By Mark for the TIB Network:
ARE YOU READY FOR CAMPAIGN 2004 RHETORIC AGAIN? HERE WE GO:
SEN. HARRY REID: Good evening. I'm Harry Reid from Nevada, the new Democratic leader in the United States Senate. Now that you've heard from the president, I appreciate your spending a few minutes with us as we give our views on how we can live up to the American promise.
Ugh...I am sensing more self-important background story coming...Couldn't we just have a montage?...This guy almost makes me miss Tom "Funeral Director" Daschle...almost...
Harry's message: we can't talk aobut values, that would be bad. We must just assume that everyone has them and not to discuss them. Bush talking about values is bad. Bad! Back to the montage...
I was born and raised in the high desert of Nevada in a tiny town called Searchlight. My dad was a hard rock miner. My mom took in wash. I grew up around people of strong values - even if they rarely talked about them.
Gee, could we find a vision in the Democratic party in, or like with, a Searchlight? Your life is different, Harry? Oh yeah, you HAVE shunned owrk and have asked for special favors...I get it...please continue...
They loved their country, worshiped God, never shunned hard work, and never asked for special favors. My life has been very different from what I imagined growing up, but no matter how far I¹ve traveled, Searchlight is still the place I go back to and still the place I call home.
A few weeks ago, I joined some friends of mine for a bite to eat at The Nugget - Searchlight¹s only restaurant. We were sitting down in a booth, when a young boy, about 10-years-old, named Devon walked up to us.
Carrying a skateboard under his arm, he said, "Senator Reid, when I grow up I want to be just like you."
Well, the truth is Devon could probably do a lot better. But the point still holds and it is this: no one ever had to tell young Devon to dream big dreams, no one ever had to teach him that America is a place of possibility.
He knows those things because they are born deep in all Americans.
Firstly, isn't a nugget a derogatory term? Second, you mean they have, like, skateboards in Searchlight? Wow...
Next, Devon CAN do a lot better. He could grow up and be a Senator who does not fillibuster for political purposes, who actually gets the work of the people done, and who has a vision other than "bush is evil!"
Also, I think people do need to be reminded of the American dream, especially when all that comes out of your Party's collective mouth, Senator is how crappy things are. You know, worst economy since the Depression, (despite those 2.3 million new jobs in the last year), Bush's Vietnam...And how you constantly call the President and his advisors liars, and how you consistently make America and prosperity be bad things. I think Devon does need to be reminded. But of course, Mr. Reid, education that is not indoctrination is against your Party's line, isn't it?
In the coming year, I believe we can make sure America lives up to its legacy as a land of opportunity if the President is willing to join hands and build from the center.
Woah, woah, woah! The President needs to "join hands" and "build from the center?" HELLO!!! You Dim freaks are going to name a whackjob like Howeird "yeaargh!!" Dean your Chair!! And you say Bush has to build from the center? What do you call letting a drunken malcontent like Ted Kennedy help with NCLB? What do you call his continued attempts to work with Congress on other issues? Shouldn't the "joining of hands" work both ways, Mr. Reid? Come on now!
It's important that we succeed. It's time that America's government lived by the same values as America's families. It's time we invested in America's future and made sure our people have the skills to compete and thrive in a 21st century economy. That's what Democrats believe. That's where we stand. That's what we'll fight for.
Then why aren't you backing the President's Social Security plan? It gives the same privileges to America's families as government workers have? If that is true, then why don't you back his costcutting budget? If it is true we need to invest, then why are you against the pro-growth tax cuts? I'm just asking....
Too many of the president's economic policies have left Americans and American companies struggling. And after we worked so hard to eliminate the deficit, his policies have added trillions to the debt - in effect, a "birth tax" of $36,000 on every child that is born.
This is rich. A birth tax? Fascinating. And now all of a sudden the Party of "Them Corporations are EVIL (tm)" is worried about American companies? Give me a break! The longest period of growth since the 1980s. 2.3 million jobs in the last year! Expansion of the economy...Homeownership at all time highs...Yeah, big struggles...Wake up, Mr. Reid, the 1970s are over!!!
We Democrats have a different vision: Spurring research and development in new technologies to help create the jobs of the future. Rolling up our sleeves and fighting for today's jobs by ending the special tax breaks that encourage big corporations to ship jobs overseas. A trade policy that enforces the rules of the road so that we play to win in the global marketplace instead of sitting by and getting played for fools.
Oh boy...here we go again with Big corporations and outsourcing, HALLIBURTON!, BIG KETCHUP!, etc. Come on now. We have covered the myths of outsourcing and the realities, and they do not add up to what you and Mr. Kerry said during the election. Maybe you didn't hear, Harry, KERRY LOST!!! He and his ideas were REJECTED!!! Hello, reality on line 2 for Mr. Reid!
And spurring research? How, by creating government subsidies which limit the growth of the free market, a free market which encourages innovation? I don't think so. The private sector, not the government has made astonishing jumps in research and technology. The best way to promote this is by keeping costs and taxes low. Oh, and that vision, Mr. Reid? We have seen it before: 1976-1980...And we don't want that again.
After World War II, through the Marshall Plan (search), we rebuilt Europe and they went from poverty to an economic powerhouse. Today, we need to invest in our nation¹s future with a Marshall Plan for America - to build the infrastructure our economy needs to go - and grow. President Eisenhower did that in the 1950s with the interstate highways. National investment created the Internet in the 1970s. We need to build the next economy - and we need to start now.
Yes, but God forbid we have a Marshall Plan for the MidEast, them Iraqis have no clue and don't deserve aid. We need a Marhsall Plan for the US, because the Red States are a foreign land to us Democrats. While we are at it, let's send listening groups to hear them. Then do nothing. Oh, wait, we do that anyway. And, by the way, Al Gore created the internet. Come on, this is going back to 2000 even. Could we get some new material, a new vision, you know, something current, in the name of all things holy?
This 21st century economy holds great promise for our people. But unless we give all Americans the skills they need to succeed, countries like India and China will take good-paying jobs that should be ours. From early childhood education to better elementary and high schools to making college more affordable to training workers so they can get better jobs, Democrats believe every American should have a world-class education and the skills they need in a world-wide economy.
That is why you attack NCLB, right? It is because you want a high class education. So you attack accountability and holding to standards. Why don't you attack those morons who advocated the whole language method (which has no reliably accurate data on effectiveness) over the tried and true phonics methods? These lovely elitist touchy feely never wrong academics led America down a path where we went from single digit illiteracy in the 1900s to the crisis of illiteracy we face today in schools. But wait, that is a voting block, and god forbid Dims take on a voting bloc!
Yes, health care costs have shot up because of the burden placed on companies by your friends, the trial lawyers. You know, guys like John Edwards, the VP candidate, who chase ambulances and engage in obnoxious lawsuits. Of course, we will not address tort reform. Nope, the best way is to make things affordable is to create a huge new bureaucracy that will control health care. Gee, Harry, that works so well in Canada, now doesn't it? And havent we danced this tune before? Yep, it was called HillaryCare.
Health care costs have shot up double-digits year after year of the Bush administration and that's costing us jobs, costing us our competitiveness, and costing families their peace of mind. We need to make health care and prescription drugs affordable for all so that our families and our small businesses will no longer have to shoulder this dead weight.
Good, new jobs. World-class education. Affordable health care. These things matter. Unfortunately, much of what the president offered weren't real answers. You know, today is Groundhog Day. And what we saw and heard tonight was a little like that movie, Groundhog Day. The same-old ideology that we've heard before — over and over again. We can do better.
Oh boy, here we get a look at liberal projection. Here Harry and Nancy are, offering us HillaryCare(1992), government creation of innovation (2000), and outsourcing (2003-4). Here they are attempting to scare seniors and working class people. Gee, who is using the tired same old ideology over and over again now, Harry?
Let me spell it out for you. Best growth in 20 years. 2.3 million new jobs in the last year. An accountability system for teaching and learning. Tort reform. The President has taken these issues on with new and innovative ideas. You offer the past. But Harry, you are right. You can do better. However, you are too lazy to do anything but recycle the same old crap. You even think just criticizing the President daily will work for you as it did for the Republicans in 1994. There is a big difference, Harry. It was the substance of the argument, not the volume, that swayed Americans. Most people support tort reform. Most people support lower taxes, most people support the President's social security plan.
I want you to know that when we believe the president is on the right track, we won't let partisan interests get in the way of what's good for the country. We will be first in line to work with him. But when he gets off track, we will be there to hold him accountable.
If this is the case, why are you threatening Social Security reforms with fillibuster when most polls show that most Americans across all ethnicities are in favor of the reforms? If you are willing to work with the President and nto be partisan, why did your fellow D Senators come up with a memo designed to delay appointments, designed to block the process? Why are you lying to the American people, Mr. Senator? This is not what is best for America. This is about what is best for the elitist kook base that is now running your party.
I do not recall hearing the words 40 percent cut anywhere in the President' proposals. I hear better return than what workers are getting. Or are you upset this money will be taken out of government's hands to spend as they have done with SS money for years? Is that it, Harry? Quit misrepresenting the issue.
And that's why we so strongly disagree with the president's plan to privatize Social Security. Let me share with you why I believe the president's plan is so dangerous. There's a lot we can do to improve Americans' retirement security, but it's wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of 40 percent or more. Make no mistake, that's exactly what President Bush is proposing.
The Bush plan would take our already record high $4.3 trillion national debt and put us another $2 trillion in the red. That's an immoral burden to place on the backs of the next generation.
But maybe most of all, the Bush plan isn't really Social Security (search) reform.
It's more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn't mean taking Social Security's guarantee and gambling with it. And that's coming from a senator who represents Las Vegas.
Here we go. More magic numbers. We don't know the full level of reform because the President just said that there are a number of options on the table. As for the roulette reference, to borrow from Matt, the odds of return are better on the roulette than what we are getting now. I love you Lefties, you talk about crises but when Republicans pick up the ball and run with fixing it, you say there is no crisis. More lies and misrepresentation. Folks, we are seeing the party of FDR becoming the party of deceit.
Sometimes important questions like Social Security or the economy or education get reduced to dollars and cents or competing policies and political parties. But really, these are questions that are about old-fashioned moral values that don't get talked about much in Washington, but matter so much to our country. Are we willing to do right by our parents and care for our children? Do we believe that big corporations with powerful lobbyists should get special favors and that the wealthiest should get special tax breaks? Or do we believe we are all God¹s children and that each of us should get a fair shot and each of us deserves a say in our future? Will we be able to tell young people like Devon back in Searchlight that America is still the land of the open road and that you can travel that open road to the place of your choice?
To hear the party of throwing God out of the nation, abortion on demand and such wax about moral values is quite frankly disgusting. Harry goes with the populist theme, but here is some more: shouldn't our children and grandchildren have the same retirement benefits good enough for Harry Reid? Shouldn't they be entitled to receiving their parents SS instead of it being given back to government? Shouldn't the people get a chance to decide what to do with their retirement money rather than government? Shouldn't we not place a heavy tax burden on investors so we can spur growth?
Even after the president's speech, the American people are still asking these questions. You can be sure that Democrats will continue to offer real answers in the months ahead.
Negatory on that one. You can be sure that the Democrats will continue to block reform, progress and appointments in the months ahead. You can be sure they will malign and obfiscate every proposal that comes their way. You can be sure that Democrats will continue to call the President a liar and malign his authority and integrity and those of our troops. You can be sure of this because they have already begun.
Yes, so great she is STILL the minority leader.
Now, I'd like to turn things over to my colleague, the great leader of House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also responded to President Bush's State of the Union address immediately following the president's remarks:
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Thank you, Senator Reid.
Throughout our nation's history, hope and optimism have defined the American spirit. With pride and determination, every generation has passed on a stronger America than the one it inherited.
Our greatest responsibility is to leave our children a world that is safer and more secure.
As House Democratic Leader, I want to speak with you this evening about an issue of grave concern - the national security of our country.
Firstly, there is no House Democratic leader. She is MINORITY leader, meaning her party is in the smaller number, because people elected more of the other party. Secondly, how can you say you are in favor of more security when you malign our troops by calling them occupiers? When you don't stand up to drunken blowhards like Ted Kennedy who call our soldiers the problem?
And that is why you call them occupiers as opposed to liberators, right Nancy? That is why Teddyboy said they were part of the problem, right? Come on now, you respect those in uniform about as much as John Kerry respects his butler.
Any discussion of our national security must begin with recognition and respect for our men and women in uniform.
Did you tell them they were occupiers in the hospital? Did you say they were failures and were fighting a cause of nothing? Did you say they were part of the problem?
Whether they are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, or delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Asia — our troops have the gratitude of every American for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country.
I have seen that sacrifice up close. I've met with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.And I've visited our wounded in military hospitals here and overseas.
Our troops not only defend us, they inspire us. They remind us of our responsibility to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
However, we need to malign the cause they are fighting for and their commander-in-chief to ensure chaos and confusion when they return. Brilliant!
Because of the courage of our servicemen and women and the determination of the Iraqi people, Iraq's election on Sunday was a significant step toward Iraqis taking their future into their own hands.
Now we must consider our future in Iraq.
We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos.
Wow, some truth here...I am shocked and appalled! The Iraqi elections were important, maybe you should tell Senator Kerry and Rep Kucinich that. Gee, and you say we shouldn't slip out the back door. Then tell Kennedy that so he will quit saying withdraw immediately. Gee, do you listen to what your own folks in your party leadership say, Nancy, or are you just giving us botox enhanced lip service?
Despite the best efforts of our troops and their Iraqi counterparts, Iraq still faces a violent and persistent insurgency. And the chairman of the National Intelligence Council said in January that Iraq is now "a magnet for international terrorists."
Firstly, the elections showed that the insurgency is losing. Yes, it is violent, and yes, it is rigid in its belief. However, the fact elections occurred shows that the efforts of our troops and their Iraqi counterparts has borne fruit. Secondly, a magnet for terrorists in Iraq is better than fighting them over here in DC, or in Cincinnati, or in New York, don't you think? Isn't it better to have them concentrated, rather than seeping all over the place? No, let's just pretend they aren't that big a deal, like Bill Clinton did, and wait for the next 9/11. I am sorry, we played that game, and it cost us 3000 lives. We are not going to pretend this is a nuisance like prostitution ever again, Nancy.
We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq. And we did not hear one tonight.
Democrats believe a credible plan to bring our troops home and stabilize Iraq must include three key elements.
First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible. This action is long overdue. The top priority for the U.S. military should be training the Iraqi army.
We must not be lulled into a false sense of confidence by the administration's claim that a large number of security personnel have been trained. It simply hasn't happened, but it must.
Second, Iraq's economic development must be accelerated. Congress has provided billions of dollars for reconstruction, but little of that money has been spent to put Iraqis to work rebuilding their country.
Infrastructure improvements in Iraq are more than just projects; they give Iraqis hope for a better future and a stake in achieving it -- and they contribute to Iraqi stability.
Third, regional diplomacy must be intensified. Diplomacy can lessen the political problems in Iraq, take pressure off of our troops, and deprive the insurgency of the fuel of anti-Americanism on which it thrives.
If these three steps are taken, the next elections in Iraq -- scheduled for December - can be held in a more secure atmosphere, with broader participation, and a much smaller American presence.
Nancy, I refer you to page 6 of the transcript of the speech, toward the bottom of the page:
At the recommendation of our commanders on the ground, and in consultation with the Iraqi government, we will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepare more capable Iraqi security forces -- forces with skilled officers and an effective command structure. As those forces become more self-reliant and take on greater security responsibilities, America and its coalition partners will increasingly be in a supporting role. In the end, Iraqis must be able to defend their own country -- and we will help that proud, new nation secure its liberty....We are standing for the freedom of our Iraqi friends, and freedom in Iraq will make America safer for generations to come. (Applause.) We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.
You see, Nancy, there is a plan. You must have been getting botox treatments during this part of the speech. And, as for clear timetables, when are we leaving Germany after our occupation after WWII? Come on now, Nancy, quit playing the games. We both know America will have a presence for a long time. We both know many people are being trained. Of course, you keep changing the requirements for progress so you can continue to gripe and moan, all the while bemoaning our soldiers as OCCUPIERS and not chastising the likes in your own party for calling our military folks part of the problem. You and your party have no credibility on this issue, Nancy. You were wrong about Afghanistan, you were wrong about the elections, and you are still wrong. We cannot say by June all soldiers are going to leave. That is naive and stupid. Things change, resources change. You are using a false idea to try to malign this strategy. Simply disgraceful, and thank goodness the American people aren't buying it.
Just as we must transfer greater responsibility to the Iraqi people for their own security, we must embrace a renewed commitment to our security here at home.
It's been over three years since the attacks of September 11th. Our hopes and prayers will always be with the 9/11 families, who strengthen our resolve to win the War on Terror (search).
That is why you want to pull out immediately, Nancy? That is why you didn't want to fund our troops? Come on, now. Why don't you say the true party line of Democrats today: we deserved 9/11 because the US is the bad guy....let's be honest for once, shall we?
The pain and horror of that day will never be forgotten by any of us. Yet, the gaps in our security exposed by those attacks remain.
Despite the administration's rhetoric, airline cargo still goes uninspected, shipping containers go unscreened and our railroads and power plants are not secure.
Police officers and firefighters across America have pleaded for the tools they need to prevent or respond to an attack, but the administration still hasn't delivered for our first responders.
The greatest threats to our homeland security are the tons of biological, chemical, and even nuclear materials that are unaccounted for or unguarded.
More campaign rhetoric. Firstly, we cannot inspect every cargo ship. It is far better to wipe out terror with freedom than to do what you propose, Nancy. Also, as for the first responder issue, billions has been poured into that. The states are the ones holding it up. The money has been sent.
Lastly, under whose administration did this stuff turn up missing? Under whose administration did we have the cases of people being accused of smuggling material for the Chinese? Under whose administration did we have nuke tech given to North Korea? Oh yeah, a Democrat's. So, you expect us to believe you have a better plan. Come on, now.
The president says the right words about the threat, but he has failed to take action commensurate with it. We can and we must keep the world's most gruesome weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands.
Nothing is more important to our homeland security, and indeed to the safety of the world.
For three years, the president has failed to put together a comprehensive plan to protect America from terrorism. And we did not hear one tonight.
Nancy, you dolt! I would think that taking down the Taliban terror supporting state, taking down Saddam's terror supporting regime would be part of the plan. The President laid it out. You must have had some of that Botox in your ears. Expanding freedom to those poor and oppressed helps eradicate the prederelictious conditions for terrorism--namely a lack of hope. By pushing for freedom, we are encouraging people to have hope in a better future, and to turn away from terror as a solution. Of course, you are too high in your ivory tower of elitism to understand that, especially since you and your ilk regard America as the problem.
As we strive to close the gaps in our security here at home, we must do more than show our strength as a nation, we must also show our greatness.
We must extend the hand of friendship to our neighbors in Latin America. We must work to stop the genocide in Sudan. We must reinvigorate the Middle East peace process. And we must bring health and hope to people suffering from disease, devastation, and the fury of despair.
We are called to do this -- and more -- by our faith and our common humanity, and also because these actions will enhance our national security.
OK, here we go again. Let's see-billions to AIDS in Africa, immigration reform, and voting taking place in Palestine--all on Bush's watch. Nope, he has done nothing to foster security and diplomacy. Oh yeah, and because of our actions, Khaddafi and Libya abandoned WMD programs. Oh, yeah, and because of our strong stances, the proliferation of Iran and North Korea are no longer hidden, and the IQ Khan network has been dismantled. Nope, you are right Nancy, this President hasn't done a thing. HE HAS DONE MANY THINGS! Despite your insipid and juvenile attacks, he has gotten great things done, but you continue to stand in the way. And the fact you talk about faith is galling to me.
You mention the Mid East Peace Process. Sharon and Abbas both say there is a huge opportunity with the death of Arafat, that things are calming down. Gee, Nancy, are you saying we should have assassinated Arafat? I thought he was your hero.
The President said it tonight: the best way to ensure peace and security for America is by expanding liberty around the world. This does not have to happen through arms, but through diplomacy. He encouraged Saudi Arabia and Egypt to change. He didn't threaten, he just encouraged. Sounds like reasonable diplomacy to me. Of course, I keep forgetting that diplomacy to you liberals is appeasement, perhaps an arms deal that is easily violated by the other side, and more self hatred.
Democrats are committed to a strong national security: that keeps America safe, that wins the War on Terror and that never again sends our troops into harm's way without the equipment they need.
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA(gasp, wheeze)hahahahahahahahahahAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHA! Stop it, you're killing me here Nancy. This statement is full of humor. I didn't think you could make a joke, Nancy, but you surprised me.
Gee, is it like Kerry's website, where you had to have the secret decoder ring to find his secret plan for Iraq? Democrats talking premiere military is like listening to an infomercial for miracle weight loss products. A lot of hot air with little substance. And President Bush just enacted better benefits for soldiers and families this week. Geez, you guys just don't pay attention to anyone outside your little kook liberal echo chamber, now, do you?
In our New Partnership for America's Future (search), House Democrats have made a commitment to guarantee a military second to none, to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; to build strong diplomatic alliances; to collect timely and reliable intelligence to keep us safe at home; and to honor our veterans and their families by making sure they have the health care and benefits they have earned.
For those returning from military service today - our newest veterans - Democrats are calling for a G.I. Bill of Rights for the 21st , to guarantee access to education, health care and the opportunity for good jobs.
And as we protect and defend the American people, we must also protect and defend our Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein. That is our oath of office.
Let's end the speech with a bit more on outsourcing, talking about things already in place, and not offering a vision. Oh yeah, and let's trash the Patriot Act as well. Same tired stuff, different day.
A strong and secure America was our parents' gift to us. We owe our children and our grandchildren nothing less.
Thank you, good night, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
Wow, a true statement followed by a God reference. Careful, Nancy, the kook fringe base of the party will disown you, and only Barbara Boxer will be left to manipulate key decisions for fundraising opportunities.
MARK'S OVERALL IMPRESSION: Same tired garbage from the campaign, recycled for a different day. Yawn....at times funny with the idea of Dims being for a strong military (look at the 1990s for the truth in that), and of talking about investment and innovation, even while they are blocking such things from social security reform. The Party of NO: no vision, no ideas, no leadership, no clue.
