Bozell Column: Nearly Invisible Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally appeared in a debate on
October 14 in Las Vegas with his Republican opponent, Sharron Angle.
The appearance might come as a surprise to consumers of the national
media. While Angle has been pounded relentlessly by national media
outlets as being both dangerously radical and ridiculous, Reid has been
left alone, and untouched.
But what about Harry? He's the
Majority Leader after all. Is he, like so many of his colleagues,
simply afraid to talk about his legislative "accomplishments"? Nobody's
wondered why he hasn't been making the rounds of interviews on national
television. While reporters rush to report the latest "wacky" quote
from Angle, the networks haven't lifted a finger to cover Reid's
cascade of rhetorical stumbles and outrages, especially since Angle won
the GOP primary.
We won't count Reid's remarks last year
comparing opponents of health reform to supporters of slavery, or his
describing those opponents as "evilmongers," which he delighted in
repeating and telling reporters he'd coined a new word.
There's a list of fresh gaffes, and it just keeps growing. 
In
the last three months, Reid embarrassed Delaware Senate candidate Chris
Coons by calling him "my pet." He said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is the
"hottest senator," enraging feminists. He said "I don't know how anyone
of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." Just last week, a reporter
asked him to nominate his "greatest living American," and the
supposedly smarter candidate cited the deceased senators Ted Kennedy
and Robert Byrd.
On Sunday, he waxed Bidenesque as he compared
Obama to the Chilean miners trapped underground. When Obama replaced
Bush, Reid said, he found himself in a "hole so deep that he couldn't
see the outside world." It "was like the Chilean miners, but he, being
the man he is, rolled up his sleeves and said 'I am going to get us out
of this hole.'" Oh.
None of these groaners were the subject of breathless reports on television.
For
Nevada voters, the debate unequivocally exposed that it was Reid who
was the candidate that came unprepared for prime time. But on the three
networks, it was a different story. While they tried to acknowledge
weakly that Reid didn't win, only Jonathan Karl on ABC played a clip of
a confused Reid at the podium, fumbling for his notes: "Okay. Got to
find my little notes here...Okay. A lot of paper here." Karl was also
the only network correspondent who, after Reid denied that he grew rich
in office, featured the Democrat's ridiculous line, "I've been on a
fixed income since I went to Washington." Karl noted Reid makes
$193,400 as majority leader. None of the networks used Angle's line
that Reid most un-politically lives in the Ritz-Carlton in Washington,
DC. Some fixed income.
But the worst part of the debate that the
network Angle-bashers ignored concerned Reid's biggest and most
outspoken mistake: his declaration in April of 2007 that the Iraq war
was lost. The debate moderator, Mitch Fox, quoted his remarks
precisely: "You were quoted as saying the following: 'The war is lost,
and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme
violence.' Do you believe that your statements demoralized the troops
and were inaccurate as judged by the success of the troop surge?"
Reid
simply lied in response. He tried to suggest he was merely restating
the thesis of Gen. David Petraeus: "He said, and I said, the war can
only be won militarily, economically and diplomatically." Reid said
this, without an ounce of shame, right after the moderator had just
quoted him saying "The war is lost."
But then Reid dug an even
deeper trench of untruth. "After I made my statement, and Gen. Petraeus
made his statement, we did the surge then, not later. And it was the
right thing to do."
So now Reid is taking credit for the surge?
Again, the moderator had just told the voters of Nevada that Reid
declared "the surge is not accomplishing anything." Reid didn't care
about the truth of what he said. He was just recklessly, shamelessly
inventing an alternative universe. History, truth, facts - damn them
all. Reid now says "the surge worked," and that somehow, in spite of
his white-flag remarks, he was supportive of the mission and the troops.
How
can the "truth" detectors in TV news skip over Reid's fabrications of
his own record? They can't, of course unless they're shamelessly
partisan, and don't care if politicians tell the truth or invent
fiction.
Back in 2007, NBC reporter Bob Faw insisted Reid was
merely "saying out loud what many say privately about Iraq." What "many
say privately" (read: inside the national media) turned out to be wrong
and unwise. So the reporters are not just covering for Reid. They're
covering for themselves.
