21 comments

  1. Silence says:

    Could this be seen by the Christian, conservative wing of the base as “taking one for the team,” “martyrdom,” or being a “sacrificial lamb?”

    It’s too early to call, but it seems to me that this has as much potential to help Ralph as it does to hurt him.

  2. gulliver says:

    I do not think trespassing in an abortion clinic qualifies Reed for “martydrom” especially since he signed papers promising never to come back if they did not prosecute. “Martyrdom” actually involves sacrifice, not cutting a deal to avoid consequences.

  3. albert says:

    Well, it is certainly good reading but like anything else you take it with a grain of salt.

    It seems to me that there are some, in no way connected to the Cagle campaign, that would love to allow everyone to believe Ralph is the “Beast”. If you recall, they were aggressively trying to destroy him when he was running for chairman. Frankly, the massive amounts of mail from the Schafer(sp?) camp was repulsive, and I like David.

    What I continue to see is the Reed folks blaming the Cagle crowd for every bit of smut published. That is as equally disturbing to me as whoever is thrashing Reed.

    The search and destroy missions have got to stop before we reach our pinnacle and go back into obscurity.

    There are distinctive differences in policy and personality. i say just effectively market yourself and let the voters do the rest.

  4. Bill Simon says:

    By that line of thinking, Albert, if a member of the Gotti Family was running for office, you would frown upon any exposure of the history of John Gotti.

    And, if Bill Clinton was running again, you would also frown upon anyone exposing his history of deceptive things, too, right?

  5. albert says:

    Bill, I read most everything on the net with a high amount of respect. The wikipedia entry was obviously written with an anti-Reed bias. And that’s their right to do so, as long as its not mere slander. I have no problem with pointing out the hypocracy or the illegailities of anyones past or present activities.

    When you read through some of these posts, anything negative about Reed is coming directly from the Cagle folks. That assessment is wrong. I know that for a fact. Yet most everyone I know in the Reed organization has this passionate belief that it is directly tied to Cagle. I am simply pointing out that there is an agenda of a good number of people to destroy Ralph. Not just see him lose, but destroy him. To me that is as sinister as some of the alleged wrongdoings.

    I guess what I am saying is, I would certainly like to see more civility. That doesn’t mean that the truth should not be told.

  6. albert says:

    ooops what a big error Bill, I read most everything on the net with a high amount of respect. I meant with a high amount of suspicion. I’m a lousy multi tasker.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    And, a follow-up to that, Albert is this: Do you put more stock in what a campaign sends-out via direct-mail that comes to your house than what you read on the ‘Net?

  8. albert says:

    “”””So, again, Albert, you presume that ANYTHING negative written about Ralph means it is untrue?”””

    Not hardly Bill. I do know that information can and does get manipulated to make the writers point. I recall some of the stuff that was on the PV last summer comparing Herman Cain to Hillary Clinton. The fact was, the article took bits of truth and mingled it with fantasy. If the writer, which I assume was you, took the time to talk with Cain in detail you clearly would have seen that there was not the hypocracy you tried to portray. The same was true with the hit piece that the Isakson campaign sent out the weekend before the election.

    Nothing gets my ire more than for some blowhard trying to manipulate true facts. As far as Ralph’s issues are concerned,,, the truth will come to bear. If the man laundered money and was involved in some sort or illegitimate scheme then tar and feather the man and send him packing. I really don’t care.

  9. Bill Simon says:

    Candidates who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks at other candidates. Herman Cain had been throwing rocks at Johnny for several months and Johnny’s camp remained cool…up until that point. So, Cain deserved everything he got.

  10. albert says:

    revisionist history, situational ethics, the ends justify the means, etc etc. The fact is, they were distortions of the truth from the campaign and your website. In other words lies. So, how many lies does one have to say to become a liar?

  11. Rebel says:

    That’s a good point about not believing everything you read. For example, the wikipedia info can be changed by anyone with a computer. But there’s a record.

    From Dec 04 to May 05 (6 months) only 29 changes were made to the Reed entry. From May 05 to July 05 (2 months) 16 were made. From August 4 to August 17 (14 days) 109 changes were made. Why the sudden interest? (tongue firmly planted in cheek)

    All 109 changes were made by 16 different posters. 8 of the 16 choose to remain anynomous. The 8 anynomous posters provided over 50% of the posts…and one poster (IP address64.12.116.6) provided 22 changes.

    Now, could any campaigns or liberal dem groups or whomever be trying to present their version of truth about Ralph?!?

  12. kspencer says:

    22 changes from an AOL account – an anonymous AOL account. Wonderful.

    The lack of accountability for changes is the biggest reason for the way I use Wiki. Start point for relevant search terms and general outline, low trust for details that carry bias values, near certainty that there are significant elements unrecorded or erased.

  13. Doc says:

    I am not sure how much of the article is true, but there is a citation for almost every statement. What parts of the article are in dispute?

    I appreciate Ralph’s work. I just wonder if Ralph is more valuable to us as an operative and strategist than as an elected official.

    Mike Beatty was an excellent candidate. Part of me wishes that he had run again, but we can only choose from among those who have the desire and courage to run.

  14. Rebel says:

    Doc – there are two issues here. One is how you “frame” something defines it. For example, President Bush is currently on a vacation in Crawford and the fact that it is a month long vacation is reported constantly. However, we don’t hear that the congressional recess is 4 days longer than his vacation. And he is still working, having meetings, attending events, etc.

    Another example from Crawford. The cry in the liberal media is, Why won’t the President meet with the Cindy Sheehan (the mother who lost her son)? He already has, but you don’t hear that reported.

    If you don’t know someone has a bias and don’t have other methods of information without that bias, what you hear (while biased) becomes you’re impression of truth.

    The second issue is the sudden interest in “updating” the Reed record by unknown people. Over 100 in a 2 week period when we went 6 months with only a small number. Common sense would indicate that the “updaters” have somewhat of an axe to grind.

    I could quote various liberal sources and “prove” that George Bush conspired to steal the 2000 election. I could find authors and those that will give interviews and show the swift boat vet thing was a fraud. Wait a minute – CBS and Danny Boy got caught doing just that didn’t they?!?

Comments are closed.