Columnist Jon Ralston: Assessing fallout as Nevadans spar over Abramoff scandal

Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2006 | 8:25 a.m.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face with Jon Ralston on Las Vegas ONE and also publishes the daily e-mail newsletter RalstonFlash.com. His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or through e-mail at ralston@vegas.com.

Democrats snarling at Republicans or vice versa is a dog-bites-man story -- albeit the self-righteous curs do engender a preternatural interest by the Fourth Estate jackals, especially with a piece of meat like Jack Abramoff to be torn apart.

But in Home Sweet Nevada's tiny delegation, where the Senate is occupied by a mutual admiration society named Harry Ensign and where rarely is heard a disparaging word among the House trio, the recent showing of fangs has been nothing short of stunning.

This story begins with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who these days would find a way to work in the phrases "culture of corruption" and "Republican scandal" if he were asked about the weather. Reid, now on a red-state tour to carry his not-so-subtle message, has become an almost-daily target of Republican mouthpieces. But last week, when Nevada Rep. Jon Porter unloaded on the only delegation Democrats, Reid and Rep. Shelley Berkley, and demanded they return their Abramoff-connected money, comity became comedy.

The hilarity of what happened next illustrated three basic, immutable political principles:

* Don't be holier than thou because thou might not be so holy: Reid and Berkley have violated this precept and are paying a price for doing so -- and Porter, who attacked after having taken money from Tom DeLay and the disgraced Duke Cunningham, may pay one, too.

Reid's refusal to disgorge $61,000 in Abramoff-connected contributions while a sea of congressmen and senators have done so vitiates his corrupt-culture, GOP-scandal message. And it was bound to come sooner or later -- and it happened Wednesday -- that the GOP would disinter that Los Angeles Times series about lobbying that fingered Reid as having sons who lobby Congress.

In a capital where pretty much everyone operates low to the ground, it's never a smooth ride on a high horse.

Similarly, when Berkley responded to Porter's broadside with a vehement denial and blistering counterpunch, the congresswoman insisted there was no money to return. "I do not know Jack Abramoff," she seethed. "I have never met with Jack Abramoff. I have never had a conversation with Jack Abramoff.

"I have never received a campaign contribution from Jack Abramoff. It is apparent to me that this is a national coordinated and desperate effort on the part of Republican congressional leaders to deflect attention from the scandal that is consuming the Republican Party."

Well ... yes. Just as there is a national coordinated effort from the Democrats, led by a red-state tour guide named Reid, to highlight Abramoff's ties to the GOP. And then Berkley broke another seminal rule ...

* Never say never, ever: No sooner had Berkley's froth evaporated than she announced she would return a $500 Abramoff-connected donation to an Indian tribe. Why?

Berkley acknowledged that she did not know much about the tribe, that she was not even sure the money was tainted at all but that, essentially, she didn't want to deal with the controversy. Just as Reid has steadfastly refused to (publicly) consider returning or donating the Abramoff-related cash, Berkley should not have been as absolute when she responded to Porter. Neither anger nor stubbornness serves politicians well.

Eventually Reid may well have to give up the money, and what does he say then? What will have changed beyond incessant GOP attacks that have poisoned his attempts to gain political advantage?

Berkley essentially ruminated for a weekend before she returned the money, and tied herself into a rhetorical pretzel trying to explain it. The congresswoman is lucky she does not have a credible opponent, although Porter may not be so lucky ...

* It's not good to upset Harry Reid: So there he was coming into 2006, free and clear, the Democrats having exhausted many avenues, including soliciting potential party switchers, to find an opponent against him. But Porter, displaying a masochistic streak heretofore undetected, decided last week to take the one action that could change all of that: He attacked Reid.

There may be someone worse in Nevada politics to antagonize, but I haven't met that person. Porter can rest knowing that one intemperate news release, which may have curried favor with GOP Central, will reignite Reid's desire to find someone to run against the congressman. And my guess is he's already found a candidate.