Over at the Powerline blog, John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson are speculating about something I had been wondering about myself. Harry Reid’s black eye looks a lot less like an ‘exercise accident’ and more like the result of an encounter with somebody who knows how to throw a punch. They point to rumours floating around Nevada that Harry Reid’s injuries were the result of a meeting with organized crime associates that went bad.
One salacious detail left out the Powerline stories is that Harry Reid is one of the few politicians in office today who has been featured as a villain in a Martin Scorcese gangster film. It’s true. In the film Casino, there is a pill-popping, prostitute-using, freebee-grubbing State Senator and chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission played by Dick Smothers. That character represents Harry Reid.
The film is based on real-life mafia activities in Las Vegas in the 1970’s. The film was adapted from a book written by Nicholas Pileggi, a former New York crime reporter who now makes a living producing books about organized crime. The Scorcese classic, Goodfellas, was also based on one of his books.
Incidentally, one other current politician depicted in this movie is Oscar Goodman, the recent mayor of Las Vegas (and Democrat, natch). In fact, he is literally in the film, playing himself. He was a mob layer at the time the events depicted took place.
The fact that the Dick Smothers character represents Harry Reid is mentioned in the Wikipedia site for the film. What used to be on Wikipedia was a mirror site describing the real-life events that the film was based on. It went in great detail explaining where the film was faithful to reality and where it deviated from actual events. The two sites were extensively cross-referenced. That site is gone now. No explanation.
Interestingly enough, on the film’s Wikipedia site, there is currently a note that reads, “This article’s plot summary may be too long and excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise.” Six paragraphs to describe a three-hour movie with a complicated plot doesn’t sound ‘too long’ nor ‘excessively detailed’ to me. Some sanitizing going on?
I can't be the only one who finds these goings-on unbelievable.