Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Yes, I did say that!

Senator Harry Reid, You Lie!

Advertisement

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – NV), on Monday, made comments indicating that Democratic Senators are on the wrong side of the health care reform debate. Here is a portion of Senator Reid’s comments, “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything, let's start over. If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, "Slow down, it's too early, let's wait." When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote. Some insisted they simply slow down. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

Some facts, regarding Reid’s remarks, must be stipulated. First, “us” is understood to mean Democratic Senators or Democrats in general. Second “Republicans” refers to Republican Senators or Republicans in general. Third, “history” specifically means the three historical events referenced in his remarks: slavery, women’s suffrage, and equal civil rights.

Slavery was an immoral atrocity that was tolerated, but not accepted, by most of the conservative founding fathers of the United States. However, the Constitution was written in such a way as to limit the voting power of slave owners and provide groundwork for the abolishment of slavery. It did take a long time for slavery to be abolished. However, history teaches us that it was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who finally took a stand against a strong Democratic south and refused to allow expansion of slavery. Most people would agree that the Republican President was on the right side of history.

Women’s suffrage, also known as women’s right to vote or the 19th amendment to the Constitution, was similarly supported or rejected by Democrats and Republicans. However, it was not until Democratic President Woodrow Wilson changed his position and supported the amendment that a Republican House and Democrat Senate approved the legislation. The amendment was than ratified by the states. This issue appears to have both parties on both sides of history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was proposed to Congress by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond (SC) than sustained the longest filibuster in history (over 24 hours) to stop the legislation. Thurmond’s arguments against equal civil rights were based upon his belief in segregation. Eventually, Thurmond recanted his racial positions and switched his allegiance to the Republican Party. This unsuccessful filibuster by a Democratic Senator is exactly what Reid referred to in his remarks to the Senate on Monday. Eventually, the Republican sponsored Civil Rights act was passed. Again, most people would agree that the Republican President was on the right side of history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced to Congress by Democratic President John F. Kennedy. The House Rules Committee Chairman, Democratic Representative Howard W. Smith (VA), a well known segregationist, vowed to keep the bill bottled up in committee. Before the bill came to the floor, President Kennedy was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson became President. Johnson was able to use his experience and bully pulpit to push the bill through the Democratic controlled House. The Democratic controlled Senate was also expected to kill the bill. However, the Republican Minority Leader was able to use a novel approach and moved the bill along. Even though it was filibustered by Democrats, including a 14 hour speech by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (WV), it still passed with full Republican support and a grass roots initiative by Republican Martin Luther King, Jr. Thanks to conservative Democratic President Kennedy and like-minded Republicans the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law. Once again, most people would agree that the Republican Senators that supported President Kennedy’s initiative were on the right side of history.

When put into context, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s comments are telling. In each of his examples it is clear that Democratic Senators of the past were on the wrong side of history. It was Democratic Senators that demanded the continuation of slavery. The Democrats appeared to be no more or less supportive of women’s right to vote than Republicans of the time. The Democratic Congressmen and Senators of 1957 and 1964 were avid opponents of the Civil Rights Acts. Harry Reid believes that his party has been on the right side of history.

One of two things must be true. Either the Democratic Senators of the past were on the right side of the issues discussed or they were on the wrong side. Most of America believes that they were on the wrong side of the issue. Therefore, based upon Reid’s own examples, the Democratic Senators have a history of being on the wrong side of major issues: slavery, suffrage, and civil rights. It is not difficult than, to deduce that they are probably on the wrong side of the current major issue: Health Care Reform.

Evidence has been given that Senator Reid is not telling the truth about past Democratic Senators’ positions. He purposely made statements intended to deceive his listeners into believing that Republican Senators had been guilty of the racist actions of Democratic Senators. Simply put, Harry Reid is a liar. Once again, a person should come to the obvious conclusion. Harry Reid lied about slavery, suffrage, and civil rights; he is probably lying about Health Care Reform.

Comments

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 4 months ago

Reid likely will be emtying his senate office January 2011.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate_race

Hopefully, Pelosi will be handing off the gavel. They're two revolting politicians.

0

Benjamin Roberts 4 years, 4 months ago

anti,

Your spin continues to ignore the definition of words; and words do have meaning. Harry Reid did say, "joining us on the right side of history." He did not say, " joining us on the right side of this issue," or, "joining us on the right side of making history." Further, he did give three specific examples of history that were intended to be taken out of context.

0

anti 4 years, 4 months ago

Did_I_say_that,

Harry Reid saying, “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this: Slow down…” like i said before he never stated nor implies that Republicans were on the wrong side of history but join Democrats on the right side of history on this issue. I believe you hear and see only what you want, then make assumptions based on your own political beliefs.

0

Benjamin Roberts 4 years, 4 months ago

anti (Anonymous) says… "...Reid is not trying to reverse the Republican and Democratic senator's roles in history..."

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Although, Reid did not directly state it, he was attempting to make the implication. This is evident when you simply look at his thesis (opening) statement, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this: Slow down..." This statement implies that "us" (Democrats) were on the "right" (correct) side of "history" (a chronological record of significant events); moreover, Republicans want to make it "slow down" (read as filibuster). He then lists three significant, historical events that were "slowed down" by filibuster and other tactics. Reid fully intended people to conclude that Democratic Senators led the way on eliminating slavery, ending suffrage, and passing the Civil Rights Acts. His carefully crafted words were intended to put the filibuster yoke of the past on Republican Senators of today.

As much as I disagree with the Senate Majority Leader, I admire his ability to manipulate semantics. Using only five complex sentences he managed to rewrite history, take credit for three significant historical events, and pawn off slavery, suffrage, and civil oppression to Republicans.

0

bearded_gnome 4 years, 4 months ago

DIST, excellent blog! I was profoundly offended by Reid's statement. besides being quite wrong (I have two more data points for your thesis), he was meaning to imply moral superiority for himself and those Obamanoids who want to destroy our current health care system while forcing upon us massive government control. it is no wonder his polling in his home state is sinking faster than Ted Kennedy's car.


two data points for your thesis: you mention Robert C. Byrd, former member/leader of the KKK, democrat of West Virginia. He is still in the senate, and still treated as an honored senior member of the democrat senate caucus.

furthermore, during WWII, Byrd worked very diligently to maintain the U.S. Army's racial segregation while it was in Britain. he also campaigned for black troops to have inferior recreational facilities.

note, he has never changed party. was a dem, now a dem.

indeed, a lot of spinnin' from the other side, fails.

hey, DIST, thanks for posting, if I'd had the spare time, I wanted to blog on this myself. Harry Reid in this and other nutty statements and actions illustrates the moral depravity of the modern democrat party. remember he called average american citizens exercising their constitutional rights to seek redress "evilmongers."

0

anti 4 years, 4 months ago

Did_I_say_that, Reid is not trying to reverse the Republican and Democratic senator's roles in history. He's simply saying these filibuster tactics are the same tactics used by those who were opposed to freeing the slaves, women`s suffrage and the civil rights movement. He never stated that it was Republicans that were opposed to these issues in the past. He was comparing them to the ones that were opposed. His comments might not be politically correct but absolutely true. After all, the ones that did oppose these issues are mostly Republican states now.

0

Benjamin Roberts 4 years, 4 months ago

cait48 and anti, I doubt that anyone could credibly argue that the Democratic or Republican Parties of the past are the same as those of today. However, that has nothing to do with the conclusions of the blog.

First, it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who implied that Democratic Senators of the past have been on the right side of history. Reid's conclusion; not mine. Democratic Senators upheld slavery and fought against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. I disagree with his conclusion that Democratic Senators were on the right side of history. However, based upon his conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that his triangulation proves that he is, once again, on the wrong side of history.

Second, based upon your own observations, and the misleading statements by Reid, it is obvious that the Senator is deliberately misleading people. He is trying to reverse the Republican and Democratic Senator's roles in history. This deliberate lie is indicative of Harry Reid's trustworthiness, or lack thereof. Again, Reid intentionally lied about past Democratic Senator's actions; he could be, and probably is, lying about current issues.

0

anti 4 years, 4 months ago

cait48, I absolutely agree.

0

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 4 months ago

Comparing the Democratic Party of the past with the Democratic Party of today is like comparing the Republican Party of the past with the Republican Party of today. There's an ocean of difference between Abraham Lincoln and GWB.

0

anti 4 years, 4 months ago

Did_I_say_that I'm not aware of any other senators switching at that specific time but senator names are not as important as their titles. The States constituents put them in office. The southern states before the civil war and civil rights movement were largely Democratic. Republicans were on the right side of history and Democrats were not. But to compare the Democratic party of the past with the Democratic party of the present is some what of an oxymoron.

0

Benjamin Roberts 4 years, 4 months ago

myname, Not that it actually matters to the discussion (other than as an indicator of intellect), but, which of your sentences is complete and/or grammatically correct? Now, to your point: Is it that only people from the south are on the wrong side of history?

anti, You have an interesting view point. Other than Strom Thurmond (discussed in the blog), what Senator(s) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act era have switched from Republican to Democrat or vice versa?

0

anti 4 years, 4 months ago

When President Johnson helped pass Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s he commented that: "Well, there goes the South." He meant, of course, that now the South would become Republican as they now saw the Democrats as the party standing up for the blacks. Before this, Southern Democrats were pretty solidly racist and voted to keep the racist system in place. When its voters and politicians switched to the Republican party it made the Republican party even more conservative and racist than it had ever been. The Democrats that were on the wrong side of history have since changed parties. The ideals and beliefs of the Democrats that were on the wrong side of history then, are now Republicans with these same ideals and beliefs today. Harry Reid is not lying.

0

MyName 4 years, 4 months ago

lol, okay if actually writing things in complete sentences makes me a "Spin dude" then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

0

TopJayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

My name Spin dude (or dudette) spin it. Intellectualise it. twist it, and confuse it.
See? You sound smart now!

0

TopJayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Yes, very true and typical. Sad very sad

0

MyName 4 years, 4 months ago

Umm... yeah, the problem with what you're saying is that, while the party labels may have changed, it's the same Senators doing the same thing. In the 1960s, it was the Senators from the south saying "let's keep discrimination and segregation legal", in the 1920's it was the same Senators from the South. Back in the 1860's it was the same Senators, only the issue was slavery.

So his point that those people from the South, who are trying to obstruct the majority on an important issue because they think it will hurt their standing in the short term, are on the wrong side of history is valid.

0

Benjamin Roberts 4 years, 4 months ago

Thank you, Marion. Sometimes facts do get in the way of preferred beliefs.

It is sad that mabeldenton1 went to all of the work to create an account today in order to respond to this blog only to have the comment deleted. Hopefully, mabeldenton1 will read the usage agreement and try again.

0

mabeldenton1 4 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Marion Lynn 4 years, 4 months ago

Nice post and you are indeed on the mark but you will never convince those infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome that they have become mentally ill.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.