Nuclear Response to Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option

Harry Reid, the most loyal foot soldier of the Obama regime, has infamously executed the so-called nuclear option, destroying any vestige of comity and collegiality in the United States Senate.  The Senate is now clearly and openly acting as the legislative arm of our thugocracy in the White House.  And ol’ Harry thinks that the memory span of the average American voter is so short that by the time he runs for re-election in 2016 all may not be forgiven, but the majority of it will be forgotten.

Now Harry may be right that the average American voter will be more interested in the Superbowl in January 2017 than in punishing Reid in November 2016 for transgressions that happened four years earlier.  Besides, the average voter thinks that there’s no way to fight city hall, so they ask themselves “What’s the point of even trying?”

Average voters are half right in that assessment.  There is no way to fight city hall in a straight fight against their “favorite son” nor can we rely on honorable politicians (I’ll wait until you stop laughing) to take the fight to the Democrats.

However, there are ways to hurt the home states of those who enabled Harry Reid’s assault on America from within by efforts that might be viewed in psychological terms as passive-aggressive.

Just so we’re all on the same page, so to speak, Wikipedia offers a simple definition of passive-aggressive behavior:

In psychology, passive-aggressive behavior is characterized by a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, stubbornness, and negativistic attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others. Most frequently it occurs in the workplace where resistance is exhibited by such indirect behaviors as procrastination, forgetfulness, and purposeful inefficiency, especially in reaction to demands by authority figures, but it can also occur in interpersonal contexts.

If you want a real world example, ask someone to pick you up at the airport, have them not show up at all forcing you to take public transit or call someone else for a ride, and then have them tell you that they “forgot.”  That’s passive-aggressive behavior. (Of course, you might simply need to upgrade the average intellect of people that you’d ask for a ride).

Those who say “What’s the use?” are partially right if they plan to attack Harry Reid, or any other politician for that matter, directly.  But hurting the state that elected this pathetic excuse for a political leader is somewhat more effective, particularly for a state that houses Las Vegas, Reno and Lake Tahoe.  If you want to punish the voters who forced Harry Reid on the nation, withdraw your financial support.  But you like to gamble, you say?  Well, go to Atlantic City, New Jersey.  Nevada no longer has a monopoly on legalized gambling.  Lots of other states and cities have heard the ka-ching sound of money dropping into their treasuries from gambling and will welcome you with open arms.

Need a convention site?  There are lots of those, too, outside of Nevada. Las Vegas has long been known as a convention Mecca. Oh, you don’t own a corporation that would hold its sales meetings in Las Vegas, Reno or Lake Tahoe?  Well, the Visitor and Convention Bureaus of those lovely cities will be more than happy to send you a brochure and they will tell you what major companies actually have scheduled conventions, meetings and so on in the past year or two.  A concerted letter writing campaign to those organizations might convince the management of those groups that repeating their meetings anywhere in Nevada might be a problem for their company if stockholders and potential customers are upset with that decision.

Will Harry Reid be hurt directly?  No, not directly in the near term.  But the voters in Nevada will be hurt.  They voted Reid into office, so the fault lies almost solely with them.  So they will more than likely be the ones hurt if they slowdown in vacationers and conventioneers drops.  Governments, as we all know, are loathe to reduce spending regardless of any loss of tax revenues.  They will either raise taxes or borrow.  Local business don’t have that sort of myopia, so when business slows down because of a boycott, people will lose their jobs.  It’s important to make sure that everyone knows that every single job lost is a gift from their idiot Senator.  The connection between the Democrats lust for power and the cost to Joe Average for that power grab has to be made clear and made often.

By the way, using exactly the same technique life could be made extremely uncomfortable for the other 51 senators who voted along with Harry.  Every state has some tourist attractions and a serious dent in tourism would make a serious dent in state revenues.  Think that would hurt those Senators who were identified as voting to eradicate the traditional Senatorial filibuster?

Wouldn’t that be a pity?  And once it get rolling, this sort of passive-aggressive attack would work just as well against other socialist leaning politicians sensitive to local economic pressures such as Chicago’s Mayor, and until recently an Obama consigliere, Rahm Emmanuel or Bill de Blasio the soon to be sworn in Commissar, oops, I mean Mayor of New York City.


About Jim Yardley

Retired after 30 years as a financial controller for a variety of manufacturing firms, a two-tour Vietnam veteran, and independent voter.
Gallery | This entry was posted in 2014 election, 2016 election, Barack Obama, Business, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Observing Our Culture, Politics, Republicans, Senate, Tea_Parties and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Nuclear Response to Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option

  1. Kathy says:

    Hurting their states in their purses is a great idea but it would help if the press did their job which shoud be to tell the truth. They have not done that in a very long time. Ths is very scary.The Democrats should be called the communist party. Now that they have done this, can it ever be undone or are we losing the Republic? Alas, George Washington would not want his name associated with DC anymore. And you are right about NY. It went from a cesspool under Dinkins and Koch to a safe and people friendly city under Guilliani. Didnt people see the difference??!! Bllombrerg was bad enough but now they voted it back to being an imgovernable swamp. Where is the outrage?

    • Jim Yardley says:

      Sounds like you’re a native New Yorker! Outsiders usually view the political goings on in NY with amusement, just like those who look at Chicago politics and find it amusing unless they live there.

      We shouldn’t have to depend on the MSM. We could rent billboards like McDonalds, and just change the total daily. Imagine huge letters over Times Square proclaiming “75 million screwed so far”. It would be kind of hard for the MSM to ignore that kind of thing.

  2. Kathy says:

    You are so right. I was born in NY but my family wanted to move to a red state and live on a farm. Unfortunately, it is not red enough, either that or there is too much election fraud. Jim, I like your billboard idea. Maybe, 75 million screwed so far, on the Times Square zipper. I have never been to Chicago but I still cannot feel amused about the goings on there. And to support your campaign about not supporting tourism of states with senators who voted with Harry Reid, I will not be spending money in Chicago. Thanks for so much food for thought and another terrific column.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s