Comments (28)

wagonjak wrote on August 1, 2007 12:10 PM:

Does Harry have any illusions that if the situation was reversed Ted Stevens would be as gracious to him? Stevens would be on the floor savaging him and piously intoning about how important ethics are in the Senate...

The Democrats continue to play the game of bipartisanship when all they got from the Republicans when they were in power was a series of kicks in the nuts...

Until the Dems grow some cajones, they will always be the losers...even when they're in power!

DiFi Fan wrote on August 1, 2007 12:17 PM:

"Unlike in the House.." - I may be mistaken but I thought Doolittle voluntarily gave up his committee assignments, albeit under pressure.

I don't disagree with Reid in one way. The Stevens investigation appears to be moving along nicely and if he is to be indicted, it will be soon.

MillionthMonkey wrote on August 1, 2007 12:23 PM:

“I don’t know anything about the Stevens investigation, but I’m not going to be in a position where just because someone’s under investigation they’re punished here in the Senate.”

Does he know what "conflict of interest" means?

It isn't "punishing" a Senator to remove him from his committee seat when he is using it to block legislation that obviously will affect him personally. You can't throw him in jail for merely being under investigation- but that's what "innocent until proven guilty" means- it refers to prison sentences, not anything "bad" that happens to you like being forced to comply with existing ethics requirements. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "you should suffer no consequences from your actions until a jury sentences you".

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 12:23 PM:

Dems still win with no backbone
amazing? or Ted has real dirt on Senators' earmarks over the years

Stephen Taufen wrote on August 1, 2007 12:28 PM:

Harry Reid knows better, as in mid-December 2000 he was there with Trent Lott reminding Ted Stevens who the real Senate leadership was - while angry Ted held up the entire Congress from going home for Christmas, right as Gore/Lieberman conceded. Reid was one of the Senators that the Transfer Pricing report of the GAO in 1991 was addressed to, and knows that not only does Ted rip off US Taxpayers, but he rips off all of Alaska in fisheries by allowing foreign-owned multinationals to steal up to $2 billion a year from the US economy, and Alaska's fishermen and communities. But Reid's own son is a rather suspicious recipient of taxpayer ripoffs too. So, birds of a feather, should go to jail together.

Codeword: Sons - as in protecting them.

Mark Richards wrote on August 1, 2007 12:31 PM:

If you believe for one minute that the collective will of the American people is being somehow transmuted through 99 US Senators to Harry Reed, I have a plot of land for sale.

Reed proves that, whether Republican or Democrat, the US Senate is a little president's club, not an organ of representative democracy.

In the end, they take care of "the member", when in this and other cases "the member" should be sliced off.

We will get nowhere until Americans have a direct democracy.

MillionthMonkey wrote on August 1, 2007 12:33 PM:

"It isn't 'punishing' a Senator to remove him from his committee seat when he is using it to block legislation that obviously will affect him personally."

Let me rephrase that. When a Senator is promising to block ethics rules- at a time when he is under investigation for ethics violations and possibly criminal violations relating to alleged bribery- presents the appearance of a conflict of interest. Being under a criminal investigation pretty clearly meets this standard under any reasonable definition of terms. The appearance means it IS a conflict of interest. It is incumbent upon Stevens to resign that committee post, now, and since he is promising to remain in his seat anyway, it is incumbent on the Senate to transfer him to another committee. I think not to do this would either be a legal or ethical violation on the part of the Senate.

Mike Conwell wrote on August 1, 2007 12:38 PM:

>We will get nowhere until Americans have a direct democracy.

Better than that, publicly financed elections.

jw1 wrote on August 1, 2007 12:53 PM:

Or true greek democracy-- where once a year voters get to drop a 'black rock' of ostracism into the ballot container.

jw1

jw1 wrote on August 1, 2007 12:54 PM:

Or true Greek democracy-- where once a year voters get to drop a 'black rock' of ostracism into the ballot container.

jw1

Charlotte T wrote on August 1, 2007 12:54 PM:

"Stevens has hired high-powered defense attorney Brendan Sullivan Jr. Sullivan is best known for representing Lt. Col. Oliver North during the Iran-Contra scandal. In 2006, the Legal Times identified Sullivan as 'the leading lawyer in white collar criminal defense'"
This paragraph, taken from Juneau's KTUU says it all, Stevens, WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL SUPREME!. I'm an Alaskan resident, having witnessed this crook for 40 yrs. Hope he gets hung out to dry, but it's doubtful.

Alguien wrote on August 1, 2007 1:29 PM:

That sounds so reasonable, jwl!
What happened to true democracy on this side of the Atlantic?

Yossarian wrote on August 1, 2007 1:47 PM:

Harry Reid is a moron of the first caliber. Both he and Nancy "pansy" Pelosi are both weak and dumb. Why the hell do we have these two dumb asses as our Democratic leaders? Dems need to kick them out of the leadership roll. These two are the most useless pieces of crap, if crap can be useful, since who knows when. Ahhhhhhhhh. Out with these lily livered asses!!!

Yossarian wrote on August 1, 2007 1:52 PM:

Screw Gonzo's impeachment. Let's call for impeachment of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. These two deserve to be impeached. I can't understand why he has to be so damned understanding with these Repukes. Repukes went after Tom Daschle whole heartedly even though he had done nothing wrong except for saying that there needed to be more debate about legislation. But these two are just miserable old farts. Impeach Harry and Nancy!!!

lysias wrote on August 1, 2007 2:48 PM:

I saw Reid make this statement on the evening news last night. When he made it, guess who was standing next to him? None other than Holy Joe Lieberman.

Jimmmm wrote on August 1, 2007 2:51 PM:

Reid know's what's the what. Stevens will be brought up on charges soon. Canny move: Appear to be above politics, knowing that law enforcement will have the last word in the discussion.

lysias wrote on August 1, 2007 3:02 PM:

Greek democracy had one idea that we ought to consider imitating. In Athens, most officials were chosen by lot (the 10 generals, the highest executive officers, were elected, and constituted the chief exception to the rule.)

I've thought for a long time we ought to follow the Athenian example and choose by lot at least the members of the lower houses of our legislatures, including the U.S. House of Representatives. We are currently governed entirely by elected politicians and their appointees. Choosing legislators by lot would give a veto power over government action to a body composed of average citizens. Checks and balances were the chief contribution to political thought of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, the mechanism has failed over time, as the branches of our government have found a way to serve each other's interests, and ignore the electorate's. Giving a veto power to a body composed of average citizens would restore checks and balances.

idontrecall wrote on August 1, 2007 4:41 PM:

Our democracy, our Checks and Balances, which is at the core of our democracy, has failed us. I am predicting that come November of next year we will be at war with Iran, our current dictator will have revoked our right to vote in the presidential elections, we will be living under martial law, and what little rights we think we have now (or should I call it a privilege, such as opining on this page), will be a thing of the past.

I hope to God I'm wrong.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on August 1, 2007 5:13 PM:

I'm becoming really weary of Reid's ethical tap dancing to the tunes of Repub corruption. I think Stephen Taufen (see above) nailed them both.

code word: wrong. Kind of says it all.

bjobotts wrote on August 1, 2007 6:20 PM:

Reid is one of those who tries to avoid conflict and wants to be liked by everyone to the point of not being assertive or aggressive enough. Tries to respect corrupt Senators and ease the tarnished pathetic public image of Senators like Lieberman but calling him "a fine gentleman". Stevens vowed to place a hold on the new ethics bill and Reid allows him to stay on his committee. What is wrong with these people. Maybe enriching their friends and family is more important than something as silly as "ethics reform". Go figure

congressive wrote on August 1, 2007 6:34 PM:

Stevens admits he was tipped of BEFORE the raid on his house. Doesn't anyone get this? It would be as if William Jefferson had been told beforehand that the feds would be raiding his freezer. No wonder Stevens isn't worried.

Hello?

aklocal wrote on August 1, 2007 7:28 PM:

I should know this, but what is the governing law on recall for Ted Stevens? Is it Alaska law, which doesn't require the claims to be proven, just made in the right form?

Anyone up on this?

Yossarian wrote on August 1, 2007 7:45 PM:

Impeach Harry "Numskull" Reid and Nancy "Pansy" Pelosi!!!

Yossarian wrote on August 1, 2007 7:49 PM:

I have said this before and I will say this again, this democratic leadership in congress is absolutely useless. They are bunch of cowards. If they can't stand up to repukes then how can we truly expect them to stand up to that villain Osama "Bitch" Laden?

security code: much as in too much crap

oldtree wrote on August 1, 2007 9:25 PM:

it is sad when they protect their own rather than us

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:09 PM:

I'm going to call BS on this for one reason: It's not consistent with what the public has to endure. We're not being _asked_ to do anything: We're being told to be quiet about people getting their careers destroyed. yes, I'm talking about Plame, and others who have been smeared on the basis of nothing, other than the Govt trying to find a scapegoat. Remember Richard Jewel?

If Stevens -- despite the FBI investigation and open "shocked"! shocked! -- gets to keep his seat, then Corporate America needs to back off, and stand by their employees when the JTTF arrives on basis of accusation alone. But that's not what's happening: The double standard is: Despite accusations of wrong doing, Stevens gets his job; yet, despite doing the _right_ thing, Plame is getting outed and Jewel is getting smeared.

Right now it looks like the Senate is treated at a different standard; if this is how it "should" be, then perhaps the JTTF and CIA and OVP when they want to target someone should be told to "back off", "There haven't been any charges yet." Accusations by some appear more equal than evidence of wrong doing by others. The President hides the evidence and refuses to cooperate; while illusory evidence is thrown around to smear others.

714Day wrote on August 2, 2007 3:22 AM:

Reid is hardly spotless, so his defense of Ted is no big surprise. He's pedaled more than a little influence in his day, albeit not technically illegal, perhaps.
These people in the beltway close ranks like cops who clam up about the blue knights on the take or doctors who don't mention anything about alcoholic surgeons or drug addicted anesthetists. They're very non-partisan that way.

jimbo92107 wrote on August 2, 2007 4:55 AM:

It sounds like the IRS and FBI have got Stevens by the barbecue grille, if nothing else. And there's a lot more than the grille.

Watching these criminal investigations is getting to be like waiting for some enormous bag of popcorn to finally start popping.

Who knew that such a fishy stench could promise such buttery goodness!