ALGOP hits Democrats on ethics
Check out the much discussed ALGOP ad highlighting the litany of Democrats who have been convicted of various criminal behavior:
Good ad. You know you’re sitting pretty when you can make a hard hitting “negative” ad without having to take any artistic liberties with the truth.
Don’t be surprised to see the ethics issue continue to gain steam. I’m hearing that the new online checkbook for the state has revealed some rather interesting expenditures of public funds.
I do like the Democrats’ response to the ad:
In a response, the Alabama Democratic Party pointed to ongoing questions about Riley’s signature on a $13 million no-bid computer contract with a Virginia company and detailed other allegations against Republican lawmakers.
Two points…
One, there is a difference, albeit one that the casual observer might not understand, between issuing no bid contracts for work that a number of firms could competently perform. Office furniture, custodial services, and legal representation come to mind as examples. Issuing no bid contracts for those services almost guarantees overpayment and certainly opens the door for kick backs. But there are examples when there is a single uniquely qualified source (a “sole source”) that can provide a certain service. Say you needed to construct a bridge and the independently developed requirements forced you to select a particular company whose patented construction technique provided the only way to meet your requirement. Since no other company can complete the task you must “sole source” the contract. And there is a defined procedure for documenting such a justification. As it has been explained, the company in question (Paragon Source) is uniquely qualified to perform this particular service. So long as the sole source selection procedures were followed then this contract is not objectionable.
That leads into my second point. There has been absolutely no hint of any quid pro quo impropriety in this contract. Trust me, every news outlet and Democrat opposition researcher in the state has been searching high and low for any connection between Paragon Source and the Riley administration. They haven’t been able to draw blood on Riley in his seven years in office and they thought this was their best chance. Hell, I did all the searching I could to find any connections. The complete lack of any untoward back story itself is further proof that this was an arms length arrangement established by career merit system employees trying to secure the best and most appropriates services possible for the state.
What is actually quite funny about this is that if Paragon Source simply had a website, even a very basic one, and a dedicated phone line then this would have been a non-story. Something about “computer company without website or phone awarded $14 million no bid contract” just makes for a good, sensationalistic headline.
I think the governor’s people dropped the ball by not defending this contract at first. Of course, that itself could also indicate that there was no improper behavior behind the deal. They didn’t jump to defend because they didn’t know there was something that needed defending. However time and the accompanying scrutiny this story has received has dulled the initial jarring headline and revealed that there isn’t much to this story.
So in summary, the Democrats best counter argument to the ad featuring a slew of convicted Democrats is that the governor allowed the state to follow established procedures to issue a sole source contract to a uniquely qualified firm that had absolutely no connection to the governor. Might be best to just say “no comment” in the future.
Print This Post
Will just say, hope this sudden bipartisan interest in ethics and watch dogging the public purse continues and isn’t an election pander.
FWIW, agree with you on Paragon. When compared to the last round of major IT contracts, there isn’t much to talk about. Hmm, wonder if the D’s will make the the contract docs they received public? Would raise/answer a lot of questions.
I am a bit troubled about Paragon actually. I don’t understand why Janet Lauderdale wouldn’t address the committee (they had to serve her subpoena on her lawyer). If I had been awarded a $13 million taxpayer-funded contract I believe I would have gotten my tail over there and defended it. And I definitely do NOT think the administration should be sending the state jet around spending taxpayer money to defend the contract – that is Paragon’s job.
Not saying anything is wrong with the contract. But these are Siegelman-esque actions.
Yes, I thought it was a great selective editing of politicians in this state with ethics issues. I particularly like how they didn’t include any of the Republicans that have been convicted. I also like how they didn’t mention all the ethics reforms that Republicans have shot down. Not at all questionable or obvious.
I also like how you very conveniently didn’t include that portion of the Democratic response that said as much.
Come on, Brian. You’re better than this. Even Danny fully acknowledged the bipartisan nature of the problem (and the full Democrat response that DID mention a slew of convicted state Republicans), and anyone paying attention can see it.
Way to prove a point by ignoring the parts you don’t like! Call me left-leaning if you like, but at least I’m not sitting here and pretending like the Democrats are squeaky clean and folks like Guy Hunt and Gary White and Mary Buckelew are the only Republican fare. Corruption and unethical behavior, like it or not, is a bipartisan problem in this state. If we continue to pretend that it’s not, then we’ll continue to get exactly what we deserve.
I thought you weren’t commenting here any more.
Isn’t Guy Hunt dead? His ethics problems happened, what, a decade and a half ago? If the Dems are hanging their bipartisan argument on Hunt then they are in a world of hurt. I had to Google White and Buckelew. Corrupt JeffCo politicians are a dime a dozen.
Sure, there are corrupt people on both sides. I’d say the Dems account for 80% of the malfeasance, though.
When your only response is… “but but but they do it too” or “look at Guy Hunt” (dead) you are screwed.
The Democrats can do whatever they want in 2010, how about they start with what they promised in 2006.
Brian I agree with your percentages. But something is foul with the Paragon deal.
I don’t see why it is so important to the administration that they send out the state jet to several cities with administration officials lobbying editorial boards.
Paragon should be defending getting this contract. They are the ones who stand to profit . . .aren’t they? No one connected to the administration has a monetary interest in this . . .do they?
Brian I am just saying that the whole thing – while it may be nothing – smacks of a Siegelman type deal. Riley disapponts me with this.
And the questions really haven’t been answered. The financial stuff released is very vague. Why won’t Janet Lauderdale answer a few simple questions? She should know more about it that Riley’s cabinet. And it is NOT Riley’s administration’s business to answer these questions. BUT they are the ones doing it. Why?
BTW a google search of Ms. Lauderdale fails to turn up any record of her doing similar work anywhere. That could be explained – but it hasn’t been. At every turn where doubt could be assuaged the doubt has continued. Bad sign.
One should be careful when slinging poo that one doesn’t throw it into the fan.
There are some Republicans who were recently convicted: Mary Buckelew and Gary White down in Jefferson County. The response on Buckelew may be that she was once a Democrat. True, and she was always a drunk, but none of that seemed to bother the Republican party.
It is an amusing commercial. I’ll probably vote mostly for Republicans in the upcoming races. But only because there are no better choices.
Do you see Republicans cry babying about those conviction ala Sieglman and Schmitz and McClain and Langfrod?
No.
True. Generally speaking, that is a stark difference between those on the left and those on the right. Lefties tend to whine and bitch and act like adolescents. Righties tend to take their knocks with dignity. Republicans tend to draw more people from the right, hence, they act more like grownups in the public arena. There are notable exceptions on both sides to this generalization, ex: McGreevey and Sanford.
My problem with both parties is not so much the level of corruption but the level of stupidity. We are stuck with choosing between the Big Government party and the Big Government Lite party.