Political Insider

By Copyleft

January 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

Of COURSE Reed’s a proven liar, as well as a hateful lunatic.

I thought CNN wanted a spokesman for the right—that’s what you get!

By Brandon

January 17, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Is this just another McCain front group or are they opposed to the wife of a Romney campaign staffer doing the same on Fox?

And based on the fact McCain held a grudge against Reed for the 2000 election, shouldn’t he have stepped down in the Indian Affairs investigation for conflict of interest reasons?

I guess one of the Keating 5 doesn’t think like that?

By GodHatesTrash

January 17, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Ralph Reed is a crime boss and the KKKhristain KKKoalition is a racketeer influenced corrupt organization under the meaning of the RICO statutes. CNN’s honchos should be arrested for aiding and abetting the KK’s extortion plots.

By Churchill

January 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Libs and dems hate Ralph Reed because he skunked them in 2000. It is that simple. It is the same way they hate Karl Rove. They are both effective Republican politicos, and the libs hate them for it. Now carry on libs, tell us how evil Ralph is. Remember to bring up the Klan, Hitler, and the rest. Have fun. I know you guys need the release.

p.s. Do you libs ever get tired of being foregone conclusions?

By Churchill

January 17, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

By the way CREW is a Soros funded lib front group.

By Copyleft

January 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Churchill: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

By thewritewing

January 17, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

How is Churchill wrong? CREW gets a significant portion of its budget from The Democracy Alliance, which is a Soros front. They claim to be NP, but never seem to see any Dem / Lib corruption.

By Howard

January 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

Dump him,and send Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck with him

By TruthinAmerica

January 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

You fascist-cons have no ethics. Ralph Reed is one of the leaders of the KKK and wouldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. He is nothing but a low life hick. The “Forked Tongue Express” will continue to fool many of the hicks in SC but Ralph Reed is even worse. CNN means the “Conservative Nut Network” and are only one step above the Fox Entertainment Channel for low intelligent republiCONs.

By gary chafetz

January 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this

First of all, Sen. John McCain’s 373-page “Gimme Five” Indian Affairs Report is unfortunately an extremely tendentious document. For example, Native Americans who wanted to testify on Abramoff’s behalf were not allowed to. Only those Indians who had been opponents to the tribal councils that had hired Abramoff were allowed to testify. And their opposition was not due to Abramoff, but due to a civil war going on in Indian Country over who controls the $250-500 million generated by the tribes’ casinos. Secondly, Abramoff never defrauded a single Indian tribe. If you do the research, you will learn that he literally saved Indian Country billions of dollars, by stopping several attempts at a Republican-led UBIT tax. He was able to get his tribes BIA benefits no other lobbyist ever got, including thousands of acres of “land into trust.” In one case, land that a tribe had applied for in 1927, Abramoff finally got, and he vigorously protected his Indian clients when other tribes tried to open casinos that would have destroyed his clients’ casino revenues. Thirdly, the “kickback scheme” was disingenuously labelled by McCain. It was a perfectly legal referral fee that Michael Scanlon paid to Abramoff. Mortgage brokers do it, orthopedic surgeons do it, and of course lawyers do it all the time without any disclosures whatsoever. Abramoff was under no legal obligation to inform his tribes of the referral fee. Fourthly, that grass-roots payments to Scanlon were no higher than what the tribes had been paying to Ralph Reed. And if Scanlon was defrauding the tribes by not doing the work, Abramoff had no way of knowing it, because his clients kept winning. Fifthly, speaking of Reed, he was a fool to lie about “getting paid by the tribes with non-casino revenues.” What he should have said was that he couldn’t do anything about the gambling already going on in Mississippi, but he could stop gambling from spreading to next-door Alabama; hence, he decided to make a short-term (and lucrative) alliance with Abramoff to stop gambling in Alabama. Abramoff didn’t want gambling (including the lottery) permitted in Alabama, because it would have triggered federal regulations that would allowed an Indian tribe (the Porch Creek) to open up its own casino. Since the casino revenue of Abramoff’s client, the Choctaws, who are located near the Alabama border, was essentially entirely dependent on Alabamans, the Porch Creek’s casino would have wiped out his client’s business. But of course, McCain didn’t want to mention that because it didn’t square with his “Straight Talk Express” agenda. What most people don’t realize is that Reed, Abramoff, and Grover Norquist—along with other right-wing evangelicals—have hated John McCain long before the Senate Indian Affairs committee hearings…and of course McCain knows it. Why? Because Reed, Abramoff, and Norquist were instrumental in raising money, some of which was used to smear McCain during the 2000 South Carolina primary. After McCain unexpectedly won New Hampshire by 18 points, they panicked. Although the three of them, particularly Abramoff, had nothing to do with the inexcusable smear campaign itself, McCain hates them all the more because he perceives them as having contributed to it, which indirectly they did. When the Washington Post broke its cleverly misleading story about Abramoff on 22 February 2004, the matter serendipitously fell right into the lap of McCain, who was, in effect, the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Here was his chance for political comeuppance, which explains why when carefully reading his 373-page report, issued on 22 June 2006, one is astounded by its unfairness. For example, McCain never releases the complete billing records of Michael Scanlon, only “snapshots.” The reason is that if he had released the entire billing records, it would have been impossible to make many of the claims that McCain made. So why did the tribes turn against Abramoff. (By the way, these tribes are very sophisticated. They can afford to hire the very best lawyers and accountants. They kept hiring Abramoff over and over, some for ten years, for a very good reason.) You’re not going to like this, but the tribes turned against Abramoff because it was good business. By claiming they had been defrauded, they could sue Abramoff’s two law firms and get all the lobbying fees back, which is exactly what they did. (Well, we don’t exactly know how much the firms’ malpractice insurance companies actually paid, but we do know that the firms settled with the tribes, because the law firms didn’t want their email stream opened to discovery.) Okay, so why did Abramoff plead guilty? This is so disgusting it makes me loathe what has become of our justice system. Because when federal prosectors come after you, this is what happens. If you fight them, it will cost you millions of dollars in legal fees, which you probably don’t have, and if scruntinized, almost anyone would be found guilty of something. If found guilty, prosecutors tell you that you will get the maximum sentence and you will serve your time in a maximum-security prison with violent offenders. Of, if risk-averse, you can plead guilty to whatever they tell you to plead guilty to, promise to cooperate fully, and you will get a reduced sentence, serving your time in a minimum-security prison camp and you will be out of jail (with one-year reduction for a “drug addiction” program, good behavior reduction, and six months in a half-way house)in two or three years. Compare that to a thirty-year sentence in a horrible prison. What would any normal person do? As much as there are some things I admire about McCain, I cringe whenever he points out that he’s the “sheriff. Just ask Jack Abramoff.” There is so little truth out there. It makes me very sad.

By Ralph Reed aka Idiot

January 17, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this

gary chafetz - who has time to read that dribble…

Thanks

-Ralph

By gary chafetz

January 17, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

If you are Ralph Reed, (and therefore you were recently interviewed by Alex Gibney, which is not public information, as you know), please shoot me an email. Let’s talk.

And please forgive me if I offended you. I should have spoken more sensitively. I only meant to say that I believe if you had defended what you did, you would have been fine. It was a tough judgment call and no one calls it right all the time. Sorry.

By GodHatesTrash

January 17, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this

Churchill is sticking up for his little buddy Ralph - I bet they met in a mens room doing a little toe-tappin’ and divin’ for toilet paper…

Trash loves trash.

By Sandra

January 17, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this

what a joke!! what do you expect from this paper, so far left, why I had to cancel my sub. and what do they think carville, begala are, hillary hacks!!!! remember when they were on after one of the debates to give their ” unbiased” assessments??? and cnn got bombared with call and emails, so ajc, get over it, you do not care a damm about mccain, you just hate it that a conservative like him is on clinton news network, gee, I hate this paper!!!!!!!!

By NanZoo

January 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Link to this

So what’s the true story about Strategum Group, Gonzalez and Schnick. Reed should have at least a few pieces to the puzzle.

By Churchill

January 17, 2008 8:05 PM | Link to this

Libs will not debate facts. Just personal attacks. That’s why you guys lose at the ballot box— no depth. Just race baiting, gender baiting, and class baiting. Same play book for 60 years. Thus, the foregone conclusion.

By Bob

January 17, 2008 8:14 PM | Link to this

The conservatives and cons never want to admit their sugar daddy funder for all their think tanks etc is The Rev. Moon. He’s dumped billions into their programs. All they can do is point at the $25 mil Soros put into liberal causes which is matched by Scaife’s millions donated to neo causes but no mention of Rev. Moon who has sworn to end our democracy by donating to the right and promoting their hatred of the poor and minorities. btw…anyone defending Abramoff has very selective memory and focus. He took political corruption to a new level and bragged about it. But DeLay found Jesus so he’s not insane anymnore…just pathetic.

By Churchill

January 17, 2008 9:39 PM | Link to this

Libs, and by that I mean, Bob and his ilk like to bring up the Rev. Moon guy. There is no evince that Rev. Moon wants to destroy the country. Soros does.

By Craig

January 17, 2008 9:50 PM | Link to this

Here ya go Church - not that facts matter too much to you.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon3.html

On May 1, 1997, Moon told a group of followers that “the country that represents Satan’s harvest is America.” [ Unification News, June 1997] <

yah no evidence that he wants to destroy us at all…

By Josh

January 17, 2008 9:59 PM | Link to this

Sorry, but I’m booting CNN period. I supported them for the longest time, recommended it to friends, and had their website as my homepage.

A few times I’ve posted comments on their Political Ticher, my comments, which were respectful and fact based (but yea pro-Clinton) and they censored them. No more cnn.

By gdr2634

January 17, 2008 11:13 PM | Link to this

Churchill - It’s a conservative group that wants him booted, not a liberal one, nimrod! As a proud liberal, I’m happy to have Ralph Reed on the air 24/7. Like Glenn Beck he reveals the Republicans for the racist neo-nazis you all are (wouldn’t want to disappoint you).

As for CREW, they most certainly have gone after Democrats. They were instrumental in preventing Jack Murtha from being elected as House Majority Leader. But is it CREW’s fault that most of the criminals in Washington are Republicans?

One more thing: unless you’re a millionaire, you’re a FOOL for defending for the Republicans, because they’ve never done a thing for the working man. PERIOD. Or do you just sit on your fat butt collecting welfare like so many Republicans do? Yeah, I thought so.

By Mr. Zin

January 18, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

First they have to fire the vile bigot Glenn Beck. Then they could pretty much clean out the rest of the lap dogs they have on staff and close up shop.

By Darin

January 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

I agree and get rid of the compulsive gambler/”family values” spewer Bob Bennett, too. He was first on Iowa Caucus’ night to say: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA after the stunning victory, repeating the right-wing talking point of his middle name for fear of Muslims. Does anyone but Keith Olbermann at MSNBC say WILLARD MITT ROMNEY? emphasizing so many Mormons, including Mr. Marriott are named Willard?

By Norbert

January 18, 2008 9:35 PM | Link to this

Ralph Reed is the scum of the earth.

By Brad Bishop

January 19, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

These people who want Mr. Reed off the commentary panel are not being honest. Most if not all commentators in media have their own biases and many of them show it.

By Craig

January 19, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

That’s correct Brad. But most commentators didn’t enrich themselves on the back of trusting well meaning Christians. Ralph did.

Most commentators didn’t involve themselves in sleazy lying whisper campaigns in South Carolina. Ralph did.