A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Dirty Harry Reid has effectively put a halt to any type of

Posted: Nov 21, 2013

;

post a link - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
I have no clue what you mean

Google it. Maybe if you had said please, I would. - me

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Wingers whining after dems removed filibuster from their nominee-blocking - tool belt.

[ In Reply To ..]
52-48 "nuclear option" is in place after rule change vote for nomination process. IOW, minority obstruction "bipartisanship" has been gagged.

I hope they enjoy it for the next year. - ZvilleMT

[ In Reply To ..]
I have a feeling they won't like it so much when the shoe is on the other foot. What a bunch of whiny crybabies! I thought they were supposed to be adults - only children change the rules when they can't get their way! Bet that 9% approval rating is going to look really good in another week.

Can't wait. People see right through these games. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Yep. They saw right through the obstruction game Pubs were playing. - Party over!! nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

For now. Wait one year. Payback's a B. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

You think they don't know that? That's why they didn't do it before. - but no choice any more

[ In Reply To ..]
The pubs said they'd block Obama's picks before they even knew who they were.

Game's over.

Anyhow, with the reputation of the pubs, it's not looking good even in a year.

Again, it's not like the dems like this any more than pubs do, but the obstruction is just beyond ridiculous and the people know it. Yeah, doesn't look good for the pubs.

You're right, 'cause the dems NEVER play obstructionist games - LOL!!

[ In Reply To ..]
Especially when it comes to judicial nominees.

Short-term memory problems.

It's okay for them, cause when they don't like the rules, - they just change them. What babies.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

I guess you're right because I don't remember dems rejecting a GWB pick - before being namedNM

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Baloney. GOP detested filibuster during - W's reign

[ In Reply To ..]
and threatened to use the nuclear option throughout the duration of those contentious judicial appointments. Were all these guys whiny crybabies or does that title only apply to political opponents?

Perhaps your memory needs a refresh. Let me know if you need more evidence than what's posted below. I am particularly fond of the musings of Thomas Sowell that appear at the end of the piece and enjoyed hearing pubs refer to filibusters as "perversions." How quickly they do forget.

Rush Limbaugh: "The Constitution Says Nothing About This. The Constitution Says Simple Majority, 51 Votes." While discussing Democratic filibusters of Bush's lower court judicial nominees, Rush Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed. This filibuster, as you know, they're filibustering these nominations which requires essentially 60 votes for a judge to be confirmed. The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes. But because they're invoking the filibuster, which, you know, the Senate can make up its own rules but not when they impose on the Constitution and not when they impose on the legislative branch. Separation of powers here. But if nobody stops them, they're going to keep getting away with it. It's up to the Senate Republicans to stop them.

[...]

If the Senate, which has the constitutional right to make its own rules, decides that it wants to require a super-majority vote to pass certain bills such as tax bills -- and they can do that. They can write those rules all day long -- such a rule would not infringe on presidential power. But to do so when it affects a presidential power, which takes us into a separation of powers issue, like the appointment of judges, that is unconstitutional, in my layman's view. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/24/04, via Media Matters]

Sean Hannity: "I Believe It's Unconstitutional To Filibuster." During a 2005 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity declared that there "are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority," thus he believed it was "unconstitutional to filibuster" judicial nominees:

HANNITY: Senator [John McCain], one last question before we let you go here.

There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional.

There's been a lot of talk about what we describe as the "constitutional option," which is that the Republicans would unite and vote, and there would be an up-or-down vote on all of the judicial nominations. Do you think that's the right thing to do? Will you support [then-Senate Majority Leader] Senator [Bill] Frist if he does it? [Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, 3/2/05, via Media Matters]

Wall Street Journal: Using Nuclear Option Is Better Than Letting "A Willful Minority Deny The President's Nominees A Vote On The Senate Floor." The WSJ wrote an editorial approving the use of the nuclear option in May 2005:

Barring a surprise last-minute deal, this week Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will ask for a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Dick Cheney presiding -- that ending debate on a judicial nominee requires a vote of a simple majority of 51 Senators, not a super-majority of 60. The nuclear option -- aka the "constitutional option" -- will have been detonated. Judicial filibusters, R.I.P.

This will not be the world's greatest deliberative body's greatest moment, and the only thing we know for sure about what will happen next is that the reputation of the Senate will suffer. It's a shame it has come to this. But at this point it would be worse if Republicans let a willful minority deny the President's nominees a vote on the Senate floor.

[...]

This is at its core a political fight, and elections ought to mean something. Republicans have gained Senate seats in two consecutive elections in which judicial nominations were among the most important issues, including against the Senate Minority Leader. The one Democrat from a red state who won last year, Ken Salazar of Colorado, did so by promising to oppose judicial filibusters; he now seems to have changed his mind after sipping the Beltway's partisan punch.

Perhaps the coming showdown will lead to more political bitterness, but we doubt Democrats will be able to follow through on their pledge to shut down the Senate; the public wants other things done. And who knows? If Democrats can't succeed any longer in legislating through the courts, maybe they'll even return to trying to win power the old-fashioned way, through elections. [Wall Street Journal, 5/16/05]

The WSJ also editorialized in January 2005 that what the nuclear option "should really be called is the 'majority-vote advice-and-consent' option. The aim is to restore the Founders' intent when they gave the Senate the responsibility of confirming or rejecting a President's judicial picks. The Constitution requires a simple majority vote and says nothing about a super-majority of 60 being needed to stop a filibuster." The paper added: "Whether it's nuked or not, the judicial filibuster deserves to be defeated." [Wall Street Journal, 1/24/05]

Rich Lowry: Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." National Review editor and Fox News contributor Rich Lowry wrote in a 2005 column:

The judicial filibuster isn't a tradition, but an innovation; not a function of checks and balances, but a perversion of them; not an outgrowth of the Constitution, but at best irrelevant to it.

[...]

During the contentious fight over Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, Democrats who were harshly opposed to him still refused to filibuster his nomination, even though they would have had the votes to do so. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy called a filibuster against Thomas "nonsense" and a "crazy idea," declaring himself "totally opposed to a filibuster."

Democrats point to a filibuster of Lyndon Baines Johnson's 1968 attempt to elevate Abe Fortas from an associate justice to chief justice of the Supreme Court as a precedent. But it was different in kind from today's filibusters. It was bipartisan. Twenty-four Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against ending the filibuster. Fortas almost certainly didn't have the support to pass on an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Hurt by ethics charges, he soon withdrew his nomination, and ended up resigning from the court. The case was truly exceptional.

[...]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should take away their ability to mount unprecedented judicial filibusters through the so-called nuclear option, then sleep the sleep of an utterly justified defender of Senate tradition. [National Review, 5/13/05, via Media Matters]

Karl Rove: "We Believe That Fairness Means That [Nominees] Deserve An Up-Or-Down Vote." Then-deputy White House chief of staff -- now a Fox News contributor -- Karl Rove criticized the filibustering of judicial nominees, declaring that the Senate "has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote":

ROVE: In December, the president sent nominations up to the Hill. He took seven nominees who'd been previously stymied and not allowed a vote, some of them now four years that they've not been allowed a vote. We sent seven of those names up, we withdrew three. I saw no change in the tone of the other side. In fact, the flamethrowers and RPGs came out within moments of the statement. We believe that fairness means these people deserve an up-or-down vote. The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair. [USA Today, 4/25/05]

Bill Kristol: "Congress' Role In Approving Executive-Branch Nominees Is To Have An Up Or Down Vote." During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor and then-Fox News contributor Bill Kristol said there is "no rationale" for a filibuster of executive-branch nominees:

KRISTOL: I think the momentum has gone actually in the Republicans' direction in the last couple of weeks. They've finally gotten the truth out, which is that this is historically unprecedented, the systematic filibuster of judicial nominees. They're finally getting the message out that filibuster's a legislative tool. If the legislature, if the Congress, pursuant to its ability to make rules for itself, wants to slow itself down, wants to require a supermajority for most legislation, that's fine. That's Congress legislating.

Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented. That's the constitutional underpinning of our history, which is not to filibuster presidential nominees. The president has the duty to fill those jobs. Congress should advise and consent, or not advise -- not consent. And I think the Republicans are beginning to make this case. They're going to move on this in a couple of weeks. They're going to win on the Senate floor. [Fox News, Fox News Sunday, 5/1/05, via Nexis]

Kristol also wrote in a May 9, 2005, column for The Weekly Standard headlined "Break the Filibuster": "More important, perhaps, the customary practice of not filibustering presidential nominees -- whether for the judiciary or the executive branch -- is not a mere matter of custom. It is rooted in the structure of the Constitution. While the filibuster of judges is not, in a judicially enforceable sense, unconstitutional, it is contrary to the logic of the constitutional separation of powers. ... When the Senate returns from its recess, the majority leader should move to enact a rule change that will break the Democratic filibuster on judicial nominees, confident in doing so that he is acting--the claims of Senator Durbin and the Financial Times to the contrary notwithstanding--in accord with historical precedent and constitutional principle." [Weekly Standard, 5/9/05, via Media Matters]

Donald Lambro: Filibuster "Clearly Violates Our Nation's Governing Document." Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro asserted in a 2005 column:

But applying the filibuster rule to prevent the Senate from carrying out its constitutionally granted authority to approve or disapprove each judicial nominee clearly violates our nation's governing document. [Washington Times, 4/28/05, via Media Matters]

Pat Robertson: "These Filibusters Have Been Unconstitutional. And The Senate, I Just Think The Majority Should Say, `Look, We Want An Up And Down Vote.'" Pat Robertson said in a 2005 interview with National Public Radio:

MADELEINE BRAND: So you are planning on exerting political pressure on the Senate to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees. How are you going to do that? How will you exert that political pressure?

ROBERTSON: Well, you know, vox populi, I think, is very important. I have a television network that has hooked into it about 200 broadcast stations and quite a few homes on the Internet. I think there were, last count, about 83 million homes on the cable network. And we're on other programs as well, so I can just speak out and ask people to call their senators. I do believe, from what I gather right now, that Senator Frist has the votes. He says he has the votes to cut off debate.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power of advice and consent. In other words, they can advise the president. They can consent. But there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to have a 60-vote majority in the Senate in order to get confirmation of judges. And these filibusters that have been used recently against some very fine judges, these filibusters have been unconstitutional. And the Senate, I just think the majority should say, `Look, we want an up and down vote. We want these people to be voted on. If you're against them, well, vote against them. If you're for them, vote for them, and then let's have an honest process. Let's not have a filibuster.'

BRAND: And in the next election, in the next presidential election, are you going to hold Republicans, like Bill Frist, accountable if these judicial nominees do not get through?

ROBERTSON: He has the power to do that now, and the Republicans in the Senate have the power. And let's face it. I've been, well, a great advocate, a vociferous advocate for Republican majorities in the Congress, and worked very hard, I think, in '94 to bring that to pass. I think if they fail in this issue, I will certainly--let's put it this way--lose my enthusiasm for either giving them money or supporting them. But Frist is a good guy. He's going to make it happen, and he's got to do that. There's no choice in this matter. It's too important to the base of the Republican Party to let this thing go by. [National Public Radio, Day to Day, 2/23/05, via Nexis]

Daniel Henninger: "Start With A Throw-Down Of The Nuclear Option." WSJ deputy editor Daniel Henninger wrote in May 2005:

If the Democratic argument takes root, then elections themselves have lost legitimacy in the American system. They no longer have relevance to a President's ability or right to govern. We won't let you govern because we do not admit the legitimacy of your victory. This is a radical position. But so is drawing to an inside straight. I'd raise them through 2008. Start with a throw-down of the nuclear option. [Wall Street Journal, 5/20/05, via Factiva]

Thomas Sowell Urged Republicans To "Force A Senate Rule Change To Stop Democrats From Filibustering Judicial Nominees." From a syndicated column by Thomas Sowell:

It is important, in the first place, because the fundamental issue is whether the Senate will be allowed to vote at all, to fulfill its Constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on judicial nominees by voting them up or down.

Democrats are dug in to prevent a vote. The big question is whether the Republicans will wimp out. Senate Republicans have the votes but the question is whether they have the guts.

Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price? [Creators Syndicate, 4/26/05]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/21/flashback-when-conservatives-decried-filibuster/197001

Hypocrisy runs both ways. - ZvilleMT

[ In Reply To ..]

Republicans are wary of the move. Many see it as an abuse of majority powers and the setting of a precedent that Democrats will regret the next time that the Senate changes control. This is a position that Reid agreed with in 2005 when his Democrats were blocking President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

“The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government,” said Harry Reid at the time.

He was joined in this denunciation of Republicans who were also considering the “nuclear option" by a number of his democrat colleagues.

How times have changed. Maybe the reason senate republicans didn't make those changes back in 2005 was because they had the foresight to realize they wouldn't always have the majority. Looks like the senate democrats have some short-term memory problems.

We can see through his game. Well, some of us....(sm) - me

[ In Reply To ..]
He and Harry are just doing this now to shift the focus away from his big fail. It's not going to work. Obamacare still the big topic. Oh, was I supposed to call it Affordable Care Act? (Affordable? NO. Care? NO. Act-YES).

OBAMACARE RULES!!!

So only one thing is supposed to happen at a time? - that's not how it works

[ In Reply To ..]
I guess Congress just should drop everything, like all the stuff there are SUPPOSED to be doing in their job description and well... maybe vote again to repeal the ACA.

Obama loved the filibuster before he was - against it...

[ In Reply To ..]
Senator Obama in 2005:

"If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear that the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything."

Except free and open debate is - the last thing the current Republicans want

[ In Reply To ..]
They have no intention of debating anything, they don't want to have to clarify and fight for their ideas of how things should be in this country. Probably because they are at odds with what the majority of Americans believe and they know it (why else try to prevent specific groups of people from voting rather than trying to win them over?).

In fact they have been using the filibuster as a tool (cloture) to not even bring anything to the floor so that even if most of their own members would vote for it they do not want to give them that option.

The quote has actually come true due to blatant misuse of the filibuster to actually PREVENT free and open debate!

"For all practical purposes, anything more controversial than renaming a post office has required 60 votes during the entire Obama presidency."

Similar Messages:

Apr 15, 2015
Larry (Harry Reid's brother) claimed he and Harry got into a family argument, then a physical altercation, resulting in Harry being beat up and sent to the hospital. These sources are far more accurate than the source Harry used to try and discredit Mitt. Maybe Harry should have called the Hildabeast since she beat the crap out of Willie Lump Lump regularly. From the looks of it, Hawwy's boxing days nothing but a distance memory....that is, if his memory is still i ...

May 24, 2016
Senate Minority leader Harry Reid set an unusual condition for Hillary Clinton’s choice of running mate Monday – saying he would fight to stop her from picking any Democratic senator in a state led by a GOP governor. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/24/reid-vows-to-stop-clinton-from-picking-certain-running-mates.html Yup, it's from Fox News. Deal with it! :-) ...

Oct 07, 2015
Sen. Harry Reid suing exercise band maker over eye injury http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/07/us-sen-harry-reid-suing-exercise-band-maker-over-eye-injury/ Sen. Harry Reid suing exercise band maker over eye injury. I'm surprised he's not suing the man in the moon for his lunacy. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/07/us-sen-harry-reid-suing-exercise-band-maker-over-eye-injury/ ...

Apr 07, 2017
Morality is back in style. ...

Jul 22, 2014
I hope they can. He is a waste of space. Link ...

Oct 29, 2014
Thanks Hairy. Link ...

Aug 04, 2011
http://factcheck.org/2011/08/reid-wrong-on-bushs-economic-record/ ...

Jun 10, 2010
There was noticeable glee among supporters of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Tuesday night. The upset victory of Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle in the Nevada Republican primary ensures that the subsequent months of campaigning will be fought as much over her record as his. By Wednesday morning, the flood of opposition research on Angle had burst wide open. Talking Points Memo reported that Angle once "spoke out strongly against fluoride, the substance known alternately for improving ...

Sep 25, 2012
Why is that ignored in most of the media? If Romney's faith is such a big deal, then why not Reid's, a Democrat, who is the highest-ranking Mormon in U.S. elected office? ...

Feb 26, 2014
horror stories are untrue. All of them. Someone needs to put this old coot out of his misery. ...

Mar 27, 2014
He just keeps digging the hole deeper a/k/a foot-in-mouth disease for the reason why he should not be re-elected to office. Now he insults everyone who has trouble accessing and signing up for Obamacare. If he is up for election this year and if he is re-elected, then I think those who vote for him need to see a psychiatrist. This is not a matter of Democrat or Republican...this is a matter of QUALIFICATIONS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtgsizDWV0 ...

Apr 18, 2014
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/16/why-is-us-senator-harry-reid-so-concerned-with-local-nevada-rancher/ http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/04/17/embattled-nevada-ranchers-wife-whole-war-about-control-and-unlimited-power-federal-govern GET READY FOR OUR OWN DOMESTIC CIVIL WAR WITH OUR GOVERNMENT JUST LIKE WHAT IS STARTING IN NEVADA. IT IS A SHAME THAT FEDS GO TO NEVADA OVER COWS, YET OUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT HELP OUT IN BENGHAZI. GET READY FOR WW3 WI ...

Sep 16, 2016
When that old reprobate begins to sound off, you know Hillary's in trouble. ...

Mar 01, 2014
link ...

Feb 02, 2017
"For cabinet nominees you need 60 and for judicial nominees you need 60, until Harry Reid came along in 2013 and blew up the-60-vote rule, and this is called “the nuclear option,” and Harry Reid decreed — because he ran the Senate, Senate majority leader. He ran it. He was able to ramrod rules changes through. So beginning in 2013, 60 votes were no longer need to affirm presidential appointments, nominations, or judges for every court except the Supreme Court. All you needed was 51 vote ...

Nov 07, 2015
The Steinle family is devastated. I wonder if BO will do the right thing and sign it into law anyway. Thank God Harry is on his way out! He is the biggest obstructionist in the history of this country. ...

Mar 08, 2011
This is one article: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is promising an up-or-down vote on the $61 billion in budget cuts passed by House Republicans — just to show that version of the spending bill is “dead” – even if the upper chamber has to debate until 1 a.m. to prove the point. “I hope we have a vote on this today,” said Reid to reporters. “If not, we’re going to go through all this procedural process. They cannot stop us from having a vote o ...

Feb 05, 2010
The transcripts for the Ed Show aren't up yet or I'd be able to credit this to the comedienne who came up with it. Apologies for that, but it was too funny not to share: If Harry Reid was the protagonist in Lord of the Rings, it would not be 3 books long. It would be a pamphlet: Strider: Here come the orcs. Reid: Oh. Give them the ring. -------- Pelosi has it all over Reid. Her courage puts Reid to shame. The good news is that Obama told the dems he'll give bipartisanshi ...

Aug 31, 2012
Obama to New Orleans, and met with Bobby Jindal. LOL - I have to say, I'm quite impressed with the way the Romney campaign doesn't "spring leaks" like the Obama WH. If Obama had heard one word about Romney going, he would have been there long ago, wouldn't you agree? All of a sudden we see MR boarding the plane on his way. I love it. ...

Jul 11, 2013
And liberals say it's the Republicans who don't play fair. Liberals don't like the rules, they just change them. Link ...

Sep 21, 2013
have a lower rating than he does. Reid has lowest approval rating among congressional leaders, poll finds Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) holds the lowest net approval rating among House and Senate leadership — but others are not far behind. According to a Gallup poll released Friday, Reid's approval rating is 33 percent with 53 percent disapproving of his job performance, leaving him with a net rating of negative 20 percent. Speaker John Boehner (Ohio), w ...

Dec 05, 2013
One of the biggest public supporters of the Affordable Care Act has reportedly decided that some of his staff should be exempted from the new law. CNN reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges. That’s right, even House Majority Leader John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who have voted against the healthcare law dozens of t ...

Nov 06, 2014
"Senate Democrats lost their majority on Harry Reid's watch, but they're closing ranks about him anyway. Most Democrats have Reid's back, prepared to stand by him as minority leader through a tumultuous 2 years as he simultaneously runs for reelection in Nevada." It seems these above-stated Democrats are on another suicide mission. Most of the Dems also tried to distance themselves from Obama before the midterms and even truly felt that Bill and Hillary Clinton were b ...

Mar 27, 2015
'Bout time. Now maybe more will get done after he leaves. He's still trying to block everything that the Republicans try to vote on but he has little pull now that he's no longer the majority leader (thank heavens).I noticed a big difference yesterday when watching the Senate. They were doing a blitz voting binge so they could go home and worked into the night. That's the way it should be done (voting, not the binge voting). Maybe if they wouldn't take so much time off, ...

Mar 04, 2017
No sane country would give illegal immigrants citizenship. Link ...

Jul 30, 2013
Harry Reid stops Senate immigration bill at House border; deal loses momentum The Washington Times Monday, July 29, 2013 The immigration bill passed the Senate more than a month ago but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is refusing to send the bill to the House — just one of the hurdles that has sapped momentum and dimmed the chances for an immigration deal this year. Since the Senate’s 68-32 vote June 27, the bipartisan coalition that pushed the immigration bill has fr ...

Jan 26, 2015
Badly injured, Harry Reid’s political future was left for dead. It was early 2009, and the Senate Democratic Leader was reeling from the revelation that he praised Barack Obama’s “light skin” and lack of a “Negro dialect.” Polls showed Reid going to the way of his predecessor, Tom Daschle, who lost reelection in 2004, as the Nevadan faced revolt both at home and in Washington, and on both the right and left. Just a third Nevadans said they wou ...

Oct 26, 2012
Don't know anything else. You'll have to look it up. He was taken to a hospital. ...

Jan 22, 2015
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday made his first public media appearance since an exercise mishap left him with a severely injured eye and four broken ribs. Reid had been working out with resistance bands in his new home earlier this month when one snapped, injuring his right eye and flinging him into a file cabinet, he said. The Nevada Democrat said he expected to be back to full speed soon, and that he planned to run for re-election. But while he was certain about his el ...

Aug 23, 2015
www.youtube.com/watch?v=75a9Wa6KL7k ...