Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Whatever it takes?

Would Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer be willing to do whatever it takes to win an election?

Whatever it takes?

Whatever, they certanly make a mendacious, ruthless, vile and heartless team.

Plan A: Lose Iraq, Blame Republicans:

Friday, April 13, 2007:

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) told reporters yesterday. "Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

The worse Iraq became, the better the Democrats' electoral prospects became.

Which is the reason for the Reid sabotage offensive shortly thereafter:

Thursday, April 19, 2007:

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything"

Tuesday, April 24, 2007:

CNN Interviewer: "General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill...and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq...will you believe him?"

Reid: "No. I won't believe him because it isn't happening."

Reid was doing his best to undermine the surge. Unfortunately for Democratic electoral hopes, and most fortunately for our national security interests, defeat in Iraq was thwarted and the US is on the course of victory in Iraq -- thanks to the steadfastness of President Bush and thanks to the brilliance of General Petraeus and the troops.

The Democrats' Plan A was rendered inoperative, so whatever could the Reid-Schumer cabal do?

Plan B, of course. There is always a Plan B.

Plan B: Tank the Economy, Blame Republicans:

Thursday, June 26, 2008:

Schumer, a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee, who used his position of authority to communicate to the OTS and the FDIC that he was "concerned that IndyMac's financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers," and that IndyMac "could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly."

Everything might have been fine had Schumer stopped there, but Schumer (being Schumer) took the additional step of releasing the letter to the press.

Friday, July 11, 2008:

IndyMac Regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision: "The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.”

Wednesday, October 1, 2008:

Senator Reid: "a major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows -- that's on the verge of going bankrupt,"

Thursday, October 2, 2008:

But with investors already on high alert after the Federal Reserve's rescue of insurance titan American International Group Inc. on Sept. 16, and with the credit crunch still making funding difficult for even the largest U.S. financial companies, Reid's comments were the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a grease fire. MetLife plunged $7.19, or 15%, to $40.96; Hartford dived $12.20, or 32%, to $25.91; and Prudential slid $7.15, or 11%, to $57.65.

So, would Reid and Schumer rather lose a war and tank the economy than lose an election?

Or is it incompetence that pushes them to push for policies that would lose a war and push out statements that tank the economy?

Or both.

No comments:

Post a Comment