Redstate

is bright enough to understand the issue.  The man from Searchlight ought to go back home and begin searching for a clue there.

The hypocritical Senate Democrats will rush without hesitation to protect their own, and that crass behavior is to be expected. Nonetheless...

I have to wonder which Senate Republican will be the first to rush to Reid's defense. Excuse my rank cynicism, but a House redux wouldn't surprise me at all--in the Senate, it may even be worse. The usual suspect would be John McCain, but given his very tangential involvement I don't think he will say much.

but the feds have no business regulating boxing.

The only thing worse, on the politically incorrect scale of sporting events, would be a NASCAR race.  Boxing, which combines the atmosphere of gladiation and a cockfight, with racist undercurrents, makes libs cringe.

Going once, he could call it "gaining perspective".  Going three times, on someone else's nickel, makes him a freeloading fan.

I wonder if he won or lost money?

I'm curious as to what pertanent information Senator Reid needed that required ringside attendance to these three matches.

So, Harry, what did you find out?

he recused himself.  That's a big difference.  Not only does that mean he does not vote, he didnt take part in the debate, did not argue the issue, he might have left the Senate floor altogether when this issue was before the Chamber.  If he only abstained he still could have been part of the arm twisting.  He made sure to remove even that impropriety.

Harry Reid is certainly if not corrupt, plays fast and easy with money heading his way or his family's.  Firms that have connections to Reid's family have paid MILLIONS of dollars to them.  For example, "For instance, the Nevada Democrat once sponsored an environmental bill that he touted as a bipartisan measure to protect the ecosystem and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state."

"The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to attorney and son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land near booming Las Vegas. According to the Times, other provisions of Reid's legislation were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of the Senate minority leader's sons."

Reid has a very plausible explanation to all this.  "Lots of people have children, wives and stuff that work back here," he insisted. "It is not as if a lot of cash is changing hands."  RIIIIGHT.  LA Times archived artical below.

http://www.newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/big-money/lobb
yists-senators-sons.txt

Plenty more where that came from.  Harry Reid IS the culture of corruption in D.C.

It should be noted that he proceeded to vote for the legislation (of which he was a sponsor) that these folks were trying to derail.

If the Nevada officials were trying to buy his vote, they clearly failed.

"I'm not Goodie Two Shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.

It will be very interesting to see how much mileage this story gets.  At least it's on the front pages today, the Abramoff/Reid stories never made it that far in the past.  Mum's the word on the "progressive" sites.

I also wonder what facts he found that would have otherwise been hidden had he actually PAID for the same tickets?

Good point. Which the AP article also states. Though interestingly, that factoid was not quoted by the poster in the diary.

I also believe, though I very well could be wrong, that there is an exception in the Senate Rules for gifts from governmental agencies. Like the Nevada Athletic Commission.

And I think the article speaks to this point by conceding that while Reid may have not violated any Senate ethics rules, he should have paid for the tickets out of an abundance of caution. Which is arguably a fair point.

Nevertheless, in short, Reid appears to have accepted free tickets to a boxing match from a group looking to sway his vote, seemingly didn't violate any Senate rules, and then he proceeded to vote against that group.

But again, why let these little facts get in the way of the Outrage of the Week Machine.

...so much more impressive if it had included links to your criticisms of Enronophobes bashing the Bush administration over Lay's own supposed attempts at influence.  I mean, clearly you have the moral courage to have made such criticisms, and providing them would have demonstrated intellectual integrity on this issue, so I am at a loss to know why you have not given them.

Moe

PS: I don't really care about Reid and his tickets, although the idea of either Washingtonian Democrats or Republicans running a national campaign on the theme of corruption is deeply, deeply silly.  But then, I also didn't really care about Ken Lay's attempts to unsuccessfully influence the administration, mostly because of that adverb.

Your turn.

Send the FBI to check his freezer!

To also be fair:  Reid is the ex-chairman of the boxing commission.  Something tells me it is pretty standard for these agencies to give event tickets to people who have held top posts in the past.

Now that would be a sure sign of political corruption. Of course the Nevada commission tried to influence his vote. Of course he was never going to actually do anything except sponge off them. But that hasn't stopped Dems criticism of Reps now has it? Perhaps the issue here is glass houses and stones rather than bribery. I mean, not all congress critters are as audacious as Jefferson.

...Does that mean that the ADA would have to apply to all sanctioned fights? Would Vegas have to install ramps and extra wide ring ropes for easy access?

What exactly is the point of this post?  Reid actions here may be somewhat distasteful to liberal types who want to radically curb gifts and influence-peddling in the first place. However, he quite clearly didn't violate any kind of ethics rules, and even voted against the interests of the NAC.  So there's really no scandal here.

So, is this just a lame attempt at a "Gotcha!" piece?  Or are you signalling a desire to ban gifts of this type?  What's the deal?

in good time, depending who is going to pursue this damning bit of evidence (or "if").

Can you imagine the circus of seeing his bookie exposed and telling all?

But that does not remove either the appearance of conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety, now does it?

There's a reason that you don't do these things. Pete Rose could theorhetically have bet on his own team without being influnced by it, too.

Bottom Line: Reid should have known better, but he decided to play "fat cat man of privilege" instead. Don't defend him for it. We should demand more from our leaders.

I'd begun to think that old school conservativism was a lost concept. I'm glad to see that some of us still see through the smoke and mirrors to the deeper problem. The bigger the government, the worse the corruption. Read Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause by Ron Paul.

Talk of "reforming" failed government programs is always good for a laugh. How 'bout we just cancel 'em, eh.

Despite claims to the contrary, Cheney doesn't appropriate money that goes to Halliburtion, either. And as far as I can recall, the vice president has been the victim of charges of "the appearance of impropriety" rather than a purported opponent of it.

Reid has painted himself into a corner. The same Democrats who decried Cheney's perceived conflicts now will rush to the minority leader's side. In addition, I still wait for some Senate RINO to claim Reid has been unfairly tarnished.

a colander. First Ballard stated:

"If the Nevada officials were trying to buy his vote, they clearly failed."

To that you added this:

"Good point. Which the AP article also states. Though interestingly, that factoid was not quoted by the poster in the diary."

Perhaps we should look at what that AP article says specifically about that ethics rule.

"Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts - particularly on multiple occasions - when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.

Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence or elicit favorable official action, the Senate ethics manual states."

What a startling revelation! Seems the weight of the ethics rule falls on the motive of the gift giver, and has nothing to do with the subsequent action of the Senate member, so Senator Reid clearly broke this rule over his knee. And it explicitly warns of accepting such gift on multiple occasions, which is exactly what our unctuous Senator did, making his actions all the more egregious.

And your assertion of his right to accept the gifts in question because they came from a government entity is also specifically shot down by the rule book citing the following example of an ethics violation:

"It [the Senate ethics manual] cites the 1990s example of an Oregon lawmaker who took gifts for personal use from a South Carolina state university and its president while that school was trying to influence his official actions."

The honorable Senator reid's actions so exactly fit the parameters of this Ethics Rule Book citation, it could be perfectly interchanged with the above example.

It is also interesting to note the article identifies Senator Reid as a former boxer and boxing judge. Having such a vested interest, he obviously enjoyed his gifts immensely. So he took the gifts three times and subsequently voted against the giver? That doesn't exonerate him from his offense. It only exposes him as a carpetbagger as well.

Here's Ezra Klein on Reid:

"Folks try to bribe him, and he either merrily votes against their interests or physically assaults them. Would that all senators were so corrupt."

And here's Josh Marshall:

Back in February, Solomon produced a lengthy expose on Team Abramoff's alleged efforts to sway Reid to support their Marianas sweatshop clients, without ever mentioning that Reid consistently voted against the Marianas sweatshop owners. That's a rather salient fact. And once you knew it, the whole piece pretty much collapsed, leaving Solomon with a quid in search of a quo. And perhaps not even a quid. The whole thing was a genuine embarassment. Now, Solomon's back reporting that Reid accepted boxing tickets he was allowed to accept from his home state's boxing commission and in exchange voted against the people who gave him the tickets. ( He voted for more federal boxing regs.)

take the bribe and vote against the briber's interests.  I bet a lot of lawmakers could become overnight millionaires if that was the correct interpretation of the law.

At a certain point, bribers would be like "I keep giving these guys bribes, but they keep voting against me, or grabbing me by the throat and choking me... I've got to stop doing this."  

Kerry chose to make his military service the cornerstone of his campaign.  That opened the door for depper scrutiny of his record. It was equivalent to Bush trying to say that he was qualified to be president because he was such a talented pilot during Vietnam. Had he done that, the discrepancies in his service record would have been more relevant.

Point being, if Reid wants to be point man on the Culture-O-Corruption™, he by definition raises the bar on his own behavior in that realm. But then he has also taken a lot of Ambramoff-directed money, so apparently life in a glass house just suits him.

Now go on over to Daily Kos and tell the readership over there how the Enron scandal shows the exact same thing about President Bush.

Don't worry, we'll wait.

Unruh, one of the most powerful California politicians ever, supposedly said, 'Son, if you can't take their money, drink their whiskey, screw their women, and then vote against 'em, you don't deserve to be here.'

Vice President Cheney was raked over the political coals for the energy commission and the purported influence of various companies and he never voted for it.  Of course the charge was that there was the appearance of impropriety because they had access to the Vice President and influence into what went into the final bill.

The same charge might be made about Senator Reid.  A lobbyist who realized that they are unlikely to get a Senator to vote against his own bill would still value the opportunity to "soften" certain aspects of it in order to mitigate the effects on his or her client.  Gaining influence into what the author puts or doesn't put into their initial draft and getting the opposition to nudge closer to your POV at the start is probably more important than getting or failing to get one Senator's vote on the final piece of legislation.

I addressed above.

I'll bet there are a good number of people who take bribes believing in their souls that those bribes won't affect their objectivity. I'll even bet that lots of times the bribes don't affect their objectivity. Does it matter? The briber gets access. The briber gets an undue opportunity to make their case.

And what if taking the bribes actually makes Reid more likely to vote against a cause? Isn't the effect the same? Didn't money inappropriately affect the outcome? The reality is that we can't know what would have happened without the attempted bribery. That's why taking the bribe in the first place is simply a bad idea.

This strain of apologists just puzzles me...

I don't have time to look into this in detail but it strikes me that someone in a leadership position like Reid's can make something happen while personally voting against that very thing.

Something like that would be nearly impossible to prove, and the requisite arm-twisting behavior might well fall under the Speech and Debate clause. If you're going to be a crook, be a good one.

what do Enron and Bush have to do with anything?

...the pragmatic limits of your moral courage.

You give the feds this kind of power, where that much money is at stake, and there is bound to be bribery, corruption, and scandal.

On domestic policy I am with Ron Paul all the way.

Interstate Commerce!

:P

Bush didn't take any money from Enron, did he?  What's this supposed to be about?  

Where you can accidentally shoot somebody, or

"can I get me a hunting license here?"

shoot yourself in the foot.

You're here arguing, essentially, that Reid's done nothing really wrong.  Fine and dandy; I think that this is a political blunder myself.

But I just want to see the evidence that you're just as comfortable going on a Left-wing site to criticize their version.  Enron counts, methinks: you yourself just agreed that there was no Bush payola, so clearly you would be just as quick to defend the President's honor over there as you would the Senator's over here.

So let's see it.  Again, we'll wait.

Moe

William Jefferson D-LA defense?  I took the money but I didn't vote for it?  And my freezer is safer than a bank.

I really, really cant't believe anyone on this site, even partisan liberal Dems, want this to be a valid defense.  Not only am I sure it IS against the law (maybe not the tickets but writing legislation that benefit family members), it violates the spirit of it to such an extent as to make the laws worthless.  Sad that people are defending this behavior, esp when 2 other lawmakers confronted with the same bribe, rejected it out of hand.

OK, so "lame attempt at a 'Gothca!' piece" it is.

..."boxing is just like dancing, except that there is no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other."

I'd think as a Mormom Sen. Reid would be appalled by boxing, and that his brethren would have a problem with him accepting ringside seats for such a barbaric event.

All Sen. Reid has to do for 'perspective' is watch video of Muhammad Ali trying to light the Olympic torch in Atlanta in '96.

--furious

...from state agencies...

...state agencies coerce their bribe funds from taxpayers under force of law.  Enron's shareholders, at least, didn't risk prison by refusing to buy Enron stock.

The fact that Reid voted for his own legislation afterwards is a meaningless defense because:

1>the legislation failed to pass.

2>Senators trade votes all the time to allow one to vote for/against a bill that is sure to fail/pass, thus maintaining political cover.

3>Regulatory legislation is no more than a means whereby the legislature extorts campaign contributions from the affected parties.  Pay me or I might introduce it again.

4>pocketing the pro quo while not delivering quid is no more exculpatory of bribe-taking than murdering the victim after pocketing the ransom is of kidnapping.

--furious

1. Killing poor, innocent, furry little critters
   
   
2. Eating same
   
   
3. Not done in cities
   
   
4. Requires personal responsibility
   
   
5. Shields  from attack the 2nd Amendment, which they have in their sights (so to speak)

Not sure if that tops boxing, but it comes close.

I didn't care much about Enron myself other than having a few friends who were employees and got hosed pretty good as things unraveled.

I'm a bit at a loss as to what the two stories have to do with each other - one involves a private CEO who just got invicted, the other an elected official who has broken no law - but I can say that I wasn't particularly outraged about Enron and Lay's ties with Bush.

"but I can say that I wasn't particularly outraged about Enron and Lay's ties with Bush. "

Go right on over to dKos or Atrios or Smirking Chimp and challenge their ongoing "Outrage of the Week" wrt Enron and Bush's interaction thereof: you clearly don't agree with them, so there's no reason for you not to.  

Because we've been getting a lot of people with oddly, ah, specific restrictions on who and where they'll offer criticisms, and I'd hate to have to have to add you to that list.

Thanks in advance!

Not the point.  No matter how you feel about the Swifties, if Kerry had, for example, focused his campaign on his Senate record, or some bold new vision for America, complaining about his Vietnam service wouldn't have created such a ruckus. It was his "reporting for duty" antics that made taking a hard look at the Swifties' charges necessary in the first place.

Likewise, if Reid hadn't been promoting himself as a corruption killer, such a relatively minor act of questionable ethics would have gone unnoticed.

No, thank YOU in advance.

Here's a deal. You go over to those sites and register me with an account, and I'll post something.

I'm not registered at those sites (I haven't even heard of Smirking Chimp), and can't be bothered.

Then, you and I can go out on patrol and break up all the various silly Outrages of the Week floating around the Lefwing and Rightwing blogosphere!

Wonder Twin Powers, activate!

and even now, the story at DK by far has one of the lowest numbers of comments and has been classified as a non-story from what I see.

Can't say that I'm surprised.

If we are both to spend our time canvassing the various blogs (RedState included), highlighting the manifold faux Outrages of the Week to establish our respective objectivity, then I suppose we could.

There are many of them, to be sure.

But I think we both know that we have better and more important things to do. I suppose I ask you to speed skate across the Rightwing blogosphere, poking holes in various Outrages of the Week to demonstrate your objectivity, but again, I know that I'd be asking you to waste your time.

Which I won't do.

Then again, speaking of surprises, maybe you'll surprise me!

I can stay right here to object to various Republican / Righty policy positions and stupidities, as even a cursory examination of my comments, diaries and stories will demonstrate.  Save you time: I've gone round and round with people here on gay marriage, amnesty and pornography.  Probably others, too.

But I've noticed that there's a looooot of Democrats and lefties out there who don't ever, ever think to police their own - because they're too busy trying to police us.  Absent contrary evidence, I guess that you're one of them. Pity.

Now shoo.

but I can say that I wasn't particularly outraged about Enron and Lay's ties with Bush.

But maybe you should be particularly outraged about Enron and Lay's ties with Clinton.

The Real Enron Scandal and the Clinton's Culture of Corruption.

Documents Link Enron's Fall to Clinton 'Corruption'

In 1992, Enron was one of the most popular contributors to Bill Clinton and the DNC. Enron was right next to Bill Clinton from his first days in the White House. In 1992, Enron donated $100,000 to Clinton's inauguration, and Enron's top exec, Ken Lay, stayed at the White House 11 times.

If the FBI, GAO or Congress wants to investigate billions of dollars lost to "corruption, collusion and nepotism," they need look no further than Bill Clinton.

Enron executives traveled with Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown in 1994 on trade missions to Russia, India, Indonesia and China, cutting U.S. taxpayer-financed deals in each country. In fact, Brown paid a great deal of attention to Enron. Indonesia was pressed by Clinton's secretary of commerce to accept Enron deals laced with corruption.

Documented 'Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism'

According to State Department documents, Enron was subject to corruption in the two power plant deals with the Suharto government. One State Department cable included an entire section titled "Dealing with Unwanted Partners."

"Unocal executives told resources officer that the firm is close to reaching a deal with its partner, PT Nusamba (controlled by former President Soeharto crony Bob Hasan) to sever ties in two production sharing contracts (PSC) in East Kalimantan and East Java," noted a State Department cable.

Curiously, many secrets still surround the Enron power plants. The U.S. State Department maintains that some information on the Indonesian power deals must remain classified. One partly blacked out cable from the State Department is titled "on power projects, corruption, draft laws."

'First Family Involvement'

According to dozens of documents, the "vested" interest included bribes and kickbacks allocated to the Suharto family and its "crony" friends. In fact, the Department of Commerce allocated an entire category in its documentation called "first family involvement" to describe the bribes paid to Suharto.

By 1997 the Indonesian power plant deals collapsed due to the rampant corruption. As a result of the collapse, the U.S. government had to pay off millions in insurance claims by the U.S. corporations that lost money.

Contributions for Favors

Between 1993 and 1994, 26 companies received support from the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank totaling about $5 billion. According to the center's study, five corporations - Enron, U.S. West, GTE, McDonnell Douglas and Fluor - donated $563,000 to the Democrats and received at least $2.6 billion in contracts.

Moreover, the U.S. government was aware that insuring the false contracts inside Indonesia could push the Overseas Private Investment Corporation into bankruptcy.

Trade Trips for DNC Donations

In August 1994, Brown led a trade mission to China and Hong Kong that included Enron. The mission also included major million-dollar DNC donors such as Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz and investment banker Sanford Robertson. Robertson admitted to the New York Post that he was invited solely because he supported Clinton with campaign money.

The telltale Post article was discovered in the files of Ron Brown along with a tight list of exclusive DNC donors. Another document that Ron Brown kept in his personal files listed Enron, Edison Mission Energy, California Energy, Hughes, AT&T, Federal Express, Sprint and Chrysler as donating money to the DNC.

The direct donation of money in exchange for favors is clearly documented. The Indonesian scam took the U.S. taxpayers and corporate investors for billions of dollars in lost funds. Company execs and U.S. government officials ignored the "corruption."

Documented Crime but No Investigation

Documents obtained from the Clinton administration are filled with direct quotes and hard numbers detailing taxpayer monies that were paid as illegal bribes to a corrupt regime. The citizens of Indonesia and the United States were the victims of a massive crime. That crime has received no press attention and no investigation.

It may shock and surprise you that the demise of Enron started long before George W. Bush was elected. Enron's fall was due to "corruption" that started during the Clinton administration.

(I apologize for the threadjack in advance Mark.)

I applaud you for your policing. However, I must admit that the only blog I'm registered on is RedState. I think that's a statement on the productive and interesting dialogue at this site, but who knows.

That said, I see you've given in to the darkside of condescension so I will bow out on our exchange.

Police like the wind!

Just a note...

Nobody seems to have noticed that Reid actually co-sponsored a bill that the donors of the tickets were lobbying against.

I'm no supporter of his, but where is the conflict of interest? If the general public hears us going on about this, and then finds out about the full story, it will make it seem as though we are attempting to distract from Republican scandals.