Skip to content
Categories:

‘You just have to wonder who’s the bigger hypocrite’

Post date:
Author:

When news broke this week that John McCain would attend a fundraiser in Atlanta that Ralph Reed is helping host, it raised a few eyebrows. After all, McCain helped expose the Jack Abramoff scandal, and Reed was Abramoff’s business partner. Indeed

, as part of the investigation, we learned that Reed and Abramoff teamed up on a money laundering scheme.

Public Citizen’s Craig Holman responded to the news by saying, “[Reed] was involved in money laundering and McCain’s investigation uncovered it. This is a mistake by the McCain campaign. I would be very surprised if he doesn’t cancel this event.”

No such luck.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain so far is ignoring calls from several watchdog groups to cancel an Atlanta fundraiser promoted by Ralph Reed, a longtime friend and business partner of imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Campaign Money Watch are urging the Arizona senator to cancel plans for the Aug. 18 fundraiser at the Marriott Marquis in downtown Atlanta and remove Reed from McCain’s Victory 2008 Team.

Pressed for a response, the McCain campaign referred reporters to the RNC, which in turn argued that Reed is not on the official invitation to the Atlanta fundraiser, and is therefore not an actual “host” of the event.

That appears to be true, but it’s leaving out some pertinent details.

The watchdog groups reacted to a “special invitation” Reed sent to friends and political contacts, inviting them to the fundraiser and asking them to contribute to the McCain campaign by sending checks to Reed’s address.

“Attached is a contribution form and a fact sheet that details the event,” Reed wrote. “Please complete the contribution form and return it to me at [address], Duluth, GA 30097. If you select [sic] to use your credit card, you may fax the form to me at [number].”

In the invitation, which was first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Reed also said he had agreed to serve as a member of the McCain Victory 2008 team.

“John McCain also believes that tax cuts work best when tied to spending restraint,” Reed wrote in the e-mail solicitation. “He has a 26-year pro-life voting record and has pledged to appoint conservative judges who will interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.”

As for the notion of McCain, a former champion of campaign-finance reform, accepting help from Reed, CREW’s Melanie Sloan had the right response: “[Reed’s] hypocrisy is legion — now matched only by John McCain’s attending a fundraiser he’s helping host. You just have to wonder who’s the bigger hypocrite.”

It’s a tough call.

Comments

  • SaintZak

    says:

    ““Attached is a contribution form and a fact sheet that details the event,” Reed wrote. “Please complete the contribution form and return it to me at [address], Duluth, GA 30097.”

    Let’s be honest, if there were any justice Reed would be asking for files to sent baked in cakes to his prosion cell.

  • joey

    says:

    “…has pledged to appoint conservative judges who will interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.”

    Yeah, as in Bush V Gore

  • Lance

    says:

    “John McCain also believes that tax cuts work best when tied to spending restraint,” Reed wrote in the e-mail solicitation. “He has a 26-year pro-life voting record and has pledged to appoint conservative judges who will interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.”

    Fiscal conservatism and Pro-Life judges. Well, at least Reed is consistent.

  • Racer X

    says:

    McCain knows that the morons who Reed routinely fleeces are his only shot at winning. They will never have a clue, and he can count on them. So he’s gotta ride that tiger and hope the MSM keeps cutting him slack and doesn’t bring up the Reed/Abramoff thing.

    Come on, MSM, do you really want to be McCain’s stooges? Really?

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    A bit off the specific topixc, but still on-topic regarding hypocrisy is this post at TPM:

    Whatever you do, do not miss the article in the Washington Post about Randy Scheunemann’s lobbying for Georgia. From the lede …

    Sen. John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.

    The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.

    …

    At the time of McCain’s call, Scheunemann had formally ceased his own lobbying work for Georgia, according to federal disclosure reports. But he was still part of Orion Strategies, which had only two lobbyists, himself and Mike Mitchell.

    Scheunemann remained with the firm for another month, until May 15, when the McCain campaign imposed a tough new anti-lobbyist policy and he was required to separate himself from the company.

    Since 2004, Orion has bagged $800,000 from Georgia.

    For months while McCain’s presidential campaign was gearing up, Scheunemann held dual roles, advising the candidate on foreign policy while working as Georgia’s lobbyist. Between Jan. 1, 2007, and May 15, 2008, the campaign paid Scheunemann nearly $70,000 to provide foreign policy advice. During the same period, the government of Georgia paid his firm $290,000 in lobbying fees.
    Even though Scheunemann has now somehow cut his ties and is receiving no money directly from Georgia, as far as I can tell he is still the co-owner of the company — and the name that is its main draw. So whatever it does still has a direct bearing on him because of that ownership stake.

    After you read the article it’s astonishing that Scheunemann is even still with the campaign. And it just adds to the continuing mystery of how McCain preserves this image of being the scourge of lobbyists when he is almost a caricature of the kind of politician whose conduct is managed by a series of lobbyists who manage his actions on almost every point of policy.

    –Josh Marshall

  • pharniel

    says:

    extra funny? i’ll be at the marquis for dragon con two weeks after this event.

    pooor mccain, can’t catch a break.
    poor america, ourpress wont’ call him on this at all

  • Chad

    says:

    Coulda been worse. Reed could have cheated on his cancer-stricken wife and fathered a child and offered hush money through an intermediary. Lucky for him that didn’t happen, or else you guys would be screaming bloody murder.

  • Diogenes

    says:

    Please. As if no GOPer has ever given divorce papers to a hospital bound wife (NEWT). The difference is that when a Dem does it, he doesn’t turn around and try to claim family values as a key point of his campaign.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    Speaking of huge hypocrites, with a hat tip to Chad for bringing it up, Reed could also be a big tv talking head who settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for millions of dollars a few years ago, yet somehow forgets to mention that history to his audience while he screams bloody murder about infidelity and cover-ups and hush money.

  • chrenson

    says:

    Chad, I think enough people on this blog have voiced a great deal of heartfelt disappointment in John Edwards and the news of his affair. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we actually do tend to hold our own people under the same scrutiny we do our opponents. If you’d read any comments other than your own you’d know that.

  • Wajim

    says:

    Oh, Chad. Smear, smear away. And you who so happily lectures others about “honest” debate and “civility.” Why not bring up your pal McCain’s infidelity at the same time? Or is it only okay for conservatives to lie, cheat and steal? At least you have that ol’ hypocricy thing down, along with that well-honed, smug self-righteousness that so many of your fellow reactionaries display. Does that come with the ideology, or do you guys go to a summer camp for that?

  • Gregory

    says:

    The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we actually do tend to hold our own people under the same scrutiny we do our opponents.

    The other difference is that Edwards isn’t the nominee. In fact, if Chad had half a clue, he’d realize that Edwards got roundly criticized not only for his actions but also for running for President with this skeleton in his closet. Republicans, obviously, refuse to hold their candidates to any such standard.

    And yet another difference, of course, is the fact that unlike the wives McCain and Gingrich cheated on, Elizabeth Edwards remains married to her husband.

    Jackass.

  • Wajim

    says:

    Now, now, Gregory, the Jackass is a fine, noble animal undeserving of such a base association. I’ve known several over the years, and have discovered their intelligence often far exceeds your average conservative troll.

  • Chad

    says:

    Yeah Gregory, like she (Mrs. Edwards) has a choice. I’m sure the divorce rates of people with cancer are pretty low. No one wants to be left alone to fight that battle.

    As for McCains infidelity, that was 30 years ago. If we can’t ask about Barry’s past, I guess we shouldn’t be dwelling on McCain’s. Besides, you might not know this, but war changes people. Do you think McCain was the same person coming out of POW camp as he was going in? Surely that affected his relationship with his first wife. What has Edwards gone through to cheat on his wife? A campaign.

    And yes, I do think this is newsworthy. This is a former VP candidate and a presidential hopeful for the past two elections. In this election, he very well may have affected Hillary’s chances in a few key states. So, Yes, this is newsworthy.

  • anon, too

    says:

    Query – Is that how “bundling” works?” I never really understood “bundling.”

    Reed is asking for contributions to be sent to him. Does he then send one big check to the candidate or the RNC or both, and a list of purported contributors with an amount by each name? How does FEC check that each person on the list actually contributed the amount it is said they contributed? Are they just supposed to trust Reed to tell the truth?

    That has caused some problems in the past and more recently, too. The name Abdullah comes to mind. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/mccain-bundler-collects-f_n_117169.html

  • Mr. Anderson

    says:

    McCain HAS to help dust off Ralph Reed and usher him back into the policital limelight.

    Reed, unfortunately, is still a relevant and valuable member of the Repubican party. Reed has no problem putting himself back on the front line (being the shameless weasel that he is) and is obviously forcing McCain to acknowledge him.

    McCain is doomed if he does and doomed if he doesn’t in the case of Ralph Reed. If he doesn’t help Reed get back on his feet, McCain knows that Reed is going to cause a lot more trouble for him.

    In essence, Ralph Reed is saying, “Look John, you know what I know and you know what I can do. I know this isn’t going to pretty, but I really want to become kind of powerful and popular again. If you don’t help me out here, I’m going to make things a whole lot worse than they already are. I don’t have anything to lose.”

    I hate to say this, but somebody has to…

    Just looking at Ralph Reed tells me that he is a weasel and that he is somebody to be avoided at all costs. But that’s the problem with him and people like him. They won’t let you avoid them. They worm their way into everything make degrade it.

  • Wajim

    says:

    Oh, so there’s a statute of limitations for conservative moral failures , eh, Chad? And I thought conservatives were all about standing up for timeless moral ‘principals’ and personal responsibility. Thanks for making my case for me while pissing away what little credibility you had.

  • doubtful

    says:

    I’m sure the divorce rates of people with cancer are pretty low. No one wants to be left alone to fight that battle. -Chud

    Looking things up only takes slightly more time than leaping to an icorrect conclusion.

    According to a studied cited on CNN, cancer patients have a higher rate of divorce than average.

    But why let facts stand in the way of your assumptions?

  • libra

    says:

    […] a “special invitation” Reed sent to friends and political contacts, inviting them to the fundraiser and asking them to contribute to the McCain campaign by sending checks to Reed’s address.

    Can’t help but wonder whether, after all the hoopla (should he or shouldn’t he attend the fundraiser) McCain’s gonna see much of that money, raised, supposedly, on his behalf. Reed has high attorney bills, after all, and the temptation to “skim” will be overpowering.