»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog  | »Contribute Online »Terms
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Monday, January 11, 2010 ::

Hearts of Darkness 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 6:30 PM

The moral sewers that are the minds of the likes of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senate majority leader, were revealed this week with the report that Reid has apologized to President Barack Obama (and to other black civil rights leaders) for having said privately in 2008 that Obama was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

Reid’s remark was made public in a new book, Game Change, by political reporters John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. The book chronicles the sludge and sleaze behind the Democratic contest for presidential nomination and the race against John McCain and Sarah Palin. The publisher’s website describes what can only be characterized as a chronicle of dirt:

Game Change answers those questions and more, laying bare the secret history of the 2008 campaign. Heilemann and Halperin take us inside the Obama machine, where staffers referred to the candidate as "Black Jesus." They unearth the quiet conspiracy in the U.S. Senate to prod Obama into the race, driven in part by the fears of senior Democrats that Bill Clinton's personal life might cripple Hillary's presidential prospects….And they reveal how, in an emotional late-night phone call, Obama succeeded in wooing Clinton, despite her staunch resistance, to become his secretary of state.


Reid has apologized for the remark but sounded more like he was campaigning for reelection.

In a statement, Reid confirmed his remarks and apologized for them. “I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments,” he said today, “I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda. Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues important to the African American community.”


He was forgiven by Obama. Well, of course. Reid, together with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, has the principal task of getting the socialist health-care bill passed by Congress.

President Barack Obama released a statement this afternoon stating that Reid called him to apologize “for an unfortunate comment.” The president said he accepted the apology. “I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”


Why would he castigate Reid over a mere slip of tongue and unguarded moment, when more important things are at stake than Obama’s own self-respect, such as vanquishing America? But, the book is not closed. Game Change goes on sale in a few days, and the guided tour by Heilemann and Halperin of the cesspools of Beltway politics should make the authors millionaires.

This is all very revealing about Harry Reid. It should not be surprising that a man who “advances Obama’s legislative agenda” of nationalizing the economy and abridging American freedoms would also harbor the same knee-jerk racist premises as Vice-President Joe Biden and former Senate majority leader Trent Lott. All the minds party to this legislation are vessels of malignity. In public, these creatures appear well-groomed in pressed suits and are on good conduct. Behind the scenes, they are, as Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota suggested, manipulative, foul-mouthed gangsters.

If the Republicans wished to “bring down” Harry Reid as a means of defeating the health-care legislation, they ought to be challenging his political career, premises, and political agenda. They ought to be screaming their heads off about the Marx/Alinsky/Ayers number Reid and his ilk in Congress and the White House are about to pull on the country.

Instead, they are calling for his resignation over a comparatively unimportant racial remark. If Reid is guilty of anything, which is his greater offense? Saying something uncouth, or advocating and working hard to bring about the destruction of American liberty?

The Republican ruse to defeat the health-care legislation is intellectually vacuous. The Republican strategy is as ludicrous and futile as if the Romans accused the Huns of being bad dressers, and so they should just go away, instead of pillaging Rome. Harry Reid may be, in the core substance of his existence, a rotten, hypocritical creature. But in the hearts of Republican leadership, there is only the hollow darkness of moral bankruptcy.

:: help support this website | link | 6 Comments

 

 

» Recent Posts

» States’ Rights: Dumb Show and Noise
» Republics vs. Democracies
» Facts are Stubborn Things
» A Copenhagen Postmortem
» Obama’s War on America
» The Climate “Creationists”
» Objectivist Blog Round-Up #125
» The IPCC’s Square Pegs and Round Holes
» Fork-Tongued in Washington
» Fork-Tongued in Shanghai

» RSS Feed


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
We want to hear from you!



Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Conspiracy to Keep You Poor & Stupid
» Charlotte Capitalist
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Potomac Gold Star Wives
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Rational Public Radio

»
Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
»
The Objective Standard
» The Secular Foxhole
» Truth, Justice and the American Way
» Words by Woods

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


» Blog Archives

» March 2003
» April 2003
» May 2003
» June 2003
» July 2003
» August 2003
» September 2003
» October 2003
» November 2003
» December 2003
» January 2004
» February 2004
» March 2004
» April 2004
» May 2004
» June 2004
» July 2004
» August 2004
» September 2004
» October 2004
» November 2004
» December 2004
» February 2005
» March 2005
» April 2005
» May 2005
» November 2005
» January 2006
» February 2006
» March 2006
» April 2006
» May 2006
» June 2006
» July 2006
» August 2006
» September 2006
» October 2006
» November 2006
» December 2006
» January 2007
» February 2007
» March 2007
» April 2007
» May 2007
» June 2007
» July 2007
» August 2007
» September 2007
» October 2007
» November 2007
» December 2007
» January 2008
» February 2008
» March 2008
» April 2008
» May 2008
» June 2008
» July 2008
» August 2008
» September 2008
» October 2008
» November 2008
» December 2008
» January 2009
» February 2009
» March 2009
» April 2009
» May 2009
» June 2009
» July 2009
» August 2009
» September 2009
» October 2009
» November 2009
» December 2009
» January 2010
» February 2010
» March 2010
» April 2010
» May 2010
» June 2010
» July 2010
» August 2010
» September 2010
» October 2010
» November 2010
» December 2010
» January 2011
» February 2011
» March 2011
» April 2011
» May 2011
» June 2011
» July 2011
» August 2011
» September 2011
» October 2011
» November 2011
» December 2011
» January 2012
» February 2012
» March 2012
» April 2012
» May 2012



Philosophy Blog Directory
 

Copyright © 1998-2012 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster