Harry Reid: The land of his inheritance

I’ll simply link a few editorials on our Mormon minority leader Harry Reid and the recent reporting about the $700k windfall from a recent land deal, and then I’ll link the response from TPMMuckraker.com that Jonathan Green referenced on T&S.
We report, you decide.

1)Washington Post on Harry Reid.
2)The Philadelphia Inquirer on Harry Reid.
3)TPMMuckraker.com defends Reid.

This entry was posted in Any by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

41 thoughts on “Harry Reid: The land of his inheritance

  1. Sorry, DKL, I don’t get around the Bloggernacle much. Please feel free to visit there and comment if you prefer.

  2. Uh, Geoff. I blog there. But I’m glad it’s OK by you for me to comment there, too. My point is the one that Steve Evans is famous for. (poacher!)

  3. I think Geoff’s comment was to everyone, not just to you. i.e. everyone should feel like they can comment there rather than here. (As I did earlier)

    [Edit: for some reason my post didn’t post from this morning. It was more of a pox on both their houses kind of post[

  4. I hope the ‘nacle will cover the inevitable Romney financial faux-scandal with the same degree of fair and balanced reporting.

  5. How come half the time I try to go to the m* site it isn’t working? as if the site is down

  6. Reid trumps Hatch. Hatch’s real estate scandal was worth only $25k. (Google: Hatch BCCI Hourani)I got myself kicked off of T&S for calling Hatch a scumball but actually it was probably for calling him the second biggest Mormon embarrassment in Congress after Harry Reid.

    The balance wasn’t appreciated.

  7. The biggest surprise was that the A.P. employs a reporter, John Solomon, who finds perfidy by the Democratic standard-bearer, Harry Reid. I thought the vetted their reporters better, allowing only “true blue” reporters to be hired.

  8. The problem Bot is that Harry Reid is an overachiever among the Democrats. He is not a real liberal. He was just a liberal wannabe and the Democrats are not going to carry out his garbage for him. No honor among thieves (and politicians).

  9. Guy, I’m not sure if your comment is relevant to the subject of Harry Reid and his apparent misdeeds. Look, in the grand scheme of things I’m not sure how wrong his land deal was compared to all of the other things going on. I linked this issue because I was pretty sure it would be underplayed by the media, which it has for the most part. It’s not a good argument to try to change the subject. If you are OK with Harry Reid did, then defend it. I think there are grounds to do so. For the record, my major problem with Harry Reid is not this land deal, but is instead his buying into the leftist Democratic obstructionist platform of the rest of the party. But the land deal should be scrutinized and if there were any misdeeds, there should be some kind of restitution. If you don’t think so, please tell us why not.

  10. Guy –

    I forgot the rule that only Republican misdeeds are worth discussing. I’m sorry and I’ll keep that in mind for the future.


  11. I linked this issue because I was pretty sure it would be underplayed by the media, which it has for the most part.

    Geoff B: It looks to me like you linked to this issue because Senator Reid is:

    our Mormon minority leader


    his buying into the leftist Democratic obstructionist platform of the rest of the party

    Can you reference one ethics violation with which Senator Reid has been charged? Can you cite me one code, or statute, the violation with which he has been criminally charged? Are you suggesting Senator Reid, by referencing his personal religious preference in your first sentence, has somehow violated any of the religious tenants by which he is supposed to live? Is that even any of your business?

    I think you really summed it up pretty well with:

    For the record, my major problem with Harry Reid is not this land deal, but is instead his buying into the leftist Democratic obstructionist platform of the rest of the party.

    I’ve looked at recent posts and I didn’t see any of yours reference any other “misdeeds” in Congress. Is that a result of political loyalty? Why pick on Senator Reed? Because he is LDS and a democrat? Give me a break!

  12. Guy, just so we stay on-topic here, could you clarify for me whether you think that Sen. Reid did nothing wrong and provide some arguments to back that up? Do you have knowledge about such land deals and can you indicate how this particular deal was not wrong? Do you think there is no reason for any restitution at all?

    For the record, I have never implied that he violated any religious tenets. I am more interested in fleshing out the issue of whether such land deals are wrong or right.

  13. Geoff,

    If you look at the news today, Reid has gone far and beyond what any Republican with troubles has done. He went back to amend his statement, he made sure that money he used for Christmas gifts came out of his pockets even though his lawyers cleared him to use campaign money. Seriously, Guy has a point. Mr. Solomon, the AP writer of this piece on Reid has attempted before to tarnish Mr. Reid’s reputation and character, meanwhile Mr. Hastert has personally benefited from a land deal in his district due to a piece of legislation regarding freeways. Mr. Weldon is being investigated by the FBI for corruption. I could go on, but basically what Mr. Solomon has on Reid is nothing in comparison to the corruption levels of Republican leaders today.

  14. Dan, thanks for keeping on-topic. I don’t agree that Reid has gone far and beyond what “ANY Republican” has done. There are plenty of different scandals that have come and gone, and in some cases Republicans have been forthcoming and honest, and in other cases they have not. And the same with Democrats. Reid strikes me as being more on the honest scale, so good for him.

    I think it is dangerous and short-sighted to claim one party is better or more honest than the other because somebody can always come up with an example that breaks your argument.

  15. Geoff,

    I think it is dangerous and short-sighted to claim one party is better or more honest than the other because somebody can always come up with an example that breaks your argument.

    My “any Republican” comment should be clarified to be about today’s Republicans with corruption issues. Obviously both parties have had many issues with corruption and attempts to hide them in order to not be punished by the electorate at the polls. I just look at the situation right now. I see Reid being honest and forthcoming while Mr. Weldon blames the “vast left-wing conspiracy”, Mr. Hastert denies the elephant in his room, etc etc. Democrats have their denier in Mr. Jefferson, the Senator from Louisiana. The evidence is surely against him, yet he continues to stay in office.

    I was just impressed by the difference between the individual persons caught in possible corruption cases.

  16. GeorgeD, I’ll make the same comment I made to Guy Murray: can you expound a little bit on this? What exactly did Reid do, and how could he have done it differently to have been more honest?

  17. More on the news:



    I have to quote this one, though (sorry Guy):

    We never cease to be amazed at the double standard applied to the morals and ethics of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. We’ve already commented on how Republican Mark Foley was forced to resign for sending lewd e-mails to congressional pages, while Democrat Gerry Studds received mere censure and standing ovations after actually having sex with one, being allowed to serve until he decided to retire.

    But the case of Senate Minority Leader Reid is a double standard on steroids. . . .

    and so on. Worth reading, even if you worship Reid.

  18. Ivan, I’m no fan of Reid and have heard things from people I trust that make me not trust Reid in the least. (Nothing I’d be willing to put on a public forum in detail) Of course I feel the same about Hatch and suspect both are cut from the same mold.

    Having said that though I’m not sure those links are fair. I personally don’t think Reid is honest. But I don’t think this particular “scandal” is terribly good evidence for it.

  19. Clark –

    I don’t think this “scandal” is all that big of a deal, either. But as the link points out, Republicans have been put through the wringer for a lot less (which is where the double standard thing comes in). In that regards, the links are more than fair. As the IBD pointed out:

    We remember the feeding frenzy over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s alleged violation of federal tax law in using tax-exempt funds to fund his allegedly political college course, “Renewing American Civilization.”

    After a 3 1/2-year ordeal, and a $300,000 fine paid to the House Ethics Committee, the IRS finally ruled that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, “did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich” and was both apolitical and completely legal.

    Why was that such a big deal, yet Reid should somehow be ignored? That’s what I find so odd. Reid’s little financial shenanigans add up to little and mean a lot less, yet if any Republican were caught doing even half of what Reid did, that Republican would likely be hounded by the media.

    A pox on both their houses, I say! Neither party has any moral ethos in my eyes.

  20. Ivan,

    But as the link points out, Republicans have been put through the wringer for a lot less

    A lot less? I’m sorry but Mr. Reid’s “sin” was a land deal that had nothing at all to do with his position as Senator, whereas the corruption scandals that Republicans are facing today all deal with how they gave out favors and favorable legislation to individuals and groups that gave them money! I’d like to see examples of Republicans being put through the “wringer for a lot less.”

  21. Dan –

    I already cited one. Please read all of comment #27.

    (of course, Dan clearly has proven my claim above: the one unalterable rule in ‘nacle discussions is charity for my party, none for the other party).

  22. Ivan,

    I was talking about current Republicans. I don’t care about leaders no longer in office. Name me a current Republican being put through “the wringer for a lot less” than Reid is. If we go backwards in history, both sides have plenty of examples to nullify the other.

  23. Dan –

    If you mean, at the current, right now moment, of course not. But that’s rather disingenuous of you.

    My sentence was in past tense, so when I said “Republicans have been put through the wringer for a lot less” – than I was being truthful. You are insisting on changing the focus of the debate. Again – charity only for your party, apparently. If you insist on only focusing on the immediate moment – well, Reid is the problem, since Foley has resigned.

  24. You are looking at all of history.

    No, I’m not. At the most, I’m looking back over the last couple of decades. Yet you keep insisting on changing the terms of the debate in order to make it more favorable for your side.

    I honestly have no side. I find Orrin Hatch rather – well, I won’t go there. I can’t write rationally about him. Hastert bugs the heck out of me and I think he should resign his leadership position in the House (if not for the Foley thing, for his bizarre defense of Jefferson’s right to use his office as HQ for illegal activities).

    Yet, since Jefferson has yet to resign (as far as I know), the Democrats can hardly claim that somehow current Republican misdeeds outnumber their misdeeds. Is “Weldon” somehow greater than “Jefferson and Reid”, or do you think we should only focus on what is currently on the front pages, as opposed to what is ongoing and still current?

    If you’re not being disingenuous, you are at the very least being too partisan.

  25. One thing I won’t deny is being partisan. I want Republicans out of power. The last six years have been a horrible horrible mess, and apparently the only way they will be held accountable is at the polls.

    I’ve said earlier that Jefferson needs to go, as he’s pretty clearly tainted and corrupt, and probably broke the law. I don’t see Democrats trying to cover for him, or blame Republicans for his woes. In fact, was it not Hastert who demanded of the Justice department to return the things they took from Jefferson’s office? If Democrats today truly had as many corruption issues as Republicans, I’d be equally critical. But the ones affecting the direction of my country are the ones ruling, and when their corruption is so stinky, and they continue to either deflect, evade, or blame Democrats, I have no love for them, no respect for them, and wish to see them gone with the utmost speed.

  26. Dan –

    see my view is that both parties are more or less equally corrupt, so that having the Democrats in power isn’t necessarily any better. However, even if it doesn’t happen in 2006 it is inevitable Democrats will eventually get back into power. Then, at some point it will swing back into the Republican camp.

    But I think attempts to say one party is clearly more corrupt than the other are pointless and reek of double standards. Your claim was that somehow current Republican misdeeds are worse than Democratic ones, and I just ain’t seeing it. The only thing I see is that the media seems more willing to focus on Republican misdeeds, but that’s not quite the same thing.

  27. (and since I’ve already mentioned my distaste for Hastert AND mentioned his role in the Jefferson affair, I’m getting the distinct impreession you aren’t reading my entire posts).

    Look – if you want Democrats in power because you think their political stances on the issues are where it’s at – that’s fine. We can debate affirmative action, how best to approach the War in Iraq, etc. But to claim the Democrats are morally superior because they are less corrupt – well, that seems to show willful blindness.

  28. I never claimed they were morally superior, but the facts are clear that Republicans today ARE more corrupt than their Democratic counterparts today, and it seems hard for you to see that, Ivan. If the tables were turned (and you can quote me on this when this day comes), and Democrats are in office and show a willful disregard for ethics, trying to cover up, blaiming their political opponents, blaming the victims—Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh have blamed the pages for Foley’s mess—then I would have no problem criticizing them and wishing them farewell from the leadership roles. You can quote me on that when (not if) that time comes. It is something inevitable in politics and power. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    I think that there ought to be term limits in Congress, both in the House and in the Senate. Too much time in politics kills even the best of men.

  29. The facts are clear? Ha ha ha. The Democratic Party is bought and paid for by George Soros. Google his record on corruption (insider trading). Google his background as a market manipulator. Orrin Hatch and his ilk live in a fetid swamp (that’s wetlands to you Democrats) but today’s Democratic Party is a toxic cesspool. The party faithful smell and say yummy it’s chocolate ice cream. I am afraid a lot of Democrats have been diving in.

  30. Dan –

    on term limits, I totally agree. I don’t agree “the facts are clear” but we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    GeorgeD –

    You’re not being very civil. You do a lot more harm to your side of the argument with such mocking.

Comments are closed.