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

....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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

More from that MSNBC article.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

:rolleyes:

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.

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."

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.

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'?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

Dola

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).

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 :rolleyes:

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.

You are a very silly man.

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

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 :)

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.

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 :

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

Sic Jack Bauer on them!

How's the Reid indictment coming? I've heard a lot about Ney, Reed, Burns, and Doolittle, but haven't heard much about Reid. It's tough to keep up with all the indictments and trials, so maybe I missed something. Saying Reid isn't knee deep in the scandal is a silly partisan thing to say though, so what is Bush's Justice Department waiting for?

not once did I mention an idictment, I said that he took money too, which he did (he didnt even return his). He should be treated just like anyone else who took money from the indian casinos visa v Abramoff lobbyists.

I apologize, when you said:
...I figured that since the others were being indicted, that, if true, you would want Reid indicted as well. Then you assured me it was true:
I had thought that you thought Reid had done something illegal (which Delay, Ney, Doolittle, Burns, etc could possibly be indicted for). But I have misinterpreted, since now you say you want him treated like anyone else who has received money from the indian casinos, which is about 300 members of congress. In that case I agree, he should be treated the same and return what turned out to be dirty money.

Harry Reid's campaign office took two $1,000 donations from various people related to Abramhoff during a period of time that this group was lobbying on behalf of the Northern Mariana Islands (a U.S. territory) against a bill sponsored by Senator Kennedy to make them have to comply with U.S. labor law (and raise the minimum wage). Some have accused the Northern Mariana Islands of allowing garmet sweatshops to operate in their territory and this legislation ostensibly was meant to bring this to an end.

During this period Reid and his office received several calls from various Abramhoff-related lobbyists. Some have construed that this meant the lobbyists were trying to get Reid to act against the bill, and were paying him to do so.

That's hard to believe. Why?

1. It's $2,000. I mean, come on.

2. Reid has a record of championing exactly this type of legislation.

3. One of the key lobbyists involved, Ron Platt, has this to say:



Anyway, if you can't see the difference between this, which is basically normal lobbying, and what a lot of Republicans did with Jack Abramhoff, then I don't know what to say, to be honest.

I reiterated multiple times throughout this that being unethical is being unethical regardless of whether or not there is a law in place to guard against it. We have many new laws these days wherein people broke them prior to them being implemented. It doesnt minimize those before the law was in place (usually) when it comes to ethics. Neither dem or pub is immune from being unethical....if he broke the law, IF TRUE, then he should be indicted...if he acted unethically he should be treated like the others who acted in the same vain...I have read that he did.

I have read different than 2k more in the form of 75k or so.

Links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid

Relationship to Jack Abramoff and his firm

According to a February 9, 2006 Associated Press story, Reid wrote letters and had "routine contacts" with lobbying partners [9] and clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Reid's actions aided the interests of Abramoff's Native American clients. Reid has acknowledged receiving $61,000 from clients or collegues of Abramoff, much of which was given to Reid by indian tribes after Abramoff was hired.[10] Reid collected donations around the time of each action he took to help Abromoff's clients. Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in legislative matters regarding campaign donors. While some politicans have returned contributions they received from Abramoff or his clients, Harry Reid has steadfastly refused, noting that he never received money directly from Abramoff, and described the Abramoff matter as "a Republican scandal" [11]



While I cant say I heard it from here, this is a result of my quick search to substantiate the verbage I had read in the past.

Be that as it may, the record is quite clear that Reid took no action on that bill consistent with the aims of Abramhoff's clients or colleagues. There's absolutely no evidence to indicate that these donations were anything other than "normal" lobbying, which, again, is in contrast to the actions of the many Republicans tainted so far in the investigations.

Even Ron Platt, the lobbyist at the heart of this, is on record as saying there was no substantive lobbying of Reid done, as it wouldn't have worked on this issue anyway.

I know you want to see everything as black-and-white, but comparing this to the other "pay-to-play" instances in the Abramhoff case is wrong.

If you need a Democrat to go after, do a google on "Jim Black" or "Speaker of the North Carolina House". His deals with the gaming community are gaining a lot of momentum, especially after the political maneuvers he pulled to get the Lottery passed here. And the commission formed to actually implement the Lottery has already lost key people to conflict of interest issues.

It's a real hoot.

I find it disingenuous to differentiate between "normal" lobbying and bribery.

me too. Theyre both garbage.

About 10 years ago I was at a party and I ended up arguing with a lobbyist whether there was truly a need for them. His contention was that no politician could possibly know everything about every issue and that lobbyists therefore provide a service to our lawmakers. I begged to differ, but it was pretty pointless.

Flasch, youve lost it. I not sure how you lose focus on the main part of the story? Harry Reid did not work with Abramoff or anyone involved with K Street and most of all, unlike Abramoff; Harry Reid did nothing illegal with or without Jack.

Your only logic here is.. since Harry Reid worked with some lobbyists and those same lobbyists also enlisted Abramoff, somehow Harry Reid is guilty of Abramoffs' crimes?? There is zero evidence of any working relationship between the indian casinos, reid and abramoff - they did not work together, Harry Reid did not propose legislation or accept any bribe to propose or back any type of legislation.

Its pretty surprising you would take this obvious smoke screen by the GOP. The goal for them PR wise here is to make this a DC scandal, but its not in any form, its 100% GOP. Even to talk about Harry Reid waters down the very serious corruption of K St., even if there was some proof that Reid was working with Abramoff to "help" these indian casinos, it would be the least of alllll the illegalities of Abramoff and K Street. I guarantee Reid is 100% in the clear, but if hes magically not - i hope he, like all the rest; burn.

I cant wait for the day for public campaign finance, no lobbyist donations, no corporate donations. everyone gets the same amount of dough and you debate the issues.

It's awfully easy to be completely on the outside of the policymaking process and to tell those on the inside that they do everything wrong. That's what makes talkk radio so fun... if you can string together a couple of sentences, you're suddenly Bill Buckley and everyone is on board. Facts be damned.

Universally complaining about lobbying and special interests, though appealing to many, is the equivalent of complaining that the problem with government is the "waste, fraud and abuse" and once we get in there, we'll get rid of all that, and everything will be okay.

Like it or not, the public policymaking system is just not practically accessible to each individual voter or taxpayer or interested party. We can't have 250 million people testify at every bill hearing. We find a way to get our voice heard by way of "special interests" (like joining the Sierra Club or the NRA, because we agree with their perspective) or we work to hire someone who can undertake the professional task of following and advocating our issues.

I'm every bit as against quid pro quo arrangements and bribery as anyone else, the difference is that I don't seek to throw out the necessary functions of the process along with it, based on my uninformed gut instincts.

Good for you. Sadly, the American political system isn't as black and white as you would like it to be.

um

guaranteed with a but?

Ron Platt, the lobbyist who "worked" with Reid, disputes the tenor the AP article which is the basis for the wiki article you're quoting, Flasch. It is the AP article footnoted as footnote #10.

Do some more research and stop trying to create an argument out of GOP-endorsed sound bites.

:confused:

Lobbying is a necessary evil. I consider lobbyists to ideally be the lawyers to the congressman's judge: they will argue their side to the congressman. They give their arguments, the opposition gives their arguments, and the congressman chooses the best way. It's not perfect, obviously. Just like in a court of law, those with the best laywers/lobbyists get the best deal. A lobbyist may not be that useful to a congressman on something like a gay marriage amendment, but to something very complicated like a health care or energy bill, it's very useful to have people pointing out aspects of the bill that you may not have noticed.

The problem with Abramoff is that he went beyond that, and I think a lot of people don't understand the difference. He didn't say, "do this because it's a good idea" or "do this or my client will be hurt", he said, "I'll give you $X if you do this." You could argue that this happens implicitly all the time, but Abramoff went above and beyond to the point that even the Bush administration, which has shown an aversion to investigations, had to investigate.

Flasch, I still don't think you understand this scandal.

I should have emphasized lobbyist donations, not the lobbyists in general. Lobbyists access to politicians I have no issues with. I do believe if you remove the ability for lobbyists to donate any money whatsoever to a politician, you'll start to see a new batch of politicians emerge with the peoples interest at heart. politicians who are insusceptible to fraud, abuse and waste are all we need next. I think its possible to get them in there with the right kind of regulation to the election process. Even a "Politician Idol" show would most likely yield a better candidate, would be fun to see a politcal race where the advantage wasnt measured by the candidates bankroll.

If true, i dont see how it means anything. this is a nonstory. Reid has done nothing illegal, he legally accepted a campaign donation. One thing this Wiki post doesnt say is Reid was working with this tribe before they worked with Abramoff.. it only says they worked with Reid after hiring Abramoff. You know this is one of the tribes Abramoff was ripping off? So he was in this plot with Reid, to pull strings for this tribe, that he was calling troglodytes and actually not really helping, but stealing from?

my problem is not with legalities, there are things you and I wouldnt do even though theyre not illegal becuase they are wrong. I guess I have a higher standard than most but I will not compromise or accept it as status quo. Were more republicans involved with Abramoff? obviously. should Reid return the money he received? yes. Do people deny articles all the time that are true? yes. So you should never believe anything you read or hear or see.....I knew Arles was back.

What did Reid do that you think was unethical?

The only thing I can see is accepting a donation too close to when he took an action favorable to that donor. OK, something that shouldn't have been done. But that's not enough to lump him in with those that are being indicted for felonies.

You're holier-than-thou "look at me I'm so much more moral than you" attitude is worn and tired.

Lobbying, in and of itself, is not even an evil. It is an essential component of representative democracy, and when used ethically and honestly, a legitimate and useful tool for people with common interests to have their concerns heard by elected officials.

it has been and always will be the way I lead my life. Ill take that any day over hypocrisy. Im sorry that you feel that my skewering politicians somehow reflects on your moral standards. It shouldnt. Dont personalize it unless you took money from Abramoff. Why do you take it personally? I lead my life by exactly the same rules that I would hope others would, although I leave religion out of it. Is that a bad thing? you pointedly seem to think so while I think it is anti-hypocrophil....which IMO is always a good thing.

Again, Ill take the KKK guy in robes anyday over the David Duke kind...at least I know who not to turn my back on.

Except he didn't take an action favorable to that donor. On the bill in question, he took an action in direct opposition to the outcome for which the lobbyists were working.

I think on the particular instance I am talking about, he did. He voted to kill an application for an Indian casino, which was favorable to the Indians that already had a casino. However, it is also favorable to Reid's constituents because Nevada isn't exactly looking to expand the casino business to other states, which makes it a little silly to imply, as Flasch does, that Reid was dirty.

I think we're talking about two separate instances.