Of course he's dismissing this, as will probably the usual left-wing apologists here, but surprise, surprise. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who pressed the silly Vanguard ethics charges against Samuel Alito and who has called Terry Boyle’s apparent inadvertent violation of hyperprotective rules the "clincher" against his nomination to the Fourth Circuit, has some genuinely serious ethics issues of his own. Today’s Washington Post has a report on two sets of charges.

First, Reid accepted ringside seats from the Nevada Athletic Commission for three boxing matches at a time when the commission was "trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing." The seats were "worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each." The Senate ethics manual warns against "accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence, or elicit favorable action." Reid’s lame defense: He was (in the Post’s paraphrase) "simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry." What sense does that make?

Second, in apparent violation of the same ethics provision, Reid took "several actions benefiting former lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s [tribal] clients and partners as they donated to him." Reid also sponsored a bill to give $100,000 to another tribe represented by Abramoff. Reid’s explanation: "he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it."

Uh huh. I’m sure that Reid routinely does whatever Louisiana lawmakers request.

It is time that Reid resign. If a Republican should over such corruption, then a Democrat ought to as well. (I wait with baited breath to see someone run in here claiming, "But what Reid did wasn't the same...". Spare me the excuses.)

You crack me up MIB.

Are we believing the Washington Post these days? It gets complicated trying to remember which papers are beacons of truth and which ones are simply the mouthpiece for the liberal intelligencia. I'm assuming since they're going after a Democrat, this one's legit.

A Louisiana Democrat...unethical? Whatever next - one from Illinois?

LXN

Actually Lexington, Mr. Reid hails from the great state of Nevada.

Yeah, I know, but looks aren't everything.

Nevada, Louisiana, it's all the same to some.

Now, back to the senior senator from the the Silver State, or is that the Sagebrush State, or maybe the Battle Born State? Nevada, that is.

1) According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, which is no big friend of Democrats, it would have been illegal for Reid to reimburse the VIP credentials for seats (since they were NOT tickets) from the Nevada Athletic Commission, though John McCain did (and they gave his check to charity), but in prior cases where Reid received tickets that could be reimbursed, he did.

2) In any case, here is a Senate ethics exception for gifts from governmental agencies like state athletic commissions.

3) Nevertheless, Reid voted AGAINST the legislation the Nevada Athletic Commission was pushing. AGAINST. Not for.

4) In the case of the Abramoff-Marianas funds, Reid voted AGAINST the interests of the Marianas, unlike the phalanx of GOPers who were on Abramoff's dole AND his clients' doles. AGAINST. Not for.

[ May 31, 2006, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Ah, the mega-left's Apologist-in-Chief excuses Senator Reid's corruption. Had he been a Republican, well, we know how fantomas would be spewing pages of gibberish criticizing such an evildoer.

Isn't it about time you got a new script?

Sorry about that. As you know, there are two types of facts - those that support your theory, and those that really need to be scrutinized further.

LXN

He accepted tickets to a sporting event?
Oh my God - OUTREAGOUS!!

Did you respond to even ONE of the facts I posted? Nope. As usual. Find someone at the WSJ, National Review's The Corner, or some other rightwing outfit to copy answers from, and then get back to the rest of us.

As for "gibberish," are you going to tell us that Bill Frist hasn't been accused of insider trading? Or that Tom DeLay was intimately tied to Jack Abramoff? Or that Katherine Harris didn't take funny money from Mitchell Wade, etc.? You can probably copy those facts from right-wing sites too.

So if Frist has been accused, it means he's been convicted? Your perception of our legal system is scary, but not surprising, Mr. Apologist-in-Chief.

Reid sells his office and, well...it's OK, because, you see, he's a liberal. But Frist (of whom I'm no fan, BTW), is accused and he's already guilty in the fantomas world of fantasy justice.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

[ May 31, 2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Outrageous, indeed, when legislation concerning that sport's regulation was involved, Mr. Deputy Apologist-in-Chief.

I heard he once jaywalked also, HE MUST RESIGN!!
Go get 'em Judge!

Rather than just slamming someone whose philosophy differs from yours, would you mind trying to refute the facts presented? I thought only lily-livered liberals and America-haters (same thing, I guess ) sidestep fact-based arguments and resort to name calling?

I've been reading some criticism about the original AP report in that it conveniently left out some of the details about this "scandal". If these additional details turn out to be true, it looks like anything but corruption and influence-buying. Comment?

Comment: you make me laugh, aquaman, with your visions of unreality regarding corrupt politicians. I think we'll have to name you Assistant to the Apologist-in-Chief, third in line.

Fox News is reporting that Reid is suspected of
stealing a pack of gum at a Woolworth's when he was a 5 year old.

HE MUST GO!