Saturday, February 02, 2008
Three ways of looking at McCain
"Look, ask Jack Abramoff, who's in prison today — a guy who was a corrupt lobbyist — and his friends if I haven't cut spending," McCain said
By the time McCain took control of the investigation started by Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who retired from the Senate in 2005, investigators knew that Ralph Reed had taken large amounts of Indian casino money in more than one state. What Reed and Abramoff did to one small tribe in Texas justified bringing Reed before the committee and putting him under oath, as was done with Abramoff. Perhaps Reed was never called because he was too powerful to confront, or because he was still considered a prospect for elected office. But he got a walk, and the Tigua tribe in El Paso never got a full accounting of what Reed and Abramoff had done to them.
While John McCain is running for president on his success in pursuing Jack Abramoff, some reporter will inevitably ask him why he failed to pursue big funders who were considered too powerful to challenge.
Don't expect to hear Ralph Reed raise that question as a news analyst for "the most trusted name in news."
The Washington Spectator
The political slant of the Spectator is pretty obvious, but when I came across the quoted article, I decided to do a little googling. It seems to me that three possible conclusions can be drawn:
Pro-McCain -- He went after the truth and let the chips fall.
Anti-McCain, right wing version -- He grandstanded at the expense of his own party and/or was the tool of his liberal buddies.
Anti-McCain, left wing version -- some Republicans blamed the messenger at the time, but the cat was out of the bag and McCain actually engaged in damage control while grandstanding for a presidential run.
Draw your own conclusion. For your convenience, two links that are sympathetic to McCain. Two links that aren't.