Harry Gets Hairy

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably thinks that more jobs is a good thing considering the state of the economy.  But apparently that isn't the case, as the advertising manager for the Las Vegas News Journal found out:

"Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: 'I hope you go out of business.'"

That's right, the most powerful man in the United States Senate hopes that a major newspaper goes out of business.  The sin must have been the criticism of Reid, who is now facing uphill odds for re-election.

Here's a clue Harry:  Statements like this one don't help.

I can only imagine the press uproar if Mitch McConnell had said the same thing about the New York Times. But that would be different of course, because McConnell is a Republican.

UPDATE:  Doug Clark has more.

Comments

[Fred Gregory]

Keep mouthing off Harry. Perhaps you can form a PR firm with Corrzine, Dodd, Daschle and Mr. Deeds

[bubba]

Watch this arrogant turd try to cram Obamacare through by "conciliation".

There will be blood in the streets if these creeps try it.

[Spag]

Metaphorically speaking, I'm sure Bubba.

[bubba]

Not if the Obama Goon Squads has its way with protesters.

[Beelzebubba]

i wish that i had time to comment on this but i've been busy looking for the article in the Constitution where it states that it takes a week to bury a Kennedy or any other person who enables the occupiers of this nation. I'll be researching the Congressional Record and Jefferson's letters for any mention also. Here's to your healthcare reform.

[Jim Buie]

Sam: "Metaphorically speaking, I'm sure Bubba." Sam, it's interesting that you give Bubba's violent rhetoric the benefit of the doubt. Would you give a "leftist" the same benefit of the doubt? I doubt it. Indeed, I would suspend if not ban anyone who used that kind of language on my blog. It has no place in civil discourse.

It's not the first time Bubba (aka Bob Grenier) has used uncivil, hyperbolic and violent language. On his own blog, he pretty much says that refraining from violence isn't a matter of personal, individual moral responsibility. Any violence that occurs, he says, no matter who commits it, should be blamed on "the miserable excuse for a president, his thugs throughout his power base, and the arrogant insufferable "progressives" who continue to support this shameful example of an oppressive Democrat thugocracy."

http://bubbanear.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-union-thugs-astroturf-black.html

This is not a conservative position. It's reckless, irresponsible and deeply disrespectful of the law of the land. I'm sure you do not countenance this type of violent rhetoric, do you Sam?

[bubba]

Buie, you have been exposed as an academic and intellectual fraud, a blogger of little intellect, a partisan hack, an unprofessional clown, and an all around jerk.

You have no basis to post hysterical, over the top nonsense.

Say the word, and we'll escalate this to a point where you will be way over your head.

[Spag]

Buie, actually I would when I know the person. Even if Sir Edward Cone made the same statement, I wouldn't take it seriously although I might joke that it made him look hysterical. I know Bob and so I know he is speaking metaphorically. Someone else I don't know or whose style I am not familiar with, I would be a lot tougher on. I can't think of one person on the Left in the blogosphere who I would consider such a statement coming from as a serious threat. We all fight a lot, but I think we all know each other better than that.

The quote you cite from Bob's blog is related to a piece he wrote about violence that was coming from the Left but being blamed on the Right. He also didn't write what you say he did about blaming "any violence" "no matter who commits it" on Obama.

[bubba]

I also do not make generally my full name known to people that I do not know, and certainly did not reveal it to you.

Who gave you my name?

Under what circumstances was it revealed?

What was the essential subject matter of the email, phone call, or personal conversation in which it was revealed to you?

[Brenda Bowers]

The only violence so far since Obama was elected has come from the left and has been instigated by the Obama White House mainly thru ACORN. I am not going to bother offering urls simply because even the MSM has reported these incidence of thuggery. Paid thuggery at that!

One report stated that the WH sent out 30,000 emails to get people out to disrupt the townhall meetings. Very few answered the call so that seems to me to be an indication of how Americans feel about Obamanation.

[Jim Buie]

Bob Grenier (aka Bubba),

No need to get any more paranoid than you already are. I don't blame you for not wanting your name associated with your uncivil, hyperbolic and violent language. It's certainly safer to hide under a virtual hood than to use your real name. But maybe you should take responsibility for your own words, and your challenge to me. "I'm hardly anonymous, Buie. But you're too intellectually lazy to know that."

http://guarino.typepad.com/guarino/2009/07/the-death-of-walter-cronkite.html?cid=6a00d8341d1c8253ef011571566667970c#comment-6a00d8341d1c8253ef011571566667970c

A quick Google search reveals your name and picture among Greensboro's self-described "Converge Right," on numerous blogs, among them:

http://www.busybeingbornblog.com/?p=344

[Jim Buie]

Sam: "I know Bob and so I know he is speaking metaphorically."

But his response to your presumption that he was speaking metaphorically was that he WASN'T speaking metaphorically when he stated there would be "blood in the streets."

Sam: "(Bubba) also didn't write what you say he did about blaming "any violence" "no matter who commits it" on Obama."

This is what he said -- it is a blanket statement: "If the violence grows more widespread, we can put the blame EXACTLY where it belongs: On the miserable excuse for a president, his thugs throughout his power base, and the arrogant insufferable "progressives" who continue to support this shameful example of an oppressive Democrat thugocracy."

He is saying that he presumes that if any violence occurs, Obama and his supporters are responsible. Surely, Sam, as a lawyer, you would dismiss anyone from a jury pool who made such a statement.

And it's interesting that you rush to judgment and presume with little evidence that the violence Bubba wrote about "was coming from the Left." He posted a video that was by no means conclusive. A frame-by-frame analysis of the video tends to debunk the charges:

http://www.seiu.org/a/healthcare/truth-about-what-happened-in-missouri.php

I really can't believe that you, Sam, who frequently criticizes double standards, is evincing such a double standard. Talk about hypocrisy in action.

[cpa101]

Funny how Buie chooses to change the subject to one of the comments rather than adding a substitive comment himself. bubba is at least correct in his critique of his blogging prowess.

[bubba]

Answer the questions, scumbag.

Who gave you my name?

Under what circumstances was it revealed?

What was the essential subject matter of the email, phone call, or personal conversation in which it was revealed to you?

[bubba]

Obama's culpability for the violence is clear, as is that for those who excuse it for partisan political purposes, as evidenced above.

[bubba]

More

[bubba]

More:

"Barack Obama told a crowd of supporters in Philadelphia back in 2008, 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.' He added, 'That’s the Chicago way.'"

[Ken Hill]

FoxNews reported about last week that Reid is 11 points behind Danny Tarkanian, who has announced that he's challenging Reid in Nov. 2010.
Danny's father, Jerry, was the long-time basketball coach of UNLV and Danny played for his dad. UNLV was a national power for many years. Danny is a businessman in Las Vegas now. He just announced that he's running the first week in August. And 3 weeks later... on the 25th, he's 11 points ahead of Reid !!

[Spag]

Jim:

1) Bob is metaphorically speaking. Go back and read. He is clearly saying in his follow up that the only violence if any would be caused by the Obama forces. That was the purpose of his post that you linked to. Sorry you missed that. See 2, below.
2) Bob's statement is clearly referring to the violence he believes is being caused by Obama "thugs" and the part you quote simply says that they should be the ones who should carry any blame as a result. I don't have to agree with him to understand his argument. Further, whether I or anyone else agrees with him or not, it doesn't twist what he actually wrote into what you say it is. This is easy stuff to comprehend, I'm not sure why you are struggling with it unless it is on purpose.
3) Who I would dismiss from a jury pool and why is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Again, I have made no statements at all of whether I agree with Bubba's post on his site or not as to who is to blame. I am simply pointing out that he was metaphorically speaking in his first comment, and his second comment says that it is the other side who is more likely to be violent. This isn't a discussion about whether he is right, but a discussion of the context of his statements. See no. 2 again.
4) Go back and read what a double standard and hypocrisy are. If you can show me where I have treated Bubba's comments one way and then the same type of comment from another local blogger/commentor in a different way, you might be on to something. But you can't, because I haven't.

[Jim Buie]

Sam:

1) I happen to believe that words have consequences, and should be taken seriously. Bob has a pattern of using uncivil and violent language. Anyone who disagrees with him is a "scumbag" "cretin," "toad," "shill," "thug," "hack," "twerp" "pimp," "punk" or "fraud." Once you demonize your opponents with such language, it's not much of a leap to get violent. When Bob says "there will be blood in the streets," given his other language, I am not reassured that he would not participate if not instigate it.

2) You insist on speaking for Bob. You insist that he is speaking metaphorically, when he stated emphatically in response to you that he wasn't speaking metaphorically. Just because you "know him" doesn't mean you know what he's capable of. The crime pages are filled with stories of neighbors, colleagues and family members who are shocked by what people are capable of. If Bob wants to reassure others as to his non-violent nature, he could apologize and retract the hysterical, hot-headed, uncivil and violent language he has used.

3) Do you, Sam, find this language appropriate or conducive to give-and-take on your blog?

3) To declare in advance that you know with certainty that any violence that occurs in the future will be the fault of Obama supporters is more than hysterical. It's fanatical. No one can know in advance who is responsible for violence. A law enforcement investigation is required. Declaring in advance that you know who is responsible for violence is like the anti-abortion fanatics who declared that the pro-choice Dr. Tiller caused his own murder, or Timothy McVeigh claiming that the U.S. government was ultimately responsible for the deaths associated with his bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building.

4) Sam, as a lawyer can you at least tell Bob that none of the "quotes" from Obama indicating "culpability" for violence are going to help him when he participates in "blood in the streets."