Harry Reid’s New Kind of Politics
Looks like outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has adopted that new kind of politics made famous in the successful campaign of his party’s 2008 presidential nominee:
Last week, Internet ads started appearing on conservative Web sites attacking Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle. A group calling itself the “Patriot Majority” — replete with a logo of a Minuteman holding a musket — declared Angle “Nevada’s WORST legislator!” and a “professional politician” who is in the pocket of Wall Street. An attack from Tea Party detractors on the right? Quite the opposite. The Patriot Majority was formed by a former spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid and is funded by organized labor. Why would Reid supporters use a faux Tea Party group to attack his opponent? It gets to the heart of Reid’s reelection strategy. To win, he must divide the Republican nominee from her electoral base.
Well, running a nasty campaign is easier than running on your record. Read the whole thing.Writing about Reid’s opponent, Marc Thiessen concludes:
The next six weeks will be critical. While Reid tries to focus on the campaign on her, Angle needs to keep the focus on Reid and the reasons Nevadans have turned against him. Reid’s electoral ceiling appears to be 43 percent. If Angle can deflect his attacks, avoid gaffes and remind voters why they dislike Reid, she can win.
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Angle supports the FMA, in 2010. Can’t you guys draw the line somewhere?
Comment by Chris — June 15, 2010 @ 12:41 pm - June 15, 2010
Are these ads that run up fees if they are clicked on? If so, run up Harry’s advertising expenses!
Comment by Banzel — June 15, 2010 @ 9:16 pm - June 15, 2010
Ahemm
does Gay Patriot know there is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and there was an oval office speech about it today, Tuesday?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 15, 2010 @ 9:56 pm - June 15, 2010
Um, Chris, if you read the blog, you might understand how we can support a candidate while disagreeing with her stands on some issues.
And if you read the post, you might realize it was about Harry Reid and not his opponent. Guess like his campaign, you would rather attack his opponent than defend his record.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 15, 2010 @ 11:22 pm - June 15, 2010
What’s to draw? There’s nothing wrong with supporting the FMA, according to HRC, the Obama Party, and gay liberals.
Or you can just come on out and say that the problem is that Angle is a Republican, Chris. Don’t worry; admitting that you’re bigoted against Republicans is on several levels better than being found out as a hypocrite.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2010 @ 11:30 pm - June 15, 2010
No real surprise here from Harry Reid. That’s what he did during the Republican primary–he had indirectly-affiliated groups run attack ads against Sue Lowden to knock her out of contention. (His son, who is running for governor, also tried the same kinds of attacks against the Republican who eventually became the nominee.) So it’s to be expected he will do the same thing against Angle. One thing I heard people say during the primaries was how much they were tired of the negative ads–especially the ones attacking Angle.
I’m hoping that my worries about Angle are misplaced and that she’s able to find a way of deflecting Reid’s attacks without becoming defensive or becoming overly negative. At the moment, Nevadans have heard little from her since last week’s primary. I hope that means she’s planning a good strategy. In some respects, I think that if Reid is going negative against her so early, it might not have the full effect he is hoping for. People are tired of the ads from the primary, and the more he attacks Angle now, the more people might tune it out or even dismiss it when they start looking at the candidates more closely at the end of the summer.
Comment by Kurt — June 16, 2010 @ 1:02 am - June 16, 2010
Um, NDT, didn’t you get the memo about how we can support a candidate while disagreeing his stands on some issues?
Comment by Serenity — June 16, 2010 @ 4:27 am - June 16, 2010
Serenity, your villiage is looking for you.
Condemning one candidate for one position while letting the other guy slide for the same position is what NDT is calling him on.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 6:40 am - June 16, 2010
I think Sharon Angle will be fine. Harry Reid is likely to go too far in his attacks. He really hasn’t established a record as Majority Leader in the last six years that he can run on, especially this year. I doubt he will effectively be able to paint himself in a good light, so I bet he won’t even try that much. Going negative is really the only thing he can do. This is a guy who attacked Barbara Bush in his book. He can’t help himself from being nasty.
Eventually, Reid and Angle will debate. What can Reid say in a debate in his defense? I think this is true nationwide—Democrats are going to be in even worse shape after they have to face their opponents in debates and try to defend their indefensible record.
I wouldn’t worry much about marriage issues. I think Mitch Daniels speaks for a lot of social conservatives in wanting to put social issues on the backburner. Think about guys like Coburn and Demint. They too are very far to the right on these issues, but it hasn’t stopped them from being excellent senators on pretty much everything else, and their presence in the Senate hasn’t really done anything to advance the FMA. To get the FMA passed, you need to pick up a lot of people in the middle.
Comment by chad — June 16, 2010 @ 7:57 am - June 16, 2010
I’m not sure how Mitch Daniels “truce” on social issues is supposed to work? Will the gay groups agree to stand down on pushing gay marriage? Will Hollywood stand down on producing its cultural sewer of entertainment? Will the ACLU stand down on trying to sterilize any acknowledgment of Christianity from the public sphere? Will groups like GLSEN stand down from pushing a gay agenda in the public schools? Will NARAL stop pushing for taxpayer-funded abortion anytime, any place, for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy?
Unless Mitch Daniels can come up with a compelling way to get the other side to stand down, his proposal isn’t for a truce, it’s for social conservatives to unilaterally disarm.
Comment by V the K — June 16, 2010 @ 8:22 am - June 16, 2010
Will groups like GLSEN stand down from pushing a gay agenda in the public schools?
What kind of sick person thinks that safe schools is a “gay agenda?”
Comment by Lloyd — June 16, 2010 @ 10:47 am - June 16, 2010
#8. I thought that I had misread Serenity’s feedback…until I saw your feedback.
Comment by killiteten - Native Intelligence — June 16, 2010 @ 11:25 am - June 16, 2010
The person who recognizes that the only persons who the gay and lesbian community are interested in making schools safe for are pedophiles.
After all, Lloyd, gays and lesbians insist that dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs is an “educational experience” and that anyone who disagrees is “close-minded”.
Got anything showing GLSEN or the other gay-sex liberal organizations condemning this? What does Kevin “It’s Great To Have Sex With Men You Meet In Bus Station Restrooms” Jennings have to say about that?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 11:45 am - June 16, 2010
After all, Lloyd, gays and lesbians insist that dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs is an “educational experience” and that anyone who disagrees is “close-minded”.
Two idiot dads think that, not all gays and lesbians. Why do you have to beat this dead horse?
Got anything showing GLSEN or the other gay-sex liberal organizations condemning this?
Unlike you, GLSEN does not paw through San Francisco student newspapers looking for dirt. If any of them know it happened, I’d be surprised.
What does Kevin “It’s Great To Have Sex With Men You Meet In Bus Station Restrooms” Jennings have to say about that?
Jennings admitted that at the time of the incident, he was young, inexperienced, and nervous.
What do you have to say about the plethora of homophobic insults that constantly fly around in schools, the rampant bullying of LGBT students, and the children it drives to suicide, drug abuse, and unsafe sex? Do you encourage such behavior, given that you’ve never condemned it?
By the way, NDT, are there any gay leaders or Democrats who you respect? Is there a single one?
Comment by Lloyd — June 16, 2010 @ 12:27 pm - June 16, 2010
The left ALWAYS tries to define the narrative early. In this case, she’s a whackjob, fringe, teaparty nut (racist can’t be far away), blah, blah, blah.
She needs to ignore the noise from the left, not feel compelled to respond to all the garbage they will throw at her, and just run AGAINST Harry Reid’s record:
Harry Reid ushered through an $800 billion stimulus plan within days of Obama’s inauguration, yet the Nevada unemployment rate continues to be among the highest in the country (I read somewhere ~14%). Second, Reid helped the Democrats subvert the legislative process to enact healthcare, bypassing the conference committee and using reconciliation to pass the hugely unpopular law in Nevada. If it weren’t for Harry Reid’s willingness to push the unpopular legislation using a shady process, it would not have passed. Plus, I can’t imagine being forced to buy health insurance is particularly popular in a state that still values “rugged individualism” over statism.
That’s Harry Reid’s record. If she hammers that home and stays away from the philosphical stuff that got Rand Paul in trouble, she’ll probably be fine.
Comment by Scott — June 16, 2010 @ 12:36 pm - June 16, 2010
#14: “Jennings admitted that at the time of the incident, he was young, inexperienced, and nervous.”
Yes, Lloyd, that’s why he told the boy to “use condoms!” whenever he has sex with adult males that he meets in bus station restrooms.
OH! You mean JENNINGS was “young, inexperienced, and nervous”! My bad. Lloyd, I just assumed you were referring to the minor that Jennings told to wear condoms whenever he has sex with adult men in public restrooms.
Comment by Sean A — June 16, 2010 @ 2:41 pm - June 16, 2010
“Jennings admitted that at the time of the incident, he was young, inexperienced, and nervous.”
He also bragged about it to gay audiences for years afterwards… right up until the time Glenn Beck made the public aware of it.
BTW, did Lloyd ever answer the challenge about what the “burdens” of commitment and monogamy were, as he was on about some weeks back?
Comment by V the K — June 16, 2010 @ 3:06 pm - June 16, 2010
Because I don’t see the shrieking taking place against these mainstream gays and lesbians that we see against gay Republicans and conservatives, such as calling for them to be killed.
Funny, they paw through school newspapers looking for examples of “harassment”. You’d think they would speak out against gays and lesbians clearly sexually exploiting children — that is, if they didn’t support it.
So which part of that justifies him supporting and promoting children having gay sex with adults?
I would think that, no matter how “young, inexperienced, and nervous” you were, an educator with a college degree, which implies some basic child psychology, would realize that a child having sex with an adult is WRONG. But why wasn’t Jennings capable of that? Is it because, as his record shows, he doesn’t believe that adults having sex with children is wrong?
I have to say it’s pretty funny watching those like you who shriek that gay Republicans and conservatives should be stoned, who call for the death of their children, who openly try to attack, harass, and try to have them fired from their jobs, and who flat-out tell them to commit suicide pretend that you give a damn about peoples’ lives.
And as far as drug use and unsafe sex, Lloyd, CONSERVATIVES are the ones telling them not to do either. LIBERALS and the gay and lesbian community are the ones demanding that age-of-consent laws and drug laws be repealed and that promiscuity be taught in classrooms.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 3:42 pm - June 16, 2010
#17: “BTW, did Lloyd ever answer the challenge about what the “burdens” of commitment and monogamy were, as he was on about some weeks back?”
No, he didn’t. Apparently, even articulating the burdens of commitment and monogamy are one of the burdens of commitment and monogamy for Lloyd.
Comment by Sean A — June 16, 2010 @ 5:57 pm - June 16, 2010
I hope you’re right, Scott. Unfortunately today there were more examples of what I warned about last week. There is now officially a group calling itself Republicans for Reid. I think they should be embarrassed for endorsing him; here’s hoping Angle gets the last laugh and that these tools are humiliated by Reid’s defeat in November.
Comment by Kurt — June 16, 2010 @ 10:21 pm - June 16, 2010