PDA

View Full Version : "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw...."


Mr. Kotter
05-30-2006, 11:03 AM
:shake:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/30/reid.ethics.ap/index.html

Senate's top Democrat took free boxing tickets

Experts say Reid pushed ethics envelope


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who has criticized Republican ethics, accepted free ringside tickets to three professional boxing matches from Nevada officials who were trying to influence his federal legislation regulating the sport.The Nevada senator took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission as he pressed legislation to increase federal oversight of boxing, including the creation of a government commission.Reid defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the boxing bill and that he 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."I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts -- particularly on multiple occasions -- when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions."Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence or elicit favorable official action," the Senate ethics manual states. It cites the 1990s example of an Oregon lawmaker who took gifts for personal use from a South Carolina state university and its president while that school was trying to influence his official actions."Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided," the manual says.Several ethics experts said Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts.<A target=_blank name=1>

<A target=_blank name=rv5>Other senators take different approach

Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, insisted on paying $1,400 for his ticket when he joined Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but 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.In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid broadly defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him."I'm not goody-two-shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.<A target=_blank name=2>

<A target=_blank name=rv4>Donations from tribes

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff's partners, firm and clients.Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fundraiser as a single event. "I think it all was one, the way I look at it," he said.One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.Five days earlier, Reid met with Ayoob and the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Reid's office said the senator never acted on those requests.A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

<A target=_blank name=3><A target=_blank name=rv3>Reid supports Abramoff clients

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations.Reid said he never would change his position because of donations, free tickets or a request from a former-staffer-turned-lobbyist."People who deal with me and have over the years know that I am an advocate for what I believe in. I always try to do it fair, never take advantage of people on purpose," he said.Asked if he would have done anything differently, the Senate Democratic leader said his only concern was "the willingness of the press ... to take these instances and try to make a big deal out of them."Several ethics experts said they believed Reid should have paid for the boxing tickets to avoid violating Senate ethics rules.

<A target=_blank name=4><A target=_blank name=rv2>Expert: Reid takes 'huge risk'

Bernadette Sargeant, a former House ethics lawyer, said the Senate would have to examine the specific facts to determine whether Reid violated the gift ban. She said the clearer ethics issue involved Reid's obligation to avoid the appearance that the free tickets and his official duties were connected."From what you are describing, it is such a huge risk that a reasonable person with all the relevant facts would say this creates the appearance of impropriety," she said. "The more cautious thing, the more prudent thing would be to either pay the tickets or fair market value or not accept the tickets in the first place."Attorney Marc Elias, who has represented Democrats in ethics cases and was asked by Reid's office to call the AP, said he believed Reid should not be penalized for trying to help his state. "There are varying degrees of gift givers," Elias said. "There is a difference between a gift from a state entity and a gift from a savings and loan."Marc Ratner, executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission when Reid took the free tickets, said one of his desires was to convince Reid and McCain that there was no need for the federal government to usurp the state commission's authority. At the time, McCain and Reid were pushing legislation to create a federal boxing commission."I am a states rights activist and I didn't want any federal bill that would take away our state rights to regulate fights," Ratner said, adding that he hoped McCain and Reid, at the very least, would be persuaded to model any federal commission after Nevada's body.Reid said he remembered talking to Ratner briefly at the fights and knew Ratner was working with his Senate staff on the federal legislation. The legislation ultimately failed to pass in Congress.McCain's office said the Arizona senator felt an obligation to pay for the ringside tickets he got from the Nevada commission to attend the Oscar De La Hoya-Bernard Hopkins championship match in September 2004."Senator McCain has always paid for his own tickets to boxing matches and sees no reason to change that," aide Mark Salter said.<A target=_blank name=5>

<A target=_blank name=rv1>Ensign removes self from legislation

Ensign's office said he attended one fight in the last couple of years with Reid and accepted the free tickets from the commission. But his office said Ensign already had removed himself from the boxing legislation that would have affected the Nevada commission.Kathleen Clark, a Washington University of St. Louis congressional ethics expert, said Congress should re-examine the exemption allowing gifts by state and federal and local governments because they too can have interest in influencing federal lawmakers like Reid."I think he would want to be above approach even when it's from a state commission and not a private lobbyist," Clark said. "I don't think we should make any assumption about a government. The fact is government agencies can act as proxies for different interests. Here it happens to be the Nevada boxing commission, and I would guess it is aligned with certain industry groups."Copyright 2006 The Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP). All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

HC_Chief
05-30-2006, 11:39 AM
Corrupt, hypocritical politicians?!


Noooooooooo, say it ain't so!!!!!! :(

penchief
05-30-2006, 11:43 AM
I'm not comfortable with Reid. For some reason I never have been. I liked Daschle better. That is, until his shredding by the republican "He's a shtibag" slime machine. I think the democrats definitely need some new bolder leadership.

WoodDraw
05-30-2006, 11:54 AM
That's disappointing. Voters throwing out the whole bunch wouldn't be the worst thing at this point.

HC_Chief
05-30-2006, 11:54 AM
I'm not comfortable with Reid. For some reason I never have been. I liked Daschle better. That is, until his shredding by the republican "He's a shtibag" slime machine. I think the democrats definitely need some new bolder leadership.

lol, that's right, Daschel wasn't <i>really</i> a pandering shitloaf... it was a VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!!


ROFL

jAZ
05-30-2006, 12:18 PM
I was waiting for Kotter to be foolish enough to post this. I would wait for the media is sooo liberal comment too, but...

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

AP: Reid Arguably Not Beyond Reproach
By Paul Kiel - May 30, 2006, 12:25 AM

If at first you don't succeed...

Back in February, the AP's John Solomon ran a lengthy piece detailing alleged contacts between Jack Abramoff's team at Greenberg Traurig and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). As Josh pointed out, although the article concentrated on the fact that Team Abramoff was lobbying Reid on behalf of sweatshop owners in the Northern Marianas, Solomon failed to note that Reid actually voted against the legislation Abramoff was pushing.

Well, Solomon has written a new piece purporting to illustrate still more of Reid's ethical improprieties. He's managed to actually make a weaker case than in his last story.

Here's the central allegation:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

That sounds pretty bad.

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.

But it would still seem pretty bad if Reid had accepted the tickets and then stumped shamelessly for the commission.

Only, he didn't. As was the case with Abramoff and the Marianas, Reid voted against the peddler's interest. As Solomon admits in the piece, Reid was advocating "the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority." Reid never changed his position. And this was a dramatically uncontroversial piece of legislation largely preoccupied with ensuring the safety of boxers by creating the United States Boxing Administration. It passed the Senate unanimously.

Now, Solomon puts all these facts in his piece. So he's not covering up a key piece of information like he did last time. He seems to realize that he doesn't have any real story. So Solomon argues that Reid, out of an abundance of caution, should have paid for the tickets to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

To justify this stance, the piece launches into a nuanced dissection of the ethics rules that I will not resurrect here. The upshot is that Reid is guilty of not interpreting the ethics rules in the most restrictive manner possible. Solomon is unsurprisingly able to marshall three (which he describes in the piece as "several") ethics experts to back him on this. Well, actually I should say two, since one of them only goes so far as to recommend that the rule exempting gifts from governmental agencies should be changed.

Solomon's foil for Reid's alleged ethical shortcoming is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who "insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight." He's the hero of Solomon's piece, the one who went the extra distance to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety. That's commendable, but it's by no means apparent that it was a step McCain was obligated to take. I for one can't muster up even a puff of indigation over the fact that a former boxer and boxing judge, former head of the Nevada Gaming Commission, and current Senator from Nevada accepted free tickets to boxing matches in Las Vegas.

Solomon is so dead-set on illustrating bipartisan parity on corruption that he's blind to the weakness of the arguments he's making. If this is the best that he can come up with after several months, I have to say that Reid seems remarkably incorruptible.

penchief
05-30-2006, 12:19 PM
lol, that's right, Daschel wasn't <i>really</i> a pandering shitloaf... it was a VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!!


ROFL

He was targeted as someone to defeat by the White House because he was "obstructing" their "mainstream" agenda.

HC_Chief
05-30-2006, 12:24 PM
He was targeted as someone to defeat by the White House because he was "obstructing" their "mainstream" agenda.

He was voted out of office because he had a POLICY of obstructionism.

and he was a pandering shitloaf.

penchief
05-30-2006, 12:32 PM
He was voted out of office because he had a POLICY of obstructionism.

and he was a pandering shitloaf.

I don't think his POLICY was obstruction. I think he stood up to the administration's policies which were clearly not good for this country. I give him credit for trying to prevent the damage this administration has inflicted on this country. He may have been one of the few that stood up for what he really believed. And the administration did target him for defeat. We all know Cheneyburton has a pattern of going after it's critics.

Cochise
05-30-2006, 01:23 PM
Accepting freebies from special interests - how surprising.

jAZ
05-30-2006, 01:32 PM
Accepting freebies from special interests - how surprising.
Did you fail to read the *and voting against them anyway* part???? Or do you not care that taking a freebie and voting against them <> corruption, no matter how selective your reading is.

jAZ
05-30-2006, 02:21 PM
Did you fail to read the *and voting against them anyway* part????
Oh, this might explain it.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000779.php

CNN Juices AP's Story on Reid
By Paul Kiel - May 30, 2006, 1:16 PM

Last night, I pointed out the shortcomings of John Solomon's piece on Sen. Harry Reid (R-NV). Despite all that, I have to give Solomon a little credit for at least acknowledging in the second paragraph of his piece a key countervailing fact - that Reid was pushing and ultimately voted for a position counter to what the Nevada Athletic Commission wanted.

But this was apparently too even-handed for CNN.

Here's the second paragraph from the longer version of Solomon's story that ran off the wire:

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. (emphasis mine)

And here's the version of that paragraph as edited by CNN:

The Nevada senator took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission as he pressed legislation to increase federal oversight of boxing, including the creation of a government commission.
Do you see what's missing? The fact that Reid voted against the party he was allegedly influenced by apparently isn't worthy of mention.

Thanks to TPMm Reader G for the tip.

jiveturkey
05-30-2006, 02:31 PM
Did you fail to read the *and voting against them anyway* part???? Or do you not care that taking a freebie and voting against them <> corruption, no matter how selective your reading is.So does this mean that I can make use of free hookers as long as I vote agains the legalization of prostitution?
:hmmm:

jAZ
05-30-2006, 02:41 PM
So does this mean that I can make use of free hookers as long as I vote agains the legalization of prostitution?
:hmmm:
Only slightly different as long as boxing remains *legal* and gifts from government agencies remain *within the senate rules*.

But if boxing is ever outlawed, the bigger problem will be dealing with BIG DADDY's wrath.

jspchief
05-30-2006, 02:48 PM
So does this mean that I can make use of free hookers as long as I vote agains the legalization of prostitution?
:hmmm:While I think you use a bad example, I think I agree with what you're getting at.

I don't like the idea of politicians receiving bribes or schwag, regardless of how they proceed to vote on the issue. What's to say Reid didn't vote no simply because the pay-off wasn't big enough? Or because some other outside group paid more to get a no vote? (not claiming that's the case, just offering a hypothetical.)

I think there's an argument that it's tough to determine what might constitute a bribe. I don't think that the politician's vote neccessarily is the determining factor, regardless of which way he votes.

jiveturkey
05-30-2006, 02:58 PM
I was only kidding.

I agree that taking free shit is wrong regardless of the outcome. The penality would of course be less than that of someone that did make use of free hookers.

banyon
05-30-2006, 02:59 PM
So, the Senator who represents Las Vegas and formerly worked for the gaming Commission is corrupt?

go figure...

http://www.johnderosa.com/films_images/geary_hooker.jpg

jAZ
05-30-2006, 03:10 PM
I was only kidding.

I agree that taking free shit is wrong regardless of the outcome. The penality would of course be less than that of someone that did make use of free hookers.
I think there are clear violations and then there are things like this that might rightly be considered part of the job. He does represent the boxing capital of the world. It's a legitmate business issue in his constiutency.

The CNN's and Kotter's of the world do little but neuter themselves when the cry foul over perfectly legal, perfectly ethical, completely uncorrupt actions like this and obfuscate attention away from guys like Tom DeLay and the GOP who not only break house ethics rules, but also break the law and then change the ethics rules to permit indicted criminals like DeLay to remain speaker of the house.

Trying to draw Dems into this "culture of corruption" as a way to defend the GOP's total corruption does little more than neuter guys like Kotter and anti-liberal media outlets like CNN and the rest.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2006, 03:27 PM
Did you fail to read the *and voting against them anyway* part???? Or do you not care that taking a freebie and voting against them <> corruption, no matter how selective your reading is.

So it's only corruption, if you vote the way they wanted you to vote.... :spock:

Heh. ROFL

jAZ
05-30-2006, 03:32 PM
So it's only corruption, if you vote the way they wanted you to vote.... :spock:

Heh. ROFL
Ummm... yeah, in fact by definition that's exactly the case.

http://www.answers.com/corruption&r=67

"political corruption--the betrayal of an office or duty for some consideration"

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2006, 03:40 PM
Ummm... yeah, in fact by definition that's exactly the case.

http://www.answers.com/corruption&r=67

"political corruption--the betrayal of an office or duty for some consideration"And actual "votes" on legislation are the only 'consideration' politicians can make on behalf of constituents who've given them something....? :spock:

Uh-huh.....ROFL

jAZ
05-30-2006, 03:43 PM
And actual "votes" on legislation are the only 'consideration' politicians can make on behalf of constituents who've given them something....? :spock:

Uh-huh.....ROFL
What are you saying that he did in return again? I missed your allegation I guess. It wasn't included in any article you've posted so far (that I could tell).

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2006, 03:54 PM
What are you saying that he did in return again? I missed your allegation I guess. It wasn't included in any article you've posted so far (that I could tell).

Yeah, jAZ. I'm sure he did absolutely nothing.....heh. ROFL

jAZ
05-30-2006, 04:00 PM
Yeah, jAZ. I'm sure he did absolutely nothing.....heh. ROFL
Do you ever get tired of completely embarassing yourself like this?

the Talking Can
05-30-2006, 04:12 PM
so...Reid legally accepts 3 tickets to a boxing match, and votes against the interests of the provider anyways....and this, according to Kotter, is equal to Republican Duke Cunningham accepting 2.4 million in bribes, or the numerous Republicans who accepted cash and trips from Abramoff in return for giving him their votes....or Tom Delay...or Bill Frist, under investigation..etc...

no wonder this place is empty...with posts this stupid and dishonest....where was Kotter's thread about Duke Cunningham?


neither Kotter or Patteeu have visited reality in a very, very long time...

BucEyedPea
05-30-2006, 04:28 PM
Imo, the reason corruption appears Republican right now, is because they're in power. There were such episodes when the Dems controlled the congress ( check bouncing scandal was mostly Dems, Rostenowski etc) There were other scandals, besides Monica, in the WH. All it proves is that power corrupts, both parties have issues with ethics and is another reason to reduce the size of govt...because of the type of people that get attracted to public office.

jAZ
05-30-2006, 04:35 PM
Imo, the reason corruption appears Republican right now, is because they're in power. There were such episodes when the Dems controlled the congress ( check bouncing scandal was mostly Dems, Rostenowski etc) There were other scandals, besides Monica, in the WH. All it proves is that power corrupts, both parties have issues with ethics and is another reason to reduce the size of govt...because of the type of people that get attracted to public office.
Ding, ding, ding!!!

Folks, we have a winner.

:thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
05-30-2006, 04:55 PM
Imo, the reason corruption appears Republican right now, is because they're in power. There were such episodes when the Dems controlled the congress ( check bouncing scandal was mostly Dems, Rostenowski etc) There were other scandals, besides Monica, in the WH. All it proves is that power corrupts, both parties have issues with ethics and is another reason to reduce the size of govt...because of the type of people that get attracted to public office.

Yup. Good post. I DO find it hilarious though that the Dems will go all out to defend scumbags like Jefferson even when they are caught redhanded.

Well I'm movin on uuuup (movin on up)
To theeeee tooooooop (movin on up)
I finally got a piece of the piiii iii iiie ROFL

banyon
05-30-2006, 05:10 PM
Yup. Good post. I DO find it hilarious though that the Dems will go all out to defend scumbags like Jefferson even when they are caught redhanded.



What Dems are doing this? I sure haven't seen it.

the Talking Can
05-30-2006, 08:16 PM
Yup. Good post. I DO find it hilarious though that the Dems will go all out to defend scumbags like Jefferson even when they are caught redhanded.

Well I'm movin on uuuup (movin on up)
To theeeee tooooooop (movin on up)
I finally got a piece of the piiii iii iiie ROFL

uh...Dennis Hastert - Republican - was first to Jefferson's defense....


unlike Delay/Rove, you don't see people on this board lining up to defend criminals....

jAZ
05-30-2006, 10:05 PM
What Dems are doing this? I sure haven't seen it.
None. He's just content to be a complete farging liar.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2006, 10:35 PM
so...Reid legally accepts 3 tickets to a boxing match, and votes against the interests of the provider anyways....and this, according to Kotter, is equal to Republican Duke Cunningham accepting 2.4 million in bribes, or the numerous Republicans who accepted cash and trips from Abramoff in return for giving him their votes....or Tom Delay...or Bill Frist, under investigation..etc...

no wonder this place is empty...with posts this stupid and dishonest....where was Kotter's thread about Duke Cunningham?


neither Kotter or Patteeu have visited reality in a very, very long time...Have I ever claimed this was equal to Cunningham's idioacy? Or anything involving Abramhoff or Delay for that matter?

NO, I HAVE NOT.

Have I, in this space, disparaged and joined in the Delay bashing on more than one occasion?

Yes, I have.

Where is my thread about Cunningham? jAZZ orgasmed all over himself posting it, so I thought a 'repost' or "me too" thread or post would have been pointless.....:rolleyes:

FTR, dickweed....I posted the first crucifixion of Lay and Skilling. :harumph:

Reality? You and jIZZ ought to visit it once in awhile; it would be a sage reprieve from you are on-your-knees position in front of the "current" democratic leadership position you assume......:)

Piss off, dick wipe......

Velvet_Jones
05-31-2006, 09:15 AM
He was targeted as someone to defeat by the White House because he was "obstructing" their "mainstream" agenda.
Are you saying he was not an obstructionist?

jAZ
05-31-2006, 09:19 AM
Are you saying he was not an obstructionist?
What does that mean explicitly and what are you hoping to suggest implicitly? There's obviously more to your point that "one who has ever obstructed". If so, we are all most certainly "obstructionists".

So what's your point?

Velvet_Jones
05-31-2006, 09:19 AM
I don't think his POLICY was obstruction. I think he stood up to the administration's policies which were clearly not good for this country. I give him credit for trying to prevent the damage this administration has inflicted on this country. He may have been one of the few that stood up for what he really believed. And the administration did target him for defeat. We all know Cheneyburton has a pattern of going after it's critics.
You have got to be kidding me. What is wrong with discrediting your critics? Other administrations have used the FBI and IRS to do this. “Cheneyburton” used his words and actions against him. That is why he is now a lobbyist, not a Senator. Your hypocrisy is showing, better zip up.

Velvet_Jones
05-31-2006, 09:36 AM
What does that mean explicitly and what are you hoping to suggest implicitly? There's obviously more to your point that "one who has ever obstructed". If so, we are all most certainly "obstructionists".

So what's your point?
My point is that, with little exception, all he did was obstruct judicial nominations. He was got what was coming to him. With the exception of passing legislation to clean up debris to prevent forest fires in the Black Hills (which was needed), all he did was obstruct. The other thing he did was protect his wife, whom worked for the FAA, and then as a lobbyist to secure get huge deals for Boeing and other ancillary aviation manufactures.

If you are truly the idiot that I know you are then you will defend him as a man of the people. In reality, what you will prove is he is a crook and you are still an idiot.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 10:04 AM
My point is that, with little exception, all he did was obstruct judicial nominations.
Should he find ways to get judges his doesn't support elected faster?

Cochise
05-31-2006, 10:09 AM
ROFL

Velvet_Jones
05-31-2006, 10:50 AM
Should he find ways to get judges his doesn't support elected faster?
jIZ, you truly are an idiot. There is a difference between opposing a judge and not allowing the process to move forward. You have a knack of forgetting history. To bad for Daschle that the voters didn’t have this type of amnesia. It’s funny that the sub-headline reads, “Experts say Reid pushed ethics envelope”. Wonder if a Republican or Independent would get this slant?

jAZ
05-31-2006, 11:04 AM
jIZ, you truly are an idiot. There is a difference between opposing a judge and not allowing the process to move forward. You have a knack of forgetting history.
No there's not. You are blathering back GOP rhetoric as if that somehow makes it fact. Filabuster is widely held political maneuver that Republicans decided they hated once they got into power. But loved when they were out of power. Is it "obstruction"? Certainly, much like speeding up when someone tries to pass you on the highway is. I'm guessing you might well be an obstructionist yourself.

But none of that makes your instults more clever or your opinions more meaningful. In fact, it just goes to show how little independant thought you appear capable of. And how little history your GOP owners have programmed you with (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N18/filibuster.18w.html).

jAZ
05-31-2006, 11:06 AM
And how little history your GOP owners have programmed you with (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N18/filibuster.18w.html).
Whatever you do Velvet_Painting, don't google Abe Fortas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html). Your brain will turn to mush.

Dave Lane
05-31-2006, 11:13 AM
Guys I think we libs are missing the point the point is that even though he could legally do this it gives the wrong impression and was a mistake on his part. The more liberal or at least center leaning people know that this has the appearance of impropiety and therefore should have been avoided.

No laws were broken and certainly I'm not surprised by something like this but I would like to see "enlightened" congressmen and senators stay away from even the hint of this...

Dave

jiveturkey
05-31-2006, 11:15 AM
I've never understood being against obstructionism. If it prevented a bunch of abortion doctors from becoming judges would obstructionism be a good thing?

Regardless of who the minority party is I like that they still have some power.

jiveturkey
05-31-2006, 11:16 AM
Guys I think we libs are missing the point the point is that even though he could legally do this it gives the wrong impression and was a mistake on his part. The more liberal or at least center leaning people know that this has the appearance of impropiety and therefore should have been avoided.

No laws were broken and certainly I'm not surprised by something like this but I would like to see "enlightened" congressmen and senators stay away from even the hint of this...

DaveCouldn't have said it better myself.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 11:18 AM
Guys I think we libs are missing the point the point is that even though he could legally do this it gives the wrong impression and was a mistake on his part. The more liberal or at least center leaning people know that this has the appearance of impropiety and therefore should have been avoided.

No laws were broken and certainly I'm not surprised by something like this but I would like to see "enlightened" congressmen and senators stay away from even the hint of this...

Dave
I actually think we aren't missing the point. AND I think that your point here is completely correct at the same time.

Let's just say that Kotter and the rest of the GOP aren't pointing this out as merely bad politics. They are trying to imply that this is an example of Democratic corruption.

That it is not.

But as you point out, taking free tickets like this puts a target on the backs, which is all the Republicans like Kotter are looking for... an easy target to deflect criticism away from his party.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 11:20 AM
I've never understood being against obstructionism. If it prevented a bunch of abortion doctors from becoming judges would obstructionism be a good thing?

Regardless of who the minority party is I like that they still have some power.
It's bad when you are brainwashed and your leaders tell you it's bad.

Cochise
05-31-2006, 11:51 AM
Guys I think we libs are missing the point the point is that even though he could legally do this it gives the wrong impression and was a mistake on his part. The more liberal or at least center leaning people know that this has the appearance of impropiety and therefore should have been avoided.

Right, I am entertained by the story merely because you have one side that is always demonizing their opponents as being beholden to influence from 'special interests', and here is their leader accepting freebies from special interests.

Can you spin it any other way? He took freebies from a special interest. The only thing it can maybe spun to is an "everybody does it" angle, which, clearly not everybody does because McCain insisted on paying for his ticket and the other guy took the tickets, but recused himself from voting on the topic.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 12:28 PM
Right, I am entertained by the story merely because you have one side that is always demonizing their opponents as being beholden to influence from 'special interests', and here is their leader accepting freebies from special interests.
Nice way to avoid actually mentioning the key word: corruption. It's not like free tickets moved Reid to become beholden to the Nevada Gaming Commission. He voted against their interest, for gods sakes!

If the GOP wants to make hay about corrupt Dems, they need to talk about William Jefferson. That guy is going to prison for selling his votes to the highest bidder.

This story is a complete joke, and the promotion of this one goes a lot further to show how desperate the GOP has become than it does to show the Dems as being corrupt like the GOP.

Radar Chief
05-31-2006, 01:10 PM
Nice way to avoid actually mentioning the key word: corruption. It's not like free tickets moved Reid to become beholden to the Nevada Gaming Commission. He voted against their interest, for gods sakes!

If the GOP wants to make hay about corrupt Dems, they need to talk about William Jefferson. That guy is going to prison for selling his votes to the highest bidder.

This story is a complete joke, and the promotion of this one goes a lot further to show how desperate the GOP has become than it does to show the Dems as being corrupt like the GOP.

Nice way of deflect’n completely away from’is point.
And that point, quite obviously, is if this were a republican you’d scream bloody murder.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 01:29 PM
... is if this were a republican you’d scream bloody murder.
Anyone doing so would be completely stupid and would be hurting their cause more than helping it.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 03:56 PM
While we all know what Kotter has become, I don't blame him for not knowing all the facts in this matter. It's pretty archaic stuff, no doubt.

Two interesting developments in this story...

1) John McCain (despite the best efforts of the liberal media to hide this fact) was also provided the same passes to the boxing events.

2) It would have been illegal for McCain or Reid to actually PAY for these passes, as the area he was allowed into is considered government property and you can't charge to enter a goverment office.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000788.php

Confirmed: Against the Law for Reid To Pay for Credential
By Paul Kiel - May 31, 2006, 3:46 PM

OK, so we've nailed this down. It would have been against state law for Harry Reid to have reimbursed the Nevada Athletic Commission for credentials.

Clearly, this is pretty far down in the weeds. But the AP actually got a pretty significant fact wrong. So let me run through the details.

Bob Arum, the boxing promoter who gave the credentials to Reid and Sen. John McCain, made that claim to The Las Vegas Review Journal. But I wanted to check up on that, so I called Keith Kizer, the Executive Director of the Nevada Athletic Commission. Kizer should know - he is a lawyer and former Chief Deputy Attorney General for the state of Nevada.

"It would be illegal," Kizer said, explaining that it fell under a state law prohibiting agencies or individuals for charging access to government property. The credentials provide access to the commission's area near the ring. "It would be like charging someone for access to a senator's office," Kizer added with no apparent sense of irony.

He went on to explain that credentials are given out to governmental officials and others in order to observe the commission's activity. Sometimes the credentials are provided in addition to tickets - sometimes officials sit in the commission's area.

Reid's office, meanwhile, confirmed that Reid received a credential, and not a ticket to the bout: "We know it for a fact that he had a credential.”

I have written to the AP asking whether they planned on issuing a correction and was promised a reply "this afternoon." In his piece, John Solomon referred to Reid having received (reimbursable) "tickets" to the fight.

the Talking Can
05-31-2006, 05:23 PM
While we all know what Kotter has become, I don't blame him for not knowing all the facts in this matter. It's pretty archaic stuff, no doubt.

Two interesting developments in this story...

1) John McCain (despite the best efforts of the liberal media to hide this fact) was also provided the same passes to the boxing events.

2) It would have been illegal for McCain or Reid to actually PAY for these passes, as the area he was allowed into is considered government property and you can't charge to enter a goverment office.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000788.php

Confirmed: Against the Law for Reid To Pay for Credential
By Paul Kiel - May 31, 2006, 3:46 PM

OK, so we've nailed this down. It would have been against state law for Harry Reid to have reimbursed the Nevada Athletic Commission for credentials.

Clearly, this is pretty far down in the weeds. But the AP actually got a pretty significant fact wrong. So let me run through the details.

Bob Arum, the boxing promoter who gave the credentials to Reid and Sen. John McCain, made that claim to The Las Vegas Review Journal. But I wanted to check up on that, so I called Keith Kizer, the Executive Director of the Nevada Athletic Commission. Kizer should know - he is a lawyer and former Chief Deputy Attorney General for the state of Nevada.

"It would be illegal," Kizer said, explaining that it fell under a state law prohibiting agencies or individuals for charging access to government property. The credentials provide access to the commission's area near the ring. "It would be like charging someone for access to a senator's office," Kizer added with no apparent sense of irony.

He went on to explain that credentials are given out to governmental officials and others in order to observe the commission's activity. Sometimes the credentials are provided in addition to tickets - sometimes officials sit in the commission's area.

Reid's office, meanwhile, confirmed that Reid received a credential, and not a ticket to the bout: "We know it for a fact that he had a credential.”

I have written to the AP asking whether they planned on issuing a correction and was promised a reply "this afternoon." In his piece, John Solomon referred to Reid having received (reimbursable) "tickets" to the fight.

you left out the best part:

"What's more, that same promoter says that in other cases where Reid and McCain received tickets that could be reimbursed, Reid paid."


this proof of two things: the liberal media conspiracy and Kotter's unfailing intelligence...only he could deduce that Reid doing nothing illegal was proof positive of Reid having done somthing illegal...something much worse than the plethora of Republican's under investigation

in fact, I think we can safely agree with Kotter that is irrefutable evidence of a Democratic Culture of Corruption...and worse, proof that Democrats Hate America and Want Osama to Win....it may also be proof that there Really Are WMDs In Iraq...

Here's to you Kotter...
:clap:

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 09:57 AM
I'm increasingly convinced that the Talking Can is an alias for another regular user.....maybe jAZ, or PittGorilla. Kind of a Dr. Jeckle-and-Mr.-Hyde kinda thing. The Can's really become a caricature of the old Can, which is really saying a lot. And of course, I would know..... :hmmm:

JMHO

Boozer
06-01-2006, 10:02 AM
I'm increasingly convinced that the Talking Can is an alias for another regular user.....maybe jAZ, or PittGorilla. Kind of a Dr. Jeckle-and-Mr.-Hyde kinda thing. The Can's really become a caricature of the old Can, which is really saying a lot. And of course, I would know..... :hmmm:

JMHO

Just like Taco John and Frazod? ROFL

I don't think your "spidey sense" is worth a bucket of spit.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 10:10 AM
Just like Taco John and Frazod? ROFL

I don't think your "spidey sense" is worth a bucket of spit.

Okay, ENDelt.

jAZ
06-01-2006, 10:17 AM
I'm increasingly convinced that the Talking Can is an alias for another regular user.....maybe jAZ, or PittGorilla. Kind of a Dr. Jeckle-and-Mr.-Hyde kinda thing. The Can's really become a caricature of the old Can, which is really saying a lot. And of course, I would know..... :hmmm:

JMHO
That right there folks is a classic mis-direction.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 10:22 AM
That right there folks is a classic mis-direction.

I notice you aren't denying it.

jAZ
06-01-2006, 11:30 AM
I notice you aren't denying it.
I find it bad practice to let people hijack threads at just the moment they are forced to face reality. Call me a party pooper.

Go start your own thread on the subject so you can ignore this one and I'll address it just like I did Lattimer's GNR post (which he too ignore (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141516)).

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 01:03 PM
I find it bad practice to let people hijack threads at just the moment they are forced to face reality. Call me a party pooper.

Go start your own thread on the subject so you can ignore this one and I'll address it just like I did Lattimer's GNR post (which he too ignore (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141516)).

Denial and diversion, the refuge of scoundrels. :)

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2006, 01:07 PM
I'm increasingly convinced that the Talking Can is an alias for another regular user.....maybe jAZ, or PittGorilla. Kind of a Dr. Jeckle-and-Mr.-Hyde kinda thing. The Can's really become a caricature of the old Can, which is really saying a lot. And of course, I would know..... :hmmm:

JMHOSorry, Kotter, but not everyone gets their kicks from "secret identity" games.

jAZ
06-01-2006, 01:08 PM
Denial and diversion, the refuge of scoundrels. :)
Wow, it's good to see you finally try to come clean. Now go take a real shower.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 01:12 PM
Wow, it's good to see you finally try to come clean. Now go take a real shower.

Add deflection to your resume'.....:)

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 01:13 PM
Sorry, Kotter, but not everyone gets their kicks from "secret identity" games.

I may be wrong, but I'd bet a six pack (what the hell, a twelve) that you have used other identities.....:)

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2006, 01:17 PM
I may be wrong, but I'd bet a six pack (what the hell, a twelve) that you have used other identities.....:)I like Boulevard Unfiltered Wheat.

Radar Chief
06-01-2006, 01:19 PM
I like Boulevard Unfiltered Wheat.

That’s a pansy drink.
Now Boulevard Pale Ale is for men. ;)