Print
E-mail
Share
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Sen. Harry Reid declined to comment on a lawsuit brought to eliminate the at-large caucus sites that are designed to allow Strip casino workers to attend the caucus on Jan. 19.
In an e-mail, his spokesman said Reid would leave it to the courts. The statement comes as a surprise, given that Reid is the public face of a contest meant to insure minority and labor representation like that of Strip casino workers, and the lawsuit would seem to undermine the legitimacy of the caucus.
Reid's son, Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid, is Clinton's state chairman.
Sen. Reid has not endorsed a candidate and at various times expressed disapproval at his son's early and active endorsement.
His refusal to support the state party, which approved the concept of the at-large plan in March before submitting to the Democratic National Committee for its approval in August, is certainly surprising.
However, Jon Summers, Sen. Reid's spokesman, said it wasn't really a "no comment."
In an e-mail to the Sun, Summers said: "We haven't seen the lawsuit yet but, given the politics at play, Sen. Reid is going to stay out of the middle of it and leave it to the courts."
Sun columnist Jon Ralston has been reporting this story all day and revealing new stuff to his e-mail newsletter subscribers.
For instance, some plaintiffs of the lawsuit were present at the meeting when the plan was agreed to. It passed unanimously. Ralston also reports that AFSCME may join the lawsuit. AFSCME has endorsed Clinton.
See tomorrow's Sun, and we'll blog more of Ralston's reporting later.
Silence=Complicity
Shame on Harry.
The integrity of the party is thretened by a rogue lawsuit from a bunch of game-players, and Harry "spineless" Reid has no comment? Even a fool can smell complicity.
Now we know the true reason why Hillary Clinton dislikes cacuses - it cannot be riged.
In the Iowa caucus, they tried to disenfranchise student voters and failed. The only election where the Clintons managed to eke out a 2-point victory and 0 delegate advantage has been questioned and will undergo a recount. In this Nevada caucus that cannot be rigged, they're trying to disenfranchise casino workers by changing the rule of the game in the middle of the game and by pitting blacks against Hispanics.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Triang...
Clinton pivoting her campaign on Latino racism:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinto...
If Hillary Clinton cannot win Barack Obama and John Edwards without cheating, why bother to nominate her?
Can we beat them? Yes, we can! Si, se puede!
If there's any reason why the Clintons should just go away, it's the fact that they're causing supporters to sell their souls, just to win an election.
1. They think it is somehow appropriate for the Clinton folks to try to change the rules of the game - in the middle of the game. But cry foul when Republicans do the same thing in California.
2. They want election integrity, especially to make sure the GOP does not cheat in November. But if it's Hillary who won by machine ballots and Obama by hand-counted ballots, let's not recount the votes and Dennis Kucinich is crazy.
3. They villainize George Bush for the war in Iraq, but forgive Hillary for authorizing the same war with her conscience - even if she didn't even bother to apologize or shed a tear for the 4,000 dead Americans and many more dead Iraqi civilians.
4. Clinton tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa and then courted them in NH. Bill courted white votes in NH, calling Obama a 'fairy-tale'. He's now courting black votes in SC, praising Obama. As for the Nevada caucus, since there are no machines to manipulate and rig it, the only way is to disenfranchise some people.
If you stop supporting the Clintons for a moment, you'd be surprised at how better you see the world.
Yes, we can! Si, se puede!
"New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is Republicans' choice for a Democratic candidate.
Said GOP pollster Whit Ayres: "When it comes to Republicans, Hillary Clinton is a unifier, not a divider."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/246...
------------
Your democratic senator is not being very democratic
It's the 'old democrats' like Harry Reid that have defined the Democratic party and look what we've had to show for it the last seven years. The law suit?; just more of the same.
Shame on you Harry. By not denouncing this shameful lawsuit, you are condoning it. The disenfranchised union members will not forget. What does this say about your support of the unions?!
Sen. Reid, Hillary Clinton, Mark Penn(campaign manager)----ALL are using the same statements--"We'll leave it up to the courts to decide". Now AFSCME is joining the lawsuit! Why are citizens of this country supporting actions to suppress voters in the electorial process? Is there anyone out there that can FAIRLY help the PEOPLE OF NEVADA with this process? It does not matter how I cast my vote-----however, it matters that I am ABLE TO VOTE. Clearly, I must not be the only citizen who is appalled at this total disregard of rights the Clinton campaign is so CLEVERLY spewing. Surely, her campaign is banking or either the majority of us NOT reading or CAN'T read the papers. This is sad.
If she had gotten the endorsement-there of course would be no law suit. This is not the will of teachers-it is Clinton and her lawyers trying to steal this election.
No Comment? No comment?!?!
How many young Democrats died to make sure that people would have the right to vote when we were fighting for Civil Rights? How many young Americans died in battle because they believed in democracy?
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I will abstain from the process before I will vote for a Democrat who has tacitly suppressed voter participation. How could Senator Reid - even if he supports Hillary, even if he is afraid of the Clintons, even if he loves his son - abandon a principal so basic?
I thought I would vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it was, but I will not vote for Hillary after this. And I will not vote for Reid if he cannot do better than no comment. I doubt my one vote matters to either of them, but it does matter to me.
OBAMA=PRETTY SPEECHES, NO EXPERIENCE
OBAMA= ALL TALK NO ACTION.
OBAMA= A NEW KIND OF POLITICS. EXCEPT WHEN I ACCUSE EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME OF BEING A RACIST.
History has been overtly generous to the Clintons in what it perceives they have done for the poor.
Federal Minimum Wage Bush one-April 1991 $4.25
Clinton-October 1996 $4.75 Clinton-September 1997 $5.15 You don't close the gap between the rich and poor with a .90 /hr raise over 8 years!!!
“The income gap actually grew more during the Democratic Clinton administration than it has during the Bush administration. According to U.S. Census data, the share of income for the wealthiest 5 percent rose from 18.6 percent in 1992 to 22.1 percent in 2000. That’s a jump of almost 19 percent.”
Furthermore, capital gains tax was only 20 percent during the Clinton Presidency. That means the super rich only paid 20 percent on their income from the stock market. Actual wage earners would pay up to 38 percent. Most CEO get paid through stock so they only pay 15% tax now and 20 % back then.
Hey, why should anyone expect slippery ole Pinky to criticize the lawsuits?
He consistently votes for the protection and economic benefit of the mining industry, even though they are giving cancer and other life shortening illnesses to Nevadans.
He voted for the bankruptcy law amendments which the big credit card companies and banks wanted. In so doing, Pinky ignored the well informed commentary of bankruptcy law professors around the country who were trying to protect the interest of the little guy and stop the amendments.
And wasn't it Majority Leader Pinky who facilitated extensions of the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping.
And didn't Pinky facilitate the passage of the new automobile emissions law which was designed to prevent California and several other states from keeping their stricter auto emissions standards.
With people like slippery ole Pinky in charge, the Republicans don't even need to bother to seek to regain control of the Senate. Pinky's an old fashioned Southern Democrat...like Sam Rayburn.
So why in the world would anyone think Pinky would condemn litigation which could help a corporate Democrat like Hillary Clinton win the caucus?
The lawsuit filed by Clinton allies in Nevada against planned "at-large" caucusing Jan. 19 on the Las Vegas Strip is beginning to look a lot like voter suppression. As we know, the plan was drawn up and approved unanimously early last year by the Nevada Democratic Party leadership, with input from the presidential campaigns, to enable caucusing by Strip workers unable to leave work to caucus in their home precincts. Indeed the plan's creators include several of those who are now plaintiffs against it. What changed their minds? Barack Obama's endorsement Jan.9 by the 60,000-member Las Vegas Culinary Workers' Union changed their minds. When the plan was approved, Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the "inevitable" Democratic frontrunner. Iowa changed all that, and Obama's subsequent endorsement by the culinary workers has brought a Clinton win in Nevada into serious question. Since it is largely members of this union who would be caucusing in the casinos, the plan is clearly no longer in Clinton's best interests. Hence the lawsuit against the plan, filed just two days after the Obama endorsement and scarcely a week before the caucus by Clinton allies from the leadership of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), on the grounds that it would be unfair to workers in other areas. Why didn't they think it was unfair earlier? After all, the plan was approved nearly a year ago in the very name of fairness, to enable participation by those who would otherwise be unable to caucus. The answer is simple: Because the lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness, and everything to do with stacking the deck in favor of Hillary Clinton. The Clintons themselves are not official parties to the suit, but both Hillary and Bill Clinton have spoken in support of it despite the fact that their campaign and others were included in the at-large caucus plan from its inception. They, like their friends in the NSEA, have had more than ample time to consider and reconsider the plan, but appear to have deemed it unfair only since the culinary workers endorsed Obama. While the judge in this case obviously has every reason in the world to throw it out of court, I don't expect that even if it prevails the culinary workers will allow it to prevent their members' caucusing. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to see chartered buses from the union shuttling members between the Strip and their home precincts to caucus, a lot of pressure on Strip employers to comply, and a lot of anger at the Clintons and their allies for this seedy attempt to change the rules at the last minute. The whole affair seems likely indeed to do the Clintons far more harm than good in Nevada; and as we know, what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.