Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has chimed in on the Don Siegelman prosecution.

[T]here is a distinct possibility that Siegelman’s most serious crime was being a Democrat who continued to win high office in a bright red state that Republicans believed should be theirs alone.

Alright, let’s just stop right there. Ms. Tucker is an Alabama native and may even still have familial ties to the state so I would expect her to not make such an ill informed statement. Nationally Alabama is a red state, no doubt. But we’re not talking about national politics here. We’re talking about state politics and in Alabama the Democrats have a 61% majority in the legislature and control both houses. There have been a grand total of three Republican governors since David P. Lewis was governor from 1872-1874.  It is hardly a red state, let alone a “bright” red one, when it comes to state and local politics.

[Siegelman] stood a good chance of winning a second term as governor of Alabama in 2006…

That is an absurd notion that has been floated recently by Siegelman’s surrogates as a desperate attempt to shore up a flaccid argument. Siegelman was a one term governor for a reason. He lost fair and square in 2002 after voters rejected his education lottery and his fall back plan was… well, he didn’t have one. Seriously, if you lose while having the wind of incumbency at your back that doesn’t exactly place you at the head of the pack for the same office in the next election. Unsurprisingly, he failed to win his party’s primary in 2006 despite having one of the weakest opponents, Lucy Baxley, one could possibly imagine.

Tucker then recites the narrative proffered by Siegelman’s advocates. She does say that Bill Canary “has run political campaigns for Siegelman’s chief rival, current Gov. Bob Riley,” which is true if being an unpaid advisor is the same as running a campaign. She cautiously implies that what happened to Don Siegelman is analogous to what happens “in Russia, in Malaysia, in Zimbabwe, but not in the United States.” Oh, I do love hyperbole.

Tucker actually does a decent job of addressing what Siegelman was accused and convicted of doing (something most have judiciously chosen not to do), namely taking a $500,000 contribution from Richard Scrushy that he used to pay off a loan for which he was personally responsible. She didn’t mention how the prosecution described the extensive efforts undertaken by the men to hide the money, though.

It’s easy to see that advocating for Siegelman strains Tucker’s conscience:

Either way, there’s no confusing Siegelman’s little deal with textbook good government. It was a tawdry affair, and no governor has any business engaging in such acts.

Advocates of stricter ethical standards - like me - harrumph over such transactions with regularity.

[Can I get a harrumph?]

But then she downplays her own personal stand on ethical standards, because this is a Democrat after all.

They are, nevertheless, pretty common, rarely inspiring much beyond raised eyebrows. It is highly unusual for the Justice Department to target public officials who have not personally benefited from their connections with contributors.

It’s a tawdry affair that no governor has any business engaging in, but no big deal! If I paid off Ms. Tucker’s mortgage - which she is personally liable for - I wonder if she would agree that my action “personally benefited” her?

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Sunday, March 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm and is filed under Alabama, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.