SocraticGadfly: Harry Reid: Ethical butterfingers once again

May 30, 2006

Harry Reid: Ethical butterfingers once again

As if taking Jack Abramoff client Indian tribes’ money weren’t enough, as if having former staffer Edward Ayoob, who had gone to work for Abramoff, throw a fundraiser for Reid at their offices weren’t more than enough, Reid apparently couldn’t keep his boxing gloves mitts off free fight tickets.

And, yes, I know John McCain is really the Schmuck Talk Express but paying full retail price for equivalent tickets himself was the straight talk.

As the AP reports it Nevada Athletic Commission Executive Director Mark Ratner graced Reid with the free tickets, including to at least one championship fight, while working on legislation that would have federalized boxing standards. Given the number of prizefights in Vegas, it’s disingenuous for him to say, “Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses.”

That’s the whole problem, Harry. You’re taking care of business in an apparent direct quid pro quo. As the story notes, numerous Congressional ethics-watchers say this was a clear and obvious no-no.

But Reid, who still refuses to return the Abramoff client money, unlike other Dems such as Sen. Byron Dorgan, apparently has learned life in Nevada all too well.

As for the Democratic party, true, he’s been better than Daschle at standing up to Bill Frist. Some trade-off, though, for him to deal himself more ethical black eyes.

Paul Kiel at Talking Points Memo insists this is just the latest attempt by John Solomon to bipartisanize Congressional corruption. He does have a point that Congressional regs allow donations from governmental bodies, as the NAC is. And he notes that in one major Abramoff issue, Northern Marianas Islands sweatshop owners and wage levels, Reid voted against Smiling Jack.

BUT, but, but, there’s two ways of reading all of this. One is of an “unbought, unbuyable” titan of the Senate, who just happens to be a bếte noire of one particular reporter. Or we could have a “take the money and run” double-dealer who has no problem making himself unbought. It’s all in how you look at it, isn’t it?

No comments: