We'll say this for Mitt Romney: He sure sets a low bar for the behavior of supposedly moderate Massachusetts Republicans! For instance, after Mitt spent a conference call with his big donors whining about how Barack Obama won the election by championing policies that will benefit Americans, Scott Brown's post-loss press conference, where he (no doubt sullenly) mouthed platitudes about "bipartisanship," looked positively statesmanlike. But that didn't stop Harry Reid from just cold talking smack to reporters about what a dick Scott Brown was. Will Harry Reid regret this, when Scott Brown is inevitably re-elected to the Senate, in a month or two?
Well, Harry has come in for a lot of criticism at times. However, I suspect he has a very careful calculus of what will work and what won't and a very good grasp of the Senate rules (I would assume anyone who rises to leadership in an organization such as the US Senate has to do this or they simply do not rise). He does not go for grandstand plays (others can do this more effectively), so when he does something, it gets noticed. I don't think he is the meek and mild person we often imagine he is, but that is a convenient cover for him. McConnell is somewhat more bombastic, and some of the things he has said have come back to haunt him. In the context of their jobs, I don't think any of the leadership are nice guys, and are not people to cross lightly. Scott Brown thought he could make some whinny statement and it would be ignored. He was wrong. And it was the Majority Leader who said so. And was kind of mean about it. But not (too) obviously.
Rachel had her pet comedian read one of Harry Reid&#039;s speeches with animation and anger his staff had written into the words, instead of the languid Mr-Peepers disinterest that Reid usually exhibits. It was, to coin a phrase, <i>awesome.</i>
Maybe. Kind of &quot;ORLY? Well, let&#039;s just look into this&quot; So if current filibuster rules remain in place (I&#039;ll assume they will, I suspect neither side really wants to give them up), and Republicans look for cover as &quot;moderates&quot;, they will have to stop using these rules to shut down everything.
Voters have short memories. And as someone here (?) said yesterday, there would be a lot of superPAC munniez spent in the attempt to make Brown seem like a reasonable, &quot;experienced&quot; Senator.
Here you go. You can start it at 3:23 or so. It&#39;s even better than I remember.<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Harry didn&#039;t get to be majority leader by being a nice guy. But he plays a sly insider&#039;s game, and isn&#039;t given to much in the way of displays (although I suspect he really does dislike Mitt, hence the &quot;tax returns&quot; business of the summer). So if he called in the reporters, there is something more going on -- probably a message to Sen Mitch and his buddies.
Well, Harry has come in for a lot of criticism at times. However, I suspect he has a very careful calculus of what will work and what won&#039;t and a very good grasp of the Senate rules (I would assume anyone who rises to leadership in an organization such as the US Senate has to do this or they simply do not rise). He does not go for grandstand plays (others can do this more effectively), so when he does something, it gets noticed. I don&#039;t think he is the meek and mild person we often imagine he is, but that is a convenient cover for him. McConnell is somewhat more bombastic, and some of the things he has said have come back to haunt him. In the context of their jobs, I don&#039;t think any of the leadership are nice guys, and are not people to cross lightly. Scott Brown thought he could make some whinny statement and it would be ignored. He was wrong. And it was the Majority Leader who said so. And was kind of mean about it. But not (too) obviously.
Rachel had her pet comedian read one of Harry Reid&#039;s speeches with animation and anger his staff had written into the words, instead of the languid Mr-Peepers disinterest that Reid usually exhibits. It was, to coin a phrase, <i>awesome.</i>
Maybe. Kind of &quot;ORLY? Well, let&#039;s just look into this&quot; So if current filibuster rules remain in place (I&#039;ll assume they will, I suspect neither side really wants to give them up), and Republicans look for cover as &quot;moderates&quot;, they will have to stop using these rules to shut down everything.
Voters have short memories. And as someone here (?) said yesterday, there would be a lot of superPAC munniez spent in the attempt to make Brown seem like a reasonable, &quot;experienced&quot; Senator.
To see Scott Brown use the word &quot;vanishing&quot; in reference to himself makes me happier.
You know, being mean to complete, total douchebags (e.g. Scotty, Mittens, W, et al) <i>is</i> a lot of fun.
Here you go. You can start it at 3:23 or so. It&#39;s even better than I remember.<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Harry didn&#039;t get to be majority leader by being a nice guy. But he plays a sly insider&#039;s game, and isn&#039;t given to much in the way of displays (although I suspect he really does dislike Mitt, hence the &quot;tax returns&quot; business of the summer). So if he called in the reporters, there is something more going on -- probably a message to Sen Mitch and his buddies.