Nearly 90%, right?

This definitely splits party lines though it will be hard to know that if you only listen to the MSM. I have so far only heard this being refered to as a Republican scandal. Yet Patrick (Patches) Kennedy D-RI is one of the biggest recipients of Indian money and he has already come out saying he isn't giving back a dime.

When you think of the amount of cash that is generated by Indian casino gambling and other tax free scams, er businesses they operate, this could be huge. As to why the Republicans may have been a larger target for cash, last I looked they run Congress. Why would you spend as much time and money trying to influence the minority?

Ace, How is it that none of those names are on Sweet Andrew's ENTIRE list?

Give Patrick Kennedy a break. He is just saying "I did nothing wrong, so I am keeping the money."

This position more sense than saying "I did nothing wrong, so I am immediately giving all the money to charity."

The latter course is evidence that the Congressperson(s) did in fact do something wrong.

Please note however that I am NOT defending Kennedy's honesty--only his consistancy.

I would never defend a Kennedy's honor, honesty or moral judgement.

An honest politician is one that stays bought. -- Thomas Jefferson

Never give the Indians ownership of establishments of chance, it will lead to political problems.
Plus, they can't handle their liquor
Thomas Jefferson

I think the issue is that when Dems said they "did nothing wrong" - they are telling the "truth" (and thus that is why they are keeping the money.) The Republicans are (obviously) lying when they make the same claim- THAT is why they are returning the cash. See how this works? At least, this is how it has been explained to me by liberals.

I concur our host's analysis that these bribes are not tilted to some partisan or ideological outcome--just business. But remember, even though we expect our reps to supprt business, lefties think business is bad. So upon that thin reed I intend to continue claiming the Donks actually sold something for the money since the GOP would have voted with Abramoff anyway.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Incidentally, I'm waiting to see which Donk gets out in front on this scandal. I hope it's someone good, like a John Glenn type. Respected but tarrred with the same brush. It's like when they trot Teddy out on ethics, funny in it's audacity.

I expect to see Jim McDermott out in front on this wiretapping thing. High comedy indeed.

Your link says Reid took $68,941 from Abramoff, but Reid told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he only took $61,000.00. Whence the disparity? Sure, it's a minor difference, but if Reid's so insistent that he hasn't done anything wrong, why try to shave off that extra eight grand?

Also, I really liked Reid's defense in yesterday's article. He said that because he comes from a gambling state, he naturally has an interest in trying to limit -- get this -- Indian casinos in Louisiana. Yeah, I'm having a little trouble following that leap of logic, too.

Sobek, don't forget Abramov was representing both sides in the Indian casino fiasco. He was playing them off against each other. [Obviously the descendants of the geniuses who sold Manhattan for $24 bucks hired him.] So Reid's statements do make sense.

So you wonder why I started supporting Indian gaming at precisely the same moment I started taking money from Abramoff?

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM! I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

is a list of who got what, sorted by amount.

Oh, to be a fly on the demmie caucus wall :

"Heads -- you speak up; tails -- I speak up! Just don't let Nancy flip the coin."

interest in trying to limit -- get this -- Indian casinos in Louisiana

Sobek, not that I really want to defend that prick Reid, but there is gaming industry concern (in Nevada) that Texans opting for Louisiana action means less action in Vegas. It seems goofy, but apparently we Lone Star knuckleheads drop a lot of dime in LV. The predominant theme of LA casino ads here is "Vegas style action, Vegas style fun". LV ads are all "come here for the real deal".

Me, I'm planning on reading a book. Expanding my horizons.

Sobek,

Harry Reid's statement actually does make sense. And I'm drawing on my past service as a Senate staffer to come to this conclusion.

A few years ago, the Clinton administration tried to pass a set of regulations that would allow indian tribes to bypass the "Tribal/State" compacting process inorder to get permissions directly from the Dept. of Interior to build Casinos (Class 3 gaming sites).

Here is why: Many states (like Alabama and Florida) have one or two federally recognized tribes, but the State constitutions either specifically prohibit the types of gambling associated with Casino's, or the voters of the state have consistently been against the opening of casinos no matter who was behind it.

Because the tribes couldnt get, say, Alabama's governor to ever agree to a "Tribal/State Gambling Compact" (as required by law) the tribes have no recourse. Hence, they wanted to take the States out of the process, and get the Feds to get them what they couldnt get on their own under current law.

Reid always sided with Alabama and Florida when those states attempted to kill the Clinton regs. The regulations were in fact ultimately defeated.

Why? Because Harrah's and Bally's and the Nevada Tourist industry (among others) hate the spread of Casino Gambling. They feel like anytime a casino opens outside Las Vegas, they are facing significant new competition for gambling/tourist dollars.

Seriously...I used to get lobbied by people from Harrah's and from the Nevada Tourism office who explained that gambling should be limited to Las Vegas because Vegas has the best regulations to protect consumers (snicker) and a variety of other reasons.

So...in his mind anyway (and in his constituents minds as well) they really do feel that in order to protect their turf, they have to oppose the expansion of gambling elsewhere.

Now it may be the case that Harrah's money trumped Abramoff's money. I can't speak to that. All I can say is that whenever the Alabama and Florida senators attempted to kill the Clinton Administration regs, Reid (and Ensign) could both be counted on to side with the Southerners.

Ace,

I don't share your optimism that this won't be labelled "a Republican scandal" when it's all said and done. Remember the congressional check scandal that helped to bring the Republicans into power in 1994? Politicians in both parties were implicated (I believe Newt was actually one of the more egregious drafters), but because the worst offenders were Democrats, the public thought of it as a "Democratic scandal." Lots of people of both parties were in bed with Abramoff, but because the two or three with the closest connections to him were Republican (e.g., Ney and Delay), the public is going to think of this as a "Republican scandal." I wish they wouldn't, but they probably will.

As an addendum to the above post, if I recall it correctly, the Clinton Administration's initial promulgation of the Class 3 gaming regs came at a time when Indian Tribes were heavily donating to the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign.

This issue stayed relevant thru the Gore 200 campaign, as the administration kept reissuing the regs even though Congress kept beating them down. Similarly, Gore's campaign fundraisers benefited from a great deal of Indian largesse.

Jack and Dave, at this point the argument seems awfully thin.

If you're a Texan, and you're faced with the choice between going to Vegas or Louisiana, you've got a real decision to make. Vegas is "the real deal," but Louisiana is a lot closer. I can see why Reid and Ensign would want to get rid of the Louisiana option to keep gambling money in Nevada.

But once you cross the threshold, and there are already casinos in Louisiana, the existence of another casino in Louisiana isn't going to tip any Texan toward that state rather than Vegas. If the Texan decides he prefers Louisiana proximity, then it makes no difference to Nevada whether the Texan ends up in Lake Charles or New Orleans.

But, Sobek, apparently it does to the Big Vegas casino's themselves.

Look...when Louisiana wanted to open it's Casino in New Orleans, I believe that Edwin Edwards awarded the contract to Bally's.

This pissed Harrah's off to no end. (I may have the two companies backwards here.)

As a result, Harrah's (who didnt want to see a competitor enter into a market in which they had been excluded) pitched a fit.

This situation intensifies even more with regard to Indian Casinos, as often these Casino's are built on "tribal land" that offers benefits like cigarrets and gasoline sales that arent taxable by the state.

In the eyes of the LV bigwigs, these Indian Casinos offer several competitive advantages, besides just a general proximity to the potential gambler.

Hence, the LV concerns go into a full court press to stop any Casino effort in which they are not involved.

And the Casino's basically take the view that each and every new casino that opens makes it ever more likely that a gambler will decide against Vegas.

I'm telling you...the LV Casinos view each and every new casino opened outside Vegas as a direct threat to their bottom line.

I don’t understand the “leap of logic” problem either.
Politicians have always tried to stifle economic opportunity
in other states to the benefit of their own (it’s one of the things they do best).
For 25 years Midwestern & Southern lawmakers successfully supported legislation to lockup timber resources in the Northwest, while supporting federal logging increases in their own backyards.
It’s a market thing.

A. Weasel

To take the point further, Sobek, here is something I should have stated earlier.

If someone lives in Alabama, they can not legally open a Casino under state law. This includes Harrah's.

SO a gambler in Alabama can't go to a casino in Alabama (the defintion of casino here being a place that offers Class 3 gaming devices like roulette).

If they want to gamble in a Casino setting, they have to go to someplace that offers it.

Right now, the closest place is in Mississippi, where both tribes and private entities can, and have, opened casinos.

Under current Alabama law, the only way a casino could open is if a Tribe were able to get the State to sign off on a Tribal/State Compact.

Should this happen, the tribes can open their own casino's, but private Alabama citizens still could not.

So, gambling money shifts to an entity that LV has no interest in (the indian tribes who run their own outfits), vs the current situation in which Alabama gambling money has at least a 50/50 shot of going to a casino in MS which the LV's casino's control anyway.

Nevada's interest is in basically limiting the choices Alabama gamblers have on where there gambling dollar will be spent. Alabama's interest coincides with this because their State Legislature and the voters have consistently voted against allowing casino's to be built in Alabama, regardless of who runs them.

There really is a convergence here, with Anti-gambling forces in Alabama actively siding with Pro-gambling forces in Las vegas to stop the spread of casino's to new areas.

Reid is, I think, actually acting in the interests of his Vegas Strip backers, moneymen, and constitutents.

Then why's Harry need to be bribed into doing this? He should be doing it for nothing!

I took Abramoff's dirty stinking loot before I -- took more of Abramoff's dirty stinking loot.

John Ken Berry

Sponge,

Because it's the best kind of cash around. When you accept money for doing something you would have done anyway, it's a lot easier to sleep at nights.

If you've learned anything at all about the Ace of Spades Lifestyle, that should have been lesson number one. :)

Think of the converse position: What if Dingy Harry had taken money while also promoting the spread of casinos, contrary to what seems to be his constituents desires?

That would be a little harder to justify.

What happened to my strikeout?

How much did KENNEDY,KERRY and EDWARDS take?

So, what Dingy Harry is saying is, I'm here to protect my constituents' interests, but it is so much easier to protect them with all the extra campaign cash Abramoff has handed me, and it's all legal and above-board for me to do this because he didn't influence me not one whit. No siree, not one whit. I'll take money from any "culture of crime" Republican anytime 'cause I know it ain't gonna affect me. No, siree.

Check the facts. this is a Republican scandal! No Democrats took any money from Abramoff. None.