Talk:Harry Reid
We need some information about the 2004 vote against Roe V. Wade. I feel like I follow politics about as closely as anyone who has a 'normal' job, and I never heard about any vote that was simply against Roe V. Wade.
Is this perhaps referring to the Partial-Birth Abortion ban?
--
No. Tom Harkin introduced an amendment to the PBA ban that endorsed the ruling in Roe v. Wade. It narrowly passed, with the help of many moderate Republicans, but Reid voted against it.
--
This may be a reference to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which Reid voted in favor of in 2004. The act was viewed in some quarters as hostile to Roe v. Wade because of language in the bill that defined life as beginning at conception.
" Reid is currently also the only Democratic Mormon Senator. Four other members in the Senate are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but they are all Republican."
Is the fact that the others are Republican relevant?
Yes! Or more to the point, that Reid is a Morman and Democrat! Khirad 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Walter Olson quote
I returned the Walter Olson quote; it doesn't strike me as that speculative in terms of a hypothesis of what was motivating Reid's highly unusual endorsement of Martinez while simultaneously rejecting Cornyn. The fact that Reid was willing to propose several anti-Roe justices to the Court is relevant to his view on Roe, and it was printed in the Wall Street Journal, so it's not like it's an out-of-left-field suggestion by an anonymous blogger on Daily Kos or Freep. It's NPOV, because it's stated as Walter Olson's opinion and links to the op-ed. -- FRCP11 08:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how it being from the WSJ (out of right field, so to speak) gives it any more encyclopedic notability than if it came from somewhere else. You've sourced it correctly and neutrally, of course, but the statement itself is still fundamentally the unfounded speculation of one person regarding a relatively minor incident in Reid's career. I don't think that this meets the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. Gamaliel 18:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Closing the Senate
I hope others are following the closure of the senate on Nov. 1, 2005 by Reid by invoking Rule XXI. I'm deciding not to add anything at this point in time as we do not know what, if anything is, happening behind doors. But I do think it is a significant point, - though posterity may not later agree; certainly something to mention in a living encyclopædia nontheless. Khirad 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Reid's Relationship to Abramoff
Why is that several Republicans have Jack Abramoff mentioned but no one bothered to mention Harry Reid's ties?
"On the Senate side, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), now the Senate minority leader, also wrote Ms. Norton in opposition to the casino. The letter was dated March 5, 2002. On March 6, 2002, one of Mr. Abramoff's tribal clients wrote a $5,000 check to Mr. Reid's Searchlight Leadership Fund. "There is absolutely no connection between the letter and the fundraising," said Mr. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. Another coincidence! Mr. Reid's Abramoff-related total: $66,000 between 2001 and 2004." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701469.html
Could someone add this? I don't know how to word it.
- I was going to, 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)
- The difference between Reid and the Republican congressmen who received money from Jack Abramoff is that Reid received no money directly from Abramoff. Like some other members of congress, Reid received money from an entity that also gave money to Abramoff. In fact, Reid
may not even have receiveddid not receive any money indirectly from Abramoff. There's a big difference between the two. NatusRoma 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)- While I am antirepublican, I don't think Reid is out from under the cloud of suspicion. Check this little gem out "A former top aide to Reid, Edward Ayoob, held fundraisers for the senator while working under Abramoff. Abramoff’s clients gave Reid’s campaigns more than $60,000." [1], January 26, 2006. If I can pull some sources together it will make a strong case that it should at least be mentioned.--M4bwav 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- That quotation doesn't make it clear whether these fundraisers were in the course of Ayoob's work under Abramoff, or happened independently but simultaneously. What Ayoob did on his own time was his own business. I doubt that you'll find much that will merit a mention in the article, but I would be interested to see what you find just the same. NatusRoma 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- While I am antirepublican, I don't think Reid is out from under the cloud of suspicion. Check this little gem out "A former top aide to Reid, Edward Ayoob, held fundraisers for the senator while working under Abramoff. Abramoff’s clients gave Reid’s campaigns more than $60,000." [1], January 26, 2006. If I can pull some sources together it will make a strong case that it should at least be mentioned.--M4bwav 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- The difference between Reid and the Republican congressmen who received money from Jack Abramoff is that Reid received no money directly from Abramoff. Like some other members of congress, Reid received money from an entity that also gave money to Abramoff. In fact, Reid
- This is one of the popular ones
- "Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, also signed by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev). The next day, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second Abramoff tribe also sent $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations from 2001 to 2004". Abramoff Witness Frustrates Panel E-Mails Suggest She Was Lobbyist's Connection to Interior Officialwashingtonpost.comNovember 182005 Gale Norton is about as corrupt as they come.--M4bwav 00:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's cold as ice, more on same
- "Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) sent a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on March 5, 2002, asking her to veto an agreement between the state of Louisiana and the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians that would have allowed the tribe to open a casino in Louisiana.
- The day after Reid sent the letter, according to the Associated Press, Louisiana’s Coushatta tribe, which already operated a casino, and which was a client of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but which did not want competition from the Jena tribe, sent a $5,000 contribution to Reid’s tax-exempt Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff, the AP reported, also sent Reid’s group a $5,000 contribution. Ultimately, according to the AP, Reid collected more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related contributions." Harry Reid Takes Gambling Money, Protects Gambling Interests Human Events, January 17, 2006--M4bwav 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- This article sums it up Reid says his 'conscience is clear' despite GOP Abramoff attacks ASSOCIATED PRESS, January 18, 2006
- Basically there are two indirect connections between Abramoff and Reid, Gale Norton, and Edward Ayoob. While it may not mean there is definitely a bribery connection between Abramoff and Reid, when he was confronted on the floor of the senate about it, it does make it relevant and as such I will make a small note of it (including his defense).--M4bwav 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
THere is now a detailed article describing Reids ties to Abramoff. I have added it along with the citation. Tbeatty 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nice job, sorry if my tone was slightly annoying.--M4bwav 03:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the wording is from the article. It is as neutral as possible. No accusations. Just facts. Tbeatty 04:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, as it should be, like I said I have no anti-Reid agenda, I've just studied almost every aspect of Abramoff. --M4bwav 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually now that I read the changes you made, I kind of get the feeling that you may not be acting in good faith, some of the accusations are relevant because they create the impression of corruption. The fact that he acting in ways favorable to the tribes after receiving money should probably be mentioned. --M4bwav 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for the accusation, now that i reread it again is seems allright. Could use a slight rewording.--M4bwav 04:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I added the defense. Tbeatty 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- You were right to take away the "Republicans" part. Though Republicans have in recent weeks suggested ties between Reid and Abramoff, on another reading, this new story is clearly based entirely on the AP's reporting. I've restored some of the details I had, and I didn't appreciate being reverted. I also removed the scandals category, because this alleged minor involvement is not big enough to warrant the moniker of "scandal". NatusRoma 06:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I added the defense. Tbeatty 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the Abramoff scandal is current enough and generates enough interest to be called out for easy access. I think it should be a subheading at least. Also, the AP was documenting, not accusing. There is no need for "allegedly" to be used. It creates the appearance that either a) a crime was committed or b) the facts might somehow be false. In this case, since AP hasn't used the term, putting it in the article creates an appearance of guilt either on the actions of Reid or impropriety by AP. IF the statement was "Reid took bribes", allegedely would be appropriate. But AP just outlined persons, places, dates and dollars Tbeatty 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
- One might ask what this news story does other than create the appearance of guilt. The story has hardly broken, and it's not yet significant enough to merit a subheading. If there's more to the story, a subheading might be in order. NatusRoma 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the Abramoff scandal is current enough and generates enough interest to be called out for easy access. I think it should be a subheading at least. Also, the AP was documenting, not accusing. There is no need for "allegedly" to be used. It creates the appearance that either a) a crime was committed or b) the facts might somehow be false. In this case, since AP hasn't used the term, putting it in the article creates an appearance of guilt either on the actions of Reid or impropriety by AP. IF the statement was "Reid took bribes", allegedely would be appropriate. But AP just outlined persons, places, dates and dollars Tbeatty 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
- It's a heading or a sub-heading in other politician pages. Also, the line starts "According to AP" but then you proceed to change the wording. He helped Abramoffs clients, not just constituents. For example, the article clearly says he opposed a Casino because it conflicted with an Abramoff client but you could argue that his constituents who wanted the Casiono were not helped at all. Why do you change to less accurate verions. Other politicians ties to Abramoff have the "American poltical scandals" category. To be neutral, either all the other politicians need to be dropped or Reid has to be added. Tbeatty 16:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Abramoff is the biggest thing to happen in Washington in over a decade, whether in his defense or not there is a unbiased news item about their relationship every week now. It's got to be put in there.--M4bwav 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Such hyperbole is risible. Have you ever heard of Monica Lewinsky? Other politicians have received money directly from Abramoff, while Reid received money from Abramoff's clients. No one is suggesting wrongdoing here. We're documenting, not accusing, so why should this be called a scandal? NatusRoma 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Abramoff is the biggest thing to happen in Washington in over a decade, whether in his defense or not there is a unbiased news item about their relationship every week now. It's got to be put in there.--M4bwav 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's a heading or a sub-heading in other politician pages. Also, the line starts "According to AP" but then you proceed to change the wording. He helped Abramoffs clients, not just constituents. For example, the article clearly says he opposed a Casino because it conflicted with an Abramoff client but you could argue that his constituents who wanted the Casiono were not helped at all. Why do you change to less accurate verions. Other politicians ties to Abramoff have the "American poltical scandals" category. To be neutral, either all the other politicians need to be dropped or Reid has to be added. Tbeatty 16:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Because Abramoff plead guilty to a felony relating to how he rewarded politicians, not with direct contributions, but with contributions of clients. It is generally regarded as a scandal in Washington when someone close the political establishment commits a felony. Direct contributions are not the scandal. The scandal is the use of Native American money to pay politicians. We are documenting that Reid received money from Abramoff clients. We are documenting that Reid helped Abramoff clients. Abramoff plead guilty to defrauding his Native American clients. The charge is that Abramoff lobbied for competing Native American interests (i.e. urging a politician to thwart one casino so that it wouldn't compete with another while representing himself as serving each interest). Abramoff represented multiple tribes and used money and influence to drive up his fees. That's the scandal. The fact that Reid, perhaps unwittingly, helped Abramoff accomplish this fraud is relevant, a scandal, and worthy of documentation. What is really irrelevant to the scandal is Abramoff's personal contributions. Tbeatty 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand the extent of Abramoff's connections, and the implications of receiving money from Abramoff. This scandal has barely begun to unfold, it's going to take down probably more elected officials since McCarthy, and maybe even before that. The situation is clearly considered a scandal by the American media, and to be connect to it, is to be part of the scandal, regardless of guilt or innocence.--M4bwav 00:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Restarting the indentation: this section should be a level three heading. A single AP story does not justify a level two heading. NatusRoma 00:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I have removed this article from Category:American political scandals. No accusation of corruption has been leveled against him. Except for crystal ball predictions, there is nothing to justify placing Reid in that category. NatusRoma 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you try reading before you change things? We've already had a long discussion about this and whether you like it or not, Abramoff IS a scandal. Harry Reid is connected to that. Therefore, he is connected to a scandal. It's a very simple concept.--Hbutterfly 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Listen I know you like Reid NatusRoma, but he's involved, and it's relevant and documented. I'm as big a Bush hater as they come, but Reid is clearly involved in the scandal. I could find a dozen articles on it, you got no case. Republicans have constantly leveled accusations at him about it, the RNC chairmen just did so on C-SPAN, you can see and hear it with your own eyes. I'm adding a reference to it, as well and changing it back.--M4bwav 01:14, 12 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)
- Please make an argument, and don't just say, "your edits are POV". The notion that the connection between Abramoff's clients and Sen. Reid goes beyond donations is not supported by any news article, but by opinion.
- On the subject of the minimum wage, neither AP article makes no mention of Reid ever supporting Kennedy's compromise. In fact, even the blogger who accused Reid of hypocrisy in this matter did not accuse him of being both publicly for and privately against the minimum wage increase in the Marianas. I reproduce a quotation from the site:
While Reid and other Democrats were fighting to increase the minimum hourly wage for Americans, he was secretly working with Abramoff's firm to stagnate the minimum wage for those working on the islands.
- As you can no doubt see, there is nothing to support the contention that Reid was making false statements about his position regarding the minimum wage in the Marianas. NatusRoma 08:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)