Some tasks are occasionally necessary, though unpleasant. (Oops. My mind just drifted to that plastic bag you must carry with you when walking your dog.) Hunting down that roach your wife is just absolutely certain she saw scampering across the bedcovers would be one; talking to Harry Reid might be another.
I’ll leave the roach to you. That’s what the Yellow Pages are for. Unfortunately the Yellow Pages are going to be of no help if you find yourself trying to make sense out of, or talk sense into, Harry Reid.
Now Harry likes to throw around a lot of pretty strong words when he’s talking about Republicans. You’ve heard him. There’s “hostage takers,” for instance, and “extortionists.” But for today’s lesson in haggling with Harry we’ll stick to two of his favorites:
1. The Tea Partiers are “anarchists.”
2. The people just want the Congress to do its job.
We would hope that Mitch McConnell would have long ago delivered a good verbal spanking to the hero of the Las Vegas unions, but it hasn’t happened yet … and McConnell doesn’t look or sound like someone you would bet on in a verbal prize fight. So I’m here to help. First we will deal with …
“The Tea Partiers are anarchists.”
The first thing you want to do when someone starts tossing around terms like “anarchist” is to ask for a definition. I never tire of asking someone to define the term “racist.” No matter what they say, you can always counter with; “OK, now tell me the difference between a racist and a bigot?” Blank stare. Stuttering. Stammering. “Uh … er … ummm ….uh ….” (Picture Obama with a broken teleprompter.)
An anarchist would be someone who supports anarchy. So far even Harry can understand this. But what is anarchy? Go to Wikipedia and you get “a society without a publicly enforced government.” Dictionary.com gives us “A state or society without government or law.” So this is what Harry Reid thinks the Tea Partiers are all about? Tea Partiers want a society without a publicly enforced government? Tea Partiers want a society without laws? Without government? You can see here that once you’ve brought Harry face-to-face with the actual definition of the word “anarchy” he’s already lost his composure, the argument, and the battle.
Here, Harry, is why Tea Partiers are not anarchists.
Tea Partiers, in fact, believe even more strongly than you and most of your Democrat pals in the rule of law. Not a society without laws, but a society with laws that are equally and evenly enforced on behalf or against the fast food burger-flipper as with the most privileged of the Beltway’s political class.
You might want to ask Harry if he is familiar with James Madison’s Federalist paper No. 62. He should be. That particular Federalist Paper is titled “The Senate.” So, Harry, tell us what it says? You’re the HDWIC in the Senate … so educate us on Federalist 62. Oh … you can’t? Well maybe you’ll read it later, but for now I’ll just give you an excerpt:
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”
Now let me tell you, Harry dear, just what the Tea Partiers think when they read Federalist 62. They’re thinking about the so-called health care reform package you slipped into law when the public was clearly against it. The Tea Partiers heard your House counterpart Nancy Pelosi say that the law had to be passed so that we could see what is in it. Now that sounds like a “… law so voluminous that (it) cannot be read, or so incoherent that (it) cannot be understood” to the Tea Partiers. This makes them anarchists? Plus, with the delays and waivers being constantly issued by Obama, how can a man “…who knows what the law is today even guess what it will be tomorrow?” Do these people who simply want the law to be enforced as it was written, and who are seeking a delay in implementation until this is done, be written off as anarchists?
Obamacare isn’t the only concern of the Tea Partiers. They want taxes lowered. They want worthless and counterproductive government regulations repealed.
Tea Partiers heard Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus say that the Home Depot miracle could not be reproduced today due to government regulations and trial lawyers. (Morgan & Morgan, FOR Obamacare). They’ve seen the stories of little girls with lemonade stands in their front yard being shut down by uniformed police. They heard about Mortgage Investors Corporation, a 75-year-old real estate lender that specializes in making and refinancing loans to our veterans, winding down operations (and firing 476 people in Florida) because the Dodd-Frank Act, which you championed, is so burdensome that they simply cannot decipher the law and don’t know how to implement this wonderful new government regulation.
The Tea Partiers don’t want all regulations eliminated. They just want laws that can be understood and regulations that aren’t going to destroy businesses, or leave deserving veterans without a source for a mortgage loan. Is this too much to ask, Harry? Does this make the Tea Partiers “anarchists?”
The Tea Partiers also know that before Obama and the Democrats can engage in any more deficit spending – which means borrowing more money – the debt ceiling must be raised. They’re asking for this to be done in a responsible manner. They want spending, which has almost doubled during the reign of Obama/Reid, to be cut back. They don’t understand why Obama approved a payment of $450 million to PBS during the shutdown while denying research dollars at the CDC and shutting down memorials honoring WWII veterans … brave men and women dying at the rate of 600 to 900 a day. Does asking for a runaway government to cut back on its spending make these people “anarchists?”
OK … now that you’ve pretty much destroyed Reid’s “anarchist” line, let’s get to another Harry Reid favorite:
“The People Just Want the Congress To Do Its Job”
I’m sure you know this, Harry, and I’m just as sure you are relying on the ignorance of the American public to give you a pass when you utter this absurdity. The Congress, Mr. Reid, IS doing its job. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do. The Republican members House of Representatives heard the head of Obama’s transition team say “we will be ready to RULE from day one,” and they said “not on our watch.” We didn’t elect a ruler, Harry. We thought we were electing a leader, and now it is the job of the House to act as a check and balance against the abuses being heaped on the American people by a lawless Executive Branch, a clueless Judicial Branch (et tu, Justice Roberts?) and a compliant U.S. Senate.
This is exactly what our founders designed the Congress to do. Well ... almost. The Senate, which you now rule (Obama language there), was originally supposed to represent the interests of the State governments in the Congress. That was a pretty nifty setup. The House represents the people and the Senate represents the States. You can read all about this in Federalist 62 as well. Maybe there’s a copy around your office somewhere (though I somehow doubt it). If the 17th Amendment hadn’t changed this arrangement Obamacare would never have become law. The States would not have permitted it. It would be fascinating, Harry, to hear you address the rather odd state of affairs in Washington where we have the government of the country of Mexico having official representation before our federal government, but the government of the State of New Mexico does not.
The House of Representatives was not designed to sit idly by and rubberstamp every piece of legislation sent their way by the Senate, especially legislation passed on a straight party line vote under the spurious policy of reconciliation. Checks and balances, Mr. Reid. The true function of the two legislative branches. The Congress is, in fact, doing it’s job.
OK, friends. There you go. A quick lesson in how to talk to Harry Reid, if you should ever find yourself faced with the unpleasant task of having to do so.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the members of the ObamaMedia were bold enough to use some of these tactics?