Rallying to Save Common Sense
Mike Allen and Jake Sherman write at Politico that Democrats are fighting to “save Harry Reid’s political career” by contrasting his record on civil rights and racial issues with that of leading Republicans.
These moves to turn the race issue back onto Republicans is [sic] risky, yet it shows how Reid and his allies are ready to pull out all the stops to help the majority leader recover from his disastrous comments about Barack Obama being “light-skinned” and having no “Negro dialect.”
As opposed, Allen and Sherwin continue, to the way Republicans “quickly abandoned” Trent Lott when he made his “nostalgic remark about the segregationist Dixiecrat presidential run of Strom Thurmond.”
And those Republicans are usually so great at sticking together! But there is an explanation for this mysterious difference: Trent Lott’s remark was so blatantly racist that Republicans knew they couldn’t be seen as supporting it, no matter what they may have thought privately. Harry Reid’s remark was clumsily expressed, using racially archaic language that some African Americans might find offensive or insensitive today, but it did not contain the white supremacist subtext that Lott’s statement clearly did.
TMV’s Dalitso Njinjo has already written a post along these lines, and today Ta-Nehisi Coates has similar thoughts to share on his Atlantic.com blog. Quoting John Cornyn’s public statement calling for Sen. Reid to “step down as majority leader,” Coates writes:
I think you can grant that, in this era, the term “Negro dialect” is racially insensitive and embarrassing. That said, the fair-mind[ed] listener understands the argument–Barack Obama’s complexion and his ability to code-switch is an asset. You can quibble about the “light skin” part, but forget running for president, code-switching is the standard M.O. for any African American with middle class aspirations.
But there’s no such defense for Trent Lott. Lott celebrated apartheid Mississippi’s support of Strom Thurmond, and then said that had Thurmond won, “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.” Strom Thurmond run for president, specifically because he opposed Harry Truman’s efforts at integration. This is not mere conjecture–nearly half of Thurmond’s platform was dedicated to preserving segregation. The Dixiecrat slogan was “Segregation Forever!” (Exclamation point, theirs.) Trent Lott’s wasn’t forced to resign because he said something “racially insensitive.” He was forced to resign because he offered tacit endorsement of white supremacy–frequently.
Firedoglake’s Blue Texan says the same thing in somewhat pithier terms.
Best for last: Greg Sargent reports that it looks like Harry Reid made those “private” remarks to… the authors of the book in which they are quoted:
Could Harry Reid himself be the source for the explosive anecdote about his racially charged comments — ones that have created the biggest mess of his political lifetime?
Yep. Reid himself is the source of the anecdote, the Majority Leader’s office confirms. And this raises a bunch of questions about what happened here.
The authors’ note at the beginning of Game Change, the book about Campaign 2008 by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, states clearly that any comments that appear “within quotation marks” come from “the speaker himself, someone who was present and heard the remark, contemporaneous notes, or transcripts.”
The quote is within quotation marks. From page 36, about Reid:
He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he later put it privately.
Reid’s office confirms that Reid himself was the source of the anecdote to the reporters. His office declined to elaborate. But it looks as if Reid used the language to one of the reporters in some way or other.
The authors’ note further specifies that “all our interviews” were conducted on a “deep background” basis. So it looks like Reid used this language in an interview on deep background. That must be what the reporters mean when they say Reid said this stuff “privately.”
48 Responses to “Rallying to Save Common Sense”
The noise being made about Reid is just more false equivalence nonsense – which is a poor cousin to revisionist history attempts. So… what is it the republicans actually stand FOR again? No one seems able to explain it.
Agreed, although I don't like him.
I will stay out of the civil rights debate and the GOP bashing or Dem bashing and just ask the only important question on this issue I can think of. Exactly where did Harry Reid say or insinuate that the civil rights movement and ending segregation was a bad idea? If he did not then this is not comparable to Lott and them spinning to defend him just makes them look like idiots from my view. It was a stupid statement, at least not pc on the left kinda like calling the “death tax” the inheritance tax and being in the gop, its not pc in party or in this case culturally but it is also not a statement that things were better when they were more unequal. This is the kind of thing we should just allow voters to punish him or not punish him for, if he goes away Yucca Mountain will be filled to the brim very soon so either way I will call the election a win. The Dems should just let it go and ignore the noise though, this is silly.
Conservatives have values Liberals have issues. That in more than a few ways describes the difference in support for when a Repub screws up (or screws their way in to trouble) and a Democrat. When a republican is publicly exposed violating those values they are no longer electable by republican voters. Dems don't seem to have the same issues reelecting a congressman who had sex with a teenage page. The key to the issues with Reid is that what he said or meant is meaningless because removing him would damage what they want to achieve. It would hurt the “issue” which is of course more important than any person or value.
I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think Lott or Reid had any racial motives at all. We want politicians to speak frankly but then try to castrate them whenever some perceptive line is crossed and political advantage presents itself. Really, who takes this crap seriously? Just the partisans who spend thousands of words and buckets of spittle predictably and methodically explaining why their guy is awesome and why the other guy is a dirty, fat, stinking racist. The people who engage in this kabuki theater of false outrage for the enemy and mindless apology for the ally should be ashamed of themselves. We've got two fracking wars going on and a host of issues with actual substance and we're spending time on this?
Well, if the republicans have values, then they are either in need of an upgrade or are being repressed for the sake of politics. Of course the democrats have values too, they just may not be values you appreciate.
By the way, I used the D and R words because “conservative” and “liberal” don't seem to be useful or accurate anymore.
Senator Reid, in a private conversation during the 2008 presidential campaign, as reported in a new book by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin: 'Harry Reid was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “'light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”
Senator Lott during a 100th birthday party for the retiring Thurmond, noting that during Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, whose centerpiece was opposition to integration, Mississippi was one of four states Thurmond carried: “We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either.” And, at a 1980 campaign rally for Ronald Reagan in Mississippi, referring to Thurmond: “You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.”
And, who was it who said/sang “Barack the Magic Negro” (of course in an “endearing, lighthearted manner”)? Do we remember the thousands of Republican political leaders who immediately rushed to the national microphones to condemn such?
We quote, you decide…
“The key to the issues with Reid is that what he said or meant is meaningless because removing him would damage what they want to achieve.”
Yep. In Reid's case, the Dems can't afford to switch leaders and look weak now, not only with health care reform but when facing the need to recover and regroup.
“And, who was it who said/sang “Barack the Magic Negro”"
A black columnist from LA if my memory serves me right
“Well, if the republicans have values, then they are either in need of an upgrade or are being repressed for the sake of politics.”
Maybe I should of specified voters? And at least with the Dems I do think there is a diference between Libs and Dems.
When it comes to these kinds of issues, Democrats have standards that are so high they are double.
This thread is so, unfortunately, typical. The partisans of one side defend while the partisans of the other side attack.
My God, has it really come to this? Every flipping time? No wonder we can't get anything done.
Oh, my view? I'm not black. It's not for me to decide.
We have to get to the point where Racial Epithets are irrelevant, then so will race.
In the future, “Republican”, will be the only word one can be jailed for mentioning.
I can appreciate your impatience with the apparent partisan tit for tat, and I realize how tempting it can be to pass to pass it off as such, but if people are willing to detach themselves from their pet bias, there are actual records of actual people which when compared objectively can show legitimate reasons for some of the attitudes expressed.
Sure it is! It affects YOUR speech and the freedom of it. As well, you may need to vote on it one day.
As JSpencer pointed out, in my disgust at the general tenor of the thread I made a blanket statement critical of all. It was inappropriate to include all commenters in that criticism as some were, in fact, not partisan in their comments. To those I apologize.
And who put it to music and played it over and over again? Of course, that “gentleman” did it all in “good fun.”
Trent Lott – December 10, 2002:
“”I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,”
Of these comments he stated: “My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life.”
Democrat Response: Democrats were angry. Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson called for Lott to resign, and former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on CNN's “Inside Politics” that Lott should apologize for his comments or face censure by the Senate.
Republican Response: Trent Lott is censured and resigns.
Harry Reid – October 2008
“Barack Obama is a black candidate who could be successful thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Of these comments, he stated: “I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” Reid said in a statement to CNN.
Democrat Response: “I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice, and I know what's in his heart,” Mr. Obama said. “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”
Republican Reponse: Republican National Chairman Michael Steele says he should be censured and resign.
It's pretty simple when it's laid side-by-side.
The Democrats should at minimum, censure Senator Reid; and at most, ask him to resign.
“And who put it to music and played it over and over again? Of course, that “gentleman” did it all in “good fun.”"
One way to look at it. You put “good fun” in quotes so I'm sure you could attribute that right? Mind you I didn't like it or agree with it but I can also see how it would be possible for someone to choose to make a point out of the obvious difference in reception you get depending on who you are. It's ok for this group to say certain things but not that group. What did Tidbits say? “I'm not black. It's not for me to decide.” I must know have someone from the offended group decide if a statement is offencive because regular people are not qualified. We all know almost everyone on here would think there would be something wrong, and indefensibly stupid, if a Republican said those same words. Anyone who says Kathy would be calling for their head is a lair or worse, but it is ok for a Dem? Is my miracle ear on? How does that make sense and how can normal people move forward, normal people, when the line changes constantly. I don't know that Reid needs to resign as speaker, definitely not as senator, but can people quit saying it's ok? At least just say he's an idiot now lets move on. The defence seems way to partisan so it comes off as fake.
No, it was Rush Dumbballs.
Extreme false equivalence again, and again, and again.
Get a grip man.
Tempest in a teapot. What Reid said was true, if lacking a certain sensitivity as is typical of some men of his age in private conversations. What Lott said in public was a lie typical of his political position meant to solidify support among Southern White males. Nothing out of the norm in either.
Lott lost his job finally not because of what he said but because Karl Rove and George W. Bush wanted to get rid of him and took this opportunity to do it. Reid's party's leadership needs him and so far supports him.
Has my ear gone tin or has this incident reversed the roles in what is commonly called the politically correct speech debate?
What a bunch of hooey over nothing. Reid used a poor choice of language in PRAISING Obama. He apologized, Obama accepted. Matter over.
By the way, the reason Trent Lott lost his leadership position wasn't so much his gaffe, but that the Republican leadership wanted him out. It was his own party that wanted to make a change, and he gave them a great opportunity to force him out.
It's all just typical politics, at the maturity level of middle school. And that's probably insulting middle school.
Actually, it was Rush Limbaugh, EEllis.
in that criticism as some were, in fact, not partisan in their comments. To those I apologize.
I think the larger point you made, about not wanting to comment because you're not black, is misguided, g.c. I don't believe a person needs to be black to know what racism is and is not. Harry Reid's remark was inartful (to use the word Pres. Obama used), but it was not racist. And its inartfulness was mostly in his choice to use the word “Negro.” Other than that, it may feel awkward and uncomfortable to talk about the ways in which skin complexion and style of speech still work to hold African Americans back from middle class status, and higher, but that doesn't make it untrue.
On the other hand, Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrat Party in the 1948 presidential race, although he didn't use racially offensive terminology and in fact never mentioned race at all, clearly was racist in endorsing that 1948 presidential campaign in which Strom Thurmond ran on an explicitly white supremacist platform. In the 1990s, Lott said he was proud of Mississippi for supporting Thurmond and the Dixiecrat Party and said if Thurmond had won, “all these problems” would not have existed.
It is outrageous — frighteningly so — to compare Lott's comments, including the context of his party's civil rights history and his own civil rights record, with Harry Reid's “Negro dialect” remark, both in itself and in the context of Reid's early and unswerving support for Obama plus his entire political career record on civil rights issues — and to say that, since Lott was forced to step down as majority leader because he endorsed segregation and white supremacy, it's a “double standard” if Reid is not also forced to step down as majority leader. It's frightening that the analogy is even being made, and it's frightening that the media is playing along with it for the most part. I mean, Republicans should absolutely be laughed out of town for such a ridiculous, absurd, and outrageous analogy.
I'm white, and I have no problem saying that.
We all know almost everyone on here would think there would be something wrong, and indefensibly stupid, if a Republican said those same words. Anyone who says Kathy would be calling for their head is a lair or worse, but it is ok for a Dem?
Here is a dose of common sense, EEllis: Context matters.
Umm no. It was a columnist from the LA Times who first use the phrase “magic Negro” which clearly D.E. knew and understood what I was referring to. Rush then put the phase to music.
“Get a grip man”
What a way to encourage debate…..
“Actually, it was Rush Limbaugh, EEllis”
Wow……….
“Context matters.”
Not really, that's just an excuse for behavior we wish to pardon. And as a response for my point that partisanship matters more than content, well the only context seems to be partisanship from your viewpoint, or are you honestly expecting anyone to believe you would not call for the head of any Republican who said the same thing? So unless every Republican who has ever been elected is racist what is your context except partisanship?
Not really, that's just an excuse for behavior we wish to pardon.
No, really, context does matter. It's not racist to acknowledge that racism exists.
or are you honestly expecting anyone to believe you would not call for the head of any Republican who said the same thing?
I can't imagine any Republican in the public eye doing that — saying the same thing Reid said. That's part of the point. No Republican leader would remark on Barack Obama's brilliance and verbal gifts, predict that he would win the election, and then add that his light skin color and ability to switch easily between black and white speaking styles made him a viable candidate. That's not a commentary on Obama's abilities; it's a commentary on white racism. No Republican leader would make any such comment, so your question doesn't even apply.
Furthermore, the Republican reaction to Reid's remarks is entirely political. There is no genuine horror at racism here, because there's no racism in what Reid said — just badly expressed praise. Republicans don't even really understand what racism is, or they could not compare what Reid said to what Lott said. So if by “anyone” you mean “anyone who is a Republican” then certainly I would not expect anyone like that to believe anything about this matter that made any sense.
So unless every Republican who has ever been elected is racist what is your context except partisanship?
Every Republican who has ever been elected is not the point. This is about the Republican record as a political party on issues of importance to African Americans as well as any individual Republican's record on same. The Republican Party has a long history of racist attitudes and insensitivity to issues that matter to black Americans, The entire Republican platform is hostile to and unserious about issues of racism, especially institutionalized racism. It's demonstrably true that racism, in very raw and ugly form, is endemic in the GOP. Literally dozens and dozens of examples exist of racist slurs, remarks, incidents, etc., just in the year since Obama took office. That context matters. By contrast, it's perfectly obvious that Harry Reid intended his remark about Obama as praise, because he supports and admires and respects Obama, because he has a long personal record of civil rights advocacy, because he is a leader in a party that believes in civil rights, in civil liberties, in racial equality — a party that supports policies that matter to black Americans.
So, in fact, you're right that partisan considerations are mattering more than content in the response to Sen. Reid's quoted remarks. But it's Republican partisanship that's being placed above the actual content of what Reid said, not the reverse.
” No Republican leader would make any such comment, so your question doesn't even apply.”
That's absurd. Plenty of Republican pols have said stupid things that were called racist because of the way they phrased a comment. You are just dodging reality here.
“This is about the Republican record as a political party on issues of importance to African Americans”
First it's no Republican leader would say such a thing then it's an excuse to why it would be ok to condemn them for racism even if they were not racist? No hypocrisy there………
Oh I'm sorry it's not an excuse it's “context”
Wow, Kathy, that's quite a sweeping statement to make based on very dubious assumptions.
It's clear to me Reid was talking about Obama in the context of analyzing his political chances to win the White House. To say that the GoP could never do the same thing – examine a candidate and come to similar conclusions – is just absurd, and I don't use that term lightly. Indeed, I think it's clear that the GoP recognized not only President Obama's verbal acumen, but also his cross-cultural appeal among other factors. I understand you're a partisan supporter of the Democrats. Nothing wrong with that. But to suggest that members of the other political party are somehow incapable of rational analysis (presumably because you think they are racists?) ultimately says a lot more about you than it does about them. Just sayin'….
Kathy,
Well, you may have a point about me not commenting on Reid's statement.
Whether it was “less bad” than Lott's statement strikes me as not the
issue. Reid's remarks were insensitively phrased, and saying that someone
from the other party once said something worse strikes me as more
diversionary than addressing the issue of Reid's comments. Reid's remarks
should be addressed on their own merit, in the context and at the point in
time they were made. Trent Lott lost his leadership position, and rightly
so, over his remarks about the Dixiecrat Party. The ramifications from
Reid's remarks are still unknown and will depend largely on reaction from
the African American community.
Perhaps I have lived too long and seen too much, but I do believe that
those affected should lead the response while the rest of us would do well
to hear their voices and only then decide whether or not to join in. I
have often said, only half tongue in cheek, that the issue of legal
abortion should be decided by a national referendum – in which only women
are allowed to vote.
You have caused me much soul searching (and re-writing) in responding to
you on this. Could my response be subconsciously personal? The kind and
sincere staffer from Sen. Lott's office who was “assigned” to me in DC when
I was being recruited to run for Congress? Sen. Lott's office's almost
certain involvement in my being honored by gubernatorial proclamation by
the State of Mississippi, a state with which I had no connection? But, I
don't think so. Part of my decision not to run included not wanting to
switch from Independent status to Republican because of control of the
party by the ultra right and my intuitive sense of an undercurrent of
racism in the party.
I've not yet come to closure on this. Teaching law school in the minority
students summer program and as a special instructor working one-on-one
teaching legal writing to students for whom English was a second language,
did I learn there not to assume levels of offense or learn that my
experience could best be expanded by listening to and learning from the
experiences and reactions of others?
Thank you for causing me to think.
—————————————-
Democrats are fighting to “save Harry Reid’s political career”
Not sure this is worth much effort………right now, the guy looks to have less than a year to go before the coters of Nevada return him to the state to start spending the money he made on land deals while Majority Leader.
Thanks D.E. Presenting the comments straight-up is appropriate. IMHO, Sen Reid's comments are stupid and Sen Lott's even stupider. Senator's can't say that stuff regardless of their intentions. And they should know better…
In Sen Reid's case, I'd be glad to hold the door open for him on his way out. Not for the remark, but because I think it would be a net plus for the Democratic party if he moved on. Ditto for Ms. Pelosi. I believe they are both too far to the left of the nation's political and ideological center and are thus lightening rods for due criticism and and undue attacks. They are not effective as leaders of the majority party but are instead a drag upon it.
HA, ha.
It's pretty simple when it's laid side-by-side.
The Democrats should at minimum, censure Senator Reid; and at most, ask him to resign.”
Nonsense, the whole thing. Side-by-side, but at right angles. Reps: we need to move on and use our energy to come up with some constructive stuff. Get out of the sandbox, already.
The Democrats' (and their defenders') double standard is unsurprising.
Did Reid say anything wrong? Especially the very last part, which could have applied to Hillary Clinton in Selma…
So far, Reid hasn't been given the equivalent of the PC-related kiss of death from President Bush (referring to “Trent” by his first name, the sign that “Trent” was about to face disaster).
What's interesting is how the defensiveness from the Usual Suspects involves the same person who otherwise is the object of ire mainly from the Left up to now. At least one or two, very few, honest lefties such as Thom Hartmann have not lost their consistency, and are recalling aloud today that Reid has been weak (including with health care “reform” legislative compromises) and faces poor re-election prospects, and as Hartmann said just a short time ago, might be due for “a Chris Dodd talk” from Dem leadership.
Agreed. But watch that teapot stuff, there are some very sensitive tea users here. And, now NJ is allowing medical pot, make mine a brownie.
It's clear to me Reid was talking about Obama in the context of analyzing his political chances to win the White House.
Yes, and from the point of view of someone who liked and admired him, who counted him as a friend, who wanted him to win the White House, who thought he would make a great President, who believed he *would* become President, because of his brilliance and verbal acumen, among many other things, and who believed, as well, that even though he well knew that brilliance and verbal acumen were not enough to overcome the racism of many white voters, this man (Obama) would win the election despite that still pervasive racism because…. he was a light-skinned black man, and did not have a typically African American accent or dialect, and so had an excellent chance of *not* triggering the atavistic fears of white voters who, even though they knew he was black, would not associate him with The Black as they probably would any other viable black candidate.
He was speaking from the standpoint of not sharing those prejudices himself, but realizing they still existed.
To say that the GoP could never do the same thing – examine a candidate and come to similar conclusions – is just absurd, and I don't use that term lightly.
What I'm saying is that a GOP leader *could* say the same thing or very similar but the meaning in context could be very different, depending on who it was, that person's history with race issues, and whether that person was politically affiliated with a party that had a long history of racism.
Linguistic meaning is a lot more complex than just the literal words people say — which is why Trent Lott's remarks were racist even though he did not refer even once to race.
But to suggest that members of the other political party are somehow incapable of rational analysis”
I agree, and a change from my previous post, with Reid gauging the electability of a candidate (that's all it was, schmucky Reps):
Think of “Tarzan Goes To Washington”. Steele says: if he's a republican we can really use him. He's tall, strong and speaks to the animals when he wants to, there are 60 million cat owners and 60 million dog owners we can get. Who cares if he's not black, he makes up for that with his charisma.
Whether it was “less bad” than Lott's statement strikes me as not the
issue.
Republicans have made it the issue, though, and that cannot be ignored.
Perhaps I have lived too long and seen too much, but I do believe that
those affected should lead the response while the rest of us would do well
to hear their voices and only then decide whether or not to join in.
That's fine as far as it goes, and I actually believe that, too, as a broad principle. In this instance, however, black voices are already weighing in, and from what I've read and heard, the well-known black Americans who get to be quoted in print and interviewed on television are largely saying that the GOP has lost all perspective on this.
You might find it interesting in this regard if I tell you that I did hesitate to express the opinions I already was forming and only decided to do so after Dalitso Njinjo, here at TMV, posted on the story. It's not that I didn't have faith in what I believed, but I did not, as a white person, want to be the first to say what I said here at TMV.
Thank you for causing me to think.
Well, thank *you* for sharing a part of your personal history that might (or might not) inform your thinking. I take that as a compliment.
“Nonsense, the whole thing. Side-by-side, but at right angles.”
I sort of agree.
What everyone here seems to be saying is that the comments are not an issue.
BUT
What everyone here (both liberal and conservative) SHOULD be saying is that when these “non-issues” are used as spin pieces to crush the other side, then you should at least be consistent.
Trent Lott probably did not need to lose his career over his remarks.
Harry Reid probably does not need to lose his career over his remarks.
Robert Byrd (former KKK member) probably does not need ot lose his career over his many racially charged remarks.
However, the democrats decided to make this kind of thing an issue in 2002, and it ended Lott's career.
Now, they magically want to say a few justifying comments and sweep it under the rug when it's one of their own.
This is the hyperpartisanship that drives the citizenry crazy. And it's also one of the key points to why the Congressional approval rate hovers at 10-15%.
Once again…. If they expect an ethical step-down of a Senator in 2002, then they should also expect it in 2010.
“Extreme false equivalence again, and again, and again.”
You have got to be the best general statement thrower out there. False equivalence?
HOW SO?
You appear to have ran out of keys on your keyboard to back up another of your general statements.
What part about the fact that it was the Republicans that wanted Lott out, that you're not getting?
If they had wanted to keep Lott, no dumbass remarks would have cost him his office.
The only people who will remove Harry Reid from office will be the good people of Nevada. And they may well do it.
“If they had wanted to keep Lott, no dumbass remarks would have cost him his office.”
It really isn't that simple. For many reasons, including the real racism from some in the party, it's a more sensitive issue than for Dems. Sure the fact that he pissed away support from his own party had an effect, but blanket statements are almost never accurate or particularly helpful. As to the Dems they went nuts after they saw how it played to the public and realized they were going to get some real bang out of it. They said nothing at first then jump for all they were worth when they realized. That is what republicans are doing here. If they were honest they should push the hypocrisy of Dems not Reid resigning. That is honest the Dems are being hypocrites, but then they come off the same way.