Dim Dems can't keep talking points straight
Dems are still harping on the GOP for creating a "culture of corruption" even while the story breaks of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) repeatedly accepting expensive gifts from the Nevada Athletic Commission while pushing for legislation that would have affected said organization.
Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.
He defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses," he told The Associated Press.
So, get over it, Nevada. Sen. Reid should have been at those boxing matches in Las Vegas. It was strictly business. Interestingly, REPUBLICAN John McCain, when invited along with Mr. Reid, refused the free ticket and paid his own way to the tune of $1400. Yep, those tickets were darn expensive.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight.Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.
Wow! Those horribly corrupt GOP'ers seemed to recognize the ethical gray area. Even with the media curiosity over Reid's nights at the fights, the Senator denies wrongdoing.
"I'm not Goodie two shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.
"I'm not goodie two shoes." Well, he got one thing right.
For more on Senator Reid's flirtations with the limits of ethical violations, read the report over at Fox News outlining the boxing bruhaha and the good Senator's exploits with Jack Abramoff.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/30 @ 07:03 PM — (Reply)
Do you know what's missing from Fox's reporting of the story? The fact that Reid opposes the state boxing commission's agenda, and that his position has never changed, either before or after going to the bouts.
Not that it matters... I agree that it looks mildly questionable. It's not against Senate rules (because the tickets came from a state agency, not a private party), but even those rules caution about appearances. No question that McCain was more prudent with his judgement. (I discount Ensign because he had already recused himself because of family ties, not because of the tickets).
A quick reality check. Three tickets at $1400... about $4200 in value. Let's toss in soda, a hot dog and maybe one of those huge foam #1 fingers at each fight... round up... call it $5000.
Compare that to Burns (R-MT) taking $150,000 or Hastert (R-IL) taking $100,000, G.W.Bush (R-USA) taking $100,000, Ney (R-OH) taking $32,000... or Cunningham (R-CA) taking $2.3 million dollars. (Boy, that makes Jefferson's (D-LA) $100K look like chump change, don't it?)
It kinda sounds like the Republicans are saying, "Hey, you stink too, so shut up" while the Democrats are saying, "Yeah, but you stink a lot worse than us."
A plague on both their houses. I wish that principles won elections, but the sad fact is that money does. And until we find a way to get honest (I mean actually honest, not just 'opinion-poll' honesty) people elected, I don't know what's likely to change.
Comment by That same anonymous guy— 2006/05/31 @ 08:35 AM — (Reply)
What gets to me is the hypocrisy of pointing the finger when the DEMS know they are dirty, too.
How about the DEM aide who illegally requested a credit report on her bosses opponent (name's are escaping me) or the DEM lackeys who slashed the tires of their opponent's cars on election day 2004 to hinder them from getting to the polls?
The only thing that makes me angrier than the corruption is the hypocrisy of denouncing the other guys for it - I'm about ready to vote for Michael Savage - at least he slams them all without partisan prejudice.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 09:10 AM — (Reply)
Just a hypothetical question for you... and forgive me if it sounds like I'm putting you on the spot. It's more along the lines of stuff I've been debating within myself.
Some anomalies not withstanding (like Jesse Ventura in '98- Yes, I voted for him!), this is a two-party system. Take whatever race you like, and let's say you're given two options:
Candidate A is in line with you on most important positions. Pro-choice, moral values, yada-yada-yada... but you know, or at least have good reason to believe, that he's a typical money-sucking political whore. Not a bad person, mind you. Just indicative of what is typical for Washington.
Candidate B is of the other party. Opposed to you on many of the important issues, whatever those are. But from what you've learned of the person, upright, honest, says what they mean and means what they say... generally a person of their word (as much as is possible in politics).
Would you vote for A, B, someone else, or just not vote??
Is ideology more important than character, in otherwords?
Comment by Just hypothetical— 2006/05/31 @ 09:27 AM — (Reply)
But if you are asking whether I'd cross party lines for a candidate - yes. For example, until very recently, I have had a little political love affair with Evan Bayh (D-Ind). And there is a group called Democrats for Life that I hold in high regard on that issue.
I am from North Carolina (though not there now) and in my home state we tend to be very moderate politically (socially conservative). Typically the state votes GOP federally and DNC within the state. And I have done that myself on numerous occasions.
One of my favorite governors was a Dem for whom I voted. HOWEVER, in order to gain power, the national party has sold it's soul on some issues that are more important than money.
To quote my mother "I'll take a thief over a liar any day because at least with a thief, you know what he is."
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 10:47 AM — (Reply)
Oh dang... then I'm doomed!
Comment by him— 2006/05/31 @ 11:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 10:32 AM — (Reply)
Butt away... I'm genuinely curious.
My own history has been that I can't vote for someone who I wouldn't want to shake hands with personally.
I haven't yet actually crossed the political line, but that's only because the other side doesn't put up candidates I'd trust any better. If I can't sincerely vote for someone on my own side of things, and the other side doesn't look any more honest of a joe, I'll jump off and find a third-party candidate to support.
Comment by Hypo (or is it hyper?)— 2006/05/31 @ 10:59 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 11:09 AM — (Reply)
I hate to use this example but it really fits - North Carolinians constantly voted for Jesse Helms who never really did anything but say "No" the whole time he was in Washington. The reason: we always knew where he stood - you could take him at face value.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 11:18 AM — (Reply)
I don't think you can reasonably expect any human being to satisfy all of your political/cultural aims. Politics is more like an art than a science - it's balancing and prioritizing and then voting where you think the most good will come. The more the left caters to the extreme libertarians, the more votes they will lose in the middle.
No matter how they paint republicans as thieves or powering warmongers, people are less frightened by an imperialist dictator than a politician who panders to men wearing dresses who march holding signs that say "We want your sons."
Constitutional safeguards allow us to impeach a president but they can't stem the cultural tide of loose morality that is increasingly endorsed by the left. In short, we can remove power-hungry men but we can't contain rampant social decay once it receives government endorsement.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 11:14 AM — (Reply)
I know you'll be shocked, but I don't feel that the cultural tide of loose morality is exclusive to the left. Does the word Enron mean anything?
There is plenty of blame to spread around, and I'm not sure which is worse: two men making out, or two men cooking the books and stealing millions. I do know that a whole generation of people have been brought up with the notion that if it makes money and you don't get caught, it's good.
Comment by — 2006/05/31 @ 11:47 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 11:54 AM — (Reply)
You make a good point, businessmen aren't necessariy socially conservative, though the two have both hitched there wagon to the Republican ticket in recent years. The "right" and the "left" are broad labels that cover a range of topics, and correspondingly a range of what can be seen as moral issues.
Y'all have probably seen it, but out on the Net there is the World's Smallest Political Quiz that refines "right" and "left" into a 2-dimensional scale, with the axes being personal liberties and economic liberties.
Elsewhere in this blog was a post about an aburd political party in the Netherlands that wants to advocate/legalize pedophilia. I imagine this would be considered the slippery slope that permissive permissive liberties might lead to.
For a correlating example, here is an author who seems to advocate striking down child-labor laws. Why shouldn't children be able to work, the author argues. This might be the slippery slope that permissive economic liberties lead to.
We may agree that taking individual liberty TOO far can lead to an immoral condition, but I hope we can also agree that taking economic liberty TOO far can lead to immorality as well. Of a different nature, admittedly, but no less damaging to a healthy society.
Is that a little more clear?
Comment by Michael— 2006/05/31 @ 12:43 PM — (Reply)
Michael, I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be regulation/legislation to protect individuals WRT the unscrupulous and power/money hungry.
I think if the 'left' had stuck to issues like that they'd be running the country.
There are corrupt on all sides, no doubt. Here's a difference that I see and you correct me with examples ripped from the headlines if you see differently. Generally speaking there is large amount of policing on the right end of the spectrum. Enron - made liberals AND conservatives angry. On the right, we eat our own when they lie, cheat and steal - social conservatives are the most outspoken critics of the GOP when there are ethical issues. Look at the religious right (Robertson, for example) - they've crucified the republicans on any number of issues where there has been ethical wrongdoing.
Contrast that with virtually the entire decade of the 90s. When newspapers, and tv news showed ran daily reports to convince us that everybody lies. From my limited view, I don't see a lot of self-policing on the left. I see rationalizations and acceptance in the name of "tolerance". The DNC seems to have adopted a "no-fault" policy (as in no-fault divorce). How can you self-police when you embrace "situational ethics"?
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 02:38 PM — (Reply)
Boy, if I'm going to keep posting, I really ought go start a blog up of my own, shouldn't I? Really, this is the first place I've ever felt compelled to write, and I'm sorry if I'm monopolizing your board...
On your first point, it's my limited view that Robertson, et al, are quicker to crucify Dems, and more likely to cut Reps slack. However, since you challenged me to cite examples and I haven't the time to dig some up, that's going to have to remain an unjustified opinion.
What I will agree with is your second point, that the DNC lost a heck of a lot of its moral compass. I actually put that back to the Reagan Revolution, which caught Dems totally off-guard. Instead of culling together to find a central core set of beliefs, the DNC fell into an amoral morass. Not im-moral... but definitely lacking a strong compass. The answer to "Why am I a Democrat?" became less about national goals, and more about protecting personal interests. "Moral" became as scary (if not more) to Dems as "liberal" was to Reps.
In my opinion, Gore's single biggest mistake was not to call out Clinton when the whole Lewinsky thing blew up. A principled man would have called for the President to resign, regardless of party affiliation. Approach him privately first, out of respect for the man and the office. Then, if it were clear the man would suffer the embarassment of impeachment, Gore should have resigned the vice-presidency himself and then called out Clinton.
In case it's not obvious, I'm a Dem, and a liberal. Yes, I think the case against Clinton was overblown and total partisan bs. That doesn't matter in my eyes. He lied under oath. He embarassed the office of the Presidency. He should have resigned. Honor seems an outdated concept among politicians.
How did I get off on this subject??? LOL Let's see... right self-policing: don't quite agree, left self-policing: totally agree, Clinton: slimy jerk without honor... hm, must be late. I can't even thread together where I was going.
Okay, gotta run. Take care!
Comment by Michael— 2006/05/31 @ 03:44 PM — (Reply)
Okay this is me butting in also....I agree with Cate on the matter of the choosing. With a thief, you can hide or take away the money, but with the moral issues, it's pretty darn hard to change a persons mind once they have made it up.
Comment by Verity— 2006/05/31 @ 11:48 AM — (Reply)
(that should read 'permissive individual liberties', sorry)
Comment by — 2006/05/31 @ 01:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 03:26 PM — (Reply)