Friday Bits
Never enough time to write about everything interesting. Let’s clear a few items out of the folder.
I am intrigued by the number of people who say that Trip Pittman didn’t overcome Bob Riley’s endorsement of opponent Randy McKinney in the SD 32 GOP primary as much as he was aided by it. For example, columnist Steve Flowers this week: “Riley’s endorsement created a backlash and elected Pittman.” Can someone help me think of a candidate who was elected with Riley’s support that would have otherwise lost? Not Luther Strange, Drayton Nabers, Randy McKinney… SD 17 incumbent Jack Biddle was more of a Riley man than his opponent Scott Beason but lost. I am sure someone is out there, but I have a Friday afternoon brain.- The Nation, “America’s oldest weekly magazine, the flagship of the left,” has a web-only piece this week, “A Whistleblower’s Tale” on Jill Simpson, Don Siegelman, et al, from Alabama’s Glynn Wilson (he of the on-line Locust Fork Journal).
- Fact I’ve run across again today: Alabama is the only state east of Colorado that does not fund public transportation. Zero dollars. Alabama and three other states. (Source: Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation 2005, Department of Transportation - pdf file).
Glynn has many, many facts wrong in his story. Among them is his claim that Pryor was never confirmed to the Federal bench.
“When Pryor’s initial corruption investigation of Siegelman failed to uncover enough evidence to bring state charges–and after George W. Bush won the White House–he began to communicate with federal investigators. (In 2004 Bush granted Pryor an interim appointment to a federal judgeship on the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a position he holds today without Senate confirmation.)”
Yet here is the Senate record of Pryor’s confirmation vote on June 9, 2005. He was confirmed 53-45.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00133
Had Pryor not been confirmed, his initial interim appointment would have expired at the conclusion of that session of Congress.
I noted this in the comments section on the Locust Fork Journal and Glynn promptly removed my comments.
Comment by Susan — October 26, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Dan -I briefly looked over Glynn Wilson’s piece. It is not journalism. No responsible publication would allow some of the flights of partisan overeaching, and I am speaking as someone who believes there was a partisan element to Siegelman’s prosecution. But when Wilson -apparently with a straight face - attempts to make dana Jill Simpson a major player in Riley campaign (he implies that Rob Riley and Simpson were essentially the forces that started the canpaign - oh my word!)then someone has to call shenanigans.
Comment by Glynn has lost it — October 26, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
You don’t know what you’re talking about when you say Biddle was more a Riley supporter than Beason. Biddle toed the AEA line in every meaningful vote.
Comment by Anonymous — October 26, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Also, Riley didn’t endorse Biddle, so why is he even being mentioned?
Comment by Anonymous — October 26, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Look, Glyn Wilson writes about how George Bush was responsible for 9-11. He is a complete nut. He claims to have been a
reporter for the NY Times and other papers. My guess is they fired him for lying too much - even for the NY Times, lying
can be a problem.
Comment by WilsonIsNuts — October 26, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Wants more important funding state prisons, state match for SCHIP or replica trolley cars for city folks?
Comment by walt moffett — October 26, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Glynn’s piece has a few mistakes (such as the Pryor vote as you pointed out) . . . but overall, he is pretty much right on track. Rob Riley has been lying through his teeth to try to get out of this . . . and the press has largely given him a pass. Consider the fact that everyone on the conference call Simpson keeps referring to says they “can’t recall” being on such a call. Give me a break. If she was lying about the call, I think they would be saying they were not on it. Period. Not that they could not recall it. She’s got the phone records. But they are just trying to muddy the facts. Glynn’s piece is a step in the right direction of holding people accountable. It is not a one way street. Yes, there was some corruption on Siegelman’s watch. And those people should, and for the most people are, being held responsible. Siegelman was not the corrupt one, however, and his prosecution was clearly driven by partisan politics. I also don’t believe Bob Riley is corrupt. I think he is generally a good man. But his son, and others he has surrounded himself with, should be held repsonsible for their actions. This should start with Bill Canary and Rob Riley. This affidavit they’ve submitted is a joke.
Comment by ptclearer — October 26, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Really…point out one problem with Riley’s affidavit.
Comment by WilsonIsNuts — October 26, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
“I have no memory of being on a phone call” — give me a break. That is such a lawyer’s answer . . . it’s not a denial.
“I do not believe a phone call occurred” . . . this is more of the same. He can’t even say no phone call occurred, because he knows that it did.
But more importantly . . . it’s about what he directly denies (or fails to). He never directly denied the fact that Canary said his “girls” would take care of it. He mentions it in the third paragraph as one of the things that Ms. Simpson says happened on the call that he does not “believe” occurred . . . but then he does not go on to directcly deny it like he does other accusations. Rather than deny the fact that Canary said this, he talks about how he did not personally lobby Rove or get involved in the prosecution. Well, that’s probably because he didn’t. But that doesn’t mean that the call did not take place, and that Canary had not spoken to Rove.
If Rob Riley was telling the truth, he would come out and say this call never happened, Bill Canary never said his girls would take care of this, and there is no truth to the whole story whatsoever.
Rather, Riley is cherry picking the information, making strong denials to some things, while making vague “i don’t recall” statments about other things. Rob Riley might be a smart lawyer, but it does not take a genius to see that the call occurred, and that Canary said his girls would take care of Siegelman on the call, and that Rove was mentioned.
Rob Riley’s statement is a joke.
Comment by ptclearer — October 26, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Sorry…you didn’t punch any holes in the affidavit. You gave it a sad analysis, but proved nothing wrong. You make weak
arguments here on this blog quite often.
Comment by TryAgain — October 26, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
Anon in 3 & 4, the recollection here is that Beason was not close to Riley, and his campaign set himself apart from and against Riley (for example calling Riley “a country club Republican”). I’d be hard-pressed to agree that Beason was anywhere near as close to Riley as Biddle who had been endorsed by the BCA. Distancing himself from Riley apparently worked for Beason as he ousted the incumbent.
If you want to argue that it doesn’t rise to the level of the other examples in the post, that’s fine. I was doing some Friday afternoon thinking-aloud. Removing Beason/Biddle from the list doesn’t really change the point of the bullet or the query.
Comment by Danny — October 26, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Walt in comment 6, that’s a hard question, the kind you face more often when your state’s per capita tax revenue is the lowest in the nation. But public transportation is often misunderstood as only an urban issue, when that is not the case. And public transportation involves helping provide access to jobs, access to education. Access to health care. It’s an environmental issue. It’s one of the issues where I hope we aspire to do better.
Comment by Danny — October 26, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Regarding comment #10, is that the best you can do? You don’t even stand up for your man Rob Riley’s soft denials? Why don’t you tell him to be up front and honest and tell us what happened rather than saying he can’t “recall” or can’t “remember” or that he “believes” it did not happen. Rob Riley got a headline out of his statement, but he only raised more questions. He used it to convince us that he is not powerful enough to orchestrate a prosecution or tell the DOJ what to do. Well, we were already well aware of that, Rob. Thanks for reminding us you aren’t Karl Rove. Does that change anything? Does that mean Siegelman’s prosecution was suddenly based on something other than politics? Give me a break. Bill Canary, his wife, Karl Rove, and a group of investigators working for Bill Pryor made Siegelman’s prosecution political from Day 1. Rob Riley’s role could very well be limited to being on the phone when some of this stuff was discussed. We don’t think you are the mastermind Rob . . . but don’t play the public for idiots. Don’t give us half denials about being on the phone. We know you were on the phone call when Canary said Rove and his girls were taking care of Siegelman. The call is in the phone records. You won’t even deny the call (but rather vaguely say you are not sure that it happened). Rob Riley should come clean. We don’t think you are Karl Rove. But your half lies make you look like you’ve got something to hide.
Comment by ptclearer — October 26, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
Glynn Wilson is not only NOT nuts, his analysis is right on. And his experience is documented all over the Web, including his full cirriculum vita published on his site. Quibble if you will with whether Pryor was, finally, confirmed in a pro forma vote under pressure from Bush in a weak moment for Congress under pressure to “give Bush an up or down vote.” He was appointed without a hearing when Congress was in recess, what is called an “interim appointment,” because if Congress had been in session at that time, there would have been enough opposition at a hearing to kill his nomination.
In any event, he is just another fake conservative Christian Republican who should never have been appointed, and he only was given the plumb seat because he was a loyal Bushie.
Calling people names because you don’t understand how government works contributes nothing to journalism or public understanding of the issue. You only demonstrate your ignorance and partisanship.
Comment by Scotty — October 26, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
This Siegelman thing is much ado about nothing. From what I know and have heard about him he’s right where he belongs. His friends though should be applauded for
standing up for him. Also did you notice that the Democrats in Congress are beginning to question the convictions of democrats in the neighboring states? This is where the Democrats are really going to go overboard. Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson said this week that he
believes the former Georgia Senate Majority Leader Charles Walker was framed by the Bush Justice Department. Im up here on the Alabama/Tennessee stateline and I cant wait to hear the excuses Congressional Democrats are going to make for those 15 democrat legislators and lobbyists the FBI caught on videotape taking bribes in Nashville back in 2005.
Comment by dan t — October 27, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Hey PtClearer, If you read Simpson’s statements, she does exactly the same thing Rob Riley did. She starts most of her statements with phrases like “I understood” etc.
Comment by Margaret — October 27, 2007 @ 10:14 am
here are more than a few “mistakes” in Wilson’s article. There are lots and lots of “mistakes” and there are some laughable statements that anyone failiar with Alabama politics will spot immediately.
No publication in this state would have printed this article. As an example (one of very very many in this piece) No journalist in this state would have allowed statements implying that Dana Jill Simpson was a major force in creating Bib Riley’s 2002 run for governor - a statement presented by Wilson as FACT - to ever see the light of day.
The article is ludicrous, and I am NOT saying that the possibility of a political prosecution of Siegelman is ludicrous - I am not sure at all that Siegelman was not singled out. However, this article is just an increddibly bad piece of pseudojournalism. The Nation (the magazine) should be ashamed.
Comment by Glyn Has Lost It — October 27, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Danny, you forgot to point out that Glynn is the most credentialed asshole in the state. Pardon my French.
Comment by Brian — October 28, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Glyn is the most credentialed? “Quibble” with a small fact like confirmation vs. Wilson’s statement that he is there without? Just offer a bit of
credibility with your silly statements PLEASE. Glyn Wilson is a joke. He is humourous, yes. He has zero crediblity and if he has credentials
to do anything other than blog on his silly site, I would be shocked. If Glyn Wilson tried to be a real reporter, he would be on the job about 2
days before he was fired for lying.
Comment by TryAgain — October 28, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Sarcasm: A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
Simmer down Mr. TryAgain. I assure you that I am under no illusion whatsoever that Glynn Wilson is anything other than a bitter, partisan hack. I’m only mocking Wilson, who once professed to have “more journalism credentials than anyone working in this state.”
Comment by Brian — October 28, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
My apologies…sincerely.
Comment by TryAgain — October 28, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Dan, the thing that strikes me is that that ridiculous overreaching by Glyn Wilson (some of the stuff he presents as fact is so laughable to in-state observers as to induce poop-in-your-pants laughter) and murky motives and murkier “evidence” (11 minute conference calls? get real!) presented by Ms. Simpson may very well in the long term hurt Don Siegelman a LOT more than they might help him - and I will point out once again that I am someone who thinks this prosecution may very well have been political.
Comment by Glyn Has Lost It — October 29, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Perhaps Glynn made a few mistakes, but the overall outline seems credible. Perhaps a real miscarriage of justice has occurred here and an innocent man is the victim of a political hit job…the likes of which Karl Rove is so famous for.
The bottom line should be about justice, not who you agree with or disagree with politically.
Comment by Spronjulator — February 28, 2008 @ 11:23 am