Posted by 
Thursday we cited The Cullman Times saying that Gov. Bob Riley had “unexpected business” in Washington at “a high level meeting.”
And we noted that Harpers.org reported that a Cullman County GOP source attributed Riley’s absence to the administration being “very concerned about all the questions about the role Karl Rove played in this prosecution.”
The Birmingham News and the Montgomery Advertiser report today that the trip was about economic development. The Advertiser story made the specific point that the trip had nothing to do with fallout from the Siegelman conviction.
“Don’t believe those stupid blogs,” Jeff Emerson, a Riley spokesman, said Friday. “I can’t believe reporters are listening to that stuff. Yeah, he’s in Washington today, but he was not called to Washington. It’s got nothing to do with Don Siegelman.”
Okay.
I can’t make the case that the Governor’s office is being anything but straightforward on this. I do believe Harper’s Monthly and harpers.org to be of sufficient reputation that, assuming the Governor’s office is correct, I will also assume that Harper’s reported what they heard, but that what they heard was not right. I wish I had time in the next few days to ask around if that indeed was a rumor in Cullman County circles. Perhaps a commenter will know more.
I’m always glad to know that anybody is reading any of this, and despite readers who would strenuously object to this point, we do want to be responsible here. So I am glad to give the account of the trip from the Governor’s office.
I am intrigued that it was Wednesday before the Governor’s office could let the Cullman County folks know he could not come Friday because of a high level economic development meeting in Washington.
This is as good a point as any for a bit of clarification. I never believed (or said) that the quote attributed to the Cullman County GOP source was evidence of Rove’s participation in a conspiracy. The source was reported to have said that Washington folks were “very concerned about all the questions about the role Karl Rove played in this prosecution.” Concern about the questions is, in my book, not acknowledgement that Rove did play a role.
I thought this was quite clear, but I spent a fair amount of time clarifying this with folks in email and to some degree in the comments to people who believed that I was asserting with that post that there was a conspiracy.
Thanks to Flashpoint’s post for bringing the Advertiser article to my attention which I also should have seen in our Daily News Digest.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
[...] I thank Doc for his clarification. It might be better to be clearer about what you’re implying in the future though. Harper’s is certainly a reliable source, but they have gone a little overboard with the Siegelman situation and are stepping beyond the bounds of sound journalism in some instances. Posted Alabama Politics, Blogging on Sunday, July 1st, 2007. [...]
Apparently, Harper’s isn’t a very reliable source.
I’ve got family in Cullman (most of whom are GOP) and they say they were told Riley’s trip to Washington was related to the Siegelman conviction.
SanfordDem: yeah right.
The Real Tim doesn’t believe in conspiracies.
Except the one about Harper’s and some commenter here conspiring to make up a story that no one would have any reason to make up.
That he can believe.
ROFLMAO
No reason to make it up? I can think of two current inmates in Atlanta who have a reason.
Why would they make it up? Riley going to Washington to discuss potential political fallout is not evidence of a conspiracy; it’s smart politics. All this hand-wringing and pearl-clutching are starting to get amusing. These people are politicians. Why should we be surprised if they’re trying to control the spin on this story?
The nasty tone of the Riley staff’s rebuttal smacks of protesting too much. It would be nice if they’d just say yep, that’s what we’re doing — so what? — but I’m not holding my breath.