POL - Dem. Harry Reid may be more involved w/ Jack....

[Flasch186]

....Abramoff than previously reported according to MSNBC. If thats true, his ass should be treated the same as any of the Republicans on the chopping block!! I hate this crap.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not sure what you are referring to because you didn't provide a link, but to my knowledge there is no evidence that Reid is involved with Abramoff's scandals. Abramoff's clients lobbied him, but he voted against their position. Again, the scandal is not that members of congress get lobbied, the scandal is quid pro quo relationships.

[flounder]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261035/

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator’s staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist’s team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities — detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press — are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff’s firm, lobbying partners and clients.

[MrBigglesworth]

Flasch, is this what you meant? Because it's AP, not MSNBC, so I'm not sure. Anyway, there story doesn't have any evidence of quid pro quo activities. Josh Marshall called up Platt and Manley to get their responses:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007647.php

Platt, the Abramoff guy in the AP article, says he was never called by the AP for comment.

[Flasch186]

i heard it on MSNBC, i doubt they found it on their own, most TV news people dont....so yes thats it. And it seems, just like I jump on the republicans with the smoke and fire analogy, Im jumping on this too. I believe it and dont like it. Im sure youll say its much ado about nothing, since its the left, but Im an equal opportunity slammer regardless of side. This Reid behavior sounds exactly like some ont he right, monies, donations, and indians. I dont like it.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i heard it on MSNBC, i doubt they found it on their own, most TV news people dont....so yes thats it. And it seems, just like I jump on the republicans with the smoke and fire analogy, Im jumping on this too. I believe it and dont like it. Im sure youll say its much ado about nothing, since its the left, but Im an equal opportunity slammer regardless of side. This Reid behavior sounds exactly like some ont he right, monies, donations, and indians. I dont like it.

Bravo.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i heard it on MSNBC, i doubt they found it on their own, most TV news people dont....so yes thats it. And it seems, just like I jump on the republicans with the smoke and fire analogy, Im jumping on this too. I believe it and dont like it. Im sure youll say its much ado about nothing, since its the left, but Im an equal opportunity slammer regardless of side. This Reid behavior sounds exactly like some ont he right, monies, donations, and indians. I dont like it.

Money? Donations? Indians? You just described every congressman in the history of the country from the midwest. That's not the illegal part, that is not the unethical part. Indians are not de facto dirty, and neither are campaign contributions, and neither is meeting with lobbyists. All of that is done all the time, is completely legal, and completely ethical.

The article attempts to condemn Reid by inferring that Abramoff lobbied him to kill a bill that Reid ended up co-sponsoring. The people involved said that they contacted Reid for updates on the bill's timing or something. THERE IS NO SMOKE. There isn't one single shred of evidence that anything was done inappropriately.

Your attempt to prove your centrist credentials by grandstanding against Deomocrats is noted, but I'll wait for evidence before I start myself.

[Flasch186]

feel free to wait, my batting avg. is quite high on things that bear fruit. This will too. When Abramoff's people gave donations to anyone, it is unfair to blast the right and not equally blast the left, as they are both equally bad. I will do so, and have done so. This will bear fruit too. Its not grandstanding, its how I feel in my heart.

[flounder]

More from that MSNBC article.

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. Reid collected donations around the time of each action.

Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors.

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

And Reid’s longtime chief of staff accepted a free trip to Malaysia arranged by a consulting firm connected to Abramoff that recently has gained attention in the influence-peddling investigation that has gripped the Capitol.

...

The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for school building.

Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners — including Platt and Ayoob — donated a total of $4,000 to Reid’s Senate re-election campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to Reid’s political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Reid sent a fourth letter on April 30, 2003, joining Ensign a second time to urge Interior to reject the Jena casino.

Two months later, Abramoff’s firm threw a fundraiser for Reid at its Washington office that netted the Nevada senator several more donations from Greenberg Traurig lobbyists and their spouses. Ayoob was instrumental in staging the event, Reid’s office said.

[Flasch186]

as an aside, Id like to just say, its ok to be mad at people on the left as well as on the right. It doesnt make you any less of a supporter of one side r the other and there is nothing wrong with it. Questioning and calling it like it is, is a good thing.

[Buccaneer]

Nice work, Flasch and thanks for not quoting Biggle. He has never said anything remotely readable or intelligent and makes me wonder what he's here for.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by flounder

More from that MSNBC article.

And Reid’s longtime chief of staff accepted a free trip to Malaysia arranged by a consulting firm connected to Abramoff that recently has gained attention in the influence-peddling investigation that has gripped the Capitol.

The article also mentions that that trip was passed through the Senate ethics committee.

The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for school building.

Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners — including Platt and Ayoob — donated a total of $4,000 to Reid’s Senate re-election campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to Reid’s political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Here is a press release from 2000 noting some work by Reid helping out Indian schools. Reid has a long history of being pro-Indian affairs, and as such gets a lot of money from Indian groups. That's the way it works in Washington. This follows a long-standing history of Reid's, there is nothing to suggest that he intervened because he was bribed with donations.

Reid sent a fourth letter on April 30, 2003, joining Ensign a second time to urge Interior to reject the Jena casino.

Why would Reid, who represents Nevada, which includes Las Vegas and Reno, be against opening up new casinos?

The scandal is NOT donations, it is NOT lobbying, it is a quid pro quo relationship. If you want to accuse someone of being involved in the scandal you need to bring more to the table than them supporting something Abramoff's clients also supported. I hope the press digs into it more, I'm glad they are attempting to turn over every rock, but the fact remains that the Bush Justice Department has only indicted Republicans in the Abramoff affair.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Nice work, Flasch and thanks for not quoting Biggle. He has never said anything remotely readable or intelligent and makes me wonder what he's here for.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

When Abramoff's people gave donations to anyone, it is unfair to blast the right and not equally blast the left, as they are both equally bad.

Whoa. If you really believe that to be true, despite what has been published over and over and over again to the contrary, your "batting average" just took a big o-fer. Go ahead and throw in Reid into the guilty column. Hell, throw in 10 more. You're still a helluva long way from equaly bad, my friend.

[Vegas Vic]

I'm not a big Harry Reid fan, although I do admire his tenacious opposition to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Here he is in the oval office with Bill Clinton in 2000, as Clinton fulfills his promise to veto the Yucca Mountain legislation.

Of course, George W. Bush signed the bill when it came up again in 2002, breaking a promise to Nevada governor Kenny Guinn (R) that he would authorize the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain "only with backing of the best science."

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Whoa. If you really believe that to be true, despite what has been published over and over and over again to the contrary, your "batting average" just took a big o-fer. Go ahead and throw in Reid into the guilty column. Hell, throw in 10 more. You're still a helluva long way from equaly bad, my friend.

yes, I believe that no one should be accepting bribes or donations from groups and then voting or involving themselves in matters that involve the givers. It stinks and I BELIEVE that when someone gets into public office they should do everything in their power to avoid even that which LOOKS corrupt. Like the Republican leader renting an apt. from a lobbyist...while not illegal and maybe not corrupt it LOOKS bad and therefore should not be done.

To me, this is REALLY easy stuff on how to behave and how not to behave. ITs not partisan, its just morals IMO....whether Biggles wants to accept anyone's opinion other than those that agree with him whole heartedly is up to him but to me, this stuff is easy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

To me, this is REALLY easy stuff on how to behave and how not to behave. ITs not partisan, its just morals IMO....whether Biggles wants to accept anyone's opinion other than those that agree with him whole heartedly is up to him but to me, this stuff is easy.

All right you talk big with the grandstanding, now back it up. What did Reid do wrong? What evidence is there that he did anything that 99 other Senators don't do? "Where there's smoke, there's fire" isn't an adequate response, because by that criteria every single Senator is guilty in your eyes.Abramoff is cooperating with investigators, surely a Democrat's name would be the first he would bring up, why no indictements of Reid?

Or are you just grasping for anything a Dem may have done wrong in order to appear 'impartial'?

[MrBigglesworth]

Here is an example of at least some circumstantial evidence:

Reps. Capito (R-WV), LaTourette (R-OH) and Young (R-AK) were all mentioned in papers filed with the court today. None of them are yet charged with anything, but Young's case at least is interesting. In 1999, the Republic of the Marshall Islands hired Abramoff's firm, Preston-Gates. A month later, Young led a congressional delegation on an official trip to the Marshall Islands, a trip organized by Abramoff according to 2001 court documents, something pretty much unheard of. Eventually RMI failed to pay their bill, and Preston-Gates took them to court, alleging that amongst their services was:

Drafting, finding sponsorship for, and overseeing the mark-up of three bills on behalf of the RMI concerning payments by the United States and assumption of responsibility for nuclear tests conducted on or near the atolls of Rongelap, Bikini, and Enewetok.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/doc...?resultpage=5&
(That is the site that I get most my scandal info from. It is very well researched and the reporting is solid)

Not just advising, but actually drafting bills. The chairperson of that committee where the bills went through? Mr. Young (R-AK).

If Reid is involved in something like that, I'm all ears.

[st.cronin]

I thought Harry Reid was from one of the Dakotas?

And I thought Reid claimed earlier that not one single Democrat had recieved monies from Abramoff?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I thought Harry Reid was from one of the Dakotas?

And I thought Reid claimed earlier that not one single Democrat had recieved monies from Abramoff?

Daschle was from one of the Dakotas, Reid is from Nevada. And not one Democrat has received money from Abramoff:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/se...e3=2002&Page=1

A lot of Abramoff's clients have given money to Democrats, but most of those clients had ALWAYS given money to Dems since way before Abramoff was in the picture. A recent study by a non-partisan group of his tribal clients showed that after hiring Abramoff, Dem donations fell 9% while GOP donations rose 135%. For Abramoff's tribal clients, twice as much money went to GOP as Dems, while for non-Abramoff tribes, twice as much money went to the Dems as the GOP. Any reasonable interpretation of the data leads you to conclude that Abramoff was stearing his clients away from donating to Democrats and towards Republicans. The GOP is trying to paint this particular scandal as a non-partisan scandal, when it is clearly a GOP scandal.

[ISiddiqui]

This sounds pretty damning for Reid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetar..._Jack_Abramoff

Reid sent a letter they wrote on March 5, 2002, to Interior Secretary Gale Norton asking her to reject an application from the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, which was seeking to open a casino outside its Louisiana reservation. An Abramoff client fighting the Jena casino, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, donated $5,000 to Reid's political action committee, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, the next day, at Abramoff's request. While Abramoff never donated directly to Reid, the lobbyist did instruct the tribe to send $5,000 to the fund. The Washington Post reported that Abramoff sent a list to the tribe titled "Coushatta Requests" recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip." Reid was Democratic whip at the time.

About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department helpful to the tribe, records show. His March 5, 2002, letter pressed the agency to reject a casino proposed by a potential rival to the Coushattas, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) also signed the letter.

Sounds pretty fishy to me. I don't think Reid leaves this scandel unblemished. It seems like there may have been some bribery going on over there.

[Flasch186]

it is the same standard i hold for the right, and Ill apply it to the left as well, if you dont mind Biggles. If I smell something fishy I call it, this smells fishy. In the past, when I use my "where there is smoke" test...it has usually borne fruit. this one will too. He didnt avoid that which looked unethical and that is simply the first mistake.

I slam the admin when they doi stuff that simply "looks" bad and I will apply that standard to everyone. It seems you dont apply things equally, which is your choice...i simply do. Grandstanding, in your book, but in mine it equals being against hypocrisy...you can label it what you will, labels dont mean anything to me. The right has been playing the label game with words for a long time, with great effect (the word liberal, and its bad connotation when the right says it, comes to mind). Its a shame that you would try to do the same with your use of "grandstanding" when you dont know me or my heart. Ill continue to act according to that.

[Tekneek]

I wonder if we could count the people in D.C., that aren't on the take, with one hand. It sure seems like it. "Business as usual" up there is like walking through a sewer everyday.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I wonder if we could count the people in D.C. that aren't on that take with one hand. It sure seems like it. "Business as usual" up there is like walking through a sewer every day.

I defintiely think that there needs to be massive campaign finance reform and lobbying changes. it is a cesspool as far as I am concerned.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

it is the same standard i hold for the right, and Ill apply it to the left as well, if you dont mind Biggles. If I smell something fishy I call it, this smells fishy. In the past, when I use my "where there is smoke" test...it has usually borne fruit. this one will too. He didnt avoid that which looked unethical and that is simply the first mistake.

I slam the admin when they doi stuff that simply "looks" bad and I will apply that standard to everyone. It seems you dont apply things equally, which is your choice...i simply do. Grandstanding, in your book, but in mine it equals being against hypocrisy...you can label it what you will, labels dont mean anything to me. The right has been playing the label game with words for a long time, with great effect (the word liberal, and its bad connotation when the right says it, comes to mind). Its a shame that you would try to do the same with your use of "grandstanding" when you dont know me or my heart. Ill continue to act according to that.

I don't always agree with everything you say on here, but I do appreciate your consistency. Too many people on both sides have their blinders on, and that does nothing to help problems like this.

[Buccaneer]

Maybe now people will start noticing the prospect of having those outside of the 2-party system reform DC to a less powerful Legislative and Executive Branch? Reform cannot and will not come from within, there is too much to protect. Vote for libertarian-minded candidates next time else this cycle (which have been going for many decades and will only get worse) will continue.

By the way, anyone catch Michelle Malkin's column?

$1,401,104,263.



That's how much of our hard-earned money has gone to subsidize the spring break-style trips and conferences of the federal government over the last five years. Spending on bureaucracy boondoggles has increased some 70 percent in that time period.


We wouldn't know anything about this binge if Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) hadn't asked. Last summer, the pork-busting chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security surveyed all federal departments and agencies and directed them to document their conference, meetings, and travel expenses since 2000. At a hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Coburn unveiled his findings.


You'll be happy to know that the government junkets your tax dollars have funded include:

• A Department of Housing and Urban Development trip to the resort town of Los Cabos, Mexico for a conference on American real estate and urban areas.
  
• Another HUD outing to Honolulu, Hawaii — for the Sacramento, California, Home Ownership Fair.
  
• A Department of State expedition to Vienna, Austria, to partake in "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" and "Train the Trainer" workshops.
  
• A Department of Health and Human Services jaunt by 236 employees to an AIDS conference in Barcelona, Spain. Pricetag: $3.6 million.
  
• A total of 59 HHS conferences around the world with delegations of more than 100--including over 1,000 attendees to sunny Orlando. Employed by HHS? You're going to Disneyworld!

It would be one thing if all this worldwide travel were actually related to the actual agency/department goals and duties of the federal employees packing their bags and riding off into the sunset. But in too many cases, there is little if any connection between the meetings and the mission.

Why are we paying for HUD employees to attend the New York State Governor's Dr. Martin Luther King Symposium? Or to a conference held by the radical, left-wing, open-borders advocacy group, the National Council of La Raza?



Did the Department of Justice really need to dispatch workers to the "Women are Sacred" conference in sunny Phoenix?


Was it necessary to send a whopping 200 HHS employees to a Netherlands "International Symposium on Night and Shiftwork?" Wouldn't it have saved us all time and money if the HHS researchers traveled to a nearby 7-11 or nursing home instead?


The spendthrift HHS has been among the worst transgressors — burning through more than $300 million on conferences between 2000-2005. Several of the department's publicly-subsidized trips to AIDS conferences have featured free condom distribution to participants, sex- and drug-themed sessions, and in one case, giveaways of a map to area brothels.


Jet-setting bureaucrats do more than waste money on these working vacations. They are also undermining our nation's best interests. The State Department has sent its employees to confabs convened by the soft-on-terrorism outfit, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (whose executive director blamed Israel in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks), as well as to a counterterrorism conference in Saudi Arabia that deliberately excluded Israel and instead welcomed the Islamist Muslim World League — considered by U.S. counterterrorism officials to be a financial supporter of al Qaeda.


Blowhards in both parties in Washington have pledged to reduce spending and reform business as usual. Yet, Sen. Coburn's attempt to limit conference spending by just one agency — HUD — was anonymously stripped from an appropriations bill behind closed doors and unceremoniously killed.


Who did it? Let's have some transparency. Step forward and tell us why.


You want reform? You want smaller government? There's $1,401,104,263 and counting just waiting to be targeted.
Go ahead and make our day: Cut it out!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Reform cannot and will not come from within, there is too much to protect.

I've been saying and thinking that for years. The answer can only be that most voters like this sort of thing and want it to continue forever, because they certainly aren't saying otherwise when they fill out their ballots.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Maybe now people will start noticing the prospect of having those outside of the 2-party system reform DC to a less powerful Legislative and Executive Branch? Reform cannot and will not come from within, there is too much to protect. Vote for libertarian-minded candidates next time else this cycle (which have been going for many decades and will only get worse) will continue.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, not so much about the Libertarians but a third party in general. Do you think we are getting to the point where a viable third party could eventually emerge?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by ice4277

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, not so much about the Libertarians but a third party in general. Do you think we are getting to the point where a viable third party could eventually emerge?

As long as people are dependent upon big business and big money telling them who the 'viable candidates' are, it will never happen. There is no incentive for them to endorse a change since they will not benefit from it. Even someone like PBS/NPR would have no incentive to do so, because they may get cut out of influence as well.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ice4277

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, not so much about the Libertarians but a third party in general. Do you think we are getting to the point where a viable third party could eventually emerge?

I don't think so unless someone extraordinary emerges with a populist message. Look at the preparations for the 2006 elections. Every single action is geared towards the anti-incumbent opposition party to take control and for the incumbent party to maintain control. I think many do realize it's the same wolf in sheep's clothing but with a different color hat. In many, many places, there are no alternatives presented at the congressional level. That's unfortunate because it is the branch that libertarian-minded candidates can have direct influence (i.e., they control the purse strings and the legislation). While local political machines are much less influential than they were in the 70s and before, there are still many influential groups directly tied to one party or the other.

What you and others are thinking about is a presidential candidate. The only criteria for one to be successful is not so much anti-status quo of the 2-party system but enough charisma to actually get voters from not choosing "none of the above" (i.e., staying home) to someone that can get enough play in the media to get people out to vote. 20% each are locked in to the 2-party corruptions but more than half of the remaining 60% do not vote.

A person with enough charisma and positive media coverage as an outsider to get elected will likely face a hostile congress. But the paradox of it all is that in order to have the influence to affect change, deals and influence peddling will still have to be conducted and that get's back to where we started. The other paradox is that if enough libertarian-minded congresspersons are elected, what do you think they have to do in order to keep up their reformations? Yes, get enough influence and persuasions to get re-elected, esp. to hold off the re-grouped oppositions.

As I mentioned before, the key is from the grassroots. You have to have a population willing to think 'outside of the box' in terms of federal powers and not thinking of switching to different color hats every 8-12 years. Libertarianism (not the Libertarian Party) is a mindset and a way of life (for personal responsibilities (in of oneself and in taking care of others), for managing an efficient lifestyle and for the love of liberty). With enough change among the populace and with a charismatic alternative to the 2-party corruption that will entrench, real reform can take place.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

it is the same standard i hold for the right, and Ill apply it to the left as well, if you dont mind Biggles. If I smell something fishy I call it, this smells fishy. In the past, when I use my "where there is smoke" test...it has usually borne fruit. this one will too. He didnt avoid that which looked unethical and that is simply the first mistake.

I slam the admin when they doi stuff that simply "looks" bad and I will apply that standard to everyone. It seems you dont apply things equally, which is your choice...i simply do. Grandstanding, in your book, but in mine it equals being against hypocrisy...you can label it what you will, labels dont mean anything to me. The right has been playing the label game with words for a long time, with great effect (the word liberal, and its bad connotation when the right says it, comes to mind). Its a shame that you would try to do the same with your use of "grandstanding" when you dont know me or my heart. Ill continue to act according to that.

So basically you have no evidence whatsoever that Reid is involved in any illegal dealings. Thanks for clearing that up.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This sounds pretty damning for Reid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetar..._Jack_Abramoff

Sounds pretty fishy to me. I don't think Reid leaves this scandel unblemished. It seems like there may have been some bribery going on over there.

Senator Reid represents Nevada. One of Nevada's biggest industries is gambling. Supply and demand dictates that when supply increases, price goes down. Therefore, if more casinos were allowed, the value of the Nevada casinos would go down. The value of Nevada casinos going down is bad for Nevadans. Since Reid represents Nevadans, Reid should be opposed to new casinos.

For this to be an illegal quid pro quo, which Flasch is bipartisanly insinuating is the case, you'd have to believe that Reid wanted to go against the wishes of his constituents and against his record in the Senate, but instead decided not to go against all those things because of a $5,000 check to his PAC or non-profit or whatever Searchlight is. Five thousand dollars. The Indian tribal clients paid $82 million to Scanlon and Abramoff.

Moreover, you would have to believe that it was only through Abramoff that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs committee from a state that has 20,000 Indians received donations from tribal groups.

Compare that to Ney. Or Burns. Or Young that I talked about earlier. And of course Tom DeLay.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Senator Reid represents Nevada. One of Nevada's biggest industries is gambling. Supply and demand dictates that when supply increases, price goes down. Therefore, if more casinos were allowed, the value of the Nevada casinos would go down. The value of Nevada casinos going down is bad for Nevadans. Since Reid represents Nevadans, Reid should be opposed to new casinos.

For this to be an illegal quid pro quo, which Flasch is bipartisanly insinuating is the case, you'd have to believe that Reid wanted to go against the wishes of his constituents and against his record in the Senate, but instead decided not to go against all those things because of a $5,000 check to his PAC or non-profit or whatever Searchlight is. Five thousand dollars. The Indian tribal clients paid $82 million to Scanlon and Abramoff.

Moreover, you would have to believe that it was only through Abramoff that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs committee from a state that has 20,000 Indians received donations from tribal groups.

No, you just have to believe the Reid voted against the casino and then recieved a check in his account the next day by a rival group, represented by Abramhoff who was informing them who to donate to. And the fact touts himself as a big Native American cause guy (and Nevada has a decent Native American population), to deny a casino to one would seem to be somewhat strange.

Your partisanism is cute, but Reid is knee deep in this scandal. It doesn't look too good when the day after you make a vote, the beneficiaries throw $5000 into your PAC.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And the fact touts himself as a big Native American cause guy (and Nevada has a decent Native American population), to deny a casino to one would seem to be somewhat strange.

Seriously? I did that whole deconstruction in painstaking logical fashion, and you still don't see why a Senator from Nevada would want to stop casinos from opening in other states?

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, you just have to believe the Reid voted against the casino and then recieved a check in his account the next day by a rival group, represented by Abramhoff who was informing them who to donate to...Your partisanism is cute, but Reid is knee deep in this scandal. It doesn't look too good when the day after you make a vote, the beneficiaries throw $5000 into your PAC.

All right, what about Trent Lott? Lott, from MS, wrote a similar letter against the same casino and received $10,000 in donations from Abramoff’s tribal clients just before the letter and $55,000 soon after. Or what about these guys:

One of Abramoff’s tribal clients, the Coushattas, “opposed a plan by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians to open a casino at a non-reservation site, expected at the time to be outside Shreveport, La., not far from a casino owned by the Coushattas.” Abramoff lobbied DeLay’s office to organize a June 10, 2003, letter to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton endorsing a view of gambling law benefiting the Coushattas. The letter was eventually co-signed by DeLay, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Deputy Whip Eric I. Cantor (R-VA), a “group of people, who do not normally weigh in on Indian issues.” Cantor received “roughly $4,500 [from Abramoff and his clients] in the period around which the letter was sent.” [Washington Post, 9/28/04; AP, 11/17/05]

Who else wrote letters? Doolittle (R-CA) (received $1,000 from Abramoff several weeks after he signed a February 27, 2002 letter to Norton then got $16,000 from two of Abramoff’s casino-operating tribal clients about two months later), Grassley (R-IA) (Grassley got $1,000 from Abramoff’s firm the following month and a total of $62,200 in related donation by 2004), Ensign (R-NV) (same letter as Reid), Istook (R-OK) (received $29,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004), Sessions (R-TX) (received four donations totaling $5,500 from casino-operating tribes represented by Abramoff exactly one month and a day after he signed the Feb. 27, 2002, group letter), and Wicker (R-MS) (received $20,100 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004). And then Senator Vitter (R-LA), who "inserted language in the fiscal 2004 Interior appropriations bill — completed late in 2003 — requesting that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Indian Gaming Commission deny an application from the Jena Choctaw Tribe of Louisiana for land for a gambling casino. To encourage him, Abramoff had hosted a September 2003 fundraiser at his restaurant, just two months before.

That's 12 Republicans on the same single issue that people are getting all up in arms about Reid with, the Jena casino. Are you all willing to call every one of them dirty and knee deep in the scandal?

Now, is it more likely that Reid was bribed or that either A) the Coushattas donated to someone who shared their same interests (which is done all the time in American politics) or B) Abramoff wanted to give the impression that Reid was able to be influenced by him (something that his tribal clients would see as valuable since was the ranking Dem on the Indian Affairs Committee), so he told the Coushattas to send a couple thousand his way?

All of the circumstantial evidence points to the latter. Reid would naturally be opposed, he has a history of being opposed, and it's clear that Abramoff favored GOP politicians. There is simply no evidence, none at all, the Reid was bribed or involved in any quid pro quo.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Are you all willing to call every one of them dirty and knee deep in the scandal?

Yep.

Like I said, your partisanism is cute. Just because someone criticizes Reid doesn't mean they love every Republican. And creating conspiracy theories like Abramoff was trying to set up Reid by making it seem that Abramoff could bribe him just makes you look foolish in addition to being a partisan tool.

[ISiddiqui]

Dola

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep.

If your bar is that low for a dirty congressman, then every single congressman is dirty to you. That's not being non-partisan, that is ignoring the general way that business gets done in Congress on a daily basis. Everyone gets campaign donations from groups who think that that congressman represents his point of view. The Abramoff scandal is not about giving donoations to congressman, it is about a quid pro quo arrangement. Until there is some evidence of that, as in DeLay, Ney, etc., I think it's unfair to tar everyone that ever received money from Abramoff as being dirty (EDIT: should read 'Abramoff's clients' in context, but statement by itself is still true).

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Like I said, your partisanism is cute.

I just said that I wouldn't consider almost a dozen Republicans and a single Democrat to be dirty because there is no evidence of it, which obviously makes me a partisan Democratic hack

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And creating conspiracy theories like Abramoff was trying to set up Reid by making it seem that Abramoff could bribe him just makes you look foolish in addition to being a partisan tool.

You obviously did not understand what I was saying. I hate to condescend to you, but you leave me no choice. Here is a possible scenario:

1) Reid comes out against a bill that Abramoff's clients don't like because it is genuinely bad for his constituents

2) Abramoff tells his clients that he influenced Reid to up his prestige with his clients, even though he never met with Reid (since there is no evidence of them ever meeting or talking)

3) Abramoff tells the Coushattas to send a few thousand to him so that the Coushattas think Abramoff did something

4) The Coushattas send him $5,000

5) Coushattas are happy because they think Abramoff is helping them out with Reid

That's Abramoff setting up the Coushattas, not Reid. Considering that Abramoff is currently under indictment for fraud and conspiracy against his tribal clients, I don't think that is far fetched. It's certainly more far fetched than saying that Reid was bribed by Abramoff into supporting something he already supported for just $5,000.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Daschle was from one of the Dakotas, Reid is from Nevada. And not one Democrat has received money from Abramoff...

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The Abramoff scandal is not about giving donoations to congressman, it is about a quid pro quo arrangement. Until there is some evidence of that, as in DeLay, Ney, etc., I think it's unfair to tar everyone that ever received money from Abramoff as being dirty...

You are a very silly man.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You are a very silly man.

Care to explain? I thought I answered both of your questions.

[st.cronin]

Not one democrat has recieved money from Abramoff ... Reid recieving money from Abramoff is not per se dirty ... how is that NOT hypocrisy?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Not one democrat has recieved money from Abramoff ... Reid recieving money from Abramoff is not per se dirty ... how is that NOT hypocrisy?

Because it's a typo, or more specifically an error of ommission on my part. I should have said 'I think it's unfair to tar everyone that ever received money from Abramoff's clients as being dirty', because Reid never did receive any money from Abramoff, just his clients. That was sloppy on my part, and I apologize to those that I have confused. I will correct it in a second. But even uncorrected the statement is still true, I don't consider everyone Abramoff gave money to to be dirty. After all, he was a Bush Pioneer, the highest level of fundraising

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Reid never did receive any money from Abramoff, just his clients.

I don't see how that makes any difference, but I don't get excited about this sort of stuff.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't see how that makes any difference, but I don't get excited about this sort of stuff.

Because Abramoff's clients were giving out millions of dollars to both Dems and the GOP before they hired Abramoff. It's natural that they would keep giving out money to the people that they had given to for years, because those would be the type of people that were sharing their interests, Dems and GOP alike. Abramoff's effect was to drop the donations of his clients to Democrats 9% while raising donations to the GOP 135%. Abramoff is the guilty party here, not his tribal clients, which is why it is unfair to say that everyone that got tribal money is dirty. Not to mention that over 200 current members of Congress have received donations from Abramoff's tribal clients.

[Tekneek]

Speaking of third parties mounting a serious challenge for the US House, the Libertarian Party put out this press release about a proposal that would make it harder to compete with the two big parties :

Congress Attempts to Kill the "Third-Party Threat"

Proposed Legislation Creates Treasury-Funded Campaigns for the Two Major Parties, Leaving Third Parties with No Means to Run

(Washington, D.C.) On February 1, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Obey of Wisconsin, introduced a bill, H.R. 4694, that would end viable, third-party competition in races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill, ironically named the "Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act," would mandate public funds (taken from the U.S. Treasury) to candidates for the House of Representatives and forbid candidates from taking private funds such as contributions from individual donors.

The ambiguously-written bill provides funds for candidates of the "two major parties" but essentially scuttles any campaign efforts of third-party or independent candidates.

For third-party candidates to be eligible for the same funds that Republicans and Democrats would receive, they would have to obtain enough signatures to exceed 20% of votes cast in the last election within their district.

The catch under the proposed legislation is that third-party or independent candidates cannot pay petitioners to collect any signatures, making it impossible to fund their campaigns.

H.R. 4694 is yet another attempt by our politicians in office to shut down Libertarian Party candidates and other competitive third-party and independent campaigns.

"The Republican and Democratic parties exist to maintain power for their own benefit. The Libertarian Party exists to grasp power for the benefit of the nation," stated Shane Cory, chief of staff for the Libertarian Party. "American voters are waking up to this reality, and as they do, the two parties are trying everything within their power to shut us down."

[SirFozzie]

Heh.. looks like Abramoff tried to get Reid to back off a bill that he created that punished one of his pet projects (a mininum wage bill against a US territroy accused of sweat shop violations, where the mininum wage is $3.05/hr), and Reid actually co-sponsored the bill.

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

[Flasch186]

im glad to see Reid didnt back off trying to kill that loophole that the maunfacturers use. I forget the island down there, but one of them, where Abramoff sent a bunch of Republicans to for vacation, has forced prostitution, indenturing, slave trafficking, forced abortions, etc. All of that, under the protection of TOM DELAY. How can I say that? When the Alaskan Representative wanted to investigate what was going on and pass legislation putting an end to these acts, Delay threatened the young representative with the loss of any appointments and made it clear that Delay would crush the Republican's future. That worked, for now.

[MrBigglesworth]

Someone paid Abramoff $1.2 million for Bush to meet the Malaysian PM, Mahathir Mohamad. This was part of the aricle in the Malaysian Star:

Dr Mahathir said in the United States, the practice to see a leader was to go through a lobbyist, who had to be paid.

"I did not touch the money. But, I think somebody paid. That is their practice," he said. "That is their system. It is not corruption at all. It is very open."

Hilarious.

Btw, how's the Harry Reid indictment coming?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Speaking of third parties mounting a serious challenge for the US House, the Libertarian Party put out this press release about a proposal that would make it harder to compete with the two big parties :

Pretty sure that's an unconstitutional restraint of free speech.

Not as confident that the courts would have the integrity to rule as such.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Someone paid Abramoff $1.2 million for Bush to meet the Malaysian PM, Mahathir Mohamad. This was part of the aricle in the Malaysian Star:



Hilarious.

Btw, how's the Harry Reid indictment coming?

same as all the others, money simply being returned, but it doesnt make it allright IMO. if its ok in yours so be it. As with the others Im not sure its illegal, or not widely done, but still unethical IMO.

[Qwikshot]

Sic Jack Bauer on them!