It's things like this that make me wonder if Harry Reid isn't the sharpest machete in the jungle.

$30,000 doesn't seem like much to me compared to however much Reid probably has banked up. I'll bet Democrats are going to not return the money so that they can say, "Look, all the Republicans gave the money back and that's an admission of their guilt that their money was quid pro quo," or something like that. They probably won't have to say it, the NYT will just report it that way with a headline like "40 Republicans and 1 Democrat Give Money Back in Scandal."

Yeah--

The Harry Reid dumb ass hypocrites will do everything they can to claim innocence! Horseshit! The Reids, the Kennedys, the Boxers, the Kerrys, they are all part of the same liberal Democratic
corruption we've been viewing for the last 30years. Wake up AMERICA, the Demo-Stalinists are screwing you royally!!!

Paul writes: Harry Reid, ignoring the fact that he [...] took money from Abramoff too.

I'm sorry. I missed the part where it said that Jack Abramoff gave Harry Reid any money. It looked to me like it was people Jack Abramoff ripped off who gave Harry Reid money.

How do you square the difference between what you wrote and what actually happened, Paul?

Yeah, Paul, what makes you think d'Emocrats are dumbasses?

LMFAO!

To be fair, there's a difference between legal and illegal donations ... and some of the Abramoff donations might be legal, even if they have Abramoff's fingerprints on them.

Still, it's going to be a bit difficult to be the party of reform if Reid et. al. hold onto the money with Abramoff's fingerprints on it ...

--|PW|--

Pennwit's comment is precisely why this scandal will go precisely nowhere. Like Enron, both parties have their hands in the cookie jar and it is my belief that we will soon see a bi-partisan effort to sweep it under the rug.

s9 you are playing a semantical game.

Speaking of semantical games, does anyone ever pay atention to the common dictionary definitions of "bribe" and "bribery"? ALL of these payments, whether by Abramoff himself, his wife, or the Indian tribes, ALL of them seem to be bribes as defined by Merriam-Webster.

Why do we all let the politicians and the press get away with calling them something else?

bribe
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, something stolen, from Middle French, bread given to a beggar
1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
2 : something that serves to induce or influence
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bribed; brib·ing
transitive senses : to induce or influence by or as if by bribery
intransitive senses : to practice bribery

Bribery
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -er·ies
: the act or practice of giving or taking a bribe

Paul writes: s9 you are playing a semantical game.

Really? I'm not being disingenuous here, Paul— I really don't see WTF you're talking about. Precisely what "semantical game" would that be?

ahh yes. the good ol' liberal. the ultimate scapegoat for the corrupted right wing.

Maybe I'm a little off here but if Reid is a hypocrite then what does that make Bush who is returning only $6000 of $100,000 for the same reasons? Perhaps Democrat and Republican supporters should both take note of the fact that both parties are full of lying, hypocritical crooks and do something about it instead of pointing fingers at "the other side" constantly. Each side smugly declares itself superior while the politicians keep screwing us all. Come on guys, we're smarter and better than this.