Redstate

Oddly enough, Planet Kos has been deathly silent on this report .. Can they be biased over there in the World of Markos the Moron ?

No pithy comments about the "culture of corruption" in the Dem aisle ?

Michael

These guys are so incompetent that they can't even gin up a corruption scandal w/o shooting themselves in the foot.

At least McCain is providing the fig leaf of "reform" to the GOP, it just looks craven when the Dems senate leader is just as guilty as he blasts the GOP for being and not even admitting it.

Good luck nationalizing the mid-terms on the corruption issue guys...

Oddly enough, Planet Kos has been deathly silent on this report

So has "it's a Republican scandal only" Howie Dean (though I notice he compared Bush to the Iranian president today, so maybe he's had his quota of stupid remarks for the day already)

If they plan on trying to make this a Republican scandal, they could probably minimize any backlash against Democrats if they remove Senator Reid from leadership.  Obviously, they don't really need to worry about his re-election this year since he's not up for it, but it could come back to bite him personally if he harps on it too strongly.

Just take Senator Reid out from his leadership position, put Senator Feinstein (probably the Dems favorite liberal Senator not known to have Presidential aspirations) in his place.  It won't kill the backlash completely, but if they're committed to using it, it's probably their best shot at minimizing the heat they get.

And really, considering the heat a lot of them will be getting regarding the War on Terror, tax cuts, and the like, they need to minimize every shot they're going to take.

and the Republicans will lose. Honestly, this is not even a close call. The Republicans will be hard pressed to make it bi-partisan which many in the Republican Party acknowledge it is not. Considering the connections Abramhoff (now an admitted felon) has - he is going to be poison to anyone involved with him. Abramhoff has a long standing connection with the Republican party and has extensive contacts within them. He might have a few connections with the Democrats but the overwhelming number are Republican. To suggest that Dems will suffer equally is naive at best.

http://mydd.com/story/2006/2/9/163540/9804

...can u imagine the Democratic Party's House and Senate Minority Leaders being from San Francisco!? I mean - I know that's who every Democrat in the nation really represents when they run on the national party's agenda, but I doubt that they'd want to make it so obvious!

They might make Barack Obama the youngest minority (and incidentally black) leader ever. That'd give them something to crow about.

I agree though - if they are pegging their dreams of gaining in the Senate, they're going to have to throw Harry Reid overboard. With his stroke that he suffered not long ago, he may just step down - and allow the GOP to pick up another seat. :-)

Did Reid get more money from the tribes/lobbyiests after Abramoff joined the lobbying team?

Did he change his stance regarding these issues after Abramoff joined the lobbying team?

If the answers to these questions are yes, than he is in a heap of trouble.

If no, than this may be a non-story.

The party in power always gets the bulk of lobbyist money - but everyone knows that in order to get legislation passed, lobbyists have to give to members on both sides of the isle. And if they didn't think that the legislators would respond, they wouldn't do it. Given Sen. Reid's responsiveness to these donations, if anything it only says that Democrats are cheaper to buy off than Republicans. That's not exactly a campaign to sweep a Democratic majority into Congress with. LOL

Some Republicans may have engaged in some premature self-flagulating. If you think that this can't be revealed for the bi-partisan mess that it is and made into a political wash come November, you are delusional. :-)

I forget if it was Meet the Press or Fox News Sunday, but it was revealed that Harry Reid did write these letters after, and in some cases soon after, receiving contributions directed by Jack Abramoff. If they had contributed before, there was a significant difference in their donations after the tribes had retained Abramoff's lobbying services.

I guess I need to read up and commit more of these details to memory now that this storyline is getting good. :-)

Looks like Peter Schweizer already has the first chapter of the follow up to "Do As I Say Not As I Do: Tales of Liberal Hypocracy" already written. :-)

...I don't know if there was a demonstrable policy stance shift. I think it appears that they just got more aggressive representation.

I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with that, but I haven't seen any evidence that Republicans have done anything dissimilar in regards to Abramoff. So, if Harry Reid and the Democrats want to have this fight - lets have this fight.

Maybe John McCain can do some good and put an end to earmarks. If a Senator wants money, he needs to propose the earmark as an amendment to be voted on by the full Senate before it is included in a bill.

...that's the only issues the Dems had for '06.  Now where were those other campaign slogans we tossed out in favor of "Culture of Corruption"?  Oh yeah...

"Join the fight against counterterrorism!"

"Social Security reform?  Not on our watch!"

"Protect the woman's right to choose to have sex with men they don't particularly like!"

"Turn the plantation into (pick some word that's better than a plantation)"

"Vote Democrat, because Democrat spelled backwards is 'tarcomed'"

"Yeeeaaaggghhh!"

Is that the Republican Culture of Corruption™ is so strong and pervasive that it accidentally pulled in a Democrat, not unlike a black hole. I nominate Republican Black Hole of Corruption™ as the new catch phrase.

I almost forgot the eyebrow mantra, "There's a way better way that's way better".

LOL - I gotta hand it to you, that is BEAUTIFUL!

Democrats need to present the country with a "The Devil Made Me Do It" campaign! THAT'LL WORK!! LOL. And Jesse Jackson can hold a revival on Capitol Hill and baptize them in the reflecting pool in front of the Washington Memorial and exercise their "Abramoff Demons" so that they can be cleansed of the powerful influence of the Republicans.

And thereafter, Reid and Dean will continue to go after Republicans, but when the tables are turned, they'll throw up their hands like victims and say, "I repented! I am forgiven!" LOL

The Marianas argument is weak- Reid ended up opposing the position of Abramoff's clients (he was a cosponsor of the Kennedy bill that was ultimately defeated.)  I'd say they didn't get much value out of those contributions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184377,00.html

According to this Fox News story, Senator Reid got a $13,500 political donation from the Agua Caliente tribe (among others) after Reid blocked a proposed nearby casino for the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians.

Agua Caliente is Spanish for "hot water", which is where Senator Reid will soon find himself! :)

That is a bit of tv that needs to remain history. Tim Kaine must be defeated if he ever runs for Senate or President because I just couldn't stand to see that creepy eyebrow ever again!

You give me the shivers just bringing it up again. lol

Did Reid write any letters,  By: josterman  

Or support any legislation regarding any of Abramoffs clients?

Remember, Reid is a pro-life, relatively conservative dem.

If he was to step down, or be removed, his replacement is sure to be more liberal, and therefore less accepting of the president's agenda.

If the story gets a real play on MSM the public will call it a wash.... Delay for Reid. Don't forget, we already know a Democrat is among the first targets. Even if it's 2 R's for every 1 D, which is pretty close to the breakdown, everybody gets dirty. The public will not keep a scorecard.

Not necessarily saying that speaks very well of us as a country, but I think that's exactly how it would go.

there isn't any guarantee a dem would replace him, it is just as possible the state could elect a GOP candidate instead.

wash.

In the end, I don't see either party being able to make an issue of this, because there are dirty hands all over the place, and most people know that.

About the only way it might make a difference is if a candidate in one state running against one of the "tainted" candidates is able to make a case that they are honest and won't get suckered into Washington politics-but I don't think either party is going to be able to ride this one to victory.

From Roll Call:

Democrats Dropping PAC Head

By Tory Newmyer

Roll Call Staff

February 8, 2006

As they continue to push ethics reform as a centerpiece of their 2006 agenda, three top Senate Democrats are moving to clean up their own houses by cutting ties to a lobbyist serving as treasurer of their leadership political action committees.

Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan (N.D.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (Mass.) are cutting ties to longtime appropriations lobbyist William Oldaker, who has served as treasurer for their leadership PACs.

Roll Call requires a subscription to access; the link to the story is here. This appears to be PR, but limp. Also, for what it's worth, the rumor mill in D.C. suggests that the Justice Department is quite interested in Dorgan's quiding pro quo.

First, he is pro-life but has led the obstruction of judges who may disagree with Roe including voting against Roberts and Alito.

Second, if he steps down, he will be replaced by an appointment of the governor: Governor Guinn (R-NV).  Then a special election would be held in a slightly right of center state with a minimal incumbency.

Third, I see very little evidence that Reid is "conservative."  There may be some evidence that he could be considered a moderate, but his voting record is far to the left of the center of the Senate.  He is no Sen. Nelson, Breaux, or Pryor.

I think he was referring to this, more recent post.

--------------------

Ok, here is my question     By: josterman

Did Reid get more money or less from the partners after Abramoff joined with them?

And did his stance change regarding legislation after Abramoff began lobbying him?

--------------------

But the point remains: Nobody ever questioned along those lines about Republican "corruption." That Republicans took bribes is a foregone conclusion, on less evidence.

and a grand just after the No. Mariana Island meeting but didn't support the minimum wage waiver. I'm so relieved.  There is a connection,perhaps biological, between greased palms and long memories but the poor linked leftie site above calls this a smear.  Corruption is a sometimes thing but however ephemeral it is to Democrats it can be made to stick on more than one party.   Now let's get on with some house cleaning.

democrats just seem angry.

But also thanks for reminding me of my initial post regarding Reid.

And it appears that he is on deep (pardon the expression) doo-doo.

And I would not be surprised if he is forced to step down from his leadership post.

However, it now appears that the Abramoff scandal is far reaching to both sides of the aisle, and simple reforms are not enough to repair the damage.

Both parties should demand that all individuals involved step down from their respective seats.

It is time for new blood.

If it was on Fox News that doesn't count, since FNC is just a hack for the GOP.

Or at least that's what some people will claim with a straight face.

The position the Democrats are taking on this is basically that Abramoff is radioactive and anybody who can so much as be photographed with him is tainted forever.  

Combine this with Reid and Dean literally screaming that they didn't take money from Abramoff, they didn't know Abramoff, they didn't so much as watch Baywatch because "Hasslehoff" sounds too much like "Abramoff", etc.

This was well summed up by former DNC chair Bob Beckel on FNC not long ago, that if the Democrats could have just claimed it was mostly Republicans involved, could have accepted hitting a triple rather then going for the home run, they could have used this to their advantage.  Instead, this issue will most likely come off the rails by November.

They all seem angry to me EVERY day.

And republicans should be happy about that.

does that statement have to do with the above article?

I think someone read today's yahoo news story about the new republican strategy of painting democrats as "angry" and wanted to get on board. Only problem is nothing in this piece supports that notion, rendering your post an obvious non-sequitur by someone who doesn't really know what the big boys are talking about but wants to be a "player."

This is my first (and I'm sure my last, right Thomas?) post. Usually just read the relatively informed comments and keep my moderately leftist opinions to myself. But in light of how much hay Red State tries makes out of the notion of "liberal talking-points" I couldn't help but call the above poster on doing the same thing. And I'm sure some of the more honest redstaters out there would no doubt admit to cringing when you read his/her post too.

reid!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/110005.shtml

As a MyDD commenter rightly pointed out, as NBC is part of General Electric, whom manufactures miniguns for the Military Industrial Complex, they are also right wing shills.

Look, if you want the truth, you have to go to the "free speech network" which I get from Dish Network for some reason, up in the high numbered channels.  It's basically college students reading Chomsky books into a camcorder.

You do sound kind of angry to me too.

</snark&gt

It can't be far behind.

There's a way.

Uhh...that must be why Air America and Al Gore's cable channel are doing so well, right? :-)

I didn't think I came off as angry. I hope not. I guess my point was this is a worthy thread and the majority of contributors seem to have a handle on what is a pretty deep, complicated subject.

And then...Talkin' Points Time, Baby!

It's like instead of doing their homework and contributing something meaningful to the discussion they choose to throw out a post that they know will play with this audience. It's lazy and shouldn't be respected.

Incidently I rarely read comments on liberal blogs for the same reason.

And, frankly, rather than a talking point I think it's just a too-easy, too-obvious point. Yes, the Democrats come off as angry. Yes, the sky is blue.

If it is a Republican talking point, it's not a very good one. That's the sort of point that's best illustrated by getting out of the way and letting the Dems speak for themselves.

And "angry" is not a bad thing. People should be angry about some things. However, "angry" and "silly" and "factually inaccurate" all together at once aren't good things. And "angry about it only when it's the other guy; when I'm doing it, it's cool" is also not a very good (but decidedly bipartisan) behavior. Anger for political expedience is sort of disappointing. Anger because they think they've got something they can exploit politically is disappointing and, I think, shortsighted in terms of building a winning political party.

Kos cites Josh Marshall:

What did Reid do in response? That's really the key issue.

Did he intervene on behalf of Abramoff's Marianas clients? The gist of the whole narrative is that Reid was Team Abramoff's go-to guy to kill the bill that would have hurt the Marianas sweatshop owners.

But did he actually rise to the bait?

I rung up Reid spokesman Jim Manley. He said Reid was a "cosponsor of Sen. Kennedy's bill; he spoke in favor of the bill on the Senate; he was a strong supporter of the bill." When I pressed Manley on whether Sen. Reid took any action adverse to the bill or made changes in timing that lead to the bill's demise, he said, "No."

Then I got hold of Ron Platt, the lobbyist referenced in the passage above, on his cell phone while he was down at a conference in Florida. I asked him whether, to the best of his recollection, Reid had taken any action against the Kennedy bill. "I'm sure he didn't," Platt told me.

According to Platt, the purpose of his contacts was to see what information he could get about the timing and status of the legislation. Reid's position on the minimum wage issue was well known and there would have been no point trying to get his help blocking it. That's what Platt says. "I didn't ask Reid to intervene," said Platt. "I wouldn't have asked him to intervene. I don't think anyone else would have asked. And I'm sure he didn't."

Marshall sums it up:

In this case, despite the AP story's narrative of lobbyist contacts, there doesn't seem to be any evidence whatsoever that Reid ever took any action on behalf of Abramoff's Marianas clients.

So here's the story: Abramoff lobbied Reid, and some of Abramoff's clients sent Reid money.  Reid responded by not doing anything that Abramoff wanted.  It's exactly what I'd expect of Harry Reid.  To tell one of my favorite incorruptible Reid stories:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to a Las Vegas Review-Journal account, he "put his hands around Gordon's neck and said, 'You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.'"

Harry Reid's spokesman and the lobbyist both say he didn't do anything to help the Marianas!

Well, dang it, why didn't he say so in the first place? Geez, if we'd known he was going to deny a quid pro quo took place, we'd never have brought it up. Talk about your ironclad defense, huh? Really? He says he didn't do it? Well, darn. I guess that ends the inquiry. Too bad. I really thought we had him there.

Reid acting tough when he knows he's on camera is about as significant as Geraldo Rivera acting tough when he interviewed Charles Manson.

he co-sponsored the bill that Abramoff was trying to fight.  That's a matter of public record.  All the other stuff is the icing on the cake.  

that a lawmaker sponsored or co-sponsored a bill and yet opposed it behind the scenes.

Reid also intervened on government matters at least five times in ways helpful to Abramoff's tribal clients, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues

Where's his response to this part?

From what I've gathered from Kos posts, the default response to this is that because Reid is essentially the senator from Las Vegas, anything that he does to "protect gambling" is justified.

I'm not sure how this factors into the fact that he received a "bonus" from a few tribes AFTER actions he did that they benefited from, a timeline made clear in the article.  Or the party thrown for him by Abramoff's office (not mere clients of, Abramoff's very firm).

I had the impression reading the article that the Marianas part was just a tiny tidbit, not the thrust of the story at all, yet the Kos kids are pretending that's the extent of the story so they can declare a non-issue and move on.  "Reality Based", remember.

"Abramoff's firm also hired one of Reid's top legislative aides as a lobbyist. The aide later helped throw a fundraiser for Reid at Abramoff's firm that raised donations from several of his lobbying partners."

Rather than say "Greenberg Traurig" - with worldwide workforce of 1400 - the authors write this like Mr. Abramoff was a chief, principle lobbyist and imply that it was "his" firm. Technically true, he worked FOR GT, but misleading.

.....The Post published a detailed account of Abramoff's tribal lobbying, showing how four of Greenberg Traurig's Indian clients had paid $45 million, most of it in fees to Scanlon's firm. Within weeks, Greenberg initiated an internal investigation, Abramoff was ousted and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee began its own inquiry, which unearthed hundreds of incriminating e-mails from Abramoff's Greenberg Traurig computer files....

....Greenberg Traurig officials have said that they asked Abramoff to resign in March 2004 over unauthorized personal transactions. They have noted that they had no knowledge of his financial arrangement with Scanlon before they received inquiries from The Post.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR200512280
1588_pf.html

So, if you took money from Abramoff or his clients, and did what they wanted, but you would have done it already (in Reid's case, because you're already wholly owned by the Vegas gambling industry), that too isn't enough to be an "Abramoff scandal"?

The definition keeps narrowing, all to defend Reid, and at each turn reduces the number of Republicans they can credibly attack.  Tell me again why this isn't a problem for the Dems?

degree and the Republicans...still lose.  Face it, the only saving grace for either party is that most of us not already in bed with either camp simply nod off whenever anyone mentions "politician" and "corruption" in the same breath.  

    The problem isn't corruption; it is more serious than that.  If unprincipled buying and selling of official favors was at fault then the solution would be simple.  Honest legislators would refuse to participate, and prosecutors or voters would deal with the rest.  To be sure, corruption does exist; it is hard to imagine any other community of 535 souls where felonies are so often proven.  But those illegalities are only symptoms of the underlying sickness.

     The true predicament is that perverse incentives twist the behavior of ordinary legislators.  The system of money-based elections and lobbying rewards those who cater to well-funded interests, both by keeping them in office and by allowing men like Fernand St Germain[whore for the S&L lobby] to enrich themselves while they serve.  It also punishes those who challenge the status quo, as D.G. Martin[the man who refused PAC money only to becomes a lobbyist himself] discovered.  And it bends even the best of intentions, like Tony Coelho's priestly instincts, toward the courtship of moneyed cliques.  As Coelho himself says, "the process buys you out."  The system doesn't require bad motives to produce bad government.

Brooks Jackson, "Honest Graft" circa 1988-90, who unsurprisingly still makes his livelihood commenting on political chicanery.  I guess professional-cynic/critic-of-corruption in D.C. is a steady paycheck if nothing else.

    ...The only reason I can imagine why more men don't go into this industry is because they don't know about it. And just here it strikes me that it might not be wise to publish what I've said. Perhaps if it gets to be known what a snap this manufacture of "Democracies" is, all the green-goods men, the bunco-steerers, and the young Napoleons of finance will go into it and the public will be humbugged more than it has been. But, after all, what difference would it make? There's always a certain number of suckers and a certain number of men lookin' for a chance to take them in, and the suckers are sure to be took one way or another. It's the everlastin' law of demand and supply.

GW Plunkitt, early 1900's...smack dab in the middle of the Progressive, reform movement.

The more things change yada yada yada.

a non-partisan research group study commissioned by the American Prospect addressed this topic:

But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it's highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did.

Like it or not, Abramoff was a professional Republican.  

From AP:

"NEW YORK - The Republican national chairman created a furor this week when he suggested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is too "angry" to win the White House in 2008. And to hear Republicans tell it, Clinton is just one of many Democrats with an anger management problem.

Former Vice President Al Gore is angry. So is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The party is held hostage by the "angry left."

In recent months, GOP operatives and officeholders have cast the Democrats as the anger party, long on emotion and short on ideas. Analysts say the strategy has been effective, trivializing Democrats' differences with the GOP as temperamental rather than substantive."

That was up on yahoo yesterday. It was just so laughable that this guy/girl obviously read it and wanted to advance that talking point to the point of injecting it into a completely unrelated post.

Harry Ried ethics questions = "More and more the Democrats just seem angry."  um...

While it may work as a soundbite to offer up Reid's ties to Abramoff as evidence of a bipartison scandal, I don't think we should push to many buttons on this one. The GOP, alas, has become even more corrupted than the Dems, at least for the time being. Better to let some heads roll than fight back with evidence that, when looked at closely, shows a monumental disparity between Abramoff's ties to the GOP vs. the Dems.