Democrat senate leader, Harry Reid created an uproar today when he alluded to the confidential FBI record of a judicial nominee (Henry Saad) that the democrats have filibustered to prevent an up/down Senate confirmation vote.

This action created an uproar and comes dangerously close (if not over) the rules preventing Senators from discussing such exceptionally confidential information.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22042-3194r.htm

The questions for debate are:

1. Did Reid break senate rules and should he be punished? If so, how?

2. Is this behavior ironic (i.e., hypocritical) given the democrat opposition to Bolton on the grounds that he acts in an undisciplined nature?

3. Should Reid be replaced as senate minority leader given his string of unprofessional statements (most recently this FBI file leak plus the labeling of the president as a "loser") or should the democrats just vow to "supervise" his behavior?

1. Did Reid break senate rules and should he be punished? If so, how?

Yes, absolutely, he should be punished. I was shocked when I heard of this comment for many reasons. My first thought was how did he even get access to the confidential file? I also read that even Judge Saad does not know what is written in this file. This type of file is always full of comments from people who support, oppose, have an axe to grind with, the people being investigated. It was unethical for him to make these statements as there is no way for Saad to even defend himself, let alone that Reid ought not to have even had access to the file that is sure to contain uncorroborated statements.

I have met Judge Saad a number of times and know many people who have clerked for him. He is a Michigan Court of Appeals judge. He has nothing but a stellar reputation! I am planning to call my senators and complain about these comments and also plan to call Reid's office.

2. Is this behavior ironic (i.e., hypocritical) given the democrat opposition to Bolton on the grounds that he acts in an undisciplined nature?

Absolutely hypocritical.

3. Should Reid be replaced as senate minority leader given his string of unprofessional statements (most recently this FBI file leak plus the labeling of the president as a "loser") or should the democrats just vow to "supervise" his behavior?

They need to do something to send the message that this type of conduct will not be tolerated.

From the article:

Republican aides pointed to Standing Rule of the Senate 29, Section 5: "Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt."
Furthermore, a "Memorandum of Understanding" covering the use of FBI background reports limits access to committee members and the nominee's home-state senators. Mr. Reid would fall into neither category.

I think for one thing, somebody from the committee showed the FBI file to Reid or somehow allowed access. There's probably an interesting story behind that.

Yeah, Reid went too far. I don't think he should be expelled from the Senate because he didn't "disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate," but I agree that what he did was an attempt to assassinate the character of the nominee. Making an allegation that isn't defendable due to the secret nature of the FBI file is wrong, not sure what the punishment ought to be. A public apology might be in order, and maybe some kind of monetary fine.

Maybe there is a defined punishment for examining secret files when you're not authorized to do so.

My FBI files are different. I can look at them any time I want under the information access laws. The files are really boring. I signed a few petitions and attended a few political meetings.



Heh, that's quite an understatement, I do declare (acts in an undisciplined nature). One misstep compared to a career of abuse? Nope, not hypocritical at all. Human, yes.



Please provide links to Reid's string of unprofessional statements. I personally don't think that referring to President Bush as a "loser" is inaccurate, depending upon the context. He lost the popular vote in 2000 and is losing support for his Social Security proposals. His approval rating is in the tank. Iraq continues to be a major problem, even with the government trying to form. He has taken to fake town hall meetings, indicating that unless the crowd is hand-picked, he doesn't want to face it.

That's loser behavior in my book, but I do understand why this is done. Sure makes security a lot easier, and President Bush is outright hated by quite a few citizens. My own feelings have calmed down to the level of "he's a loser," so I need stronger evidence of Reid's unprofessional statements.

You know, as opposed to Bolton's unprofessional behavior, in context of becoming a professional diplomat. Bolton would make a great drill sargent though, or maybe a conservative talk radio personality. High school football coach? Bulldog breeder? Oh, there are plenty of careers for him, just not as a diplomat.

Did Reid break senate rules and should he be punished? If so, how?

Why, I believe he should get the same punishment as all the others who have overstepped their bounds and violated ethics rules – to wit, fire the accusers, sweep it under the rug, call your pet reporter, put a positive spin on it…oh, wait, we can’t do that because he’s a Democrat! In that case, he should be pilloried in the public square, branded with an R (for rude), given a hundred lashes, then drawn and quartered and the pieces scattered to the four winds.

I don't believe name-calling is of the same severity as financial shenanigans and election irregularities. Sure, it was poor judgment, but hardly "punishable" at the same level as some of the true ethical lapses that have occurred and gone unpunished.

Is this behavior ironic (i.e., hypocritical) given the democrat opposition to Bolton on the grounds that he acts in an undisciplined nature?

It’s a far cry from name-calling to bullying and harassment of subordinates.

Should Reid be replaced as senate minority leader given his string of unprofessional statements (most recently this FBI file leak plus the labeling of the president as a "loser") or should the democrats just vow to "supervise" his behavior?

Dang, one honest politician in DC and he’s going to get hosed.

You guys didn't read very far. From the link:



Either Manley's covering up for his boss or someone, probably a blogger, will publish an audio or text version.

FBI files are pretty routine stuff and subject to interpretation. Eleanor Roosevelt's FBI file (one of the largest in American history) makes Hoover's disdain for the activist first lady plain.

Should Reid be replaced as senate minority leader given his string of unprofessional statements (most recently this FBI file leak plus the labeling of the president as a "loser") or should the democrats just vow to "supervise" his behavior?

Kinda ironic you should use supervise. In a Slate article yesterday:



Anyway, Reid should be reprimanded. I'm not sure he doesn't have wiggle room in the Senate rules.

As for replacing Reid, this incident aside, I'm not sure here either. I thought his voting record (pro-life, pro-guns) marked him among the cooler heads in the caucus. Go figure. I don't like his antics whether or not I agree with what he says--the stuff that matters, that is, not Republican conjecture. Unfortunately it's another blue feather in the politicization of the judiciary, right beside the "Democrats discriminate against judges of faith" red feather.

In the absence of any evidence of a "string of unprofessional statements", there is no call for replacing the minority leader. Indeed, if calling the President a "loser" constitutes grounds for removal, what does calling a Senator an unprintable term constitute?

I see so little substance to these accusations that they appear to me to be utterly partisan in motivation. I suspect that they are more closely connected to Speaker Delay's problems than concern for propriety.

I'm not sure that Reid's comments rise to actually breaking Senate rules. What he did was certainly below-the-belt, making accusations which he cannot legally expand upon and to which the accused cannot come to his own defense.

2. Is this behavior ironic (i.e., hypocritical) given the democrat opposition to Bolton on the grounds that he acts in an undisciplined nature?

Reid is apparently melting down. His comments have grown more and more partisan and less and less constructive.

Examples:

Reid declares that Bush is 'drunk with power'

Reid calls Bush 'a loser'

Even Reid thought this one was over the line:


Reid's comments over the past several months are documented by the Free Republic: HARRY REID'S OVER-THE-TOP RHETORIC

The GOP has documented Reid's record as an obstructionist: Sen. Minority Leader Determined to Obstruct President Bush's Agenda

Reid apparently can't help but making things personal, which is unbecoming in a Senator in a leadership position.

3. Should Reid be replaced as senate minority leader given his string of unprofessional statements (most recently this FBI file leak plus the labeling of the president as a "loser") or should the democrats just vow to "supervise" his behavior?

That's the Democrats' decision to make.

1. Did Reid break senate rules and should he be punished? If so, how?





Those files are secret, so yes, he did. However, in the spirit of bi-partisanship I would hope that the Senate Republican majority cut this poor hack from Nevada some slack and go easy on him. Since he is the minority leader and committed this offense in a floor debate over judicial nominations I think a fair punishment would be to limit floor debate on such things to 5 hours per side maximum followed by a floor vote. Seems fair to me.

That's an outstanding plan. I think the GOP should propose it to Reid. If he refuses, they should tell him that his term as a senator is "off the table" and "dead on arrival" until he agrees.

It wasn't an accident that I posted the "supervision" line in the debate question since it was repeated endlessly by the democrats quoting Voinovich in the Bolton hearing. It's amazing that the same party who decries the "poor interpersonal skills" of John Bolton elects such an utter clod as Harry Reid who has generated verbal gaffe after gaffe after gaffe.

I think that they should assign Senator Biden to "supervise" Reid. Given Biden's personality, Reid won't be able to get one word in thus will either be silenced or will pass out from CO2 poisoning when Biden uses all available oxygen within Reid's office.

He did not reveal the files; all he said was that there was a problem in them. Are you maintaining that merely stating that the files contain a problem constitutes revealing them?


That's a cute one-liner, but I don't think it has any practical value. Were the Republicans to attempt such an exteme maneuver, the Democrats would indeed bring all business in both houses to a screeching halt.


These comments are all politics and no principle, a contemptible game of tit-for-tat politics with no concern for the well-being of the Republic; partisanship to the detriment of the common good.

This type of comment is almost worse! He basically said that anyone who looked at the file would see there was a "problem" with Saad sufficient to disqualify him from the appellate bench. Awful. It is the worst kind of defaming of someone to reference some "unknown" problem that the "FBI" found that would discredit the guy. God knows what people will draw from it. And this is totally unfair to Judge Saad. Like I said in my prior post, I have met this man several times before. I know a number of people who have clerked for him. He has an OUTSTANDING reputation. I also remember reading a short piece that he wrote in the Michigan Bar Journal about how ethics is important in the practice of law and offering up tips on how to be more aware in this regard. He is a good guy and he was basically defamed and smeared by Reid on the floor of the Senate for political purposes. It is disgusting. Someone was commenting about how campaign finance abuse was so much worse than what Reid did and I cannot agree. A senator cannot just insinuate that the FBI has "problems" with someone sufficient to disqualify him from the bench and expect no repercussions. It is a man's reputation at stake here.

Well put!

What Reid did should result in his explusion from the US Senate. He has broken the ethical line and assassinated the character of a man in a way that he cannot defend himself again. What Reid did is wrong, immoral, unethical, against the rules, and Anti-American.

I find it amazing that the party who frets about "potential" abuses of the Patriot Act when it comes to denying people due process, etc., just shrug and say "so what??" when Reid, the Senate leader of the democrats actually commits a transgression that is far, far worse. Ignoring what Reid did is blind partisanship, nothing less.

Reid has proven to be a lose cannon in the Senate; a man who's mouth is forming into the shape of a Florsheim.

His over the top comments have been bad enough. But this time, in the words of Jim Morrison, he "broke on through to the other side".

Reid should be thrown out and if his own party doesn't see the problem with what he did, they have completely lost all credibility on the issue of fairness.

OK, so we can at least agree that he did not break any rules. Your concern is that he defamed a fellow in a manner that does not permit the man to defend himself. Let's address that issue.

The problem here is that his statement was part of the process of evaluating the man's qualifications for the Federal bench. Any such process necessarily requires public examination of the man's strengths and weaknesses. It is not a bad thing if a particular weakness is exposed to public view; that's a necessary and proper part of the process.

However, your concern is that the charge made cannot be defended against. On that point, we must remember that the audience for the Senator's remarks is the Senate. The fact that the public is watching as well is not central -- what matters is that Senator Reid was attempting to sway the votes of other Senators and he was citing a bit of evidence that he thought they should consider. Now, at this point, a great deal hinges on some procedural details of which I am unaware. If his audience (other Senators) had no means of obtaining the content of the FBI files, then Senator Reid was making an unfair use of that information. If, on the other hand, other Senators do have some means of obtaining that information, either through direct examination of the files or by some private or informal briefing from a colleague who is aware of that content, then Senator Reid is justified in drawing their attention to it.

To sum it up, if Senator Reid was engaging in insinuation, then his actions cannot be justified; if he was pointing out the existence of additional evidence, then his actions were justifiable.


These comments provide us with a great many accusations devoid of substantiation. Do you consider substantiation unnecessary, or is the mere act of making accusations enough to satisfy your interests in this discussion?

There is no way that Reid's actions can be justified. That's absurd. Reid should be thrown out of the Senate on his ear for what he did. Those FBI files can contain all sorts of raw data, hearsay, and downright baloney. What Reid did, as Hayleyanne pointed out is WORSE than just saying what it was.

It was character assassination of the worst kind. And those who act as apologists for it are complicity in that unethical behavior. I'll be waiting for the outcry from the democrats on this issue. If Bolton's temper should disqualify him from the UN (an institution that needs a swift kick from a guy like Bolton), then the democrats should disqualify Reid as their leader.

I'll be waiting but I won't hold my breath. What Reid did was an absolute disgrace. There is no way, outside of blind partisanship, that his actions can be ignored or rationalized.

Perhaps it is absurd. I have provided a detailed examination of the issue and an analysis that provides conditions under which Senator Reid's actions can be justified. You have offered us your conclusion that his actions cannot be justified but you have done nothing to gainsay my analysis. Have you anything other than your opinion to offer us?

From AMlord's link to the Washington Times archives.

Well let's see here:

-> President Bush declared a mandate with 51% of the popular vote. I guess he really meant a mandate from the Electoral College. Ah well, reality is now setting in. Nope, no mandate out there. Only the President enjoys the illusion of an EC mandate. Senators and Reps have popular votes to contend with.

-> President Bush shows up in public domestically to talk with hand-picked audiences and only answers prepared questions.

-> President Bush expects every one of his nominations for appointment to be rubber-stamped by a docile Congress.

Three strikes, yerrrrr OUT! Drunk with power is also an accurate statement. I suppose the term "megalomaniac" would have been nicer, or as I might have put it, being a little dictator in his own bubble. Drunk with power gets the meaning across well.

These so-called outrageous things are turning out to be accurate assessments of the situation. So why get all upset over them?

Oh yeah, the guy's a Democrat. I get it. Shame on him for being a Democrat! Doesn't he know it's only cool to be a Republican? Or something like that.

Meanwhile, Bolton gets supervision so he doesn't smash someone's head in at the UN. What this guy needs is a cage, a leash and a muzzle. Hey, that explains the weird moustache -- it's dried foam!

Ah well, this is just too much fun. Where's the clown happy face? That one's close.

Reid most certainly did violate Senate rules. From Rule XXIX, we have the following.....



Referencing the contents of those FBI files on the floor of the US Senate, a public forum is a clear violation of the rules of the Senate, and a rather serious one at that given the nature of the sanctions.

I maintain that Senator Reid did not reveal any secrets. You maintain that he did. Please provide a quotation from Senator Reid presenting the secret information that he revealed.

From the link contained in the original post in this thread.....



Reid claimed on the floor of the US Senate, a public forum that a confidential FBI file contained negative information on Henry Saad. Revealing or even characterizing the contents of a confidential file, true or not is a clear violation of the Senate rule I cited previously.

But hey, I'm willing to be reasonable here. I don't want to kick the guy out of the Senate or even remove him from his leadership post. In the spirit of cooperation I am willing to settle for a simple modification of the Senate rules for this session only to limit the time for debate on judicial nominations. My original proposal was for 10 hours total time for floor debate, split equally between parties, but what the heck, make me an offer. If you think the Democrats are able to go longer than that without violating Senate rules, I'd be willing to extend the time a couple of more hours.

Reid didn't break any rules of the Senate, but he certainly broke the rules of propriety. FBI reports are available only to the nineteen members of the Judiciary Committee and not to the other eighty-one members of the Senate.
Senators who are not Committee members have access to the information only through the filter of Committee staff members.

So Reid can get a briefing on an FBI background report of a Presidential nominee from a fellow Senator on the Judicial Committee, and proceed to make accusations based on a report the accused cannot rebut, and cannot even see.

If the FBI report is at the Senate, and the President has gone ahead with the nomination process, it would seem to me that the FBI was satisfied with the results of the clearance check. So now we're left with an issue of a smear, which cannot be rebutted by the accused, from a report that will never be made public, for us to dispute or debate.......the only recourse being that of a republican Judicial Committee member releasing confidential information to counter Reid's statements, which would be just as unethical as Reid's actions themselves.

No Senator Reid hasn't violated any rules, but the hypocrisy in light of accusations against the ethics of republicans is startling.

I do not agree with your interpretation that referring to a problem in the FBI file constitutes a release of confidential information. The information content of any statement is proportional to the negative log of the probability of the information being revealed. For example, a statement that the sky is blue contains zero information content (unless you make the statement to somebody who doesn't already know that the sky is blue). To state that the FBI file on a person contains the letter "e" also communicates zero information content, because we would expect every FBI file on every person to contain the letter "e". In like fashion, to state that an FBI file contains a problem communicates very little information indeed; after all, the FBI doesn't compile files in order to keep track of all the sunny truths about a person; the purpose of the FBI file is to determine if there are any problems with that person. Saying that an FBI file contains a problem about a person is rather like revealing that a person's dental file contains an X-ray. It is tantamount to coming out of a diplomatic meeting and revealing that the discussions were "frank". That does not in any way compromise the confidentiality of the negotiations because everybody expects negotiations to be frank.

Since the information content of the Senator's remark is negligible, he did not reveal any significant secrets, and therefore did not violate any Senate rules.

Harry Reid didn't claim the sky was blue, nor did he talk about the letter "e" in the confidential file. He also did not discuss any dental records. These are all strawman arguments and have no relevance in this debate. Your claim concerning FBI files is absurd. The FBI compiles files on individuals who are submitted for nomination to the federal courts because that is one of the things they are supposed to do. There is absolutely no foundation to make the assumption that a person's FBI file would contain "a problem" that would preclude them from being approved for the bench. But, let's cut to the chase.....



Read the rule again.....



I see nothing in that rule about "significant secret" at all. Harry Reid violated this rule of the Senate plain and simple and the punishment for such a violation is severe. However, I am once again willing to compromise and cut the old guy some slack. Rather than kicking him out of the Senate I think just limiting the amount of time for floor debate on judicial nominations would be sufficient to insure that such infractions don't happen again.

Just reaching across the aisle here....

Harry Reid violated this rule of the Senate plain and simple and the punishment for such a violation is severe.

Aquilla,

You are using quite a severe interpretation here. I think that it is because Reid is a Democrat, and you'd like the Republicans in the Senate to come down hard on him, forcing the will of the Republicans regarding judicial nominations. We will see what happens.

Meanwhile, someone else got the information to Reid. Which member of the committee leaked this information? Could it have been a Republican? And wasn't the greater infraction done by this person?

Or did Reid break into the committee room, ala Watergate?

Or did someone leave the document out in the full open for anyone to read?

Or was it accidently broadcast on the Internet for all to hear?

After all, secret information is supposed to be, you know, secret.

If we are trying to decide if someone is fit for the supreme court or not, maybe we do have a right to know a bit about their past.

I mean if they guy has a large FBI file with terrible things listed in there, I think that would be a good reason to filibuster a nominee.

I do agree that senators shouldn't be able to read anyone's personal file, and it is a bit disturbing that he was able to.

Although, he never actually gave away confidential information. His tongue just slipped and he said, you may want to check his FBI file.

I think we are blowing things way out of proportion. I am not to sure about the rules on this, but honestly, did this really hurt him badly? Whatever is in that judge's FBI file was put in their by HIMSELF. People should know that bad things they do might surface in the future. People can't expect perfect privacy from bad things they did the past. It is not like Harry Reid changed his FBI file and made stuff up.

When he called Bush a loser, it was not prepared in his speech or a prewritten answer.
He was answering a real question from a non-screened person.

It is obvious in that situation, tongues will slip. Some words may come out. I mean seriously, our president might have said the same thing about a democratic leader if he didn't have all his questions pre-written and pre-answered.

I do disagree with his comment. We must realize it was not prepared and it was in the heat of the moment. Noone really got on Richard Cheney's case when he said the "F" word on the senate floor. It was a slip of the tongue, and we moved on with life.

What does scare me, is pre-written speeches attacking our judges and vowing to hold them accountable and understanding why people shoot them.

We have to understand the difference between answering a question, and prewritten speeches. If he said it in a prewritten speech, I would have a problem with him calling our president a loser.

They are not strawman arguments, they are examples of the concept of information content. They are not egregious distortions of my main argument, but rather closely similar examples of my point. As such, they are not strawman arguments.


If it was unlikely that the FBI files would reveal any problems, then the Senate would see no need for such files. We don't need the FBI to tell us that the sky is blue. We only turn to the FBI for information when we have a reasonable basis to believe that there might be something worth reporting. And indeed FBI files often contain "problems". The term "problem" is so broad that it can be applied to a huge range of activities. A speeding ticket could be called a problem by the FBI. The FBI could report a meeting with any Muslim as a problem. Some decades ago, they reported any meeting with any person of far-left persuasion as a problem. Taking a trip to any of a number of countries could be reported as a problem. There are so many such potential problems that the report of the existence of a problem in the file communicates no significant information.



Your argument presents us with a textbook example of the notion of a "trumped up" charge. Our concept of law does take into account the significance or degree of transgression. If a traffic cop gave a speeding ticket to a driver for going one mile per hour over the speed limit, we'd all dismiss that as a trumped up charge. If a tourist were charged for removing a pine cone from a national park, we'd react the same way. You implicitly concede that the information revealed by Senator Reid was insignificant, and you maintain that the degree of signficance is not relevant to the charge. I disagree.


I find your compromise divagatory from the scope of the question at hand, so I decline to discuss it.

Reid did not reveal the contents of Judge Saad's FBI file. He alluded to "problems" with Saad.

Speaking on Thursday, Reid said Democrats would likely filibuster Saad again, adding, ``All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI and I think you would all agree that there's a problem there.''

Reid did not say what was in the report, but drew criticism from Sen. George Allen, R-Va. and others for the remark.

``The fact that there are questions about this nominee's suitability to be a federal judge has been discussed in public for over a year,'' said Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. ``Senator Reid simply referred his colleagues to the source of those questions. That is Senator Reid's right and responsibility.

``Any statements or implications to the contrary are baseless and desperate partisan attacks aimed to distract Americans from the outrageous records of a handful of radical, out-of-touch judicial nominees,'' he added.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story...304.htm&sc=1153

This isn't the FBI report because you and I can't view FBI reports. Here is a link to a PDF file about Judge Saad:

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resour...saad_report.pdf

In all this false outrage and partisan hyperbole over Reid's remarks, the focus is being placed on one small tree in a large forest. It should be on the qualifications or lack of same of the judges the president has put forth for confirmation. This tower of babble about whether or not Reid will be sanctioned or rebuked or forced out of his leadership position or should resign is all speculative chatter. He won't be sanctioned or rebuked. He's not going to step down as Senate Minority Leader and he won't resign. This is Washington and it's just nasty, hardball politics.

Or in other words: business-as-usual. Next?

For those who support Saad's nomination and find the Independent Judiciary file too partisan for their tastes, I'm sure they will be able to provide a counter-argument for his confirmation.

That is if any of his supporters choose to bother making the case. Hayleanne can vouch personally for Saad's character, but that isn't enough. Thus far it seems the only case being made for Bush's nominees is that Democrats are against them.

Oh, and regarding Senator Reid referring to President Bush as a "loser?" I offer this one interesting fact. When that small plane violated the restricted airspace over Washington D.C., resulting in the evacuations of the Capitol, the White House and Supreme Court buildings and two F-16 planes were dispatched to turn back--or shoot down--the errant Cessna all hell broke loose.

Government employees headed for cover. First Lady Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan who was visiting at the time were taken to the Presidential bunker. Vice President Cheney took off for whatever high-tech hidey hole he takes off to. The plane was within three miles of the White House before it finally turned around.

Where was George? Enjoying a nice time mountain biking in Maryland. Presumably peaceful, serene and totally clueless as to the panic going on back at the White House.

Question: What did the President know and when did he know it? Answer: Nothing until his aides bothered to tell him some 40 minutes later after the fact.

Would you call that state of blissful ignorance what one might expect from a "loser?"

Yeah. I believe I would.

NT, what in the world are you talking about? Aside from being seriously off topic, you're comment seems seriously off kilter.
Bush was in Maryland, and wasn't told about the cessna incident until 40 minutes after it happened..........and you call him a loser, in a state of blissful ignorance. Is the president supposed to be psychic now? It certainly speaks for the timeliness of his staff giving him information, but to use this to back up Senator Reid's careless comments is laughable.

Erasmussimo:
I have to agree with Aquilla, you're argument smacks of straw. You say: To state that the FBI file on a person contains the letter "e" also communicates zero information content, because we would expect every FBI file on every person to contain the letter "e".
You might have missed the part where the FBI conducts background checks on every federal nomination. We certainly don't expect every FBI file to contain 'problems'. Can you cite statistics on FBI files that contain negative information, or in the light of non-access to those files, are you supposing and assuming that everyone must have a skeleton in the proverbial closet, therefore all files must contain negative information, like dental files contain X-rays......

By disclosing that a nominee's FBI file contains, a problem, and one that would prevent nomination is clearly disseminating information in the public arena that is not meant for public consumption. It is also extremely underhanded to exhort a charge that Reid knew could not be defended against by the accused. Mighty lowball actions for the party that has of late held itself up to be the pillar of ethics and governmental virtue.

True, but the information is gathered in the reasonable expectation that there might be a problem. I think your next point is more telling:


Yes, the information content of a message is determined from the statistics of the files. If only one in a hundred of the files for similar nominees contained a problem, then there would be some significant information content there. If only one in two contained a problem, then the information content of Senator Reid's statement would be precisely one bit -- one-eighth of a byte.

We don't have the statistics, as you point out, so we are reduced to speculation. However, you bias the discussion when you talk about the prospect of everybody having a skeleton in the closet. Senator Reid did not refer to a skeleton in the closet; he referred to a problem. I think it reasonable to speculate that most people do have something that the FBI might call a "problem". If that speculation be correct, then my claim that the information content of Senator Reid's comment is low is correct. Since neither of us can offer any statistical evidence here, we are reduced to asking our readers to apply their own estimate of the probability that the file on a nominee might contain a "problem".


Again, my point is that the Senator's comment released, most probably, about one bit of information. By contrast, we have already unleashed tens of thousands of bits of information just discussing it here on AD, and we shall soon break the hundred thousand bit mark.


Look, the standards of politics have gone into the gutter in the last five years. For every Democratic outrage you can cite, there's an equal or worse Republican outrage, and vice versa. I would start a new topic on low standards of political behavior, but I fear that it would be impossible to discuss the problem without ourselves descending into the same low rhetorical standards.

Should Cheney have been dismissed as vice-president for his "f"ing comments? People have opinions, this isn't exactly new news. When we hold all people to the same standards of scrutiny as politicians no one would have a job. When a doctor announced "this patient is dying" people would be jumping down their throat asking how dare they insult the memory of the ill person.

The fact of the matter is opinions cannot be denied, even if they are unprofessional all opinions can be expressed. You cannot remove a person simply because of a comment made at the water cooler about the boss one day after work. Bush has made his fair share of mess-ups... so has DeLay for that matter. People are to be expected to make mistakes, no one is perfect and no one can contain themselves when presented with the proper outlet to channel their negative-side, or screams... as evidence of this claim I would like to present Exhibit A: Howard Dean.

To recap: mistakes=human, Reid=human


Should he be punished? If he has to be punished for his mistakes and comments he's made then I suppose I'm guilty, too. As well as 6.6 billion other people but that's another debate for another day.

3. Should Reid be replaced as senate minority leader given his string of unprofessional statements (most recently this FBI file leak plus the labeling of the president as a "loser") or should the democrats just vow to "supervise" his behavior?

For the time being, I’m going to bypass the FBI issue and address the "loser" remark.

I’m not interested in doing the research to support this point, but I would suggest that invective and name-calling has been hurled at executives from members of the legislative branch in all, or nearly all, democracies from the beginning.

Certainly this is nothing new in the U. S. The late George Wolfskill, an expert on the New Deal, was one of my professors and mentor at my second stop in academia—The University of Texas at Arlington. In one of his books, All But the People: Franklin D. Rosevelt and His critics, 1933-1939, (I have an autographed copy ) Wolfskill writes:



All this from Republicans about a man historians generally rank somewhere between 1st and 3rd on the greatness list. Pots call the kettles black.

My only regret is that Senator Reid, like Natalie Maines before him, issued an apology to Bush. I have not seen a commandment that says:

“Thou shalt not criticize thy president.”

I will attempt to express this thought in a better and less inflammatory way (at least some interpreted it as inflammatory) than I did a couple of weeks ago. Let’s just say that for the out party not to criticize--not to oppose--is to aid and abet a bad situation and a recipe for allowing one with every potential to get worse if not checked.

I disagree DTOM that using the example of Bush being out of the loop (again) during the Cessna violating Washington restricted airspace isn't an example that he is every bit the loser that Senator Reid called him. I don't think Dubya is supposed to be psychic. But if something happens serious enough to evacuate the Vice-President, two First Ladies, the Supreme Court, and the Senate and House---well, golly gee...isn't that worth interrupting the Chief Executive's biking outing?

Maybe Bush isn't psychic, but apparently Reid was.