Harry Reid

Dont Call me an Obstructionist

Published on February 8, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

New Senate Minority Leader is upset that the RNC is calling him an Obstructionist. He can easily dispell that tag by simply deciding not to be one.

Instead, he has decided that he would rather pander to the left than govern for his constituents. Instead of opening a dialog with the President, he called the President out before his agenda was presented to Congress or judicial Nominee one had been named.

Harry, I got a hint for you. No one can make you something you do not want to be. Dont like the label? Dont be one then.

Comments

Deference

on Feb 08, 2005

Dont like the label? Dont be one then.

Translation: Do what we want or we will call you naughty names and blatantly attempt to smear you just like we did Sen. Cleland and countless others with damaging whisper campaigns.

One week after the president said he wanted resolution between the parties, the RNC publishes it's hit piece fiercely attacking Reid (the Minority Leader) on a professional and personal level. Reid has called upon the president to openly repudiate the piece found in the newsletter being circulated by the President's Party organization in the spirit of nonpartisanship. The W.H. and G.W. himself remain quiet and classless. ..

..almost as classless as certain bloggers who openly espouse and defend such tactics. You should be ashamed Dr. Guy.

Dr Guy

on Feb 08, 2005

Dont like the label? Dont be one then.

Translation: Do what we want or we will call you naughty names and blatantly attempt to smear you just like we did Sen. Cleland and countless others with damaging whisper campaigns.

One week after the president said he wanted resolution between the parties, the RNC publishes it's hit piece fiercely attacking Reid (the Minority Leader) on a professional and personal level. Reid has called upon the president to openly repudiate the piece found in the newsletter being circulated by the President's Party organization in the spirit of nonpartisanship. The W.H. and G.W. himself remain quiet and classless. ..

..almost as classless as certain bloggers who openly espouse and defend such tactics. You should be ashamed Dr. Guy.

Wrong Translation. What is so oblique about the English Language that you fail to understand the written word? NO one told him to 'do what we want'. NO one asked him not to vote against Bush.

Neither of them is what an obstructionist is. And calling an apple an apple is not an attack on any level.

Now read this carefully. If he does not want the label (which some would find to be an honor, he apparently does not), then dont be one.

See how simple it is when you read instead of interpreting? You no more know what I am thinking than you know what Reid is thinking. But you presume to know everything. I think the shame is all yours.

Next time, make a relevant comment, not an off topic diatribe when you cannot understand the subject material.

thatoneguyinslc

on Feb 08, 2005

Maybe if the repubs didn't assume the dems would go blindly along with dubya they could get something done.

Since were on the subject of the english language, here's one for you...Compromise? EVERY president in recent history knows the definition of this word. dubya on the other hand...

The current administration has no concept of the definition. This is what upsets the dems. The arrogance behind the notion that the right is...Well...Right all the time is probably the biggest roadblock in Washington. So what does the GOP leadership do? they spin it to make the other guys look bad!

How Rovian! ( I just made that term up, but i think it's fitting)

Rovian: Adj.
1. Misinformation used to confuse the electorate and discredit the opposition at all costs.
2. To create a problem and then blame it on the opposition.

Used in a sentence: "Rovian tactics benefit no one!"

Dr Guy

on Feb 08, 2005

ob·struc·tion·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-strksh-nst,
n.

One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster.

NOw where does it say he has to go along with Bush? I dont see that in the definition. What I do see is:

by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster

Does that say he has to vote for Bush? Why cant you read what is written instead of trying to read a person's mind?

Your post is off topic and trolling.

thatoneguyinslc

on Feb 08, 2005

Swing and a miss Guy! It's right on topic!

How can you say that the GOP's hands are clean here?

What the GOP is doing to Harry is disgusting. But it's pretty much business as usual for them.

drmiler

on Feb 08, 2005

Swing and a miss Guy! It's right on topic!

How can you say that the GOP's hands are clean here?

What the GOP is doing to Harry is disgusting. But it's pretty much business as usual for them.

Your the one with the swing and miss. First off, oh non-comprehender is that NOWHERE did the claim come out that the GOPs hands were clean. Show proof!

Since were on the subject of the english language, here's one for you...Compromise? EVERY president in recent history knows the definition of this word. dubya on the other hand...

The current administration has no concept of the definition. This is what upsets the dems. The arrogance behind the notion that the right is...Well...Right all the time is probably the biggest roadblock in Washington. So what does the GOP leadership do? they spin it to make the other guys look bad!

This is SO MUCH ca-ca!!!! He has offered compromises to those democratic clowns and been shot down for his trouble.

What the GOP is doing to Harry is disgusting. But it's pretty much business as usual for them.

I guess you don't like it when we call the kettle black, huh?

Dr Guy

on Feb 08, 2005

Swing and a miss Guy! It's right on topic!

How can you say that the GOP's hands are clean here?

What the GOP is doing to Harry is disgusting. But it's pretty much business as usual for them.

The topic is not on the DNC or the RNC. The topic is on one Harry Reid not wanting to be called an obstructionist. You have yet to post one word on that topic. But you sure are slinging mud, with no substantiation, on topics all over the board. All you have is a "nah nah nah you do it too" stupid version of a kids game.

Now do you want to comment on the topic? Or I will just ignore your irrelevant posts.

And I checked Websters. Obstructionist is not a dirty name. SO there is no name calling. Labeling? Sure, but not name calling.

Dr Guy

on Feb 08, 2005

What the GOP is doing to Harry is disgusting. But it's pretty much business as usual for them.

ANd O, BTW. Cut with the wounded duck crap. It is not dirty, it is not mean. It is either factual or not. Time will tell, but if what Reid has said is what he does, it is also factual.

Deference

on Feb 08, 2005

Now read this carefully. If he does not want the label (which some would find to be an honor, he apparently does not), then dont be one.

Opposing the current agenda is a noble and rightful duty that must be spearheaded by the minority leadership, very similar to Gingrich and the "Republican Revolution" during the mid-90's.

Your failure to be fully informed of the entire situation is also quite obvious, either that or you willfully ignore all the details of this incident, leading you to assume that Reid's just mad that he was labeled. Instead of broadening your knowledge on the actual context, you change the topic to whether or not I translated "obstructionist" correctly utilizing the dictionary to hold your back. Lame, and a spectacular display of total miscomprehension. Here's a link to aid you in better understanding the story (though you would be best served to keep diggin'). Just 'cause I'm nice.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7560834&src=rss/ElectionCoverage

Furthermore, whether you agree or not, it's quite obvious to anyone with eyes or ears that the White House and the RNC have Reid in their sights. This is because he is the minority leader charged with opposing the Republican agenda. Going ahead with the agenda would lose the label, but also the fight; disagree, and suddenly he's not the opposing party to debate with, he's just an "obstructionist". This tactic is designed to degrade and discredit Reid while forcing the issue without actually confronting it. I shouldn't have to spell this out.

Obstructionist....ranks right up there with "unpatriotic" and "we'll leave Iraq when we get 'r done"....

More bad rhetoric for the followers....

Get a grip and inform yourself on this situation.

Daiwa

on Feb 09, 2005

Opposing the current agenda is a noble and rightful duty that must be spearheaded by the minority leadership, very similar to Gingrich and the "Republican Revolution" during the mid-90's.

def -

Ahem... What Gingrich and others did with the Contract with America was not attempt to obstruct or oppose the sitting President, but propose an alternative set of principles and objectives that they pledged to pursue. I haven't heard Harry Reid offer any substantive alternatives - he's just said, in so many words, "Over our dead bodies. Whatever, just not while we're still breathing." His response to the SOTU was pathetically rambling and irrelevant, to boot. Made me nostalgic for Daschle (well, almost). And it's hard for me to accept that the label obstructionist is just a Republican invention when Harry came out of the gate pledging to be just that. He may not like the label now, but it accurately describes his political strategy. And since when is it "noble" to oppose simply for the sake of opposing? What happened to ideas, principles, things like that? Surely you're not saying the minority should oppose a good idea just because the majority propose it, as if the political process is supposed to be just some sort of modern-day joust.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2005

Opposing the current agenda is a noble and rightful duty that must be spearheaded by the minority leadership, very similar to Gingrich and the "Republican Revolution" during the mid-90's.

Read this carefully, and maybe understand. No one is asking him to SUPPORT anything! Just to not obstruct it. Give it an up or down vote!

ob·struc·tion·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-strksh-nst,

n.
One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster.

See? Nothing about voting against anything. The definition clearly states 'impede.......delaying tactics, such as filibuster'.

Why cant you liberals understand the simple written word?

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2005

Your failure to be fully informed of the entire situation is also quite obvious, either that or you willfully ignore all the details of this incident, leading you to assume that Reid's just mad that he was labeled. Instead of broadening your knowledge on the actual context, you change the topic to whether or not I translated "obstructionist" correctly utilizing the dictionary to hold your back. Lame, and a spectacular display of total miscomprehension. Here's a link to aid you in better understanding the story (though you would be best served to keep diggin'). Just 'cause I'm nice.

Unfortunately for you, I am fully informed. I guess you did not hear Reid saying he would filibuster Judicial nominees? That is being an obstructionist.Period. Your condescending and stupid response does not make for an intelligent debate, just more mis-understanding on your part.

And one last thing before I ignore your further mis-informed rantings. Gingrich, being in the house, never filibustered ANYTHING as that is purely a Senate option. He did oppose many of Clintons policies, as was his right. As is Reid right. No one said anything to the contrary.

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2005

Obstructionist....ranks right up there with "unpatriotic" and "we'll leave Iraq when we get 'r done"....

Ah! When you lose the arguement, you resort to alledging slurs not in evidence. How pathetic. No one said anything about unpatriotic, except the democrats, and no on, except you equated obstructionist with it. Get off the kick. You sure dont know what you are talking about, at least not from these postings

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2005

Ahem... What Gingrich and others did with the Contract with America was not attempt to obstruct or oppose the sitting President, but propose an alternative set of principles and objectives that they pledged to pursue.

Insightful!

And for Deference and Thatoneguy, Gingrich allowed all the issues to come up for a vote. He voted many of them down, as is his right, but they got a vote. Daschle and Daschle Jr (Reid) are the ones saying no vote. Filibuster. And that, regardless of what you want to twist the english language around as (what is the meaning of is?) is an Obstructionist.

drmiler

on Feb 09, 2005

Now read this carefully. If he does not want the label (which some would find to be an honor, he apparently does not), then dont be one.

Opposing the current agenda is a noble and rightful duty that must be spearheaded by the minority leadership, very similar to Gingrich and the "Republican Revolution" during the mid-90's.

Your failure to be fully informed of the entire situation is also quite obvious, either that or you willfully ignore all the details of this incident, leading you to assume that Reid's just mad that he was labeled. Instead of broadening your knowledge on the actual context, you change the topic to whether or not I translated "obstructionist" correctly utilizing the dictionary to hold your back. Lame, and a spectacular display of total miscomprehension. Here's a link to aid you in better understanding the story (though you would be best served to keep diggin'). Just 'cause I'm nice.

Link

Furthermore, whether you agree or not, it's quite obvious to anyone with eyes or ears that the White House and the RNC have Reid in their sights. This is because he is the minority leader charged with opposing the Republican agenda. Going ahead with the agenda would lose the label, but also the fight; disagree, and suddenly he's not the opposing party to debate with, he's just an "obstructionist". This tactic is designed to degrade and discredit Reid while forcing the issue without actually confronting it. I shouldn't have to spell this out.

Obstructionist....ranks right up there with "unpatriotic" and "we'll leave Iraq when we get 'r done"....

More bad rhetoric for the followers....

Get a grip and inform yourself on this situation.

I read your link and I find NOTHING in it that reputes the original post of this thread. *You* get a grip an GET informed. He was labeled by the adiministration as an obstructionist didn't care for the *label* and asked Bush to pull a *hit piece*. Case closed. What's your beef?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!