Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Harry Reid can't bleed
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Democrats across America are measuring the drapes for the majority in the House and the Senate, preparing to swear in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. One of their major talking points this year has been the Republican majority's "culture of corruption."

In January on PBS, Jim Lehrer asked Sen. Reid why lobbying reform was moving so slowly. Reid replied, "Jim, it's taken a while for this culture of corruption the Republicans have developed to come into the fore." Aspiring "Speaker Pelosi" just gave a speech at Georgetown University pledging to "drain the swamp" of GOP corruption on Capitol Hill. The Democratic National Committee even had a page on their Website devoted to the "Republican Culture of Corruption."

But that "Culture of Corruption" page on the DNC home page has disappeared. Something funny happened on the way to the polls this year. The Democrats have shown they have their own contemporary ethical problems. Luckily for them, it probably won't matter much on Nov. 7. The national news media have decided to ignore them.

Look no further than Reid himself. Associated Press reporters John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessy reported that Reid scored a windfall of $700,000, turning a $400,000 real-estate investment in Las Vegas in 1998 to a $1.1 million land deal in 2004 -- even though he apparently had sold the property to a casino lobbyist buddy in 2001. He did not report the facts on his Senate financial disclosure forms -- while he served on the Senate Ethics Committee.

When the AP called Reid for comment, he hung up on them. You would think that an aggressive, fair and balanced media would have been incensed and activated. But we don't have a fair and balanced national media.

It should be said that major newspaper editorial pages were not impressed with Reid's defense. The Washington Post suggested that "Mr. Reid's professions of transparency and full disclosure are transparently wrong."

But the network distaste for saying anything critical of the Democratic leader was obvious. ABC aired nothing. CBS aired nothing. NBC's Chip Reid offered a few words on "Nightly News" -- after the latest full story on "Foley fallout." There was no "Harry fallout."

CNN stood out as especially pathetic. On CNN's "American Morning" the day after the Reid story broke (and nearly two weeks after Foley resigned), they aired 18 minutes of Foley stories and 35 seconds on Harry Reid. On "The Situation Room," Wolf Blitzer quarantined the Reid story to little dribs and drabs heavy on Reid protesting his innocence. Meanwhile, CNN was devoting minutes to more substantial stories, like Arnold Schwarzenegger joking on "The Tonight Show" that connecting him to Bush was like connecting him to an Oscar. Toxic Bush -- now that's Blitzer-tickling news.

But the networks were not alone in displaying fall-campaign favoritism. The New York Times put its Harry Reid story the next day on page A-19. The headline? "Senator to Amend Financial Forms." Could the Times have possibly come up with a better "please don't bother to read this, no real scandal here" headline?

In case you're wondering if the Times favors Democrats on scandal stories, this was the Page One headline on the very same day: "Foley Case Snags Incumbent In Ohio Race for House Seat." Reporter Adam Nagourney found Republican House leader Deborah Pryce in deep trouble in Columbus. On that day, the Foley news spilled over into 74 column inches of text and pictures. By contrast, the Reid story was merely 18 column inches. Clearly, the Times doesn't hide its partisan priorities.

How about the news magazines? Last week, their covers taunted and jeered at Republicans. Time's cover showed the back of an elephant's behind, signaling a goodbye to Republican corruption. Newsweek had a big picture of Mark Foley with the words "Off Message." This week, Time has a cover hailing the greatness of liberal Democrat Sen. Barack Obama. Neither one even mentioned Harry Reid. U.S. News mentioned Reid, but not his disclosure forms. They merely warned "Republican leaders trying to outrun their own scandals" would attack Reid and Pelosi.

This week, another little story erupted, again featuring Reid. He was paying a few thousand dollars in Christmas bonuses to employees of his condominium at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington out of his campaign funds, not his own wallet. That's a clear violation of campaign laws. And besides, isn't this a juicy story by today's TV standards? The Senate Democratic leader, living at the Ritz-Carlton? And tipping the hired help with someone else's money at Christmas time?

Predictably, NBC gave it a few seconds. The other networks did nothing. The papers buried it inside. And they wonder why there are bumper stickers saying, "Don't Trust the Liberal Media."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
What I want to know about the Reid deal
Here's what I want to see addressed.

During the 3 years between Reid's acquisition of the property and the final disposition of the property; were there zoning, evironmental or other regulations on the preoperty that changed?

If there were - did Reid's influence help change them to affect the change?

LinnieBeth
Yes zoning changed. Over the objections of the ordinary people of the area.
ro_d2
So Hastert did worse? Didn't your mama tell you that was no defence? Two wrongs don't make a right? That ring any bells for you?

ro_d2
Anyway, the article isn't about who did what to whom, and when. It's about the MSM and the blatently left leaning reporting. Liberals like you are being led by the media, and I don't think the majority of you will ever admit it. After all, that would make you too nieve to notice. My 15 year old son brought it to my attention in 1975. And over the years it has gotten worse.

r0_d0

As Gomer would say
Surprise, surprise

R0 d0 's sources are less than "fair and balanced" with titles like "goptopia".

More "reporting" like Bozell was complaining about.
Opinion pages pretending they are fact and news.


The Reason the MSM bias doesn't show
is that most of it involves what they choose NOT to cover, rather than what they do. Had a republican been involved in this deal, it no doubt would have been another brick in the "culture of corruption" wall. I have very little faith in the MSM. That's why we are here, after all, to get a fresh perspective.

nanarae, Packrat
r2_d2 is getting known for cutting and pasting talking points from Dem and Soros surogate web sites. He hasn't learned how to enter into an adult debate yet.

I find it best to try to ignore him.

Scottie
A few years ago there was a "Town Hall Meeting" on TV with the major news anchors and reporters answering questions from the audience. One of the anchors, in response to a question, very confidently said it was their job to decide what was news and what people needed to hear. A little arrogant, don't you think?

R0_d2
You see, that's the problem with you nutjob liberals. When (note I don't say IF, as politicians are all the same) one of the members of your party get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, you immediately try to 1) make it a republican scandal, "what about Hastert?", or 2) applaud him for his integrity and/or forthrightness, e.g. Stubbs.

If a republican politician were to do something like that the news media would be up in arms about it for ever (oh wait, that's the point of Bozell's article). You would be calling for not only the muck who transgressed but everyone who knew him including his kindergarten teacher to be impeached and/or criminally charged.

However, your party chooses to applaud their leaders transgressions, if they even acknowledge them as such.

Picture a republican congressman being caught driving under the influence. There is not a snowball's chance in hades your party would be saying "he's admitted to having a problem, and we applaud him for going into rehab..."

Nope we'd be back into the "Culture of Corruption" thing again.

Did you catch the headline about the black politician being called "slavish" by a member of the other party? Probably not. Especially since it was a democrat calling a black republican candidate "slavish." It was (of course, how could we not know) taken out of context, and just like that, the issue will be dead. However, Trent Lott was forced to resign as Senate Majority leader over comments less audacious than that (save the debate for another time on that issue), because of the intense and over the top coverage, based only on his party affiliation.

If you cannot see the complete hypocrisy in that and about a thousand other incidents, you are nothing more than a spoon-fed fool, who cannot think on his own. You need the government to protect you. Folks like you should be glad breathing is automatic.

Party subjectivity
R0_d2

WHile you are at it, check out Hewitt's blog where he talks about the liberal democratic blogs talking up Schleisenger's (sic) candidacy. You'd think he's better than sliced bread.

Oops, he's not a democrat...hmmm...Oh, wait.
He's running against Ned Lamont (complete left fringe which has your party's nod) and Joseph Leiberman (happens to be a democrat running as an independent). Why would the left EVER support or even be gracious to a member of the "culture of corruption?" Because he's got zero chance of winning the election and any votes he gets would come away from the real competition (and soon to be winner and returning to the senate) Joe Leiberman.

Sort of makes you wonder where you really stand (or at least it should).

A classic example
This story about Mister Reid is a classic example of the double standard that exists in the LIBERAL MEDIA! If he was a Republican the three big networks, ABC, CBS & NBC would have devoted a lot of time on their evening news broadcasts everyday. CNN and MSNBC would have talked about this story and interviewed jerks that would say how awful and corrupt the Republicans were. This would have been repeated all day and all night everyday! But since he is a Democrat, there is hardly a word said about the story. Shame on you guys for being so obviously bias against Republicians.

R0_D2
Um, when some republicans during the Foley scandal said "But Franks, Stubbs, Teddy Kennedy, etc did much worse and the dems are being hypocritical in their selective outrage", you argued that it was no defense that some Dems duid wrong. Now you say it is a defense that hastert did worse? Please, a hint of consistency!

Also, if that is the case, then Hillary should resign, as her book deal non-scandal netted her a lot more cash that Newt's book deal did, though newt's was somehow a major offense while Hillary's deal was hardly mentioned.

So, are we playing "which party is worse", or are you back to "doesn't matter if one is worse than the other"? Please make up your mind.

MSM or FNN?
"Scottie" is absolutely right; the MSM ignore stories into oblivion. And the stories are, without fail, anything that would reveal Democrats for what they really are, do or desire.

Fox News is often portrayed as the lone outpost of, if not shimmering, unvarnished truth, at least a genuine commitment to their stated "Fair and Balanced" policy.

As it does pay off for them, being the leader of the 24/7 news cable pack, I wonder if it wouldn't be wise for Fox to help make their case with some special daily programme concentrating directly on how the lib MSM mistreats and ignores stories like the ones Bozell talks about.
I realise that there is often a reference to this on the "no spin" segment of O'Reilly, but a real programme devoted especially to this in prime time would have a real impact on just how Americans percieve their news outlets and wether they have been investing their trust in blatant propagandists all these years.

Bozell Regurgitating BS

"[Reid] apparently had sold the property to a casino lobbyist buddy in 2001. He did not report the facts on his Senate financial disclosure forms..."

Mr. Bozell would do well to get ALL of the facts, unless all he wants to do is get his audience riled up. A few of the inconvenient ones:

* Reid reported on his disclosure forms in both 2002 and 2003 that he personally owned the property in question.

* Reid received no money for the "sale" of the property in 2001. He recieved partial ownership of the limited liability corporation to which he transferred the property. This is a very common practice in small business, used to shield the owners' personal assets from liability arising through the ownership of the assets held by the LLC.

So, to sum up: Reid bought the property, reported his ownership on his forms every year, and reported the sale when it occurred. So there is no financial impropriety. What we are left with is to look at whether the business relationship with his long-time friend entailed any ethical problems. Nobody seems to be saying that it did.

"When the AP called Reid for comment, he hung up on them."

This needs some context. The relationship between Reid and AP writer Solomon is... strained. That's because this is the third time that Solomon has tried to plaster ethics problems onto Reid.

The first was back in February, when Solomon attempted to paint Reid with the Abramoff brush. His first story detailed the lobbying of Reid by Abramoff's people for the sweatshop owners in the Marianas Islands. What Solomon did not include was the fact that Reid was a co-sponsor of the legislation Abramoff wanted to die, and that Reid's position on the bill never changed. In other words, the lobbyist tried, but failed, to influence Reid. Reid's office put out a press release to that effect, and Solomon ran a follow up story saying only that an Abramoff lobbyist confirmed that the meetings occurred, again choosing not to mention that Reid's position was not changed by the lobbying efforts.

Then, in May, Solomon reported that Reid had accepted passes to boxing matches in Las Vegas. Once again, Solomon never mentioned that Reid's position (he was in favor of regulating boxing matches at the federal level) never changed. In addition, this piece was so full of bad reporting, detailed by Media Matters and Talking Points Memo, that the AP issued a response addressing their criticisms -- a very rare event. Unfortunately for them, their response was even more misleading than the original story. You can find Media Matters response here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606010009
and Talking Points Memo's here: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000791.php

And now, Solomon's tried (successfully, it seems) to write a story that makes Reid's disclosure problems appear much more significant than they are. Is it any surprise that Reid would have no patience with a reporter who has consistently written misleading articles questioning his ethics? I think many of us might take actions a bit more aggressive than just hanging up on him.

"You would think that an aggressive, fair and balanced media would have been incensed and activated. But we don't have a fair and balanced national media."

Or perhaps we have national media who actually comprehend what they read, and look into details before aping what they read from Solomon. Really, what does it take to be a pundit these days?

"The New York Times put its Harry Reid story the next day on page A-19. The headline? "Senator to Amend Financial Forms." Could the Times have possibly come up with a better "please don't bother to read this, no real scandal here" headline?"

Nope. But that's the point - there is no real scandal here.

"U.S. News mentioned Reid, but not his disclosure forms. They merely warned 'Republican leaders trying to outrun their own scandals' would attack Reid and Pelosi."

Which appears to be excellent reporting.

"This week, another little story erupted, again featuring Reid. He was paying a few thousand dollars in Christmas bonuses to employees of his condominium at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington out of his campaign funds, not his own wallet. That's a clear violation of campaign laws."

Reid tipped the housekeeping staff with campaign money - guilty as charged. Never mind that Reid says two lawyers approved it. Never mind that the source of the story was Reid himself, who included it in his 10/16 statement (http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=264714&).

"Predictably, NBC gave it a few seconds. The other networks did nothing. The papers buried it inside. And they wonder why there are bumper stickers saying, "Don't Trust the Liberal Media."

As opposed to trusting Bozell, who apparently can't lift a finger to see if allegations are true or not.

The desperation is palpable.

.

Huh?
The New York Times devoted more space to the story that a member of the republican leadership is trailing in an election a month away, then it did to the story that a democrat who is not up for election this year is fixing a technical violation which it is hard to see how it benefited him.
It is true that he made a windfall in the Las Vegas property market, but that is hardly unique given the way that market is expanding. People often use limited liabilty corporations to hide their interests in a property, but Reid is accused of continuing to claim an interest in the property when following the rules would have hidden it further (although ideally not completely). So to date, noone has made much of a case of what the gain was. Did he make a windfall profit, yes, but that was not a result of his filing. Was there a zoning change? Yes, but how did his not hiding his interest in the property help that?
There may be a real scandal here, but if so it hasn't been figured out yet. If it is, this will be big news. Now it is more on the order of the Doolittle inproprieties, which have not gotten much coverage, but then he is not part of the leadership.
The Hastert land deal comparison is interesting not because the action of Reid or Hastert justifies the other. But this is an article alleging bias in the media, and they are figures of about equal importance (Hastert a bit more so because he has the majority, but Reid is the more public figure). The fact that the issues with Reid have gotten more coverage seems to undercut the idea that the media is picking on the poor republicans.

LinnieBeth wrote:

"During the 3 years between Reid's acquisition of the property and the final disposition of the property; were there zoning, evironmental or other regulations on the preoperty that changed? If there were - did Reid's influence help change them to affect the change?"

Now THOSE are good questions. I'm pretty sure that the property was rezoned. I don't know the details, however. I'm sure some of the helpful people who read this will find out for us.

.

Technical huh?
For the head of the ethics committee to have to make a "technical correction" to his filings is like the head of the IRS having to make a "technical correction" to report income. That reminds me, I would like to know how all of this was reported on his income tax....or was it? Was it kind of like Del Webb's "contibutions"?
Why did Harry and his "partner" keep his name off of the corporate papers? Was it so his son could change the zoning without being accused of helping dear old dad?
Now he is making a big deal out of paying back the employee Christmas presents "out of my own pocket"? Does he realize most people pay for Christmas presents out of their own pocket? Does he dip into campaign funds for family "presents" too?
What a smarmy individual, another poster child for term limits.

BS Detector
Your facts may or not be correct.

BS Detector
Your facts may or not be correct (I do not know, nor do I care) but the point is that the MSM handles situations like this with Republicans differently than they do with Democrats. Of that there is no argument.

Shhhhh . . . .
No Liberal bias in the media.
But why is it that you haven't heard a peep about the "Plame" affair since it was "discovered" that Armitage (Clinton stooge) was the leaker?
It had been a burning issue against the GOP for some years and Fitzpatrick has made hay out of it.
WHERE'D IT GO ALL OF A SUDDEN?
Then, about Foley:
Democrats below:
>Sen. INOUYE,HI, Accused in 1990s of sexual harrassment by numerous women.
>Rep. SAVAGE,IL, Accused of fondling Peace Corps volunteer during trip to Africa in 1989. House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action.
>Rep. FRANK, MA, If you don't know, you've been on another planet.
>Sen. ADAMS, WA,(+) Forced to stop campaigning after accusations of drugging, asault and rape surfacing in 1988.
>Rep. RICHMOND, NY, Arrested 1978 for soliciting sex from 16-year-old. Stayed in congress and won re-election but resigned in 1982 after pleading guilty to drug possession and tax evasio.
>Rep. YOUNG, TX,(+) Raised salary of staffer when she gave in to his sexual advances. Won next election in 1976 but lost next time.
>Rep. HAYS, OH,(+) Hired unqualified secretary reportedly for sex acts. Though Hays resigned, Dem leadership stalled from removing him from Administration Committee in 1976.
>Rep. STUDDS, MA,(+) Recently praised at funeral by most Dems. Censured for sex dealings w/ underage male page but was returned to office by MA voters 6 more times. (?????)
>Rep. REYNOLDS, IL, Convicted of 12 counts of sex assault w/ 16-year-old girl. Pardoned by Clinton before Bubba left office.
>Sen. KENNEDY MA, . . .What can one say?

And the beat goes on.

r0_d2
I'm sorry, any issues that are still "going on" are automatically "non-stories"?

Right. That's how news works.

Did Reid borrow money for this property?
Did Reid borrow money for this property?
Who did he borrow it from and what was his interest rate?
Did he or the LLC pay the property taxes?
I read the AP story and it did not have any details about a loan; however, maybe the reporter didn't think about that angle.

Only partisan lefties defend the right of Democrat public servants to buy property that was the result of a government land swap. When the land is then rezoned and sold for a $700,000 dollar profit, the lefties see no problem or possible corruption. Hmmm... No wonder I HAVE to vote against all DEMOCRATS. You can't trust their judgement when they defend crap like this.

R0_D2
Actually, I can read. But your contention that something "ongoing" is not news seemed so blatantly stupid I could not believe anyone could truly be asserting that.

So, when reporters speak of "scoops" and "breaking" stories, they are speaking of completed actions that happened some time ago? I think not.

Also, I notice you did not address my central point that when it helps the dems, comapring crimes is ok, but when it does not, then comparing crimes is off limits. Do you have a response? Or just want to make little nonsensical blurbs then depart?

Another point
Also, your new idea that breaking news is to be ignored was not your original post. As you seem to be unable to recall your own posts, here is the beginning:

"Hastert did worse - $2 million
While the legality of Reid is still in question lets not also forget Hastert did SAME. For even a LARGER payday."

Seems pretty clear you are makingt he point "Well, yeah, but Republicans are BIGGER criminals!", so my question remains, if comparing crimes is OK with you, then why did Newt resign and Hillary get a pass? Why is Foley gone, but Franks and Stubbs were not run off? And if it is not ok to compare crimes, then why did you write this?

Bozell
As we all know,the MSM is not going to give any Repub any decent coverage at all.This is what Bozell is getting at,unfortunately,he's preaching to the choir. Most important to vote Nov.7, I sure don't look forward to Dems running the place again. This great country don't deserve that.

Twice?
Did we really need the DailyKOS cut-n-paste job twice in the same set of comments?

Also, some of your "facts" are more akin to "Reid's defense arguments" than what one would traditionally call facts. If he reported everything properly and on time, then why did he have to "ammend" so many statements?

No one is contesting that he made changes to his disclosures, therefore I think it is well established he did fail to reprot things properly. Thus, this entire DailyKOS argument is a bit suspect.

Kimberly
Your arguments are well reasoned and thoughtful and for that I must thank both you and R2_d0 or whatever his name is.

You both have asserted what Brent was saying in his article. Kimberly, you go even farther in saying:
"There are others -- Reps. Jerry Lewis, Richard Pombo, and Gary Miller for starters. This isn't a case of "everyone does it". It's a case of projection -- accusing Reid of doing something Republicans have made a habit of doing." In other words, Republicans are worse because they do the same things. What a cop-out.

Here's my take: Both parties are full of hypocrites. The difference is Republicans will not stand behind their own when they screw up, nor do they cover up or apologize. They are not the party of enablers. If Congressman X is a criminal, then Congressman X is a criminal, not Congressman X's party. When the party and mainstream media become hypocritical about transgressions, that is when we, the american people, tune out.

R2-D0
"First:
Make up a story that proves NOTHING, since it is still going on......

Second:
Then get shown that a REPUG did worse, under about the same issues, still going on.........

Third:
WATCH THE SPINNING REPUGS GO ROUND AND ROUND!
You could put your dance to music."

I have a six-year old daughter who can make better arguments than that. Reminds me of the "I know you are but what am I?" line elementary school children use in their arguments. What grade did you say you were in?

BS Detector
So if he did nothing wrong, why file amended disclosure forms? Even better, "my attorney told me to do it so I thought it was right." That is the biggest cop-out ever (speaking as an attorney).

IRS: "Dear Mr. Detector, this is the IRS. We are calling you to inform you your tax return for the year 2005 was fine." (used tax return as not many people have to file financial disclosure reports)

BS DETECTOR: "Really? My attorney told me so. However in the spirit of the law, I will file an amended one, just to clear everything up."

IRS: "Thank you so much sir. You have a nice day."


THE "Repugs"???
r0-D2-
If you use childish name calling as part of your arguments, why should any of us adults take you seriously?

Bozell & media bias
There is no bias in the MSM, they prove that everyday with their balanced and fair reporting.

For anyone that believes that, I have a bridge in NYC and one in San Fransisco, with a toll road linking the two that I'd like to sell, cheap. The tolls will make the payments. Oh yeah, the toll road runs right by my ocian front property in Arizona.

There are a number of scary words in our language, a few of them are;
Speaker Pelosi, President Hillary, Majority Leader Reid. Oh My Gawd, what a scary thought. Get out and VOTE!!!!! those people back home.

The Old Coot

Kimberly
I would like to thank you for at least giving us a better cut and paste job from Kos. At least we don't have to waste our time searching their site.

r2_d2 does a very choppy job. It leads a person to believe he/she faild pasting in kindergarten.

Twodog wrote:

"So if he did nothing wrong, why file amended disclosure forms?"

I don't remember saying he did nothing wrong. It's pretty clear that he mis-reported the ownership of the property (which is very different from NOT reporting ownership). Hence, the amended disclosure. If you're a lawyer, then you should know better than most that we're picking at straws here.

"Even better, 'my attorney told me to do it so I thought it was right.' That is the biggest cop-out ever (speaking as an attorney)."

Second biggest: "I didn't inhale" was the biggest. But I agree with your point - and you would think Bozell would have made something out of this, if he had bothered to go beyond the AP article.

.

MacZed wrote:

"Anyone who pays $750,000 cash for an apartment is suspect in my book. How many people do you know who have that kind of change lying around?"

I was wondering if anybody'd be fool enough to say this.

Um, sir, a "cash transaction" doesn't mean that he came in with an aluminum briefcase filled with money. He wrote a check.

"Harry Reid is untouchable."

"Murtha is untouchable."

And MacZed is a moron.

.

Kimberly

Thanks for confirming your "sources",
now try reading from drudgereport, who has from as far left as Ivins and Huffington to as far right as Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

then you and r0 do can call your selves informed

False Comparisons by r0_d2
When you say Hastert did worse, no one has accused Hastert of violating ethics rules or laws by not disclosing this. It is unfortunate but true that members of both parties, nationally and locally, find ways to profit while in office under questionable circumstances. Most I know would like to see an end to it. However, you are of point. Reid did not disclose and very possibly violated law. You might not like what Hastert did, but there is no charge of illegality.

You should see the democrat and republican politicians in IL buying up property around a proposed third airport. Shameful, but not yet illegal.

Kimberly
I didn't really see a rant in Bozell's opinion. And no, we don't try to to "...pin SOMETHING, ANYTHING on a Democratic leader". I did notice him pointing out that there is more negative reporting about the right than the left. How many articles were written about Valery Plame? How many about Foley? How many about Frank, or Reid? And how hard hitting were the articles? By the way, this isn't the first time Reid's name has been associated with a scandal.

Nobody likes to see their side slammed, even if they deserve it. All we ask for is even handed reporting.

Like Packrat said, try reading Drudge and linking to the different ends of the political spectrum from Huffington to Limbaugh. You might learn something and be able to formulate an opinion and defend it rather than just spout talking points or cut and paste from Soros Surogate webb sites.

MacZed wrote:


"I never said that Harry Reid came in with a briefcase of cash - I appreciate you changing the subject like every other liberal in the world."

But before he said:

"Anyone who pays $750,000 cash for an apartment is suspect in my book. How many people do you know who have that kind of change lying around?"

You changed the subject, brainiac, by introducing this line. And then you continued it by saying:

"What kind of interest rate did he get?"

I have news for you: some people have more money than you or me and can afford to buy such things outright.

"If it wasn't a loan, how did he have that kind of equity or liquid funding to aquire the property?"

How should I know? Why don't you do some research - you might learn something.

"How much haggling was there before the purchase?"

Then again, maybe you're a lost cause. "How much haggling was there?" This is worth anybody's time?

"You were wondering if anyone would say that...which means you were crouching like a tiger ready to pounce and trample the argument in subjective garble and misdirection."

No, I was wondering if any of the usual idiots I run into on this site would ask such a dumb question. But no, instead it was you.

"It is nice to know that the propaganda machine is operating full bore in your psyche and you can no longer look at the world objectively or even permit others to question your heroes."

Objectively? Tell me where my errors are. Heroes? Are politicians your heroes?

"Was Jefferson's 90,000 dollars in cash or a check or in a fridge? Has he been crucified? No, he's black and a dem...untouchable."

Jefferson's $90,000 was in his freezer. In June the Democrats removed him from his Committee assignments. This week the Louisiana Democratic Party endorsed an opponent rather than him. I expect him to be lose the election, to be indicted in the next few months, and then to reach a plea deal, spending some time in a country club prison. Pretty much the same way other Congressional criminals go.

"My point, Bullsh@t, is that the media doesn't focus on the right questions because it is not necessary for it to...and counterproductive to ratings."

Is "how much haggling was there" one of "the right questions"? I don't watch much television news, but I'm guessing they're already doing better than you.

"Tell me BS, what is your opinion of Harry Reid?"

I've seen nothing to indicate that Reid's guilty of anything except sloppiness in his reporting.

"What is your opinion of John Murtha?"

Don't really have much of an opinion about Murtha. Should I?

"What is your opinion on William Jefferson?"

He's almost certainly a criminal and an embarrassment to his consitutuents, his state, his party, and his employer.

"just to let you know, it really get's to me...ooo yeah, it hurts..."

I know it does. It's okay, though, you'll get over the embarrassment of your stupid comments.

.

reply to BS Detector
"If you're a lawyer, then you should know better than most that we're picking at straws here."

I know, and I get tired of it. I do it at work and then come home to more of the same.

As to your example of the biggest cop-out, I stand corrected. That was number one in my book followed by "I was never alone with that woman...there are always secret service nearby...". But it is in the top 20 or so. It does chap my hide though because I hear it from my clients regularly. My thought is, if you even think you need to check with me about it, don't do it.




I don't trust the Liberal Media
Who can trust the Liberal Media. Look how they've reported the war in Iraq. Where do they stand in this war on terrorism. We're Americans, thats enough for terrorism to exist in the eyes of the Liberal Media. They'll take the sides of any terrorist, any nation who hates this country, and any terrorist leader who wants to develop a nuke because they claim they fear being attacked by President Bush. It's no secret the Democrats and the Liberal Media are antiAmericans. Harry Reid is a perfect example of a pure liberal. Once they get caught, they run to correct the necessity papers and that should take care of that. All is forgotten by the Democrats and the Liberal Media. Afterall they don't hold any moral high ground so this type of behavior is expected. Didn't Harry Reid with the assistance of the Liberal Media report to the American people on a daily bases he doesn't feel safe. With a million dollars Harry Reid, there's no reason you shouldn't feel safe. How Harry Reid can explain how he received a million dollars for property he didn't own is beyond me. If Harry Reid was smart he'ld get with the Democrats and the Liberal Media and somehow blame it on President Bush and his failed policies. When you have no issues, no patriotism, no love for your country, blaming President Bush works to get Americans mind off of these things Harry Reid, his Democrats, and especially the Liberal Media doesn't want you to notice about them and their destructive attitude towards this country.

MacZed wrote:

"if he did not get a discount and paid full price, he is not spending his money..."

Wha?

"if he did spend his money and didn't get a deal, he is doing a favor for another real estate firm and helping someone with a commission."

Huh?

"Reading between the lines when dealing with real estate is the name of the game."

Well, I have news for you about the real estate gamein Washington; prior to this year, it was insane. There was no haggling, for a period of about four years. People were bidding up properties with escalation clauses never before seen.

And that Ritz-Carlton residence was new construction. There is no chance that he did not pay exactly, to the dollar, what was asked.

"Let me ask, is it ok, if Mark Foley goes back and ammends his emails and text messages to pages?"

Now THAT's intelligent. You sure are redeeming yourself.

"Murtha's ABSCAM tape release on Hannity and Colmes via American Spectator went no where...it was the shadiest of undercover stings and he was guilty but turned over a couple others in order to save his skin..."

I'll bet you weren't even alive when ABSCAM went down. We're talking about ancient history. Here's something you might have noticed: "news" is derived from "new."

"Harry Reid and Murtha are two of the reasons Term Limits were not passed and two of the reasons they should have been."

You mean, besides that pesky Constitution?

"By the way the news said Harry Reid paid $750,000 cash...why would the news not clarify unless it didn't want to push the issue?"

Because everyone with a brain in their head understands that a cash transaction means not actualy paper money, but one with no borrowing involved.

"Why would they spend thousands of useless hours on Foley and a minute here and there on a Million dollar ethics Scandal?"

Because one's a scandal, and one's not.

"Because the Media is leftist, and because it is not worth the effort...it is easier to startle the public with pedophelia than report real news...hence my point, the media is not news...it is in the show business...nothing more."

I love hearing Republicans whine.

.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.