Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Stymied by mean Harry Reid

First, it was Olympia Snowe who, back in July, said she’d support the bill but for the restriction on amendments. The bill in question was the small business tax credit expansion that the administration was pushing, and which eventually became law without Snowe’s support. The Maine Republican had actually authored many of the bill’s key provisions, one of which enabled larger businesses to qualify for Small Business Administration loans. But when faced with the prospect of breaking with her no-on-everything-Obama-proposes Republican caucus and voting to allow debate on the bill to begin, she couldn’t do it. She was all for expanding help to small business, she averred, but mean Harry Reid wouldn’t allow enough amendments.

Fast forward two months: Today, it was Snowe’s fellow Maine Republican, Susan Collins, who refused to allow debate to begin on a bill she supports – the Defense Authorization Act, which includes a repeal of the armed forces’ "don’t ask, don’t tell" ban on gays and lesbians in the military – for the very same reason: Mean Harry Reid wouldn’t allow sufficient amendments.

Collins and Snowe find themselves in the identical predicament: Their party has issued a death sentence on virtually every Obama proposal, even proposals that Snowe and Collins, presumably the two most moderate members of the Republican caucus, support. How do they square this circle? They vote with their party to keep the measures they support from even coming to the floor of the Senate. On the grounds that there will be insufficient deliberation on the measure, due to mean Harry Reid’s rule, they vote to ensure there will be no deliberation at all. In consequence of today’s vote, gays and lesbians who want to serve our country will still be thrown out of the army, and immigrants who come here as children will also be denied the right to earn their citizenship by serving in the army or completing college. But then, the Republicans are counting on the votes this November of people who don’t like gays, lesbians or immigrants, and god forbid Snowe or Collins do anything to diminish their party’s chances.

Don’t blame them, though. It’s mean Harry Reid’s fault.

By Harold Meyerson  | September 21, 2010; 5:49 PM ET
Categories:  Meyerson  | Tags:  Harold Meyerson  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Please, Dinesh, analyze me!
Next: Obama's national security comments: feel safer yet?

Comments

You wrote this why?

Posted by: g8rrick | September 21, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Meyerson wrote this post to illustrate that the GOP need to rebuild their political capital after the horrendous screw-up of Cheney-Bush, and they aren't going to let principles stand in their way.

Posted by: karenfink | September 21, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

whiner.

Posted by: delusional1 | September 21, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Harry wrote this because he is desperate to lay the blame on someone other than the Democratic Party.

Poor Harry, the Democrats have held the legislature since 2006 and the presidency since 2009. Yet with all that fire power they still are unable to impose their will.

No matter the issue the Democrats can't heard enough Democratic cats into the "yes" column on any particular issue without spending gobs of public money to bribe Democrats who don't vote party.

Harry and the rest of the Socialcrats can try to blame it on Republicans but every sentient citizen knows the blame lies with the Democrats.

And Harry Reid? He is so confused he voted WITH the Republicans to kill the bill. Harry is so desperate to keep his seat he will abandon what few principles he has left.

Posted by: krankyman | September 21, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

The DREAM Act is not about "immigrants." It's about ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Let me repeat it a few more times so you learn accurate terminology:

ILLEGAL ALIENS.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Posted by: sinz52 | September 21, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

sinz52 wrote:

The DREAM Act is not about "immigrants." It's about ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Let me repeat it a few more times so you learn accurate terminology:

ILLEGAL ALIENS.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.
=======================================

Clearly you don't comprehend nuance...The DREAM Act is about affording on opportunity for minor children of ILLEGAL ALIENS to earn a legitimate spot in our society. Do you honestly hold these minor children accountable for the "sins of their father's"?

Posted by: papag00se | September 21, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

You know, the Republican electorate are so tough and macho, maybe our gay service men an women should just tap those brave Republicans that would deny them their dignity to take their place. Let's start with Rush and Glenn, the paragons of the new GOP. I find it appalling that the cowards on the right still can find the votes to deny people who are saving their sorry @$$es, their full rights as citizens. But then again, they are the masters of hipocracy.

Posted by: rcasero | September 21, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Politicians follow the people they represent or they get kicked out.

Why don't you show us how its done Meyerson and do something heroic that gets you fired as a WaPo propagandist?

Posted by: scott3 | September 21, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Gays and lesbians who want to serve "will be thrown out"??? This kind of fact distortion destroys any credibility you might otherwise have.

Posted by: doug7772 | September 22, 2010 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Sure, all the Gay community wants is repeal of DADT. Well, I guess they also want to be married. Oh yeah, they should also be able to adopt children. And they don't want to see any written or spoken opinions (i.e., hate speech) that are negative about them. And if we could just quit citing refernces in the Bible to homosexuality as a sin. Certainly, chuch's of all denominations should recognize their marriage. And what's wrong with a little affectionate embrace in the middle of a hot night in the desert? After all, its just DADT, right?

Posted by: doug7772 | September 22, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Quit whining Meyerson. Maybe if the democrats stopped their ram and jam legislation tactics, and considered bipartisanship, you'd get more then our two moderate republicans to vote...matter of fact, you'd probably would have gotten them all.

Wasn't Obama supposed to be the great conciliator? Mr. Bipartisan? Why don't you write about that for a change. Every speech he gives is anti-republican statements.

Posted by: scottsafe | September 22, 2010 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Senate rules ditate that the minority party can use the filibuster to slow down or stop the majority party in their tracks. Don't blame Majority leader Harry Reid for that. President Thomas Jefferson is the man that should be blamed. He set up the two party political system and gave the senate minority party more power than the majority party. The majority party must find a way to outwit the obstructionist minority party. We have gridlock in the senate now. Without the filibuster, all hell would break loose. President Jefferson was a very smart Man. America needs smart Men like him in the Senate today.

Posted by: ODDOWL | September 22, 2010 2:21 AM | Report abuse

Harry Reid is a scheming weasel and everybody knows it. He poisoned a military bill with two hated provisions and then dared Republicans to stop it.

They took the dare and threw a political pie in dirty Harry's face. Good for them!

Democrats are bringing defeat upon themselves.

Posted by: battleground51 | September 22, 2010 5:41 AM | Report abuse

I am reading all the posts. There seems to be an emphasis on partisan politics and "individual rights". This is not really the point of the DADT policy. For anyone who has spent time living and sleeping in close quarters with a lot of other guys, the last thing gays themselves need is for everyone to know their sexual preference. I don't really think people who support ending this policy really understand what they are wishing for.

Posted by: ExNavy | September 22, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Harold, I love how youleave out important facts when you say, "...immigrants who come here as children will also be denied the right to earn their citizenship..." What he is really saying is "...children brought to this country in violation of our immigration laws will be denied the right to earn their citizenship..." Hey Harold, if you really believe in these kids having the opportunity to earn their citizenship, then why do you sugarcoat their immigration status?

I agree that these kids just came here with their parents, and the fact that they are here isn't really their fault. However, stop with the intellectual dishonesty. They are here ILLEGALLY. They are ILLEGAL immigrants. They are the children of ILLEGAL immigrants. A compelling arguement can be made for this policy, but playing word games with what their status is in order to make those who oppose this policy look a-holes turns off those who see both sides of the arguement, and possibly could have been persuaded to back this policy.

Posted by: mathewcarson1975 | September 22, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

sinz52 wrote:

The DREAM Act is not about "immigrants." It's about ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Let me repeat it a few more times so you learn accurate terminology:

ILLEGAL ALIENS.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.
=======================================

Clearly you don't comprehend nuance...The DREAM Act is about affording on opportunity for minor children of ILLEGAL ALIENS to earn a legitimate spot in our society. Do you honestly hold these minor children accountable for the "sins of their father's"?
-----------------------------------------
Thousands of American Citizens can't afford the tuition to go out of state and best Universities and Congress wants to give that opportunity only to children Illegally in the country.

It's an Unconstitutional "Bill of Attainder."
"Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial."


Why does Congress want to PUNISH US Citizens for not being Illegal?

Posted by: ddoiron1 | September 22, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Harold, immigrants and illegal aliens. They are not the same. "Immigrants" knock on the door, follow strict protocols, work, obey the laws and if they are lucky, get to stay in this country. Illegal aliens sneak in at night, and no matter how many times they are caught keep coming back. It's like the difference between a house guest and someone who moves into your house while you are away on vacation. At least you can get house guests to go home.

And your guy Obama wants it to be illegal for people like me to even give illegal immigrants in my house an eviction notice.

Opinion columnist and fool go together when I think about your work.

Posted by: buggerianpaisley1 | September 22, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

god liberals are idiots. by the way, illegals do not have a right to become citizens. otherwise they would be 'legals". an amendment that conditions citizenship at birth on the legal presence of at least one parent is long overdue. its the one law europe has that actually makes sense and dems think they can make people think its reapealing the post-civil war amendments. that is why they are not the party of the constitution. they mislead the public about it and they ignore the proper amendment procedures in favor of legislating from the bench.

Posted by: dummypants | September 22, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Clearly you don't comprehend nuance...The DREAM Act is about affording on opportunity for minor children of ILLEGAL ALIENS to earn a legitimate spot in our society. Do you honestly hold these minor children accountable for the "sins of their father's"?
******

that is never the end of the argument where 3rd party beneficiaries of illegal activities are concerned. contract law asks whether the 3rd party beneficiary was intended or merely incidental. if they were an intended beneficiary then the benefit is taken away. the priniciple is simple and common sensical. we dont let people achieve their goals through illegal means as it would incentive behavior we have already decided to discourage by making it ILLEGAL. which is why you need to resort to emotion and irrationality.

Posted by: dummypants | September 22, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The Republican Party has simply run amok. God help us all.

Posted by: bertram2 | September 22, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Would you rather have them replaced with red-meat Republican's? Having received my citizenship due to military service, I think it's a terrible idea to not allow illegal immigrants who are raised in this country, basically, to serve and earn citizenship. Would any of the critical commentators care to take their place in Afghanistan? I think not.

Posted by: Fergie303 | September 22, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans and Democrats alike were put into office to the bidding of the people, not for there personal gain. But today we have Republicans who are concerned for there self and not for the people who voted them into office. Since they refuse to follow the Constitution and the peoples will then its time to vote them out of office and in some case start on removing them from office for incompetence and not supporting the peoples will. When politicians refuse to honor Federal Courts rulings on Unconstitutionality and its discrimination against American its time for the once voting against what is right and in best interest of society its time for them to go. McCain is one of the first to who should get the boot.

Posted by: josephmichaelcos | September 22, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I wish someone would say what the amendments are that the GOP apparently wants to offer. If these amendments are of the cynical and asinine variety they offered during the health reform debate, then I understand where Reid is coming from.
I think it should also be pointed out that the majority has always handled legislation in a similar manner, but with a 24-hour news cycle and constant coverage of every deal and miscue on the part of politicians, we are actually seeing the process for what it is. The politics, regardless of party, hasn't changed drastically, it's the media coverage that has.

Posted by: joehorn | September 22, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

If repealing DADT is so important to Democrats, why don't they bring it up at a measure on its own, instead of trying to sneak it through as an amendment on a Defense Authorization bill?

You can rail against Republicans all you want, Meyerson. Democrats are the true gutless ones. We all know it. There's really no reason to try to hide the truth anymore.

Oh, and you forgot to mention the ridiculous DREAM Act that Prince Harry also tried to sneak through. It won't save his own skin in Nevada.

Posted by: etpietro | September 22, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Mr. Meyerson. I agree completely and heard the Republican whiners yesterday complaining about Sen. Reid being the problem when it is their total obstructionism that is the problem. Sens. Snow and Collins are cowards in my book for not doing what they know is right because they need to go along with the party.

Posted by: baileywickFL | September 22, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Harold, this is contrary to the Post's own reporting. According to your stories Reid had Collins in his pocket, but he wanted an amendment to allow illegals to become legal by going to college. This is pure granstanding for the Hispanic vote on Reid's part and something very few Americans would actually support. I have mixed feeling about the Tea Party. On the one hand, they put up candidates that will allow for Dems to do better in the general election. On the other hand, they are going to help keep the loathesome Reid in pwer!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 22, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse


Sure, all the Gay community wants is repeal of DADT. Well, I guess they also want to be married. Oh yeah, they should also be able to adopt children. And they don't want to see any written or spoken opinions (i.e., hate speech) that are negative about them. And if we could just quit citing refernces in the Bible to homosexuality as a sin. Certainly, chuch's of all denominations should recognize their marriage. And what's wrong with a little affectionate embrace in the middle of a hot night in the desert? After all, its just DADT, right?

Posted by: doug7772
**************************

Conservative slippery slope argumentation at its best. All of your syllogism is true--that's what most GLBT folks have expressed as their desire re: civil rights.....until that last bit about forcing churches to recognize marriages.

Marriage is a civil responsibility, managed by local government. Most folks except social conservatives want all STATES--not churches--to recognize marriages between any two people who qualify. Churches are and will always be free to recognize or not, just as, for example, the Catholic Church refuses to give non-Catholics communion.

Oh, and the furtive embraces in the desert that seem to have piqued your prurient interest are happening now, along with heterosexual liaisons of all types. Open your eyes, friend.

Posted by: abqcleve | September 22, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

You get paid for this garbage?

Posted by: ravioliman6666 | September 22, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

papag00se, you wrote the following:
"Clearly you don't comprehend nuance...The DREAM Act is about affording on opportunity for minor children of ILLEGAL ALIENS to earn a legitimate spot in our society. Do you honestly hold these minor children accountable for the "sins of their father's"?"

Since when are illegal aliens who snuck into this country before they were 15, and are now up to 35 years of age in the senate version and no upper age limit in the house version, MINOR CHILDREN? This legislation is not for the minor children of illegal aliens, they are already U.S. citizens.


Posted by: colonyr | September 22, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

sinz52 wrote:

The DREAM Act is not about "immigrants." It's about ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Let me repeat it a few more times so you learn accurate terminology:

ILLEGAL ALIENS.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.
=======================================

Clearly you don't comprehend nuance...The DREAM Act is about affording on opportunity for minor children of ILLEGAL ALIENS to earn a legitimate spot in our society. Do you honestly hold these minor children accountable for the "sins of their father's"?
-----------------------------------------
Thousands of American Citizens can't afford the tuition to go out of state and best Universities and Congress wants to give that opportunity only to children Illegally in the country.

It's an Unconstitutional "Bill of Attainder."
"Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial."


Why does Congress want to PUNISH US Citizens for not being Illegal?
**************************************************************
Where does the act say the children of illegal aliens will get free/cheaper tuition? If you can't point out where, then your argument falls to pieces.

Heck, we need all of the college educated people we can get in this country, so that we can stay ahead of countries like China and India technologically, and we need all the people who are willing to serve in the military, for obvious reasons. Why are we refusing them the opportunity to help the US?

Posted by: dfritzin | September 22, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

@PapaGoose:

"Clearly you don't comprehend nuance...The DREAM Act is about affording on opportunity for minor children of ILLEGAL ALIENS to earn a legitimate spot in our society."

******************

WRONG! The Senate version gives amnesty to "children" up to age 35. The House version has no age cap at all.

Obamacare considers people up to age 26 are "children." DREAM Act considers everybody a "child."

Typical Progressive thinking -- EVERYONE is a child and needs to be nurtured and cared for by Mommy Government.

Posted by: pmendez | September 22, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

@DFritzin:

"Where does the act say the children of illegal aliens will get free/cheaper tuition?" -- DREAM Act would make illegal aliens eligible for in-state tuition rates. Something the children of military families don't always get. Since there is a finite number of in-state slots at a state university, and since "minority" students are favored over whites for admission purposes, DREAM Act would allow black, hispanic and asian illegal alien students to bump marginal white American citizens off the admission rolls.

"Heck, we need all of the college educated people we can get in this country, so that we can stay ahead of countries like China and India technologically," -- You mean like the Indian engineers who designed this bridge and these dorms???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100921/sp_wl_afp/cgames2010india_20100921134711

We need all the college-educated US CITIZENS we can get.

Posted by: pmendez | September 22, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Myerson couldn't you at least mentioned the fact that Harry Reid tried to sneak two items through on the defense authorization bill. One being the Don't Ask Don't tell provision that you put your own slant on. The second which you somehow forgot to mention was the Dream Act Provision. Why didn't he just put forward the defense authorization bill on it's own. In the Las Vegas newspaper he accused the Republicans of playing politics. That was rich. He knew this bill would not pass with the 2 amendments but that was not his purpose. He just wanted to pander to the Gays and Hispanics because he is treading water in his campaign. He could care less about them, he only cares about himself.

Posted by: fedupgmcd | September 22, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Quit whining Meyerson. Maybe if the democrats stopped their ram and jam legislation tactics, and considered bipartisanship, you'd get more then our two moderate republicans to vote...matter of fact, you'd probably would have gotten them all.

Wasn't Obama supposed to be the great conciliator? Mr. Bipartisan? Why don't you write about that for a change. Every speech he gives is anti-republican statements.

Posted by: scottsafe
_____________________
there can be no bipartisanship when one party proposes something and then opposes it when Obama agrees with them. There's nothing Obama and the dems could offer that would get a Republican vote. They have bet the farm that they can oppose everything and then take credit for doing just that in November.

Posted by: JoeT1 | September 22, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid isn't "mean". I think it's more accurate to say he lack integrity and he's incompetent. But mean? Nah.

Posted by: Skeptic1 | September 22, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

You seem to have overlooked a few things. One, Senator Reid stated that he specifically inserted the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" for political purposes. Changing this policy deserves a full debate. Second, when you talk about immigrant children not being allowed to serve in the Army to earn citizenship, or to get an education, you somehow overlook the fact that these children are in the US illegally, and should be deported to the country of which they are a citizen. If they want to come to this country, they can sign up to immigrate legally. Not requiring this is a kick in the face to all of those who follow the rules to get their green card. If we would deport all of those here illegally, we could allow more legal immigration. If the illegal immigrants want to be here, then they should follow our rules to get here. We need to fully protect our borders. It would almost be worth it to annex Mexico, they would protect their southern border, which would become our southern border. The could get representation in our Congress [maybe even allow each Mexican state to become a US state, which would give them a large representation in the Senate. And then they could get an education, serve in the military, all of those things. We might even get control of their crime problem, if their police could integrate with ours.

Posted by: Isaldur43 | September 22, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The Dream Act proponents talk about "punishing" children.
That's a misnomer.
It's also disrespectful to other countries.
Other countries are not jails.
There's no punishment involved in living in your country of origin where you retain citizenship.
I wish all illegal aliens well when they return home.
America no longer has enough jobs for illegals.

Posted by: jfv123 | September 22, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The dems played fast and loose with procedure when they tried to attach this DADT to a defense spending bill.

They also added an amnesty for a huge amount of illegal aliens to this same defense bill.

Both issues are far too important and deserve a full debate each - not being sneaked into a defense funding bill.

Don't blame the Republicans for this one - blame the demmies for trying to be unethical.

Remember how they passed Obamacare late on a Sunday afternoon and then gloated over it?

Remember in November!


Posted by: mlemac | September 22, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

THEY PULLED HARRY'S PANTS DOWN AND EXPOSED HIM FOR BEING A POOR LEADER. LET HIM TAKE THE CONSEQUENCE.

Posted by: DANSHANTEAL1 | September 22, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

...hey, let's just listen to Snowe, Collins and the failed GOP, and go back to cut taxes / cut govt that we tried for the 3 decades of the Reagan/Bush era. In fact, let's get ANOTHER big tax cut to the wealthiest as we did in 1981 and 2001.

I mean, that worked SO well to deliver Trickle Down prosperity. Almost nobody is unemployed now. And the banks and oil companies and health insurers, heck - they POLICED THEMSELVES!!! Get government out of the WAY by golly!

Abe Lincoln would have said;
"You can fool some of the people, ALL of the time"... ;^)

- Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | September 22, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

papag00se wrote: Clearly you don't comprehend nuance...The DREAM Act is about affording on opportunity for minor children of ILLEGAL ALIENS to earn a legitimate spot in our society. Do you honestly hold these minor children accountable for the "sins of their father's"?

It is YOU who do not understand the legal definition of illegal alien. Those children are here illegally just as their parents. These are not anchor babies these are people who have no legal right to be in this country and YES I hold them accountable. Both they and their parents need to be deported not made citizens. This country by 72% says NO which part of that word does our politicians not understand? Vote might be one word that a politician can understand. If they fail to block these idiotic attempts they will pay with their job.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | September 22, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

you know, the people who are most vocal against gays and their rights are usually worried about their own sexual urges. Eh, doug?

Posted by: sux123 | September 22, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Oh Meyerson you are so full of crap. You're also being really disingenuous here. Senator Collins supports the repeal of DADT and Senator Lugar is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act. What both of them don't want is to help Reid pander to Latinos as he fights for his political life.

So yeah, it really is Reid's fault.

Posted by: bbface21 | September 22, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey, when can we expect all the TARP money to start trickling down?

I thought trickle down worked. Why is everybody in the GOP so angry. We gave the money to the richest banks in the world. Just what the doctor ordered.

Wait for it... Wait for it...

Posted by: Double_Handle | September 22, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I say the Dems fight back by writing a bill in support of a 100% tax cut for all, the rounding up of all illegal immigrants who will then be put on barges and pushed toward Antarctica, the destruction of every mosque in the US, incarceration of all non-Christians, and free beer and flags for anyone who can't spell "herd."

And then refuse to deliberate on it and blame McConnell and Boehner.

Posted by: Double_Handle | September 22, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Nobody ever regretted underestimating the intelligence of the American Electorate.

Stupid is as Stupid does. 2 terms for George Boosh?

I mean, you've heard of the Greatest Generation? Well, this will go down in history as the Stupidest and Meanest.

Sad part is, they will drag the entire nation down with them.

What used to be called "Common Decency" is not called "Socialism."

By the current standards, Jesus would have been deported as a Socialist. I can't recall... What exactly did Jesus DO for a living? I mean, how did he eat?

Get a job, Jesus! And go back to your country!

Posted by: Double_Handle | September 22, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Sure, all the Gay community wants is repeal of DADT. Well, I guess they also want to be married. Oh yeah, they should also be able to adopt children. And they don't want to see any written or spoken opinions (i.e., hate speech) that are negative about them. And if we could just quit citing refernces in the Bible to homosexuality as a sin. Certainly, chuch's of all denominations should recognize their marriage. And what's wrong with a little affectionate embrace in the middle of a hot night in the desert? After all, its just DADT, right?
-------------------------------------------
What exactly is the problem with homosexuals adopting children? I get it, against abortion but also against adoption by capable adults wanting to provide a child with a better life.

And you can stop with all the nonsense about churches recognizing gay marriage. Marriages recognized by the church and by the state are two completely different things. I believe most gays couples want the rights married couples are afforded by the states (i.e., property, visitation) and could care less whether it is sanctioned by a specific church.

Regarding DADT, it amazes me that the Republic Party has no problem starting these endless wars but then wants to turn away patriotic Americans who are willing to fight for their country.

Posted by: teamohall | September 22, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scottsafe

Quit whining Meyerson. Maybe if the democrats stopped their ram and jam legislation tactics, and considered bipartisanship, you'd get more then our two moderate republicans to vote...matter of fact, you'd probably would have gotten them all.

Wasn't Obama supposed to be the great conciliator? Mr. Bipartisan? Why don't you write about that for a change. Every speech he gives is anti-republican statements.
-------------------------------------------
Where was all the call for bi-partisianship during the first 6 years under Bush when the Republic party was a rubber stamp for the Bush Agenda. Remember that surplus after Clinton left office that W and the Repubs turned into a record deficit. And the statement by Darth Cheney that deficits don't matter?

Maybe if the Grand Obstructionist Party would offer some ideas instead of just stonewalling, you'd get some attempts a compromise. But that's the point, isn't it? Say no to everything and then shout that the other side is not playing nice. Typical Republiscum tactics.

Posted by: teamohall | September 22, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

This article is incoherent.

Posted by: hz9604 | September 22, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

This is, uh, Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, senior member, a 20-year veteran and am chair of the subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security compound of three buildings being built on the uh, old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with uh, 15 other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the stimulus.

Posted by: stinkingtuna | September 22, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse


Harry Reid played the game and lost. Reid is a buffoon. He handed his party a major embarrassing defeat less than six weeks before the elections.

Posted by: screwjob21 | September 22, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid is a career politician. With all of the disgusting traits that come with being such a person. He is arrogant, aloof, mean, deaf, and not too bright. He will do anything to stay in power. As if the United States can't do without him. We sure can do without him. This man has no Honor. He does not deserve to be a Senator of the United States Congress.

Posted by: bobbo2 | September 22, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

The only immigration reform that the majority of American citizens want is reform that finally funds border enforcement, stepped-up and sped-up deportations, prosecution of employers of illegals. THAT is all the reform that is needed for the current immigration laws already on the books.

There already is a "pathway to citizenship." You start from your country of origin, you then apply to migrate LEGALLY into the USA. Then, you wait while you are checked out, verified, and if and only if approved, THEN you may enter the USA and become a citizen. THAT is the pathway to citizenship. If you are in the USA illegally, go back home to your country of origin, get back to the end of the line. MAYBE then you can earn the right to be a citizen.

Enforce CURRENT immigration laws already on the books. Arrest and deport every illegal immigrant. Deny anchor babies the right to citizenship if both parents are not legal citizens. 12-20 million people living in the USA illegally are not immigrants, they are invaders.

Secure the border, and you will stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants. The Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall, and the current security walls in Israel/West Bank ALL prove that if you are serious about securing your borders, it CAN BE DONE. To those who say "you can't expect all 12-20 million illegal immigrants to leave:" YES WE CAN, if we want to. It's been done before, Mexican Repatriation it was called, back then. See: Wikipedia entry for Mexican Repatriation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

There is an endless pot of taxpayer money to throw at Iraq, Afganistan, and policing the oil industries' (and China's export cargo ships') safe passage. I say it's time to use our tax dollars to DEFEND the USA. It is time for us to use the National Guard literally, to guard the nation's borders.

Please spare me the sob story of breaking up families; if parents are here illegally, they can take their children back home to the parent's country of origin when deported. If you wed an illegal immigrant, you most likely knew that going into it, and if not, then your marriage is based on lies and deception. No family need be broken up; keep the family together by having them ALL go at once when the illegal is deported.

Mark Pepp
Chicago IL

Posted by: pobox10275 | September 22, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

papag00se wrote:
Clearly you don't comprehend nuance...The DREAM Act is about affording on opportunity for minor children of ILLEGAL ALIENS to earn a legitimate spot in our society. Do you honestly hold these minor children accountable for the "sins of their father's"?
===========================

Apparently "papag00se" doesn't understand that these "minor children" are ILLEGAL ALIENS. Again, what part of ILLEGAL don't these socalists understand?

Posted by: oldno7 | September 22, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

In 2009 Ranking Member Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for a remarks that affronted federal law enforcement officers. Congressman Smith’s comments came on the House Floor in response to Pelosi’s remarks at a weekend immigration rally in San Francisco, at which Pelosi said enforcement actions by ICE were “un-American.” A longtime supporter of efforts to uphold the rule of law, Smith said the comments were particularly regrettable since more than 12 million U.S. citizens and legal immigrant workers are jobless. According to the most recent Pew estimates, more than seven million illegal immigrants are working in the U.S. As a leading Democrat Pelosi Voted—NO--on building a fence along the Mexican border. Pelosi Voted—NO--on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.

Pelosi voted—YES--on extending Immigrant Residency rules. She also voted—YES-- on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. I’m all for highly skilled workers, who are highly experienced in their particular field—as t

Posted by: infinity555 | September 22, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi Quote: "In casting a vote against the defense bill, Republicans also betrayed our history of generations of immigrants who came to our shores seeking a better life and striving to take part in the American dream" so that's what majority speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks? Problem is she doesn't differentiate between the millions who came to America legally, after waiting patiently in their home country for years? While for the price of a two-way airline ticket, others arrive here with no intention to returning home. Then millions of illegal aliens who thought just by escaping their own nation and slipping past our undermanned border, they sneak into our lands under the cover of darkness. The propaganda of the Dream Act would allow hundreds of thousands of young people to get an education or serve in our military. And it is a critical step toward our ultimate goal: comprehensive immigration reform or wholesale Amnesty.

But just like all contracts, one needs to read the small print. You don't even have to be an exceptional student through Sen. Harry Reids Dream Law. Up to age 35 you can get a green card under the DREAM ACT and you can still apply if you entered the country before your fifteenth birthday. Finally, you can begin a chain migration of all immediate family members. In the end we could end up with 2 or 3 million more people, with many going on social security--without paying a penny into the pool? It's already happening now, as after the Amnesty of 1986 millions more entered the country through the "Chain Migration" and many old folks ended up on welfare benefits? Of course if you believe the governments currently they are say there is no backdoor Amnesty, but there have been several ICE memos circulated that people pulled over by the police, shouldn't be held unless they have criminal warrants to detain them. Decide for yourself, if this is a falsehood or an agenda of "Catch and Release."

Posted by: infinity555 | September 22, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

For all the repugnant Republicans and ignorant Teabaggers, Bush was responsible for US budget until Sept 30, 2009. Obama will be responsible for all the budgets from Oct 1, 2009 until Sept 30, 2013. Also, even if Democrats are in the congress from 2007, they had to pay for Bush wars and Tax cuts and Medicare advantage etc. They could not abruptly stop any of these and therefore deficits kept rising.
Now we may have all these liars running the congress, if silly democrats and independents show indifference to elections.

Posted by: Realist17 | September 22, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

That's right. How dare Collins and Snowe vote with their party. Who do they think they are? Republicans. Haven't they been conditioned enough by the Democrats to fall on their sword for the Democrats. Haven't they been conditioned to have open minds. Where's the Democrats assign to them that guides them and advises them on what's good for the GOP and how to vote. What has this country come to when moderates like Collins and Snowe votes with the Republicans. Now the Democrats are going to have to start all over again in the training and teaching of Collins and Snowe to vote with the Democrats.

Posted by: houstonian | September 22, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

pmendez wrote:

"We need all the college-educated US CITIZENS we can get."

No actually we don't. We are the most overedecuated society in the world. We need people who can do plumbing and landscaping and work on farms etc. Why do you think college costs so much? Because we push an endless supply of people into it and then establish programs to come with enormous amounts of debt to saddle them with regardless of their potential earnings power. It's econ 101 that when you have too much money (or in this case too many people) chasing too few goods inflation is automatic.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 22, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

odowl wrote:

"Senate rules ditate that the minority party can use the filibuster to slow down or stop the majority party in their tracks. Don't blame Majority leader Harry Reid for that. President Thomas Jefferson is the man that should be blamed. He set up the two party political system and gave the senate minority party more power than the majority party. The majority party must find a way to outwit the obstructionist minority party. We have gridlock in the senate now. Without the filibuster, all hell would break loose. President Jefferson was a very smart Man. America needs smart Men like him in the Senate today."

Your grasp of history is faulty at best. Jefferson though he indeed may be one of the founders of the two party system, was never a Senator and had nothing to with the filibuster rules.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 22, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid is a dolt! Harry Reid is a dolt! Harry Reid is a dolt! Harry Reid is a dolt! Harry Reid is a dolt! (Sorry, but the Democrats has made me lose my mind!) Harry Reid is a dolt! Harry Reid is a dolt!

Posted by: georges2 | September 22, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company