We're Not Wild About Harry -- Again

In less than ten days, I head off to Vegas for my bachelor party. So I probably shouldn't be bad-mouthing an esteemed Senator from the state of Nevada.

Granted, I've criticized him before for being too sensitive to criticism. Not to mention his nonsensical ramblings about Clarence Thomas' opinions. But maybe I should give Harry some leeway -- he is adjusting to a new job, after all.

Except that he's acting like an idiot.

Senator Reid, in one of those group photo ops politicians love, assembled 37 fellow Democratic Sentors on the steps of the Capitol today to release a statement condemning the likely GOP move to kill the filibuster of judicial nominees by invoking the procedural exercise known as the "nuclear option." The Southern Partisan and his lovely lady sent me an e-mail about this earlier today, and I knew I'd write about it. Hugh Hewitt has the full text of Reid's statement, which was sufficently stupid that I planned to tear it to shreds. Except that Captain Ed beat me to it...

Reid starts off by completely misinterpreting the intent of the Constitution's framers:

Our Constitution provides for checks and balances so that no one person in power, so that no one political party can hold total control over the course of our nation.

Absolutely untrue, at least in terms of political parties. First, the founders didn't give much thought to parties at all, and they didn't necessarily presume that national politics would evolve into a two-party system. In any case, the Constitution guarantees that no one branch of government will hold total control over the government. If the people choose to elect people of mostly one party for the two electoral branches, then it should be obvious to even Harry Reid that the party will control the two branches.

If any Senator has such a poor understanding of the Constitution, their state should be ashamed to have sent him or her to Washington. That the Senate Democrats made such man their leader either demonstrates their lack of talent or their lack of discretion.

That's just the start, but I recommend reading the rest. I've given up on the idea of expecting an intelligent response from the left, but perhaps we'll hear them when they start screaming once Frist pushes the button.

In the end, the Democrats don't have an argument for the filibuster they've maintained for the last four years. Losing in two consecutive election cycles tends to lead to bitterness, but the inability to acknowledge reality is pathetic. At this rate, if they lost enough seats to give the GOP a filibuster-proof majority, they'd probably claim that the filibuster should be allowed if they have 30 votes.

I'm still going to Vegas. But I hope Senator Reid doesn't join us for dinner -- the last thing I need is someone filibustering dessert.