Home » Board of Aldermen »Featured »Media »Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

Sunday Poll: Do You Accept Lewis Reed’s Apology (UPDATED)

February 14, 2016 Board of Aldermen, Featured, Media, Politics/Policy 11 Comments
Please vote below
Please vote below


This poll was manipulated by mass voting.

Last week a radio interview from January 11th began spreading like crazy on social media and the news:

For anyone who’s ever listened to Bob Romanik’s On the Dark Side radio talk show on 1190 AM, it should come as no surprise that a recent episode is drawing controversy. After all, the ex-strip club owner/police chief and convicted felon is always coming after his political and personal enemies with a mixture of wild insults and abhorrent threats, all book-ended by the show’s trademark rainstorm sound effects as though forecasting the flood of complaints that’s to come.

So it’s not exactly news that Romanik tried to discredit 15th ward alderwoman Megan Green last month by calling her a “good-for-nothing, skanky bitch” who, in his words, deserves to be literally flushed down the toilet and sexually violated by a storybook character. For veterans of Romanik’s radio wars, it’s more of the same. (St. Louis Magazine)

Romanik’s guest was Lewis Reed, President of the Board of Aldermen.

Short version: 2:50 minutes:

Long version: 12:34 minutes:

After this became controversial Reed apologized in a series of tweets:

Click image to view the top tweet on Twitter
Click image to view the top tweet on Twitter

Today’s poll question:

[results deleted]

This poll will be open for 12 hours, will close at 8pm.

— Steve Patterson


Currently there are "11 comments" on this Article:

  1. guest says:

    Typical political b.s. Politician steps in it. After the fact tries to deflect criticism, soft apology, walk back. Goes on and on with lame excuses. In the face of obvious inconsistency. Fighting for political life. Feckless aldermen (besides Sharon Tyus) realize their whole operation is an often times farce, realize they don’t need this kind of attention. All want it to go away. Hangers on support the violator because of political ties. It’s all a big joke. Shame on St. Louis, Lewis Reed, for such boorish behavior. Feel sorry for the good aldermen; believe it or not there are some good ones. Par for the course for the lousy aldermen; there are some of them, too. Fact is though, the bad apples spoil the whole cart.

  2. Mark-AL says:

    This little episode suggests that L. Reed lacks courage, certitude and leadership skills; otherwise, he would have immediately ended the interview. He is no novice to politics–or to life in general, so he knew that the comments being said were unfair and insulting. The bombshell revelation didn’t come to him AFTER the show. It “came to him” as things were unfolding. He’s not the person to one day rescue STL from itself. Instead, STL needs to rescue itself from politicians like L. Reed.

    • guest says:

      Well, you see L Reed is also a friend of this Romanik character. Romanik donated $40,000 to Reed’s mayoral campaign, and then now Reed goes on Romanik’s radio show to denigrate Ald. Green. We have a problem in politics, especially in this old world culture of St. Louis. Political loyalty trumps decency. Reed’s first loyalty is to his friend, Romanik.

      • Mark-AL says:

        And so, now we know that L. Reed can be bought…and that he is quite willing to perform like a monkey on the chain of an organ grinder. That ought to be enough to get him elected to Room 200, if and when Slay ever decides to end his gig.

  3. George says:

    Lewis Reed is my Brother In Law and this whole thing sickens me. There is no one in this community more supportive of the people within it! This attack is shameful, and perhaps defines why we are challenged to move forward!!! All of you taking the opportunity to attack Lewis should vote for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

    • guest says:

      George, you heard the interview. We all did. Simple questions: Why didn’t Lewis walk out? Why did he sit there and let it continue? Everyone knows Romanik’s schtick – he’s a low life. So why did Lewis even go on his show? Lay down with fleas, catch fleas. Don’t worry, no matter. Lewis will survive this. Even Wendi Wiese defended him. Meanwhile, Megan will continue to be derided. By Lewis and purveyors of the status quo. A status quo that has gotten this city nowhere.

    • Mark-AL says:

      The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off. You’ll get over it. Certainly, STL learned from Romanik’s interview that your brother-in-law doesn’t have the stones to assume the mayoral throne. Either he was too dull to think on his feet, or he is now “stretching the truth” and he actually did agree with Romanik. Can’t have it both ways! It’s gotta be one or the other: L. Reed’s either stupid, or he’s a vindictive prevaricator. Whichever it is, doesn’t really matter, does it? There’s no room in Room 200 for stupidity or vindictiveness. But there does seem to be plenty of room in Room 200 for liars. So maybe he’s still got a chance.

  4. guest says:

    The poll was “manipulated”? By “mass voting”? What does that mean? The Lewis Reed spin machine was on high alert? They came in and voted en masse to vindicate Reed? Where’s the Megan Green spin machine? Well, at least you know, Steve: you’re still getting to them!

  5. gmichaud says:

    I’m sure everyone posting here as at one time or another wish they spoke up or responded to others comments differently. Being on air makes a snappy comeback probably that much harder.
    That being said the 40 grand is part of the problem, he could as easily held back from criticism because of his “donation”. Money has to be gotten out of politics one way or the other.
    I actually had hopes Mr. Reed might improve governance, but I become less and less sure. It should be obvious that after 5 decades of failed urban policies that something needs to change in St. Louis.
    Urban Review (as well as some other sites) have had countless discussions about improving the urban environment At best you get a few hot words like sustainability but no action from city government. For example transit, there is every reason to be talking new transit initiatives if for no other reason its focus will help shape the Paul McKee Northside project , instead there is nothing.
    This same leadership failure happens on projects large and small and not just transit and urban design. This negligence by city government, as with the Paul McKee example, seriously impacts economic development and the success of the city.

    The biggest thing I don’t like about these shock jocks is that their foul mouths distract from real issues. It is the cartoon playing all over America with the pundits helping set up fake fights for ratings, I’m sure that is tied into this incident somehow and why the Neanderthal Romanik said what he did.

    • Mark-AL says:

      I think a snappy comment would have been inappropriate. A straightforward comment, advising Romanik that he needed immediately to change the topic, would have been the only appropriate response, notwithstanding any personal relationship that may exist between the two. As a City official who bills himself as a potential mayoral candidate, by now L. Reed should have developed the skills necessary to turn around a conversation that he feels uncomfortable with. But I suspect L. Reed didn’t feel uncomfortable with the comments that Romanik was making. He sat there, spineless, and seemingly enjoying the disparaging comments. Chuckling, no less! An adult with mayoral aspirations doesn’t giggle when he’s nervous! Little girls giggle when they’re nervous or uncomfortable, for god’s sake! But tomorrow afternoon, this storm will have already blown over, totally forgotten.

      • gmichaud says:

        When I said snappy I meant quick, it was probably the wrong word, yes his rebuttal should have been straightforward. Like I said it is if he was blindsided and stunned by the comment then I could understand a quick rebuttal might be difficult even for an experienced politician, especially on the air.
        But I also pointed out that the donation may have caused him to keep his mouth shut, who knows for sure.
        You’re right by tomorrow the storm may have blown over. then we can focus on whether he is qualified by policies he proposes.


Comment on this Article: