Harry Reid: "Ted Stevens will always be remembered as a lion"

[redstate_democrat]

Harry Reid reached this conclusion AFTER Ted Stevens had been convicted on numerous fraud charges. Harry Reid sang the praises of convicted felon and senator Ted Stevens POST conviction and gave him a standing ovation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIX8q0AzjGw (starting at 1:25 in video). He also claimed Ted Stevens had been a good advocate for his state. If Ted Stevens has been a good advocate for Alaska, in Harry Reid's estimation, then I want the exact opposite of what Harry Reid thinks is a good kind of advocate.

But for Roland Burris, the guards must stand in front of the doors to block him from entering the senate chamber.

[YDogg]

1. perhaps he meant "liar?"

:shrug:

[nxylas]

30. Yeah, "lion" being short for "lion sack of shit"

Hmmm, that joke really works better if you say it out loud.

[fascisthunter]

2. and Harry Reid will Always be Remembered as an Enabler to Corruption

the worst this nation has had to endure.

[thunder rising]

6. The real question is, does he automatically get the speaker position back?

[fascisthunter]

9. not sure....

[PBS Poll-435]

14. Do you mean the position of Senate Majority Leader?

I believe that when the 111th Congress convenes, each caucus will elect their leaders.

I would be shocked as shit if Reid didn't get it again.

[Uzybone]

3. No defense for Stevens getting an ovation

I know there is the "camaraderie" and all that shit of the senate. But Stevens was a straight up crook. Way more crooked than Blago.

That being said, I think its beyond naive for anyone to think the democrats don't have to put up at least a pretense of fighting this Blago pick.

[DJ13]

4. Congress is one big "insiders club"

Party differences are for the cameras, in reality they are so close theres no differences worth talking about.

Which is why our country is in such a mess.

[Critters2]

5. Hmmm...what else is different between Stevens and Burris...?

But this isn't about race. Right.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

8. Is Obama being racist for not wanting Burris seated?

[ellacott]

10. Sure, Barack Obama doesn't care about Black people

That's it.

[Critters2]

13. Obama's not the one threatening to block him from entering.

Obama would rather Blago had not named anyone. Reid is the one threatening to keep him from actually taking his seat.

Didn't mind sitting in the same chamber with Stevens, though.

[ellacott]

18. My response was to the person asking if Obama was being racist?

Who cares about Stevens. If Blago had named a white person Reid would have the same response. Stop this, my goodness.

For the record I think he should be seated but not for the reasons the you have.

[Critters2]

23. Reid claims he's pissed about Blago's corruption. He was a lot less pissed

about Stevens' corruption. Stevens was convicted. Blago hasn't been tried.

[redstate_democrat]

24. And as far as I know, while Stevens was being investigated and tried, he was neither

blocked from entering the senate or asked to resign. Blago hasn't even been indicted yet.

[earcandle]

83. thank you!

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

25. But he does agree with it.

[Critters2]

31. With physically barring his way?

He's made no such statement.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

33. So you're okay with them rejecting Burris, as long as they don't physically bar him?

From what i can tell, the fact that Burris isn't being seated = all white boys club keeping black people out, has been what you've been saying...

So by that logic, Obama agrees with the all white boys club in the Senate.

[Critters2]

36. He should be seated. He's qualified by all standards.

Obama made his statement before he knew who would be named, and when he and everyone else thought Blago would be indicted before naming anyone. He jumped the gun, and knows it. Which is why he's remaining silent now.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

38. WRONG!!! Obama commented AFTER Blago appointed Burris:

President-elect Barack Obama criticized the appointment of Roland Burris to replace him in the Senate, and backed Senate Democrats' opposition to the move, in a statement emailed to reporters.

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat," he said. "I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it."

Obama's statement, and the fact of his election as the first black president, may defuse the core of Blagojevich's strategy, which is to build support for himself and the appointment by making the conflict about race.

Obama reiterated his call on Blagojevich to resign.

"I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy," he said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1208/Obama_calls_Burris_choice_disappointing.html

now what?

[Critters2]

40. Please quote where he's endorsed using caps or marshalls to keep Burris from entering

the chambers.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

41. So your only problem with this is if they physically bar Burris, not that he won't be seated?

That's not how it sounded earlier. it sounded like you were saying the very fact that they would oppose sitting Burris meant that they endorsed an old boys club mentality, which would also mean Obama does as well....

[Critters2]

44. He should be seated. He's been named by the governor.

Physically barring him makes it that much worse, especially given the standing O they gave Stevens. But there's no legal reason not to seat him.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

45. Well, all I can say is that I agree with Obama; it's about ethics.

and anyone who would attempt to say not seating burris is about race is also saying obama is against burris becaue he's black. which is just stupid.

[Critters2]

46. It's convenient to make it about ethics now.

It's really about the law. Burris meets all the legal qualifications. The people of Illinois elected Blago. Blago named Burris. Burris is the junior senator from Illinois. Whether Reid likes it or not.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

47. Why do you think Obama opposes Burris being seated?

[Critters2]

50. He's distancing himself from Blago.

Doesn't matter. Burris is the rightfully named senator.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

52. Obama doesn't want his former seat tainted by someone who Blago has appointed.

I'm sure he doesn't feel it's ethical. Obama doesn't want that. Why do you disagree with Obama and want Obama's former seat tainted?

And, how is Obama distancing himself from Blago any different from Senate Dems wanting distance from it?

[Critters2]

54. Tough shit. The people of Illinois elected Blago. Blago named Burris.

Burris gets to be Senator, no matter how Obama feels about it. The law should be followed.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

55. Well tough shit for Burris, because Burris won't be the next senator.

and the senate is within its constitution right to reject him:

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2009/01/02/blagojevich-burris-constitution-oped-cx_lt_0102tribe.html

[Critters2]

58. Not according to Powell vs McCormack, it isn't.

Why would you deny basic constitutional rights to the people of Illinois?

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

60. I doubt the people of IL want any part of anyone Blago appoints.

The fact that Burris is indisputably "qualified" in the constitutional sense has no bearing on the authority of the Senate under Article I, Section 5 to serve as the sole "Judge of the Elections"--and, by extension, the temporary appointments--of would-be members.

Frank Smith, initially voted a U.S. Senator in 1926 by the Illinois electorate and appointed to the Senate in 1927 by the Illinois governor, was twice excluded by the Senate on the basis that huge campaign contributions and corrupt practices involving Smith had clouded both his original election and his subsequent appointment.

the senate has the right to reject whomever it does not see fit for some reason, legal or ethical. Don't get mad when they exercise their right like you say Blago is exercising his.

[Critters2]

64. What part of Illinois do you live in?

Me, I'm in LaSalle County.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

66. Do you speak for the people of IL? Like I said, if Blago is doing what is his right as you say,

the Senate can do what is in their right. Tough poop for Burris.

[Critters2]

67. I'm certainly more qualified to speak for the people of Illinois than you are, since I'm one of them

I know a helluva lot of other Illinoisans and I'm active in the Dem party in this state. The people of Illinois elected Blago. Not seating his choice is Reid's way of flipping a bird to the people of Illinois. Reid has never stood up to Bush, but he's willing to tell a whole state to get screwed. Nice.

It's time for Reid to go.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

70. blago has a 5% approval rating. Most people want him gone, and you're defending his right

to stay there and appoint whomever he wants. I HIGHLY doubt most people in IL agree with that.

And lets remember, its BLAGO who is flipping off IL by not resigning like most want him to do. Reid already said he won't appoint anyone seated by Blago. What made Blago or Burris think he'd change his mind? You should be calling for Blago to resign like 84% of your fellow IL residents so someone CAN be appointed or elected.

[Critters2]

71. I didn't even vote for him. But the majority of Illinoisans did.

And you are absolutely not qualified to talk about what most people in Illinois want. Blago is the governor. He's been neither indicted nor convicted. He hasn't resigned and he hasn't been impeached. Is he likely to be? Yeah, I think so. But I'm a big fan of the rule of law. Until he's no longer governor, he gets to name the Senator. And people here know Roland Burris is an honest and good man.

Illinoisans deserve two Senators, just like people in whatever state you're afraid to publicly state you're from.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

73. 84% of IL residents wan Blago to resign:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/12/84_percent_in_illinois_call_fo.html

Blago is a disgraced governor. Everyone in IL wants him gone. I can't even believe you would defend this man who is grasping for everything he has to stay in power, though disgraced. Blago can TRY to appoint someone, but that doesn't mean the Senate has to accept him. The senate feels whoever he appoints is tainted, just as what happened in the 20s when the senate rejected someone and any appointments by someone who they felt was corrupt. I'm sorry you don't like it but that's how the cookie crumbles.

[Critters2]

74. You're not reading carefully. I'm not defending Blago. I've known he was corrupt

since before the last election he won, which is why I didn't vote for him. I'm defending the rule of law. He's the governor, chosen by a majority of this state's citizens. As long as he's governor, he gets to carry out the duties of that office. Whether you like him or not.

I'm actually hoping the Illinois Democratic Party, of which I'm an active member, will learn from this and stand up to the Chicago machine.

But for now, Blagojevich is our governor. And everyone I know (and I know Illinoisans) think Burris should be seated, because no one believes he bought the seat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. Exactly right. Burris did nothing wrong, so it's not unethical to seat him.

[earcandle]

84. Obama agrees with lynch mob hearsay injustice?

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

86. Hearsay injustice? Burris not being seated is now an injustice. LOL.

it would be funny if not for the fact that you're serious. But yes, Obama did say Burris should not be seated and that he agrees with Harry Reid and Dems he shouldn't be allowed to do that.

[Sebastian Doyle]

51. Now, just because Harry Reid grew up believing that blacks descended from angels

who were too lazy to fight Satan*, doesn't necessarily make him a racist.







































*Official LDS church doctrine until about 1978

[IsItJustMe]

69. LOL. Yep, the good ole boys know how to take care of each other.

[peace13]

7. All these politicians are so into how they will be remembered!

Hey Harry, who gives a *rap! Those alive right now can see quite clearly how you and your cohorts in crime lie and steal at our expense!

[ProSense]

11. "Within a few days of his conviction, Stevens faced bipartisan calls for his resignation."

Within a few days of his conviction, Stevens faced bipartisan calls for his resignation. Both parties' presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, were quick to call for Stevens to stand down. Obama said that Stevens needed to resign to help "put an end to the corruption and influence-peddling in Washington."<79> McCain said that Stevens "has broken his trust with the people" and needed to step down—a call echoed by his running mate, Sarah Palin, governor of Stevens' home state.<80> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as fellow Republican Senators Norm Coleman, John Sununu and Gordon Smith have also called for Stevens to resign. McConnell said there would be "zero tolerance" for a convicted felon serving in the Senate—strongly hinting that he would support Stevens' expulsion from the Senate unless Stevens resigned first.<81><82> Late on November 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed that he would schedule a vote on Stevens' expulsion, saying that "a convicted felon is not going to be able to serve in the United States Senate."<83> If Stevens is expelled after winning reelection, a special election would be held to fill the seat through the remainder of the term, until 2014.<84> Some have speculated that defeated Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin will attempt to run for the Senate via this special election.<85><86>No sitting Senator has been expelled since the Civil War.

Nonetheless, during a debate with his opponent Mark Begich days after his conviction, Stevens continued to claim innocence. "I have not been convicted. I have a case pending against me, and probably the worse case of prosecutorial ... misconduct by the prosecutors that is known." Stevens may be referring to the view that a conviction is not final until judge sentencing. Stevens also cited plans to appeal.<87>

Despite his conviction, Stevens led Begich on Election Day by more than 3,200 votes. However, after counting of absentee and provisional ballots began, Begich pulled ahead, and now leads by 3,724 votes.<88>

On November 13, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina announced he would move to have Stevens expelled from the Senate Republican Conference (caucus) regardless of the results of the election. Losing his caucus membership would cost Stevens his committee assignments.<89> However, DeMint later decided to postpone offering his motion, saying that while there were enough votes to throw Stevens out, it would be a moot point if Stevens lost his reelection bid.<90> Stevens ended up losing the Senate race, and on Nov. 20, 2008, gave his last speech to the Senate, which was met with a rare Senate standing ovation. <91>

link

[redstate_democrat]

16. But see this is the problem with you posting this article.

Roland Burris hasn't been convicted of anything. Neither has Blagojevich. I don't believe a convicted felon can serve in the senate, especially since he will probably be sentenced to prison. Continuing in his role as a senator would be physically impossible.

The point I was making with my OP is that Reid was more than happy to give a little deference and respect to Ted Stevens by singing his praises and abstaining from blocking him from the senate floor. Also, Reid's statements about how good an advocate Stevens was, to me, demonstrates a lack of judgment and honesty.

[ProSense]

21. This isn't about Burris. Still,

Burris exercised poor judgment and set himself up as a hypocrite. Burris knew the deal and shouldn't have accepted the appointment. He was in complete agreement with Dems in mid December, even supporting Blagojevich's removal from office. By accepting Blagojevich's appointment, Burris set himself up as a self-serving hypocrite. Apparently, his principles go out the door when his own interests are at stake.

His earlier condemnation of Blagojevich is not going to help his case.

[redstate_democrat]

26. Burris' judgment or "hypocrisy" is irrelevant to the current legal situation regarding

his appointment. If we used that criteria, more than half of senate Democrats should be expelled.

[ProSense]

28. The Senate determination isn't about Burris. The point about his judgment and hypocrisy

is my opinion.

[redstate_democrat]

32. I'm dealing strictly with the legality of the situation.

Is there a legal basis for blocking Roland Burris from obtaining a seat he was, by all accounts, lawfully appointed to. Forget about opinions. That's what Senate Democrats are using as their justification. What about the legality of all of this? Is there a legal basis which exists for wholly preventing or blocking someone who has been legally appointed? I'm not talking about their clearly defined roles with regard to expulsion post seating. I'm talking about them refusing to even seat someone who has been appointed.

[ProSense]

37. "Is there a legal basis for blocking Roland Burris" Yes,

there is

[redstate_democrat]

39. LOL

Oh god. You direct me to another one of your posts to demonstrate to me that there is a legal basis for this. From what I can tell, Tribe is basically giving his own interpretation. He was never even nominated to the Supreme Court as far as I can tell. However, there does exist a certain 1969 case that is on point regarding this very situation. I think, as it pertains to the actual law and not just some professor's interpretation, I will look to the actual Supreme Court cases.

And this little tidbit is especially concerning:

Frank Smith, initially voted a U.S. Senator in 1926 by the Illinois electorate and appointed to the Senate in 1927 by the Illinois governor, was twice excluded by the Senate on the basis that huge campaign contributions and corrupt practices involving Smith had clouded both his original election and his subsequent appointment.

And the white supremacist Theodore Bilbo, elected by the people of Mississippi for a third Senate term in 1946, was not seated by the Senate because a majority deemed his election tainted by his corrupt campaign practices and intimidation of black voters. Of course, nobody suspects corruption or racism on the part of this governor's shrewdly chosen appointee, a squeaky clean African-American politician.

Since both of these situations occurred PRIOR to the 1969 case. I'm assuming that 1969 case set the record straight on this issue.

[ProSense]

42. Oh, so you picked the portion you wanted to read and attached your own interpretation?

Let me post the whole thing here:

The Senate doesn't have to seat Burris.

But the arguments saying the Senate must seat Burris miss the mark as well. The fact that he is indisputably "qualified" in the constitutional sense has no bearing on the authority of the Senate under Article I, Section 5 to serve as the sole "Judge of the Elections"--and, by extension, the temporary appointments--of would-be members.

And the fact that the governor has yet to be convicted or even impeached is hardly conclusive when dealing with a Senate decision that a particular election or appointment process has been too tainted by evidence of corruption for any victor in that process to represent the electorate with honor and, equally vital, with the appearance of honor.

It matters not that the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not yet been met and might never be: The question for the Senate isn't whether the Illinois governor truly is a crook, but whether reasonable observers would deem the process too crooked to produce a credible result.

The task of deciding whether public trust would be unacceptably compromised by seating any appointee of a governor whose overheard comments had poisoned the public well should not be confused with the task of deciding whether someone is guilty of election fraud or of corruptly conspiring to sell a public office for personal gain.

True, there has never been a case precisely like this one. It was confusion over the respective powers of state legislatures and governors in the immediate wake of the newly ratified 17th Amendment that led to the Senate's exclusion of two Alabama appointees, Henry Clayton and Franklin Glass, in the fall of 1913.

Frank Smith, initially voted a U.S. Senator in 1926 by the Illinois electorate and appointed to the Senate in 1927 by the Illinois governor, was twice excluded by the Senate on the basis that huge campaign contributions and corrupt practices involving Smith had clouded both his original election and his subsequent appointment.

And the white supremacist Theodore Bilbo, elected by the people of Mississippi for a third Senate term in 1946, was not seated by the Senate because a majority deemed his election tainted by his corrupt campaign practices and intimidation of black voters. Of course, nobody suspects corruption or racism on the part of this governor's shrewdly chosen appointee, a squeaky clean African-American politician.

But that the Senate's early December decision to exclude any Blagojevich appointee reflected nothing about the particular person he appointed cuts for, not against, leaving the matter to the judicially unreviewable judgment of the Senate itself.

For the danger of invoking doubts about the process of election or appointment, as a pretext for excluding someone that a Senate majority finds objectionable, is minimized when the decision to exclude is made in advance of any individual's appointment, and thus under the classical philosopher's veil of ignorance about whose ox might be gored.

Right, until a court decides, if it even goes that far, you have to rely on the opinions of experts and form your own. The thing is: you don't get to state that the expert is absolutely wrong and you are definitely right.

[redstate_democrat]

43. I still don't see how you've demonstrated anything

When it's all said and done, these are the opinions of one man. Alternatively, there does exist actual law on the books that gives guidance on this issue.

Usually, people rely on existing law, not simply experts, in forming legal conclusions.

Edited to Add: In addition, Tribe has made legal conclusions that have yet to be recognized under the law. Namely, same sex marriage. A gay couple wouldn't be able to take one of his policy papers on same sex marriage to a county clerk and apply for a marriage license in California right now. Wanna know why? Because his words aren't law.

[ProSense]

53. Nothing will demonstrate anything to you. Not

two more and another.

The fact is, the Senate made the determination and their position is supported by many Constitutional experts, Tribe being one of the foremost:

Laurence Henry Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor. Tribe is generally recognized as one of the foremost constitutional law experts and Supreme Court practitioners in the United States. He is the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), the most frequently cited treatise in that field, and has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 36 times.

Born in Shanghai, China, Tribe immigrated to San Francisco at the age of six. He attended Abraham Lincoln High School. He holds an A.B. in Mathematics, summa cum laude, from Harvard College (1962) and a J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School (1966).

Tribe was considered a potential Supreme Court nominee until he testified against Robert Bork, making lasting enemies in the U.S. Senate (although he supported Anthony Kennedy, who was eventually appointed in Bork's place). His protégé, Kathleen Sullivan, is now thought of by many as a potential Court nominee if a Democrat takes the White House. As a result of the fact that he is unlikely to ever take a seat on the Supreme Court given both his large body of scholarship, his political activism, and now his age, Tribe continues to strongly support liberal political causes. He is one of the co-founders off the American Constitution Society, the law and policy organization formed to counteract the conservative Federalist Society.

link

[redstate_democrat]

57. The legal experts you give can always be rebutted by other legal experts with the opposite "opinion"

A legal scholar writes in to say that precedent surrounding the Senate's right to not seat certain members seems very likely to fall in Burris' favor.

"My reading of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, is that the Senate probably can NOT constitutionally block Burris from being seated," writes the constitutional law professor. "Art. I, sec. 5 gives each House the power to judge the qualifications of its own members. Powell holds (inter alia) that the qualifications to be judged are those stated in the Constitution (see Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 3 and the 17th Amendment)."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/roland-burris-has-lock-on_n_154322.html">Roland Burris Almost Certain to be Seated, Legal Scholars Say

And all I did was simply google "legal expert Roland Burris" and clicked the first result. I don't even need to go any further.

[ProSense]

59. "A legal scholar writes in to say" Seriously, an anonymous opinion?

Anyone basing their argument solely on the Powell decision isn't paying attention to what the Senate stated.

[redstate_democrat]

62. You're kidding right?

If you think my example is the entirety of the legal opinion stating that Burris has to be seated, then you haven't been paying attention. I don't feel like scouring the internet to find every single source to support the most obvious legal opinion that has been bandied about in the media since this entire situation occurred. Some "legal experts" are known to have some of the most, shall we say, "eccentric", legal conclusions out there.

[ProSense]

63. No, I'm not. n/t

[redstate_democrat]

65. Rhetorical question.

I'm pretty confident you weren't.

[earcandle]

88. no, no legal basis

[earcandle]

85. Burris is standing up for the people of Illinois to have two senators.

What is wrong with that?

People are not legally judged by the company they keep.
That is a function of the social structure who thinks they are
really in control.
But they are not, and if we resist being duped by their press,
our constitution
and the law will sort it all out properly. 

[damntexdem]

12. Well, at least he's a lyin' crook.

And Reid will put up a facade of opposition to Burris until the Senate ultimately seats him. Top Dems need to cover their asses about the Blago mess; but they'll reluctantly accede to reality and seat Burris.

Meanwhile, the big issue is what will happen with Franken.

[opihimoimoi]

15. Harry was just being civil/polite...it was no big theeng....better him than a PUB

[redstate_democrat]

19. Yes and Reid is also being civil and polite to Burris by physically blocking him from taking his

lawfully appointed seat in the Senate. The threshold for civility seems to be out of whack when it comes to certain Democrats.

[opihimoimoi]

22. Yes, apparently so...someday we find out the real story..To tell ya...it hardly seems worth it these

days....

Everyone wants to say things at the campfire...some more than others.....its maddening....

[Cha]

17. And wtf is wrong

with that picture besides being heinously disgusting.

[eppur_se_muova]

20. A lyin' what?

I favor 'sonofabitch', but others may be more creative.

[AtomicKitten]

27. That's an insult to lions.

[TheCowsCameHome]

29. .....remembered as a lyin' SOB

Adios, Ted.

[moondust]

34. Good-bye Harry.

Your judgment is seriously flawed.

[Larkspur]

35. Harry Reid should do this nation a favor and resign as majority leader

He will go down in history as the most incompetent and unimaginative majority leader the Democrats have ever produced.

[earcandle]

87. no kidding!

[calimary]

48. Maybe it was just misspelled. A'lyin', I think.

[Sebastian Doyle]

49. Harry Reid will always be remembered as a spineless moron.

And no, that was NOT a reference to his membership in the LDS church.

[bigwillq]

56. Reid needs to GO, NOW!

:mad:

[paulk]

61. video heavily edited by Kos

I wonder what the context was

Not that it really matters for DU - a website whose main purpose seems to be to dump on the Democrat du jour.

------

also - Stevens was a good advocate for Alaska, in that he bought a whole lot of Federal money into his state. That is one of the biggest jobs a US Senator has. He must have been doing something the people there liked - they reelected him 6 times...

[Onlooker]

68. Ted Stevens was probably a good Senator

Ted Kennedy got drunk and accidentally killed someone, yet he's still one the greatest Senators. Ted Stevens was lousy on national policy, but he was probably good for local pork. Just because someone is corrupt doesn't mean they were incompetent.

[Critters2]

72. Wow! I can't believe you mentioned Chappaquiddick!

:popcorn:

[Onlooker]

75. I love Ted ...

... and volunteered for him freezing temps when he ran for President years ago, but let's not deny the Chappy story reflects badly on him.

[spanone]

76. it's a small club and they protect their own, regardless of the crime

[MasonJar]

77. Reid needs to go; what a disaster. He will not seat Burris who has

done nothing because he is chosen by someone who may be indicted, but he praises a convicted felon. WOW!!!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. Couldn't agree more. Reid is the worst majority leader ever. . . .

A jellyfish has more spine than that moron.

[glitch]

78. Good God, the willingness to appear ridiculous appears to be growing, not diminishing, why?

Maybe he mis-spoke and meant Ted Kennedy (to be very generous).

[depakid]

79. But, but he "strongly admonished" Joe Lieberman...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Harry Reid will always be remembered as an idiot. He needs to just STFU!

[earcandle]

89. it is written!

[JNelson6563]

90. Stevens is a shit-flinging monkey

[Phx_Dem]

91. Lay off the booze, Harry. You're embarrassing yourself.