Join 3,496 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


What does John Solomon have against Harry Reid?
May 31, 2006 12:49 AM   Subscribe

Harry Reid accepted free boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission says John Solomon of the AP. Solomon implies that Reid might have gotten himself into an ethical dilemma as the NAC opposes the creation of a federal boxing commission, something the Senate was considering at the time. The article also tosses in some digs at Reid by repeating the claim that Reid is involved in the Abramoff scandal.

However, Media Matters points out that Reid did not act in the NAC's favor and instead allowed the passage of legislation that would create a federal commission, in opposition to the giftgiver's wishes. This is not the first time Solomon has attacked Reid. Politics/News-filter
posted by papakwanz (34 comments total)

 
the RudePundit, always polite:
For instance, the desperate, craven efforts by the Republicans and their lackeys in the right wing press to find anything, any goddamn thing, to make sure that Democrats look as corrupt as Republicans. So we get the bizarro, does-any-real-person-give-a-fuck article that says Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid got free tickets to three boxing matches in Nevada. And we get the gleeful piling on Rep. William Jefferson, who likes his cash cold, by everyone in the media. Or the pathetic attempts to tie any Democrat, in any way, shape, form, or thread, to Jack Abramoff, even if it means just lying about it. Because, you know, we wouldn't wanna say that one party has become rank with "decay" and "failure," full of "traitors" who are "shallow, pathetic, corrupt, imcompetent, and sick," as a training tape for Newt Gingrich's GOPAC instructed Republicans to talk about Democrats back in 1994.
posted by matteo at 1:54 AM on May 31, 2006


Meh, this stuff happens all the time. Here in Nevada it's getting a fair amount of airtime, but that's a given. Reid is a decent Senator (not great) but in a state that's practically run by the casinos and the mining industry, getting a couple of free tix to boxing matches seems pretty trivial. And EVERYONE talked to Abramoff. The man was relentless.

Personally I think Reid is a bit of a coward but he seems relatively clean... for a politician.
posted by elendil71 at 3:37 AM on May 31, 2006


And we get the gleeful piling on Rep. William Jefferson

Wait, what? Of course they're piling on him. He had $100,000 in bribe money stuffed in tupperware in his fridge! You know, if you want to go after bribery in the Republican party effectively, the first step is to not make excuses for bribery in your own party.
posted by unreason at 3:40 AM on May 31, 2006


The issue isn't excusing bribery, but noting the extreme disproportion between coverage of one apparently corrupt Democrat and, essentially, government by special interest. In terms of scale, Jefferson is a depression in your backyard, and Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, the so-far-undetailed energy policy meetings w/ Cheney, and many others are the Grand Canyon (or, given their lack of coverage, the Mariana Trench).

Among the many depressing facets of the last 14 years is that the large percentage of Americans who don't pay attention will equate the two parties, despite the fact that a) all three branches of government are controlled by the Republicans, and b) special interests and their lobbyists don't have to pursue those who are out of power. What the Democrats would do is open to debate, but first we need to get them some subpoena power so we can begin to find out some small slice of the crimes which have gone on without our awareness.

The rank incompetence has been evident for some time now.
posted by palancik at 4:08 AM on May 31, 2006


Outrage over politicians receiving money usually suggests outrage that the politicians might actually be, you know, influenced by the money. It seems in Reid's case the stories about this gift, lede buried as it is, all acknowledge this wasn't the case. People are desperately trying to connect any instance of donations to the clearly illegal actions of Jefferson and Jack Abramoff.

This is like complaining a Republican donated money to Ted Kennedy's campaign or something. Unless he switched parties, I think that's a story about someone wasting their money, not bribery. But I'm guessing Solomon felt "NAC fails to bribe Reid" didn't have as snappy a title.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:34 AM on May 31, 2006


$100k. A pair of boxing tickets. What amazes me is how inexpensive it is to buy a member of congress.
posted by three blind mice at 5:05 AM on May 31, 2006


It doesn't matter how trivial the gift, nor does it matter how he voted. Congressmen shouldn't accept bribes, and they shouldn't accept anything that looks like at all like a bribe, for the same reason that athletes should stay far, far away from gambling. It threatens the nature of the game. And it doesn't matter whatsoever whether it's a Republican or a Democrat.
posted by Nahum Tate at 5:51 AM on May 31, 2006


Yes, everybody's pushing this line, and I agree that this is certainly better than if he had voted in their favor. Nevertheless, what Nahum Tate says. He shouldn't have done it.

But this is blown way out of proportion. There's a deep imbalance between how these things are reported for the GOP and the Dems. There's a resistance to stating what is simply true: the GOP's ethics and legal problems are their own, widespread, and not anything comparable to what can be found on the other side of the aisle. At the same time, the press is keen on finding something, anything, they can paint as equivalent corruption on the Dem side.

As a rule, I don't believe the MSM has a right-wing bias. All the data I've ever seen would indicate the opposite, at least with regard to working journalists themselves. But something's going on here. It's the same something that's long gone on—it's part of the he said/she said reporting trend. It's part of the "protecting access" trend. And it's part of the trend resulting from how GOP's attack dogs have made the MSM move toward a bias rightward in reporting because they've managed to convince the party's base that the media is hopelessly leftward biased and so now they're constantly on the defensive.

This is the worst of all possible worlds: the mainstream media at the highest levels is primarily interested in its business interests and that produces a rightward bias. The working journalists tend to the left—but they're now so cowed both by their masters and the GOP spin doctors, they are increasingly unable to do their jobs. It shouldn't require a regular reading of Poynter Online and various press critics to read the between the lines of every article to get to the deeper truth hidden therein. It's almost like kremlinology now.

The mainstream media is heading for, and needs, a crisis of confidence and conscience and to sort these things out.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:06 AM on May 31, 2006


It doesn't matter how trivial the gift, nor does it matter how he voted.

A sense of proportion is at the heart of the notion of justice. When one equates fabricated, exaggerated "transgressions" like those of which Reid is accused with the rampant, high-level corruption (and I would say treason) of the Bush administration, one has lost any sense of what justice and the rule of law actually means.
posted by mondo dentro at 6:12 AM on May 31, 2006


It doesn't matter how trivial the gift, nor does it matter how he voted.
It does, however, matter that the gift is legal.
Now, Solomon's back reporting that Reid accepted boxing tickets he was allowed to accept from his home state's boxing commission and in exchange voted against the people who gave him the tickets. ( He voted for more federal boxing regs.) When will the corruption end?1
Furthermore, the fact that Senator Reid voted against a bill killed the last muckraising attempt by the Associated Press' John Solomon. But don't let a thing like the truth stand in the way of equating doing something legal and ethical with breaking the law and ethics rules. (I'm not suggesting that it's the right thing to do, but given the current law and ethics rules, my statements hold.)
He shouldn't have done it.
Welcome to an imperfect world. My question is why is no one talking about the guy who's sitting right next to Senator Reid in this picture, another Senator on which such bribery appears to have been influential.
posted by sequential at 6:20 AM on May 31, 2006


from http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000772.php

Only, there is an exception for gifts from governmental agencies (like the Nevada Athletic Commission) in the Senate ethics rules. So there is nothing untoward about Reid having accepted the free tickets.

So there's not even a story here. Don't let this idiot journalist win by making this into one.
posted by taumeson at 6:21 AM on May 31, 2006


"A sense of proportion is at the heart of the notion of justice. When one equates fabricated, exaggerated "transgressions" like those of which Reid is accused with the rampant, high-level corruption (and I would say treason) of the Bush administration, one has lost any sense of what justice and the rule of law actually means."

I do agree with this, generally. But I think it's a tactical mistake for dems and the left to apologize for Reid. I'm also not particularly comfortable with pushing very hard on this line because I feel hypocritical doing it. If the shoe were on the other foot, if some Republican had taken gifts and favors from an important conservative lobby, this were reported and then the Repubs said, "well, yeah, but he voted against them"...I don't think our side would be that hugely sympathetic to the argument. Or course, maybe the alternative correct answer is that we should. But I don't know. I'd feel quite justified in denouncing that violation of the ethics rules even if the pol didn't vote as lobbyist wanted.

I think our response should be "it was wrong, he shouldn't have done it, he shouldn't do it in the future, he should be disciplined for it if the ethics committee so decides, but all that being the case, this is in no way comparable in seriousness or scope to these things, for example X, Y, and Z that GOP members A, B, and C have done. I'd be happy to provide more information on both Reid's acts and those of Republicans A, B, and C, if you like. Let's start with A..."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:25 AM on May 31, 2006


Wait, what? Of course they're piling on him. He had $100,000 in bribe money stuffed in tupperware in his fridge! You know, if you want to go after bribery in the Republican party effectively, the first step is to not make excuses for bribery in your own party.

Word.

At the same time, the press is keen on finding something, anything, they can paint as equivalent corruption on the Dem side.

The press is trying to be "fair and balanced," which is difficult because, let's face it, the Dems may be ankle-deep in shit but the GOP is chest-deep in it, largely because they are running the show.

What's never talked about is why the MSM is tilting rightward these days. And the reason is twofold: First, conservatives excel at pushing the "liberal media" meme. The MSM has grown sensitive to it, and bend over backward to "prove" that it isn't true. If we're going to write about Republican corruption, we have to "balance" it with stories of Democratic corruption. Hence this hit piece on Reid.

But second, the MSM is all about sucking up to those in power, and who's in power? If the media in the past leaned to the left, it wasn't a function of any ideological bent - it's because the Democrats ran this country for many years. Now Republicans are firmly in control, and the media knows which side of the bread gets the butter.
posted by kgasmart at 6:27 AM on May 31, 2006


EB, the Senate Ethics committee has explicitly addressed this case and stated that it's ok for Senators to accept gifts from other governmental organizations. This happens all the time and it is very much the standard operating procedure. There is nothing even remotely suspicious about what Reid did and in no way could this be considered a "bribe" unless you want to consider any "red-carpet treatment" that Senators get to be bribes. Seriously, use your brain: who on earth is going to be swayed in their vote by seeing some boxing matches? Is Reid some kind of boxing fanatic? Is he so poor that he couldn't afford the few hundred dollar tickets himself? It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. But the very fact that some people can look at this and say "he shouldn't have done it" demonstrates how effective the media smear machine really is.
posted by nixerman at 6:29 AM on May 31, 2006


The core of a bribery case is the quid pro quo -- literally, "something for something."

If you give me $1 or $1,000,000,000 to vote for your legislation, and I vote against it, it is not bribery -- there's no quid pro quo. If the intent was to influence, you can nail the briber for attempted bribery. Those who've heard of the case where someone was convicted of bribing an official who was cleared of receiving a bribe? This is how it happened.

Indeed, Reid is infamous to those who'd bribe. Early in his career, he was offered a bribe. He went right to the FBI, who had him wear a wire to make the bust. Alas, things didn't go exactly as planned -- the briber angered Reid so much that the FBI had to bust in and, quite literally, pull Reid's hands off of the briber's throat.

I really wish we had that video.
posted by eriko at 6:36 AM on May 31, 2006


Oops. That first literally isn't. Quid pro quo is "Take this from that," and was used in terms of misunderstanding. In US Law, it is used in the sense of "trade this for that", not "understood this from that (phrase)"

The second literally is literally literal.
posted by eriko at 6:39 AM on May 31, 2006


Given Jefferson's actions as we know them, it's hard not to believe that his corruption isn't both deep and long-standing. Sure, his corruption is more isolated and mundance, but it's very bad, egregiously stupid and a betrayal of public trust, and is easy to understand, has juicy stories that don't require an undertanding of money-laundering and what-have-you...the point is, his sins are very bad and very visible and very easy to understand and the Dems would be making a huge mistake to try to defend him in any way. He should be drop-kicked.

Yeah, again, if you look at widespread, systemic and deeply hubristic corruption, you see worlds of it on the GOP side of the aisle. In that sense, Jefferson is one bad man while this Republican stuff is a machine/money politics gone completely out-of-control. It's the Congressional/Pentagon equivalent to Enron.

On Preview: I think you've been overly persuaded by the partisan arguments defending Reid. The government agency argument is a loophole argument. It is not another federal government entity and because of this the real situation is that this was a lobby like any other.

Eriko: this isn't a bribery issue, it's an ethics rules issue.

I just don't understand these partisan instincts that result in hypocrisy. If Frist had been given $3,000 by, say, Texas's Lottery Commission while some legislation was pending in Congress that would affect it, we would certainly not say that he was bribed if he votted against them, but we'd quite certainly and rightly call that an ethics violation, be suspicious of it and the coziness it implies.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:42 AM on May 31, 2006


But I think it's a tactical mistake for dems and the left to apologize for Reid.

I'm not apologizing for Reid. I'm saying it's a bullshit discussion. What was Whitewater? What was the cum-stained dress? They were diiversions. Worse than that, they were PERVERSIONS of the idea of justice, used as a weapon by those who would take us into a new era of feudalism. (It's no coincidence that religion is used in the same why, by the same rightist alliance.)

I'm just saying: your principles are fine--just don't turn them into a type of political auto-immune desease. Hypocrisy, like justice, is context dependent. The entire context here includes a corporate media that is bending over backwards to excuse the far more serious crimes of the Bush administration, and the shadowy puppeteers behind it, but throwing up distractions and creating false equivalences.

Do you really intend to help them do that?
posted by mondo dentro at 7:03 AM on May 31, 2006


If Frist had been given $3,000 by, say, Texas's Lottery Commission while some legislation was pending in Congress that would affect it, we would certainly not say that he was bribed if he voted against them, but we'd quite certainly and rightly call that an ethics violation, be suspicious of it and the coziness it implies.
I presume you mean Tennessee, not Texas, but either way your point would be salient if you had given actual examples. I'm open to the idea that there's hypocrisy in politics, but not like you're suggesting. Share links if you have some. Furthermore, this coziness is something that a little investigation yields a world of light. Senator Reid has long standing ties to the sport of boxing. He is a former boxer, ring judge, and lawyer for boxers. It's not hard to believe he'd be at a boxing event, lobbied by the NAC, or given free tickets to such matches.

Now someone tell me why McCain is getting off without a skidmark in his political white underwear?

No one's defending the law or ethic rules that make such gifts legal. For the most part, such transactions yield results when voting and should be made against ethics rules if not barred entirely by law. If this case hasn't been before the ethics committee as of yet, I'd support such a review. It's politically probably a bad move for Reid to allow such an investigation considering the headlines that this non-story has already made, but if he's clean and can fight the PR war, clearance by full investigation could be huge and make Republican headhunters look like the wasteful liars they really are. I question whether any Democrat can fight the noise machine and win, but Senator Reid has as good a chance as any.
posted by sequential at 7:10 AM on May 31, 2006


The article I read emphasized the appearence of impropriety, which if one were to read between the lines suggests nothing illegal was actually done. At least one of the boxing matches had McCain appear and the article claimed he paid for his ticket.

FWIW, as I understand it Reid didn't do anything illegal. The media simply, as others have pointed out, tried to portray a Democrat with a level of corruption equal to those associated with Abrahamoff. I would hope that anybody who follows such things would see the difference between these two cases, however I don't think this difference will be noticed by most.

The MSM has been piling on the Democrats for at least 15 years while letting Republicans off easy for the most part. Whether this can be traced to an institutional bias, an attempt to be "fair" or some more nefarious reason doesn't really matter. The MSM must point out corruption and illegal activity in the government no matter who commits it.

We as a nation need to move beyond which party is more corrupt and work towards the goal of putting the government back to working for the people. This goal will require a variety of actions on multiple playing fields. However, getting the media to avoid actions such as in the FPP is one of the most effective ways in the short term.

Ethereal Bligh has said it better than I can.
posted by infowar at 7:13 AM on May 31, 2006


We as a nation need to move beyond which party is more corrupt...

See, this is what I disagree so strongly with. You can't "move beyond" jack if you don't first recognize the truth of it.

Right here, right now, the GOP is in control and we are looking at the most corrupt, incompetent, and corrosive administration in a century, if not of all time. If you can't name names and say what's what, what does that say about your "values"? That the truth doesn't matter? That gross illegalities and subversions of our consitutional republic merit little more than a tepid call to "get over it"?

That won't cut it. You will just lose your country to the oligarchs, who are smart enough to never "get over" anything.
posted by mondo dentro at 7:19 AM on May 31, 2006


"I presume you mean Tennessee, not Texas, but either way your point would be salient if you had given actual examples."

No, it doesn't particularly matter if its Texas or Tennessee. I do happen to know which state represents. :)

Counterfactuals are always problematic. I'm just saying two connected things: I know that I wouldn't be as forgiving to a Republican as you're urging I should be to a Reid. So I know that for me to see it in your terms is hypocrtical. I don't know what other people would do in my hypothetical, but long experience informs my conclusions.

At any rate, in a previous comment I suggested how it is that we should respond. It's my opinion that voiciferously countering this attempt of a absurd moral equivalence only plays into their hands and then they can spin our response as the story within the story, successfully moving attention away from their own crimes. Instead, my suggestion is to just very simply and casually say "I think it's an ethics violation, or, if not, it should be an ethics violation. Our party's position on ethics is clear and our party leadership has already appropriately disciplined Harry Reid. However, let us now talk of many serious unambiguous ethics violations and many, unambiguous legal violations, felonies, by GOP Representative X, Senator Y, and White House Senior Staffer Z.

Don't let them use our reaction as a way of accomplishing their goal. Talking a great deal about Reid is a loser for us, a winner for them. Making efforts to excuse him only invites argument, both from the GOP and the press, and keeps this trivial matter in the spotlight. Much better to take our lumps with confidence and the confidently push our message of systemic corruption in the GOP.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:28 AM on May 31, 2006


No, it doesn't particularly matter if its Texas or Tennessee. I do happen to know which state represents. :)
You do know Tennessee isn't in Texas, right? I kid, of course. You're right, it doesn't make a difference.
I don't know what other people would do in my hypothetical, but long experience informs my conclusions.
Here's the rub, though: this kind of thing happens regularly, if not daily. Our elected officials are eating well, traveling well, and generally living well. For the most part, this is all legal and ethical. On the other hand, most of us find it reprehensible, but incorrigible so we live with it. Did Reid report this? Was he require to report this? I just don't see where the story is, even though we, you and I, generally agree about the matter in theory. I don't see the political victory in letting a political hitman get away with swiftboating Senator Reid.
Making efforts to excuse him only invites argument, both from the GOP and the press, and keeps this trivial matter in the spotlight.
The issue is that Reid didn't break any laws or ethics. That fact should be spread widely and frequently. Otherwise, by your yard stick, the democrats are equally corrupt as the Republicans. This kind of exchange is extremely commonplace and perfectly legal.

I'm willing to disagree. You're an educated man, with smart, well articulated ideas. I am certainly not a political consultant. I have certainly not polled the issue. In my minds eye, this is a chance to expose the Republican noise makers for what they are and possibly a chance to equate the Evil Senator From Nevada with the Saintly Senator From Arizona.
posted by sequential at 7:43 AM on May 31, 2006


Shorter me: You might be right, I might be wrong.

I'm practicing breviloquence.
posted by sequential at 7:45 AM on May 31, 2006


Yeah, I see your point of view. I just think my strategy would be much more effective. I agree and sympathize that this crap is galling.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:57 AM on May 31, 2006


The reason the Reid story and the Jefferson story are being so publicized is that they're so damn easy to understand.

Jefferson had $100k in bribe money... in his freezer!

Reid was given free boxing tickets... while being lobbied to do something favorable for the Boxing Commission!

Jefferson is cooked, that seems eminently clear.

Reid may have followed the letter of the law on this one, but you're being obtuse if you don't think that there's a fairly significant appearance of impropriety in this case. The fact that Ensign and McCain who both attended the match with Reid both apparently paid for their tickets makes it even worse.

It'd all blow over immediately if instead of fighting a losing PR battle Reid just said something to the effect of, "I was following my duties as a representative from the State of Nevada, and attended the match. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, I have reimbursed the board for the cost of the tickets, and will do so again in the future if I attend a match."

Case closed. Instead, he's fighting it. Doesn't make sense, remains in the news, etc etc.
posted by fet at 8:15 AM on May 31, 2006


mondo dentro: I'm not sure if you are being obtuse or I am simply not explaining myself. I am all for calling a spade a spade.

I don't care if it is accepting boxing tickets (if illegal in this case and I have my doubts) or directing $200K+ to Republican candidates. Both need to stop. There certainly is a degree of difference, but my point is clearly: if a government representative is doing something contrary to the good of the people they serve by corrupting the process, they need to stop. Your argument, like many, emphasizes the *level* of corruption. As this FPP and ensuing comments indicate there are levels of corruption. However, those levels are certainly subjective and if experience is an indicator hard to legally prove. With the Supreme Court equating money to free speech there are many sources of corruption that lead to a crony system.

I'm all for going for the low hanging fruit. As my first post in this thread pointed out, it is clear there is a double standard in the MSM for scandal and abuse coverage. By both parties and the general population being intolerant of *anybody* who misuses their government authority perhaps something positive will be done.

Pelosi was right to ask for Jefferson to relinquish his seat on the Ways and Means Committee. The fact that some in the Black Democratic Caucus opposed this because it might be seen as a veiled racist action makes me sad. But to have people lose faith in the government because the MSM refuses to cover any government impropriety robs all citizens.

Let everybody have their day in court. In a legal setting I'm sure Reid will be absolved of any wrongdoing. Likewise, I'm hopeful that Republicans found guilty of corruption will find plenty of time in jail.

Who is to blame if MSM readers don't read the whole article or put things into context? I'm confident the MSM could do much better in creating context and challenging assertions so often made by Republicans. But if the opposing party ever wishes to be a majority party again one of the things they must do is be intolerant of corruption and push that in the MSM. Many other things must be done too, but one must start somewhere.
posted by infowar at 8:40 AM on May 31, 2006


The fact that Ensign and McCain who both attended the match with Reid both apparently paid for their tickets makes it even worse.

The article above (AP) indicates to me that Ensign did not pay for his tickets...

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for his ticket when he joined Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had abstained from taking any votes or actions on the boxing bill because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.
posted by SirOmega at 9:46 AM on May 31, 2006


An important piece of information also left out of the article.

(Basically, it would have been illegal for the commission to accept payment. They just gave McCain's check to charity, since he insisted on paying something.)
posted by notbuddha at 10:28 AM on May 31, 2006


While what Reid did in accepting the tickets was evidently legal and did not influence his decisions, and it also is of minor significance, I still don't think it was proper.
posted by spira at 10:37 AM on May 31, 2006


Either the congressmen are selling their vote, or they are stringing the lobbyist along on the pretense of selling their vote. Those lobbyists are not giving "gifts" out of love or friendship, they expect a little something in return.

Congressmen make a little over $165,000 per year, plus the best health and retirement benefits on the planet. They should be able to get by without "gifts" from lobbyists.

That Reid would try to pass off attending a fight as "research" shows the contempt he has for the American public. He doesn't value us enough to even bother thinking up a credible lie.
posted by Jatayu das at 11:55 AM on May 31, 2006


Actually, Harry Reid has been intimately involved with boxing for a very long time. He has been a boxer, a boxing judge, and head of the Nevada Gaming Commission.

It is entirely unremarkable that he would receive complimentary boxing tickets. This would be like a former quarterback and football coach, now a member of Congress, receiving free football tickets. Big whoop.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:10 PM on May 31, 2006


So let me get this straight. Reid accepted a pass to see a boxing match in his home state. He then voted against the interests of the organization that provided him with the tickets. Although he did not pay for the tickets, it would in fact have been illegal to pay for them, and the Senator who did attempt to pay had his check sent to a charity since it would have been illegal to accept the payment. What's more, Reid has paid for tickets provided to past boxing events.

And this is news because....?
posted by punishinglemur at 1:25 PM on May 31, 2006


And this is news because....?
He's a Democrat.

Another possibility is the bad news coming out of an oil rich country, but I'm so outraged over Senator Reid's impropriety that I can't remember which one it was. Venezuela, right?
"To avoid any appearance of impropriety, I have reimbursed the board for the cost of the tickets, and will do so again in the future if I attend a match."
Which is, as has been pointed out, actually against the law. The NAC knows how to work around people like McCain, but come on. He's the one who came close to doing something unethical or illegal, not Reid.
Case closed.
Except, you're wrong. Reid did nothing wrong as the evidence has cleared him of. Most people here, including me, wish this was not part of politics, but until we decide to change our government, this is completely acceptable.
Instead, he's fighting it.
This hardly broke the mainstream news and was retracted from the front page of most major outlets within hours because the reporting turns out to be inaccurate. It's not news. Reid is not fighting it. He's setting the record straight. He hasn't broken a sweat. And if this schmuck reporter is the best that can be done to compare Reid to Delay, you'll have to excuse me while I laugh.
posted by sequential at 2:02 PM on May 31, 2006


« Older Brad, Angelina, and the rise of 'celebrity colonia...  |  Tyger... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments