Ralph Reed Runs For President, er, Lt. Governor

Tuesday's primary election in Georgia will decide whether former Christian Coalition commander Ralph Reed has fooled enough home-state Republicans to win the party's nomination for lieutenant governor.

Reed, who made millions of dollars exploiting his reputation as "Mr. Moral Values" to help GOP influence peddler Jack Abramoff defend casino gambling interests and corporations exploiting sweatshop labor, is so compromised that some Democrats hope he wins the nomination, since they think they can beat him in November. The Democratic desire to run against Reed in November was heightened by the primary-eve announcement that a Texas Indian tribe had filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Reed and others, claiming that Reed conspired with Abramoff to shut down the tribe's casino while hiding the fact that they were in the pay of another tribe and competing casinos.

But, as Atlanta's smart alternative weekly newspaper, Creative Loafing, noted in its endorsement of Reed's primary rival, state Senator Casey Cagle: "Careful what you wish for."

It is not just Georgians who should be worried about this race.

With all the flack he's taking, the politically-savvy Reed would have backed out of this race if he was just running for the not-particularly-exciting office of lieutenant governor. He would not have risked the defeat that polls suggest could be handed him by Cagle.

But Reed is not just running for lieutenant governor.

Tuesday's primary is the first step on a campaign trail that the hyper-ambitious candidate hopes will take him to the governorship of Georgia in four years and then to a presidential run in 2012 or 2016.

Reed's betting that, if he can overcome all the talk about his Abramoff ties now, he'll be able to put the scandal behind him by the time he enters the national spotlight.

A crazy notion? Hardly. Republican strategists generally agree that, if Reed wins the primary and prevails in November, he will instantaneously emerge as the most prominent Christian conservative politician in the country. Based on his track record, Reed will parlay that prominence into a fund-raising campaign that will fill his campaign treasury with more than enough money to advance his state and national ambitions.

If Reed takes the governorship in four years, as a slew of Georgia lieutenant governors have in the past and as pundits suggests is certainly within the realm of possibility, he will be positioned to begin making the moves that are necessary to launch the presidential bid that has always been the end goal of the man who built the Christian Coalition from the remnants of Pat Robertson's failed 1988 campaign for the Republican nomination.

That's why Reed is running so hard this week. The critical first rung on the ladder of electoral politics he has been preparing to climb for more than two decades is within reach. The only question is whether Georgia Republicans will overlook his scandalous behavior and help him grasp it.

Comments (44)

1. Jesus, save me from your followers.

   Posted by bjkron at 07/17/2006 @ 5:26pm

2. This election is, in reality, a test of how hypocritical the Religious Right is in Georgia. If they vote in this scumbag, it shows what hypocrites they were when they all moaned about Pres. Clinton's BJ. Does this mean stealing and lying is better than a BJ?

   Posted by trabaris at 07/17/2006 @ 5:32pm

3. Posted by BJKRON 07/17/2006 @ 5:26pm

   Amen.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 07/17/2006 @ 5:43pm

4. The question is will he win? The rest doesn't matter...the other truth is the dems and the liberal/progressives or whatever they call themselves these days can't win anywhere in the South and have a hard time in the West...with or without Jesus...

   Posted by john maasch at 07/17/2006 @ 6:33pm

5. Hey General Washington, we cant fight the British. I almost was going to support the American Revolution, but King George of England says he's a Christian. How can the Colonies stand up to such a brilliant PR appeal to religion?

   Posted by LiberalPride at 07/17/2006 @ 6:45pm

6. You should read some of the founding fathers speeches and writings..I don't think they were all atheists, maybe diests....and I am not a Christian nut favoring a christain governemnt.

   I just finished 1776 by Mc coulluough, great read, and have read many other biographies and I don't think they were as afraid of christians as people here are today.

   Posted by john maasch at 07/17/2006 @ 6:58pm

7. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/17/2006 @ 6:33pm

   The question is will he win? The rest doesn't matter...the other truth is the dems and the liberal/progressives or whatever they call themselves these days can't win anywhere in the South and have a hard time in the West...with or without Jesus...

   I wouldn't be so sure about that John, either for Reed's chances in Georgia or Democrats' chances elsewhere in the South. After all, there are progressive Democrats that have been elected from the South within recent memory (a certain Senator Edwards from South Carolina comes to mind, and you don't get much more southern than that) not to mention more conservative Dems from places like Louisiana. Harold Ford, Jr. is currently giving the Republicans fits in my old home state of Tennessee in his bid to replace a retiring Frist. Ford's latest poll numbers (Zogby poll from 6/13 [zogby.com])put him in a dead heat with the three prospective Republican candidates. Don't sell southern Dems short.

   As for Reed, he may have overplayed his hand in Georgia. While he'd like to use Georgia to get the Abramoff scandal behind him the result may be that he torpedoes any chance of getting anywhere in the state at all. While southerners have a long and venerable history of backing preachers and others who spout populist tinged moralizing, they don't react well to hypocrits. The fate of the disgraced preacher is usually to be (at least figuratively) run out of town on a rail. That may well be Reed's fate in Georgia, as the most recent polling there is now a dead heat and Reed's unfavorable rating is much higher than Cagle's ( Strategic Vision [strategicvision.biz]). I'm not predicting on this one, but Reed had better be siffing the wind for the smell of tar (and from his fellow Republicans too.)

   Posted by Stwriley at 07/17/2006 @ 7:54pm

8. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/17/2006 @ 6:58pm

   You should read some of the founding fathers speeches and writings..I don't think they were all atheists, maybe diests....and I am not a Christian nut favoring a christain governemnt.

   I just finished 1776 by Mc coulluough, great read, and have read many other biographies and I don't think they were as afraid of christians as people here are today.

   You're right enough that the founders weren't atheists, by and large. Most were Deists or from the more liberal arms of the established sects (Congregationalists, Anglican, etc.) They were, though, very cadgey about any connection between government and formal religions. What they feared was not Christianity per say but the connection between any religion and its practices and ideologies and the state as a potential enforcer of those ideologies. They'd had more than enough of established religion and imposed religious doctrine, which is why the post-revolutionary period saw a wave of states dis-establishing their churches. Church-state seperation is something they argued about the extent of but never doubted as a basic principle, no matter their other political arguments.

   Posted by Stwriley at 07/17/2006 @ 8:04pm

9. Yeah, Edwards, Gore's V.P. nominee from NC has gotten much populist support/publicity from The Nation, and deservedly so. I like him.

   Re Reed: down with hypocrites/philistines of whatever stripe.

   Posted by lewwelge at 07/17/2006 @ 8:43pm

10. The opposition is will need to employ tactics used by the right- repetition. Reed is a hypocrite. Reed is a pal of disgraced felon Jack Abramoff. Peel back the piety. Attack him on what he considers his strength., although that's a little more difficult. Some folks' only reason to support him is that "he's Christian". Somehow his dishonest and greedy deeds are washed away by his Christianity.

    If he runs for president, he will drag the country closer to theocracy whether he wins or not.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/17/2006 @ 9:37pm

11. Presumably, hopefully, Cagle will nip Reed's hypocritically theocratic budding in Georgia and we'll not see it even attempt to rise again.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/18/2006 @ 05:36am

12. With the AIPAC Spy trial coming up next month in America, this war is just the distraction that was called for, at just the right time.

    The Poppy Bush Crime Family is so guilty of so many things on so many levels, their only hope is to control Congress and its investigative capabilities forever.

    They thought the had the next elections in the bag through the backdoor of the electronic voting machines, but it appears the world is hip to that scam.

    Their only choice is total war, full blown mayhem, a series of false flag attacks on the US Mainland and a wag-the-dog proclamation of Avian Flu to keep a frightened and compliant population locked in their homes.

    Gameoverville is just around the corner.

    America has been totally looted.

    the armed forces have been intentionally degraded, and Israel will become the world's only super power, having confiscated the vast majority of the planet's oil reserves.

    Sadly, our troops are in Iraq to be ambushed and die there.

    Picture two train robbers heading for the Mexican border with bags of gold strapped to their horses.

    At the border, one gets greedy, shoots the other, then takes his horse and his gold over the finish line.

    We're the dead guy.

    But, but, what about all of our nukes...we control the world, right?

    No.

    Israel's software has been installed throughout the most critical systems in the United States, thanks to all of the AIPAC Moles who refer to themselves as Senators and Congressman.

    Who really controls America?

    "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    The so-called Christian Zionists, the Holy Roller end of timers who are acting in concert with the Oil Whores - in what they believe to be a "Partnership With Israel," these are what the Likudists refer to as"

    "useful idiots."

    The word "Double-cross" doesn't even begin to describe what comes next.

    In the words of Henry Kissinger, these Goy will soon be viewed as little more the "Useless Eaters" in the eyes of the Likudists, as they maneuver to align with their next strategic partner, China.

    The Arrogant and Powerful Americans are simply patsies in an elaborate sting operation, for all the marbles.

    When your "mark" is as susceptible to blackmail as is George Bush Senior, Cheny, Rummy and the rest of these criminals - and the (s)elected President has the intellect of an avocado - and you have the banksters and the Media under your own control...the end game is a foregone conclusion.

    Is this easy, or what?

    Posted by plunger at 07/18/2006 @ 06:09am

13. Reed's a hypocrite and showboater....but...

    not sure what Mr Nichols' criticism is?!?!? That Reed's ambitious? That this is "just a stepping stone to a Presidential run"?

    Okay, if that's a criticism, then can't it be leveled at ANY politician, even those "running against a corrupt/non-representational incumbent"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 06:41am

14. Okay, if that's a criticism, then can't it be leveled at ANY politician, even those "running against a corrupt/non-representational incumbent"?

    Posted by MASK 07/18/2006 @ 06:41am

    You make too many invalid assumptions in your posts, MASK. Where did Nichols claim to be making a criticism? Why do you keep inventing what other people are saying, putting words in their mouths, etc.? Is your purpose to distract people from the real debate?

    Your putting words in people's mouths that they never said is becoming an old and tired technique. Why don't you get your head out of your arse?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/18/2006 @ 09:06am

15. "The only question is whether Georgia Republicans will overlook his scandalous behavior and help him grasp it."...sounds pretty critical to me, ILP?

    and PREMISE of Mr Nichols piece is "Reed is running for Lt Gov so he can run for President".

    Now, I don't think it's THAT much of a leap to suggest that he seems to be saying to Georgians "Don't vote for Reed, he really doesn't want or CARE about being your Lt. Gov, he just wants it to run for President later"...and that that is a criticism of Reed.

    I don't like Reed or his ilk, but Mr Nichols can make a MUCH more persuasive case against him on his hypocrisy concerning Indian gaming and his "Christian values", than on "he's only running for this, so he can run for that"...which is true of a LOT of politicians, even some "progressive" ones.

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 09:14am

16. not sure what Mr Nichols' criticism is?!?!?

    Really ?

    So long "Mask" or whoever started writing these absurd critiques under the Mask sobriquet lately. At least the old Mask was entertaining and occasionally even insightful. You, my friend, are neither.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/18/2006 @ 09:37am

17. Posted by RED NECKERSON 07/18/2006 @ 09:37am | ignore this person

    RED, could you give me an example of the "old MASK"....

    so that I know what I "need to get back to"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 09:38am

18. Mask, I think the article is more of a warning than a criticism.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/18/2006 @ 11:06am

19. Posted by HMAN23 07/18/2006 @ 11:06am | ignore this person

    Again, HMAN...."warning" about what?...that Reed is ambitious and is just using the LtGov race as a "stepping stone"?

    Okay, fine...the Right did the same thing about Hillary in New York...to what avail?

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 11:16am

20. Posted by MASK 07/18/2006 @ 09:14am: I don't like Reed or his ilk, but Mr Nichols can make a MUCH more persuasive case against him on his hypocrisy concerning Indian gaming and his "Christian values"

    Mr. Nichols begins his piece by saying:

    Reed, who made millions of dollars exploiting his reputation as "Mr. Moral Values" to help GOP influence peddler Jack Abramoff defend casino gambling interests and corporations exploiting sweatshop labor, ...The Democratic desire to run against Reed in November was heightened by the primary-eve announcement that a Texas Indian tribe had filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Reed and others, claiming that Reed conspired with Abramoff to shut down the tribe's casino while hiding the fact that they were in the pay of another tribe and competing casinos.

    So it sounds like you and Mr. Nichols are in agreement, Z.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 07/18/2006 @ 11:26am

21. Mask on. Mask off. Every day above ground is a good day when the world's plunging toward Orwellian AND Huxleyan dystopic endgames.

    Yet..."there's no need to fear, Underdog is here." Seriously, my roots in the ideology of the New Age and/or Age of Aquarious makes me impervious to pessimism. Guess I'm just "ridin' the gravy train," as the Grateful Dead advise(d).

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/18/2006 @ 11:47am

22. MASK

    The point of this article is that is Reed wins, he could then become Governor and then a viable candidate for President. The issue is not that he is only looking for a steppingstone but that the very possibility of Reed as President is so frightening that it is best nipped in the bud.

    RIO BRAVO

    You really think that the libertarian vote is going to vote for a religious (govt. belongs in your bedroom) conservative?

    Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 11:53am

23. Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 11:53am | ignore this person

    Not sure I see the "dire warning" needed, BRUNO.

    Reed would get "moidelated" (to call up an old Bowery Boys line) in any national election he tried for. How does a guy whose stock-and-trade is his "Christian values" run a national campaign on "Oh, yeah, well I did help the Hikowis get their casinos"?

    Mr Nichols is warning us that "if Reed becomes Lt Gov of Georgia...he MAY become Governor...and then MAY run for President...and then MAY win"?!?!?! Aren't we a few "steps" out from being terrified to our core?

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 12:27pm

24. I beleive that many of us who are aware of the utility of the Bible as either a work of divinity (like me) or even as he basic ethical code for western civilization can look at Mr. reed and remember Jesus' words, "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites." (Luke, 11, 44). 'Nuff said.

    Posted by The Goods at 07/18/2006 @ 12:32pm

25. Mask - When did it become a "dire" warning? Anyway, I think Brunowe made the point clearly - nip it in the bud. Like an early intervention. I agree that right now Reed's national prospects look bleak, but the public's memories can be short. If Reed somehow wins in GA, four or eight years later, Reed's supporters will claim that the Abramoff mess is a "non-issue ... old news ...ancient history."

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/18/2006 @ 12:57pm

26. Posted by LEWWELGE 07/18/2006 @ 11:47am

    "Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile!"

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/18/2006 @ 12:58pm

27. Posted by HMAN23 07/18/2006 @ 12:57am | ignore this person

    Again, same principle, HMAN.

    How many times in 1980 did we hear that "Chappaquiddick" is old news, when Teddy was running against President Carter?

    How many times did we hear that "Vietnam was so long ago", when Clinton's draft record came up?

    My point is that Mr Nichols doesn't seem to have much to throw at Reed but "He's ambitious" and "Georgians need to know that he's just using them as a stepping stone"...when there is a LOT you can throw at Reed, and all the other stuff seems to apply to ALL politicians.

    I just think this is a weak argument/article.

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 2:23pm

28. You should read some of the founding fathers speeches and writings..I don't think they were all atheists, maybe diests....and I am not a Christian nut favoring a christain governemnt.

    I just finished 1776 by Mc coulluough, great read, and have read many other biographies and I don't think they were as afraid of christians as people here are today.

    The dogma of the crop of so-called Christians epitomized by Reed and his bunch, often referred to as premillenial dispensationism, did not even exist at the time of the Founders. It is generally acknowledged to be a nineteenth century phenomenon pioneered by rogue clerics such as John Nelson Darby, and centered in the South. One wonders what the likes of Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton would have made of such fanatics.

    Posted by RufusTFirefly at 07/18/2006 @ 4:02pm

29. I just think this is a weak argument/article.

    Posted by MASK 07/18/2006 @ 2:23pm

    [gasp!]

    I am soooo surprised.

    :o)

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/18/2006 @ 4:07pm

30. Mask -

    Recognize it for what it is - a short article working on one line of thought - not a manifesto on all things wrong with Ralph Reed. I am sure Nichols has other ammo he could have used if he wanted to write a more in-depth piece on every possible reason to object to Reed - just because he did not expand on any doesn't prove your point.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/18/2006 @ 4:15pm

31. For anyone who isn't concerned about the rising theocratic bent.....all I can offer is "be afraid" cause it's well under way

    Faith-based Govt

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/18/2006 @ 4:47pm

32. Dispensationism. Hmm..."dispensing" with thought, thus responsibility, doubt, thus curiosity, ethical/moral imperatives, thus consideration for one's fellows. Sounds like social Darwinism which is akin to eugenics, n'est-ce pas?

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/18/2006 @ 5:19pm

33. Posted by LEWWELGE 07/18/2006 @ 5:19pm |

    Yeah, but after reading some of the tripe on blogs don't you wanna shout "Hey idiots...out of the gene pool, NOW!"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/18/2006 @ 5:33pm

34. Mask - always claiming to be a "Clinton DLC Democrat", yet always attacking Bill Clinton and defending the likes of Ralph Reed.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 07/18/2006 @ 7:45pm

35. No bid deal - only the unintelligent George Bush supporters believe you.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 07/18/2006 @ 7:56pm

36. Just to change the subject for a short time----today is the 30th Anniversary of the day that the Liberal Lion of the Senate took an unexpected and probably alcohol induced dip and Mary Joe paid the price.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 07/18/2006 @ 10:16pm

37. today is the 30th Anniversary of the day that the Liberal Lion of the Senate took an unexpected and probably alcohol induced dip and Mary Joe paid the price.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/18/2006 @ 10:16pm

    and in classic evangelic fashion

    you are incapable of forgiveness

    Posted by Will C. at 07/18/2006 @ 10:21pm

38. His actions are not for me to forgive. I am just pointing out the date. It is up to Teddy to ask for forgiveness from the family, his constituents, and God---He probably has done this---at least I hope he has. And if he has asked and been forgiven from all of the above, that does not change the fact that he was responsible. When the criminal asked for forgiveness as he was being crucified beside Jesus---He was granted forgiveness and he was saved---he still was executed.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 07/18/2006 @ 10:30pm

39. His actions are not for me to forgive. I am just pointing out the date. It is up to Teddy to ask for forgiveness from the family, his constituents, and God---

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/18/2006 @ 10:30pm

    he already got it

    though it's too bad you are unable to give it

    if only you were walk the walk christain instead of evangelic abomination

    Posted by Will C. at 07/18/2006 @ 10:42pm

40. oh

    and teddy was absolved by the state

    but I bet you don't know that date

    (at least until you google it)

    Posted by Will C. at 07/18/2006 @ 10:44pm

41. Posted by RUFUSTFIREFLY 07/18/2006 @ 4:02pm

    The dogma of the crop of so-called Christians epitomized by Reed and his bunch, often referred to as premillenial dispensationism, did not even exist at the time of the Founders. It is generally acknowledged to be a nineteenth century phenomenon pioneered by rogue clerics such as John Nelson Darby, and centered in the South. One wonders what the likes of Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton would have made of such fanatics.

    They'd have been horrified by such an irrational approach to religion. You're right enough that the doctrines of these Dominionists and the rest of their ilk are a newer phenomena, coming out of the nineteenth and even early twentieth centuries. But the founders had their own versions, though they were falling out of fashion by the time of the Constitution (the "Old Light" Congregationalists, for instance, who still favored what were essentially Puritan doctrines.) It was a time often called "the age of reason" with good cause, even in religious circles. But what would distress them even more today than Reed's religious doctrines is his use of them for cynical and political puposes.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/18/2006 @ 11:33pm

42. Posted by LEWWELGE 07/18/2006 @ 11:47am

    there's no need to fear, Underdog is here

    Obviously I come from the same era, since you've quoted my favorite superhero. I always loved that he didn't become Underdog until he took the pill from the secret decoder ring. The writers would never get that past the network censors these days.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/18/2006 @ 11:37pm

43. Update on the original purpose of this thread!

    Ralph Reed has, as of 9:48pm Georgia time today (7/18) conceded the primary election to Cagle. It looks like he'll lose by at least 10% in the final vote tally. I'd say that the smell of tar has gotten considerably stronger, and the rail has been cut for Ralph to ride. Now he can't use this election as an exoneration of the Abramoff scandal after all. Any bets on his Presidential future?

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/19/2006 @ 12:02am

44. Any bets on his Presidential future?

    Posted by STWRILEY 07/19/2006 @ 12:02am |

    fixing the plumbing in the presidential suite?

    Posted by Will C. at 07/19/2006 @ 12:24am