Democrats will continue to fight to change course in Iraq
|
|
| Also listed in: Featured Bloggers |
My colleagues here in the Senate, particularly my Republican colleagues, should know that this is precisely my attitude when it comes to bringing about a change of course in Iraq. Although I did not get everything I sought in the bill before us, I will not give up until the supporters of the President's failed policy accept the realities on the ground in Iraq. They accept that the President's plan is not working, that this war must come to an end and that it is time to for our troops to come home in a safe and responsible way.
Read More
As for the price of oil, a few years ago I figured that the price of oil would continue to go up under this administration, so I bought oil and refining stocks. That move has paid off. I also recently bought a hybrid, assisted in part by the federal tax credit. Plus I usually walk to work. I don’t know if the price of oil and gas will go higher, but I am prepared if it does.
One problem with merely closing the border is that it traps millions of Mexicans on this side of the border who would otherwise migrate back and forth during the year.
I find it hard to believe the oil friendly states like Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming, etc. have or would put up considerable barriers to refinery construction or drilling. Nor has the Bush administration done so, nor did the Congress, controlled by the GOP for quite a few years, nor has the new Congress done so. Even if they had, those restrictions would not prevent drilling or the construction of refineries elsewhere, e.g. the Caribbean, Mexico, or elsewhere in the world. Nor can it be argued that the big oil companies lack the capital to expand their refining capabilities. The truth is that we are running out of easily extracted oil both in the U.S. and in the world, while world demand from China and other emerging nations is growing. Oil has to remain high for years to call forth the new supplies. The industry is not in a big rush to build new refineries because that would ultimately lower their profit margins.
Harry, as you know, was first elected to the Senate in 1986 and was reelected in 1992, 1998 and 2004. In 2004, he won by 61%-35%. I accept the official election returns both for Senator Reid and for President Bush.
Link
Probably the number one misconception about immigration is that it harms our economy. In reality, conservative estimates put the net gain to the U.S. economy from current immigration at about $20 billion.
Link
As for refineries, refineries are more easily built in Louisiana than in Arizona, and more easily expanded than built from scratch.
Link
But even in Louisiana, where a Marathon Oil expansion permit was approved in less than a year [!], no completely new refinery has been built nor are there solid plans for one. Refining has not always been a lucrative investment. The difference between what refiners pay for a barrel of oil and how much they can sell the products for, known in the industry as "crack spreads," has tripled in the last 12 months.
Link
As for Indian gambling, it is in Nevada’s interest to block off-reservation gambling as a matter of competition. As early as 1988, Harry supported the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which generally prohibited Indian gaming on non-tribal lands. He proposed separate legislation in 1993 "prohibit[ing] states from opening gaming operations on off-reservation land" [AP, 5/28/93]. This is long before Abramoff got into that game. If there was anything illegal about this, you can bet that the Gonzales Political-Justice Department would have brought a case against Harry. Abramoff, a bully from his youth up, is a man who dedicated his life to attacking Democrats and liberals. It would be justice if all of his money and all the money of his clients (which is not the same thing as Indian tribes have a perfect and legal right to give funds to any candidate) were given, not to charity, but to the campaign funds of Democrats and liberals.
And yes, Nevada is becoming less red and more blue partly because people are moving in from California. Younger voters also tend to vote Democratic. It is only a matter of time before Nevada is firmly in the blue column.
Link
Your evidence of a scandal? Your credible sources? I see none of these in your post. This is just the continual smears and swiftboating launched against anyone who stands up to the Bush administration. If I were continually smeared, I wouldn’t ask “How high?” every time Karl Rove and company asked me to jump.
Do you really believe that the Gonzales Political-Justice Department wouldn’t leap at the chance to go after Harry if there was a serious legal case?
Do you really believe the House would be opening up more investigations on this if your party line was true?
Link
Do you trust Abramoff, a bully and a convicted felon who has dedicated his life to attacking Democrats, to tell the truth?
Do you really think the GOP is out of the woods on this?
Link
Did you know that the White House or the Republicans in general didn’t return its indirect Abramoff monies as you are asking Harry to do? Do you care about that? This link clarifies the point and takes a dig a both parties.
Link
Perhaps you should donate to a southern Nevada charity to clear your conscience after spreading at every opportunity misleading and malicious innuendos. You could spend an hour in a soup kitchen for every hour you spend on line attacking Harry. Maybe the United Farm Workers could help you find a charitable case among their members that would help you to be more sympathetic to your fellow human beings who keep produce on your table and who happen to speak Spanish.
“Any senator from Nevada should be against off-reservation Indian casinos as they are a threat the Nevada’s gaming/gambling industry.”
Have you ever even stepped foot in NV., let alone in Las Vegas??? Trust me those casinos on the strip are under NO threat from Indian gaming as evidenced by the continuous building and expansion of said casinos. Do you think that the government doesn’t have their hand in the pot of Indian gaming? Your pompous post is sadly misguided and off the reservation… Abramoff money is dirty period, and I don’t care if the recipient of the dirty money has a D or an R next to their name. The difference is that the R’s gave it to charity (or went to prison and the D’s (Hence the name mr gReid) kept it for themselves and ignore the pleas to give it away. Why does Harry care about a mere $68,000 when he “overlooked” and conveniently “forgot” about the hundreds of thousands of $$$$$$$’s when declaring his income??? Oh yea, that is something we all do! Especially after effectively using his influence over the city council in getting the zoning changed for his property before selling the land… Something else that we all do!
Here is a link to back up my evidence of multiple scandles…
Link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10 /11/AR2006101101640.html
Link
Smear tactics Leo???? I think not!
Link
http://www.newsmax.com/archive s/ic/2006/1/3/115231.shtml?s=e t
Link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06 /02/AR2005060202158_pf.html
Link
How many more links do you need me to post Leo? Your defense of the “Angelic” Harry gReid” doesn’t hold water…
Did I mention that Harry told MY son that the “President of the United States is a Loser”???? During School in an attempt at indoctrination??? Do you want GWB telling your children in school, during school, that Dems are losers??? I think not
“Maybe the United Farm Workers could help you find a charitable case among their members that would help you to be more sympathetic to your fellow human beings who keep produce on your table and who happen to speak Spanish.”
Maybe Harry should donate the $68,000 to this charity… Or better yet, maybe the “ILLEGAL” fellow human beings who’s first act in our country was to disrespect our laws and sovereignty should go home and let the United Farm Workers worry about finding some US citizens to do their dirty work. Maybe the Spanish speaking fellow human beings should go home and quit clogging up our hospitals, our emergency rooms, our healthcare system, our prisons, our streets, our insurance systems, our schools, etc… and quit giving Congress another reason to raise our taxes!
If you care so deeply about these Spanish Speaking fellow Illegal immigrant human beings, then DONATE your money to them, I’m sure they won’t complain…
Dear Harry, please step down and resign your post as you are a corrupt politician embarrassing your state and the good people of NV.
Clinton Happens!
Clinton Happens!
True, I live in a state bordering NV. But my daughter lives in NV, and I do visit NV. And as an out-of-stater I can tell you that the Indian casinos try diligently to convince the locals that they should gamble closer to home rather than driving to Nevada. The fact that casinos are still expanding in Nevada doesn’t prove that Indian casinos aren’t taking business away, because Indian casinos are growing, too. In any event, it is reasonable to take a stand to oppose competition to Nevada’s gaming/gambling industry. And Harry did so long before Abramoff began playing one tribe off against another.
But most importantly, until the current system is replaced by public financing of campaigns, I say all the R’s and all the D’s should keep all the Abramoff money, unless they took it as a bribe, broke the tax laws, or otherwise did something illegal. Just as they should keep the money they get from the NRA, the AMA, corporations, labor unions, etc. I never asked Bush to return the money he got from Abramoff or from his friends at Enron (even though some were found guilty of crimes) or from the oil companies or the pharmaceutical companies, etc., even though he has been doing their bidding. If Bush got donations from the Log Cabin Republicans Link or from James Dobson, I don’t care if he keeps it or returns it, as long as no laws were broken. I have been consistent on this. People should be punished for actual crimes, not for guilt by association. As Alan Alda said on West Wing playing Arnie Vinick (R-CA), if you can’t take their money and drink their liquor and then vote against them, you shouldn’t be in this game.
Link
“[Harry] has refused to return the money on the grounds that the contributions were legal and involved no wrongdoing on this part. Of course, Mr. Abramoff may say that his contributions garnered favors from Sen. Reid. The senator can say that the dance of bribery requires two to tango, and for his part Mr. Abramoff's contribution was not a payment for a favor. The senator can then ask the public whether they should believe him, or a man who has admitted to felonies in two jurisdictions.
Perhaps the politicians returning Mr. Abramoff's contributions are trying to avoid the appearance of corruption. Many argue that actions giving an appearance of corruption undermine public confidence in government, no doubt a bad thing. But returning the contributions hardly increases confidence in the integrity of the political process. It rather suggests wrongdoing.
Here again Sen. Reid has the better argument. Some people will believe his claim that he did nothing wrong in accepting the contributions related to Mr. Abramoff. Few people, if any, will believe that those returning the money have done nothing wrong. On balance, Sen. Reid's stand seems more likely to increase confidence in government.”
More later.
Of course, if you want to argue that all campaign donations should be made illegal, then that is yet another topic and one where the GOP has been most adamant to protect their right to receive political donations. Personally, I would like to see public campaign financing.
This brings me to the crux of your argument.
“My good friend robs a bank and gives me the money. Am I allowed to keep said money after my friend goes to prison for robbing a bank?”
Such a frame is misleading in two ways.
First, convicted felon Jack Abramoff has never been a “good friend” of liberals or Democrats, so the first part of your frame is misleading. From his college-days on, including his stint as College Republican National Chairman and continuing in numerous political organizations, he dedicated his life to attacking liberals and Democrats and supporting conservative Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Tom DeLay. Parenthetically, those conservative Republicans are not guilty of any crime or even moral offense by mere association, friendship, or even financial support if that support was legal.
But it is the second part of your frame that deserves our attention because it contains the great moral fallacy, political charade, and implied smear.
Being knowingly in receipt of stolen bank funds is a crime. The legal resolution is by a criminal case and the return of the money to the bank not to a charity. Giving the stolen money to charity would be morally wrong. If it was stolen it needs to be returned to the owners, not to charity. If I stole money from you and gave it to charity, would you consider that moral and legal? I think not. So giving the money to charity is a red herring and a frame designed to make Senator Reid look uncharitable. Yet when I suggested you give more to charity, you because quite defensive. I recommend a close reading of the sixth chapter of Matthew.
If Harry is in violation of 18 USC 2315 (receipt of stolen goods is a federal crime), then a criminal case should be brought. None has been brought because it would be laughed out of court. If the money is to be returned, it should not be given to charity, it should be returned to the Indian tribes who gave it. But they don’t want it back. They consider it a legitimate donation. The Indian tribes felt abused by Abramoff, but not by Senator Reid.
Accepting donations from Indian tribes is not only legal, it is entirely appropriate under current campaign finance law. Indian tribes gave $7.2 million in campaign finance donations in 2004, and you are obsessed with $61,000 Harry received, which was legally raised and publicly acknowledged and with no wrongdoing committed by the tribes or on Senator Reid’s part. Please show me the evidence that the tribes want the money back. Taking money from the tribes and then giving it to a Nevada charity would be a moral offense against the tribes because it would imply their guilt and impugn their right to make legitimate political donations. The tribes were victimized once by Abramoff, why continue to attack the right of the tribes to make legitimate donations or impugn their integrity?
Of course, Abramoff not only had contempt for Native Americans, GOP strategists also had contempt for their own base. Michael Scanlon, former press secretary to Congressman Tom Delay and top executive at Capitol Campaign Strategies, a public relations firm in Washington D.C. put it this way
"The whacko’s get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees. ... Simply put, we want to bring out the whacko’s to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."
Link
Of course the “whacko’s” (Scanlon’s word) can still be mobilized to attack relentlessly anyone who stands up to this administration: Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Wilson, etc. Once the “whacko’s” (again Scanlon’s word) can be mobilized, the intended victims are not just criticized, they are demonized and false and malicious charges are repeated endlessly and at every opportunity, no matter how off topic the issue may be. The decline in public discourse in this country may be traced to this mobilization. I am old enough to remember when the Republican party was the party of ideas and when Christian didn’t mean partisan politics. In any event, I don’t intend to let smears slip past unchallenged.
A list of those actually guilty of those crimes can be found on Wikipedia at
Link
All those listed are Republicans, when a political affiliation is listed, but that does not necessarily reflect on the GOP as a whole. Only the guilty should be punished, and to the GOP's credit, the Justice Department made these prosecutions.
Link
Other convicted Bush Pioneers include Ken Lay, Jack Abramaoff, and James Tobin. How much of their money was returned? Does LV know or even care? If the money allowed Bush to beat McCain or Gore, then even returning all of the money doesn’t compensate McCain or Gore. But if the donations were legal then returning them should hardly be a requirement. If, however, the money was a bribe, then a felony was committed and returning the money doesn’t erase the felony.
Brent Wilkes is another Bush Pioneer. He has been indicted. Of course, he should be considered innocent until proven guilty. He was indicted by U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, one of the attorneys the Bush administration fired. San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre has called Carol Lam the most outstanding U.S. attorney we've ever had. Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI office in San Diego called her firing a huge loss.
Link
But I have never brought the Bush Pioneer donations up against Bush, nor do I believe there is any evidence that he was corrupted by it. I don’t much care if he returns the money or not, unless it can be proven that he, Bush, did something illegal. I don’t believe Carol Lam’s firing was illegal, just bad judgment that sets a bad precedent. Whether Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress about the firings remains to be seen.
Wow Leo, pretty impressive lingo... In addition to those charges Harry should be charged with Fraud...
That would be US Code Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 63 § 1348 for his misleading the public about some shady land deals where his dealings as anonymous purchaser by proxy until zoning changes were lobbied using his name were implemented.
Link
Then there was the convenient forgetting to disclose the sale of that land and the income from that sale that was conveniently not reported in his congressional disclosure form.
Senate Ethics Rules Require Lawmakers To Disclose On Their Annual Ethics Report All Transactions Involving Investment Properties – Regardless Of Profit Or Loss – And To Report Any Ownership Stake In Companies.
I'm not a big time law professor like you so I don't know the "code lingo" for that one... Perhaps you can educate me....
Clinton Happens!
First, however, there is the corruption of thought. LV is an enabler of that by continually diverting all discussions to personal attacks. This thread is about ending or maintaining support for the war in Iraq. Rather than stay on topic, LV, as he typically does, perverts and diverts the discussion to personal attacks on Senator Reid, whose name he continually parodies. Old charges are brought up often without evidence regardless of the topic. It is, of course, legitimate to criticize Senator Reid, and Senator Reid is to be commended for being willing to have a site that allows such criticism, but if every discussions is so diverted then I would conclude that the war’s defenders have run out of arguments and can only fall back on ad hominem attacks. A war that can only be defended by ad hominem attacks is a very suspect war. This is part of the corruption of hyperpartisanship. It is a reasonable system that allows each party to defend their own and attack the other. But the civil dialog in this country will collapse under the continual name calling at every turn that characterizes not only this but many other political blogs. Typical from the right is to attack someone’s patriotism if they oppose the war. Typical is argument by repeated slogan (“cut and run”). Typical from the left is to assume an economic motive (‘war for oil”). Typical is to call someone an elitist or (horrors) an Eastern elitist. This strikes me as purely an appeal to popular prejudice. Typical is to assume a conspiracy (vast and rightwing). There are actual conspiracies in the world, but they need to be proven or documented, not just asserted.
Second, there is a corruption of the political process due to a lack of campaign finance reform, the concentration of media power, and excessive government secrecy. It is very difficult, however, to craft finance reform legislation that protects constitutional guarantees of free speech and the rights of the people, including a minority of the people, to challenge a government. That is why I favor checks and balances and oppose attacks on the press and the concentration of the media in a few corporate hands.
I believe the Arizona Clean Elections law is a step in the right direction.
Link
I believe the repeal of the fairness doctrine for the public airwaves was a step in the wrong direction.
Link
And the Freedom of Information Act is essential. More sunlight on government is essential.
But to return to original topic, if the war can only be defended by going off topic and making ad hominem attacks, then the case for the war has it bottom and the American people will continue to turn away from the war.
"There is, I believe, an actual culture of corruption. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives are equally vulnerable. No one party has a monopoly on corruption."
Wasn't it less than a year ago where the Dems ran on this??? Harry and Nancy, your heros, less than a year ago would strongly disagree with this. Now they won't own up to this Culture of Corruption Crap... According to them, Republicans were the COC and of course Democratics were immune...
You know.... Feinstein's husband's defense contract, or Murtha's bribery, SEE Link , Pelosi's minimum wage - except in American Samoa. SEE Link Harry's secret land deals (Too Many links to post... Just Google Reid & Land...) and of course Willie the "Freezer" Jefferson, Democratic, LA among others... But according to these scumbags, only Republicans are capable of corruption. I'm glad to see that a Democratic has come to realize that all are tempted by corruption.
Clinton Happens!
You have posted numerous off-topic topics such as..."Off Topic, But... etc"
Perhaps as I posted one or two topics ago, If Harry would post one or two of his ridiculous thoughts weekly, or send the post off to one of his underlings who are in charge of maintaining this $100,000.00 per year blog than maybe people like you and me wouldn't have to wander off topic. It's amazing what you can't get for $100,000 these days...
At least Harry does let us post opposing views... Thanks Harry...
Clinton Happens!
"At least Harry does let us post opposing views... Thanks Harry..."
Nice that you noticed that....
And I respect Harry for it.
Harry gets pretty abused on a regular basis right here on his own site and STILL lets you, LV, dallas, et al post on here. A fine example of free speech! Can you name a retardlican site that allows opposing viewpoints of any kind, especially to the point of abuse?
By the way, Harry, If you did get any of Abramoff's money, KEEP IT! Fuck him AND all these self-righteous Reid critics using your own blog to disseminate un-provable half truths about you. If you were really "dirty", I'm sure the gonzales justice dept. would have hung you by your democratic nuts by now. You're not perfect, but you sure do beat the shit out of what we've been stuck with for the last 6 years.
That should be the question if you are a real middle class American!
Check out where the money is going if you dare!
Link
Prohibition of all such donations would be a good standard if it were enforced either by law or by universally observed tradition. But in the absence of such a universal policy a President or Congressman who refuses such all campaign donations is usually defeated by a rival who does accept such contributions. Moreover, limitations on indirect subsidies of campaigns (independently financed, but allied TV spots, for example) are difficult to devise given the constitutional rights of free speech.
So if you believe this argument, then embrace it consistently and work to totally reform campaign finance law, which is not a simple task given the constitutional complexities.
To return to the topic of the war, I find troubling the assertion that the agents who promoted this war did so for personal gain (oil profits, war profiteering, allegiance to a foreign power). I also find troubling the assertion that opponents of the war do so for personal gain or other personal failings (sympathy for the enemy, cowardice). Yet the insistence that one’s opponents are motivated primarily or only base motives (e.g., greed) in the absence of proof is typical of the arguments of extremists who undermine rational political discourse.