Rise! The time has come! The government is no more! Or, well, at least that’s sort of what Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said on the Senate floor Thursday morning while talking about an energy bill.
“We’re diverted totally from what this bill is about,” he said. “Why? Because the anarchists have taken over. They’ve taken over the House, and now they’ve taken the Senate.”
While there are certainly Americans who wouldn’t mind seeing the current Congress descend into chaos and flames, that isn’t really quite what’s happening today. “The anarchists” Reid is referring to are just the remnants of the congressional tea party. And it’s not the first time he’s thrown around the term.
In an interview with NPR earlier this summer, Reid elaborated a bit more on his comparison.
Who is the tea party? Well, understand, when I was in school I studied government, among other things. And prior to World War I and after World War I we had the anarchists. Now, they were violent. Some say that’s what started World War One, the anarchy movement. But they were violent. They did damage to property and they did physical damage to people. The modern anarchists, don’t do that. That’s the tea party. But they have the same philosophy as the early anarchists. They do not believe in government. Any time anything bad happens to government, that’s a victory for them.
So should we expect that the tea party could lead to, well, another world war? Obviously not, and it’s hard to imagine that Reid really believes that either, especially given his hedging to NPR.
But, just a refresher for Reid and whoever else. Let’s consult a dictionary.
1. a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power.
2. a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
So, sure, it’s unlikely that many tea partiers would disagree with the first part of Merriam-Webster’s definition. But it’s that second part that is just a bit too prickly for it to make any logical sense for Harry Reid to touch.
Update: Here’s video of today’s comments from C-SPAN:
- 1 Only the Margin Seems in Doubt in the Presidential Race
- 2 The Late-Breaking Democratic House Targets
- 3 Great Democratic Hopes Energize Quiet Faithful in Missouri
- 4 Will Congress Try to Rein in Obamacare Premiums?
- 5 Smart Ideas: Ken Bone Revealed a Serious Policy Divide, and Elizabeth Warren Seeks a Co-Presidency
What We're Following See More »
Twenty-three members of Congress "on Thursday asked the Justice Department to clarify how a looming rule change to the government's hacking powers could impact privacy rights of innocent Americans. The change, due to take place on December 1, would let judges issue search warrants for remote access to computers located in any jurisdiction, potentially including foreign countries. Magistrate judges can normally only order searches within the jurisdiction of their court, which is typically limited to a few counties."
"Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that her campaign and joint fundraising committees raised $101 million in the first 19 days of October, giving her committees $153 million in cash on hand." Her campaign itself has about $62 million on hand. The campaign said the average donation was $50.
Hillary Clinton appeared on the campaign trail for the first time with Michelle Obama on Thursday night. At the joint appearance in North Carolina, Mrs. Obama said, “When you hear folks talking about a global conspiracy and saying that this election is rigged, understand that they are trying to get you to stay home. They are trying to convince you that your vote doesn’t matter, that the outcome has already been determined and that you shouldn’t even bother to make your voice heard.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”