1. Bill Simon says:

    I certainly hope those e-mails the WP refers to become public…the ones that show Ralphie Poo and that other “I’ll-take-money-to-prostitute-my-Christianity” scumbag, Louis Sheldon knowing full well what they were doing AND who they were working for (i.e., eLottery, Inc.)

  2. Bill he obviously was just trying to make sure that there wasn’t any competition for his/our beloved Georgia lottery.

    Plus, I question the liberal MSM source — how can we be sure when they print an email they hav obtained that the people involved REALLY wrote it?

  3. Okay, let’s see… there are emails verifying that Ralph not only knew the source of the money, but the subject header even said internet g*******. In the email, Reed verified that the efforts to target the House Members was underway.

    And yet, you mean to tell me with all that proof, some people still don’t think Ralph Reed was involved? Come on, this is bordering on stupidity from some quarters.

    Mark my words, you can kiss the Georgia Republican Party goodbye if Ralph Reed is on the ticket.

  4. Bill Simon says:

    Because IF the news source, whether it be left- or right-, were to make-up something that is material to their story, I’m pretty sure they could then be sued and have to pay out beaucoup bucks for their fabrication. The AJC was sued by Richard Jewell and had to settle out of court for their stories accusing him of being the Olympic Park bomber.

    Same thing applies to the Washington Post. If they fabricate the e-mails, then I’m SURE Ralphie Poo would take legal action to sue them to clear his name. And, he has the legal muscle to do it…if he had a case.

    By virtue of the fact that Ralphie Poo has YET to sue either the AJC or the WP or any other media outlets that has printed stories of him, I think we can pretty much presume the stories that Jim Galloway researches and writes, and this Washington Post story, are factual.

  5. UGA Wins 2005 says:

    Irs Monday morning and more bad news for Ralph. The beat goes on, and on, and on. Casey will make a great LT Gov, but he might need to take a shower after being in the same room with Ralph at functions along the way.

  6. Booray says:

    Why can’t I post what I want to about Reed? Every time I do it gives me some “false” warning?

    If Abramoff hacking this site from the pokey?

  7. Booray says:

    To the techno types here:

    What the heck does this mean?

    Precondition Failed
    The precondition on the request for the URL /pp-talk.php evaluated to false.

    I get this every time I try to opine on Reed…

  8. Romegaguy says:

    You see Ralph has the direct phone number of God in his Rolodex and when it was reported to Ralph that some of us take Ralph’s name in vain in here, Ralph called God up and told him to not let you post in here. Too bad he forgot to ask God to not let the AJC or WP publish such falsehoods about him…

    I think the cold medicine is making me loopy.

  9. kspencer says:


    I don’t know what Technorati uses for a blog engine so I can’t specifically identify the problem, but using some of the engines with which I’m familiar I can make a guess.

    In overview, something about your post has triggered the engine to say “don’t process this.” Keywords can often be used, and they can sometimes be combined in boolean fashion (depending on engine). This means it’s possible that there is indeed a setting that says, “IF the message includes ‘Ralph Reed’ AND it’s from Booray, REJECT IT.” Note I said possible – it’s unlikely unless you’ve managed to tee off the Technorati staff OR our host sufficiently to get special attention.

    More likely – and the most frequent occurrence of this problem – is that you’ve triggered an agressive anti-spam filter. And the most frequent cause of that is too many web-links within your post. (I like to reference my points so I’ve learned that one too frequently, darnit.) Other anti-spams are messages in which character count of links within the message is a large proportion of the total character count, and messages that have linkbacks to certain black-hole URLs.

    I’m not saying that’s the cause, I’m saying it’s the first thing I’d check. If you’re not using links and it’s blocking – and assuming nobody else jumps in to work on it – let me know and I’ll send you my email and see if I can figure out what’s happening. Unless our host goes, “Here’s why” and takes care of it, of course.


  10. Booray says:

    I hope I haven’t been blacklisted. The only guy on here I am really gotten fired up at is Bobby Kahn. If he can blacklist folks on the Pundit, then I don’t need to come back anyway… 🙂

  11. Bull Moose says:

    I reread the article again, Ralph is just part of the problem. I think it’s the culture of Washington — power seems to corrupt and we’re left with few options.

    With partisan drawn districts, there aren’t many competitive districts.

    This whole situation just sickens me and think, this is what we know about. Imagine all the scandals we don’t know about!

    I think 2006 is the year to vote them all out of office!

  12. kspencer says:

    I can’t think of an incumbent I consider so critical – on any side of the issue – that recalling them would be a bad idea in and of itself.

    But there’s a problem – a big problem – that this creates. FWIW, it’s the flaw in term limits, especially for representatives, especially at the federal level.

    In simple, the job’s complex. It takes at least a term to just figure out the basics.

    If you toss them all out – good or bad – then the new ones are ALL trying to figure out what’s what and who’s who, all at the same time. Which means the real power lies in two places. Long-term staffers, and lobbyists.

    Now as I’ve said elsewhere (and I think here) I’m actually in favor of bureaucracy. I LIKE gridlock and resistance to change in government. While it means some things I think good take a lot of effort to get done, it’s balanced by it not being easy for those I consider idiots or to have offensive laws and rules to get THEIR agenda accomplished as well. Ideally this is true even when there’s a slight majority in all branches. It’s why I like the filibuster. Yes, I was glad to see the ability of senators to singlehandedly block appointments (a method abused by the minority party of a decade ago) get tossed, but mostly because there was no way for a strong coalition to overwhelm it – a single stubborn individual could stop it all. A filibuster can be defeated. And if the minority (not the individual) feels THAT strongly about something it’s worth requiring the extra effort.

    Yes, I did and will feel the same way when the Dems are in power – an inevitable event eventually.

    For this reason I like bureacracy. But the idea of moving the whole of the power into their hands is abhorrent. It is only slightly less so than putting it in the hands of the lobbyists – letting the fox right the rules for access to the henhouse just seems wrong somehow.

    No, I’m not so fond of tossing them all just because they’re there. I’d like a lot more accountability. I’d like to remove a lot of the “incumbent benefits” that make it so expensive and difficult to mount a campaign against an incumbent. But just tossing them all because they’re there is, to me, another example of a cliche:

    To every human problem there is a solution that is obvious, easy, and wrong.


  13. Bull Moose says:

    Do you want me to make a list of the House Members who have no opponent and thus would be back in office? There still would be continuity in seniority.

    But it’s really time to clean house. Enough is enough.

    I’m not suggesting turning power over to the Democrats — don’t misread this. We can and must do better than the current situation though.

    And how many people have been in meetings where there Member of Congress made light of the whole situation? Yeah, that’s making sense… NOT!

Comments are closed.