Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (758268)	1/29/2007 9:07:17 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

HARRY REID'S POLITICAL CORRUPTION Harry Reid is in hot water again....and this time things aren't looking good for the Senate Majority Leader. Another sweetheart land deal has popped up...this time one affected by legislation that Reid was responsible for. I guess we can start calling him Dirty Harry. Perhaps we'll finally stop hearing about the Republican "culture of corruption," since Senator Reid seems to have his own ethical troubles. Here's the essence of Reid's deal: In 2002, Harry Reid kicked in $10,000 to pension fund controlled by a longtime friend of his (a "lubricants distributor." Insert your own joke here.) Anyway, in exchange, Reid got control over 160 acres in Northern Arizona. This was a sweetheart deal...the land was worth over 10 times more. So what did Harry Reid do to repay his friend? He introduced legislation 6 months later that would benefit his friend's industry. Sounds like a nice, tidy little quid pro quo, doesn't it? And yet, other than a story in the L.A. Times, this revelation isn't getting any play in the media. Imagine if this land deal were done by George W. Bush...or a Republican Senator (other than Chuck Hagel.) The call for his or her resignation would be deafening. Add this on top of Harry Reid's dealings with Jack Abramoff and you have one corrupt Senator getting a complete pass from the media. Who says there's no media bias? The evidence is out there. Often the bias is evidenced more by the stories you don't highlight than by the stories you do. boortz.com