Riley’s GA Bellwether?
Today’s Washington Post hit on what I was addressing earlier in the week about the concern that Riley supporters might have if Ralph Reed lost (as he did) in Georgia Tuesday (italics added):
Reed, a former top campaign official for President Bush and executive director of the Christian Coalition, lost the Republican primary for lieutenant governor after getting pounded by his opponent for his close and profitable relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the central figure in an unfolding money-for-favors scandal. Reed was the first electoral victim of political corruption probes — but officials in both parties said he probably won’t be the last.
Let me state the obvious. There are a lot of differences between Riley and Reed.
However, if Reed lost because of his “close and profitable relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff,” then Riley may be concerned about his close and profitable relationship with convicted lobbyist Michael Scanlon (associate of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff) and how that will play with Alabama voters.
Related to this, he still has the unanswered question hanging over him of how much gambling money he received from another alleged “close and profitable relationship” for the purpose of protecting existing gambling interests.
You’re obsessed with this. Riley said it didn’t happen. The Choctaws say it didn’t happen. So what’s the “unanswered question hanging over him”?? Meanwhile, our unemployment rate remains historically low and the economy in AL is booming.
Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
One post and another small postscript represent obsession? :) Then by comparison I must be absolutely rabid about matters related to legislative races, control of the state senate, campaign finance disclosure reform, AEA, ALFA, tax fairness, and a host of other topics that have gotten far more attention here than this.
With all that rabid fanaticism on other topics, I hardly have time for mere obsession on this one. :)
However, since we are on the subject of Riley taking money from the Choctaws, and since you say that “Riley said it didn’t happen,” would you please show me some source where Riley said he didn’t take any money from the Choctaws? I would be glad to see it. Thanks.
(We all know that he said he didn’t take exactly $13 million, but as we already discussed, that is not the issue here.)
Comment by Danny — July 22, 2006 @ 1:14 am
Your post denying you’re obsessed just points out how deep your obsession has gotten. BTW, here’s the latest denial, from the Anniston Star:
Riley said through a spokesman Friday that he had “absolutely not” accepted any Choctaw money.
Satisfied? Of course you’re not because you’re a liberal blogger supporting liberal Lucy and it doesn’t matter what’s said.
Comment by Anonymous — July 23, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Yes, like you, I was pleased to see in today’s Anniston Star that Riley’s spokesman denied that Riley had taken any Choctaw money. We have the story here on the blog. (Perhaps here is where you read it.)
When I asked if Riley had denied taking any Choctaw money, you said he already had. I believe you are mistaken about that, and since you said so forcefully that I was wrong about that, I invite you to show me my mistake. Please show me where he had already denied that before I asked the question.
You seem to think there is something mean-spirited toward Riley in asking the simple question of why they denied receiving a specific amount but did not deny receiving any money. If you could show me that my question was unreasonable because he had already denied it at the time I asked my question, I would appreciate it.
Please note that I am in favor of fairness, justice, and good government. Riley is a good man who has been a better governor than many we have had. I have rarely posted about the two of them together, but when I have I suspect you would find that previous posts have supported Riley over Baxley more than vice versa, for example regarding Baxley’s campaign accusations or regarding policy positions.
Your saying that I support Baxley over Riley doesn’t make it true any more than it does when you say that Riley had already denied taking any Choctaw money when I made my post. I had not seen any such denial, and since you are so adamant that it was already made, I would like for you to show me where I should have found it.
Comment by Danny — July 23, 2006 @ 3:50 pm