Talk:Harry Reid

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Under 3.1 Senators sons:

"The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002," which was ostensibly aimed at boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters in Nevada.

What is the source for the claim that the land act was directed at "boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters"? Anyone who lives in Southern Nevada with a lick of sense understands what this land deal has meant for the State's Economy, and the ability for Nevada's Southernmost county, Clark, to continue expanding. This part of the stub is opinion, unsubstantiated.

Property holders in So. Nevada have done well in terms of equity increases because of this act. A few years ago Bush wanted to rescind the legislation, so he could use some of the derived revenue to help shore up his budget deficit.

Before this legislation, open land in So. Nevada was a nightmare of patchworked parcels owned by the BLM and private landholders. This was severely limiting future growth in the Las Vegas Valley. The land swaps and auctions were coming anyway. At the very least, Reid was able to grab a large share of the revenue for Nevada, and fund critical habitat preservation.

Reid brought the bacon home to Nevada with this legislation, no question about it. It may have been partly about boundary shifts and land trades, but these were not "arcane matters".

arcane - adjective: Known or understood by only a few

American Heritage Dictionary of the American Language

--hugh_manateee 04:42, 13 Oct 2006 (EDT)

The problem seems to stem from the way in which the blurb is presented within the article, Hugh, leaving out a key part of the quote. Part of it is lifted from the 2003 LA Times article written by Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper but not cited as quoted material. The news article reads:
"The name alone made the eyes glaze over: 'The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002.' In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters — all in Nevada."
As you can see, the SW version is a bit different, not making it clear that the comment in question came from the article and not from a SW contributor and, by omitting a key part of the citation, shifts the writers' intention:
"In 2003 Reid was embarassed by a Los Angeles Times article on his son and son-in-law lobbying his office. In 2002 Reid introduced a bill, "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002," which was ostensibly aimed at boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters in Nevada. The Times article explains that the bill would provide "a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms".
Unfortunately, I keep finding this sort of editorializing and inaccurately citing of material, which does not clearly identify sources and references ... and have just about given up attempting to sort things out, Hugh.
Also, not to rub on a fine point, lifting the whole phrase "boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters" without clearly identifying it as quoted material is called plagiarism. Good luck ! Artificial Intelligence 05:05, 13 Oct 2006 (EDT)

stub bias claim

I claim bias in the following section of the stub:

===Earmark for a bridge near personal land===
In November 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Reid had earmarked to a bridge building project near where he held 160 acres of land. The bridge is intended to span the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona. Reid's land is several miles from the proposed site of the bridge in Arizona. His office explained that the new bridge was necessary due to the Hoover Dam's closure to truck traffic due to terrorism fears and categorically denied that it had anything to with his landholdings.

Problems as I see them:

  1. No Direct Citation of LA Times article. it is: Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger, "Will the pork stop here? Reid pledges change, but he pushed funding that may benefit him", Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2006
  2. The analysis of the LA Times article distorts what was actually published, and implies that the site for the bridge has already been determined, but the Times story stated, "Reid's land, three to five miles from several proposed sites for the second bridge...". The article seems to imply that some of the bridge's possible locations would not be as beneficial to Reid.
  3. How did the rest of Nevada's delegation vote on this? Was Sen. Ensign in anyway involved with it? Congressman Porter, a Republican, was also mentioned as supportive of the earmark in the article, yet no mention of the bipartisan Nev. delegation support for it.
  4. The article also mentioned that there is a real need for a new bridge between Arizona and Nevada near Laughlin and Bullhead City. The reality of the BLM's Nevada landholdings, an issue I tried to adress above is the real cause of much of the Nevada land development problems. Laughlin, Nevada was built up[on land that a man named Don Laughlin was able to secure somehow from the BLM a long time ago. There is very little room for expansion, because the BLM is the landholder of all adjacent real estate. Laughlin has turned into a mini gaming resort city, but without any place to build housing for the workers, and the majority of them live in Bullhead City across the Colorado River in Arizona. Laughlin is still the whole economic engine for the area, both in Arizona and in Nevada. The one existing bridge between the two city is already woefully overused. The LA Times article when quoting public works director and city engineer for Bullhead City, Pawan Agrawal's agreement that the bridge would increase property values near it, also stated that: "A lack of a bridge depresses our growth."'

I am not even a big Reid supporter, just a current Nevada resident who also grew up in the community. It troubles me that Congresspedia fails to understand the primary motivation for Nevada politicians, namely that, ALL federal and statewide politicians in Nevada first and foremost do the bidding of the Gaming Corporations. They fund it, after all. It even has a name: "The anointing process", and all politicians must succeed in it before they have a chance of winning any statewide and/or federal race. This has generally been a non-partisan sort of decision making by the gaming corporations, with the exception of a few, currently Sheldon Aldeson who runs the Venetian (Sands Holding LLC, or something similar i believe) is staunchly Republican, and even attempted to set-up current Dem Congresswoman Shelly Berkely by secretly taping her advice to him while in his employ previous to her election to the House, and notably in the past, William G. Bennett, former chairman and co-founder of Circus Circus Enterprises and former owner of the Sahara Hotel, now deceased, was an active Union supporter and heavily Democratic leaner in political contributions. This is the impetus behind a large number of political decisions made by Nevada politicians, and is the reason the Reid Abramoff money allegations were both spurious and ignored by the Nevada electorate. Any analysis of Nevada's Federal delegation, which does not view their actions though this lens will be invalid from the git.

--hugh_manateee 01:30, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund award

The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund has noted Reid as one of their Defenders Action Fund Wildlife Heroes 2006. On Reid's Conservation Report Card page, they grade him with 88% lifetime, and 91% for the 109th Congress.

Reid Press Releases

Press Release of Senator Reid

Reid Goes Beyond Ethics Requirements, Disarms GOP smear Campaign, October 16, 2006

Press Release by Geothermal Energy Association

Industry Group Applauds Senate and House Actions to Restore Geothermal Research Program, June 27, 2006