<p>Do tell us at last what your political persuasion is and put us out of our misery. :)</p>
<p>What’s so important about a political persuasion? Did I ever ask you about your religion, or whether you beat your wife? ;)</p>
<p>No, you haven’t (though you have insulted the religious beliefs of many here in the past, although I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean to, on a personal level).</p>
<p>So many of the discussions here happen to revolve around the meaning of the terms “liberal,” “conservative” etc. People are stereotyped very quickly according to their political “labels,” who they voted for in the last election, for example, or even by their television viewing habits (“faux news”) so I thought I’d try asking–maybe we could attempt to stereotype you. 
I didn’t think I’d get an answer, though. :)</p>
<p>Well we can hope Reid might use some of his Las Vegas-tainted gains to buy a clue or two. Thta woud be a nice change from his fixation to a Marshall plan for the 21st century. </p>
<p>What a wonderful leadership the dark side has to offer! Integrity and civility! :)</p>
<p>Yeah, Democrats have plenty of bad actors…in addition to some foolish policies. I guess I’ll have to stick with the people and crooks I know, as opposed to the people and crooks I don’t.</p>
<p>If Reid was a republican there would already have been countless calls for his resignation and it would dominate the news; nevertheless the dems dont want to stop talking up Foley even though he has already resigned…</p>
<p>The interesting thing is that Senator Reid apparently structured this transaction to appear like he was complying with disclosure rules but actually was concealing his relationship with others. </p>
<p>This is strictly prohibited behavior, as the rules are set up so that public officials cannot hide transactions and relationships - the public has a right to know with whom officials do business. An alternative would be to have placed the property in a blind trust, wherein the Senator would not know how the trustees managed his assets. He did not do this. </p>
<p>Why conceal this relationship? Then, when he gets caught, he says he’s been ‘transparent’…when obviously, he’s been anything but open.</p>
<p>Of course, on some levels this is better than cash in the freezer. Why isn’t that story (Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA) in the news?</p>
<p>The ironic thing (not, try hypocritical) is that Senator Reid has been most energetic in pointing out similar, or lesser, possible violations on the part of Republicans. Perhaps he should be ‘frog-marched’ out of the Senate?</p>
<p>I just heard that Reid now admits two additional land deals he did not disclose as required while a Senator from Nevada.</p>
<p>Guess he figured he was above the law. He is a Senator, after all, and a Democrat leader. </p>
<p>It’s completely ok for him to point to the Republicans and talk about the ‘culture of corruption’ as long as you don’t inspect his personal affairs too closely. What a double standard! :(</p>
<p>Anyhow, if Senator Reid should resign, Denny Hastert should have been in prison a long time ago.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062102210.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062102210.html</a></p>
<p>Maybe they should both resign. </p>
<p>I don’t care for the fact that lawmakers tend to become wealthier the longer they spend in Congress. I’ve always been suspicious of that and your article is another example - unfortunately. </p>
<p>No party politics here, it just stinks.</p>
<p>If you can’t see the difference between the two situations, I suggest you read again.</p>
<p>Man, pickins are tough these days for the conservative crowd…
</p>
<p>Pounce, pounce, pounce… moral outrage and scorn… Really.</p>
<p>Not alot of meat on those bones kids. But it’s OK to be outraged if it gets you through the night…it’s alright.</p>
<p>What Hastert did appears worse at this point. </p>
<p>This possible fact does not get Reid off the hook nor somehow justify his failure to disclose associations and transactions in which he made significant profits. The news is just beginning to come out. We’ll see where it goes.</p>
<p>I don’t know about you, but I don’t like any of it - be it Republican or Democrat based. From many of your recent postings you appear only to focus on the Republican aspect. For me, I don’t care what party is at fault. It needs to be addressed no matter what their party affiliation.</p>
<p>There’s some disturbing similarities: <a href=“http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJ8I00.html[/url]”>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJ8I00.html</a></p>
<p>Maybe I’m missing something here? What I’ve read says that Reid bought some property in his home state in 1998 and sold in in 2006 at a profit which appears to be about the same rate of increase in property value as the rest of the Las Vegas area. And he reported buying it, owning it, and selling it. The “scandal” apparently is based on the fact that the form of legal title to the property was changed to a limited liability partnership at some point in the process without changing Reid’s actual ownership share, and he didn’t report that. Since that has no bearing on any financial issue, I’m not clear on what I’m supposed to be outraged about. I’m as eager as the next guy to nail greedy politicians for underhanded conduct, but the authors of the article parent2noles cites to obviously lack any familiarity with routine real estate practices and are stretching like crazy to find a “man bites dog” story here. “Windfall?” By those standards pretty much anyone who invested in Las Vegas real estate in the late 1990’s should be investigated - they all got “windfalls”!</p>
<p>This is a quick view - from the WP:</p>
<p>The more unattractive case is that the senator’s inaccurate description of the investment was an effort to disguise his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer who’s never been charged with wrongdoing but whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s. As of now, the evidence points toward sloppiness; Mr. Reid’s friendship with Jay Brown isn’t exactly a secret in the state. But either way, an Associated Press report about Mr. Reid’s dealings doesn’t cast the senator in an attractive light. Neither does his response to the AP story, which indicates a casual disregard for the importance of accurate reporting of lawmakers’ financial affairs.</p>
<p>Of course, this was before the other two land deals he reportedly didn’t disclose surfaced.</p>
<p>What “other two land deals”? I’m not seeing anything but the Las Vegas property reported.</p>
<p>As to the Las Vegas transaction, I’m not seeing anything but sloppiness - and not particularly interesting sloppiness, either. Simply failing to report the change in the manner of holding title to property, while disclosing the fact of ownership, purchase and sale price at all relevant times, is in the “dot the 'i’s and cross the 't’s” range of “sloppiness”. </p>
<p>What I do see is more than sloppiness in the tortured attempts to report this as a matter of “corruption”. If it is, it’s not because of anything I’ve read about so far, which is a big fat nothing. But if there are other land deals that I’m unaware of that might be another story; I can’t comment until I hear what they were.</p>
<p>Apparently too Mr. Reid has handed out Christmas bonuses to employees of the D.C. Ritz-Carlton with his campaign cash which is a violation of Senate Rules. I know, I know, it’s just a little sloppiness. No big deal.</p>
<p>Relative to Denny Hastert’s feeding at the public trough, it IS no big deal.</p>
<p>Now, let me see: Harry Reid applied $3k in campaign funds that he raised himself and gave it out to hotel employees as a bonus.</p>
<p>House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.</p>
<p>Now let me see: $3,000 goes into $2,000,000…6, carried the 2, and then 6, and then…</p>
<p>Well, it’s not a big deal, but at least it’s a “deal”. Improper use of campaign funds - even a small amount which is used for non-corrupt purposes - is a violation of rules which actually have a substantive reason. I imagine it’s widespread, but it should be handled appropriately - which in this case would be a slap on the wrist and a small fine - because it’s not a “big” deal. I imagine lots of politicos are scrambling to make sure their disclosure forms are up to date and their campaing funds are appropriately segregated from other funds about now - which is a good thing. </p>
<p>I don’t know enough about the Hastert flap to form a firm opinion yet, but the outline is suspicious. Reid’s Las Vegas transaction, on the other hand, don’t look like anything but routine investment activity to me.</p>
<p>It is a possible pattern of disregard for the rules of the Senate.</p>
<p>From his own website: </p>
<p>Parade Magazine, the nations largest weekly magazine, identified Senator Reid as one of a handful of leaders in Washington with integrity and guts.</p>
<p>Where is the integrity in this matter? Why not just open it all up for public review and simply apologize? Why hang up on a reporter when asked about this?</p>
<p>Wow - a little publicity causes change: <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101600525.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101600525.html</a></p>
<p>Why accept gifts from those with pending legislation you can influence?
See: <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900913.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900913.html</a></p>