Common Cause Blog :: What Goes Around, Comes Around

What Goes Around, Comes Around

By Stephen Steigleder
Posted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:30:22 PM EST

An ancient Chinese proverb states: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step." Fortunately, Ralph Reed's first step towards the presidency went backwards.

Once a power broker in the evangelical movement, Reed's projected political ascendancy was easy to chart. The first stop was Lt. Governor of Georgia--a demotion in responsibility but a necessary step-ladder for his political ambitions. After dutifully serving his four-year term, Reed would've been perfectly positioned to succeed term-limited Gov. Sonny Perdue. (Assuming, for the moment, that Perdue is re-elected in 2006. If not, Reed would've been the likely challenger to a Democratic incumbent.) Once Chief Executive in Georgia, Reed would've had a prominent platform to promote his legislative agenda, consolidate evangelical support and plan a run for the presidency. Unlike the failed campaigns of Pat Robertson, Gov. Reed would've had a legislative track record to accompany his roots in the Christian Coalition.

But Reed's blueprint has been officially scuttled by Georgia voters. Republicans, no less.

On Tuesday, July 18th, Georgia voters soundly rejected Reed in the Republican Primary. Ironically enough, Reed lost because he doesn't represent the "values" of his state. In this case, the value was integrity...and Reed doesn't have it.

Reed lost because he's a hypocrite. For years, he claimed the moral high ground while slinging below-the-belt accusations against political opponents. But Reed couldn't outrun his paper trail. While claiming to be anti-gambling, Reed accepted millions in fees from gambling interests to help maintain their monopolies against potential competitors. It wasn't about gambling--it was about money. Lots of it.

E.J. Dionne chronicles Reed's precipitous fall in today's Washington Post. Dionne cites the campaign strategy of Casey Cagle, Reed's opponent, that ultimately brought down the former darling of southern evangelicals:

The public interest in Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges, forced Reed's gambling transaction to the surface, and Cagle made the most of it. One Cagle ad declared that Reed had "sold out our conservative values" and concluded: "Ralph Reed: His values are for sale." It's the sort of attack Reed himself might have admired under other circumstances.

Tags: Ralph Reed, Abramoff, lobbying, Georgia, ethics in government (all tags)

What Goes Around, Comes Around :: 6 Comments

winning

Yes, defeating Reed is great -- but the fact remains, the Dems do NOT know how to win elections. We have ALL the issues on our side. We have a bunch of crooks and out-of-touch politicians as our competition. Yet, we have lost every branch of government. The DNC and our congressional leaders are pathetic. And, we seem to run our elections on a 1950s style model. Having spent 45 years in the ad business, I know of what I speak. This is the 21st century, and we need 21st century marketing and communication techniques to make it happen. That is what the Republicans have (along with a marketing guru named Rove), and that is why they KNOW how to win. We better learn...and fast!

by spicerm on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 01:31:22 PM EST

re: winning

Then I assume you're a big fan of Rahm Emanuel. He certainly subscribes to the no-holds-barred style of campaigning that you seem to be promoting. But I'm going to stay non-partisan on this one. Personally, I think it would be preferable to elect an abundance of centrists on both sides of the aisle; legislators that are willing to defect from their party's zealous base to pass sound public policy.

Of course, that isn't realistic. The most vulnerable legislators in the current election cycle--aside from the legally challenged--are precisely the bipartisan centrists that I'm describing: Lieberman and Chafee. But they're being challenged within their own party because they aren't sufficiently extreme to satisfy the base. (I recognize that Connecticut and Rhode Island have every right to dump their legislators--I just hope they don't do it.) One bright spot is Pennsylvania, where the Dems were smart enough to nominate a centrist to challenge far-right icon Rick Santorum.

by Stephen Steigleder on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 02:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

winning

No...I am not a "fan" of any particular candidate (although I do have many I support and admire. Cynical as this may be, this is about campaign strategy and techniques that will help us WIN ELECTIONS. without winning, we are merely tilting at windmills. If I were running the campaigns I would:

commence a national TV promotion NOW to start stating common ideas we believe in (as opposed to the GOP). A positive campaign
I would create a common "theme" our candidates can run under (just like we did with the New Deal,Fair Deal, Great society etc)
I would spend less money for "boots on the ground" as the DNC is doing; this is terribly inefficient,expensive with little ROI
I would target the undecideds and Independants -- they are the battle ground. No use selling the already converted.
I would replace Pelosi and Reid; they are terrible, dull and ineffective.

There is NO REASON we should not win the next election handily! Unless we remain inept
spicerm

by spicerm on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 05:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chafee's Campaign

As a Rhode Islander, I have to point out here that while Chafee is in fact a centrist, and I personally would like to vote for him, the main reason many Rhode Islanders are turning to the Democratic alternative is the current Rebpublican stranglehold on all but 1 of the branches of government... and they are starting to gain a foothold there.

Rhode Island has already seen the problems associated with having 1 party (in our case, the Democrats) controlling the state-level government for too long. We have had enormous corruption scandals in the past which have knocked out one corrupt Speaker or Majority leader, just to see another rise to take his place.

Back in 2004, Rhode Islanders overwhelmingly (over 74%) supported a Common Cause of Rhode Island-backed ballot initiative, ammending out state constitution to enumerate our Separation of Powers... thus preventing the heavilly Democratic General Assembly from appointing its own members to state comissions and review boards. This was a huge step for us in cleaning up some of the corruption in our state.

However, Rhode Islanders are not satisfied with simply maintaining a status quo that has obviously not worked for our state. While I am certainly by no means guarenteeing or even endorsing a Sheldon Whitehouse win, Sen. Chafee could easily defeat his candidacy by running as an independent instead of a Republican. The Republican party is still associated with the issues that Chafee has voted against time and time again... he is derided as "RINO" on the Hill, and the only reason the Republicans tollerae him is that he is the only legitimate Republican candidate in Rhode island, and he helps them maintain their majority.

Thus, even if Sen. Chafee does vote along centrist lines more often than not, he still helps maintain a conservative lock on the Senate by simply holding the (R-RI) next to his name. He votes independently, and there's no reason he couldn't trounce Mr. Whitehouse in a state where there is a larger percentage of Unaffiliated voters than either Republicans or Democrats.

Independents can win in Rhode Island, so why shouldn't they?

Trust me though, there's no way that the centrist Republicans and Unaffiliated voters in Rhode Island (who can easily switch parties to vote in primaries) will let a more Neo-Con modeled Republican candidate like Mayor Laffey of Cranston take down Sen. Chafee before the general election. Even Karl Rove is supporting Chafee, becase he knows Laffey has zero chance of winning in a Rhode Island general election, and he wants to maintain the Republican majority more than he wants to agree with the Senator holding that seat.

by jparis on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 02:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

re: Chafee's Campaign

I couldn't possibly agree more. I would like to see Chafee, Lieberman, Snowe, Specter, Casey and other moderates actually form an independent block in the Senate. Modeled on the "Gang of 14," they would have sufficient leverage to pass or block any legislation in their chamber. By threatening to defect on bad policy--and refusing to rubber-stamp pork projects--the independents could elevate common sense over the current partisanship that rules the Senate.

In this case, Ariel Sharon's Kadima Party provides an excellent prototype. An alliance of conservative Democrats, genuine Independents, and liberal Republicans--along with an bona fide centrist for President--could offer a viable alternative to the extremes of both traditional parties.

by Stephen Steigleder on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

re: Viable Moderate Parties

Indeed, I had really wished to see more come out of that very sensibly "Gang of 14" decision than a simple quieting down of the firey "nuclear option" rhetoric which was being spewed around the Hill. For the most part, these folks are all highly electable in their home states, regardless of their party. It is his own personal charisma and voting record that keeps a guy like Chafee in his Senate seat for a "deep-blue" state like Rhode Island, certainly not his party affliation. Only 2 states had higher margins of victory for Kerry in 2004.

The power of such a moderate block could not be denied, and I believe you would see much of the vitriolic 2-party rhetoric on the Hill vanish, as both sides tried to mellow their messages to play to the center.

by jparis on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 04:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.

What Goes Around, Comes Around

By Stephen SteiglederPosted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:30:22 PM EST

By Stephen Steigleder
Posted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:30:22 PM EST