Well done. By the way, characterizing the 2001 transaction as a "sale" to the LLC is also misleading, and it would be nice if you did not perpetuate it. It is obviously done to impart more substance to that transaction and make the failure to report it more egregious. Obviously, Reid's parcel was contributed to the LLC, since that is just how this is done in 99.999999% of these arrangements (which I work with practically every day), and the flavor of the ownership would have been largely imperceptible to Reid.
david | 10.17.06 - 9:42 am | #

Bush supporters attack many Democrats, not only Harry Reid, for the "sin" of making a profit.

The sub-text is, "Hey, regular working families, you shouldn't trust the rich people, the economic elite, to share your values, or to safeguard your interests."

Strange argument for the GOP to be making.
anonymous | 10.17.06 - 9:47 am | #

Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother's Day, 1999.

I did not know about this particular twist on Newt's second divorce. He sure has a nasty streak in him, doesn't he?

The consistency in reasoning is at least impressive. Those who evaded military service during wars they cheered on are brave, courageous, resolute warriors. Those who fought for their country in combat are cowards and appeasers.

Heh indeed.

And those who knew nothing about Mark Foley's sexual predation are the villains, while those who covered it up and overlooked it are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Clearly, the GOP considers 1984 as a manual, not just literature.
r€nato | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 9:50 am | #

Well, the reasoning is that Republicans like Newt are so supportive of marriage that they want to do it three or four times.
SP | 10.17.06 - 9:53 am | #

As a CPA, I should point out that for tax purposes, Reid has to claim that profit as his own, even if he left the money in the company and didn't receive any of it. It was already considered his money and he was going to be taxed personally for it. The LLC is just a legal structure to help people keep track of a business owned by more than one person.

And this kind of thing really is fairly standard; that people transfer assets to a company they own, and don't see this as a formal transfer. Many of my clients starting new companies don't even understand why I insist on a formal entry of their property to the company. For them, this is all just accounting mumbo-jumbo and they're just humoring me in my quest for formalizing everything. All they care about is that we get the best tax advantage and stay on the right side of the law. But in the end, they still consider themselves to be the owners of everything the company owns.

Oh, and I always find it hilarious when Republicans show how little they really know about the business world. They have a basic understanding of free-markets, but most of them have little or no knowledge of how businesses actually operate.
Doctor Biobrain | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 9:59 am | #

By the way, characterizing the 2001 transaction as a "sale" to the LLC is also misleading, and it would be nice if you did not perpetuate it.

I couldn't find anything definitive that says that Reid received no consideration for the transfer (which is, I suppose, the key determinant for whether it can be called a "sale"), so I struck the part of the sentence calling it a "sale" because - as you rightly point out - I have no basis for knowing that it was a sale.

But either way, I don't think there would be anything "misleading" about it (as opposed to just inaaccurate), since there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling a piece of property to an LLC of which one is the co-owner.
Glenn Greenwald | 10.17.06 - 10:01 am | #

Mirengoff at Powerline has posted a correction:

CORRECTION: As I'm sure many readers noticed, and as I realized with horror when I woke up this morning, Iran is not an Arab country. Thanks to all who, I don't doubt, have written to point this out.

It looks like you taught him something, Glenn. ;)
Crust | 10.17.06 - 10:01 am | #

Jon Stewart did a short bit on the Reid scandal, wherein he dozed off while reading it. It was really quite funny.
Bonnie | 10.17.06 - 10:02 am | #

Glenn,

The consideration that Reid received in exchange for the property was his "membership" in the LLC. That's a bundle of economic and voting rights that is recognized as property and is freely alienable, unless his right to dispose of his interest is limited pursuant to the LLC's operating agreement.
burnspbesq | 10.17.06 - 10:16 am | #

You get the Joe Friday award for this one, Glenn. It must be a pain for these blowhards, having you and Billmon constantly turning over the rocks they try to hide under. Now if only someone over at the WaPo would give you just a tiny little column above the fold on page 1, life would be good indeed.
William Timberman | 10.17.06 - 10:19 am | #

Silly glenn - republicans make their "profits" off of bribes and corruption. In business, they lose their asses - just check chimpy's record.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 10:22 am | #

I'm stunned. A politician with all the attributes of Elmer Gantry and another one doing verbal sleight-of-hand to conceal accounting deftness.

John Lowell
John Lowell | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 10:24 am | #

The attacks on Harry Reid don't need to be credible, they need only be broadcast far and wide, and that's what has happened. The damage is done, and won't be undone.

The media that covered the story will either ignore the facts, or bury them, and anyway, most ordinary folks don't know what an "LLC" is, so it must be something crooked, eh?

October of even-numbered years is the month for the GOP to do two things:
(1) Motivate the GOP base.
(2) Demotivate the Dems.

Attacking Harry Reid is for the second reason -- make Dems stay home on election day -- "Why bother voting? They're all crooks and liars."
sysprog | 10.17.06 - 10:26 am | #

The irony here is that these sorts of entity transactions are frequently used to hide/deny ownership of tainted assets or illegal connections to them. Similar to having one's spouse get paid handsomely, as a consultant, by a political action committee. Wife buys all the groceries and pays the mortgage on house that would be unaffordable on a mere congressional salary.
Lawstsoul | 10.17.06 - 10:26 am | #

Of course, Mirgenoff ignores the *reason* Lebanon is so hostile to Israel right now - namely, that half their country is still smoking ruins from a massive Israeli attack!

No matter how much anti-Israeli rhetoric Ahmadinejad may indulge in, his country isn't bleeding the same way Lebanon is.

Of course, you don't have to be an expert to *have* an opinion. But you should (IMO) expect to have to run your opinion past some experts before having it published on anything bigger than your own blog, to weed out gross factual errors like confusing Iranians with Arabs, or calling Sunnis the allies of Shias. It's that kind of in-house fact-checking that allows a reputable media organization to become and remain reputable, and not a known cesspool like the National Inquirer or Fox News.
Chris | 10.17.06 - 10:27 am | #

Glenn:I couldn't find anything definitive that says that Reid received no consideration for the transfer (which is, I suppose, the key determinant for whether it can be called a "sale"), so I struck the part of the sentence calling it a "sale" because - as you rightly point out - I have no basis for knowing that it was a sale.

The reason for that is the transaction is a contribution of assets to a partnership (LLC), which constitutes the partner's (member's) basis in his membership interest, no more, no less. If he had contributed 400,000 cash, would we be talking about his "sale" of cash to the LLC? I don't think so.

Glenn: But either way, I don't think there would be anything "misleading" about it (as opposed to just inaaccurate), since there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling a piece of property to an LLC of which one is the co-owner.

Here is why it is being done intentionally to mislead. Reid refers to the transaction as a largely meaningless transfer, a matter of form rather than substance, one easily overlooked. Reid is correct, from his perspective, as a typical investor, this is a low impact event. His detractors believe a sale is harder to overlook so attempt to characterize it as such.
david | 10.17.06 - 10:31 am | #

I had a friend in real estate who was astonished by the way the ordinary (and necessary) transactions and interactions of any real estate deal were reported as criminal during the Whitewater "investigations."
NotThatMo | 10.17.06 - 10:31 am | #

Will someone please call out Gingrich the next time the words "family values" comes out of his mouth.....I am sure the American people would be very interested in his approach to true family values.....

As far as Republican ignorance on basic issues in the Middle East Glen, I really believe that it really boils down to how conservatives and liberals view themselves and world around them

CONS seem to have a irrational need to have an enemy...doesnt matter who just someone to contrast themselves with in an effort to prove self worth.... they believe conflict can solve any and all problems

CONS approach the world from an US vs. Them perspective

LIBS approach the world as a communal and shared experience believing the way to solves problems comes not from conflict but the ability to work together towards one common shared goal..

LIBS approach the world from We perspective

People like Mirgenoff could care less about religious identity or regional differences....to him the people of the Middle East are one in the same, they are all brown people who he believes are out to kill him...end of story...
lib4 | 10.17.06 - 10:40 am | #

Yeah, I've never once had a client who considered himself to be "selling" his assets to his own company and we don't call them "sales" in accounting terms. I'm fairly sure that you can't sell assets to your own company, because there would be HUGE problems of abuse.

Because they're not unrelated parties and the company's basis in the asset was the owner's basis. Meaning that if Reid paid $400k for the land, the business was also showing it as $400k; even if it was worth much more than that at the time of the transaction. But a sale would be different. Like if Reid sold the land to the LLC for $800k and received half that in cash and the other halve in consideration for membership into the LLC. That would be like a sale. But this was just a transfer of property, and I'm fairly sure that "sale" isn't the proper technical term for this.
Doctor Biobrain | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 10:44 am | #

Journalists who report on business transactions should perhaps know a bit about business, and, if they don't, consult with the organization's business reporter and/or the organization's lawyers, before casting out characterizations of (mundane) transactions they don't understand. I suspect the Wall Street Journal's reporting on this particular transaction has been a bit more restrained, as their reporters are typically a bit more business savvy, and they probably appreciate that Reid's transaction was routine and unexceptional.

As for Powerline, and the general tendency to engage in mindless, fact-free descriptions of "the world out there," I don't think facts have the least relevance or interest to these "commentators." The "world out there" is merely a projection of their own obsessions, and a foil for their domestic political propaganda, paradigms, and projects. It's all about domestic politics; as their domestic obsessions change, the world out there magically morphs to fit the obsession of the moment.
MD | 10.17.06 - 10:52 am | #

Glenn,

I don't understand your quote earlier in the post.

"Of course, the vast majority of Iranians are Persian, not Arab; their language is not Arabic, and Iran is not considered by anyone (other than Paul and similar warmongering types) to be an "Arab state."

Wasn't this in response to a quote about the refusal of the lebanese PM's refusal to engage in peace talks? Lebanon is a majority Arab (~55%) state.

This still doesn't excuse these neophytes for their lack of perspective as to what happens when you invite a "clash of civilizations" by taking parallel paths to people like OBL and their wet dream of "Liberal" West vs. "Militant" East.
Third_Eye | 10.17.06 - 10:53 am | #

Third_Eye,

Check out the Powerline question at the beginning of the Powerline passage quoted by Glenn:

"Even after Iran?"

The assertion being, of course, that Iran is also an Arab state.
MD | 10.17.06 - 11:00 am | #

Wasn't this in response to a quote about the refusal of the lebanese PM's refusal to engage in peace talks? Lebanon is a majority Arab (~55%) state.

No, you're misreading the post. Paul`s title for his post was "Gosh, even after Iran?" With that title, he was asking the Lebanese Prime Minister, in essence: "So Lebanon will really be the LAST Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, even after Iran?" - based on the premise that Iran is an "arab state."

As I note in my update, Paul has now posted a correction to this post - both in the post itself and in a new post - acknowledging "with horror" his error.
Glenn Greenwald | 10.17.06 - 11:00 am | #

And on the Reid land deal (which turned out to be nothing) the Republicans ignored the Hastert land deal, where the profit ($2 mil) was a direct result of things Hastert had done.
druidbros | 10.17.06 - 11:01 am | #

lib4,you point out an important part of the equation-an essentially supine news media that provides a forum for the likes of Gingrich to spew their nonsense unchallenged.
rs | 10.17.06 - 11:01 am | #

Regarding Reid's transaction, it's been a while since I took tax law, but it seems to me that--regardless of whether one colloquially classifies the transaction as a "sale"--it is a non-taxable event. This is because the consideration that Reid received--the percentage share in the LLC--corresponded to the percentage of the value of the land that he transferred to the LLC. There was no taxable event until the LLC not only sold the land, but also disgorged the proceeds of the sale to the LLC's shareholders.
raj | 10.17.06 - 11:03 am | #

Unfortunately, the GOP does succeed in perpetrating the meme that Democrats and republicans are both corrupt (true) and thus are both equally corrupt (manifestly false).

Any group of 100 or more people, including the roughly 250 members of the Democratic congressional membership will include some corrupt individuals. But that's not the same as having corruption drive the agenda and corruption being the raison d'etre, as it has become (or indeed always was) for the republicans.

Pollingreport.com found a plurality of people believe the Democrats knew about Foley and held onto the scandal to damage the republicans at the worst time. There is no evidence to support this claim, no one has come forward to indicate they told a single democrat of it. It's possible democrats may have heard rumours about Foley, but rumours are not facts and even then we have no evidence they heard it. Yet the public is cynical enough at this point to believe the Republican allegation that Democrats knew about it too.

That's the upward battle democrats have to restore any level of faith in elected politicians (if such a goal is feasible or desirable...I suppose there are upsides to widespread cynicism/disdain of public officials). Republicans know people will easily believe the worst, so they constantly give it to them. The equivalency myth works for them, since if they're all crooks, you may as well vote for the one who will lower your taxes.
Dan D | 10.17.06 - 11:04 am | #

Doctor Gingrich's own web site seems to be saying that the Supreme Court decision in "Bush v. Gore" should have been rejected by the nation.

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3633
Supreme Court decisions that are "so clearly at variance with the national will" should be overridden by the other branches of government, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says ... "the other two branches have an absolute obligation to render independent judgment" in cases that are "at variance with the national will."

In regard to Newt: "Judge us by our words, not our deeds" the new Republiecan mantra

Other than being supporters of Hezbollah and predominately Shiite, what does Iran's Arabness have to do with this quote from LEBANON's prime minister?

The above mentioned mantra applies to the attack on Harry Reid as well.
RepubLiecan | 10.17.06 - 11:07 am | #

The shithead over at Powerline corrected his error, implying that he caught it on his own. These are the same clowns who once crowed that the elections in Iraq were the first elections in the history of the Arab world. If I had such a hopelessly incorrect view of history, I would be terribly impressed with Bush too.
Charles Giacometti | 10.17.06 - 11:07 am | #

Interesting also how he bypasses the Clinton years and has to go back to Carter to find ammunition against the Dems....and scary how that posturing is that we should be agressive towards Iran rather than "appease" setting up the invasion of Iran. Shit. Does anybody wonder why Iran might want nuclear weapons? Look at the difference in the way we talk to North Korea vs. Iran (or the country formerly known as Iraq).
jimmyjack | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 11:08 am | #

Per Raj:

There was no taxable event until the LLC not only sold the land, but also disgorged the proceeds of the sale to the LLC's shareholders.

The taxable event is the land sale. Any income earned by an LLC is allocated to the members of the LLC regardless of any cash distributions. As a result the proceeds of the land sale can remain in the LLC, and the members of the LLC will still be responsible to pay the tax on the land sale income.
Blue Neponset | 10.17.06 - 11:08 am | #

Okay, Glenn.

We have seen the "sentencing" of Saddam moved to two days before major/minor US elections (at Roves behest?) to give the moron a chance to address the nation the day before. (reinforcing that he has rid the world of a dangerous dictator, yada, yada)

What if they also brought out bin Laden, in chains, between now and then? See! Gods, er, Bushs WOT is working!!

The question would be, of course, for how long did some entity keep bin Laden "on ice"?

I guess people would then have to make a decision weighing corruption and scandal vs staged "wins" on the street theatre known as WOT.
Sky-Ho | 10.17.06 - 11:18 am | #

Glenn,

Ahhh, I see the error now.

Sorry, I was pretty confused there as to what was being said
Third_Eye | 10.17.06 - 11:20 am | #

and run around engaging in the sleaziest and most unrestrained sexual behavior

Three wives gets you into this club? Marrying in a private ceremony?

If Russ Feingold gets married again, he's a sleazebag?

????

Also wasn't the issue about Reid (I don't follow these things) about a Federal highway he voted for that enhanced the value of that land?
.
Eyes Wide Open | 10.17.06 - 11:20 am | #

The LLC is just a legal structure to help people keep track of a business.

No it isn't. Why would you say that?

The LLC is a type of hybrid business structure that is designed to provide the limited liability features of a corporation and the tax efficiencies and operational flexibility of a partnership.
.
Eyes Wide Open | 10.17.06 - 11:25 am | #

---

EWO ... the highway was by and for Hastert.

Not Reid.
sysprog | 10.17.06 - 11:26 am | #

Republicans are in favour of one thing and one thing only. Completely, unrestrained capitalism. Money and the power that comes with it. They have no values becuase the majority of them would sell out their own money for a few dollars. They are willing to cover up one of their own preying on children because they are more worried about losing power than children being preyed upon.

Let's further look a the hypcorist of conservative "values." They all claim to be "Christians" and yet every one of their policies revolves around the old testament. They completely ignore and, in fact degrade, the values and teachings of peace, love and "blessed are the meek" that Jesus taught. Name one Repbulican who has actually claimed to be Christian yet portrays the values Jesus..aka CHRIST...actually taught.

Republicans claim to be partiots and call everyone who disagrees with them "anti=american" or "america haters." Yet it is liberals, the left, and most moderates who believe that all American citizzens should be treated fairly and equally. They believe that the lesser among us should be looked after more than the wealthiest. These people are accused of class warfare and anti-americanism. Yet republicans, every time they speak claim to be America loving patriots while attacking women and minorities and people of different religions and even entire cities and states that are typically "blue." How can they honestly say they love America while attacking everything that makes America what it is? How can they say the love America and its values when they actively work to widen the gap between rich and poor, actively take away people's right and freedom, actively attempt to shut people up essentially stripping them of freedom of speech, actively belittle entire chunks of the country.

No. REpublicans have no values other than unbridled power and unlimited access to it and wealth.
Rosencrantz | 10.17.06 - 11:28 am | #

As an exercise, prove this theorem:

For All Morality that is self-consistent and non-sociopathic,
Morality(Muslim Gay Polygamous Illegal Aliens) >> Morality(Newt Gingrich)

For extra-credit, generalize Newt Gingrich to all "friends" of Tom Delay.
jojo | 10.17.06 - 11:31 am | #

Check out the latest AP release: "Bush Signs Terror Interrogation Law"

The careful phrasing of the headline is a perfect preview to the full-scale avoidance and minimalization of what this law really is and allows in the article that follows.

I've seen a lot of people shaking their heads in sadness, disgust or amazement that so many Americans are ignorant about what's really going on. But how can they be otherwise when the media they were once able to trust to provide them with the facts now presents them instead with a whitewashed version of those facts, a deliberate misrepresentation of them, or just flat-out lies? Most don't bother to seek out the truth on their own because they don't even realize they're being deceived.

The MSM, on the other hand, knows very well what they're doing when they select their oh-so-delicate wording for articles like this. If they were actually doing their duty as members of the 4th estate (rather than acting as corporate shills and propagandists) there'd probably have been a 2nd American Revolution years ago. As such they bear a significant portion of the blame for the state of the US today, and every one of them deserve to be consigned to their very own private ring of hell.
DefyLiars | 10.17.06 - 11:32 am | #

Sorry, Harry. I just read up on that. It was Hastert, not Reid. Mea culpa.
Eyes Wide Open | 10.17.06 - 11:35 am | #

It's called Newtspeak:

[Newt's] Legacy in politics and language


A major part of Gingrich's legacy as a politician has been in achieving the effective use of language and the news media to further political goals.

Gingrich took the chair of the Republican political action committee GOPAC in 1986 and transformed it into an effective vehicle for electing conservative candidates to office. This was accomplished in significant part by establishing and promoting a consistent language and theme for use by Republicans at all electoral levels. This theme, in Gingrich's own words, was that of "a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal welfare state", emphasizing "workfare over welfare" and promoting the idea that "we are the majority". GOPAC training tapes containing advice on "Newtspeak" were sent out to rising GOP political candidates throughout the country.

Similarly, GOPAC distributed a memo to freshman Republican House members. Entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," it listed a number of "optimistic positive governing words" that candidates could use when campaigning in order to "speak like Newt," (movement, opportunity, passionate, e.g.) and a parallel list of contrasting words, such as "bureaucracy, cheat, coercion, etc.," which it advised the candidate to apply to their "opponent, their record, proposals and their party."[13][14]

At the start of the Republican Revolution, Gingrich and GOPAC's efforts had succeeded in dictating the theme of national political debate at the time.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 11:35 am | #

EWO - Three wives gets you into this club? Marrying in a private ceremony?

I think there is a pretty glaring inconsistency between claiming that you stand for traditional Christian American social values and having three wives. Yes, that alone creates serious tension. But in Newt's case, his relationships overlapped (he began his affair with his young aide while still married to his second wife) and that is called "adultery," which is most definitly inconsistent with the values Newt is claiming to stand for in this election.

As you can see from the sentence, I wasn't necessarily referring to Newt per se when I referrred to the "sleaziest and most unrestrained sexual behavior" (people like Rush Limbaugh certainly qualify there), but dumping a series of wives for newer models, doing that when one is in the hospital battling cancer, and commiting adultery with a young aide while still married certainly, on the aggregate, starts to spill over into sleaze.

Do I think it matters what that the sexual behavior is in someone's private life, providing it's between consenting adults? No, I really don't. I don't think there's anything wrong per se with multiple marriages or sex tourism to the Dominican Republic or taking Viagra recreationally. But I do think there is something wrong - very wrong -- with someone who engages in that behavior claiming that their political side should win because they stand for traditional American Christian social values while the other side are hedonistic heathens (Tim Graham in NRO yesterday called liberals "sexual omnivoures).

I'm not applying my sexual morality standards to Newt Gingrich. I'm applying his.
Glenn Greenwald | 10.17.06 - 11:35 am | #

lib4,

I've become more and more convinced lately that the dynamic you describe--where conservatives define the world as "Us vs Them", with a deep-seated need to demonize and destroy "them", while liberals see the world as "We", with an aim toward inclusion--is the most defining principle in politics.

Whatever the current "scapegoat" for conservatives--people of other races, genders, sexualities, religions or political persuasion--the principle is consistent, that our goal should be to wage war against them and destroy them, proving our strength and superiority.

Whereas the basic liberal philosophy is that all people are part of the same group, the same family, and we should be working toward a philosophy of inclusion that improves the happiness and well-being for ALL people.

I was hoping to see this dynamic discussed in Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience", because it does seem to be connected to the Right-Wing Authoritarian mindset. But I can't fault him for focusing strictly on his primary thesis.
Jeff Coleman | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 11:39 am | #

Glenn,

A suggestion for a second update: You may want to post something about Hastert's land deal which in contrast to Reid's is genuinely troubling, but nonetheless has been relatively ignored by the press.
Crust | 10.17.06 - 11:40 am | #

EWO,

If posted the entire list of Republican sex scandals here, you and all of Glenn's other readers would be scrolling for hours:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/ E...on_moral_values
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 11:46 am | #

Re: Gingrich
This reminds me of the Bennet and gambling kerfluffle.
Consider that having high standards and occasionally not meeting them are normal. If it were easy it wouldn't be a high standard.
Having low or no standards certainly mean they are easy to meet, but so what? The result is still considerably less than the best one is capable of.
As for Gingrich, just consider him in the fine tradition of Clinton and Kennedy.

Re: Reid
I'm still waiting to hear about a ~$100,000 tax liability. Was one reported? By who or what? Who or what paid the bill? Was it a gift? Was there a 1031 exchange?

Then there was the rezoning over staff objections. Was a relative of Reid's on the zoning board or have influence upon it? It was the rezoning that made it worth something after all.

Did the casino lawyer pay taxes for his portion? Oh yeah, this could be interesting.
shooter242 | 10.17.06 - 11:51 am | #

TPM Reader PT on the Five Stages of Republican Scandal ...


5 stages of Republican scandal:

1. “I have not been informed of any investigation or that I am a target”
2. “I am cooperating fully, but this whole thing is a political ploy by the Democrats”
3. “I’m SHOCKED by the mistakes made by my subordinates”
4. “I’m deeply sorry for letting down my friends and family. I now recognize that I am an alcoholic. I will be entering rehab immediately, so I have no time for questions”
5. “Can I serve my time at Eglin Federal Penitentiary (aka Club Fed)?”

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross would roll over in her grave.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 11:53 am | #

Ignorance Required

The common denominator between all three items in this post is that ignorance is absolutely required.

In (1), the ignorance required is that of (a) Newt's infidelity and callousness, as well as (b) Nancy Pelosi's solid family values as well as (c) the fact that Newt's infidelity was hardly unique among the GOP leaders of the impeach Clinton effort, and (d) the fact that red states generally have higher divorce rates than blue states.

In (2), the ignorance of the Sunni Shia divide is required in order to not realized how incredibly stupid the invasion of Iraq was.

As the NYT Op-Ed says: Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence....

To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. “Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”

No shit, sherlock!

(3) In 3, the ignorance re LLCs has been amply dissected.

It's all ignorance, all the time with these clowns.

Faith-based politics, indeed!
Paul Rosenberg | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 12:01 pm | #

Was one reported? By who or what? Who or what paid the bill? Was it a gift? Was there a 1031 exchange?

Is the moon really green cheese?

Was the Apollo landing an elaborate hoax.

Will shooter continue to grasp at straws?

Enquiring minds want to know.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 12:02 pm | #

"It was the rezoning that made it worth something after all."

Good point. Everyone knows residential property values in the Las Vegas area have been stagnant the last eight years.
Rufus | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 12:02 pm | #

Shooter considers having high standards. Let us know if you ever manage that.


I've been watching MSNBC. It's painfully obvious. Norah O'Donnell is a pitiful excuse for an objective journalist.


A reader passes on word that just moments ago on MSNBC, they did a spot on congressional 'ethics' which compared the non-story John Solomon is pushing with Harry Reid to the criminal investigation of Curt Weldon and his allegedly corrupt dealings with Russian oil and arms conglomerates.

Balance.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 12:04 pm | #

Doctor Biobrain wrote:

But a sale would be different. Like if Reid sold the land to the LLC for $800k and received half that in cash and the other halve in consideration for membership into the LLC. That would be like a sale. But this was just a transfer of property, and I'm fairly sure that "sale" isn't the proper technical term for this.

Since I've actually formed an LLC, I can comment on this.

The technical term for this transaction is a capital contribution. When a limited liability company is formed, the members of the LLC (who are equivalent to the shareholders of a corporation) usually contribute money or property to the LLC in exchange for their membership interest. LLCs are often used for one-shot investments like real estate (or movies, or oil & gas exploration ventures), because they are treated as partnerships for federal tax purposes, but have some of the same protections against liability granted to corporations.

From the news I've read, it sounds like Reid and his partner bought the land in their own names, with Reid reportedly paying $400,000. I don't know how much his partner paid, but it doesn't matter; the ratio between what each partner invests just determines their ownership fractions in the land.

Then at some time later, Reid and his partner decided to form an LLC. Each contributes his interest in the land to the LLC in exchange for an equivalent interest in the LLC. This is a completely standard, noncontroversial, nontaxable transaction. Although Reid technically no longer owns the land--the LLC owns it--he owns an equivalent share of the LLC and has gained or lost nothing by the transaction.

When the land is sold, the LLC must report the profit made to the IRS on Form 1065, and give each member a Form 1065 Schedule K-1 listing that member's share of the profit. The members must then include the profit listed in the 1065 K-1 on their personal income tax return. This amount is precisely the same that would be reported if Reid owned a share of the land individually rather than a share of the LLC that owned the land.

In other words, whether Reid owned the land individually or owned an equivalent interest in an LLC that owned the land, he makes exactly the same profit and pays exactly the same taxes either way.

This story was written by a hack (John Solomon of the Associated Press) who didn't bother to learn the first thing about tax law or business entities before writing another smear job on Harry Reid (now his third). This isn't even that complicated; a 15-minute conversation with a tax lawyer or CPA would have shown there was no story there.

The Associated Press should already have fired this incompetent schmuck. The fact that it hasn't continues to show the AP's bias against the Democratic Party.
Kenneth Fair | 10.17.06 - 12:08 pm | #

shooter242 -- Great job, memorizing and reciting my talking points! Good boy! Here's a chew toy for you!
Rush Limbaugh | 10.17.06 - 12:10 pm | #

From shooter242 at 11:51am:

Oh yeah, this could be interesting.

Um, what could be "interesting"?

The non-scandal with Reid, or the non-applicable standards Gingrinch espoused?

Do your comments even have an actual point anymore?
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 12:13 pm | #

From the discussion page at the Wiki entry on Harry Reid:

Reid is going to go down with Abramoff, but I'm not a regular Reid writer so I didn't want to step on anyone's toes --M4bwav 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

NatusRoma you are clearly in the wrong on this one, there is a relationship between Jack Abramoff, the man, and Harry Reid, the man. All relationships are not direct, I think that you are more interested in winning some kind of petty spat, then looking at this NPOV. Their is a relationship between abramoff's activities and Reid's, and it goes beyond simple donations. You are clearly acting in a POV fashion, take a step back and read the articles, and realize that there is relationship. --M4bwav 07:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this for the last 2 years. It just keeps happening. This explains so much.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 12:21 pm | #

Um, what could be "interesting"?
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 12:13 pm

Tax evasion by the Senate minority leader would be very interesting.
How about using one's office for private gain? That sounds good too.

It's just amazing how a federal powerline right of way and habitat for the state reptile were magically transformed into non-problems for that particular property.
shooter242 | 10.17.06 - 12:28 pm | #

A potential project for someone who has axis to Nexis and some time on their hands: Recently, there have been three seriously problematic, partisan articles by John Solomon at AP. These have been reasonably widely discussed at least on the blogosphere. Were there more? I'm wondering whether if one systematically went through the archives at looked at everything under this guy's byline you migth find a lot more...
Crust | 10.17.06 - 12:30 pm | #

Bush having sex with underage pages while doing drugs would be "interesting" too. Accusations should require proof or at least evidence.
Crust | 10.17.06 - 12:32 pm | #

Keneth, you explain that very well. I would only correct this:

Each contributes his interest in the land to the LLC in exchange for an equivalent interest in the LLC

This is not "in exchange". The membership interest in the LLC is determined by the operating agreement. The contribution simply constitutes the contributing member's basis for subsequent deduction of losses or to reduce proceeds in calculating gains. Granted, membership interests, like partnerships, require economic effect and will largely follow the contributions, but it is not necessarily so.
david | 10.17.06 - 12:33 pm | #

The state reptile?
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 12:34 pm | #

From shooter242 at 12:28pm:

Tax evasion by the Senate minority leader would be very interesting.
How about using one's office for private gain? That sounds good too.

It might, if you actually provided evidence of any of this!

As it is, I'm only seeing you regurgitate talking points like a penguin does pre-digested fish (which in comparison smells like rosewater).

It's just amazing how a federal powerline right of way and habitat for the state reptile were magically transformed into non-problems for that particular property.

It might if you actually provided any evidence of this! As it is, all I see is you postulating something for one officeholder and not another.

Again, do your comments even have an actual point anymore? Or are you suffering from the same neurological malady that appears to have turned Bart's brain into mashed guano?
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 12:35 pm | #

Shooter242,
I've noticed you clearly have no expertise in this area. You must be aware of this. I'm curious, why does this not give you pause before comenting on this matter? Don't you feel a bit silly?
david | 10.17.06 - 12:37 pm | #

Is Shooter242 a terrorist? Did he NEED to have sex with his father? Was the midget consenting, or was it the Rohypnol talking? And why hasn't he spoken openly of these issues yet? Is there really much more he has to hide?

Things really are more interesting when you don't need any facts before asking pointed questions.
Doctor Biobrain | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 12:44 pm | #

From the Chicago tribune:

None of this will likely satisfy those who believe he is corrupt, as many evidently do.

I, for one, can’t attest to Reid’s purity. But from what I was able to glean from the AP story, material from Reid’s office as well as Republican National Committee, as well as a few conversations, Reid had the better side of the argument.

http:// newsblogs.chicagotribune....reids.html#more
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 12:44 pm | #

"shooter242" does the usual dishonest dissembling for his chosen party of crooks, thugs, and hypocrites:

Re: Gingrich
This reminds me of the Bennet and gambling kerfluffle.
Consider that having high standards and occasionally not meeting them are normal. If it were easy it wouldn't be a high standard.

So staying below three marriages is a "high standard"? Wonder how many marriages "shooter242"'s been through....

But "shooter242" misses the point that the sleazebucket Gingrich has the audacity to critisise Pelosi's "family values" when she's off the charts on "family values" by "shooter242"'s own "high standards", having never been divorced at all....

But if you're a Dubya butt-sucker, you have to do what you have to do, even if it's to look like a complete eedjit by putting forth that lame attempt to defend the "party of morality"..... Pretty funny, actually, even if it is pathetic.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 12:45 pm | #

Shooter says, missing or evading the point:

"Re: Gingrich
This reminds me of the Bennet and gambling kerfluffle.
Consider that having high standards and occasionally not meeting them are normal. If it were easy it wouldn't be a high standard.
Having low or no standards certainly mean they are easy to meet, but so what? The result is still considerably less than the best one is capable of.
As for Gingrich, just consider him in the fine tradition of Clinton and Kennedy."

Except that if one privately fails to meet the high standards that one espouses publicly, one should wear this discordance with humility, mindful that one is but a faulty human being, trying, as are many others, to do the best one can, and always to do better than one has. Only a hypocritical, fraudulent asshole dares to pontificate about the terrible failings of other, presumably morally inferior cheats, to live up to standards that one has failed to meet oneself.

As to Clinton and Kennedy: neither of them based a career on lecturing others on their moral rectitude.
Robert1014 | 10.17.06 - 12:46 pm | #

See, this is what's killing me these days:

"As for Gingrich, just consider him in the fine tradition of Clinton and Kennedy."

No, I won't, actually. Thanks.

There's no need to put him in the tradition of Democratic politicians. He's a Republican, and that's his behavior. And that's the point. He's a Republican.

A conservative commentator recently commented, "The Republican congress is spending like Democrats."

NO, they're not. They're Republicans. So... What are they spending like? That's right. Republicans.

It's very simple. The labels don't matter... The behaviors do.

I swear, I'm living in Orwell's novel these days where many (not all) of the folks on the Right are living in a world where they simply re-lable all the actions and behaviors they find inconvenient, take credit for behaviors that are in fact not theirs to take credit for, and put all bad behavior at the feet of the opponents.

It's strange. I mean, Jim Baker's proposal for Iraq sounds like it's going to involve a removal of US forces. So, is he now a cut-and-run, liberal coward?

Who knows anymore?

I wish folks on both sides would realize it's less about the label (which is simply a coward's way of holding a discussion) and more about the behavior.
ChristopherK | 10.17.06 - 12:46 pm | #

EWO ... the highway was by and for Hastert.

Not Reid.
sysprog | 10.17.06 - 11:26 am |

Thanks, for pointing that out LIKE I DID AT 11:01.
druidbros | 10.17.06 - 12:52 pm | #

Harry Reid - Without disclosure of Ringside Harry's ownership interest in the LLC, we would have no idea he was in partnership with Jay Brown. Brown apparently has a less than savory past and that information might be of interest to voters. The completion of the land sale required rezoning and a land swap to create the value realized, facts that Harry's influence and family connections no doubt helped facilitate.

Nonscandal. Bullshit!
daleyrocks | 10.17.06 - 12:53 pm | #

Except that if one privately fails to meet the high standards that one espouses publicly, one should wear this discordance with humility, mindful that one is but a faulty human being, trying, as are many others, to do the best one can, and always to do better than one has. Only a hypocritical, fraudulent asshole dares to pontificate about the terrible failings of other, presumably morally inferior cheats, to live up to standards that one has failed to meet oneself.

As to Clinton and Kennedy: neither of them based a career on lecturing others on their moral rectitude.
Robert1014 | 10.17.06 - 12:46 pm | #


And might I add did the two presidents try and pass legisletion to regulate other peoples behavior when they were doing the behaviour themselves. You know like Rush and Drugs....
druidbros | 10.17.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Marty Lederman at Balkinization:

"They did a really good job this time" -- No MCA Signing Statement
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/they-did- really-good-job-this-time-no.html
The President signed the Military Commissions Act into law this morning. But according to Tony Snow (see below), there won't be a written signing statement! Because, you know, unlike all those other bills that have prompted hundreds of objections and "constructions," this one is entirely pellucid and unambiguous, and doesn't raise any constitutional questions.
Here are the President's "remarks" from the signing ceremony. And here is the White House's "Fact Sheet," which simply reiterates the President's statement and does not really provide any "facts." The principal theme of both documents, not surprisingly, is that "[t]his bill will allow the Central Intelligence Agency to continue its program for questioning key terrorist leaders and operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."

To the extent the President means that the bill will "allow" the CIA to use the sorts of "alternative" interrogation techniques that were used on KSM and others, the President is dead wrong -- and his statements are seriously misleading not only to the public, but to those within the CIA...

Didn't Blowjob Bill wag his finger at Peter Jennings when Jennings pointed out that survey of 56 historians ranked the Clinton administration 41 out of 42 administrations, behind Nixon, on morality? I didn't try to find out who was dead last.
daleyrocks | 10.17.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Ah, questions.

The Question Mark: A prophelactic safeguard for the extended GOP cocksucking that is Fox News?

I'm not saying Fox News sucks off the GOP, I'm just asking.

Thank you again Mr. Stewart.
Dan D | 10.17.06 - 1:06 pm | #

Or are you suffering from the same neurological malady that appears to have turned Bart's brain into mashed guano?

Perhaps the internal conflict of being a sexual predator that prefers goats has finally uprooted bart's ability to think clearly - now I am not saying that bart's sexual habits, no matter how perverse, should matter.

Nor am I actually saying that he is a pervert - I just don't know. I so know that he comes here regularly enough that he could choose to set the record straight - he has chosen not to. I don't have the facts here and am just pointing out that we should not judge anyone.

But even if bart does practice the most perverted sexual acts you can think of with barnyard animals and I am not saying he does, but I hear is very common in CO, we should just judge him on the rationality of what he has to say.

I don't know what bart's preferences are and if he chooses not to be clear, I am OK with that. I agree with you, however, that his rants have gotten more tangent and less rational over the past few weeks.

Perhaps he just comes here to bask in the glory of his latest sexual escapade with a goat or whatever - I don't know and would not care. It is none of my business.

He has always been a "copy and paste" troll and the situations he constently defend are becoming indefensible - perhaps this is the reason that his rants are become wingnut ravings.

But let's not kid ourselves - bart, whatever his personal lifestyle is like, has never actually engaged in dialog here. It is just becoming easier to see through this off-topic and nonengaged talking points.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 1:07 pm | #

I had the following exchange on a WaPo chat today Re: Reid and got what I thought was a good answer:

Prescott, Ariz.: Hi, if I understand the Reid's problem correctly, it is that he bought land and put it in a corporation, at which point he should have reported his holdings as in an amorphous corporation. Instead he kept reporting what the corportaion owned. Thus his failure was one of too much disclosure. I can understand why too much disclosure would make Republicans angry but really, is there anything more than this?

Jonathan Weisman: You seem to have this down. But Republicans would say that had Reid reported the sale of the land to an LLC that he co-owned with a business partner would ave raised some red flags about the business's origins and the relationship between Reid and his business buddy.
Flounder | 10.17.06 - 1:07 pm | #

Of course, Gingrich criticized Nancy Pelosi in this specific instance, so references to Clinton are nothing more than the Bushistas intellectually dishonest attempts to fling as much bullshit on the wall hoping something - anything - will stick.

Wow, change "Bushista" to "Clintonista" and you have Rush-fucking-Limbaugh a few years ago (right down to their once favorite catch phrase - intellectual honesty).

Lying hypocrites, the lot of you.
Rip | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 1:07 pm | #

Glenn, I really do think its worth pointing out how Gingrich was spearheading the movement to impeach Clinton over lying about his infidelity when Newt himself was having an affair with his own aide who was over 20 years younger than him.

Let us also not forget that G.H.W.Bush is commonly thought to have had a 26 year affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, so lets add him to the list of philandering politicians as awell.

But I also must agree with those above, what separated Gingrich from the other cheaters is that he based his political career on a supposed piousness, claiming he had a moral superiority over other cheating politicians, when in fact, he was the only one who comes to mind who not only cheated on his wife, but actually dumped her for the younger version, something his third wife should realize is a habit of his.
Nylund | 10.17.06 - 1:08 pm | #

Hey dont go by what you think, go by what you know.

What we have now isnt working at all, indeed, I would call the government a dangerous failure since 2000. I see many cases of retrograde progress.

If neocons fail so badly, maybe we need something different? Like liberals?
R2K | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 1:08 pm | #

In tax law there is something called the "'step transaction' doctrine." It is one of MANY doctrines we have in tax law. Understanding this doctrine will give people insight into how we, in my area, look at these things. (NOTE: This isn't a step-transaction. But it will provide you insight to the real-world of tax law and practice.)

The article and the right-wing noise machine over the article is, literally, one of the stupidist things I've ever read. I've got SCORES of clients that do this, perfectly legally (like Ried), every day. I even help them structure the transactions and events to absolutely minimize their tax consequences while helping them manage their liability risks.

And, for what it's worth, Ried's LLC was solely to manage risks. There was no tax purpose to be served by otherwise placing the land in a Nevada LLC. And, in fact, very rarely is there a tax advantage to use the SubChapter K LLC to operate real-estate. It doesn't get you out of Sec. 469 limitations. It doesn't reclassify items of income, deduction or credit or allow unallowable expenses to become allowable. You can't materially shift expenses under the SEE rules.

It does have some tax traps, some of which can be surprising to the unititiated or the incompetent. And, not all states recoginize the pass-through nature of the SubChapter K LLC and can tax the gains as "ordinary" income. (Like Tennessee, for example.)

Anyway, it's an obvioulsy bull-shit issue made up by an idiot and spread by more idiots. There is, literally, nothing there.

And with that, I'm going back to enjoying the day-after. That is, the day after all properly extended individuals and partnerships on a calander year should have been filed. After a week of 15-20 hour days, and 17-days straight without a day off, I need a life...

So, enjoy!!!
Moses | 10.17.06 - 1:10 pm | #

"daleyrocks" sez:

Didn't Blowjob Bill wag his finger at Peter Jennings when Jennings pointed out that survey of 56 historians ranked the Clinton administration 41 out of 42 administrations, behind Nixon, on morality? I didn't try to find out who was dead last.

The Reagan/Bush administration had a lot more people resign, get indicted, or otherwise get in trouble, than did Clinton. But for complete corruption, I think we've got a new champeen in today's rulng Republican junta....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 1:12 pm | #

Dear kind readers of this most excellent blog by Glenn Greenwald, please be advised:

Every day two rambunctious chimps from that CareerBuilder commercial escape and roam around these parts. They go by the name Bart and Shooter242. If you see them, don't feel like you have to engage them. If you like Glenn's work -- and some very best comments on the internet by the readers -- you will not like them. They will hurl their poop at you.

Renato, David, Paul and others here do a great job of corralling them and returning them to set in time for their next hilarious commercial.
Antonio | 10.17.06 - 1:13 pm | #

"[A] large percentage of the policymakers and Congressmen he interviews -- including those who make policy with regard to the Middle East -- lack the most basic understanding of the region, including basic facts such as the difference between Sunnis and Shiites"

Overheard by a friend of mind in the Pentagon's hallowed halls from a counterterrorism "expert": On Muslims, "Why are so many of them named Muhammad?"

I wish I were kidding.
Shochu John | 10.17.06 - 1:15 pm | #

I agree with Kenneth Fair | 10.17.06 - 12:08 pm | regarding the Reid transaction. Not only was there nothing untoward about the transaction, but also the AP reporter was a twit for claiming it was a "sale" without qualification.

Two comments:

1) In fairness to those who got steamed up about this based on the AP story, if it HAD been a sale, it would have been a no-no. There would clearly have been a substantial capital gain.

2) The actual transaction aside, there does appear to be a conflict or conflicts of interest, stemming from the possible involvement of his son, or from his possible influence as a legislator for personal gain.

To be continued, I'm sure.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 1:18 pm | #

GOP people live in glass houses, so they shouldn't throw stones.

From daleyrocks at 12:53pm:

Nonscandal. Bullshit!

Present evidence of all this, or please just let it go. You're just embarrassing yourself more.

Or maybe you're a self-hating masochist and prefer this kind of humiliation. Whatever.
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 1:19 pm | #

Glenn:

After your series of witch hunt posts alleging some sort of a scandal arising from the fact that the House Elephants (and now it appears the Donkeys and several news outlets) knew about a couple nonsexual emails from Foley to a page, you seem to be curiously incurious about the latest report of Mr. Reid's questionable financial transactions.

You make a valid point that there are no tax advantages to transferring the property in question from Mr. Reid to an LLC owned by Mr. Reid. Indeed, as an owner of an LLC myself, I am unaware of any legal advantages which might accrue to Mr. Reid from this transfer.

This begs the question of why do the transfer at all?

Based on the sketchy reporting to date, I can speculate why Mr. Reid would want to get his name separated from this property deal...

1) Reid's partner, Jay Brown, is a former Casino lawyer whose name keeps popping up in Nevada bribery and organized crime investigations. For political reasons, Reid might not want to be associated with Brown in this land deal.

2) It has been reported on NPR that the local zoning commission's staff recommended against Brown's request to rezone this land from residential to commercial because a commercial designation would be contrary to the general plan for the area. However, Brown raised Reid's name and the commission overruled its staff and allowed the rezoning. Did Reid directly intervene with the commission so he could make nearly 200% profit on his investment?

Like the Foley "scandal," the latest Reid "scandal" may end up being more smell than substance. However, the way you flogged the former and then attempt to excuse away the latter is illustrative that your claim of being non-partisan is a joke.
Bart | 10.17.06 - 1:24 pm | #

You might try to clean up your own side of the aisle before you prevaricate.
Here is a fine list of Republicans either convicted or implicated in corruption:

Rep Charles Taylor R-NC
Rep Bob Ney R-Oh
Rep Richard Pombo R-CA
Rep Conrad Burns R-MT
Sen Bill Frist R-TN
Rep Roy Blunt-RMO
Rep Randy Cunningham-R-CA
Rep Tom Feeney-R FL
Rep Marilyn Musgrave R-CO
Or how about Mark Grethen, awarded Republican of the year by the NRCC but rescinded after they had discovered he was serving a twenty six year prison sentence for child molesting.
How about Republican governors? you remember George Ryan or Bob Taft?
Did I mention Tom Delay? Mark Foley, or possibly Jim Kolbe?
Now if you want to get into immorality we might have a serious problem because I don’t believe Glenn has enough bandwidth to show all the Republicans implicated in immoral acts. But I’ll be happy to try if you like.
You would see reality more clearly, except your colon gets in the way.
brainfaht | 10.17.06 - 1:27 pm | #

Like the Foley "scandal," the latest Reid "scandal" may end up being more smell than substance.

False analogy, save it for Broder.

"Conservatives" can believe anything, even if they have to invert the values of success and failure. No wonder they make such great little Soviets.
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 1:27 pm | #

DALEYROCKS - Without disclosure of Ringside Harry's ownership interest in the LLC, we would have no idea he was in partnership with Jay Brown.

Had Reid reported the transfer of this property to the LLC, how would you have known that Jay Brown was a member of the LLC?
Glenn Greenwald | 10.17.06 - 1:28 pm | #

Harry Reid - Without disclosure of Ringside Harry's ownership interest in the LLC, we would have no idea he was in partnership with Jay Brown. Brown apparently has a less than savory past and that information might be of interest to voters. The completion of the land sale required rezoning and a land swap to create the value realized, facts that Harry's influence and family connections no doubt helped facilitate.

Nonscandal. Bullshit!
daleyrocks


Ah, another intellectual lightweight weighing in on something about which he's completely ignorant. LLCs are registered with the Secretary of State (or equivalent) in every state that has an LLC statute. When you registar, you file your ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION that discloses ALL THE MEMBERS.

These are PUBLIC DOCUMENTS for which ANYONE can obtain a copy. Plus, when one of these LLCs is formed, the formation is published by the Secretary of State. It's so NON-SECRET that people, like me and 1000's of other service providers use the published information as business leads. And, there are businesses that glean these lists (like Amerilist) so we don't have read the Sunday paper OR go down to the Capitol to get the information ourselves.


You have to be a card-carrying member of the tin-foil hat brigade to think there's a story here. This is 100% normal.
Moses | 10.17.06 - 1:32 pm | #

A quick trip[ down memory lane....

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.

A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...6062102210.html
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 1:33 pm | #

How is it hiding his involvement if he claimed that he owned the property? I don't get it.
EJ | 10.17.06 - 1:36 pm | #

Bart,

Foley's not a scandal anymore? Could have fooled me. Won't Reynolds in NY-26 be relieved to know his reelection is safe and he can ignore all those polls showing him losing.

Minority Leader Hastert will have plenty of time to explain to america how it wasn't a scandal. He won't have the burden of being speaker anymore, where one might do some due diligence when informed of a potential risk to minors entrusted to your care.

But I'm sure if you have kids, you don't worry at all if their coach wants to go camping with them.
Dan D | 10.17.06 - 1:36 pm | #

Nancy Pelosi is no more admirable than Newt Gingrich. Both seek power and adulation. Both will do whatever it takes to get there. And both can be relied upon to serve their own interest in power before anything and everything else.

If I were looking toward a line of division for where to place my vote in the upcoming election, I would not be so quick to say that it is simply GOP "no," Dem "yes." For it's pretty well established that Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) has shown more integrity and love for his nation than has Barack Obama (D-IL) and the record shows which of those two gentlemen -- both young and intelligent, both politicians with potential decades of public service ahead of them -- is voting his conscience, and which is played as an operative of his party, a Pinocchio to his handlers' Geppetto.

And it is not Lincoln Chafee.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 1:38 pm | #

You make a valid point that there are no tax advantages to transferring the property in question from Mr. Reid to an LLC owned by Mr. Reid. Indeed, as an owner of an LLC myself, I am unaware of any legal advantages which might accrue to Mr. Reid from this transfer.

A bad attorney with a bad CPA... I'm laughing now...

There are advantages, first and foremost being LIMITED LIABILITY (duh). But there are other advantages. Which I'm gleefully going to keep to myself as I'm not teaching you tax law or investment stratagy and I'm surely not going to cast my pearls in front of you, the swine.

Anyway, there are advantages. They take careful management and crafting and are outside the skills of most attornies and CPAs. But these advantages are not without a price. And there are tons of pitfalls for the incompetent and unwary.
Moses | 10.17.06 - 1:38 pm | #

Did Reid directly intervene with the commission so he could make nearly 200% profit on his investment?

200% sounds like a lot until you realize that Reid bought the land in 1998 and sold it in 2004. Believe it or not, but things do go up in value by themselves. And while I'm not really familiar with Las Vegas, I somehow have the impression that it's a booming town where real estate might appreciate in value over time; particularly over six years.

What's crazy is that the rightwingers have the scandal backwards. They're acting as if Reid was brought into an LLC so he could use his influence, flip it, and walk away with a huge profit for having done nothing; thus having used his influence for a sketchy deal. The fact that Reid bought the property with his own money and sold it six years later is completely legitimate. And sure, you could raise questions about it. But these questions don't even pass the IRS's toughest standards. They're jokes.

There is no reason to assume that Reid did anything wrong, and the fact that you can ask questions means absolutely nothing. We had good reasons to believe that Hastert was covering for a sexual predator, and that's exactly the case. There is nothing to suggest that Reid did anything wrong, and it sure looks like he did things the standard way.
Doctor Biobrain | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 1:40 pm | #

Bart:
This begs the question of why do the transfer at all?

Obviously, for the same reason as everyone else in the world who does it, and the reason the entity exists, to limit liability in the event of property damage, injury or death occurring on the property. But you knew that, didn't you? So, one must wonder why you would type that question.
david | 10.17.06 - 1:40 pm | #

Another brilliant post I'll be referring people to like crazy. Thanks, Glenn! Also perfectly in line with the consistency you mentioned is the Administration's affection for sexual slavery:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/...-worked- in.html
Susan | 10.17.06 - 1:41 pm | #

Everything is so awful these days that it's a good thing at least some parts of Bushco's foreign policy are going well.

North Korea says we've declared war on them. Oh well, at least they're pussycats. It's not like they are a country who got so angry that they starved millions of their own citizens to death the last time sanctions were imposed, or a country which now has nuclear weapons so if they get that mad again they can direct that unruly temper at other nations' citizens (guess who!) or anything like that.....

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea on Tuesday blasted U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing the country for its nuclear test, saying the measures amount to a declaration of war and that the nation wouldn't cave in to such pressure now that it's a nuclear weapons power.
Eyes Wide Open | 10.17.06 - 1:42 pm | #

---

There are advantages, first and foremost being LIMITED LIABILITY (duh). But there are other advantages. Which I'm gleefully going to keep to myself as I'm not teaching you tax law or investment stratagy and I'm surely not going to cast my pearls in front of you, the swine.

Anyway, there are advantages. They take careful management and crafting and are outside the skills of most attornies and CPAs. But these advantages are not without a price. And there are tons of pitfalls for the incompetent and unwary.
Moses | 10.17.06 - 1:38 pm | #

While it's mighty impressive that you can play "secret corporate agent" on this topic, and you can pretend at a wisdom and calculus that is beyond the reach of Joe Sixpack, the simple truth is that going from private ownership to LLC ownership is primarily a point of avoiding financial and legal responsibility.

Any "secret corporate agent" benefits that you "secret corporate agents" can muster with your "secret corporate agent decoder rings" is pretty well beside the point. But thanks for sharing.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 1:44 pm | #

It's funny, the last couple of days I follow a chorus of incestuous links around the Bush blog sites and occasionally attempt to explain the Reid deal. They cuss and insult and insist Reid is crooked, all without a shred of understanding of what the story is about. In all that conversation, not one other CPA or attorney, not one knowledgable person shows up to discuss. How can that be? We're at the tail end of a record-breaking 10 year real estate boom, and not one of them knows what an LLC is, much less more intricate aspects of real estate development. I'm not kidding, not one. Anyway, I pop in here to fix Glenn referring to a 2001 "sale", and the place is crawling with people who understand this transaction. I really learned something about the blogosphere this week.
david | 10.17.06 - 1:51 pm | #

Bart, give it up. This Moses isn't the one who was found in the bullrushes. Then again, you're the guy who likes getting his ass handed to him by Harvard law professors.

Bart, any donkey could do this to you, even the long-eared variety, but it's nice to see a real expert put you in your place once in a while.
William Timberman | 10.17.06 - 1:54 pm | #

We're also forgetting that Mr. Gingrich's first wife was ONE OF HIS HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS. Not that that's illegal, but bleagggh.

Also his bad novels. Again, sadly enough, not illegal.

Note that anyone who seeks to outlaw same-sex marriage on the grounds of Christian doctrine would do well to FIRST outlaw opposite-sex divorce, which is very clearly forbidden in the New Testament, and not just by Paul--by Jesus himself.

Jesus never says anything about the gay, but he's very clear on the topic of divorce. Shouldn't our self-appointed guardians of Christian morality start by outlawing heterosexual divorce, a sin which 90%+ of our population are at risk of committing?
JupiterPluvius | 10.17.06 - 1:54 pm | #

Republicans know people will easily believe the worst, so they constantly give it to them. The equivalency myth works for them, since if they're all crooks, you may as well vote for the one who will lower your taxes.
Dan D

That's a truly insightful observation. It also goes along with the shift toward faux individualism, whereby American citizens and businesses pretend to be independent but in reality are controlled by corporations and exist on government handouts.

If everything is going to shit, the thinking goes, at least I can be upwardly mobile and thus provide for my family, my kids' education, etc. Social security vouchers, private health care, SUVs, an Army of ONE—it all adds up to I-can trust-no-one-but-myself, but please somebody fix the roads and bridges and hospitals etc. etc. etc. It's irresponsible, and it's encouraged.

America—Consume Now for a Better Future!
Baldie McEagle | 10.17.06 - 1:55 pm | #

Paul:
the simple truth is that going from private ownership to LLC ownership is primarily a point of avoiding financial and legal responsibility.

You make it sound so sinister. You have something against corporations and LLCs? What are you, a communist?
david | 10.17.06 - 1:56 pm | #

Paul:
the simple truth is that going from private ownership to LLC ownership is primarily a point of avoiding financial and legal responsibility.

You make it sound so sinister. You have something against corporations and LLCs? What are you, a communist?
david | 10.17.06 - 1:56 pm | #

david:

Bart: This begs the question of why do the transfer at all?

Obviously, for the same reason as everyone else in the world who does it, and the reason the entity exists, to limit liability in the event of property damage, injury or death occurring on the property.

My firm uses this entity to protect me personally against liability for injuries to invitees who come to my officer.

However, Reid owned undeveloped land with no invitees, so there is no need for this protection.
Bart | 10.17.06 - 1:57 pm | #

However, Reid owned undeveloped land with no invitees, so there is no need for this protection.

You are pretending, now. Did you say your "firm"? Are you a lawyer? Do you seriously expect me to believe you think there is no liability exposure with a vacant lot? What are you playing at?
david | 10.17.06 - 2:00 pm | #

As for the Reid matter, Doctor Biobrain points out in Comments that the proceeds received by the LLC from the sale of land are automatically deemed (for tax and accounting purposes) to be personal income to Reid, even if the proceeds remain in the LLC.

This is not entirely true because the person who wrote the post isn't... well... He did a good job, and explained it well, but it was a bit narrow and conventional and didn't actually hit all the LLC forms.

There are (simplified) FOUR types of LLCs. Three of which file discreet Federal returns and one that does not.

Single Member: A single member LLC is a proprietorship/farm/whatever and (for FEDERAL PURPOSES) files his Form 1040 with the appropriate Schedules (Schedule C, E, F, etc.). The only "LLC return" filed is a the State level.

Partnership Form: This is the "traditional" LLC enacted in Wyoming in 1979 and has been exported through-out the nation. This form comes in "general partnership" and "limited partnership" forms and the tax accounting is IAW SubChapter K of the Internal Revenue Code. These are filed on Form 1065.

C-Corporation Form: By intention or accident a LLC can be a CORPORATE form and is treated under SubChapter C of the Internal Revenue Code. It files on an 1120. UNLESS:

S-Corporation Form: It elects to be taxed under SubChapter S of the Internal Revenue Code.


I have LLC clients that fall under all categories. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Each has a particular business model and tax planning structure to which it fits best.

These are not the only solutions. But, for goals of the tax universe each entity operates, they are the BEST solutions. Because while we think of FEDERAL LAW, there are STATES with their particular laws as well. And what works well in Nevada could be a disaster in California or Texas or Florida or Tennesee...

Anyway, it was a good explanation for a layman. Or even an average CPA/attorney who isn't a specialist.

But the word "automatically" isn't quite right though it doesn't actually defeat your argument because, in Reid's case, he was a SubChapter K LLC member. But, nitpickingly so, "typically and usually" are better word choices. Even saying "huge majority of the time" would be right because ALMOST ALL LLC's are SubChapter K. And, in Reid's case, he was a SubChapter K LLC so it was, in his case, reported on his return. REGARDLESS, as you pointed out, if he took the money or not.

But "automaticially" can't apply because SubChapter C LLCs are not pass-through entities.
Moses | 10.17.06 - 2:01 pm | #

I'd just like to ask all those going on about "limiting liability" on LLC's, what exactly would Reid need limited on this deal? I'll never claim great expertise, as I'm just a simple CPA who does things the straight-forward way for small businesses who don't like fancy shananigans; but I don't really see how Reid's land deal would need such protection. And if anything, it just gave his partner more ability to screw him.

I think he put it in the LLC so they could sell both plots of land together, rather than working two separate deals; which is what they did. And if two people are doing business together, they have to do it in a separate entity, even if they're husband and wife. But I think it was just the easiest thing to do, and that limited liability or Moses' financial chicanery were not necessary.
Doctor Biobrain | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 2:02 pm | #

TORTURE BILL news items

*** McCain didn't attend today's signing, according to FoxNews.

*** 15 non-violent protesters arrested at the White House, according to AP.

*** Today's full-page ad by the ACLU in the Washington Post is viewable here:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/ 27085leg20061017.html

*** Bloomberg's latest update is reporting that there are major unresolved constitutional issues with the bill. Most of the other news wires haven't started reporting that part of the story. Will they follow up?
sysprog | 10.17.06 - 2:06 pm | #

Bart,

Reid owned the land with a partner. An LLC is a means of sharing the ownership in the land.

Besides, people can't get hurt in empty lots and sue the owners? Of course they can. Limiting liability is a favourite passtime of republicans, in their quest to end these mythical "frivolous" lawsuit they claim are ruining america.

You know...asbestos, cigarette manufacturers, poorly tested pharmaceticals - all specious torts no doubt!
Dan D | 10.17.06 - 2:06 pm | #

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -Eleanor Roosevelt
TritoneSubstitution | 10.17.06 - 2:06 pm | #

MOses,
Don't muddy the water. If Reid's LLC is a C (or S), then the 2001 transfer was a sale, should have been at FMV in 2001, and resulted in reportable gain. No way. Irrelevant. You start throwing Bart bones like that and we'll never hear the end of his "You don't know he didn't check the box" crap.
david | 10.17.06 - 2:07 pm | #

Is Shooter242 a terrorist? Did he NEED to have sex with his father? Was the midget consenting, or was it the Rohypnol talking? And why hasn't he spoken openly of these issues yet? Is there really much more he has to hide?


Is it irresponsible to speculate?

No. It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
r€nato | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 2:09 pm | #

Dr. Biobrain: I'd just like to ask all those going on about "limiting liability" on LLC's, what exactly would Reid need limited on this deal?

e.g.-Kids are hiking in the woods, climb a tree, one falls out. The tree is on your property. Kid's family sues you. LLC shields you personally.

And if two people are doing business together, they have to do it in a separate entity, even if they're husband and wife.

That is patently not true.
david | 10.17.06 - 2:11 pm | #

david --

Sinister? Well, you should question the assumptions that you make when you read my posts.

Communist? Well, you should question the assumptions that you make when you read my posts.

If you're joking, I'll grant you some mild comedy with those remarks.

If you're serious, I'll urge you to observe that I was simply stating facts, despite the attempt by Bible Boy Moses to make it seem that there's some ultra-secret society of know-it-alls who have the lock on some very hush-hush side benefits to the LLC format.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 2:11 pm | #

hey bart, have you discovered yet how CREW hacked into GOP computers to obtain the Foley IMs?
r€nato | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 2:12 pm | #

This is not entirely true because the person who wrote the post isn't... well... He did a good job, and explained it well, but it was a bit narrow and conventional and didn't actually hit all the LLC forms.

Great. Why don't you just bore everyone to death. Maybe cut-and-paste some IRS regs while you're at it. You should try reading my blog some time and you'll see that I write everything for the layman. Why would anyone else need to read me? If you're not a layman, then you already know what I'm saying. And even then, I almost never blog about CPA stuff, as I like to keep my readers.

And it went without saying that Reid was getting the pass-through. I didn't even know how this LLC was set-up, but I was sure that he did it that way. Sure, he could have done it differently; but he wouldn't have in this case. That was obvious. And you don't need to say stuff that doesn't need to be said. The first rule of conveying information is to know your audience.
Doctor Biobrain | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 2:13 pm | #

Paul Breher,

Nancy Pelosi is no more admirable than Newt Gingrich. Both seek power and adulation. Both will do whatever it takes to get there. And both can be relied upon to serve their own interest in power before anything and everything else.

You are engaging in the equivalency myth I am complaining about. Nancy Pelosi could be as you describe, except we have no evidence of that. We do have ample proof of that for Hastert. Yet you equate them, and tarnish her with the same brush.

As to Chafee: He's a republican in a heavily blue state. Of course he will vote his "conscience" but I note not once did his vote make the difference in defeating a Bush proposal or passing a democratic one. He votes his "conscience" when the result is predetermined.

He also voted for cloture on Samuel Alito, while professing to be "pro-choice"

Look elsewhere for your principled politicians. As Glenn demonstrated a few posts ago, there are no moderate republican senators.
Dan D | 10.17.06 - 2:13 pm | #

Paul, you wrote:"avoiding legal and financial responsibility"?

You don't think that is a loaded construction?
By the way, the assets of the LLC, including in this case the million dollar property, are exposed. Is that "avoiding legal and financial responsibility"?
david | 10.17.06 - 2:15 pm | #

Off topic, but on the signing of the Detainee Torture Bill, Bloomberg has this headline: "Terror-Tribunal Bill Allowing Interrogation of Suspects Is Signed by Bush" As if opponents of the bill were opposed to interrogation! Ugh!!! Where can we get a better press corps?
Crust | 10.17.06 - 2:19 pm | #

"It's just amazing how a federal powerline right of way and habitat for the state reptile were magically transformed into non-problems for that particular property."

-shooter242, 12:28 pm

Actually, this refers to an entirely separate series of events that have nothing to do with the land deal currently being discussed. Nice try, though.
Rufus | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 2:32 pm | #

Digby on the MCA (torture bill):
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/ 2006_10_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116110846110311 136

I don't ever want to hear anyone on the right talk about moral values again. They are concepts which they clearly do not understand. And if they dare to bring up the Bible or Jesus Christ after this I will laugh in their faces, knowing that by their own standards they are going straight to hell for what they've done.

I am truly impressed by all the financial firepower assembled on Reid's behalf. Do any of you erudite individuals have a handle on who or what paid the tax on the capital gain?

How about the likelihood of overcoming staff recommendations against rezoning for an average citizen?

Any suggestions on how to get around environmental regs and Federal rights of way?

Heh, heh.
shooter242 | 10.17.06 - 2:41 pm | #

david,

I don't understand your characterization. Where I live (the United States of America) there is nothing "loaded" about observing that an LLC entity avoids fiscal and legal liability compared to straight personal ownership, unless by "loaded" you mean it's "loaded" with accuracy and truth.

Perhaps you are making the rather grievous mistake of thinking that I am supporting "Bart" or trying to excoriate Reid.

Or perhaps you simply don't understand the distinction between direct personal ownership of land, and placing the land in the ownership of an LLC.

Whichever the case, I assure you that I was not "loading" anything. So I must again urge you to consider that you are reading far too much into my posts.
___________________________________

Dan D,

I enjoy reading posts like your response to me above. It's always good to see someone stretch the truth and reality to fit his or her ideological worldview. It's always good, sometimes even great, to see someone try to explain why Linc Chafee is not a principled politician compared to DLC Pinocchio Obama.

Your fantasy about what drives Linc Chafee might entertain you and other blindly partisan ideologues, but it does nothing to change the reality of what Linc Chafee has done versus what the Dems have done in the face of most of the Bush/Cheney Admin's legislative agenda.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 2:42 pm | #

Bart:
This begs the question of why do the transfer at all?

I knew the answer to this last week.

Your rightwing news sources leave you vulnerable. No wonder you cling to them. But, as a result, you are inferior.

It's gotten so bad that ignorance is the only argument you get from bushtards anymore.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 2:43 pm | #

Shorter Shooter242:"I don't know what I am talking about. Heh."
david | 10.17.06 - 2:45 pm | #

How about the likelihood of overcoming staff recommendations against rezoning for an average citizen?

Actually, Bart already posted all the info you need to answer that one.

Like I said: inferior.
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 2:46 pm | #

Jack Balkin:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/rights-against- torture-without.html
... The bottom line is simple: The MCA preserves rights against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, but it severs these rights from any practical remedy ... It is a travesty of law under the forms of law. It is the accumulation of executive, judicial, and legislative powers in a single branch and under a single individual.

It is the very essence of tyranny.

Posted 1:16 PM by JB

Nancy Pelosi is no more admirable than Newt Gingrich.

But, since they aren't both running on a phony "moral values" shtick, your statement is a false analogy fallacy.

Quit sucking up to your abusers.
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 2:50 pm | #

Paul:there is nothing "loaded" about observing that an LLC entity avoids fiscal and legal liability compared to straight personal ownership, unless by "loaded" you mean it's "loaded" with accuracy and truth.

How does the exposure of, in this case, a million + dollar asset constitute avoidance of liability? People who are not grinding an axe refer to it as "limiting" libility.
david | 10.17.06 - 2:50 pm | #

From shooter242 at 2:41pm:

Heh, heh.

Yet another sufferer of Kuru.

http://www.disease-reference.com...ce.com/ Kuru.htm

Well, at least that confirms your lot really do eat their own.
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 2:52 pm | #

Paul, the last I heard, Mr. Chafee's opponent was Sheldon Whitehouse, not Barack Obama.

I agree that Mr. Chafee is generally a well-informed and intelligent politician with a demonstrated commitment to public service. However, so is Mr. Whitehouse.

Voting for Mr. Whitehouse means voting for new leadership in the Senate as well as voting for a smart and hard-working politician. Voting for Mr. Chafee means voting for a smart and hard-working politician, but it also means voting for the current Senate leadership.
JupiterPluvius | 10.17.06 - 3:00 pm | #

From the fulminations expressed by some of the commentators here about LLCs, you'd think they were against limited liability, period.

I've set up quite a few LLCs myself. Nothing mysterious. Dealt with the whole capital contribution, "taxable events", etc.

Suggestion of a good text to read before the trolls open their mouths any more: Structuring Ventur Capital, Private Equity, and Entrepreneurial Transactions, by Levin.
tzs | 10.17.06 - 3:02 pm | #

david,

Instead of reframing the issue in a way that makes you look brilliant, please answer my simple question.

Are you trying to argue that Joe Sixpack's personal financial liabilities and personal legal liabilities are the same regardless of whether Joe personally owns a property, versus whether Joe sets up a LLC to own the property?
__________________________________

Grand Moff Texan,

While I would imagine you get some kind of bizarre enjoyment out of accusing me of "sucking up to my abusers," perhaps you could tell me to whom I'm sucking up, and precisely whom is abusing me.

Because from where I sit, it looks like you have made some rather large assumptions about me "sucking up to" someone or some group, and likewise about someone or some group "abusing" me. And I'm pretty sure you're wrong in your assumptions. But I'll offer the chance to prove that I'm wrong in saying you're wrong.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 3:02 pm | #

Jupiter Pluvius,

If you need to misread my post to make your point, I'd say you're guilty of setting up a straw man argument for the sake of destroying it.

What I did was compare a Republican to a Democrat for the sake of saying that it is not as simple as Dem "yes" and Repub "no."

To amplify my point I used an example of a good Repub and a bad Dem.

Now you seek to paint Chafee with the broad brush of ALL Repubs, which is not the issue I was discussing.

However, if you wish to discuss the issue of all members of a party, please try to focus on the fact that the Democrats joined the Republicans in re-authorizing the Iraq Defense Budget in the US Senate, where the vote was 100-0.

Thanks for listening and reading.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 3:05 pm | #

tzs,

I think I agree with what I think I understand your rather ambiguous post is trying to say.

But would you please clarify for me the distinction between "troll" and non-"troll" posts, and give examples of each?

Thanks.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 3:08 pm | #

Instead of reframing the issue in a way that makes you look brilliant,

Huh?

please answer my simple question.

Are you trying to argue that Joe Sixpack's personal financial liabilities and personal legal liabilities are the same regardless of whether Joe personally owns a property, versus whether Joe sets up a LLC to own the property?

Do you read English?

Are we arguing semantics? Are you saying you use the term "avoiding" in a completely non-judgmental way? If so, fine, but it is inaccurate. Try "partly avoiding", if you must.
david | 10.17.06 - 3:13 pm | #

But would you please clarify for me the distinction between "troll" and non-"troll" posts, and give examples of each?

Thanks.
Paul Behrer

Paul Behrer = troll
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 3:16 pm | #

Paul,

I gave you substantive examples of Chafee caving into the Bush administration against his own stated principles.

If you wish to defend his record, provide examples where he stood up to Bush or for higher principles that his party are ignoring. Did Chafee go on CNN and decry the actions of his party? Did he publicly repudiate the false torture bill "compromise"? No, he quietly voted against it, knowing it would pass.

You want to give Chafee a hero biscuit for doing the right thing...sort of...some of the time. If Chafee were a democrat he would be at best in the middle of the pack on secular morality. And he's the very best republican around these days - tepid, insubstantial and inconsequential opposition to the modern facists.

Guess who Chafee supports as majority leader: Dr Long Range diagnosis himself, Bill Frist. Did Chafee vote to revoke Michael Shiavo's rights? I bet he did. Let's keep this straight:At the current time, it is impossible to be a good Republican, because all Republicans by definition must endorse their demonstratably immoral leaders.

So Great, Chafee won't lead the march to absolutist government. Yipee. You know the names of any Roman Senators who weren't thrilled about Caesar becoming Emperor? Neither do I - history doesn't remember mediocrity.

I don't know where you get the idea I'm defending Obama, I'm disappointed with him frankly but I was never on his bandwagon. He's still better than Keyes would have been, for the little that's worth. Keep knocking down those strawmen! Maybe you can pretend I like Hillary Clinton too, so you can hit that out of the park and win your imaginary fight.
Dan D | 10.17.06 - 3:17 pm | #

"Although Reid technically no longer owns the land--the LLC owns it--he owns an equivalent share of the LLC and has gained or lost nothing by the transaction."

Be careful of the tax trap where contributing mortgaged property to an LLC and having the LLC assume liability can be a gain to the contributor.

In the larger picture, Republicans can suck my ass.
Martin | 10.17.06 - 3:20 pm | #

JOB OPPORTUNITIES! thanks to GWB & Co.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijhLy_V9iM
Rated R for "adult" language. Possibly unfunny to you.
anonymous | 10.17.06 - 3:28 pm | #

And Paul Behrer,

Allow me to be the first in the thread (there will be others) to ask you kindly to please go and sexually abuse yourself elsewhere...
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 3:28 pm | #

"You are pretending, now. Did you say your "firm"? Are you a lawyer? Do you seriously expect me to believe you think there is no liability exposure with a vacant lot? What are you playing at?
david | 10.17.06 - 2:00 pm "

There is no need to go through the trouble to set up an LLC just because of liability. Insurance for this is very inexpensive, and as Bart was suggesting, it is extremely unlikely that there would ever be a claim. Hence the cheap price of insurance.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 3:28 pm | #

Something huge just occurred to me. This is rather off-subject, but not really, so bear with me.

There's been much musing on the leftward side of the blogosphere about an imminent US attack on Iran. Boats leaving for the Persian Gulf, hat direction, but the MSM hasn'tOctober Surprise, etc.

No one doubts the fact that all these navy vessels are headed for just off the coast of Iran, but no one seriously suspects that the US would attack. Our army is too stretched, and the backlash to the current admin speciafically, and the US generally, would be huge.

So what's going on? What's the Big Plan.

Well, I think I figured it out.

We aren't going to attack Iran. Israel is.

A huge aerial strike at all possible and probable nuclear sites, with the US giving limited logistic support, but not using any of our planes to actually drop bombs/fire missiles.

For all of you who have been following politics for the past couple of years (which includes most of you, since you're on the commnent section of this site) I won't bother to explain all of the obvious reasons behind why this is a possible scenario.

Think about it. It makes sense.
eastriver | 10.17.06 - 3:28 pm | #

Sorry for not proofing my previous comment. I was/am in a hurry.
eastriver | 10.17.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Sorry for not proofing my previous comment. I was/am in a hurry.
eastriver | 10.17.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Moses - You show your lack of intelligence by making assumptions about the level of knowledge of other commenters on subjects discussed on this blog. You have also completely missed the boat on the issue on the Reid scandal. It's very easy for people with any degree of financial sophistication to understand issues related to the formation and functioning of LLC's, LLP's, etc., but thank's much for the attempted tutorial. Was Reid an owner in the LLC at the time of formation in these fabulous records on file with the secretary of state that everyone was obviously watching like a hawk? I don't know, I didn't look.

The issue here is not the LLC operating structure, but the disclosure of his business and financial relationship with Jay Brown. The federal land swap and rezoning which created value for the land parcels contributed to the LLC were certainly not hut by the influence of Dirty Harry and his well positioned family in Nevada.

Yankme - This information is readily available on the net. You can prove you are not a complete idiot and do some reading on your own. Spoon feeding is for babies.

The editorial pages of the Washington Post, Atlanta Jouranl Constitution and whatever Philadelphia paper covered it seem to think something is here. The silence of the NY Times is telling. If indeed they thought there was nothing, they would be coming out cery forcefully.
daleyrocks | 10.17.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Martin | 10.17.06 - 3:20 pm as a Republican I'm going to have to pass on your offer, but thanks for thinking about us.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 3:36 pm | #

There is no need to go through the trouble to set up an LLC just because of liability. Insurance for this is very inexpensive, and as Bart was suggesting, it is extremely unlikely that there would ever be a claim. Hence the cheap price of insurance.

Insurance does not limit liability. People with substantial assets will usually compartmentalize exposure of this type.
david | 10.17.06 - 3:37 pm | #

The silence of the NY Times is telling. If indeed they thought there was nothing, they would be coming out cery forcefully.

Ah, the "argument from silence." Relying on fallacies means you literally have nothing. This doesn't surprise me since I've been watching your type flap around like a dying fish on this "issue" for over a week.

Still nothing solid, eh? Keep blowing smoke, someone will think there's fire.
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 3:39 pm | #

While I would imagine you get some kind of bizarre enjoyment out of accusing me of "sucking up to my abusers," perhaps you could tell me to whom I'm sucking up, and precisely whom is abusing me.

Dear Paul,

This is my standard reply to the "they're all the same" meme. It's a great ploy for pretending there is no option. As for your abusers, please try to pay closer attention to politics.

regards,
me
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 3:41 pm | #

Daleyrocks, I think the larger concern is this issue of you having your way with defenseless animals, even house pets, so frequently. The reason I bring it up now is you have decided the real issues are those for which there is no evidence, but a great deal of conjecture and speculation from political enemies.

As for the editorials you mentioned, they were obviously written by people who don't understand tax law and real estate development. Of course if you actually understood the topic, you would know that. I guess your bestiality hobby takes too much of your time.
david | 10.17.06 - 3:43 pm | #

Moses - You show your lack of intelligence by making assumptions about the level of knowledge of other commenters on subjects discussed on this blog. You have also completely missed the boat on the issue on the Reid scandal. It's very easy for people with any degree of financial sophistication to understand issues related to the formation and functioning of LLC's, LLP's, etc., but thank's much for the attempted tutorial. Was Reid an owner in the LLC at the time of formation in these fabulous records on file with the secretary of state that everyone was obviously watching like a hawk? I don't know, I didn't look.

The issue here is not the LLC operating structure, but the disclosure of his business and financial relationship with Jay Brown. The federal land swap and rezoning which created value for the land parcels contributed to the LLC were certainly not hut by the influence of Dirty Harry and his well positioned family in Nevada.

Yankme - This information is readily available on the net. You can prove you are not a complete idiot and do some reading on your own. Spoon feeding is for babies.

The editorial pages of the Washington Post, Atlanta Jouranl Constitution and whatever Philadelphia paper covered it seem to think something is here. The silence of the NY Times is telling. If indeed they thought there was nothing, they would be coming out cery forcefully.
daleyrocks

A tour-de-force of knownothingism. Let's break it down.

(1) You show your lack of intelligence
(2) You have also completely missed the boat
(3) I don't know, I didn't look.
(4) Dirty Harry
(5) Spoon feeding is for babies.
(6) The silence of the NY Times is telling.

Fact-free and 100% spin. Dailywanks didn't deny the sex charges, so they must be true. What did he know about the page rapes? His opponents are stupid to oppose him.

All in a day's work for the Boy Wanker.
Baldie McEagle | 10.17.06 - 3:45 pm | #

From daleyrocks the cowardly dog at 3:30pm:

Yankme - This information is readily available on the net. You can prove you are not a complete idiot and do some reading on your own. Spoon feeding is for babies.

Whereas making allegations without supporting documentation, claiming it is "readily available", proves you to be shill who cannot be taken seriously.

You can prove yourself otherwise by actually supporting your argument with appropriate links and citation.

The editorial pages of the Washington Post, Atlanta Jouranl Constitution and whatever Philadelphia paper covered it seem to think something is here.

So you're taking a lead from the opinion pages now? How sad you've no opinions of your own, nor any genuine interest in the subject.

The silence of the NY Times is telling. If indeed they thought there was nothing, they would be coming out cery forcefully.

Its telling only to yourself and the rest of your rabid and cannibalistic crowd. I've yet to see why the Times or any other publication should waste ink or time with this nonstory.

Pray, tell us why they should.
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 3:45 pm | #

Sorry for the typos at 3:30.
daleyrocks | 10.17.06 - 3:45 pm | #

daley, why are you working so hard to discover corruption in Reid's LLC when you haven't mentioned Rep. Ney's guilty plea on corruption charges, or his refusal to resign? Or the warrants just executed in the corruption investigation of Rep. Weldon? Or Rep. Hastert's personal involvement in siting a freeway near land he owned, thus vastly increasing the land's value?

Your silence is, as you say, telling.
vetiver | 10.17.06 - 3:47 pm | #

Thread title: "Today's tour around the mind of the Bush follower" ...

... just grass growing as far as the eye can see. Toto, I think we're back in f&^%*ing Kansas again....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 3:48 pm | #

Daleyrocks:The federal land swap and rezoning which created value for the land parcels contributed to the LLC were certainly not hut by the influence of Dirty Harry and his well positioned family in Nevada.

That's cute. Especially the part about the land swap that is completely unrelated. So you're saying Reid has committed the heinous crime of owning real estate while being important. Weird take coming from an admin apologist who I'm sure pledges allegiance to laissez faire capitalism whenever asked.
david | 10.17.06 - 3:48 pm | #

On the topic of "San Francisco values"... let me just say that this linguistic construction really burns people like me, married for eight years, raising a family, in San Francisco. The implication is that, by virtue of where I live and no other criterion, I'm somehow bad for America.

Since when is it acceptable to write off, as a matter of principle, an entire city full of Americans as traitors and enemies?
s9 | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 3:50 pm | #

So you're taking a lead from the opinion pages now? How sad you've no opinions of your own, nor any genuine interest in the subject.

There's virtually no news-reading on FOX or rightwing AM Radio (and the rightwing blogshpere only links to itself). Instead it's all personality-driven opinion shows feeding opinions to those too stupid to come up with their own.

You're arguing with one of the results, ypd.
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 3:50 pm | #

Since when is it acceptable to write off, as a matter of principle, an entire city full of Americans as traitors and enemies?

well, the South gets regularly written off as a region full of toothless ignorant Bible-thumping bumpkins, so there ya go.
r€nato | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 3:52 pm | #

"That's cute. Especially the part about the land swap that is completely unrelated. So you're saying Reid has committed the heinous crime of owning real estate while being important. Weird take coming from an admin apologist who I'm sure pledges allegiance to laissez faire capitalism whenever asked.
david | 10.17.06 - 3:48 pm | "

David if you can't see a potential conflict of interest you're blind as a bat.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 3:52 pm | #

since daleyrocks and shooter and bart are oh-so-concerned about Reid potentially profiting from his office, I hope they will show equal concern for Cheney's links to Halliburton which is ripping off the taxpayer in a far, far more egregious and obvious way than this non-story about Reid's LLC.
r€nato | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 3:53 pm | #

HWSNBN's a certified moron (and a pretty damn lame excuse for a lawyer):

You make a valid point that there are no tax advantages to transferring the property in question from Mr. Reid to an LLC owned by Mr. Reid. Indeed, as an owner of an LLC myself, I am unaware of any legal advantages which might accrue to Mr. Reid from this transfer.

This begs the question of why do the transfer at all?

No "tax advantages". There are other reasons for doing so, which anyone that formed a "limited liability corporation" might know. Not so our resident "legal expert" HWSNBN, who'd seemingly have a hard time motioning himself out of a pay toilet....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 3:53 pm | #

and while we're at it, let's talk about the Bush crime family's connections to the Saudis, Bin Laden, and the Carlyle Group.
r€nato | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 3:54 pm | #

Since when is it acceptable to write off, as a matter of principle, an entire city full of Americans as traitors and enemies?
s9

When you only need the electoral votes of the Welfare States to keep you in position to strip-mine the assests of a former first-world country?
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 3:55 pm | #

David if you can't see a potential conflict of interest you're blind as a bat.
Anonymous

Ah, now someone's guilty of 'potential conflict of interest' for something he disclosed.

Nice.

I'll add it to my data-set marked "they got nuthin'"
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 3:57 pm | #

But would you please clarify for me the distinction between "troll" and non-"troll" posts, and give examples of each?
Thanks.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 3:08 pm | #

Trolls are those that disagree with left wing nutjobs such as I've copied below. Needless to say it's an empty ephitet issued by the least qualified to judge.
-----------
In the larger picture, Republicans can suck my ass.
Martin | 10.17.06 - 3:20 pm | #

Allow me to be the first in the thread (there will be others) to ask you kindly to please go and sexually abuse yourself elsewhere...
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 3:28 pm | #

Daleyrocks, I think the larger concern is this issue of you having your way with defenseless animals, even house pets, so frequently. The reason I bring it up now is you have decided the real issues are those for which there is no evidence, but a great deal of conjecture and speculation from political enemies.
david | 10.17.06 - 3:43 pm | #

Dailywanks didn't deny the sex charges, so they must be true. What did he know about the page rapes? His opponents are stupid to oppose him.
All in a day's work for the Boy Wanker.
Baldie McEagle | 10.17.06 - 3:45 pm | #

Its telling only to yourself and the rest of your rabid and cannibalistic crowd. I've yet to see why the Times or any other publication should waste ink or time with this nonstory.
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 3:45 pm | #

Good job guys, but if you try really hard I think you can lower the common denominator there a bit more.
shooter242 | 10.17.06 - 4:00 pm | #

TPM reader AM asks...

"Does someone at the AP have it out for Harry Reid? Seems like they are pushing minor rule misinterpretations up to full scandal type stories. Is there a central figure behind this?"

In a word, yes.

AP reporter John Solomon. We reported on this fairly extensively when Solomon first got cranking on this in June.

I know a number of people who know or have worked for Solomon. And I've never gotten the impression that Solomon has any political or ideological ax to grind. His rep is as an easy mark for oppo researchers peddling their wares -- and from both sides.

Here's what one former colleague of Solomon's said last week: "I worked [X] years in the same office as Solomon, sometimes with him. The consensus: he's lazy, and takes hit jobs handed him on a platter by opps research teams (and anyone will do.) And doesn't do much to clean it up. I also know one of his fave and frequent sources is Barbara Comstock, former DOJ spxwoman and GOP attack dog."

I've heard the same from numerous oppo researchers and journalists. (Here are some thoughts on legitimate and illegitimate ways journalists use material from oppo researchers.)

If you're interested in finding out more about this, you might also look at this 2004 article in The Atlantic Monthly about how oppo researchers get their goods into articles. Look at the articles referenced and then go back and see the bylines.

On Reid, I think it's a combination of two things. One, as I said, he's an easy mark for oppo researchers peddling stuff that other journos didn't think met the laugh test. And two, he hasn't really landed a punch yet and Reid's fought back. So now it's a bit personal.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 4:00 pm | #

Grand Moff Texan he didn't disclose any such thing. I am referring to his possibility to profit from his own legislation. Nothing of the sort was ever disclosed.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 4:01 pm | #

I am referring to his possibility to profit from his own legislation. Nothing of the sort was ever disclosed.

Again with the possible.

Let me know when you have something.

So far, the only allegation is that some local sleeze was waving around Reid's name and overawed the local board. Reid's involvement here is spectral at best.
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 4:05 pm | #

Good job guys, but if you try really hard I think you can lower the common denominator there a bit more.
shooter242

We'll try to keep it toned down to a level you can comprehend, respond and relate to. We want you to be able to keep up, Shooter.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 4:05 pm | #

HWSNBN won't admit his pants are gathered round his ankles (how very unsurprising):

[HWSNBN]: This begs the question of why do the transfer at all?

[David]: Obviously, for the same reason as everyone else in the world who does it, and the reason the entity exists, to limit liability in the event of property damage, injury or death occurring on the property.

My firm uses this entity to protect me personally against liability for injuries to invitees who come to my officer.

The primary injuries sustained there would be seemingly legal malpractise.

However, Reid owned undeveloped land with no invitees, so there is no need for this protection.

HWSNBN has no clients that aren't too f*ckin' tanked to have enough unpickled brains to sue him, so the same pertains.

That being said, HWSNBN still has nary a clue (or refuses to admit his eedjitcy, which is pretty much the same thing).

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 4:05 pm | #

Good job guys, but if you try really hard I think you can lower the common denominator there a bit more.
shooter242

Oh, we won't try to win a race to the bottom with the likes of you. The 90's show that we'll always lose. We're just showing how much respect we don't have for you.

Being quite literally worse than useless will earn you that kind of treatment, you know.
.
Grand Moff Texan | 10.17.06 - 4:06 pm | #

Haven't had time to post lately, but I still try to read as many of the comments as I can.

Bart, scooter and mayordaley illustrate perfectly the divide among Americans regarding realities projected by the various media arenas. The dittoheads amble over directly from Rushworld, where it's All Reid Scandal All the Time. Naturally they feel pumped up and empowered by listening to hours of their favorite rightwing wacknut. They race over here to reveal to us the devastating news that there might possibly be any number of shady apects to Reid's land sale, and only a full scale investigation will reveal the terrible truth. After having heard Rush and Hannity and all the others spend hours speculating about what those shady things might be, and talking about what a sleazebag Reid is if only those shady things turn out to be true, well the horror of it all. Surely this will undo the damage of the Foley scandal. This Is BIG!

(Shooter in particular shows the vacuousness of their program. "Who knows whether Reid even paid his taxes!"(!!!!)
Well who knows whether anybody paid their taxes. Only an investigation will reveal the truth. If only we had that first little shred of evidence to show the propriety of an investigation. "But who cares about evidence, we're talking about a DEMOCRAT HERE! No evidence needed.")


Fortunately for America the dittoheads have had their day. We've seen now what happens when they put their man in charge. They've done more damge in 6 years than the USSR did in 50. Thank god they're part of an ever-shrinking minority, but they still listen to rightwing blowhard media scumbags for all their news. Then they can't understand why out here in the Real World the Reid Scandal hasn't taken hold like it has in their little dittohead fantasy palace. Bart plays that dittohead card like a little kid who thinks he's got news that will rock the grownups world. He swaggers over and unloads the morning's gossip he got from Rush about the many exciting possibilities for Reid going to prison and waits for the wailing to begin. Bart can't understand why we aren't all in a panic.

They're pathologically incapable of rational thinking. As is the case in most cults, where loyalty to the group is paramount, no possibility is recognized if it might mean the cult is less than righteous. "We are good and right and They are bad and wrong, in all cases."

I don't expect anything different from rightwing nutwagons like Limbaugh and the dittoheads that race over here every day with the latest "news," but when the MSM plays along in these faux dem scandals it's a different story. They show us the corporate agenda in all it's naked corruption. They feel they owe it to Republicans to try to level the playing field after the last few weeks where reality managed to creep past the rightwing media filter (that's been in place for years now--the filter that allowed Bush to lie us into war and ruin). The truth about Republican malfeasance couldn't be kept hidden any longer and stories about hypocrisy and cover-up made their way into the debate. Republicans were revealed in all their corruption and lies. So the MSM is trying to find a way to even the score. It's part corporate desire to see republicans keep power, as they know their gravy train might come to an end if a new crop of honest brokers takes over congress, and part desire to keep this election close so ratings will stay up all the way through. If republicans melt down weeks ahead of time a democratic landslide becomes a foregone conclusion, and that doesn't sell papers (or commercials on TV) like a tight horserace of an election.

If the best they come up with is this pathetic Reid non-scandal, the Republicans will be swept away in a flood. But we still have a few weeks for a real October surprise. Rove is a scumbag of biblical proportions and anything is possible. The only hope is that Americans have seen enough to know to disregard any last minute shenanigans.

I'm amazed at the role the MSM plays in every major problem we now face. Their inability to do their historic job has left the field to whomever lies most effectively.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 4:08 pm | #

Good job guys, but if you try really hard I think you can lower the common denominator there a bit more.
shooter242

That hits bottom whenever you hairy, smelly types walk in the door. Perhaps it's your aftershave?
Baldie McEagle | 10.17.06 - 4:15 pm | #

"shooter242":

I am truly impressed by all the financial firepower assembled on Reid's behalf. Do any of you erudite individuals have a handle on who or what paid the tax on the capital gain?

How about the likelihood of overcoming staff recommendations against rezoning for an average citizen?

Any suggestions on how to get around environmental regs and Federal rights of way?

Heh, heh.

"shooter242", do you have a handle on your a$$? Because if you don't, you're unlikely to find it the next time you start spewing more sh*te, even if you take one hand off the keyboard, and the other one off your ...

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 4:17 pm | #

From Grand Moff Texan at 3:50pm:

You're arguing with one of the results, ypd.

Oh, I know. I'm just the accomodating sort that when a masochist begs "Beat me!" - Bart, shooter and daleyrocks routinely do in code - I will do exactly that.
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 4:18 pm | #

And while we're all having fun with shooter242, let's move beyond speculation and revisit this little dialogue he had regarding the Haditha massacre:

...

Q: [Do you understand] that the death of innocent civilians is a bad thing for the United States and our current mission there?

shooter242 said:
I think you mean the execution of innocent civilians as retribution. Yes, that would be a very bad thing.

...

Yes, fellow commenters, let's not forget that as shooter242 whacks off to a non-existent Democratic scandal, he also thinks some Iraqi civilian deaths are A-ok by him.

Nice, traditional "family values" for shooter. Yuck.
cfaller96 | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 4:19 pm | #

WE HAVE SMART(?) REPUGS VOTING ON THE WAR

From Talkleft:

From the NYTimes: Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence. "Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?" I asked him a few weeks ago. Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: "One's in one location, another's in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something." To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. "Now that you've explained it to me," he replied, "what occurs to me is that it makes what we're doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area." But I bet he is someone you would want to have a beer with. H/T tristero.
barkleyg | 10.17.06 - 4:24 pm | #

While We're Tossing Around the Phrase "Moral Idiot"

You knew that Hitchens would have to respond to the Lancet study, didn't you? I'll refrain from excerpting, and rather summarize:


1. The Lancet Study is wrong for some reason. I don't really understand statistics, but some other people do.
2. Even if the study is right, the sanctions killed more people. That the damage inflicted by the sanctions dramatically decreased after the development of the oil-for-food program, and that the Lancet study accounts for the excess death rate over and above those killed by sanctions... um, I forget where I was going with that.
3. Even if the study is right, 2/3rds of the deaths are killings by insurgents, and there is absolutely, positively no way that the coalition could be held responsible for setting loose brutal criminal gangs and creating the conditions of civil war. And forget, by the way, that I have in the past lauded the Iraq War for turning Iraq into a killing field for foreign insurgents.
4. The editor of Lancet is a damn dirty leftist and, consequently, almost certainly an incorrigible liar.


We're obviously beyond the point where one could say with any degree of originality that Christopher Hitchens is a morally and intellectually bankrupt sociopath. He is the true heir to the Stalinist left that he relentlessly rails about; there is no limit to the death and destruction that he's willing to tolerate in service of his revolution. What's more important now is to note that those who willingly associate themselves with people like Hitchens and Bill Kristol should be viewed in the same light. To paraphrase Yglesias, even if we were to find something of value in the Euston Manifesto or the work of PNAC (and this is a tremendous "if"), associating with the people who press these intellectual projects is, in itself, evidence of a lack of seriousness about foreign policy.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 4:35 pm | #

Don't I remember something about Newt's being reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee and forced to pay a $300,000 penalty for some shady dealings that even the Ethics Committee coulnd't ignore?

Heartland values?
Basharov | 10.17.06 - 4:37 pm | #

So today’s stratagery is paint the landscape with a faux Democratic scandal so they won’t pay attention to the administrations other very sad and very large predicaments.

For those who paid attention to Glenn's title for today's article:"Today's tour around the mind of the Bush follower" I must say I've enjoyed the tour immensely, good as a day at the tragic kingdom.

and to my Republican friends, you would see reality more clearly, except your colon is in the way.
brainfaht | 10.17.06 - 4:56 pm | #

From the Solomon article:
The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000...
—In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company.

Further down page, Solomon quoted a former FEC functionary:
"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

I would be inclined to demand that politicans disclose this type of re-assignment of ownership -- there are too many ways for them to misuse entities like LLCs, partnerships, etc. if oversight is weak. However, there was neither a profit nor a loss until the land was sold by the LLC. Favoritism is probably responsible for the fortuitous zoning changes the company benefitted from, but an old macher like Brown is probably capable of extracting that level of favor without Harry's help.
If our true patriots on this comments page find this sort of Nevadan business-as-usual troubling, perhaps they'd be open to what oppo researchers can dig up on Ensign, the CircusCircus heir. He is up for re-election this year, and it is more important for the voters of Nevada to go to the polls well informed about him than it is to speculate about an 8 to 2 year old deal that benefitted Harry unduly. Shooter242, bart, daleyrocks, fellow travellers? Don't you have anything on the Nevada Senator who is facing the people this November?

BTW, has today been designated Superscatological Pottytalk Day? I didn't get the memo guys.
Fluffy | 10.17.06 - 4:58 pm | #

If the AP, which has been accused as being a disseminator of pro-terrorist propoganda (see Hussein, Bilal), is trying to smear Harry Reid, wouldn't that seem to indicate that "The Terrorists" are trying to get Senator Reid in trouble? In which case, wouldn't that mean that the folks that are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill are, in fact, objectively pro-terrorist?
Rufus | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 5:25 pm | #

How does the exposure of, in this case, a million + dollar asset constitute avoidance of liability? People who are not grinding an axe refer to it as "limiting" libility.

Well, if some drooling idiot like you trips over a rock on the property, the LLC owner is only liable up to the amount of the assets in the LLC, and wouldn't personally be on the hook.
jpe | 10.17.06 - 5:36 pm | #

Doritos of the World,

You say I'm a troll. Well naturally you are entitled to your opinion, however erroneous or non-factual it may be.

May I ask, though... your allegation is based on what evidence, exactly?

That I say something you don't like?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that you are a pro-Democrat anti-Republican all-ideology-all-the-time-always-partisan-never- thinks-for-herself sort of troll. But I just have observed that in the past 3 threads in which I've posted. For it appears to me that all you do is label as "troll" anyone who doesn't post hugs and kisses for Democrats. In other words, if anyone dares to criticize or question anything about a Democrat, you're on that person's e-back with an e-accusation of "troll." Without much delay.

I don't think that says much about your perception skills, at least not where they concern perceiving reality based on someone's post.

For your humble information, Doritos of the World, I am not "trolling" for anything. I am asking questions from a perspective that happens to be freely critical of all abuse and all corruption, no matter what party the person in question says he or she belongs to.

Whereas you haven't uttered a single recognition of foibles by any Democrat.

I wonder what it is you're trying to hide.

Interesting. Very interesting.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 5:46 pm | #

Yes, but I was told by Fox News that Nancy Pelosi (D-Castro Street) was evil. If they say that Nancy Pelosi (D-Working Outside the Home) is wrong for America, then it must be true.

So who do you trust to lead the congress, evil Nancy Pelosi (D-Gay Pride Parade Marching Past Your Child's Elementary School) or Godly Denny Hastert (R-America's Wholesome Heartland), former wrestling coach and protector of pedophiles?
e_five | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 5:50 pm | #

Trolls trying to give legs to this story? Wow! These ARE desperate times for Republicans.
ckelly | 10.17.06 - 5:52 pm | #

Dan D,

Keep knocking down those strawmen! Maybe you can pretend I like Hillary Clinton too, so you can hit that out of the park and win your imaginary fight.

Curiously, you accuse me of playing the straw-man destroyer when it is you who has used that very tactic.

I'm not sure what about my post you pretend to be responding to, but I can assure you that your 3:17 pm post is talking about things that don't respond to me, and don't relate to what you originally posted. Now, if you want to make up new lines of argument in the vein of distraction, that's fine with me. I'm sure the readers in here can discern that your aim is to distract from the point that it was you who first erected and then destroyed straw men.

I made my point regarding Obama vs Chafee as an example of a Republican who isn't bad across the board, and a Democrat who isn't good across the board.

Whatever you extrapolated from that argument is your business. It bears not at all on my point, which is that you cannot simply vote Dem vs Repub, but rather, need to examine the candidate in question. Someone yesterday mentioned Jon Tester -- it may have been Glenn -- and curiously one should note that Tester's state of Montana has a biparty Goveror's office, with the Governor being a Dem and the Lt Gov being a Republican. The Lt Gov is not a bad person and would make a fine senator of caliber equal to Jon Tester. His political views are quite admirable on all issues that seem to be classically the focus of most humanistic Democrats -- civil rights, consumer protection, environmental protection. In fact if he were not labelling himself as a Republican it might be hard to believe that's his party.

So my point continues to be that Republicans are not all "REPUGNICANS" and Democrats are not all saintly.

Whatever argument you want to have with yourself and your phantom adversary is fine with me. But please, do not pretend that your phantom adversary is me, and do not pretend that your phantom adversary's position is the same as my view.

Thanks.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 5:55 pm | #

Don't I remember something about Newt's being reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee and forced to pay a $300,000 penalty for some shady dealings that even the Ethics Committee coulnd't ignore?

Yes, true. Back in the early 90s, before Newt's troubles began, he was a favorite of the very conservative wing of the Repubs and his Contract With America was very exciting for those folks (my brother and his family worked HARD to get those people elected). But when it turned out that Newt was a big government Republican with ethics problems, the conservatives (including my brother) turned away from him in disgust. I would wager that those people think Newt is pretty good stuff again, but I don't know because I don't talk to my brother about politics anymore (I can just tune in to Rush to hear the latest talking points instead).
Svensker | 10.17.06 - 6:01 pm | #

Grand Moff Texan,

This is my standard reply to the "they're all the same" meme. It's a great ploy for pretending there is no option. As for your abusers, please try to pay closer attention to politics.

I'd like to discuss what it is you're trying to communicate to me with the above. I don't quite understand it.

I asked you to identify who's abusing me and to whom I'm "sucking up to," and you responded with the above, which doesn't identify either category of person/persons.

Would you please engage me in an adult, mature manner? I'd like to figure out what it is you're trying to say with the accusations of "abuse" and "sucking up," but I seem to be getting stuck on your inability to write with any form of clarity. Kindly help me understand what you're trying to say.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 6:04 pm | #

shooter, I'm hurt! You ignored my comment, which lacked both scatological references and above-8th-grade-vocab words:

daley, why are you working so hard to discover corruption in Reid's LLC when you haven't mentioned Rep. Ney's guilty plea on corruption charges, or his refusal to resign? Or the warrants just executed in the corruption investigation of Rep. Weldon? Or Rep. Hastert's personal involvement in siting a freeway near land he owned, thus vastly increasing the land's value?

Your silence is, as you say, telling.

daleyrocks hasn't responded and the question applies to you as well -- so please do answer.
vetiver | 10.17.06 - 6:17 pm | #

Scarecrows don't answer questions. Their purpose is to scare away the crows who are spoiling the crop of lies the Republicans are trying to bring to market. They pretend to be thinking human beings but luckily, like their real-life counterparts, they are simply filled with straw and have no adverse effect on anyone with any basic intelligence.
Rufus | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 6:26 pm | #

"Since when is it acceptable to write off, as a matter of principle, an entire city full of Americans as traitors and enemies?"

IN KATRINA'S WAKE:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ new...RTICLE_ID=46102

Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana called for immediate deployment of regular U.S. combat troops in New Orleans, saying the build-up of National Guard troops was too slow to quickly restore order.

Meanwhile, thousands of armed National Guardsmen streamed into New Orleans with food and water and the promise of a huge airlift as increasingly desperate local officials issued bitter pleas for federal assistance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said "battle-tested" Guardsmen are being sent to quell the unrest.

"They have M-16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," she said.
anon | 10.17.06 - 6:28 pm | #

Paul, Dan, don’t let me break up this love fest, but I believe we had this discussion (on whether to vote for the party or the individual, or some combination of both) on here a couple of days ago (please excuse me for being too lazy to look it up.) What I found most convincing is that, at least for a body of representatives that’s going to be as close as the Senate, you’re not voting for an individual, only. If enough people cast their votes for Chafee, and he turns out to be the 50th Republican senator returned to the Senate (a very likely scenario, given the closeness of other races), then those people have decided on who will chair the committees in the Senate, who controls the agendas in the Senate, who has subpoena powers, and in general, who has the advantages which come with being the majority party. Idealistic it’s not; but it seemed pretty persuasive to me at the time. .
JimLanc | 10.17.06 - 6:30 pm | #

Paul Behrer:

You've made some points. I'm a Democrat, and a fairly partisan one at that. I also voted for a principled Republican in the last election. (In AZ, this is sometimes a necessity, if we want decent representation. I probably should say also that this particular Republican has been castigated and cast out as a RINO by the party ideologues, yet he keeps getting elected. I wonder why.)

Anyway, please don't go away mad. If you're not simply a mouthpiece for the Rovian attack dogs, some of us will listen. If it turns out that you are, well...we're not exactly Neville Chamberlain, either.... :-)
William Timberman | 10.17.06 - 6:32 pm | #

JimLanc:

An excellent point, one that can't be repeated often enough, IMNSHO.
William Timberman | 10.17.06 - 6:44 pm | #

Uh, I just want to point out that tiring of your old wife and shacking up with a sexy young thing is a VERY traditional American value.
MNPundit | 10.17.06 - 6:45 pm | #

I've always admired virility in my politicians; good point MN!
JimLanc | 10.17.06 - 6:56 pm | #

Hell, I only wish that Bush, Cheney, the Coalition Provisional Authority and others would practice the type of financial record-keeping and business acumen of Sen. Harry Reid.

Just where is that 9 billion dollars anyway?
ckelly | 10.17.06 - 7:01 pm | #

Fuck off, Behrer. You are a troll. This is the internets. It's not some staged TV debate. It's not a seminar at some institution of higher learning and it certainly isn't a place you are familiar with. Courtesy may be owed, but respect is earned. You were given the courtesy of having your say. We heard you out and found nothing worth listening to. You didn't earn any respect, so asking for civility now, when civility is something in such short supply, is going to guarantee you get the verbal abuse you crave (which as GMT pointed out, probably gets you off, and getting it here rather than those 900 numbers saves you plenty of money, Buttercup). If you don't like how you are being treated... good for you.

As far as I'm concerened and since you asked, there are plenty of things about Democrats I hate. Mostly that they are too much like you.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 7:02 pm | #

This sophistic pedantersty is completely beside the point as far as the vast majority of Americans goes : Iran is as Arab as it gets .

And in other news, Ohio Democraps golden boy Strickland is going to get disqualified from the ballot because he stupidly screwed up his voter registration , despite New York Times whinings to the contrary .
anonymous | 10.17.06 - 7:08 pm | #

THE LAND DEAL THAT TIME FORGOT
Tom Schieffer, Bob's brother, was GWB's business partner in the deal that made obscene profits for the Schieffer family and for the Bush family.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html
The Ballpark in Arlington
Public subsidy: $135 million, through a bond measure that raised city sales taxes by half a percent.
Team contribution: Rangers owners paid nothing

THE LAND DEAL TIMELINE [source: ESPN]

Nov. 88 GHWB (Bush 41) elected president

Apr. 89 GWB (future 43) borrows $500,000 to buy a small stake in the team.

Apr. 90 GWB increases his stake with another $100,000

Oct. 90 Arlington Mayor Richard Greene crafts a deal that will go before voters and devote $135 million toward a new stadium for the Rangers by raising the sales tax by a half-cent. At the time, Greene is among a group of former executives being sued by federal regulators for his role in the widespread savings-and-loan scandal.

Jan. 91 Arlington citizens, by a 2-to-1 margin, approve public funds for the new $191 million ballpark. Two weeks before the vote, federal regulators dismiss their lawsuit against Greene after he pays a $40,000 penalty.

Jul. 91: GWB buys another $6,302 ownership interest in the Rangers, increasing his financial investment to $606,302 (less than 2% of the ownership of the Rangers).

Jun. 98: Tom Hicks purchases the Rangers for $250 million, the second-most ever paid for a Major League Baseball team. Bush receives $14.9 million for his investment of $606,302.

Jan. 99: Arlington's municipal Sports AUthority agency pays the original land owners who were injured by the abuse of eminent domain, but Bush and Schieffer, who profited from the abuse of eminent domain, contribute nothing to the settlement.
sysprog | 10.17.06 - 7:10 pm | #

Doritos of the World,

I find it rather astounding that your best and most meaningful, most considered reply is "fuck off, you're a troll."

And I find it nearly as amazing that you can say the people you don't like are "too much like me" when you don't even know me.

So that brings me back to what I realized about you, and that is that you are without substance, and therefore must attack everything that frightens or threatens your worldview, rather than offering anything of your own.

I'm glad I'm someone you find distasteful. Frankly, I'd be a bit worried and completely surprised if the likes of you found my posts worthwhile. Because the people I tend to question and doubt the most -- and therefore those who tend to find me most threatening -- are those who think the least independently, and who tend to know the least (substantively speaking). So thank you, Doritos of the World. Thank you very much. I appreciate your sharing those very deep and meaningful insights.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 7:12 pm | #

This sophistic pedantersty is completely beside the point as far as the vast majority of Americans goes : Iran is as Arab as it gets .

anonymous

You'd better stop doing The Major's act, dirtbag.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 7:14 pm | #

William Timberman,

Anyway, please don't go away mad. If you're not simply a mouthpiece for the Rovian attack dogs, some of us will listen. If it turns out that you are, well...we're not exactly Neville Chamberlain, either.... :-)

Actually I find Karl Rove reprehensible, extremely so. And I carry no brief for the Bush Administration, nor for the GOP.

My only fidelity, intellectually and politically speaking, is to the good of the nation. This makes me question anything that smacks of rank partisanship because partisanship is a big part of the reason why the US of A currently is mired in corruption... too much partisanship in the form of "don't question the President, don't anger the President, don't cross the President."

If you crossed party lines to vote for the better candidate, I can tell you are someone worth reading. Thanks for your words of support.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 7:16 pm | #

Uh, sysprog, GW's a repug; this is what they're supposed to do; make money without doing anything to earn it. Reid's biggest failing is that he thought some of these god-given opportutnies should be available to the "San Francisco left-wing" portion of the political spectrum.
JimLanc | 10.17.06 - 7:18 pm | #

Let's not forget Jeb Bush who defaulted on a $4.56 million dollar loan after federal regulators closed Broward Federal savings in Sunrise Florida. After the savings and loan was closed the feds reappraised the loan to $500,000, which Jeb and his partners paid leaving you and me holding the bag for $4 million dollars.
brainfaht | 10.17.06 - 7:24 pm | #

JimLanc at 6:30 pm,

How can you choose one particular Senator and say that he or she is the one who makes the 50th vote? If there are 50 GOP Senators (under your example), why is it the fault of any one of them when it comes to the 50th vote? I don't follow what you're driving at on that part of your post. Also, if I missed the discussion on this point several days ago, I'm sorry.

JimLanc at 7:18 pm,

I would say that "make money without earning it" is not a "Repug" theme of life, but rather an amoral or lazy or corrupt person's theme of life. There are now and there have in our country's history been many from the Democrat side of the aisle who have used their positions of political power and influence to "make money without earning it."

At the same time, I would agree with an observation that said the Bush/Cheney Administration is busy making a lot of money off the American People right now, without actually earning any of it through their own labors, or through their own personal sacrifices.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 7:26 pm | #

brainfaht,

Let's not forget Jeb Bush who defaulted on a $4.56 million dollar loan after federal regulators closed Broward Federal savings in Sunrise Florida. After the savings and loan was closed the feds reappraised the loan to $500,000, which Jeb and his partners paid leaving you and me holding the bag for $4 million dollars.

It runs in the family. Neil Bush's penalty for his role in the Silverado S&L scandal was a meagre $50,000 -- very very small potatoes to a person of Neil Bush's wealth, and very disproportionate to the fiscal and economic harm wreaked by his corruptly run S&L. The Bush family are very capable when it comes to using the public till to fatten their own family coffers. And when they're caught, they're even more capable at avoiding any sort of serious legal or financial penalties arising from their wrongdoings.
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 7:32 pm | #

Are you implying those who profit from real estate development investments do not "earn" it?
david | 10.17.06 - 7:34 pm | #

I just chose Chafee because that's who you were talking about. Anyone having an opportunity to vote for a senator in a close race (which I don't, living in Texas) has the same decision to make, at least in my mind. They're faced with the dilemma that, by voting for the person they consider to be the better person in that particular race, they also are increasing the likelihood that the party they believe will do the most long-term harm to the country remains in power.

The 'making money without earning it' comment was accompanied by a (much too small to be seen, apparently) snark.
JimLanc | 10.17.06 - 7:36 pm | #

Are you implying those who profit from real estate development investments do not "earn" it?

I’m not saying those money’s don’t belong to such investors; I just have more respect for people that use their brawn or brains to actually generate something of value, rather than go buy up vacant land and wait for things to happen so that the value goes up. But that’s just me – personal prefences and all . . .
JimLanc | 10.17.06 - 7:43 pm | #

Paul Behrer So my point continues to be that Republicans are not all "REPUGNICANS"

Sure. Sure. There are some principled Repuglican senators, somewhere, just not in this congress or in any of recent memory.

From Glenn's post yesterday:

Vote to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court: Republicans (56-0) -- Democrats (22 -22)

Cloture vote on Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court: Republicans (54-0) -- Democrats (19-25)

Vote on Authorization to use military force in Iraq: Republicans (48-1) -- Democrats - (29-21)

Cloture vote on Bankrupty Bill: Republicans (55-0) -- Democrats (14-30)

Cloture vote on nomination of Priscilla Owens to appeals court: Republicans (55-0) -- Democrats (25-18)

Toture/detention bill: Republicans (53-1) -- Democrats (12-33)
nuf said | 10.17.06 - 7:59 pm | #

From anonymous at 7:08pm:

This sophistic pedantersty is completely beside the point as far as the vast majority of Americans goes : Iran is as Arab as it gets .

My, my. Did you have help with all those big words?

And are you disputing the small fact that Iran is, indeed, historically a Persian rather than an Arab state?

I'm not especially concerned with the uninformed opinion of "the vast majority of Americans" - who doubtlessly would likewise profess belief in such absurdities as alien abduction and the virgin birth of Christ - but with genuine historical fact.

And in other news, Ohio Democraps golden boy Strickland is going to get disqualified from the ballot because he stupidly screwed up his voter registration , despite New York Times whinings to the contrary .

I believe that little move by current Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who should have officially handed off his office's responsibilities to a neutral third party the minute he declared his candidacy in this race, has yet to actually play out. Its hard to see how it will stand given the vagueness of the actual complaint and the disasterous conflict-of-interests here.

But then, look who I'm responding to.
yankeependragon | 10.17.06 - 8:03 pm | #

say there, nuf said,

Did my comment limit itself to currently seated US Congress Republicans?

No, it did not.

So while you try to "disprove" what I've said, I'm going to observe that your "disproof" demonstrates that the Democrats are equally corrupt even if in smaller numbers, so that bolsters my point.

But please, feel free to believe that it's really just about Republican vs Democrat. That's the kind of thinking that Karl Rove is encouraging, because it will help Jeb Bush get the White House in 2008. I'm sure that's what you're seeking, right?
Paul Behrer | 10.17.06 - 8:04 pm | #

And in other news, Ohio Democraps golden boy Strickland is going to get disqualified from the ballot because he stupidly screwed up his voter registration , despite New York Times whinings to the contrary .

Of course this is now completely beside the point due to this Strickland stupidity, but in Monday's debate, Blackwell really nailed Strickland on his pederastic pro-Nambla stance. Of course sodomite Strickland's "Christian ministry" has long been exposed as well as his sham marriage to his lesbian "wife".
anonymous | 10.17.06 - 8:06 pm | #

But please, feel free to believe that it's really just about Republican vs Democrat. That's the kind of thinking that Karl Rove is encouraging, because it will help Jeb Bush get the White House in 2008. I'm sure that's what you're seeking, right?
Paul Behrer

Oh, look! It's a "reformer".

Piss off, you horny toad. That abuse is on the house, but I'm going to need your CC# if you intend to keep hanging around, worm.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 8:13 pm | #

Paul Behrer, if you were in Canada or the U.K. then you wouldn't make the error of voting for your M.P. based on his or her personal virtue.

In those countries, party loyalty is beyond even the modern GOP in the USA, and most voters understand that they're really voting for a party, not for an individual.

The modern GOP in the USA has a policy that, on certain votes, certain "maverick" members are allowed to vote against the party, but only if the GOP is already assured of winning. When the party really needs those "mavericks", they snap into line. Chafee does have some balls, true, sometimes, but the GOP still has hold of them, so he doesn't go against the GOP when they need his vote.

In 2006, you should certainly vote for a Republican as mayor or governor, when they'll be the better administrator.

But in 2006, a vote for Tom Kean Jr. or for Lincoln Chafee isn't a vote for an individual, it's a vote for an entire party -- it's an endorsement of GWB and of the entire GOP, and if you can't see that then you're willfully blind.
sysprog | 10.17.06 - 8:14 pm | #

Paul Behrer:

I agree with JimLanc. Of course not every individual Democrat is better than every individual Republican. And if in any state or local election you consider the Republican to be the better candidate, I say go for it.

But the stakes are higher in Congress. For the first time in my life I am prepared to say, better a yellow dog than a Republican. Each warm Democratic or Republican body in Congress counts for which party controls the committee chairs, and that is where the real power is.

The American tradition is to vote for the individual, not the party. But, as Edwin discussed yesterday, voting for the party is a well-established European tradition, and our parties (especially the Republicans) are getting more and more European by the day.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 8:17 pm | #

Sorry, Sysprog, I swear I hadn't seen your post yet when I made mine.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 8:22 pm | #

Slightly off-topic, but Jonathan Turley was just on Countdown and made no attempt to hide his immense disapppointment about Bush's signing of the detainee bill today, and, more ominously, his deep fear that we have just taken a huge and perhaps irrevocable step towards a despotism that we are unlikely to reverse in the forseeable future, if ever.

He cautioned anyone who still believes that the courts will overturn this bill to not place so much faith in them, as it all turns on one person, Anthony Kennedy, whom Turley said has already indicated in a previous ruling that he would be inclined to side with congress and the president if they passed such a law.

I'm still inclined to believe that SCOTUS will overturn this law--and that it might not even be as close as 5-4--or that congress will eventually reverse it. But I certainly do share Turley's grave concerns. Much more so than the PATRIOT Act, the AUMF or signing statements, this bill is about as close to the Nazi Enabling Act as this country has ever gotten. And that should scare the shit out of anyone who's been paying attention and understand what's been going on here. And yet, most Americans, as Turley bitterly noted, haven't the foggiest idea of what just happened, preferring to switch the channel to Dancing With The Stars and just yawn.

That might well be the saddest and scariest yawn in American history.
Kovie | 10.17.06 - 8:24 pm | #

Okay let's dwell on the small and inconsequential.

Remember Republican Connecticut Mayor Phillip Giordano? now serving 37 years for molesting two pre teen girls that were related to his prostitute mistress.

Remember John Schmitz? Orange County Ca Republican member of Congress. Who fathered two children by a mistress who also used to be one of his students at Santa Ana College one of those children was admitted to the hospital with human hair tied around his penis in a square knot so tight the organ was nearly severed, or his daughter Mary Kay LeTourneau who as a teacher in Washington State was successfully prosecuted for having a relationship with a 13 year old boy.

Remember Robert Bauman? Fourth term Maryland Congressman very conservative old fashioned values guy who was caught soliciting sex from a 16 year old boy. Hmm I guess the pages were all booked back then

The list is long and very shameful, if I were a Republican I might be more concerned about cleaning up my own party and not hiding behind it.
brainfaht | 10.17.06 - 8:25 pm | #

I believe that little move by current Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who should have officially handed off his office's responsibilities to a neutral third party the minute he declared his candidacy in this race, has yet to actually play out. Its hard to see how it will stand given the vagueness of the actual complaint and the disasterous conflict-of-interests here.

But then, look who I'm responding to.
yankeependragon

I think The Major just got drunk, fell off his mule and forgot his name.

Besides, who who really gives a shit about gubernatorial races? If Blackwell wins and we take Congress, he will be right where we want him when the subpoenas start flying.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 8:26 pm | #

Vetiver - No need to respond. The liberal media is providing adequate coverage to the matters you raise, while imposing a semi-blackout on the Dirty Harry scandal.

Meanwhile, I'll tade you a Ted Kennedy for a Newt Gingrich and a Jerry Springer for a Rush Limbaugh. This game of picking out individuals from either side and using them to tar an entire party can become all consuming and also pointless. The culture of corruption theme was a loser for the Democrats to bring up given the skeletons in the closets of both parties.
daleyrocks | 10.17.06 - 8:28 pm | #

But in 2006, a vote for Tom Kean Jr. or for Lincoln Chafee isn't a vote for an individual, it's a vote for an entire party -- it's an endorsement of GWB and of the entire GOP, and if you can't see that then you're willfully blind.
sysprog

Obviously not "willfully blind". That leaves only one other option, unless you are willfully blind.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 8:29 pm | #

Paul Behrer Did my comment limit itself to currently seated US Congress Republicans?

And who cares about past congresses?
It is the current Rethuglican controlled congress that is unwavering in its support of God Emperor Bush.
Don't you think that'll have more to do with Jeb getting the nod in 2008?

I'm going to observe that your "disproof" demonstrates that the Democrats are equally corrupt even if in smaller numbers,

Did you notice those 'no' votes in the Dems column? There are Democratic enablers, yes, but do the math. More Dems have resisted the evil-one than Reps.
Period.
Rove is pushing Rep good, Dem bad. America is seeing the opposite though.
Republicans are bad for America.
Period.
nuf said | 10.17.06 - 8:41 pm | #

Paul Behrer is just here to convince us that everything is bipartisan, including extreme partisanship. Dems are just as bad as Repubs and anyone that says different is a liar. He is simply setting the ground work. Begging for attention he makes demands of those of us that have been assaulted for the past 20 some-odd years to just "act like adults" and engage him in "civil discourse". Why? Because if we do not we are not rational. He is an imminently rational and independent thinker. He is simply above it all and has come here to grace us with his presence and show us all how real "relational, independent thinkers" discuss things. Love me, respect me, debate me on my terms!

You see this is the setup. When the Repubs have their asses handed to them come November, there will be all sorts of demands for civility and "burying the hatchet". Partisanship will be passe and detrimental to the national good then. The criminals will want a pass in the name of healing national division and mending wounds. The Republicans, of course, will be the "uniters" once again when they make this clarion call and any Dems that attempt to hold the criminals accountable will be partisan assassins.

Paul you are late to the party. Civil discourse is dead and I couldn't give a shit about you or what you want. Now or after the election. Your side has made its bed. If all goes well it will be time to die in it after Nov.

Fuck off.
... | 10.17.06 - 8:45 pm | #

Fuck off, Behrer. You are a troll.

Oh? That's allowed on this blog? I wasn't sure. Thanks.

OK. FUCK OFF DORITAS OF THE WORLD. You stupid, pathetic, ignorant person who could make a marxist vote for a fascist if the alternative was someone you support.

This is the internets.

No shit, Sherlock. I thought it was the Internet, but for the sub 100 I. Q. crowd (that's a gift, dear), maybe its the internets. Whatev.

It's not some staged TV debate.

Translation: whenever someone intelligent drifts by, the Doritas of the World feel like they are in enemy terrain.

It's not a seminar at some institution of higher learning

How would you know about an insitution of higher learning? Were you hired to clean the toilets there?
Or just wandering by stealing paper clips as usual?

and it certainly isn't a place you are familiar with.

You are saying this is a place you are familiar with and fit in well with but intelligent people needn't apply?

Glenn wants this and allows you to drive away anyone who actually has an independent voice?

OK. Got it. Now I see why Rove thinks the Republicans will keep both houses. He must know people associate Democratic partisans with people like you.

PS. FUCK OFF, doritadouchebag, pond scum, toad's breath, camel's armpit sweat, goat fucker, well, I could go on and on in the language you seem to undestand and prefer, but maybe you get the drift...

THEN AGAIN, maybe you don't. Did you ever really listen to and understand anything anyone else said? Apparently not.

PPS. Go on Glenn, ban me. Now that Doritas of the World has been elected Miss Congeniality of this board and you allow her to treat others, who treat her with respect, in the manner she does, you know what? Who needs it?

PPPS. Listen idiot girl, do me one favor. Please. Do NOT say don't let the door slam you in the ass on your way out. I know you never came up with an original thought in your life, but that would be even too predictable for YOU.

Then again, maybe not.....
Eyes Wide Open | 10.17.06 - 8:46 pm | #

The culture of corruption theme was a loser for the Democrats to bring up given the skeletons in the closets of both parties.

Yes, because the 20 or 30 year old skeletons of a party that hasn't even been in power for 12 years is certainly indicative of parity in levels of corruption.

Or, if you want to get more recent, the president's getting and then lying under oath about getting a blowjob from an adult intern who was not his wife was certainly comparable to an adult congressman preying on underage youths for at least a decade and his party's leadership knowing and yet doing nothing about it for at least half that long. Anyone can see that. As, of course, can all those voters running away from your candidates like they had the plague or something.

Here's a blast from the past that certainly applies to today's GOP: A little bit nutty and a little bit slutty. Or, more accurately, a LOT of both. No way you guys win this debate. It's ludicrous to even try. Although, of course, being ludicrous to the core, try you will.
Kovie | 10.17.06 - 8:46 pm | #

If you are going to be fair, and adhere to that most American of all values, (at least until the Republicans came to power and gutted it), you are innocent until proven guilty. The number of Democratic Congresspersons currently serving time: 1.

Republicans serving time: (I am hesitant to enter a number here. It will be higher tomorrow and it's already greater than 1).
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 8:53 pm | #

Have another bag of Cheetos, EWO.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 8:54 pm | #

I think that far more operative right now, given the necessary and understandable slowness of the legal system, is the total number of GOP vs. Dem politicians at all levels who are currently either under investigation or indictment, or have already been convicted. (Press-enabled smear and whisper campaigns such as those against Reid and Murtha do not count.)

I don't know the actual count but it's clearly an undeniable blowout.
Kovie | 10.17.06 - 8:57 pm | #

I may have to amend that. To be fair... (although I could make it a zero)

D: 1/2.

After the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, Traficant tended to vote more often with the Republicans than with his own party.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 9:01 pm | #

Eyes, let Glenn police his own blog. You are just throwing gasoline on the fire.
Beher might be new but he is not adding much substance by trying to say some Republicans are worthy. Republican members of congress are dangerous. Local state Republicans might be true to conservative values, but look who is doing the most damage to our constitution. Defending the indefensible isn't very smart.

Now, about Doritos, she's got that orange stuff all over her .... let Glenn clean up the trash.
nuf said | 10.17.06 - 9:07 pm | #

Paul Behrer is just here to convince us that everything is bipartisan, including extreme partisanship. Dems are just as bad as Repubs and anyone that says different is a liar. He is simply setting the ground work. Begging for attention he makes demands of those of us that have been assaulted for the past 20 some-odd years to just "act like adults" and engage him in "civil discourse". Why? Because if we do not we are not rational. He is an imminently rational and independent thinker. He is simply above it all and has come here to grace us with his presence and show us all how real "relational, independent thinkers" discuss things. Love me, respect me, debate me on my terms!

You see this is the setup. When the Repubs have their asses handed to them come November, there will be all sorts of demands for civility and "burying the hatchet". Partisanship will be passe and detrimental to the national good then. The criminals will want a pass in the name of healing national division and mending wounds. The Republicans, of course, will be the "uniters" once again when they make this clarion call and any Dems that attempt to hold the criminals accountable will be partisan assassins.

Paul you are late to the party. Civil discourse is dead and I couldn't give a shit about you or what you want. Now or after the election. Your side has made its bed. If all goes well it will be time to die in it after Nov.

Fuck off.
...

I wish I had said that. I mean the part preceding the "Fuck off." I had already said that, but it bears repeating. Fuck off.
Doritos of the World | 10.17.06 - 9:08 pm | #

FYI Daleysuckscock: there is no Reid scandal. Saying the words doesn't make it true. There are, however, scandals involving Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley and Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham and David Safavian and Curt Weldon and John Doolittle and Don Sherwood. Then there's the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal and the WMD scandal and the 9 billion missing from US taxpayer funds in Iraq scandal and the Tom DeLay scandal. Of course, there is also the Bill Frist blind trust scandal and the FDA direcor scandal and the plan B scandal and the scandal over the Medicare Drug program and it's cost and how the vote was kept open beyond house rules to get it passed. And then there's the Denny Hastert real estate scandal. Then, of course, there is the Terri Schiavo scandal and the Katrina scandal. And there is the Scooter Libby scandal, of course. And the Susan Ralston scandal. And the Marianas island scandal...

So, Daley Cock Sucker...what have I left out?
aqualung | 10.17.06 - 9:10 pm | #

That should be "some" local state Republicans might be true to conservative values...
nuf said | 10.17.06 - 9:12 pm | #

what have I left out?

It's what you didn't leave out that weakens your powerful statement.

See what I mean, eyes?
nuf said | 10.17.06 - 9:25 pm | #

Civility in politics is a myth peddled to the losers and minority to keep them docile.
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 9:30 pm | #

And to those that espouse it and peddle it, I say, "Fuck off!"
Anonymous | 10.17.06 - 9:31 pm | #

Oh of course! Torture and Habeus corpus! And illegal wiretapping! How short sighted of me!

I'm sure I'll think of more scandals to contemplate...

Nuf said is cryptic but I'm sure he makes sense to someone.
aqualung | 10.17.06 - 9:31 pm | #

Paul Behrer- "And I find it nearly as amazing that you can say the people you don't like are 'too much like me' when you don't even know me."

Minor detail, but why is it that trolls always go to the "you don't know me" card and public conservatives are always railing about blogger anonymity? They seem to be confused about whether anonymity in this context should hide identity or motive.
Joe | 10.17.06 - 9:44 pm | #

r€nato writes: "well, the South gets regularly written off as a region full of toothless ignorant Bible-thumping bumpkins, so there ya go."

Yeah, but when has that ever been held against them by anyone who counted?
s9 | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 9:51 pm | #

aqualung, I said it's what you didn't leave out that matters. Your points concerning the Bush administration abuses are well taken.
Most here despise the Bush administration for what it had done to the constitution. No problem there.

Screaming obscenities isn't going to help anyone. It gives others the opportunity to ignore your message and it drives readers away from this site.
(Perhaps that is your goal.)

And anon, if you think I'm advocating Civility in politics, you haven't been reading this blog for very long, have you?
nuf said | 10.17.06 - 9:54 pm | #

Daleyrocks,

Democrats make jokes about the Republicans culture of corruption simply because you painted yourselves as paragons of virtue, sold yourselves as the party of Jesus Christ and did everything in your power to steal, rob and foment policy to get more money and power.
The country sees you as a well deserved laughingstock and I'm enjoying you watch your own destruction.
BTW I don't know what makes you so stupid, but I really want you to know how well its working.
brainfaht | 10.17.06 - 10:02 pm | #

The liberal media is providing adequate coverage to the matters you raise, while imposing a semi-blackout on the Dirty Harry scandal.

Didn't you start out waving around some editorials about Reid? Not a very effective blackout, semi- or otherwise. If there's not been much coverage of Reid's LLC, that could mean that there's just not much to it. As you'd know if you bothered reading any of the links others have already posted -- or even their comments here.

As for your boys... Guilty pleas, prison terms, and ongoing FBI investigations -- that quite a bit more significant than some mildly negative editorials, don't you think? Or are you seriously arguing that the DoJ is afflicted with BDS?

The culture of corruption theme was a loser for the Democrats to bring up given the skeletons in the closets of both parties.
daleyrocks | 10.17.06 - 8:28 pm |

Oh, drocks, you're so cute when you're ignoring the point. As ever, it's the hypocrisy, stupid. Remember "the adults are in charge," "we'll restore honor to the office," all that? Not to mention those good ol' family values.

And we're hardly talking about skeletons here -- those Republican corpses are still warm. Hell, some of 'em are still twitching.
vetiver | 10.17.06 - 10:14 pm | #

Glenn writes: "Those who repeatedly dump their wives for new and better versions..."

Well, younger maybe.
Teabow | 10.17.06 - 10:14 pm | #

There are such a great number of inacuracy's of a factual nature that it is difficult to know where to initiate my critisism's of it. Every body knows that Harry Reid perpetuated a fraud of massive and enourmous proportion's on the American public with his phony land "sale" and to agrue in a conteridictory fashion borders on insane. Any first year business student knows that to fraudently claim not to own land in order to earn unearned income when the infrastructure he champion's as a sitting senator to make dishonest income is illeagal in the extreme.
And it borders on fraudulent to suggest that Republicans diviorce theuir spouse's. It almost never happens and you people won't stop perpetuating the falsity that Newt Gingrich ever did any thing wrong just because his marrage failed through no fault of his own nobody ever asks what his WIFE did to ruin there marrage I wonder why that is!!! And what abouyt the democrat party hiding evidence of mark Foley for YEARS!!! just so they could pull a october suprise. Why don't you ever talk about THAY!!! and also about aMAJOR SENATE DEMOCRAT CANIDATE WHO IS SITTING ON A MAJOR SEX SCANDLE!!!
The Major | 10.17.06 - 10:41 pm | #

Why the Democrats can't be trusted on the question of torture:

http://tinyurl.com/ygc8ut
Rob McMillin | Homepage | 10.17.06 - 10:45 pm | #

"The important thing you have to understand about Newt Gingrich is that he is amoral... There isn't any right or wrong, there isn't any conservative or liberal. There's only what will work best for Newt Gingrich. He's probably one of the most dangerous people for the future of this country that you can possibly imagine. He's Richard Nixon glib. It doesn't matter how much good I do the rest of my life, I can't ever outweigh the evil that I've caused by helping him be elected to Congress."

- L.H. Carter, former political adviser
The Egyptian Magician | 10.17.06 - 10:50 pm | #

This is kind of late (internet’s being a jerk), but terrific work, as usual, Glenn. I diaried on the Harry Reid fishing expedition at Daily Kos the other day, and noted how common and above-board such transactions were inside and outside of political life. Your post pointed out the total ridiculousness of John Solomon’s implication that Reid received payment for property he did not own with your typical directness and clarity.

To carry Solomon’s misleading rhetoric to its logical conclusion, one would have to agree that possibly you, me, many of the other commenters here, and even John Solomon himself are guilty of the same thing as Reid: that is, anyone who owns or has held even one share of a publicly traded company, even indirectly in a retirement plan or through a mutual fund, has made a profit from the sale of assets to which we did not have title or any other form of ownership. (Assets can include inventoried goods and a lot of other things besides real estate that are sold by a corporation.)

It looks like the LLC issues have been pretty thoroughly discussed above, and don’t believe this Reid non-issue merits further discussion. As you noted, it is understandable that those supporting the mass of flaming-hot, scandal-infected pus which is today’s Republican Party would want to look under every rock for something incriminating on a Democrat and ignore clear and obvious evidence to the contrary. Their track record of getting years out of a Clinton land deals and adult encounters indicates that getting a few weeks out of the Reid thing should be no problem. Their track record on WMD and Al Qaeda presence in pre-war Iraq, for just two of many such examples, indicates that ignoring good evidence when convenient comes quiet naturally to them as well.

As more proof of this mountain-out-molehill building, it looks like Solomon is back with another dudshell on Reid today. Looks like this mastermind of graft and corruption accidentally paid some staff at his residence a total of $3,300 in Christmas gifts using campaign funds over a period of four years. Hell, Karl Rove can knock that type of thing out in an afternoon at Signatures.

It’s pretty clear: things such as reason, proportion, reality and evidence are really meaningless to these Republican extremists and are to be tossed aside or turned upside down if they get in the way of the their self-serving ideology and/or their relentless pursuit of authoritarian political power.
rollotomasi | 10.17.06 - 10:50 pm | #

Nuf said is proclaiming her/himself moral arbiter of this comment section, deeming obscenity "inappropriate". Well, what can I say, except...fuck him! The obscenity, of course, is the current Republican Party. They are only words, of course. Why be frightened of words? It's all bullshit, anyway. If the present administration and congress don't drive you to obscenity, then you are not outraged enough! My points stand on their own merits, with or without the obscenities. Don't be so prudish. There is a long and glorious history of using the obscene in political discourse; if now is not the time to use it, when wiil it be time?
aqualung | 10.17.06 - 10:52 pm | #

The British colonial period under Queen Victoria spawned many noble officers many of them forever known as "Major"
However, since that period any officer retiring with that rank is well, considered somewhat a failure.
Perhaps it is time for "Major" to enlighten us as to his personal history, and what makes him such a remarkable expert on such a variety of subjects.
Here are a few "divorced" Republicans:

Ronald Reagan - divorced
Bob Dole--divorced
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced.
Governor John Engler of Michigan - divorced.
Governor Pete Wilson of California - divorced.
George Will - divorced.
Senator Lauch Faircloth - divorced.
Rush Limbaugh - divorced three times
Senator Bob Barr of Georgia - not yet 55 years old, has been married three times. He had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act."
former Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced.
Senator John Warner of Virginia - divorced Elizabeth Taylor.
Senator George Allen of Virginia - divorced.
Senator John McCain of Arizona - divorced.
former Representative John Kasich of Ohio - divorced.
former Representative Susan Molinari of New York - divorced.
former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller- divorced
Don't forget when Ronald Reagan married Nancy their first child was born just 7 months later. What a future paragon of virtue don't you think?
Actually the list is much longer. Oh and I hear there is a second October surprise but you will have to wait to hear about it.
brainfaht | 10.17.06 - 11:02 pm | #

aqualung, go watch the pretty panties run elsewhere.
You haven't any class and like I said, your argument is lost when you just spew. But then your sperm is in the gutter, isn't it?
nuf said | 10.17.06 - 11:07 pm | #

THE TORTURE & TYRANNY LAW
has been suggested as the correct subtitle for the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We can't call it the "torture bill" because it's not merely a bill anymore: it became law today. And "torture law" doesn't go far enough to say how abysmally bad the MCA is, and how much it threatens our land of the free.

THE TORTURE/DICTATORSHIP ENABLING LAW
is another possible label; however, the word "enabling" implies a false equivalence to the 1933 enabling law, and what we've got now isn't truly equivalent to Germany in 1933 -- although, as they say, it rhymes.

And what are the right words to describe our once and future republic as it stands today? Avedon Carol said to look here:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com
I hate the word fascist. It has been bandied about so much and brings up images of Storm troopers in grainy newsreels that it seems devoid of meaning. Furthermore, classical fascism was possible only in a mass society, organized along industrial lines, with one-to-many communications. Classical fascism is a reactionary modernism, a response to class struggle. Both German and Italian variants came to power after the defeat of revolutionary upsurges.

I think our own situation is very different, and a better term needs to be found that captures the unique qualities of our reactionary postmodernism. "Military police state" doesn’t quite cut it. Fascism implies policing of thought as well as bodies, today’s reaction is selective, policing bodies but allowing private speech and the empty illusions of parliamentary democracy to stand.

It is quite amusing to see the blind loyalty that most of you have to a party that has done essentially nothing to stop the Republicans' drastic assault on the founding principles of this nation. Of course, they are playing the role of "good cop" at the moment while they await their turn at the power trough.

Hell, even Bush has jokingly referred to president Hillary. You realy think there's a dime's bit of difference between them, other than to play lip service to opposing these federal power-grabs?

Before you all fall on your proverbial swords defending these pricks, you should ask yourselves why they haven't attempted to do much to stop any of this. They certainly have the votes to filibuster.
RAC | 10.17.06 - 11:39 pm | #

RAC,

Until you take lobbying, or just plain money out of the equation it really doesn't matter what party ascends the throne does it?

They all have the same golden ideals and the same pure motivation, but until you realize that absolute power corrupts absolutely, you just won't get it.

These people flock to Washington for all the right reasons and come home just shells of what you voted to send.

Voting Libertarian, Green or Independent makes nary a difference until we forcibly fix this problem for once and for all and take government back to the people.
brainfaht | 10.17.06 - 11:55 pm | #

Paul Behrens does have a point. There have indeed been some spectacularly corrupt Democrats. (Need I mention a certain Richard J. Daley?)

Still, I'm afraid I have to come down on JimLanc's side in this particular instance. Present-day Republicans, even if one ignored how corrupt many of them are in the traditional sense, have embarked on a course for the country which endangers its future as an even nominally democratic country.

They didn't invent all, if any of the elements of this danger, but they've embraced them, exploited them, and claimed them for their own. Their petulant moron of a President, and the Dark Lords who have his ear, will be in office until the end of 2008.

This is enough to vote as a yellow-dog Democrat in the 2006 Congressional races, even if you've never been one before; it is, in fact a reason to vote that way even if you've never been a Democrat.

And what of Lieberman? Collateral damage, I would say. The message had to be sent, even if Lamont isn't St. George, and even if Lieberman winds up voting with the Republicans on domestic issues as well as foreign policy ones. If we don't make good on our warning to the national party here, we'll just have to keep trying.

In the meantime, I think, any old port in a storm is the metaphor which appeals most strongly to me.
William Timberman | 10.18.06 - 12:01 am | #

And, on second thought, I'd like to add a special not to EWO, and others of the vehemently Democrats suck just as bad persuasion:

What's the worst that could happen to you if you voted for Democrats in November? Are you worried that Bart will dance on your grave? Hell, he's already doing that, and you aren't even dead yet.
William Timberman | 10.18.06 - 12:15 am | #

RAC, thank you for being so sincerely concerned.

Do you even know what "falling on your sword" means?

Romans didn't do it to defend their leaders.

Romans did it to protect their families FROM the leaders.

Your imagery is muddled and confused.

And the only blind partisans here are the tag team.
sysprog | 10.18.06 - 12:18 am | #

My apologies, that should have been Paul Behrer above. Another senior moment, I'm afraid.
William Timberman | 10.18.06 - 12:20 am | #

Paul Rosenberg commented (see above):

Ignorance Required [abridged version]
(1) ignorance of Newt and Nancy
(2) ignorance of the Sunni Shia divide
(3) the ignorance re LLCs has been amply dissected.
It's all ignorance, all the time with these clowns.
Faith-based politics, indeed!
Paul Rosenberg | patternsthatconnect | 12:01 pm

http://billmon.org/archives/002840.html
Empire of Ignorance
... Let's review. We have:

1. The head of the FBI's national security branch

2. The Vice Chairman of the House Intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

3. The Chairwoman of the House Intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.’s recruiting efforts in the Islamic world

And they each know less -- probably much less -- about the most critical religious divide in the Middle East (the same one that is currently getting U.S. soldiers killed at the rate of about three a day) than your average commentator at Little Green Footballs...

William Timberman | 10.18.06 - 12:01 am | #
Paul Behre[r] does have a point... Still, I'm afraid I have to come down on JimLanc's side in this particular instance. Present-day Republicans... have embarked on a course for the country which endangers its future as an even nominally democratic country. This is enough to vote as a yellow-dog Democrat in the 2006 Congressional races...

I'm with you, JimLanc and sysprog. I've usually split my vote in past elections(i.e. voted for Sen. Voinovich in '04) and we have an unusually competent Republican Congressman up for re-election in my district this year, but I'll be voting equine all the way. The pity of it is... it won't matter in this region, this time. Still the Republicans will notice declines in their percentages even if they win. A punitive vote against a overly safe Republican incumbent is not at all a bad idea.
Fluffy | 10.18.06 - 12:26 am | #

I lived in Newt's 6th district in Georgia the first time he ran. He ran against Democrat Virginia Shapard who lived not far from where I did. He attacked her during the campaign as a lousy mother because she would have to leave her family in Griffin Ga and go to Washington and neglect her teenaged children. Yea he has always been about family values- someone else's not his own. He always magically won primaries by the same 1500 votes too. Later they created a district for him on the affluent north side of
Atlanta so he would have a safe seat. The old district was too working class and rural for him.
seen this movie before | 10.18.06 - 12:26 am | #

One more anecdote on Gingrich- when he played football in school they had to get Riddel to custom make his helmet- his head was too big for any of the standard ones made. True story
seen this movie before | 10.18.06 - 12:28 am | #

WT any old port in a storm is the metaphor which appeals most strongly to me.

Well put. That's where we are at.
Dirks put it something like "When your leg is severed, you don't treat your high blood pressure first."
I have no great love for the Democrats, but I despise the Republicans.
You're right, Bart has been dancin' a drunken jig. Time to put a stop to it.
nuf said | 10.18.06 - 12:29 am | #

WT,

I highly respect what you have to say on this blog, but you are only partially correct when you paint Democrats as the same as the morally corrupt Republicans. Of course we have prominent sinners, but we never said we we were pure and above suspicion did we?

Does two sinners to the other sides ten really make a difference? or does the fact when one side paints themselves as the party of God and aligns themselves with churches all over the country,really define the culture war we have inadvertantly entered?

All these things whether Right or left, were done for the attainment of power and all it reveals to me is that the whole system is broke and we need to fix it as soon as possible.
brainfaht | 10.18.06 - 12:30 am | #

brainfaht: you are only partially correct when you paint Democrats as the same as the morally corrupt Republicans... all it reveals to me is that the whole system is broke and we need to fix it as soon as possible.

Brainfaht, I was trying as hard as I could to differentiate between current Republicans and Democrats, without dishonestly ignoring the fact that Republicans not only didn't invent the Military-Industrial Complex or the consumer society, but haven't been alone in being seduced by the blandishments of either one.

One thing we absolutely agree on is that the system is broke and we need to fix it. As soon as possible, however, may be a very long time, even with our best efforts.
William Timberman | 10.18.06 - 12:44 am | #

Mmm...in the wake of brainfaht's last comment, I was casting about for historical examples to illustrate my perspective on matters of morality in office. How about this one:

JFK may have had Marlyn Monroe tripping up the back stairs of the White House, but he also faced down Curtis LeMay in 1962, and kept him and his ilk from taking actions which would have resulted in me getting my 19 year-old ass fried in a nuclear fireball.

Under the circumstances, would anyone blame me if I don't nod sagely when someone compares him with Representative Foley?
William Timberman | 10.18.06 - 1:01 am | #

WT,

Thank you, I couldn't agree more.
brainfaht | 10.18.06 - 1:16 am | #

It seems like when you are running against the remnants of an administration that ranked 41st out of 42, after Nixon, for morality, that values might be something to highlight. By claiming that Republicans have forfeited their values, where does that leave Democrats given that they started with none. How far into negative territory have they pushed now?

This theory about multiple marriages is great. John Kerry makes money the old fashioned way, he marries it as a serial gigolo. Ted Kennedy makes money the old fashined way too, by inheriting it and taking advantage of the tax code to protect his wealth and that of his heirs from the IRS. Fartman, do you have the same stats handy for the serial marries on the donkey side of DC? How about the net worth comparisons. There are certainly more wealthy Democrat senators than wealthy Republican senators. I'll bet they don't give two shits about the death tax either because they've already set up gimmicks to avoid it in any event.

Everyone keeps missing the boat on the Ringside Harry story. Slamming land swaps through the BLM as a senator and having well placed progeny to facilitate zoning changes does enhance the probabilities of higher land values. It's not the LLC stupid. It's who he's in business with and a continuation of a pattern of behavior he exhibited before. He's also a vindictive SOB just like Clinton.

How about that gay bashing from the left? Someone remind me why Mike Rogers has absolute moral authority to speak for the entire gay community, please.

Also, no one has linked Hastert to knowing anything about any details of Foley's behavior or e-mails, contrary to your utmost desires. I would like to see any evidence proving otherwise.
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 1:20 am | #

I'm not applying my sexual morality standards to Newt Gingrich. I'm applying his. Glenn Greenwald | 10.17.06 - 11:35 am | #

Hear, hear!
Temperance | 10.18.06 - 1:20 am | #

D-rocks, you're pissed. Angry, too, I'd say by the sound of you.
William Timberman | 10.18.06 - 1:29 am | #

Oh yeah, that Doritos thing, the chip lady of the world, is just a pointless flamer. She adds nothing but detracts something. Her mouth is just a useless cum dumpster. The next time she opens it, would somebody please fill it up. I wouldn't even do it with Baldie's dick.
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 1:31 am | #

I, too, long for the good old days when political discourse was "civil".

Like when William F. Buckley, Jr. and Gore Vidal appeared in a series of televised debates during the 1968 political conventions. In their penultimate debate on August 22 of that year, the two disagreed over the actions of the Chicago Police and the protesters at the ongoing Democratic Convention in Chicago. At one point Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi", to which Buckley replied, "Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face, and you'll stay plastered."


Pete McCloskey is a Republican I have always admired, and still do. I wish he had been succesful in his bids for President, but Eisenhowerarian Republicans have been unwelcome in the party for over thirty years. Current Republican voters won't for them or he would have won the recent primary here against Pombo, one of the most corrupt pieces of Republican shit to ever get elected. He should have. That right there blows your little "pet theory" about partisanship out of the water. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what you are or who you vote for, Beher. I don't care if you even vote at all. (In fact, I hope you stay home looking for liberal fucking Democrats under your bed). Mind over matter. You, and people like you, just don't matter, you are rapidly approaching irrelevancy and permanent minority status, so I don't mind. How you ever became anything more than a fringe movement is a question for historians because you are history.

THE NEED FOR A DEMOCRAT MAJORITY IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 2007


I have found it difficult in the past several weeks to reach a conclusion as to what a citizen should do with respect to this fall's forthcoming congressional elections.

I am a Republican, intend to remain a Republican, and am descended from three generations of California Republicans, active in Merced and San Bernardino Counties as well as in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have just engaged in an unsuccessful effort to defeat the Republican Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Richard Pombo, in the 11th Congressional District Republican primary, obtaining just over 32% of the Republican vote against Pombo's 62%. The observation of Mr. Pombo's political consultant, Wayne Johnson, that I have been mired in the obsolete values of the 1970s, honesty, good ethics and balanced budgets, all rejected by today's modern Republicans, is only too accurate.

It has been difficult, nevertheless, to conclude as I have, that the Republican House leadership has been so unalterably corrupted by power and money that reasonable Republicans should support Democrats against DeLay-type Republican incumbents in 2006. Let me try to explain why.

I have decided to endorse Jerry McNerney and every other honorable Democrat now challenging those Republican incumbents who have acted to protect former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who have flatly reneged on their Contract With America promise in 1994 to restore high standards of ethical behavior in the House and who have combined to prevent investigation of the Cunningham and Abramoff/Pombo/DeLay scandals. These Republican incumbents have brought shame on the House, and have created a wide-spread view in the public at large that Republicans are more interested in obtaining campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists than they are in legislating in the public interest.... read the rest

I'm partisan and proud of it. It would be an entirely different matter if I had an "R" instead of a "D" after my name on my voter registration, but the level of my partisanship is only matched by someone like G. Gordon Liddy. If you happen to see a pencil or some other sharp, pointed object in my hand, steer clear of me. I'm talking to you Daleyrocks.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 1:53 am | #

Chip Monster - The only sharp pointy thing near you is your head.
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 1:59 am | #

I'd just like to add that although de-Ba'athification of Iraq was a monumentally bad idea, (Do these clowns ever have any other kind?), de-Republicanization of America is long overdue. If they were to organize firing squads, I'd volunteer gladly and want to be the one with the live round in the chamber every time.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 2:03 am | #

Let's not forget that the Reagan administration had 138 convistions for corruption and thats just the ones that got caught.

I presented evidence for Republican divorces, I'll let you come up with the Democratic evidence.

As far as rich Democrats Vs Rich Republicans, Rich Republicans are NOT bold, daring risk-takers. If anything, Rich Republicans are risk-averse cowards devoted to protecting their possessions - and the much-vaunted "ownership Society" is all about violating the principles of capitalism to force more and more market risk onto the backs of the working poor and to insulate Rich Republicans (the "Leisure Class") from ever experiencing true financial "risk".

Furthermore, Rich Republicans do NOT seek to maintain a market atmosphere of "competition" - competition being anathema to Rich Republicans. No, Rich Republicans prefer to destroy their competition through buy-outs, frivolous lawsuits, intimidation, harassment and illegal wars.

The Hastert story is just over 14 days old are you kidding me? daley, this has just begun, the complete meltdown of the Republican party is just days away. The next October surprise is going to seal your coffin. What? you thought we would wait for you to catch up?

I told you last week you guys are whistling past the graveyard. Trim those nails the splinters from inside the coffin really hurt your fingernails.
brainfaht | 10.18.06 - 2:03 am | #

I don't particularly care which party I'm a party to, as long as that party is the one that owes it's allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America and not to the Man Who Would Be King. That would rule out the current Republican party. It would rule out the Republican party since Nixon.
Anonymous | 10.18.06 - 2:12 am | #

daleyrocks commented:

It seems like when you are running against the remnants of an administration that ranked 41st out of 42, after Nixon, for morality, that values might be something to highlight.
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 1:20 am

During the height of the Foleygate blow-up, I had many more than a few readers write in to ask me why it wasn't obvious to me that the Foley revelations were a Karl Rove dirty trick. Didn't I get it? Didn't I see how this Foleygate business had conveniently come along just when the NIE story and Woodward's book were shining a bright light on Iraq?

I thought of dredging my memory for similar insights. But suffice it to say the examples would be legion. Indeed, there is almost no misfortune the Republicans can suffer that a non-trivial number of Democrats won't be able to convince themselves was actually a fiendishly brilliant Rove plot.

Now, I don't say this to beat up on my Democratic brethren. And I wouldn't want you to think most TPM Readers think along these lines. But it's not something to brush away either.

We don't know what will happen November 7th. Elections can turn dramatically in the final weeks. But unless something dramatic changes, it's going to be a really, really bad one for the GOP. Yet there are many Democrats who are convinced that Karl Rove has the matter all in hand and is just waiting to spring some trap.

Why do I raise this point? The last several years have taken a harsh toll on the country. But it's taken one on the psyche of Democrats too. Look over time and geography and you'll see a regular pattern. Those who are cut off from power and have the experience of repeated defeats began to believe that those who oppress them possess power and control over events all out of proportion to reality. It's the experience of being beaten repeatedly which can warp perceptions as much as winning too much.

And it's not just in the minds of Democrats.

I'm a big critic of media bias of different sorts, which I've chronicled over the years at this site. But a lot of the slavishness toward Republicans and contempt for Democrats one sees in the media, again, is the product, to put it baldly, of seeing Democrats lose three straight national elections. People without strong grounding respect power and have contempt for weakness. They inpute power and sense and sagacity to victory and all the opposites to defeat.

If you want some sense of how this works, give me an example of the losing political campaign that wasn't run by idiots. Have any examples?

This isn't just a cliff-notes version of social psychology. It's an important element in understanding the politics of the last six years. Not just the Democrats and the Republicans, but the weight of conventional wisdom, how the most silly and outlandish gambits from the GOP get a respectable hearing while ineptitude and weakness are the favored storyline for Dems. To borrow a concept from Chinese politics and cosmology, since 2000 the GOP has had the Mandate of Heaven.

If the Democrats do really well on November 7th, yes, they'll get the subpoena power that has the White House shaking in its boots. And the president's legislative agenda, as we've known it to date, will cease to exist. But I'm not certain those will be the most consequential changes. After the last six years, it will have a deep effect on the perceptions of both parties. And with a party that has based on so much on bluff, confidence and force, that could be a very big deal.

-- Josh Marshall
Anonymous | 10.18.06 - 2:28 am | #

Also, no one has linked Hastert to knowing anything about any details of Foley's behavior or e-mails, contrary to your utmost desires. I would like to see any evidence proving otherwise.

Um, Boehner said soon after the scandal broke that he'd told Hastert about the emails long ago...until he recovered from his latest tanning booth session enough to come to his senses and take it back. Kirk Fordham, Foley's former chief of staff testified that he told Scott B. Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff (some say in more ways than one), about the emails long ago. Kolbe knew about the emails long ago. It's all been widely reported on and verified. What more "evidence" do you need? A stained blue dress, perhaps?

And btw, your anger seems authentic and unrehearsed this time. I actually find that to be refreshing, as it sounds like this time you might actually believe what you're spouting and not just repeating some talking points you heard on Rush today. Or could it be...that you guys are waking up to the scary realization that you might actually lose this time around?

Sucks to feel this way, doesn't it?
Kovie | 10.18.06 - 2:29 am | #

aqualung, go watch the pretty panties run elsewhere.
You haven't any class and like I said, your argument is lost when you just spew. But then your sperm is in the gutter, isn't it?
nuf said

It's amusing to watch this. Never get up on a high horse if you don't know how to ride.
Anonymous | 10.18.06 - 2:46 am | #

anon. -Most stats in general agreement, but yours are not very complete.

This list was compiled at the end of the Clinton administration.
RECORDS SET - The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the
wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14
because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals
and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33
of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or
misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson
uses the same figure but with a different standard in"Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of
his administration was the worst ever."
STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date (including one
governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the
Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
CRIME STATS
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been
convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during
Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who
have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by
Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of briberyand fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike
Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including
Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering,
extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks,embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5),fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury,obstruction of justice.
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 2:53 am | #

So many facts and figures!

What are the sources?
The Egyptian Magician | 10.18.06 - 2:56 am | #

Kovie - Your post says nothing about evidence of a long term cover up, because there is none. No one claiming to have had a conversation with Hastert about the e-mails has claimed to have shown them to Dennis. Again, no evidence of a cover up. So far, it looks like Fordham and Trandahl trying to protect Foley from himself on the quiet, while Democrats tried to shop the story around to various media outlets with no success until Brian Ross, a notable hack, took the bait.
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 3:00 am | #

- - Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

Totally debunked by Snopes

- First president sued for sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment laws didn't exist before the civil rights era, no way to sue civilly for a tort that had no remedy.


First president accused of rape.

Ummm, no.

Thomas Jefferson
There have been longstanding rumors that either Jefferson or his brother fathered children by his slave Sally Hemings. In September 1802, political journalist James T. Callender, a former political ally of Jefferson and disappointed office-seeker, wrote in a Richmond newspaper that Jefferson had for many years "kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves." "Her name is Sally." Callendar stated that Jefferson had "several children" by her. Jefferson did not reply to the charge. There had previously been rumors of such an affair, but the Callendar remarks gave it widespread currency. Jefferson's Federalist political opponents spread the charge for the remainder of his presidency, and it appeared in many newspaper.[1]

Some feel that a sexual relationship with a slave would be considered rape by modern standards since a slave could not withhold consent. [1][2],[3] Writing about the relationship in the Nashville City Paper, Molly Secours said "for us to call it anything but 'rape' is disingenuous and dangerous." [4] In USA Today, DeWayne Wickham wrote that "to imply that the sex between him and his slave was consensual, even in a TV movie, is a cruelly dishonest portrayal of the dirtiest secret of American slavery" [5]; in the same article, Daniel Jordan, president of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, is quoted as saying "whether it was love or lust, rape or romance, no one knows, and it's unlikely that anyone will ever know."




Ronald Reagan

In April 1991, major newspapers carried the report that actress Selene Walters claimed that, in 1952, Reagan, when he was president of the Screen Actors Guild, had raped her in her home. The charge was initially publicized in Kitty Kelley's unauthorized biography of Nancy Reagan and then repeated in a People magazine interview with Walters. "I opened the door," Walters told the magazine.

"Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way."

According to Kelley, Walters shared contemporaneous accounts of the encounter with friends. No physical evidence has been produced to support the allegation. [6]. No legal action, civil or criminal, was taken against Reagan based on the allegation.


Bill Clinton
In November 1998, Juanita Broaddrick gave an interview to Dateline NBC. The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Bill Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978 during his first campaign for the governorship of Arkansas. In the interview, she declared that Clinton suddenly

"turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.'... He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip... And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.'... He wouldn't listen to me."

There were four witnesses who told NBC that Broaddrick had revealed to them years ago that Clinton had brutally raped her in 1978. One was a nurse who told NBC that she tended to Broaddrick after the assault, applying ice to the victim’s bruised face and badly swollen lips. It was right after the attack that Broaddrick first revealed the rape, telling the nurse that Clinton had sex with her "against her will," NBC reported. ABC News released a statement from Broaddrick friend Phillip Yoakum, who identified the nurse as Norma Rogers.

Previously, in 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affadavit in the Paula Jones case saying Clinton had never assaulted her:

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. ... These allegations are untrue ...."

In 1998, she recanted that affidavit when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case. Broaddrick later said of the affidavit, "I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn’t want to go through it again." [7] According to Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, many journalists were skeptical;

"This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the [Wall Street] Journal today.... Everyone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible."

[8] Joe Conason and Gene Lyon's book The Hunting of the President argued that Broaddrick's claim is not credible and contains numerous inconsistencies. In contrast, Michael Isikoff's book Uncovering Clinton and Christopher Hitchens' book No One Left to Lie To both argue that Broaddrick's claim is credible. No legal action, civil or criminal, was taken against Clinton based on the allegation. Clintion did not mention her or the allegation in his 2004 memoir My Life.

No civil or criminal legal action was taken against Clinton based on Broaddrick's allegation.


George W. Bush

I'm sure the rest of your list is a crappy as you are.
Anonymous | 10.18.06 - 3:05 am | #

Perhaps a criminal mind is required to be truly successful at politcs.
The Egyptian Magician | 10.18.06 - 3:06 am | #

I hope you like the food at Gitmo, Daleyrocks.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 3:07 am | #

Andrew Jackson was a pimp.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 3:12 am | #

I would like to point out a couple thingson the Reid thing (since I am a Nevada resident and have studied Nevada law).

The "land swap" that put the land up for public sale occurred in 1994 four years before Harry Reid bought the property.

In 2001-2002, the Clark County Commission (which is the deliberative body that handles zoning changes) recieved 370 requests for zone changes. They approved 75% of them. In fact, on the day that the property Reid owned through the LLC was rezoned, six other parcels were also rezoned (including one directly across the street from Reid's).

Under Nevada Revised Statutes (Chapter 81), an LLC's default position is that each member receives a proportionate share to what they put in. Unless the shares are not proportionate, then no forms beyond initial Articles of Incorporation are required.
Douglas Democrat | 10.18.06 - 3:16 am | #

Perhaps a criminal mind is required to be truly successful at politcs.
The Egyptian Magician

Adorno's F-scale explains some of this but you may have to dig around to find it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The.../ Theodor_Adorno

Don't read this idiot.

http://www.anesi.com/
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 3:17 am | #

Kovie - Your post says nothing about evidence of a long term cover up, because there is none. No one claiming to have had a conversation with Hastert about the e-mails has claimed to have shown them to Dennis. Again, no evidence of a cover up. So far, it looks like Fordham and Trandahl trying to protect Foley from himself on the quiet, while Democrats tried to shop the story around to various media outlets with no success until Brian Ross, a notable hack, took the bait.

If you truly, genuinely believe this, then I really do feel sorry for you, although it does make you a bit more sympathetic than if you were just the talking point-spouting shill that you usually are here.

First, I refer you to the Wiki entry for this scandal. Yes, it is Wiki, but I challenge you to refute what it says about Hastert's role in this scandal and cover-up. This is all pretty damning, and you'd have to make an enormous number of assumptions and leaps of faith to believe that he knew nothing about this until literally when it broke several weeks ago. Few people are prepared to do that. Your defense of Hastert verges on the ludicrous and desperate, akin to diehard Repubs' adamant defense of Nixon as not having known anything about Watergate or its coverup. You're not one of THOSE, are you? There is faith, and there is fantasy, and defending Hastert is clearly the latter.

Second, why would Fordham and Trandahl protect Foley--are you implying that because they're all gay, they were "on his side" on this? Being gay IS NOT being a pedophile (and I hope and assume that you're not implying this). Plus, Fordham has testified UNDER OATH that he told Scott Palmer about Foley long ago. So either he's lying, or Palmer's lying about not telling Hastert. And why would Fordham lie about this UNDER OATH, when there's nothing to be gained for him, and much to be lost? He worked for Tom Reynolds, for god's sake, and clearly would not seek to hurt Hastert, and thus the GOP, by lying.

And finally, as to the Dems shopping this around angle, allow me to throw your request for evidence right back at you and ask that YOU come up with ANY evidence to support this canard? Because I have seen or heard of none. I don't know which is sadder, your demanding evidence that any 6 year old with access to the internet could come up with in less than 2 minutes, or pretending that evidence exists that an army of right-wing expert Lexis-Nexis researchers and the mighty Matt Drudge haven't been able to dig up in 3 weeks.

As for Brian Ross, you guys didn't seem to think that he was such a hack a few weeks ago when you touted his recent story on how some of his alleged CIA sources claimed to him that torture works as "proof" of this, did you? Who's the hack, daley?
Kovie | 10.18.06 - 3:20 am | #

Idiotboy left a few things out of his cut and paste:

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

But even including the part above is misleading and false.

That list includes the number of Clinton indictments AND convictions but ONLY lists the number of convictions under Reagan's administration. Highly selective use of misleading numbers.

Reagan may have had only 33 convictions but there were OVER 100 indictments. Number of total Clinton era indictments: 38 [Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice], mostly the usual sort of corruption - kickbacks, bribes, etc (sex). Under Reagan's watch, we had - the CIA financing terrorism (car bombs, Lebannon), people in the executive party selling weapons to a totalitarian state (Iran), while illegally supporting the right wing Contras. (And on that subject I'll put the pardon of William Casey during an active investigation of Iran/Contra over that of philanthropist Marc Rich).

By comparison to Nixon: 176 indictments; 27 convictions. Of course this doesn't touch President Grants totals of 440 indictments, 210 convictions.

What desperate and ill-informed fuck heads they are.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 3:34 am | #

I'll bet Chimpy has a little more empathy for the "condemned man" than he did as Governor of Texas. The only title he is entitled to because it's likely the only election he ever won.


Elections May Leave Bush An Early Lame Duck

By Peter Baker and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; Page A01

On desks around the West Wing sit digital clocks counting down the days and hours left in the Bush presidency, reminders to the White House staff to use the time left as effectively as possible. As of 8 a.m. today, those clocks will read 825 days, four hours. But if the elections go the way pollsters and pundits predict, they might as well read 20 days.

At least that would be the end of George W. Bush's presidency as he has known it. If Democrats win one or both houses of Congress on Nov. 7, the result will transform the remainder of Bush's time in office and dramatically shift the balance of power in Washington. Ending a dozen years basically passed in exile, congressional Democrats would have a chance to help steer the nation again -- following a campaign spent mostly assailing Bush's vision rather than detailing their own.

Around Washington, key figures in both parties have been trying to figure out what a Democratic victory would mean. Bush has been meeting privately with Cabinet secretaries in recent weeks to map out an agenda for his final two years in office. The White House says it is not making contingency plans for a Democratic win, but Bush advisers are bracing for what they privately recognize is the increasing likelihood. And Democratic leaders have been conferring about what they would do should voters return them to power.

Emboldened by victory, and bitter from grievance, Democrats could use their ascendance to block Bush's agenda, force him to respond to theirs and begin a new era of aggressive oversight and investigation. A Democratic victory, analysts in both parties said, could mean that some of Bush's tax cuts would not be renewed, attempts to revive his Social Security investment plan would be doomed and efforts to further broaden national security powers in the face of civil liberties concerns would be thwarted.

Most worrisome to the White House is the subpoena power that Democrats would gain with a majority in the House or Senate. For years, Republicans have been mostly deferential in scrutinizing the Bush administration, but Democrats are eager to reexamine an array of issues, such as Vice President Cheney's energy task force, the Jack Abramoff scandal and preparations for the Iraq war.

Why the long face, Daleyrocks? You look like a Horse's ass, but you'll never be a Donkey.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 3:48 am | #

Kovie - That guy from Harpers has written a couple of articles about the story being shopped around. He claims it was Democrat operatives. CREW and Aravosis (now at least) would qualify as Dem operatives.

The Brian Ross hack part certainly fits this story. Enough media outlets turned down the Foley story based on the Katrina e-mails because there was nothing there. Even the FBI concluded there was nothing there. Unless Ross had other information being fed to him such as the IM's or wanted to just do a partisan hit job, why did he pick up the story? Does it really serve the gay community's interest to have the country's reaction be that gay men cannot be trusted around teenage boys? That is the backlash that is being created by this story.

Kovie, how do you know exactly what Fordham testified to under oath. His story kept changing by the day before his testimony and as I recall, he was silent after testifying. If you have some special knowledge of what was actually said, please share, otherwise it is all second hand BS.
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 3:55 am | #

dr,

Unless and until you come up with links and sources for this data, it is all effectively meaningless. I could just as easily claim that H.R. Haldeman was dealing heroin out of his WH office and that Martha Mitchell was having an affair with Ben Bradlee. Sources?!?
Kovie | 10.18.06 - 3:58 am | #

Chip Monster - What am I thinking. I completely forgot about president Grant.

Loser.
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 4:09 am | #

Kovie - Here's a link to Harpers if those are the links you were asking about.

http://harpers.org/sb-it-s-not- o...1160761024.html
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 4:14 am | #

That guy from Harpers has written a couple of articles about the story being shopped around. He claims it was Democrat operatives. CREW and Aravosis (now at least) would qualify as Dem operatives.

What "guy from Harpers"? Are you so lazy that you can't even do a 5 second google search? And what exactly did this alleged "guy from Harpers" write that says let alone PROVES that this story was "being shopped around"? Can you please provide me with something to work with here? Jeez.

As for CREW and Aravosis being "Dem operatives", what does that even mean, that anyone who says or does something that goes against your guys is automatically a "Dem operative"? So I guess that makes me and most folks here including Glenn "Dem operatives", as well as Olbermann, Stewart, Colbert (yeah, sorry to break it to you, but he despises you guys), Dowd, Krugman, Rich, Dionne, Froomkin, Fitzgerald, Fordham, Kuo, Corn, Isikoff, Barr, Fein, O'Neill, etc. Yeah, it's a secret plot to take down the GOP. We all meet Wednesday mornings in John Conyers' basement while you guys are all hangin' with Grover. Bill brings the booze and Hillary bakes cookies.

And couldn't I just as easily call you a "GOP operative"? Stick to the facts, and leave your meaningless allegations to yourself, because they're not only untrue, but they have nothing to do with the facts of this scandal. 1 + 1 = 2 whether you, I, the ACLU or Rush says it.

In any case, even if Dems shopped this story around, how does that in any way change the fact that Foley's been doing this for over 10 years with the leadership's knowledge, and they did nothing about it?!? And, coming from a supporter of the same folks who wasted millions of taxpayers dollars on a witchhunt for Bill Clinton's dirty laundry and invented all sorts of false stories about him, and who have traded on smear and innuendo for years to win races (Cleland, Richards, McCain), this is certainly the pot calling the kettle black.

Dem operatives my ass. You're just pissed that we finally got you, and the voters know it.

As for Fordham, no, I am not privy to what was said in his deposition. I'm just going on what he told the press before he testified. Again, why would he lie about this? It makes no sense to me. He's a true blue Repub, for god's sake. Why would Trandahl lie? Why did Boehner change his story? Kolbe? Jeez, this is idiotic.

Make some sense, dude. And do your homework.
Kovie | 10.18.06 - 4:18 am | #

Again, you're unbelievably lazy, or dishonest, or both. Here is an excerpt from Ken Silverstein's (that "guy from Harpers") column that pretty much debunks your allegations:

1. Many readers wrote in to tell me that, because it was a Democratic operative who brought me the material, it followed that the Foley scandal was a Democratic plot and part of an “October Surprise” strategy to inflict maximum damage on the G.O.P.

Democrats and Republicans (and independents for that matter) pitch stories to the media all the time. Sources almost always have an axe to grind. Did my source hope to damage Foley's political career? Undoubtedly—and so what? He also also provided accurate information about a story that merited attention. My source was genuinely angry about Foley's conduct. And the information that he provided ultimately led to an outcome that few people would consider unjust—Foley has resigned.

As I wrote on Tuesday, the source brought the story to other news outlets late in 2005, and brought it to me in May. Why would he try to spring an October Surprise a year early?

I have no evidence that the source was working in concert with the national Democratic Party. That said, I acknowledged in the story that some Democratic officials may well have been aware of the accusations against Foley and expected supporting evidence to come out in the press. Since writing the original article, I've become convinced that was in fact the case; indeed, several well-placed sources have told me that some Democrats—and certainly people affiliated with the campaign of Foley's Democratic challenger Tim Mahoney—were aware of the accusations at least as early as late Spring.

...

This still doesn't support the October Surprise scenario, unless it was an October '05 Surprise, nor does it suggest that my source had anything in mind other than exposing Foley's wrongdoing and damaging his chances of staying in Congress.

Some Democratic-initiated "October Surprise".

There's a lot more in this column--I suggest that you actually READ it. The MOST that he's willing to acknowledge is that he believes that Dems knew about this at least a year ago and probably played a role in getting this out, but that he sees no "October Surprise" here (in 2006 at least).

Well, so what? If you were aware of a similarly damning story about a Dem wouldn't you fall all over yourself to get it to the media? I see no malfeasance here, and no evidence that they waited until just before this year's elections to get it out. Silverstein pretty much shoots down that canard. Unless you believe that the media, including "Path to 9/11" ABC, secretly works for the DNC.

Now there's a laugh.
Kovie | 10.18.06 - 4:31 am | #

Here are the interesting stats from The Boston Globe by way of the latest Krugman column:

KRUGMAN (10/16/06): The current Congress has shown no inclination to investigate the Bush administration. Last year The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

So, was anyone convicted of the 'Christmas List' crime? No? Well, who was charged with Abu Ghraib, hmm. So, even when the Republicans take days of testimony they still get nothing. Though obviously the Abu Ghraib testimony was just a formality.

Interesting to see what a Democratic congress would bring?
gaderson | 10.18.06 - 4:33 am | #

Kovie - That reporter from Harpers is such a freaking idiot he doesn't understand the implications of what he is saying in the article. You keep saying the House leadership knew what Foley was doing for ten years. Where is your evidence?
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 4:57 am | #

Political corruption.

There is no doubt which party has been more corrupt historically. One party has always been better at opposition research and smears. That changed recently, at least the opposition research is now done by both parties. The Democrats have never really had to engage in smears. They just have to uncover and reveal the true facts.

I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Anyone who suggests otherwise is a dishonest, partisan hack.

Playing Dirty


This year's presidential campaign is already shaping up to be even more negative than the last. That's no accident. Our correspondent looks at the cloak-and-dagger world of opposition research—the updated version of "dirty tricks"

by Joshua Green

As voters turn their attention toward the coming presidential election, an abiding question from the previous one frustrates Democrats: How is it, they wonder, that Al Gore told small fibs and was branded a liar while George W. Bush told big ones and was elected President? Gore's many exaggerations may have been foolish—that he had somehow invented the Internet, that he grew up on a Tennessee farm, and so on. But surely, this line of thinking goes, they paled alongside Bush's audacious claim that he could cut taxes by $1.3 trillion, effortlessly privatize Social Security, and still balance the budget.

A large part of the answer can be found in a BBC documentary titled Digging the Dirt, which was filmed during the 2000 campaign and never aired in the United States. The film centers on a team of Republican opposition researchers —a species that has existed in politics for eons but had recently undergone an evolutionary leap. From deep within the Republican National Committee headquarters the BBC tracked the efforts of this team, whose job it was to discredit and destroy Al Gore...
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 5:59 am | #

Chip Monster - What am I thinking. I completely forgot about president Grant.

Loser.
daleyrocks

If he had been a Democrat, I'm sure your memory would have improved.

See me after November 7th and you can swallow that whole, cum bucket.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 6:05 am | #

The Foley Coverup Timeline





2000 — Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) informed of improper Foley Internet messages that made a page feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley was taking their email relationship. Kolbe claims he never personally confronted Foley, but rather recommended that the complaint be passed along to his office. [Washington Post, 10/9/06; Arizona Republic, 10/11/06]

2001 — A Republican staff member warns pages “to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley.” A former page says that they were told “don’t get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.” [ABC, 10/1/06]

2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has sexually explicit IM exchanges with an underage boy who worked as a Congressional page. [ABC News, 9/29/06]

2003 — Foley’s former aide Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that “when he learned about Foley’s inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had ‘more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene,’ alluding to House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert’s office denied the explosive allegations.” [CBS News, 10/5/06]

APRIL 2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupts a House vote on the 2003 Iraq supplemental to “engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page.” [ABC, 10/3/06]

SUMMER 2005 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sends inappropriate emails to another former Congressional page. [CREW]

SEPTEMBER 2005 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns “of the e-mails from a reporter.” [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]

FALL 2005 — “Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert’s] Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page…[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff.” [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

LATE 2005 — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, “was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page.” Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him “to cease all contact with this former house page.” He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]

EARLY 2006 — Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) talks Foley into running for another term. Bob Novak reported, “A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running.” [New York Post, 10/4/06]

FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose office first received the complaint from the page, told Boehner about Foley’s inappropriate e-mails, and Boehner sent him to Tom Reynolds. Alexander tells Reynolds about “the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander’s.” Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06; Chicago Tribune, 10/3/06]

SPRING 2006 — House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of “inappropriate ‘contact’ between Foley and a 16-year-old page” from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). After learning about Foley’s conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would “take care of it.” Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn’t remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]

SPRING 2006 — Reynolds says he told Hastert about the e-mails after he learned about them. “He said he alerted the Republican speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, to the issue, but Mr. Hastert said he had no recollection of the contact.” [The Sun, 10/3/06]

MAY 10, 2006 — Reynold’s personal PAC, TOMPAC, donates $5,000 to Foley’s campaign. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]

JULY 21, 2006 — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington forwarded the messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on July 21 and requested an investigation. [CREW, 10/5/06]

JULY 27, 2006 — Foley writes a $100,000 check to the NRCC, chaired by Reynolds. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]

JULY 27, 2006 — Foley, still co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, attends a signing ceremony at the White House for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. [White House, 9/27/06; Talkingpointsmemo, 9/30/06; Washington Post, 10/1/06]

AUGUST 7, 2006 — The NRCC accepted a $100,000 contribution from Foley’s campaign committee. [FEC]
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 6:14 am | #

Well, I actually believe in the First Amendment. I'll post here or anywhere else I choose. So, Nuf Said (what the hell does that mean, anyway?), you can kiss my ass.
aqualung | 10.18.06 - 6:19 am | #

So, now that you've bothered to read his column and realize that Silverstein is not supportive of your groundless allegation that Dems and ABC are behind this "October Surprise", you suddenly realize that he's an idiot. Why am I not surprised?

It's just like Ross and ABC. You like him when he seems to support torture and they air a piece of crap propaganda movie about 9/11 that supposedly makes your guys look good and Clinton look bad by LYING about what actually happened. But suddenly he's a hack and they're working for the DNC when they expose a story about a pathetic and creepy pedophile and his GOP enablers. This is a textbook example of dishonest reasoning.

How pathetic are you guys, jumping from this argument to that, this source to that, in order to prove the unprovable and convince yourselves that day is night and that little green men really do live on the moon? Stick to the freakin' known facts, and not something that Rush pulled out of Ken Mehlman's ass and stuck in his mouth this morning.

In any case, I find it hard to read the following excerpt from the aforementioned Wiki article on the Foley scandal and not believe that the GOP leadership knew about this for years:

Several current and former congressional employees recalled Foley approaching young male pages at parties, going back many years, and say that warnings about him were commonly passed around. Generally speaking, he was "known to be extraordinarily friendly in a way that made some [pages] uncomfortable." According to Mark Beck-Heyman, who served as a Republican page in summer 1995, "Almost the first day I got there I was warned. It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages." [46] He charged that many people on Capitol Hill, including Republican staffers, "have known for over 11 years about what was going on and chose to do nothing."[15] Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said on MSNBC that "I‘ve had people now on staff that used to be pages, and it was widely known to watch out for him, that he liked boys ... so pages were warned to watch out for him."

All the pages knew it, along with others in DC. And no secret gets hidden for long in that town. Hell, Perkins knew it and admits it! If he knew it, no way that Hastert et al didn't know it. And I'm convinced that the evidence that will emerge will prove this.

Let me put it to you this way, because you might be better able to relate to it. If this was a Democratic scandal, then there's no freakin' way that Pelosi, Hoyer and Murtha wouldn't have known about it, and if they had allowed it to go on, I would absolutely want them all to be booted the hell out of the party. Can you say the same about your precious Repubs, if it's proven that they knew all along?

Can you? Or is it all about winning for you guys, at ANY cost?
Kovie | 10.18.06 - 6:27 am | #

Kovie - That reporter from Harpers is such a freaking idiot he doesn't understand the implications of what he is saying in the article. You keep saying the House leadership knew what Foley was doing for ten years. Where is your evidence?
daleyrocks | 10.18.06 - 4:57 am

Yeah, he should have known one or more of our Trolling Trio would quote him out of context.

When one of the trio first posted the link, I nearly choked at the thought of Silverstein & Harpers being used as admitted evidence of Dem collusion... (Was it Shooter who posted it first? Who cares...)
GlennB | 10.18.06 - 6:29 am | #

Another update on Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY).

In the debate we referenced below, when challenged on Foleygate, Kelly said: "There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything at all went on with the pages at that time. And as a matter of fact the evidence shows that mr. foley apparently began this in 2001 when I was no longer on the board."

Kelly says she was chairwoman on the Page Board in 1999 and 2000, though Salley Collins, spokeswoman for the House Administration committee told a local paper Kelly's service was from 1998 to 2000. (Not necessarily a significant difference, the cycle may have actually started when the new Congress was sworn in in 1999.)

But ABC News has reported that pages from the 1998, 200 and 2002 page classes have come forward to say they were hit on by Rep. Foley (R-FL). That is in addition to Tyson Vivyan, an ex-page who says he was approached in 1997 and other pages who report being warned about Foley as far back as 1995.

Also, retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) appears to have still been on the Page Board in 2000, when he was approached by a page who said he'd been sexually chatted up by Foley. Kolbe says he passed on word to the House Clerk, who is the fourth member of the Page Board. Kolbe's spokesperson appears to have left open the possibility that this occurred in early 2001. But it seems probable that this occurred during the time that Kelly was chair.

Point being, there appear to be numerous points on which Kelly's statement in the debate don't square with the facts as they are currently known.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 6:30 am | #

So, now that you've bothered to read his column and realize that Silverstein is not supportive of your groundless allegation that Dems and ABC are behind this "October Surprise", you suddenly realize that he's an idiot. Why am I not surprised?

These people "think for themselves"?

Bwahahahaha!!!

He probably had to have someone read it to him.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 6:32 am | #

I have been following your blog for a while and I read your book.

I think it is time to draft you to run for office. You will make a great candidate and a lot of fired-up people to back you.
Oluseye Bassir | Homepage | 10.18.06 - 6:44 am | #

A bit off-topic, but what is everyone's opinion of Charlie Rose. He hosts a nightly interview show on PBS that's usually on at 11, and has all the big names on sooner or later.

Right now he's interviewing Gorbachov, who while discussing Iran mentioned that Bush recently ordered a naval task force to steam towards the Persian Gulf near Iran, and that it's due to arrive soon. He wondered what reason there was for this, and asked Rose if he was familiar with this. Rose, unsurprisingly, said that he hadn't--and he's a journalist, for Christ's sake, and this isn't exactly priviledged information of something out of a CT site. It's been all over the news, and is a fact, and yet Rose didn't know about it.

I've long wondered about Rose, given the kinds of guests he has on, how fawning he is towards the most famous and powerful of them no matter how loathsome (e.g. Kissinger, Baker, Chalabi, Wolfowitz), whether he's just a lazy-ass idiot starfucker who loves being able to tell the folks on the cocktail party circuit whom he's lined up for his show, and to be able to mingle with all of them publically, like Tweety, or if he's just another shill for the powers that be, a gun for hire, like Armstrong Williams.

I only ask here because it's people like Rose who, whether knowingly and intentionally or not, enable right-wing thugs like Bush, Cheney, Frist and their ilk by legitimizing them on their shows and not holding their feet to the fire, and I'm just wondering if this is something that they do knowingly, or because they're just damn stupid.

And, to my knowledge, he has yet to have a show about the detainee law and its implications, and has pretty much ducked the whole NSA wiretap and now Foley scandals, along with the GOP's imminent collapse. It's like he's deliberately trying to shut out anything that doesn't fit into his Friedmanesque Pollyannaish worldview. He's kind of like Russert for the merlot-sipping crowd.
Kovie | 10.18.06 - 6:50 am | #

an ex-page who says he was approached in 1997 and other pages who report being warned about Foley as far back as 1995.

That's 11 years.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 6:54 am | #

Anonymous

Civility in politics is a myth peddled to the losers and minority to keep them docile.

Exactly. It's been like this since the earliest days and will be like this long after we pass away.

The left, in all my years (most of them on the right with the other Eisenhower Republicans) has actually been the more civil of the two sides. The right wing never stops viciously attacking and never stops lying about the left.

What the right likes to do is grab totalitarians, like Horowitz when he was a 'socialist' and hold them up as part of the left. They're not. The socialists were totalitarians, closer to facists and the hard-core right-wingers than the left. They differed more in an ECONOMIC system, not their willingness to be "liberal."
Moses | 10.18.06 - 7:22 am | #

What desperate and ill-informed fuck heads they are.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 3:34 am

LOL. I don't suppose you'd like to admit to plagiarizing your information from a guy named Thumb from the comments section of another blog. Why, that would make you deperate, ill-informed, AND dishonest. Tsk.

I understand there are sites available on the web that help expand one's vocabulary, and self esteem. Naming one's self after something thin, brittle, and bland, seems sad.
shooter242 | 10.18.06 - 7:27 am | #

Kovie, I don't know anything about Rose, but I don't remember his name coming up in my occasional forays onto Media Matters or CJRDaily.org. (You might try searching for his name there.)

On that particular question asked, I recently read here

http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot...-iran- this.html

an explanation that it is routine deployment. I'm not familiar with that blog or its author otherwise.
GlennB | 10.18.06 - 7:29 am | #

nuf said

aqualung, go watch the pretty panties run elsewhere.
You haven't any class and like I said, your argument is lost when you just spew. But then your sperm is in the gutter, isn't it?

Without dipping too far into the irony...

It is your blog? Who died and appointed you Net Mommy?
Moses | 10.18.06 - 7:29 am | #

Making Bricks Without Straw

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3491&print=1
Rev. DeForest Soaries was appointed by George W. Bush as the first chair of the EAC -- the commission created by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

Soaries: "... The Help America Vote Act mandates that an electronic voting machine be in every precinct in the country ... Each of us accepted our appointments knowing that EAC had no statutory authority to regulate. But what we were told was that EAC would have sufficient money to do research. And while regulatory authority was not present, we felt that if we could do the proper research, no state would be caught dead using equipment that didn’t meet up to the standards that our research proved were acceptable standards. Well, in the absence of regulatory authority and in the absence of money to do the research, we were basically asked to make bricks without straw..."

From shooter242 at 7:27am:

LOL.

I notice you didn't actually argue against his point. Thanks for the back-handed admission of how worthless your crowd is.
yankeependragon | 10.18.06 - 8:55 am | #

What desperate and ill-informed fuck heads they are.
Doritos of the World | 10.18.06 - 3:34 am

I understand there are sites available on the web that help expand one's vocabulary, and self esteem. Naming one's self after something thin, brittle, and bland, seems sad.
shooter242

Shooter is absolutely right. That "Doritos" person even "plagiarized" that name from a commenter here named Eyes Wide Open. I'm sure there is a law against this. If not, there should be.
Anonymous | 10.18.06 - 11:57 am | #

Will the doritas of this world agree to let the spotlight shine on the Democratic Leadership after the election and tell Nancy Pelosi to stuff the gavel up her ass if she continues to be a War Party advocate and a traitor to the Bill of Rights?

Eyes Wide Open

The people who frequent this blog should be ashamed....
Anonymous | 10.18.06 - 12:03 pm | #

drocks, do you understand the difference between an investigation and a conviction?

Your string of "first [blank] to be investigated" is meaningless, considering a) the hyper-partisan nature of those investigations, and b) the striking lack of results.

But, hey, keep repeating the names to yourself, like a rosary. Maybe St. Ronnie will work a miracle for you.
vetiver | 10.18.06 - 12:10 pm | #

It's always a pleasure to read and hear the opinion of the righteous party and their hypocritical views. We are blessed to have such sycophants preying, or praying as it were, upon the citizenry and our short-term memory. I hope, or better yet, I believe that the memory problems have been cured by the rapid frequency of lies and scandals and will reflect such at the polls come November. Still... I do enjoy reading and hearing such poppy cock spill forth from the righteous party. Gives me great hope in our state of our union.
thepoetryman | Homepage | 10.18.06 - 1:50 pm | #

Doctor Biobrain,

The LLC is just a legal structure to help people keep track of a business owned by more than one person.

Well that's not really entirely true, is it?

The legal structure you describe can be found in a partnership. The distinction between a partnership and an LLC is found principally in the legal and financial immunities granted to the LLC shareholders, some of which can be found in state and federal tax law treatment, others of which are a matter of statutory or common law.

So, if people simply want to band together to own real estate jointly, they can form a partnership.

But if they want some insulation from legal and financial liabilities, they form a corporation... LLC, straight corporation, subchapter S corporation... any of these. And as I mentioned above, the corporation form typically carries some income tax benefits to the shareholders as compared to a partnership.
Paul Behrer | 10.18.06 - 2:10 pm | #

Hey, Paul, are you kidding?
david | 10.18.06 - 4:41 pm | #

hey david, no I'm not, and I would appreciate your not using the Karl Rove school of "denigrate those with whom you disagree, and use negative implication when you do so."

So I would defy you to prove me wrong.

Of course, you cannot.

So you resort to a negative implication that my statement is so wrong that I must be joking.

Meanwhile, you haven't proven yourself anything but wrong, consistently so, in this thread.

Please, david. Show me where I'm wrong. And please share your credentials that back up your proof, so that the more skeptical -- that remaining 2% of Glenn's audience who aren't dull minded lemmings like Doritos of the World -- can suss your rationale and bases for making such lame and inane implications.

Thanks davey. I appreciate your feeble attempts at derogatory levity.
Paul Behrer | 10.18.06 - 7:25 pm | #

Not having much luck, are you, Paul?

I think it's your breath.
Haloscan ate my name | 10.19.06 - 7:37 am | #

That would depend upon what your definition of when "when" is.
Paul | 10.19.06 - 1:16 pm | #

Sorry, that was obscure.

My reference was to blogger Paul's "when I woke up this morning". Maybe this other Paul only wakes up when he reads about his ignorance in Glen's blog. Then again, its probably not that often that he wakes up.

Ignorance, in one of its less used definitions, is the act of ignoring facts. Is it that they don't know, don't want to inform themselves or that they don't want to acknowlege the facts. They want to ignore the facts for a "truthiness" that their readers and listeners can sink their teeth into.

I read someone's explanation of the problems of AirAmericaRadio is that they inform too much and expect middle America to be influenced. Whereas their counterparts influence without informing, ie. they say "America doesn't like cowards and democrats are cut and runners".

When dealing with anti-intellectuals it is like the old adage and story about the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.
Paul | 10.19.06 - 2:50 pm | #

It is interesting that the outing of Florida candidate Charlie Crist has been ignored by the media.

My concern is that he is in charge of the state's investigation of his friend Mark Foley.


The WMR, http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ posts a lot of detail on Crist.

"October 13/14/15, 2006 -- LATE EDITION -- WMR's intrepid sources in Florida report on some details about GOP gubernatorial candidate and current Attorney General Charlie Crist..."
Tom | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:31 pm | #

Glenn Greenwald: I'm not applying my sexual morality standards to Newt Gingrich. I'm applying his.

Damn! You rock, GG.

Your posts are excellent nuggets of an amlagamation of reason and passion.

As always, you're on target.
binz | 10.22.06 - 11:18 pm | #

I meant amalgamation, dag-nabbit!

(stupid typing fingers. yeesh.)
binz | 10.22.06 - 11:21 pm | #