House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of GOP rule. She should hunt the crocs in her own party, starting with Harry Reid.
...

We await, perhaps in vain, the media feeding frenzy over [Harry Reid's land deal], which seems to conflict with Democrats' claim they're the antidote to a GOP "culture of corruption" represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, with whom Reid has also had dealings. Certainly there's a double standard here, when you consider the trivia that ended the careers of Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich.

Speaking of Abramoff, Reid got nearly $70,000 in contributions from sources linked to the lobbyist; Democrats hung such a link around DeLay's neck like an albatross. Reid's office had nearly two dozen contacts with Abramoff lobbyists.

This isn't the first time the Honorable Harry Reid has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar. We've reported previously on other questionable land deals that have personally benefited him and his family, and where Reid used his political clout on behalf of contributors to benefit himself and his political activities.

Whether it involves convoluted and secretive land deals; inserting obscure provisions into legislation to help himself, friends and family; or merely accepting free boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission, when it comes to questionable ethics, Reid is the undisputed heavyweight champion.

Mr. Reid's professions of transparency and full disclosure are transparently wrong. His investment was not reported in a manner that made clear his partnership with Mr. Brown. It's true -- under the inadequate financial disclosure rules -- that even if Mr. Reid had listed the newly formed corporation, Patrick Lane LLC, that wouldn't have by itself demonstrated Mr. Brown's involvement. Nonetheless, that Mr. Reid no longer owned the land, but instead had sold it for an interest in the Patrick Lane corporation, was not some mere "technical change," as the senator would like to brush it off. It's an essential element of financial disclosure rules, the purpose of which is to know how and with whom public officials are financially entwined.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would be well advised to stop thundering about corruption in the Republican ranks or crying "cover-up" over the GOP's failure to promptly and appropriately deal with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and his sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages. Reid faces too many questions about his own behavior to crusade against the misdeeds of others.

While now insisting he did nothing wrong, Reid is also offering to make a "technical change" to his earlier ethics reports if the ethics committee so desires. Simply giving the Democratic leader a mulligan is hardly the way to handle this case. When the Senate debated ethics reforms earlier this year, Reid was out in front to demand the toughest of standards from lawmakers.

"Americans have been shocked and even disgusted by revelations of corruption in our current system by Republican lobbyists, senior Bush Administration officials, members of Congress, and former congressional staff," Reid said in March. "The scandals have shown that some outsiders and insiders believed they could act with impunity."

That's how this case looks, too. Unless Reid comes up with a better explanation for this lack of disclosure, Democrats should not keep him as their leader in the new Congress in 2007.