Harry Reid Painting With Broad Strokes: "Unemployed Men Are Abusive"

That wondrous assclown Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has struck again.

"Women don't have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time," he said. "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive," the majority leader added. "Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.”

Allow me to dissect this. First, Reid is making a tremendously broad generalization. Second, he is weakening himself along moderate voters by sounding like a paranoid feminist. Third, his comments make the state of Nevada look like a miserable place to live. If you were a senator, would you loudly proclaim that your state's domestic crisis shelters are "full" and that its unemployed men are a pack of abusive bastards!?

Why do politicians say things that are patently untrue, and make up false premises in order to serve their agendas? It is supremely insulting to those of us who actually know what is going on. We have let far too many senators, congressmen, and executive officials get away with this nonsense.

(Digression: NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other similar organizations are likely cheering all of this alleged abuse, as it gives them a fresh swath of moral high ground on which they can pontificate about the evils of masculinity. Nothing makes feminist, pro-choice Nazis happier than crimes against women. I am willing to bet that they start using Reid's false statements in their promotional/PR materials.)

Reid's Obama Gaffe Is Telling Indeed

Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader and the White House's healthcare reform lackey, apologized for racially insensitive comments that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign season. The apology was prompted by the fact that Reid's quotes will be appearing in Mark Halperin and John Heileman's new book Game Change, which will detail the 2008 campaign. The crux of the controversy is that Reid apparently referred to then-Senator Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect-unless he wants to have one", and remarked that the country would accept such a candidate with ease.

From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.

Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.

Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.

P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.

P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.

P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.