. Blagojevich shouldn't have made a Senatorial appointment with such a cloud hanging over his head. Blago defied the wishes of the President-elect and the Congressional Democrats. Pretty arrogant of him. However, there's a problem. Blago is still entitled as governor to make the appointment, and an even bigger question is, do Reid and his fellow Senators have the Constitutional authority to deny Burris ?
MR. GREGORY: A critical editorial on the LA Times made this argument: “The Constitution says that each house of Congress `shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members’ and may punish members for `disorderly behavior’ or, on a two-thirds vote, expel a sitting member. Neither provision justifies excluding a senator because of the unrelated wrongdoing of the governor making the appointment. … It’s doubtful whether the Senate could refuse to seat … any duly elected (or by extension appointed) member who met age, residency and citizenship requirements…what in the Constitution allows you to judge Roland Burris in, in this manner, to not seat him?
SEN. REID: The LA Times quoted part of it itself from the Constitution: We determine who sits in the Senate, and the House determines who sits in the House. So there’s clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to. This goes back for generations.
This is where Harry Reid goes off the rails, in my opinion. The Constitution doesn't entitle Congress to "do whatever we want to do." If it did, they could arbitrarily eject any Senator for any manufactured reason, or for no reason at all. Imagine the political ramifications of that, not to mention how it could be used to subvert the will of the people and nullify elections. The 17th Amendment specifies that, whenever there is a vacancy in any state's Senate representation, the state's legislature "may empower [its] executive . . . to make temporary appointments until the people fill the [vacancy] by election as the legislature may direct." This means if Burris' appointment is to be nullified, it should be done by Illinois, not at the federal level, not by Harry Reid, not by Congress, and not by Barack Obama. As I see it, the only Constitutional claim from the federal level not to seat Burris would be if he didn't possess the necessary qualifications, or if he had committed some crime or indiscretion. Nobody is suggesting that of Burris, therefore, Reid has no Constitutional power to deny him. Even if we buy into the notion that Burris is the "fruit of the poisoned tree" (didn't Obama used to call this "guilt by association" when it was directed at him ?), remember that Blagojevich hasn't been convicted of anything yet. He is entitled to due process, and Burris isn't guilty of anything as far as we know. In every prior case where Congress refused to seat someone (Adam Clayton Powell, Frank Smith, Theodore Bilbo), there was corruption on the part of the Congressperson being seated. Powell was accused of financial wrongdoing. Smith was accused of corruption and campaign financing irregularities. Bilbo was a white supremacist who was accused of corrupt campaign practices and intimidating black voters. The Burris appointment may stink, but I can't find any Constitutional authority for the feds to deny him.
Harry Reid has another problem. Roland Burris is, gasp, black.
MR. GREGORY: People close to Roland Burris are raising another suggestion, and this is how Politico reports it this morning: “Top advisers to [Burris] are suggesting that Reid doesn’t want an African-American to succeed Obama.
This is, of course, nonsense, but I included it to show how much it sucks to be on the wrong side of the PC knee-jerk identity police, a practice that Harry Reid has used himself against Republicans. How does it feel to be on the receiving end, Harry ? Go ahead, prove to us you aren't a racist. Impossible, isn't it ?
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
It's probably a good thing this skirmish is happening in Israel and is taking focus off of this new administration. With the deeply corrupt and disorganization of the Dem party, those Reps that turned coat are probably freaking out right now, realizing the mistake they made. It seems every person that they choose to fill Obama's cabinet has a sordid past. The latest Bill Richardson. These aren't conspiracy theorists putting stuff on the internet. These guys are being busted in the mainstream media, by their own people. Even Meeka on MSNBC's Morning Joe said it is becoming a real mess. You are gonna have the easiest job in the country King. Funny thing is you won't even have to make stuff up like the lib media did or use conspiracy theorist websites as your sources.
Reid, according to King, is correct when he states that Israel has the perfect right to commit genocide, if necessary, to protect themselves. Nothing off limits.
But King then says Reid is incorrect about his view of seating Burris. Everything is off limits.
Then the echo chamber of right wing narrative nonsense follows with average suggesting that everyone in Obama's cabinet has a sordid past and quoting the MSNBC resident Villager bitch, Mika…..who, as usual, digs deep in her rectum to find her..ummm….expert commentary.
Welcome back…..it's January, 1993….all over again.
It's gonna be great.
Can an administration be properly labeled 'scandal ridden' three weeks before inauguration day?
Poor old Rev. He sees someone talking about the two large events now taking place and manages to do a lib take of the Constitution.. Rev, the Constitution doesn't say that Dirty Harry and his minions in the Senate can determine who can have a seat in their house. Now they can keep Burris out of their caucus meetings since the Constitutio doesn't mention caucuses since nobody knew there would be be political parties when they wrote that document that Dirty Harry reads in a manner that pleases him. Try reading that part sometime, Rev, and tell me if you can see them determining who can be seated from a state without some reason. Burris hasn't been charged yet and even Blagojevich hasn't been forally chaged with anything, but soon will be. Blago is still the governor of Illinois so according to the Constitution he has the power and duty to appoint someone to take that spot. Now if the dirty one doesn't want to see a black man replace a black man I guess he will interpret the Constitution as it seems fitting to him. He is wrong but it will have to be proved to him in a court before he gives in.
How many more of Obama's appointees will have to do what was done this week end. Corruption does run rampant in the Dem Party and some will have to run out on Obama if he sticks with all of his appointments.
Genocide? Poor Rev. I guess you don't see anything wrong with lobbing rockets out of the area that the Israelis actually carried their people bodily in 2005 when they tried to give up some territory to gain peace. Will you be talking genocide whan Obama follows what is going on now? He has only 2 weeks before he has to actually come on in favor of or against the Israelis. Folks like you will have to someday decide to support him with something other than a vote so glibly cast. He did make you some great promises and has backed off on many of them. I don't remember him saying anything about Israel in his campaign promises, though, so I guess he is ok there.
As bad as it looks for Burris to be accepting the Senate seat during Blagojevich's scandal, I have to agree with you, King. It's up to the state of Illinois to do anything about this, unless it can be proven that a bribe took place.
Rev., would you also consider it genocide to defend yourself against someone who was firing an AK-47 at your house from their side yard, lol? You're making yourself look like a real idiot by jumping on Hamas' side. If you can't go against them, try neutrality. It has an amazing power of keeping you from looking so foolish.
Rev,
I wrote a post that addressed four main points. On three of those points, I sided with Harry Reid. I'm not following how that makes me a crazed right winger.
And Rev, Harry Reid said nothing about approving of Israel committing genocide. Neither did I. Not to mention that Israel doesn't want to commit genocide. Hamas does. It's in their founding charter, for god's sake. Yet somehow, you still get things precisely backwards. Roysoldboy has the best description of you to date – Poor Rev.
averagejoe,
I always liked Bill Richardson, but this scandal really makes him look bad. The timing of the campaign contributions and the no-bid contracts to those contributors smacks of pay-to-play. I only wonder why the Obama people didn't consider that prior to naming him. They could have saved themselves from having to explain it.
And Leon Panetta as CIA chief ? When I first read that, I thought it must be a joke.
The One's picks are strangely directionless. Maybe some sort of pattern will emerge over time.
Sanctimonious revisionist conservatives give me a thrill. There's nothing they can't dismantle and reconstruct into a make-believe narrative.
At 100 to 1 kill rates, Palestinian to Jew, it's Hamas and the Palestinians who are committed to genocide.
See how idiotic THAT sounds?
And far from being on anyone's side…I have been describing what is actually happening. Those who are hellbent on apologizing for, or perhaps willing to carry, the violent sins of Israel's leadership….can never even SEE the wrongheadedness of Israel's actions. Blinded by misguide ideology.
That would be consistent with their support for American torture, rendition, wars of choice, etc.
The good guys are always the good guys…..you know, just like on make-believe teevee shows.
And larry…..no question my revisionist buddy…..the Bush-Cheney regime never really earned any such reputation of being "scandal ridden". Squeaky clean…after all….they were conservatives, at least they said they were.
In fact, hasn't the Bush-Cheney administration been one of the most blemish free administrations in our history?
And I wholeheartedly agree, Obama's administration, even before it begins, is the most corrupt on record.
Freaking Honest Abes commenting here.
What are you babbling about now, Reverend? Your post seems oddly directionless.
Rev,
The only one sounding idiotic about genocide is you. You call it genocide when Israel goes after Hamas more effectively than Hamas is going after Israel. That isn't genocide, it's war. For your education, I submit some text form the founding charter of Hamas, the ones with the real genocidal aspirations:
"Surat Al-Imran (III), verses 109-111 Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it (Israel) as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails."
"Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them)"
"Those Zionist organizations control vast material resources, which enable them to fulfill their mission amidst societies, with a view of implementing Zionist goals and sowing the concepts that can be of use to the enemy. Those organizations operate [in a situation] where Islam is absent from the arena and alienated from its people. Thus, the Muslims must fulfill their duty in confronting the schemes of those saboteurs. When Islam will retake possession of [the means to] guide the life [of the Muslims], it will wipe out those organizations which are the enemy of humanity and Islam."
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators. “Who so on that day turns his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly has incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”"
Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.
"..dishonest,ultra partisan and corrupt.." apparently King longs for the days of Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert.
I didn't say a word about Delay or Hastert, but I noticed you didn't provide any defense of Harry Reid. I'll take your silence as a confirmation of my words.