I'm Just Wild About Harry

Is it hypocritical for those who demanded Trent Lott’s resignation as Senate Majority Leader in 2002 to wish for Harry Reid’s survival in the same post in 2010?

I was one of those Republicans who called for Lott to step down eight years ago and yet I ardently hope that Reid will continue in his leadership position at least until November. Yes, it’s true that both men stirred up explosive controversy with their clumsy, racially insensitive remarks, but the differences in substance and context of their comments count as far more significant than the similarities.

For four reasons, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, deserves very different treatment especially from Republicans than the former Senator from Mississippi.

1) Most importantly, the continuation of Lott as majority leader would have damaged the GOP at a time when the Republicans had just recaptured the Senate, while keeping Reid in his prominent position will seriously damage the Democrats at the very moment they struggle to maintain Congressional control. Harry Reid is such an incomparably inept boob, such an easy target for ridicule and criticism, that his withdrawal from the upcoming battles might actually dim Republican prospects. The main reason I want Harry Reid to stay at the very center of the struggle is that I want conservative Republicans to win that struggle.

Victoria57 Wrote: Jan 14, 2010 9:53 AM

Mr. Medved you have made excellent points. Political correctness will do us all in. I would much rather have a plain racist remark I could not missunderstand then a nuanced remark that I had to figure out! But would I go after someone's job because of a silly remark? NO! But I would sure watch that person for future referencing. Republican's should do just as you said-stand back and shut up. Democrats will likely destroy themselves from the inside and Republican's must not follow suit.

Flag as Offensive

Merry Colin in Arizona Wrote: Jan 14, 2010 12:53 AM

right on the mark Mr. Melved!

FeargalX Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 9:42 PM

Olbermann called Beck a racist for questioning the lengthy, awkward, in-exact term 'African American.' Is a black Jamaican an 'African American.' How about a native of Senegal? What about North African natives who are caucasians? The term both overly calls people 'Americans' when they are not -- and uses a broad term for a truly diverse continent of people. Black people are native to the Pacific -- not just Africa -- and North African natives are not black. Likewise, the Caucases are in Asia -- not Europe. Caucasian people are native to Asia, Africa and Europe. The left wants to shut off debate about preferential treatment programs that are truly bizarre (like favoring people whose ancestors held slaves and killed American...

Paul3125 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 8:17 PM

On today's program, Michael spoke of a "death tax exemption" expiring at the end of this year. At that time, (as I interpret it), the death tax increases from 0% to 55% for every dollar over 1 million in total accumulated wealth, (home value, investments, life insurance, bank accounts, ...).

After AARP endorsed ObamaCare, (ObamaGive-a-damn), it would be interesting to know their official position on this one. Do they want us to lose 55% of what we plan to leave to our children? God help you if you want to leave a farm or small business.

'Think they represent US? Read this first...

rdsefert Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 7:06 PM

Rebecca good point,I`d hate to lose Harry for the comic relief he does.

WRH Bill Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 5:28 PM

It's not very often these days that I agree with Michael Medved about anything, but in this case I do. I don't have any use for Harry Reid and I hope Nevada voters throw him out of the Senate, but nonetheless it is not fair for Republicans to equate Reid's cynical and "insensitive" but nonetheless possibly valid comment about voter reaction to Obama, with former Sen. Lott's wish that Strom Thurmond had been elected President as a "Dixiecrat" in 1948. The Lott comment sure sounds, even to people not obsessed with finding racism everywhere, like an endorsement of racism. If you accept the most charitable possible explanation, that Lott was just trying to be nice to Thurmond, it was still massively stupid.

In a way, partisan...

Harvard Delenda Est Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 5:08 PM

"So Mr. Harvard your holier than thou concepts do not stand up to history and they certainly do nothing to further your argument."

I never said the First Civil War was fought over slavery. I said the democrat party was (and is) based on racism and slavery. That is all.

Kush Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 5:00 PM

It was not just Democrats that adopted the one drop rule but the whole of southern society and the rule was enforced by the power of the law.

In the past not all children of biracial heritage wanted only to be black. Some tried 'passing' for something other than black. They could fully participate in society if they were not black. They could sit at the front of the bus and swim in the pool. What race is Strom Thurmond's daughter? Why did he refuse to acknowledge her existence?

Identity politics were practiced for a century in America. Did you ever read about segregation, Jim Crow, The Cotton Curtain, Black Codes? Did you know that SCOTUS once ruled that black people were not citizens and had no rights that white people...

sky20 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 4:21 PM

One, I suppose, could say that as the imposition of unfair and unjust taxation on the South, for the sole benefit of the North, caused a civil war - so to could one say that the imposition of unfair and unjust taxation imposed upon a nation of free men for the sole benefit of a political party's power lead to another.

It really doesn't matter that he utters ill thought comments about skin color and dialect when he considers all of us to be beneath him, and not suited to judge him as do those supposed representatives he leads.

sky20 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 3:56 PM

Harvard dude says "Democrats think he is black because they are racists who cling to the "one drop" theory (one drop of black blood makes you black) that has been the cornerstone of that party's existence since before they declared war on the American People back in 1860. (That would be America's first civil war, for any dhims who might be reading this :-"

dhims would do well to note that the Civil War was not started over slavery. It was over unfair and unjust Tarrifs imposed on the South for the benefit of the North.

If fault must be found for the civil war then the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the North.

Also, it was not the South that brought Slavery issue into the war. It was the North. In case you...

Harvard Delenda Est Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 2:43 PM

Obama thinks he is black because he is a democrat.

Democrats think he is black because they are racists who cling to the "one drop" theory (one drop of black blood makes you black) that has been the cornerstone of that party's existence since before they declared war on the American People back in 1860. (That would be America's first civil war, for any dhims who might be reading this :-)

Democrats are the slave party, both the owners as well as the owned. Same as it ever was.

Becca in TX Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 2:30 PM

that someone would explain to me why Obama is classified as "black". I thought he was 1/2 white and 1/2 black and was mostly raised by a white grandmother. So how come he isn't considered biracial instead of black. I'm no math whiz, but it seems to me that he's just as much white as he is black.

Therefore, isn't all of this race stuff kind of a moot point?

Harvard Delenda Est Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 2:18 PM

Quick thought experiment: Given Barrack Obama's complete lack of credentials or accomplishments, is there anybody out there stupid enough to posit that he would be president today if he had blond hair and blue eyes?

Of course not! No white man with B.O.s resume would have been elected to high office (unless his last name was kennedy, that is) This whole disaster is nothing more than the logical end result of the "affirmative action" scam that the Dhimmikkkrats have been perpetrating on the American People for the last thirty years.

Willful ignorance is not a cost free exercise. We get the government we deserve.

Richard1988 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 1:36 PM

were racist they were racist against whites and Asians. Of course for democrats being racist agaisnt whites and Asians is not only allowed by democratics it is activity encouraged.

poorgrandchildren.com2 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 1:18 PM

Jim#4, prior to passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators represented their respective states in dealings with the Federal Government. Since passage of the 17th and our continued decline from a republic to a "wonderful" de-mob-ocracy starting in approximately 1900, they represent the best organized mob in their constituency.

Sky Pete Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 1:08 PM

"
sky peener, black victim
isn't it past tim e to quit playing the victim and enter the 21st century.
"
---
Black victim my behind !

I've never played anyones victims nor have I played anyone's doormat; which was the point I made..

And spare me with your boilerplate rebukes about 'Black victimization'... I don't and have NOT played that AT ALL !

Edward327 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 1:06 PM

The fact that the Leftist trolls agree with Medved should be all we need to know about Medved. Only a Liberal would find Lott's remarks at Thurmond's 100th birthday party "racist", so of course Medved and the MSM found them "racially insensitive".

ROB-RAGE Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 12:59 PM

When I heard "it's the People's seat...not Teddy Kennedy's or the Democrats" from Scott Brown...The Repubican candidate running for The "Cowardly Lion of the Senate" seat in Massachusetts...I became an instant fan of his...what a brilliant comeback to a gotcha question by the left leaning moderator...Maybe there is a silver lining to this Black Socialist-Commie cloud hanging over America...Maybe Col. Scott Brown can win...and Maybe Harry "the War is Lost " Reid can be defeated in November...America has overcome great odds against determined enemies ...foreign and "domestic"..and so it's time for "We the People" to take off the gloves and fight for the America we know and Love....Let's Roll......! ROB-RAGE-Santee

Mike763 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 12:58 PM

Harry's comments weren't really racist, as much as they were really stupid. If I am to interpret his comments the way that his defenders are claiming they were meant - that Obama had a better chance of getting elected because he was "light skinned" as opposed to being dark skinned. Let's consider this line of thinking:

Harry Reid is calling a large portion of the ellectorate racist - well, sort of racist. These people, according to Reid, are too racist to elect a dark skinned black man, but they aren't too racist to elect a light skinned one. This line of thinking is completely devoid of intelligence. Imagine this convo:

Tom: Hey, aren't you excited about this Obama guy? He's all hopey and changey.
Steve: I can't vote...

RetainMike Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 12:57 PM

“vonryansexpress” has got it right. Not only Harry Reid, but most of the Democrat party should resign for their consistent denigration of blacks.

However, supposedly Reid should resign because Trent Lott had to resign. The Republicans should have had enough guts to tell Medved, the Democrats and the media to stuff it. As a counter to PC Republicans, there seem to be too few others then and now to form a powerful coalition.

In Lott’s case only a few cursory shots were needed to activate the existing power structure against him. Probably he was not one of them and this event served their purpose. The next presidential campaign and the treatment of Sarah Palin provide supporting evidence.

To this day we can depend...

jim#4 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 12:18 PM

Did you ever vote for a person to be a member of Congress, so that he would go to Wash, and vote exactly what the so-called leader told him to do.

Wonder what the vote would have been on any number of bills, if each and every person did exactly what we elected him to do -- vote exactly how your brain tells you to vote.

You don't vote how I want you to vote, you don't vote just how the man who took you to lunch told you to vote, and especially you do not vote exactly like some so called leader told you to vote.

There always seem to be arguments that it is great that we have political parties. I haven't spent a lot of time solving that problem, so I still wonder.

And another thing, those people in...

Mike763 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 12:12 PM

Agreed. If someone accuses me of being a racist, the best response would be along the lines of "well then it is a good thing that I don't care what you think". When someone accuses someone else of doing something they are not guilty of, then there is no reason to apologize. Just point out that the accuser is a moron and the problem is over.

Lon17 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 11:36 AM

This is the best column by a conservative on the topic so far, a praiseworthily honest one.

On point one, this is certainly a legitimate point for a conservative to take. Lott stepped down because he was hurting the Republicans, not because Democrats attacked him. Reid does come off as a bumbler, although he has managed to get health care through a difficult chamber, so he may not be the bumbler he appears. He is in political trouble for reelection and was before this. Republicans don't want to accidently help him get reelected.

On point two, what Medved says is right and should be obvious enough to not need saying.

I disagree with point three. Private statements can be more revealing than public ones. If there...

CW14 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 11:13 AM

…and losing at it.

Medved is ¾ correct. What Reid said was not racist. He was simply voicing a political fact. Republicans are crying ‘racism’ not because they believe he’s a racist but because they believe this is how the game is played. You take one of our soldiers using the racism tactic, and we’ll take one of yours.

The problem is the game doesn’t work that way. In the first place the label of ‘racist’ only applies to – and will only be enforced upon – those on the Right end of the political spectrum. And don’t bother pointing out our hypocrisy either, the Left will say, since we don’t have enough scruples to be concerned about such things.

The only winning strategy for republicans is to refuse to play...

cathi2 Wrote: Jan 13, 2010 10:49 AM

Good points. But is this something new? these tactics have been used successfully in many elections since 1864(?). Unfortunately, there are still(and I wonder a growing number) of ignorant people being trained in our schools, to vote for a "brother" and not for individual liberty and freedom. Many children are not encouraged to think in terms of freedom and liberty and individual responsibility anymore, hence leading to a populace that is easier to manipulate with 'goodies"....

New comments on this article - click to refresh

Allahpundit	Quotes of the day
Allahpundit	George Lucas: Greedo shot first at Han in the original “Star Wars”
Allahpundit	Biden on the new contraception rule: I’m determined to see a compromise here
Ed Morrissey	Perry: Sure, I’ll run for President again; Update: Video fixed
Allahpundit	Bellwether: Santorum blows past Gingrich in Pennsylvania, now leads Romney by one
Allahpundit	Video: The obligatory “Amazing Spider-Man” trailer

I'm Just Wild About Harry

Michael Medved

Breaking on TOWNHALL

Video

Townhall Regular Contributors