The AP has now run two pieces alleging connections between Abramoff’s firm Greenberg Traurig and Harry Reid. The Big! Shocking! News! appears to be that Democrats also carry their share of the Abramoff taint.
Except, nowhere in either article do you find evidence that the lobbying conducted by Abramoff’s firm resulted in anything illegal or even unethical taking place. Reid was lobbied to oppose a bill which he not only ended up supporting but actually co-authored. As hard as it may be to believe, this appears to be one of those cases in which a lobbying firm engaged in conduct which was not in fact illegal. Readers are welcome to point out the allegedly illegal activity in the comments.
It appears that this whole story amounts to a 5th-grade game of cooties where any contact with the ‘it’ person makes you radioactive unless you uncap the invisible cootie spray, spin around three times and say the secret word. Rightwingers who want to maintain their credibility will want to reserve judgment until somebody actually alleges that something unethical took place.
On the other hand, folks keeping track of actual Abramoff-related crime will be pleased to welcome three more GOP congresspersons to the club: Reps. Capito (R-WV), LaTourette (R-OH) and Young (R-AK). Rep. Young seems to have been a particularly naughty boy.
Par R
Here’s an excerpt from an earlier Los Angeles Times story about Senator Reid. The implications to Reid are not so benign in this piece:
“The name alone made the eyes glaze over: “The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002.” In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters — all in Nevada.
“As he introduced it, Nevada’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America’s fastest-growing state.
“What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms, federal lobbyist reports show.
“The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.
“Barringer is listed in federal lobbyist reports as one of Hughes’ representatives on the measure that his father-in-law introduced.
“Other provisions were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of Reid’s sons — by moving the right-of-way for a federal power-transmission line off his property and onto what had been protected federal wilderness.”
Otto Man
Par R., if you’re somehow shocked that lobbying efforts were conducted through firms employing a legislator’s relatives, you really don’t understand how D.C. works. I’d say half of Congress has a spouse, child, and/or sibling working for a lobbying firm.
Par R
Agreed, Otto Man, except in Harry Reid’s case he has his entire family, including all of his four sons and even his son in law involved in lobbying! That man really does it up BIG TIME.
Andrew
I think Harry Reid is understating his relationship with Jack Abramoff. I do not think they are bosom buddies, but I do think he knows who is he is and could pick him out of a lineup. In other words, their relationship is somewhere in between “I just shook his hand at an event” and the kind of relationship that takes the Red State and National Review readers to their collective special places, with dreams of sugar plums and impeachment.
Ancient Purple
Looking bad is not the same thing as illegal.
As Tim F. asked, show the illegalities and then we can talk.
Jack Roy
Grr. I’m convinced that the reason Wolf Blitzer, Matt Lauer, Jim Brady, Deb Howell, et al., keep insisting that this is a bipartisan scandal is that they do not, in fact, understand what the scandal is. That is, they know something’s up, because the smarter people from whom they take their cues seem to think so, but they don’t at all know what it is. If Howard Dean had asked Blitzer, for instance, “Wolf, maybe if you can explain to me what you think the reason people think the Abramoff deal is a scandal, I could explain to you why it’s not a Democratic scandal,” he would have been met with silence. And Matt Lauer, he of not-as-good-a-debater-as-Tom-Cruise fame, had been asked to explain it… well….
Anyway, it’s really not that surprising when the media keeps jumping whenever they find a phone call from Abramoff’s office to Reid, even when a simple follow-up would reveal that Reid voted against the request of Abramoff, because they don’t understand what’s going on.
Richard Bottoms
I understand pigs will be flying later this afternoon.
Paul Wartenberg
TalkingPointsMemo has been covering the same story and also noting that the AP report is looking at the trunk of the elephant (Abramoff’s lobby talked to Reid! OH NO) rather than the whole body (Abramoff’s lobby tried to get Reid to vote their way but Reid couldn’t! Whew)
This is all still a desperate attempt by the MSM to make the Abramoff scandal a bipartisan one, which really isn’t the case, all in an attempt to avoid accusations from the far right of having liberal bias, which also really isn’t the case here.
If the media wanted to present this as a bipartisan scandal, they’re better off examining the entire lobbyist industry and how both parties are beholden to specific special interests each with their own quids and quos. For the Casino Jack scandal, however, let’s face it this is entirely a GOP scandal. Simple as that.
scs
Tim F, are you on drugs? That first story was rife with, if not illegal, than unethical happenings. Here are some excerpts in case you all haven’t read it.
Yes, this is a “Republican scandal” indeed.
Otto Man
OK, scs. Exactly what part of that is illegal?
scs
searp
Follow the indictments. This is and will be a Republican scandal. We’re talking the chief procurement officer in the White House, a powerful Republican congressman (not yet, but soon) and several Republican operatives/lobbyists so far.
KC
scs, I think the whole point is that some of the clients in the AP piece, assuming Josh Marshal is correct, represent the wants of Reid’s constituents–tribes and interests in his state! More than that, the AP piece is just too broad and undetailed to really come up with any substantial on Reid. And, given their reporting on the Marianna’s minimum wage issue, I don’t see fit to trust the AP’s Reid sideshow reporting. Here’s why. If you notice, Reid’s name is listed as a co-sponsor of the minimum wage legislation. So Reid sponsored legislation that Abramoff et. al. opposed.
searp
I’ll go the whole mile: the myriad legal problems of this government suggest it could be vulnerable to RICO statutes. I wonder if DOJ is considering that angle.
Otto Man
And ethics rules require judges to recuse themselves when there’s even the appearance of a conflict of interest, too. Didn’t stop all the conservatives here from insisting that Scalia didn’t need to recuse himself from cases involving Dick Cheney when he was duck hunting with him, or saying that Alito didn’t need to recuse himself from the Vanguard rulings even when he’d promised he would.
But back to your argument — what exactly is the conflict of interest here? How was Reid’s acceptance of perfectly legal lobbying contributions even remotely criminal, especially when it’s evident that he did exactly the opposite of what Abramoff wanted?
Please. Spell it out, or let it go.
Tim F.
If every legislator who siphoned federal love to home-state constituents faced indictment, then we’d have to institute a draft to populate the Senate.
Otto Man
Let me highlight this again:
Reid’s actions went against the interest of the donors. Against.
Pooh
To threadjack, allow me to share my favorite Don Young story.
Scene: Late 80’s, height of the Maplethorpe-NEA scandal. Rep. Young is speaking at a high-school assembly in Fairbanks. He’s taking questions, one student asks him what’s the big deal with the Maplethorpe exhibits. Young stumbles to figure out how to best explain it, mentally shrugs his shoulders and intones “It’s a bunch of pitcures of people butt-fucking.”
scs
Once again, did you READ the article (or even my block quote). Here it is again:
There is obviously cause for suspicion here- shady lobbyist gives donations – politician accepts them, supports lobbyist’s legislation – hmmmm. Anyway, whehter it is ilegal or not would be for a court to decide. Obviously bribery, if the players have any intelligence, is a VERY hard thing to prove, as how do you prove quid pro quo and someone’s state of mind? But at minimum, it appears that Reid violated house rules to not accept donations around the time of legislation. Those rules were enacted probably because it IS so hard to prove bribery, so it was thought best to provide even an appearance of impropriety. Now I am not a lawyer – I don’t know if violating House rules is an illegal act. Probably not, actually, as who would be the legal authority there- the Feds? I don’t know. Either way, it doesn’t look that good for Reid.
Otto Man
Sorry, scs, I was continuing a different conversation about the AP story focusing on the Marianas minimum wage. Thought you were pointing to that.
Yes, Reid often did things that were favorable to Native American tribes. He did so long before Abramoff and he’ll do so after. He does represent the state of Nevada, after all.
If there’s any proof that Reid changed his stance to benefit Abramoff’s clients, then fine, show it. But as far as a quid-pro-quo goes, I don’t see any proof in Reid doing anything different than what he’s always done — look out for the tribes that are his constituents. This isn’t Bob Ney getting a check and then rushing to the microphone to defend Abramoff’s clients far away from Ohio. And again, if Reid was under Abramoff’s sway, the Marianas vote makes no sense at all.
You’re welcome to your suspicions, but as of now, that’s all they are — suspicions.
Otto Man
So let’s look at the allegations in the AP article:
It’s shocking that the senators from Nevada would try to block the expansion of tribal gambling in other states, a trend that would directly take away from the major gambling interests in Las Vegas and elsewhere. Shocking.
Wow. See above.
Oh my God. What a blatant pattern of trying to fend off competition for his state’s major industry.
So Reid, six other senators, and multiple Indian tribes (including but not limited to Abramoff’s clients) were seeking school funding. Again, for a guy whose state includes large numbers of such tribes, this is shocking.
And finally, given the hatchet job the article did on the Marianas thing — with all its sinister implications, but NO mention of the incredibly exculpatory fact that Reid acted against Abramoff’s interests there — I’ve got to assume the weaker charges here are also only part of the story.
scs
Well, look, I can only go by what I read in the media – I wasn’t there. I just read the story that TimF linked to, and in it, it said that Reid took donations from a lobbyist around the time of the legislation the lobbyist was pushing, and according to House rules, he’s not supposed to. He violated House rules. Now whether that is actually true, or if there is another side to the story, I don’t know. I just know what I just read. I don’t know who McAlister news if, but if TimF linked to it, it must be reputable!
Off Colfax
Insert here the next member of the cast of Kill Reid:
I’ll go back to lurking again.
CaseyL
1. Which tribes, exactly, are the ones referred to as “Abramoff’s tribal clients”? Are they tribes located in Nevada?
2. What state is Reid the Senator for? Is it Nevada?
3. Has Reid ever advocated for, or assisted, the tribes in Nevada before?
4. Has he ever accepted contributions from those tribes before?
5. Did Reid advocate, assist, or vote on a tribe-related issue against his own previously-stated position? In other words, did he once oppose a bill and then support it; or support it and then oppose it?
Contributions are not, in and of themselves, illegal.
Contributions that result in a politician doing something that he would not otherwise have done are bribes. Those are illegal.
Go find out whether Reid acted against his constituents’ wishes, against his own record, at Abramoff’s behest, for money. Tell us what you find.
Pooh
Senator from Nevada opposes gambling expansion in other states. Water is wet. Michigan senator proposes higher tariffs on imported cars. Film at 11.
CaseyL
Reid’s a Senator. What are the relevant Senate rules?
scs
I don’t know if that’s true, exactly. We need a lawyer to weigh in here on what exactly constitutes bribery.
scs
Sorry, my bad. Reid’s a Senator. If you read the quote above it says “ethic rules”. I suppose that means Senate ethic rules.
Par R
More re Otto Man’s legitimate comment above about how pervasive lobbying in Washington, DC is, again from the LA Times:
“At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who count on the related lawmaker for support.
“But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid’s help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.
“In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.
“So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada’s leading industries and institutions that it’s difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.”
S.W. Anderson
Media Matters for America has a helpful, relevant item on this. Everyone who intends to discuss this overreaching attempt to toss the Abramoff tar baby to Reid and other Democrats should invest the couple of minutes required to read it.
FredW
Along what Paul W. was saying.
*Abramoff* is a Republican scandal. If you want to say the whole lobbying industry is itself is a scandal, I won’t disagree with you that it may well be bipartisan (hell, it may be tri-partisan — who knows what those “(I)’s” from VT are doing :) )
In that case we probably need a whole new Congress, because I doubt there is a member who was not at somepoint been contacted by a lobbyist.
KC
FredW makes a good point.
Rick Taylor
I’d agree with your point that the photo isn’t impressive, John, if it weren’t for the fact that the Whitehouse is trying so hard to deny the president had any contacts with him. In this case, they denied Abramhoff attended the meeting at all before the photo appeared:
link
If his appearance was innocent, I don’t see why the Whitehouse would have denied it took place when it actually had.
–Rick Taylor
The Other Steve
I love two-faced scs.
Reid is wrong for taking contributions.
Boehner is ok for not only taking contributions, but renting an apartment from a lobbyist.
Look. I’d like to find out exactly what’s going on that’s wrong, so I can address this appropriately. Quit trying to spin this damn thing as if the republicans aren’t guilty.
The Other Steve
Why doesn’t Par T ever provide links to the articles he claims exist?
RonB
Isn’t this story more about laundered campaign contributions than it is about lobbying donations/bribes?
Pb
Rick Taylor,
Nice link, asshole. Also, wrong thread.
Bush apologists:
Can’t we at least get a picture of Reid and Abramoff in the same room together? No? Well… is the total lack of evidence enough proof for a cover-up, then? No, not even that? D’oh!
Otto Man
Well said.
Do I think it’s a good thing that Reid and so many other legislators have relatives who are lobbyists? Hell no. I’d be wholly in favor of a complete ban on family members of congressfolks and, more importantly, former congressfolks themselves, from working for lobbying firms.
But as it stands, that’s entirely legal. What Abramoff and the many congressmen who’ve been implicated in his scandal did– that’s not.
Barry D
I’d like to point out that the press spent the entire Clinton administration looking even a single atom of scandal – on the Democratic side.
And now they’re still doing it, while able to miss anything less than extremely large planetoids of scandal on the GOP side.
Sojourner
Remember, they’re all owned by corporations that have benefited tremendously from the Republican culture of greed and corruption. So much for the liberal media.
scs
Uhh, Steve (Other – you used to be SteveS right?), did I EVER say anything about Boehner or any other individual Republican and the scandals on here? I am two-faced? That has to be a joke right? Either that or your an idiot. Anyway- to call this a “Republican’ scandal is ridiculous if it touches Democrats as well. Just call it a scandal.
scs
sorry- ‘you’re’ above. Since I’m getting called on my grammar and spelling errors recently, might as well set it straight
Pb
Barry D, Sojourner,
That was all about Richard Mellon Scaife, the Arkansas Project, and the lazy and complicit media that we know so well today…
Paddy O'Shea
One problem the Bush Crime Family seems to be having as of late is enforcing the Code Of Silence. Brownie is talking to Congress, Scooter to a Grand Jury, and Jack in the Hat is blabbing to anyone he can find who will listen. No wonder Don Dubya (AKA “Georgie Two Fruits”) has been so grouchy lately!
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/02/12/Columns/GOP_castoffs_are_spil.shtml
Bruce Moomaw
Can we talk? There may be some relatively weak ties between Abramoff and Congressional Democrats, but they ARE relatively weak. He gave 64% of his total campaign contributions to the GOP. Of his contributions over $10,000 to individual members of Congress, fully 79% went to Republicans. (Among the contributions over $20,000, 81% went to Republicans.) If he hadn’t done so, Grover Norquist — who, you’ll recall, said a few years ago that “this city needs 50 Jack Abramoffs” — would never have had anything to do with him. This is overwhelmingly a GOP scandal, both because of Abramoff’s own right-wing political beliefs and the fact that (to paraphrase Alvin Karpis) he went where the power was.
As for the AP story, note that its main ooga-booga storyline totally collapses with the revelation that Reid SUPPORTED and CO-SPONSORED the bill that Abramoff was trying to bribe him to oppose. The fact that Reid supported some other pro-Nevada gambling bills that were also supported by Just Plain Jack may or may not have anything at all to do with Abramoff’s influence. If I had to name a Democratic member of Congress who really MAY be entangled with Abramoff, I’d name Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), who has taken quite a large chunk of chump change from him. But no other Congressional Democrat jumps out at all in this respect.
Ancient Purple
Except for that whole part where it doesn’t.
scs, would you at LEAST acknowledge that Reid voted opposite the way Abramoff wanted on the Marianas minimum wage bill (even co-sponsoring it)?
If you can’t, then you are simply putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la la la.”
If you can, then explain how one is doing a quid pro quo when that person does exactly the opposite of what is requested.
scs
I believe so. But – there is more than just one bill my friend. Read up on the Indian tribe bills above. The question is – did Reid break Senate rules and accept donations from a lobbyist during the time of voting of legislation related to the interests of the lobbyist? The answer, according to the article TimF linked to, is yes. As Reid is no small fry but the big cahuna in the Dem party, and if he is guilty of the previous, I would say it is arguably also a Democratic scandal as well.
scs
You know, I take that back. I am agreeing to something because you all and TimF said it, but as fond as TimF is to links, I see no linked evidence that Reid did vote the opposite way that Abramoff wanted for the Marianas. I’m not saying he didn’t but until I see a link, I can’t agree to agree. This is all that was in the article:
Otto Man
SCS, you might want to go read what Josh Marshall’s investigation added to this story over at TPM.
Ancient Purple
scs,
First, I misread Josh Marshall’s article. There was actually never a vote on the bill because it never got to committee (as far as I can tell from the Congressional record). That being said, Reid was a co-sponsor of the bill in 2002 (see this link.
Reid also co-sponsored the identical legislation in 2001. See this link.
Now, read Josh Marshall’s follow up on his prior post here.
As Marshall says, where’s Reid’s quo to Abramoff’s quid?
scs
Okay, Otto. Read it. But still vague. I don’t know why that is, as I’m sure it’s a pretty evident fact. Did Reid vote for the bill or not? Or was the bill killed before a vote? If so, why was the bill killed? Neither article explains very well.
Otto Man
It is horrible reporting in the AP article, but as the TPM interview with Reid’s aides and the lobbyists show, Reid was the co-sponsor of the Kennedy bill that Abramoff wanted killed. If it came up for a vote, I imagine he’d vote for the bill with his name on it.
ppGaz
Again, the ignorance of scs sucks the life force from the universe.
John must be very proud of his Darrell-Stormy-scs righty commentariat. About as worldly as the American snowboarding team in Turin.
(Remember, these are the people who all week have NOT been on John’s “All of you are stupid and can kiss my ass” list)
They’re all, like, Democrats are involved too, dude. I saw it on the Internet.
scs
Okay Otto and Ancient. I read your links. As usual you have to read the info for yourselves because I have witnessed a lot of leftie propaganda lately that is propagated by people reading leftie websites instead of a neutral source.
You all say “Reid co-sponsored the bill” like that is something meaningful and that is the end of the story. Did you all notice that 37 out of (how many now?) 45 maybe, Dem Senators “co-sponsored” the bill. Come on. The important thing is not that he “co-sponsored” the bill. That is mostly meaningless. That is a party thing. The real question is what happened to kill the bill in the Senate? What was his role in that, if any? After all, he is the Dem leader. Did he do any behind the scenes maneuvering to help Abramoff by killing the bill or at least not help it get to a vote? Those are the important questions and so far I haven’t seen answers to that. Until we know that, we can’t rule out anything.
scs
Really ppGaz? I’d love to hear an example and a critique of what you mean. I would love to learn somthing from you, since you seem so wise on all affairs political. Please point out where I am in error.
ppGaz
When you get up in the morning.
scs
Thanks. As usual, that was so wise ppGaz. You are such a deep thinker and contribute so much to the political debate here.
ppGaz
You are very welcome.
Now, isn’t it way past your bassinet time?
scs
ppgaz- were you warned or not? If you don’t have anything but insults to contribute, don’t bother to post. Go harass your wife or beat your dog to make yourself feel better, I don’t care. Better yet, go to therapy, and spare your dog. This site is for people who have something real to say. This is not your personal psychopathic serial killer impulse release toy.
The Other Steve
Man, if GW Bush said the Sky is Purple, scs would be here defending it as being true.
ppGaz
So, you’re leaving?
scs
Like you all don’t feed off your leftie sites? Come on. I have seen so much propaganda coming for that. Unlike many here, I read neutral news sources, always. And I’m sorry if you get upset when I point out something inconvenient for you, like the facts, that doesn’t agree with your group think.
scs
ppgaz- you haven’t made a real comment here yet. I’m still waiting… Do you have it in you ?
ppGaz
Good lord.
scs
I’ll post this again…
ppgaz- you haven’t made a real comment here yet. I’m still waiting… Do you have it in you ?
ppGaz
You suck.
scs
I’ll post this again…
ppgaz- you haven’t made a real comment here yet. I’m still waiting… Do you have it in you ?
ppGaz
You suck.
ppGaz
You’re a liar.
ppGaz
Prove it.
scs
You want to come over and watch me as I read my media? Or would an Excel chart do?
scs
Anyway, I’m done with you tonight ppGaz. I feel sorry for the other readers who have to read this drivel, and out of respect for them, not for you, I will let you on your merry pyschopathic way.
ppGaz
Name the “neutral” news sources that you read.
scs
The New York Times, Time Magazine, The London Times (online), The Guardian (online), The Economist, Newsweek sometimes. Mostly the New York Times though, cause that’s what I’m used to reading. Plus I always like their in depth quirky foreign articles on the inside first few pages, and Science Times on Tuesday. I also like keeping up with what is going on in NYC. I hate their editorials and their letters though – skip those mostly, and go to the news.
ppGaz
1) Those are “neutral?” What do you think that means, and how do you know they are?
2) What makes you think that you read more “neutral” sources than anyone else around here? Because, you said you did.
You have a bad habit of inserting your foot deep into your mouth, and then getting all defensive when called on it. You can’t vouch for the “neutrality” of news sources, or for the “neutrality” of any particular story or byline within those sources. You have no idea what other people are reading, and even less idea the relative neutrality of anyone else’s sources around here wrt yours.
scs
1) Those are “neutral?” What do you think that means, and how do you know they are?
Yes more neutral than right wing or left wing web sites.
2) What makes you think that you read more “neutral” sources than anyone else around here? Because, you said you did.
Because I can tell that others often refer me to “news” that they saw on a left wing web site. I never read left wing web sites. I only read this web site because it is neutral. And because the other sites have such small fonts, man! They strain my eyes.
You have a bad habit of inserting your foot deep into your mouth, and then getting all defensive when called on it.
No, that is your delusion that I do that. You have a bad habit of not contributing anything to a debate and instead merely sitting on the sidelines and sniping. I believe that is a cowardly way of you working out your natural aggression, because it seems you are here more for that than to actually debate political issues. In fact I challenged you multiple times here to do so, and you failed. I think that shows your true colors.
ppGaz
No, that is your delusion that I do that.
No it isn’t. You do it all the time. You’re a laughingstock around here.
You have a bad habit of not contributing anything to a debate and instead merely sitting on the sidelines and sniping.
Nope. I “contribute” when I feel like it, and snipe when I feel like it. I do whatever needs doing at the moment. I do what I want to do, not what some high school girl thinks I should do.
I believe that is a cowardly way of you working out your natural aggression, because it seems you are here more for that than to actually debate political issues.
I don’t care what you believe. You’re a stupid person, childish, a liar. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. And you’re completely wrong. What goes on in here is theater, it’s not real life. Have you ever looked at the name of this blog?
Fuck you. You’re an idiot.
scs
I think you mean yourself Gaz.
ppGaz
Whoops, let me try that blockquoting again:
No it isn’t. You do it all the time. You’re a laughingstock around here.
Nope. I “contribute” when I feel like it, and snipe when I feel like it. I do whatever needs doing at the moment. I do what I want to do, not what some high school girl thinks I should do.
I don’t care what you believe. You’re a stupid person, childish, a liar. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. And you’re completely wrong. What goes on in here is theater, it’s not real life. Have you ever looked at the name of this blog?
Fuck you. You’re an idiot.
scs
ppgaz- just to highlight how much you contribute around here to the political debate- let’s go over your first 9 posts here.
You start off with this:
Not so informative- but your highlight of your thread, as it all goes all downhill from here. This is what comes next in your next 8 posts:
What the fuck do you contribute around here other than 8th grades insults? Did you contribute anything new or noteworthy about the Abramoff scandal at all her? Honestly, you should be banned because you waste everyone’s time.
Ancient Purple
In other words, until he dies, you won’t be satisfied on his position because as long as he lives, he could still vote to kill the bill just like Abramoff wanted.
How quaint.
scs
.No, I want to hear more details as to how and why the bill was killed before I act like I know what I’m talking about.
ppGaz
It’s like I said to you months ago: You’re a troll, a liar, and an idiot. You make things up. You get shit wrong and then try to defend it. In short, you suck, just like I said.
Your posts are childish. Seriously, as if written by a child. Your work on the Schiavo subject was an embarassment to the people who invented the computer and allowed someone like you to get your hands on one.
Beat it, kid. Go back to the playland at McDonalds where you came from.
ppGaz
Yeah, I posted the White House picture a full day before John did, as a matter of fact (a link, since we can’t post actual photos here) and it was an uncropped version, not the cropped one he put up.
You?
scs
MY posts are childish? Witness the artistry of ppgaz:
ppGaz
Snort.
scs
Oh and let’s add this to ppGaz’s gretest hits:
ppGaz
Better than you deserve, you stupid dingbat.
ppGaz
Oh, I can’t take credit for those things. Everybody says them to you. I just rub it in.
Ancient Purple
Really? Then how come you were all set to condemn Reid right out of the gate? He was guilty as charged in your eyes.
scs
You know ppgaz, I hope John has enough to ban you after this thread, especially after you were warned. If he had any decency in him, he would follow through on it.
ppGaz
You seem to have missed this one. Don’t you pay attention?
ppGaz
John should ban you, you stupid liar.
scs
Really? I said he was guilty over the ‘island’ issue? Where did I say that? I did say he was guilty of taking donations around the time of legislation. And you know why I said that? Because the AP article said that. If you know better than the article, I’ll be glad to consider your source.
scs
You conveniently dropped of the last word in the sentence – her. Which, my bad, should be ‘here’. (Never said I was a good typist). I did not read your other thread. What did you contribute HERE?
ppGaz
What the frigging hell does that mean? Campaign contributions and legislation are pretty much constant.
Which sources actively debunking the fucked-up AP story you are relying on here have you read? If you haven’t read them, how do you know whether your sources are “neutral”? How can you know whether a source is neutral without knowing what the range of opinion is about that story, and then drilling into that range of opinion?
Have you done this work, or are you just cherry picking from a poorly-written story to score points on a blog?
How do you know?
ppGaz
Too bad. It’s not my job to keep you up to speed.
scs
Read what I posted above ppgaz. Or here it is again.
ppGaz
Reid works in a Republican-controlled body. Have any ethics complaints been brought?
You can’t even make your “point” here in this thread, and you’ve been at it for almost twelve hours.
And I don’t contribute? You’ve wasted half a day here jerking people around about nothing. Your ass has been kicked from one end of the thread to the other on the facts.
scs
Which sources actively debunking the fucked-up AP story you are relying on here have you read? The ones that all posters have linked to here If you haven’t read them, how do you know whether your sources are “neutral”? How can you know whether a source is neutral without knowing what the range of opinion is about that story, and then drilling into that range of opinion? Usualy you can decide whether a story is neutral if it comes from a neutral mainstream newsource with a good rep, such as AP. Have you done this work, or are you just cherry picking from a poorly-written story to score points on a blog? I read all links offered here. I made my decision based on what I read. If you have something else to link to that will change or add to my view of things- feel free to provide the link.
scs
Name one please. Prove your insults for once.
ppGaz
Not my job to keep you on track. There’s plenty out there if you take the time to look for it.
And this thread has plenty of material that just basically wipes the floor with your material, you have just chosen to look past it because you don’t want to hear it.
ppGaz
Anyone who wants to can read the thread and judge for himself. Including you.
Give it up, kid. You’ve just wasted another day when you could have been cutting out paper dolls or doing something useful.
scs
Name one please. Prove your insults for once.
scs
NAME ONE PLEEEEEASE! Prove your insults for once.
ppGaz
While you freshen up to go and be the receptionist at the beauty parlor tomorrow, I have serious business to attend to and I’ll need my sleep.
Let me know tomorrow when you are ready to apologize.
scs
Figures, you coward. You can’t name one. Run off with your tail between your legs.
be the receptionist at the beauty parlor tomorrow
And that was a sexist comment by the way. You are a real enlightened Democrat, aren’t you?
ppGaz
Score: ppG 34, scs 2
scs
I hope everyone can see now by that last comment what ppGaz’s true colors are. I was on to something when I suspected he was someone who sexually harasses. The last comment could only be made by someone who has major sexual boundary issues. I just thank god he doesn’t have my address.
ppGaz
Hah! You ARE the receptionist at the beauty parlor! I knew it!
Mondays are slow, you can get your homework done.
ppGaz
ppG 35, scs 2
ppGaz
:-)
Sleep tight, don’t forget your teddy bear.
scs
Yes I am! How did you guess? In your dreams maybe, you sick pervert.
scs
Sexual harasser or child molestor? Maybe a combo of both.
Pb
Woo. I leave for a few hours, and scs loses her shit again. ppGaz, don’t feed the trolls. Oh, and yes, scs is still a laughingstock around here. If I didn’t know her better, it’d amaze me that she has the free time to look up whatever inane thing ppGaz may have said in the past few days, but apparently can’t manage to look up the facts about a simple Congressional bill. (If I thought she was at all serious or interested in actual facts, maybe I’d tell her that the Senate has a website…)
scs
DougJ, when you get a real idenity, I’ll address you.
CaseyL
scs, ppGaz has you pegged.
You’re a dishonest faux naif.
You start off with a consistent, almost patented, “Golly, I don’t know too much about this, but it sure looks like [dumbass RW position] is the correct one.”
Then, when people post information refuting and rebuting [dumbass RW position], you don’t read what they say, and/or you don’t follow their links, and/or you wilfully misunderstand the information given to you – and if all else fails, you start the whole fucking process all over again, as if the earlier give-and-take never happened.
You did it with Terri Schiavo. You did it with ID/Creationism. You’re doing it again now, with the Abramoff story.
You’ve done with every single goddamn subject ever raised on this board that you’ve commented on.
And, on top of everything else, when you’re called on your absolute and undiluted dishonesty, you go boo-hooing off in a cloud of self-pity and wounded innocence.
You’re a troll.
scs
DougJ- I repeat- when you get a real identity- I’ll address you.
scs
I’ll try the same thing with you that I did with ppGaz.
NAME ONE.
CaseyL
You’re doing it again – and I’m not playing your dumbshit game.
scs
I’ll try the same thing with you that I did with ppGaz.
NAME ONE.
scs
Figures, you coward. You can’t name one. Run off with your tail between your legs.
I’ll just keep using the same posts for you idiots because new ones are not needed.
Off Colfax
Score from teh lurker board:
ppGaz : 13
scs : 13
And the rest of Balloon Juice readers in general for having to wade through all of that: -148
We win. Now go to sleep.
Pooh
See, where Senator D’s code is F2-F7-F7-F4, scs, like clockwork goes F1-F2-F3-F4. Perfectly on beat in 4/4 time, because she’s very square.
Personally, I stick to the standby of Up-Up-Down-Down-Left-Right-Left-Right-B-A-B-A-start.
30 lives, bitches.
Jack Roy
Gawd, I can’t believe I’m doing this….
SCS: Please pay attention.
Reid’s activities aren’t at issue because he never intervened to the favor of Abramoff’s clients for the reason that Abramoff asked him to, and especially never for the reason that Abramoff gave him money. Democrats tend to do things that favor Indian tribes, and have for a long time now, so it’s easy to draw out some false inference when Abramoff represented (and defrauded) many Indian tribes. But it’s still an obvious error.
It’s no answer to say “i only know what i get in the media” because—as is somehow obvious to everyone but you—the failure of the media to get an accurate story from even widely-available facts is precisely at issue here! It’s what Tim F. was writing about, fer cryinoutloud.
You might have a point with the “even an appearance of impropriety” quote. Except it’s transparently dumb. For one thing, you’re talking about action taken over the course of three years; to insist that no contributions be taken during that time would prohibit contributions during half of an entire Senate term, and more than an entire House term. Should Representatives be forbidden from soliciting contributions for the reelection campaigns until a full year after the election was held?
For another thing, if you’re going to allege the “appearance of impropriety” you have to actually show what’s up. I get that you think it appears improper. But I also get that you think it appears improper when Ted Kennedy orders coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts because he cheated twice while at Harvard and is a murderer!!!!1! You gotta spell things out for the delirium-impaired over here.
Ech. I can’t go on.
ppGaz
Uh, she “worked” the thread all day and all night before I addressed her bullshit.
Ancient Purple
Like the one where you stated the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is fundamnentalist because they have the word “evangelical” in their name?
Please, by all means, keep posting the same post. It makes my job of refuting you so much easier.
scs
Jack: Please pay attention. and read the link for god’s sake:
From TimF’s linked article:
Is there something about those words you don’t understand? I don’t know if I go for the “Democrats tend to do things that favor Indian tribes” defense. I suppose Reid agreed with that and thought it’s natural for Democrats to help Indians by taking money from shady lobbyists. I will reserve judgement until I hear more details on how and what Reid did for these clients. Yes, as a Dem, Reid may love Indians in general, but what SPECIFIC issues did he lobby for? Until you hear more on how he operated with these issues, I don’t think the “Democrats help Indians” defense is sufficient. Would you feel this way if shady lobbyists gave money to Texas Republicans on behalf of their oil clients and my reply to you was “Relax. It’s fine. Republicans just tend to do things to favor oil companies. We don’t have to investigate it further”. Somehow, I don’t think you would.
It at least appears he violated Senate ethic rules by the timing of his donations. Whether your idea holds up that “one thing, you’re talking about action taken over the course of three years; “, I’m not sure is true. The point is not, did this stretch over three years, the question is during these three years, did he accept donations “around the time of each action.” I’m sure the Senate has a more detailed guidline as to what it means to be “around the time of legislation” – whether it’s a few weeks or a few months. According to this article- Reid DID take money AROUND the time of legislation. That is a violation of Senate rules, and as the leader of the Dems, he should know better. Now whether you have a source or some inside knowledge that Reid did NOT take money during this window of time, like the AP articel said, I will love to read the info from your source. Until then, I will have to stick with the info from the AP article, and without evidence to the contrary, I believe you are just going on wishful thinking.
scs
The Evangelical Lutheran church are “Evangelicals”, right? Otherwise they wouldn’t have the word “Evangelical” at the begining of their name right?
Okay Ancient Purple- here is the info for the 10th time. Please try to read and comprehend it this time (some Caps mine):
Evangleicals are “fundamentalists” in a broad sense, if not the actual Fundamentalist sect. Since I used the word broadly, Evangelicals are included. Okay, you are wrong on that. NEXT?
stickler
The ELCA is part of the fundamentalist movement? Because a liberal Lutheran theologian (Martin Marty, for pity’s sake!) coined the “fundamentalist” term, and used it in a derisive way to denigrate anti-modernist Christians? Wow. That’s just incoherent.
It might be a good idea to look up the words “Evangelical” and “fundamentalist” in an actual dictionary.
Jack Roy
Sorry, SCS, I thought we were talking about whether Reid was involved in the Abramoff affair, not whether he was representing the interests of Indian tribes. And I thought we were talking about the gap between reality and what the AP prints. In each case, because that’s what we were talking about.
But it’s nice of you to shift the goalposts now. You want to make the case that it’s still an open question whether Reid did something improper? You won’t get a lot of argument that we shouldn’t at least keep an open mind and consider further investigation. But, ahem, it’s hardly what you suggested at first:
And it’s truly cute to pretend you were only making the point that Reid helped out Indian tribes, not that he did so at the behest of Abramoff. But again, that doesn’t jibe with what you originally wrote (I’ll supply the /sarcasm tag):
SCS, I’m trying to be politer than is my nature, but I’m sorry, you have utterly failed to make a coherent point as to why Harry Reid is hereby implicated in the Abramoff scandal, and as to your secondary point that he may have violated Senate ethics rules by displaying the appearance of impropriety (tho’ not, by your own account, actual impropriety itself) for accepting donations “around the time” that he took certain actions, you’ll forgive those of us who aren’t satisfied with an indictment at that level of generality.