Reid won’t work with Romney

| November 3, 2012

Well, so much for bi-partisanship. Harry Reid announced that eh won’t work with Mitt Romney. I know, it was a Big Duh, wasn’t it? I mean, after all, Reid can’t even work with his own President – he hasn’t passed a budget through the Senate since he became the Senate Majority Leader. From the Washington Times;

“Mitt Romney’s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his ‘severely conservative’ agenda is laughable,” Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney’s closing election argument that he’ll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to.

Reid accused Romney of not paying taxes in the last ten years, which didn’t pan out for him. In the last administration, Reid worked hard to undermine the security of our troops by declaring that the surge had failed before it started. He also spent the last two years of the Bush Presidency trying to de-fund the troops deployed in the war against terror, but couldn’t find room in his schedule for passing a budget.

Thanks, Nevada.

Category: Congress sucks

Comments (60)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ex-PH2 says:

    OK, this is more clear. Now I understand what you meant.

  2. DaveO says:


    Secretaries of State are important, just like knowing which whine to serve with your ketchup. It is the judges that are used to rig an election that matters.

    The voting machines count the votes, but unless a judge wishes to review the audit logs, or, like most judges, just refuse to accept the veracity built into computers, a few minutes work and the databases can say whatever the hacker wants it to say.

    We have a peculiar habit of not going after criminal conspiracies that involve election fraud.

    As for the spurious claim of legitimacy because Romney’s son is invested in the election machine – so is George Soros. So are most folks who’ve invested in Dell, Oracle, IBM, Cisco, L3Com, Microsoft and a number of other tech companies that create the hardware and software, infrastructure and administrative tools that go into a networked (LAN/MAN/WAN) enterprise of election machines.

    You really aren’t even trying to be a good troll.

  3. Insipid says:

    You’re the one arguing that there is election fraud, not me. I’m just saying that conspiracy theories exist on both sides (actually, moreso on the left). It’s an article of faith amongst many on the left that not only was 2000 stolen in Florida, but 2004 was stolen as well. There evidence is long lines and differences in exit polls etc. John Conyers wrote a whole paper called “What went wrong in Ohio.”

    Well, i was there on the ground and i can honestly say that what went wrong in Ohio was that Bush got more votes in 2000. There was no election shenanigans, there was a democratic and republican poll observer in every station and the totals were tabulated in plain sight. Ken Mehlman, to his credit, did a good job catering to and courting the rural areas of Ohio and they just out-hustled the Dems. But there was no cheating involved.

    The truth is that if you guys lose, which does seem very likely now, it is because your policies have been rejected. Not because of the novelty of a black man running for office or voter machines or illusionary dead men or whatever other excuse you’re going to come up with. You just lost. Same goes for my side… unless the SCOTUS decides to intervene again.

  4. Insipid says:

    I meant 2004 for the secont paragraph.

  5. UpNorth says:

    Insipid, if you’ve ever listened to John Conyers speak, you absolutely know that he didn’t write that alleged report. The cretin can barely speak, much less construct a credible sentence. This is the dunce who said, “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” Yeah, pretty good description of the monstrosity that is Obamacare.

  6. Insipid says:

    This “monstrosity” is already saving lives and it is a Republican idea and basically a Republican bill. I’ve heard him speak and he seems like an intelligent man to me.

    While his statement may be impolitic, it is essentially true. Legislative language is, in fact, nearly impossible for even a very educated man to read and decipher. How are you supposed to interpret prose such as “Section XYZ of the Social Security act is amended by striking ABC and adding DEF”. Or something like “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter for the purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for the purposes of section 69.”

    A congressman, or President will not spend his time reading that. He will have a staffers do it, who will translate it into normal prose and then tell him what it says. In fact, that’s the reason why they have such a large staff is mostly to translate legislation. Conyers was just caught being honest about it.

    But if Republicans got their way on tort reform or allowing insurance to go across state lines or any of the other ideas that they have, believe me that would be a bunch of pages as well.

    Here’s some folks who don’t think of Obamacare as a monstrosity:

    The millions of seniors who no longer have to deal with the dnonut hole don’t think it’s a monstrosity. The people that get free preventive care don’t think it is a monstrosity.

    Other than your talking point, and the number of pages, what exactly is “monstrous” about it?

  7. teddy996 says:

    “But if Republicans got their way on tort reform or allowing insurance to go across state lines or any of the other ideas that they have, believe me that would be a bunch of pages as well.”

    Produce for me, if you will, the dusty volumes of laws required so that car insurance can be sold across state lines.

  8. OWB says:

    Good point, teddy. Still trying to figure out who it serves for us to be able to buy a mortagage, for instance, across state lines but not insurance. Makes no sense at all.

    Unless it’s all about those able to control us exercising that control. And artificially inflating insurance costs.

  9. UpNorth says:

    @#56. ” I’ve heard him speak and he seems like an intelligent man to me. Well, there it is, everything has been explained now, thanks for that.
    It figures that you’d think that the congressman from Detroit is “intelligent”. Apparently, you have a much different definition of intelligent than normal, intelligent people do.