Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion


SHERMAN FREDERICK: Harry stars for Ds and Rs

Thanks to his stupid blunders

How in the world did the wallflower from Searchlight play such a key role in both political conventions this year?

I'll tell you how. Socially inept though he may be, he's the third most powerful politician in America. So it's a no-brainer that he'd command a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention. But, unfortunately for him, his penchant for verbal gaffes and blunders earned him a prime time spot in the Republican convention and a footnote in what is destined to become a long-remembered speech in American politics.


Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Stood her ground
  • LETTERS: A moral obligation to not bankrupt the country
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Allowed' to carry for self-defense
  • LETTERS: Nursery did the right thing with laborers
  • EDITORIAL: Numbers stink?
  • LETTERS: Teachers not most important learning variable
  • EDITORIAL: Gotta have faith
  • EDITORIAL: Clunk, clunk
  • LETTERS: Put aside re-election interests for nation's good
  • EDITORIAL: Election results




  • It wasn't some no-name Republican citing Harry Reid to demonstrate why Republicans are better suited for the White House. It was no less than America's 9/11 mayor, Rudy Giuliani, followed by the groundbreaking speech from VP phenom Sarah Palin.

    I might have felt more sorry for the home state kid except for this: Harry Reid deserved every bit of the negative attention he received from the huge, 55 million-plus who tuned in to see the speeches.

    Nevada's most prominent politician has been serving up juicy and unwise sound bites for more than a year, and the GOP, which has an uphill fight to win this election, could hardly lay off.

    In April 2007, Reid told the world that the war in Iraq was "lost." It was the dumbest thing Reid's ever said. It will haunt him for the rest of his political career.

    Remember at the time President Bush was under fire for the Iraq war. The war was going badly. Reid and virtually all Democrats wanted America to run away. Unbelievably, they still do. Sen. John McCain, however, said we ought to double down to win, now commonly called "the surge."

    Eventually that's what the president decided to do.

    For a man in Reid's position to publicly say the war was "lost" while our troops were still on the battlefield was improper and unwise. It's one thing to oppose the war, it's quite another to proclaim the enemy victorious while soldiers remain in harm's way. It was bad judgment and Harry caught -- and continues to catch -- holy hell for it.

    It was the kind of comment you knew would keep on giving Republicans ammunition. And on Wednesday Giuliani reloaded the Reid quote and delivered it in a red-meat speech to the GOP convention. Reid said the war was lost, Giuliani reminded us.

    John McCain said the surge would win the war. Barack Obama said it wouldn't. John McCain was right. Obama was wrong.

    Expect to hear this refrain, courtesy of Harry, over and over again.

    Palin, then, found another Reid blooper upon which to hang a speech line.

    This quote came weeks ago when Sen. Reid visited the Review-Journal for a brown-bag lunch. Reid said he "couldn't stand John McCain." Senators are usually respectful of fellow senators. They may disagree, but hardly ever does it devolve into a nasty personal attack.

    So Reid's dislike of McCain hit the newspaper and eventually the desk of Palin.

    She served up the quote in her now-famous speech along with Harry's head. Reid can't stand John McCain? Palin said. What Reid should have said is that he can't "stand up to John McCain." Sen. Reid received a standing ovation as the poster boy for what's wrong with Washington.

    It wasn't a good week for Harry. And it's entirely his fault.

    And, for the record, the war is not lost. How about an apology, Harry?

    Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 21 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    letsciencedecide wrote on September 10, 2008 11:48 AM: Posters, you are getting off target.

    The point is that Harry Reid is an embarrassment. He is not in this for Nevada (maybe he was at one time but not anymore).

    I have never gotten active in politics before. I won't forget, I will be very active when Harry comes up for election again - he must go!


    Report abuse

    bheb wrote on September 08, 2008 09:23 AM: Who's closer to revealing the truth about the war...Reid saying we've lost or Sherm saying it's been won? When you look at where things stand with the current government in Iraq and the estimates of the total cost of the war to the U.S., I'd have to side with Reid.

    The focus that Bush and McCain want to place on the surge is a distraction. This war will likely end up costing our country $2 trillion, not the $50-60 billion that Rumsfeld initially told the country, and this cost has to be factored in to any rational discussion about whether the war has been won or lost.

    Sherm -- putting aside the fact that we entered the war under false pretenses, does the current state of affairs in Iraq pass a cost/benefit analysis in your mind?


    Report abuse

    Mike Ault wrote on September 08, 2008 08:39 AM: Yeah, yeah, yeah... But will you all remember those thoughts when Reid comes up for reelection?


    Report abuse

    Sad Summerlin wrote on September 07, 2008 11:15 PM: Sherm --

    It seems that Michael G learned his quoting skills from an other Michael.... Moore.

    Anyone who is defending Harry Reid at this point is only happy because Nevada is "being noticed"... hey folks, what is it that we need from the government in order to "be noticed"...

    The majority of the industry outside of gaming in this state was from government contracts and the military... (and some mining yes, but how much Federal money was spent in Nevada before Harry... really?).

    Time for a new Senator in Nevada to take Harry's seat...


    Report abuse

    Sherm Frederick wrote on September 07, 2008 08:21 PM: Mike,

    Quote it in context or not at all.

    I said that it's all good to kill terrorists who seek to kill you, stop a mass murderer (Suddam) and create a stable Iraq.

    Whether you kill these terrorists in Iraq, or Pakistan, or on the streets of New York, it's a good thing. You seem to argue the contrary. Tell me it ain't so, Michael?


    Report abuse

    Michael Green wrote on September 07, 2008 05:43 PM: Go over to Sherm's blog. He just responded by saying, "It's all good." Dead bodies--especially American dead bodies, unnecessary because the living people who became dead bodies were sent over there for a lie--are good, apparently.


    Report abuse

    Frank M wrote on September 07, 2008 03:57 PM: "Mike wrote on September 07, 2008 10:15 AM: How would Harry Reid have any real knowledge about the Iraq war. NAME A REID THAT HAS SERVED IN THE MILITARY.

    REID'S SERVE THEMSELVES. "

    Actually, dear Harry served a term in the Air Force about the same time I did my first term. Except for the fact that part of you statement is false, I happen to agree with the rest.


    Report abuse

    Registered Republican wrote on September 07, 2008 02:12 PM: I'm a registered republican and I'm embarrassed by the complete idiot loser I help to put into the White House.

    The Bush/McBush/SarahPitBull ticket is a sure loser so I'll probably be staying home on election day.


    Report abuse

    Dawson wrote on September 07, 2008 01:50 PM: Harry Reid is to Iraq what Jane Fonda was to Vietnam.


    Report abuse

    Registered Democrat wrote on September 07, 2008 12:56 PM: I am a registered democrat. Harry Reid is a disgusting embarrassment.



    I do believe regardless of party affiliation, each party has a duty to weed out the bad apples. Harry needs to go. If Nevadans would pay close attention to the games, his son would be out also.



    This is not a partisan issue. This is a bad apple that is rotting Nevada.




    Read All Comments