Abramoff Implicates Reid
As if it weren’t enough that he Dems are looking to put in power Alcee “Impeached for Bribery” Hastings and John “I Don’t Want That Bribe! . . . Right Now” Murtha, now we learn that Jack Abramoff has allegedly implicated Harry Reid in corruption.
Amazing the things you learn from the news media . . . just after an election.
Why, the Republicans can’t lose! Unless they put in power someone who is “[s]uspect on racial issues and pork-friendly.”
D’oh!
Well, don’t say that you weren’t warned. Repeatedly.
UPDATE: Power Line is skeptical of the Abramoff allegations. There is good reason to be. I wouldn’t put it past Reid, but you have to watch out for criminal defendants looking for deals.
UPDATE x2: The New York Times is running a story critical of the “cut and run” idea. Generals are quoted as being against it.
Man, it’s amazing what you learn from the media after an election.
“Amazing the things you learn from the news media . . . just after an election.”
Wait, the murtha thing is from 26 years ago, and the Abramoff thing dependson him talking. And this is because of THE MEDIA?
Jeezus this election really pulled a number on you.
Comment by actus — 11/15/2006 @ 6:21 pm
Yeah, and the media warned Americans: this is the guy who will be the Majority Leader if you elect Democrats. As for Abramoff, you have a point. Too bad the media couldn’t dig it up before the election — assuming he told prosecutors about this a while back. We don’t know for sure when he talked, but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn it was a while back.
Comment by Patterico — 11/15/2006 @ 6:29 pm
Did the media also warn us about Hastings? I missed that one too.
Comment by Patterico — 11/15/2006 @ 6:30 pm
When was he impeached?
Comment by actus — 11/15/2006 @ 6:36 pm
Lott is what the party needs. Congress fell apart without people like him and Delay. And it’s going to be even tougher now.
You can have perfect gentlemen who lose repeatedly to street fighters like Schumer or you can put in people who can wheel and deal and get something done.
Don’t kid yourself.
Comment by clarice — 11/15/2006 @ 6:40 pm
I see your point, Clarice.
Comment by Christoph — 11/15/2006 @ 6:42 pm
As to Reid, I think people pretty much knew. As to Murtha, I’m not sure. It was known around DC that he was going to make a play for it. If you were curious about who would do it, you could find out. But “warn” ? why do we need to “warn” who the majority leader is going to be?
Comment by actus — 11/15/2006 @ 6:54 pm
Actus, there were a lot of us out there who weren’t really into politics when we were children, which would probably explain why we weren’t aware of Murtha’s Abscam connection.
And you warn people who the majority leader will be because you think that smart people wouldn’t want that guy to have so much power and might not be dumbasses and vote for his party.
Comment by sharon — 11/15/2006 @ 6:59 pm
Um, he’s faced elections since then right? His opponents didn’t raise this? Odd isn’t it?
Comment by actus — 11/15/2006 @ 7:17 pm
Odd that his latest opponent did — but she couldn’t get the media to focus on it, which is why you think she didn’t raise it. You didn’t hear about it.
Comment by Patterico — 11/15/2006 @ 7:21 pm
This has been around since 1980? And its been quiet since then?
Comment by actus — 11/15/2006 @ 7:31 pm
Should I keep talking to you? When you ignore my points and ask annoying questions?
Comment by Patterico — 11/15/2006 @ 7:33 pm
The point is that this is a big non-issue. One which the people in his district seem to not mind. Maybe its because of all the business that Murtha brings.
Comment by actus — 11/15/2006 @ 7:35 pm
Lott is what the party needs. Congress fell apart without people like him and Delay. And it’s going to be even tougher now.
This is the age-old question for politicians in both parties: Do you go with the deal-makers who inevitably end up frustrating the more dogmatic members of the party, or do you go with the true-believers who keep standing on principle and never get anything done? For all the problems with Lott, he always had a reputation as a great whip when Bob Dole was the minority and majority leader. I would prefer the Senate GOP have a true-believer as minority leader and a deal-maker as whip. I am not entirely sure that Mitch McConnell qualifies as the former, but Lott will probably be pretty good.
Comment by JVW — 11/15/2006 @ 8:59 pm
Actus,
Murtha’s ethics may be a non-issue to his constituents and if so, I accept that. But if Murtha is a candidate for or assumes a leadership position, his ethics become a national concern.
Comment by DRJ — 11/15/2006 @ 9:25 pm
Exactly.
Comment by Patterico — 11/15/2006 @ 9:37 pm
Obviously, Madam Pelosi agrees with you. From Clinton “Everybody lies about sex” to Murtha “everybody takes bribes now and again”. We’ve come a long way, kid.
Comment by Linus — 11/15/2006 @ 10:33 pm
The point is that this is a big non-issue. One which the people in his district seem to not mind. Maybe its because of all the business that Murtha brings.
Just because his “constituents” don’t mind his underhanded dealins doesn’t make it ok, Actus. I live in Jim Wright’s old district and everyone knew he was a corrupt asshole but he was our corrupt asshole and he brought home the bacon.
Comment by sharon — 11/16/2006 @ 5:02 am
Certainly. But its also old. You’re acting like politically hyped teenagers that have just discovered chappaquidick, or that Bush family members were involved in S & L
He’s had committe assignments for a long time now.
Comment by actus — 11/16/2006 @ 5:26 am