His comments found their way into "Game Change," a new book from Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, that is being released this week.
It appears this book dealt out equal amounts of gall and bitterness to a number of candidates, from both sides of the political spectrum -- folks as diverse as John and Elizabeth Edwards and Sarah Palin got their doses.
But it's Reid who's getting all the attention these days, probably because a) he's still in office, and b) he is such a central player in the government's efforts to take over our health care. Without his and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's efforts, the whole package probably would have been stuck in the talking stages rather than making it as far as it has.
Reid supposedly said that Obama was electable because he was light-skinned and didn't use "the Negro dialect" unless he meant to. In other words, black enough but not too black. Shoot, let's cut to the chase here -- his alleged statements painted Obama as someone that blacks a couple of generations ago might call an "Uncle Tom."
Again, who gives a rip? This is just a sideshow, which has little or nothing to do with any real issues.
Now, the Republicans are jumping on this one. They're calling for him to resign from his leadership position, or even from the Senate. This brings shades of 2002, when Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond's segregationist past during the South Carolina senator's 100th birthday party.
It's funny how party affiliation means so much in politics. During that campaign Joe Biden, who was born with both feet in his mouth, made similar statements about Obama. Remember? A black man who is "articulate ... and clean." Biden may have tanked his presidential aspirations then and there -- as if they really existed anyway -- but he's now vice president to that articulate and clean black man. See how it works?
So far, I don't hear the usual gang of racist-shouters going after Reid like they did after South Carolina Congressman Joe (You Lie) Wilson or a handful of others, which shows how truly hypocritical these people are. If Reid was Republican, a conservative, or against the health care takeover, it would be a whole different story, but that's not the point I wish to make here.
Although the Republicans are asking the Democrats (and the racist-shouters) to rise up against Reid, it's not going to happen. The Democrats need every single vote they can muster to pass the national health care plan. After that, they can feel free to gut the senator -- if the Nevada voters don't do it first. Of course, the Republicans would love to see Reid get thrown out on his can sooner rather than later.
I see this whole thing as an obvious attempt to derail the health care bill, and yes, it does need derailing. Government-run health care may be an even bigger threat to our way of life than even the USA PATRIOT Act, but to shut it down by taking out the proponents represents politics at its slimiest.
Keep in mind, I'm not known for defending liberals. But Reid was elected by the voters in his state, and made his way into leadership positions by going through the usual channels that rule in DC. He's been a known quantity for a lot of years. If he doesn't represent the interests of his state, it's up to the electorate to decide that matter.
And so a few folks may be offended by the comments of a Reid -- or a Biden, or years ago, a Lott? OK, that's what that ballot box is for. But a smarter voter is likely to overlook the odd comment from deep left field and take more important things like his track record and political agenda into consideration.
Efforts to homogenize the leadership will ultimately backfire. Better to have living, breathing elected officials with minds and opinions of their own, even if a little offensiveness comes with it. There are enough drones walking around in our society, people who react instead of think, people who are afraid to voice their own opinions and maybe stir the puddin' a little bit. Must we elect these drones, too?
There are lots of reasons to vote against someone like Reid, and the occasional quasi-offensive statement isn't one of them.
###
(OK, let's go to the horse's ... mouth!)
No comments:
Post a Comment