January 13, 2006


If we can beat mob, we can fight DeLay-style politics: Experience in Las Vegas similar to D.C. corruption (SEN. HARRY REID,

In 1977, I was appointed chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. It was a difficult time for the gaming industry and Las Vegas, which were being overrun by organized crime. To that point in my life, I had served in the Nevada Assembly and even as lieutenant governor, but nothing prepared me for my fight with the mob. [...]

Our nation's capital has been overrun by organized crime — Tom DeLay-style.

Thank you, Senator Geary.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 13, 2006 1:30 PM

I was born in Vegas in 1972. I have lived here almost all of my life. I can say without a doubt that Vegas was the safest city in the world when the mob ran it. There was no crime at all. The hard-tack cracker cops and the Outfit were bent on one thing, maintaining the peace. I remember when word came down that the HA's and/or the Mongols were coming en masse to Vegas to cause trouble. Sheriff Lamb took a group of police, Outfit and good old boys to the border with CA and set up a road block with each man heavily armed. The bikers rolled up and were told that whatever trouble they intended to cause was going to happen here and not in town. The Bikers took one look at the boys and turned tail. Ahhh, the good old days.

The city is a cesspool now.

Posted by: Pepys at January 13, 2006 2:01 PM

And I suppose no one at the (Houston) Chronicle even thought to ask Harry Reid about DOJ being on his tail, and not DeLay's.

This is starting to resemble parody.

Posted by: Brad S at January 13, 2006 2:25 PM

Over on Democratic Underground, they love to refer to the "Bush crime family." Guess Harry must be a regular reader.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 13, 2006 2:52 PM

Pepys, yeah, there was no crime in Vegas when organized crime ran the city. Of course.

I understand what you're saying - the mob doesn't crap where it eats and it didn't want petty crime driving away suckers from the gambling tables. But do you really think that the best way to run a city is to let the criminals own it and rule it by fear?

Posted by: Chris Durnell at January 13, 2006 3:30 PM

Brad - agreed, serious chutzpuh by Reid as he appears to be at the top of the list for Dems and Abrahamoff.

Posted by: AWW at January 13, 2006 4:11 PM

Chris D: Practically the only crime in Vegas then was skimming off the casino's take. Drugs were out, prostitution was almost invisible and property crimes and burglary were incredibly rare. Vegas was under a truce and none of the families wanted crime to give it a bad name.

Obviously, that circumstance was unique and could never be duplicated. But, it was what it was.

Posted by: Pepys at January 13, 2006 5:41 PM

In Las Vegas, our boy Harry is the mob.

Posted by: ed at January 13, 2006 7:06 PM

In order to be as nasty and arrogant as he is, Reid must feel he's very well protected, but by whom? What mob?

Posted by: erp at January 13, 2006 7:49 PM


He used to be a boxer - he figures he can take care of himself.

Seriously, he got the job because he was a good whip (i.e., he maintained the filibusters). Corzine probably could have had it, if he wanted it, but he saw the light and got out of the Senate. After Reid, who is there to lead the Dems in the Senate? Durbin? He's a rude little bully who called the US Armed Forces Nazis. Schumer? He's lucky he wasn't indicted in 1983 and would be a wonderful example to the rest of the country why they don't like Brooklyn. Dorgan? Another shrimp with a Napoleon complex (plus, he's into Abramoff as badly as Reid).

Nobody else is out there, and if the Dems lose a seat or two in 2006, it is going to be very lonely for Reid or whomever takes the job. They should just pick Patty Murray and get it over with.

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 13, 2006 10:42 PM

If the Dems lose a Senate seat or two in '06, it would make history.

See the "AS THEY BECOME MORE LIKE US..." thread.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 14, 2006 4:22 AM


It is more likely that the GOP will gain 3 or 4 seats than the Dems picking up more than 1.

The GOP has three vulnerable candidates - Santorum, Chafee, and Burns. I doubt if DeWine is (with Blackwell on the ticket).

The Dems have Cantwell, the MN seat, NJ, ND, NE, and MD. The general disgust towards the Dems for their pansy attitude on the war (and towards the troops) is going to hurt them a lot. And the GOP has never taken credit for the economy - but it will this year.

Regarding turnout (which you discussed in another thread), is it possible that Bush hatred can promote more Dem turnout in November than it purported to in 2002/2004? I don't think so. Unless the Dems suddenly find themselves FOR something, they are going to continue to lose elections.

Posted by: ratbert at January 14, 2006 9:52 AM

Not more Dem turnout, less GOP turnout.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 15, 2006 2:40 AM