Decision ‘08

Denial Is A River Running Through The Reality-Based Community

Lots of reaction from the lefties to the recent stories linking Harry Reid with Jack Abramoff, most of it of the self-serving tortured logic variety. The AP sets the stage (curiously, the story isn’t getting much play from the New York Times):

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and Reid’s staff had frequent contact with the disgraced lobbyist’s team about legislation.

The activities — detailed in previously unreported billing records and correspondence — occurred over three years as Reid (D-Nev.) collected nearly $68,000 in political donations from Abramoff’s firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Reid’s office yesterday acknowledged having “routine contacts” with Abramoff’s lobbying partners. Reid intervened on government matters in ways that Abramoff’s tribal clients might have deemed helpful, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations around the time of each action.

Apparently on the theory that the only proof of a quid pro quo is an expressed written document of the terms of both quid and quo, signed and notarized, several prominent voices of the Left are falling all over themselves to excuse Reid with their right hand from the very guilt by association that they tar the President and Republicans with on the other.

Joshua Micah Marshall singles out one episode where Reid voted against the presumed interest of Abramoff clients as proof that the entire premise is flawed. Kos goes one step further, and denies Reid ever even took an Abramoff-friendly position on any matter whatsoever, even as he blasts Bush for far less (in the land of the blind…):

AP accuses Reid of Abramoff involvement! Except that, uh, Reid never took the Abramoff position on ANY vote. So why is this a story?

Equally deep in deluded denial is Scott Shields of MyDD:

…[F]or now, it seems that this is no more than a smear campaign, designed to divert attention away from the diseased and corrupt Republican leadership. And if this is the best they’ve got, we’re still in great shape.

At least one voice on the left isn’t buying it:

All of the stuff outlined in the article may, in fact, be “just a typical part of lawful fundraising,” but that doesn’t mean that it appears ethical to most Americans who have no idea how bought and sold our elected representatives actually are. (Nor does it mean that it is ethical.)

Frankly, I’m not impressed by “technically legal” and “technically not a bipartisan scandal.” And I know that goes against the party line, but I don’t really care. If the reporting in this story is accurate, which Reid’s office doesn’t seem to dispute, then what the Dems are accusing the GOP of doing and what the Dems did themselves is nothing but a distinction without a difference.

We can do infinitesimally better doesn’t have much of a ring to it.

Quite right…Reid took money, and voted on related legislation the very next day, and yet I’m supposed to believe there was no connection?…Come on…

4 Responses to “Denial Is A River Running Through The Reality-Based Community”

1 Sean P Says:
February 10th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
There is one very important factor to consider, and I’m surprised nobody has mentioned it yet. Reid is one of Nevada’s senators. One of Nevada’s biggest (and most entrenched) interests is its casino industry. The casino industry is frequently in direct competition with the indian casinos that have popped up all over the country on indian reservation land (except in places, like California, where Las Vegas casino interests and indian tribes have teamred up). No amount of money Abramoff gave Reid would ever be enough to cross the in-state gambling industry.

The test for corruption on Reid’s part would be this: did he ever vote against the interest of the indian gaming industry on any issue in which it and Vegas casinos were NOT in conflict? And did he first attempt to prevent said legislation from reaching the floor for a vote?
2 Mark Says:
February 10th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Well, Sean, I don’t think what Reid did was any more wrong than what every politican does - he took money to push legislation that fit his preferences, and groups that also had those same preferences gave him money. The fact that he may not have changed his vote based on those preferences doesn’t matter to me at all.

I’m just pointing out how incredibly weak the case against (most) Republicans is on this score, particularly the president - not that there wasn’t wrongdoing on the part of some Republicans, that is, but that this whole ‘culture of corruption’ cuts both ways - and if Republicans are getting more of the largesse, that is only because of their majority status…
3 Sean P Says:
February 10th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Bad choice of words in the second paragraph. I meant to get the following point across: “the test for whether the contributions are evidence of corruption on Reid’s part.”
4 Gary W Says:
February 10th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Several things that will give this wings are that Reid stood on the capital steps and tried to paint this as a republican only scandal. There is also the “not one dime” interview with Howard Dean. Then, this was going to be the number one issue the democrats were going to pound away at in hopes of gaining seats in the November election. It’s pretty hard to pound away at the “culture of corruption” at the same time explaining how republicans taking Abramoff money is bad but democrats doing exactly the same thing is not. The fact that more money went to republicans than democrats is not going to play well with the voters. The fact that the most vocal democrat critic took this money kills the issue for the democrats completely.