It didn't generate much attention, but disgraced Republican lobbyist Ralph Reed hosted a pretty big religious right gathering over the weekend, through his Faith & Freedom Coalition. Mitt Romney wasn't there in person -- he was busy avoiding critics on his bus tour -- but he appeared via video, and was introduced by his son, Josh, who did appear at the event.
There are a few angles to this to consider. The first is the fact that Romney still feels the need to pander to the religious right -- the former governor has spent years telling Christian conservatives what they want to hear, but now that he's the GOP nominee, it's tempting to think Romney might start trying to broaden his appeal. Apparently, the Republican does not yet feel as if he's locked up the movement's support.
The second is what Romney ended up actually saying. Attendees heard the GOP candidate once again condemn President Obama's position on contraception access, before passing along an anecdote from none other than Rick Santorum.
For those of you who can't watch clips online, Romney noted a Brookings study that Santorum loves, examining the best predictors of happiness and financial success.
"[T]hree criteria were really quite amazing. Number one was whether someone had the chance to be married. Did they become married? Number two was whether they graduated from high school and number three was whether they ever got a job, ever one time took a job if they did those three things, the likelihood of them falling into poverty was only 2 percent -- 2 percent. On the other hand, if they missed those three things, the likelihood of them falling into poverty was 76 percent, three-quarters of our people. And so, if you want to fight poverty, family is one of the elements that's most critical."
I don't imagine Romney quoting Santorum to this crowd was an accident. For that matter, it was interesting to hear the candidate talk about giving people a "chance to be married," which is a "chance" Romney wants to deny to same-sex couples, presumably condemning them to a life of poverty.
And finally, there's one last question: since when did GOP leaders agree to let Ralph Reed out of the penalty box?
Reed, of course, became a disgraced lobbyist caught up in the Abramoff scandal, who's now managed to position himself again as a right-wing GOP powerhouse, able to get Romney to pander to him and his group. How'd Reed pull that off?
Well, Reed waited. He simply allowed time to elapse, confident that Republican officials, conservative activists, and the media would simply forget about his scandals and remember his organizing successes.
This has worked remarkably well, but there's still value in remembering his sleazy misdeeds. Remember this one, from June 2006?
Yet another delightful characterization of Ralph Reed, courtesy of today's McCain report on the Abramoff scandal. This one comes courtesy of Jack Abramoff himself, via his discussion with Marc Schwartz, a public relations representative for the Tigua tribe in Texas.
Let's pick up the report on page 148. Schwartz was evaluating whether the tribe should hire Abramoff as its lobbyist: To Schwartz, Abramoff appeared to have the right credentials. Abramoff claimed to be a close friend of Congressman Tom DeLay. He also discussed his friendship with Reed, recounting some of their history together at College Republicans. When Schwartz observed that Reed was an ideologue, Schwartz recalled that Abramoff laughingly replied "as far as the cash goes."
Or, how about this one?
Ralph Reed, email to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, 1998: "Hey, now that I'm done with the electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts."
E-mails and testimony before McCain's panel showed that Reed, who once branded gambling a "cancer" on society, reaped millions of dollars in tribal casino proceeds that Abramoff secretly routed to him through various non-profit front groups. Abramoff, a lobbyist for the tribes, paid Reed to whip up "grassroots" Christian opposition to prevent rival tribes from opening casinos.
All of this, apparently, is now considered little more than water under the bridge -- Romney has, as far as I can tell, faced no questions about associating with this scandal-plagued former lobbyist.
Leave a Comment:
Simple answers to simple questions.
How did Reed pull it off?
The same way Dennis Miller pulled off convincing people he's still funny, that's how. How do all the other con artists and gargoyles of the Right keep convincing people they are actual human beings? Well, they play to a crowd stupid enough to flunk the IQ test low enough to be a wingnut fundie whack job. Stupid people are always easy marks. Look at how much money is made off them by Nigerian e-mail scammers.
actually if you are smart enough to undersand Miller's words he is very funny. If you want to find those easily marked stupid people, I would add lazy also, just go look in a wellfare line, then take a servey and see how many of them voted for President Obama. I'm betting >90%.
It is pathetic that even the history of your country and its legacy you don't seem to understand and appreciate.
Oh,those lazy black people,if they could just work as hard as us white guys/gals,they'll be as [slavish] to wealth,power and to the gentry in AMERICA,even though they already are, given the reality of their heritage.
The worst disease in human history is willful mental blindness.
chemdmd - "servey"? Apparently one need not be terribly smart to understand Miller's words.
And what is lazier than buying into right-wing rhetoric without doing any fact-checking or research, then voting against your own best interests?
Reed is "out of the penalty box" because ancient history is anything that happened before last week.
Besides, I'll bet he asked his "God for Forgiveness"- in front of a lot of witnesses.
I wonder if the Brookings Institution could be solicited to run a study on wealthy Amercians, find out what percentage strap the dog to the top of the car for road-trips? I guess you might get more participation on "lie through their teeth every time they open their mouths"
go to Idaho, you will see hundreds of rich potato farmers with there dog roaming free in the back of there pick up truck, same thing as top of car. More important question: how many of those rich people ate their dog. At least Mitt could play with his dog when he got to the park. President Obama's mom would have told him to stop playing with his food.
Oh snap/not..
"chemdmd" is too funny, what with the false equivalences and all. The dog bit is somewhat overdone, but is a small window into a person's character. I grew up in the south too, and had the dog ride in the back of the truck many times. To equate that with a dog carrier strapped to the top of a car is grotesque ignorance, or more probably, you playing to a fan base unaccustomed to such life styles. Also, equating the actions of a young boy and eating habits in another country with the "Romney/dog carrier on top if the car" is an absolute stoke of genius - if you are devoid of the ability to think.
You gotta love these people. They're shameless. Really shameless. They don't know the meaning of the words "hypocrisy," "conscience," or "morality."
Since the Repubs believe that what Obama's surrogates and other supporters say is SO important, Dems have to fight back by tying Romney to what people like Reed and Abramoff say and do.
Until Romney is the post convention nominee, he can get away with anything and everything and he will. Don't be shocked. This politics for keeps, although one wouldn't know it from watching Obama and the Dems.
Bomb Iran and then turn the USA into a theocracy! (remember though that those who bring you their god are exempt from following His commandments after all )
Mormon or christian?
Deesn't matter.
All Romney is......
a tool required for signing whatever Grover Norquist wants. Including war declarations.
What Romney gets in return, is the privelidge of other people calling him "President" for four years (if he's elected.) and a little woody everytime it happens.
Republicans are supporting a rich man's ego trip.
Nothing more.
*Doesn't, and *priviledge.
I apologize for my spelling mistakes.
My view remains the same.
Actually, it is "privilege"
Ack!
I am no master of the keyboard..
Thanks.
Ralph Reed gave up any pretense of his 'Christianity' when we found out he was screwing Indian Casinos and pretending he still had 'values'. The VOTERS knew it and didn't elect him. The real problem is the RNC and the senior leadership of the Republicans that pick up these jerks once that they have proved they can lie lie lie and talk the language of the evangelicals.
Reed's 'redemption' shows just how easy it is to con evangelical Christians. If I had fewer scruples, I could make a comfortable living off those folks.
Hello friend. I'll put my comment here, not implying that you -- more than anyone else -- should have read the actual quote more carefully. But it is funnier the more you stare at it.
Yeeyas, I think it might just be likely that someone whose never had a job is much more likely to end up in poverty than someone who has had one -- regardless of his or her marital status.
And yes, someone who leaves high school early and doesn't get married probably has a lower likelihood of staying out of poverty -- particularly if she is female and is not given the chance to make the choice the Constitution gives her but is required to bring the fetus to term, and is given all the support the pro-lifers usually give to the 'post-born.'
(They'll gladly punish the couple for having sex by forcing them to get married. And there's an old saying -- that I just made up -- 'When a shotgun starts a wedding, it's fists, boots and blunt instruments that end it."
"If I had fewer scruples, I could make a comfortable living off those folks."
Don't worry Reed an many others are doing so, they don't really want competition....
My mind still cannot get around the fact that the evangelicals will vote for a mormon. I know we aren't supposed to discuss it, but seriously they accused Obama of being muslim but are completely mum on Romney? How does that make any sense?
I love your statement, "I know we aren't supposed to discuss it", and you're right that it doesn't make any sense. The Gawd of Magic Underpants (Mormoonie) is laughing at the Talibangelicals (and their Gawd too) because they're so stupid that they may vote for a talking asshat like Rmoney!
I asked my Mother that question - why she as a conservative Christain is supporting a Mormon. She said she believes God uses people despite their beliefs. Then she quickly changed the subject. Sounded like a sound bite from Faux news. I was already treading on thin ice with her so I didn't push it.
maybe you should find out more about Mormons then it would make sense. The real name of the Mormons is, and has been since it was founded in the 1830, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The name Mormon came from a book that was a compilation of many peoples writing that was put together by a man named Mormon. Mormon claims that these writings are another testament of Jesus Christ. So Mormons use the bible and the book of Mormon to learn about Christ and his ways.
So folks can justify supporting a follower of the the Latter Day Saints, but not the Christian in the White House because they think he's a Muslim? Wow, talk about spinning facts to fit one's political ideology...
And frankly, the true Muslim faith is so much like Christianity, I doubt you could find much difference between the Qu'ran and the Old Testament, if both were printed in English and were not titled. Regardless of that, Obama is not Muslim anyway.
Did you all miss the part of Mormonism that calls gambling sinful and unrighteous? Google Mormon and gambling, and see what it says. "...The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemns gambling, games of chance, and lotteries as moral evils and admonishes its members not to participate in them in any form. Gambling is based on the morally wrong philosophy of getting something for nothing, of taking money without giving fair value in exchange...." From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Where does Sheldon Adelson get his money, again?
Referring back to chemdmd's comment: yes, it is true that the Book of Mormon purports to be a document compiled from divinely-inspired writings in North America in the 5th century AD by a man named Mormon. Is that enough?
I'll give Joseph Smith props for at least claiming that the Book of Mormon was transcribed from something tangible--that is, the gold plates. Contrast this with, say, the Book of Urantia or the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, which purport to have dictated from the spirit world (or something like that).
Every edition of the Book of Mormon includes the "Testimony of the Three Witnesses" and the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses." Of the 11 men who claimed to have seen and touched the plates, five of them were from one family.
Read Mark Twain on the "Testimony of the Three Witnesses": "Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has 'seen the engravings which are upon the plates,' [Twain is having some fun here--you don't place an engraving ON a plate] and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either."
And in regard to the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses": "And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but 'hefted' them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified." (Roughing It, 1872--widely available as a public-domain e-text; I used the Project Gutenberg version.)
One more point. In Roughing It, Mark Twain concluded: "The Mormon Bible is rather stupid and tiresome to read, but there is nothing vicious in its teachings. Its code of morals is unobjectionable- -it is 'smouched' (Milton) from the New Testament and no credit given." (The quote is from Chapter 16, by the way.)
Such an attitude was actually pretty tolerant for the time. I once visited a book collector's fair and popped into a stall of a dealer who was selling lots of 19th century anti-Mormon books. It was amazing to thumb through these books and read page after page about how Mormonism, if left unchecked, would destroy America. The discourse, in fact, was almost identical to that used today by professional Muslim-haters! Objects of hate change, but not the language.
Of course, whether or not the Book of Mormon is true is of no real relevance to the 2012 election. What is of interest is what watergirl pointed out--the "cognitive dissonance" among evangelical Christians who, on the one hand, usually reject Mormonism as a dangerous heresy, and who, on the other hand, embrace the GOP.
Yes, Reed is forgiven now because of Citizen's United? It is no longer scandalous to be fundraising by whipping religious people into donating to keep the gays in the closet and make them "less" desirable and ashamed. While the anti gay sentiment empowers people to taunt and bully.
Well lest we forget, there are churches/synagogues/temples, etc. that fully accept LGBTQ people, so… now they wish to up the ante on that?
Under the cloak of "Christianity", pit this tribe against that tribe for casinos, taking money from each tribe and using it for something else?
Michelle Bachmann has been pretty good with her fundraising and calling the elected officials and half the country socialists with their Anti American activities such as being gay, or some other religion besides hers. Excuse me, we want the government to serve the collective "people", not those you deem sufficiently American or Christian.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00027493&newMem=N&cycle=2012
(check out the first donor is Citizens United and the largest block of people donating are "retired") But the PAC money is nominal, appears to be some fuzzy bookkeeping? I question it.
Darrell Issa, please investigate this! snark
Scads of money, lies and amnesia are the Republican recipe for success at the ballot box. And those things work because Dems are so bad at messaging. Even if Dems cannot agree on issues, the least they could do is agree on the message. Obama and the Dems need to crystallize a simple message for the elections. But that will require the Dems to decide if they want to continue to be real Dems and stand up for the workers, middle and poor classes or keep paying lip service to Dem ideals while they are bought off by big business, the banks and Wall Street.
Mike, I agree that Dems could certainly put a consolidated front forward but I really, really don't agree that the problem lies with a failure of communication. You and I and others who may pay attention to the world around them understand what Democrat values are and/or should be but the American people don't pay enough attention or just simply don't care. Cetainly all of them who get their news from Fox don't care and couldn't be budged by better messaging but it is my opinion that a large majority of the population are too busy worrying about their cell phone or their next date or where do I get the next drink and go to the polls and vote for the last guy they heard talk on TV.
We desperately need a devout, practicing Christian in the White House, because Jesus had so many swell ideas about how a civilized society should operate.
-not my usual snark, but a personal fantasy that I share with many atheists who agree with the teachings of the (possibly real) figure known as Christ.
Thanks to the Mighty Google, I was able to access quite quickly a PowerPoint presentation created by the actual Brookings Institution scholars who wrote the study that Romney (channeling Santorum) is quoting, as well as the transcript of testimony that one of the study's authors gave recently to a Senate committee.
The study does not at all say that you need a "chance to be married" to avoid poverty.
What the study actually says is that if you meet these three benchmarks, you are very unlikely to be poor:
(1) Get a high school diploma.
(2) Get a full-time job.
(3) Wait until you are 21 to get married and have children.
The study affirms the common-sense observation that marriage at a young age is correlated with poverty. Moreover, the study is completely silent (as far as I can see) on the economic status of people who do not have children at all, including people in childless marriages, people who have never been married, or people in same-sex marriages.
Or, for that matter, people who marry turtles. Or people who marry large man-made structures (Google up "Eiffel Tower marriage" or "Erika La Tour Eiffel").
Romney cannot answer any down to the point questions, because he is a person that really doesn’t have that much intelligence and cannot think of any answers and solutions on his own. It is quite evident with the self-deportation concept as a good idea to Romney. And he thinks Russia, as a whole is a threat, which again shows his lack of ability to think. And his comments just keep getting more ridiculous. Romney only uses destructive policies to get what he wants, but any good ideas surely do not come from him, except by someone else. Romney is simply like a puppet or robot trained to what he should say and that is nothing of any value, except to himself and no one else. You might as well throw Romney a ball like a dog that he can play with so he stays out of the way where otherwise he would make a real mess.
Romney questioning what a vending machine is, it just can't get any better than that. After all how long has vending machines been around? Talk about out of touch, where did this Joker Romney come from the caveman days?
Reminded me of when Poppy Bush guessed at the cost of a loaf of bread or gallon of milk costs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17826509
It just shows the "out of touch" side of these folks. Romney is used to being served, not self service. So yes to Romney, "it's amazing".
Deb, I am often amazed at the seeming lack of intelligence of national level Republicans when it comes to so many issues. However I do not believe that this is a sign of their lack of intelligence, I have come to believe that they are practised liars and understand fully the folly of some of their positions and simply do not care.
Romney will do anything, say anything and bend over for anyone who will help him get what he wants. He has no scrupples, morality, or conscience. He simply wants to be President of the United States. Fair enough. The problem is not him. The people who support him are the problem. The kind of people that hate we have a black President so much they are willing to throw endless sums of money at ANY white candidate the GOP mustered up are the problem. The people that hate we have a black President so much they beleive Fox News, Rush or Glen Beck are the problem. Sick.