Harry Reid: I sure hope Republicans are opposed to Obama because of his policies and not his race

We’ll know that it was really about racism when Hillary’s elected in 2016 and GOP opposition to Democratic policies magically melts away.

Didn’t this guy once compare opposing ObamaCare to opposing the end of slavery?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told KNPR radio Friday that he hopes Republicans’ ongoing opposition to President Obama is driven by “substance” and not race.

“My counterpart, Mitch McConnell, said at the the beginning of the presidency of Barack Obama that he had one goal — and that is to defeat Obama and make sure he wasn’t re-elected. And that’s how they legislate in the Senate,” he said. “It was really bad. And we’re now seven months into this second term of the president’s and they haven’t changed much.”

“It’s been obvious that they’re doing everything they can to make him fail,” Reid said. “And I hope, I hope — and I say this seriously — I hope that’s based on substance and not the fact that he’s African-American.”

Just Dingy being Dingy. There’s no one in Congress who relishes an effortless smear as much as he does, be it dumb racial demagoguery of his opponents, baselessly accusing Romney of not paying his taxes, or hint-hinting that John McCain, whom he can’t praise highly enough lately, might be borderline deranged and therefore unfit for the presidency. Too bad the the radio host didn’t ask him the obvious follow-up: Does he think, correspondingly, that Democrats support Obama in part because of his race? Before you dismiss that as a rhetorical question, remember that Reid allegedly once said that he thought O’s race was a net plus for him in the 2008 primary. But only because he had, ahem, “no Negro dialect.”

Let’s clear the air of his verbal farts with a little music, shall we?

Update: Better watch the video twice. It’s still stinky in here.

“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,” Reid began. “Now they were violent — you know, some say that’s what started World War I, the anarchy moment — 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,” Reid clarified. “But they have the same philosophy as the early anarchists: They do not believe in government. Anytime anything bad happens to government, that’s a victory to them. And that’s what’s happened. We have absolute gridlock created by a group of people who represent few Americans. But it makes it extremely difficult to get things done.”