This is weak.  NPR recently ran a story entitled “For Some Ohioans, Even Meat Is Out Of Reach.”  It was about some woman who has never had a job who can’t afford to buy meat and (I’m not kidding) ice cream anymore because of the economy.  This picture of the woman and her daughter accompanies the article:

Now NPR has changed the headline on the online article to read “Struggling In Ohio As The Economy Tightens.” But the Nunez women are still fat.

Seriously, is this what it has come to?  We are supposed to feel bad when morbidly obese people can’t buy ice cream?

David White of the Birmingham News penned an article about Alabama’s low tax burden that illustrated just how dumb the intelligencia at the News thinks its readers are.

Alabama’s state, county and city governments collected $2,782 in taxes per person that year, according to a review of the Census Bureau’s most recent report on state and local taxes and the bureau’s state population estimates for July 2006.

The 50-state median for state and local taxes collected per person was $3,700. It was more in 25 states and less in 25 states.

Come back next week when Mr. White enlightens us on the mystical mathematical calculation known as the mean.  (Actually, it is quite nice.)  I couldn’t quickly find the grade in which concepts like mean, median, and mode are taught in Alabama schools, but Nashville teaches them in the fifth grade.  Seriously, does the News really think its readers don’t understand fifth grade math?  (Don’t answer that question.)

But the mathematical wizardy doesn’t end there…

Alabama’s state and local governments collected $12.8 billion in taxes in fiscal 2006, which for most state governments ended June 30, 2006, and for Alabama ended Sept. 30, 2006. They collected $918 less in taxes per person than the median.  If they had collected the median amount, they would have had an additional $4.2 billion.

The first person to exercise the abstract concept known as division to calculate the approximate number of people in Alabama using available information gets a free kazoo.  It was kind of White to do the rigorous math involved to calculate the difference between $3,700 and $2,782.  That was a real head scratcher.  If you were one of the select few who correctly solved the aforementioned division problem then you could multiply that result by the $918 per person difference to arrive at the $4.2 billion figure.  I know, this is high level stuff.

Among neighboring states in fiscal 2006, Florida collected $3,693 in state and local taxes per person, 26th highest among the 50 states. Georgia collected $3,321, ranking 35th. Tennessee collected $2,838, ranking 48th. Mississippi collected $2,822, ranking 49th.

Alabama’s state and local governments that year would have collected an extra $4.2 billion in taxes if they had collected the same amount per person as Florida, and an extra $184 million if they had collected the same amount per person as Mississippi.

More math!  Is this White guy some kind of a sadist?

Then White brought us this startling revelation:

Brad Moody, a political scientist at Auburn University at Montgomery, said lower taxes often lead to lower levels of government services.

Thanks for the insightful analysis.  I don’t think I could have come to that conclusion without considerable outside assistance.

“Part of the problem here is, the people who most need state services are the people who have less impact on state politics - people whose kids are eligible for the children’s health insurance program, who need Medicaid services, who are in prison, who are going to lousy public schools,” Moody said.

If only those dummies would vote!  (Of course, some of the felons can’t.)  Moody does touch on one of the principle weaknesses of a democracy (albeit one that is thankfully minimized by poor participation among some, including the groups he specified): people using the ballot box as a means of instructing the government to use the threat of force to take property from another group of people and redistributing it to them.

The Census Bureau’s state and local tax totals are not a perfect measure of the tax burden on individuals, since the totals also include taxes and fees paid by companies, such as corporate income taxes and severance taxes on oil and coal.

And just who do you think ultimately bears the burden of those corporate taxes?  (Hint: real people!)

Alabama had the 40th highest average income per person among the 50 states in fiscal 2006, according to Census Bureau estimates. So Alabamians on average have less money to pay in taxes than people in wealthier states, such as Connecticut and Maryland.

At this point I have to wonder whether White was just excited to be learning about such seemingly common sense concepts or was cursing profusely that his management makes him explain things like having a lower income means you have less money to pay in taxes.  It also means we have less money to buy gas, groceries, health care, and those little fake bullet hole stickers for bumpers.  If Alabama raised our taxes we would have even less for all of those things.

Measuring state and local tax collections per person as a percentage of average income can adjust for income differences when comparing people’s tax burdens.

You don’t say!  Tell me more.

Alabama ranked 46th of the 50 states in state and local tax collections as a percentage of per capita income - 13.1 percent - for fiscal 2006.

Damn it.  If it weren’t for all those losers dragging down our average income we could take the cellar position, which is really the winner’s position, in this calculation as well.

New Hampshire had the lowest percentage, at 11.9 percent. Colorado, South Dakota and Tennessee also had lower percentages than Alabama.

The 50-state median was 15.45 percent.

There’s that pesky median again.  Consult the beginning of the article for an explanation.

Just think, if all of us would just get off our wallets and give the state more tax money we could fund a half way decent education system so that the state’s biggest paper wouldn’t have to write articles explaining what the median is so that the readers don’t think they’re reading a story about road construction.

On my way home from work today I was listening to a show called The World on a local NPR station.  The host was reading some emails from listeners and one caught my attention.  It was from a man named David Brown who said the following about a segment two days earlier that featured an interview with the man who ran the “Hanoi Hilton” where John McCain spent over five years of his life against his will.  (Brown’s letter is read about two minutes into the segment.)

So much for integrity and neutrality.  What a glowing endorsement for John McCain - how he’s a true American hero.  The true purpose of your piece became obvious when you followed it with a trivial snippet on how Barack Obama received an endorsement from a Hindu temple in India. The word Hindu to most Americans is indistinguishable from Muslim.  the intent is obvious, McCain is the true American whereas Obama is not. Shame on your program.

When I got home I looked up the McCain segment from two days prior.  Not surprisingly, it was far from a “glowing endorsement.”  McCain’s jailer said that McCain “lies to American voters about what happened to him in Vietnam in order to win support for his presidential campaign.”  Of course, the man claims that McCain was well treated during his stay and that the two are friends.  He even said he would vote for McCain in part because of his efforts to improve relations between Vietnam and the U.S.  Overall the piece could hardly be called even a tepid endorsement.

Could it be that Mr. Brown himself is a bit ashamed at the obvious disparity in sacrifice and love for this country between the two candidates and wants to make the mere mention of it off limits like any other speech that might be unfavorable to Obama?

As was first speculated here about two weeks ago, the Huntsville Times is reporting that the Saturn V has made the cut as one of the “7 Wonders of America” according to a panel of experts assembled by Good Morning America.

ABC’s Huntsville affiliate, WAAY-TV, said Wednesday that “Good Morning America” will broadcast live segments Monday [12 May] from the Davidson Center for Space Exploration.

The Saturn V is certainly worthy of the list.  It is one of those creations that leaves you in awe when you stand beside it.  There’s something captivating about staring up at a huge rocket knowing that way up on the top men once sat in a small module that took them all the way to the moon.  It really puts mankind’s capability for accomplishing great things into perspective.  I try not to take for granted that I drive past it nearly every day.

This will be great publicity for Huntsville and the Space and Rocket Center.  Congratulations!

According to WHNT:

Coming up Sunday night on NewsChannel 19 at 10:00, hear from Scott Horton’s critics, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter with the Birmingham News. Brett Blacklege tells NewsChannel 19 that Horton is the one falling short of journalistic standards and fairness.

Hopefully Mr. Horton will be taking notes.

From the Huntsville Times:

Times columnist Lee Roop was arrested Friday night and charged with driving under the influence of drugs, possession of cocaine and speeding.

According to Huntsville Police spokesman Wendell Johnson, Roop was pulled over at 10:30 p.m. in front of the Shell Food Mart at U.S. 72 East and Old Gurley Road, for driving 65 mph in a 40 mph zone. Johnson said that, according to the police report, the officer saw a clear plastic bag with a white powder substance in Roop’s car and tests on the scene verified the substance was cocaine.

Roop was taken to the Madison County jail without incident, Johnson said.

I knew something was askance when I glanced at the bottom of the page that Roop’s Sunday column always appears on and didn’t see it.

I hate hearing stories about people (allegedly) making poor decisions that can ruin lives.  I hope that Roop is able to get the help he needs to get through this tough patch in his life and career.

That is a favorite quote of mine given by a spokesman for Bob Riley in response to asinine speculation on some blogs.

Today we have this headline on a Reuters story: Poll: Most Americans don’t read political blogs.

A majority of Americans do not read political blogs, the online commentaries that have proliferated in the race for the U.S. presidency, according to a poll released on Monday.

Only 22 percent of people responding to the poll said they read blogs regularly, meaning several times a month or more, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive.

…

Unlike traditional, mainstream media, blogs often adopt a specific point of view. Critics complain they can contain unchecked facts, are poorly edited and use unreliable sources.

I’m not sure if that last sentence is directed towards blogs or the “traditional, mainstream media.”

You can read more about the study on the Harris Interactive website, although the actual questions used to form the poll are not included.

The study and accompanying headline over little insight into the meaning of the data, though.  I would suggest that most people in this country aren’t terribly interested in politics and therefore wouldn’t be inclined to read political blogs.  Political blogs are the domain of the politically active and the political junkies.  Harris Interactive should have asked how many of the respondents actually cared about politics and followed up by asking them to name their two U.S. senators as proof they are at least minimally knowledgeable about politics.  Some quick looking around the internets at other polls indicates that typically only about 30-35% of people can name both senators, which isn’t much more than regularly read political blogs.  The 65-70% that aren’t politically involved enough to name their senators should be excluded from the sample population.

One of the more interesting findings that the media reports conveniently omitted was that 30% of regular blog readers consider blogs more accurate than the mainstream media, while 22% consider them less accurate and 48% deemed them “about as accurate.”  Also, nearly twice as many respondents classified as regular blog readers consider political blogs more valuable than mainstream media.

The poll comes on the heels of another Harris Interactive poll in which 54% of all adults said they “tend not to trust” the press. Ouch.  Radio led both Republicans and Democrats (!) as the form of media they tend to trust.  “Internet news and information sites” (not sure if that includes “political blogs”) was second among all adults in the “tend to trust” ranking.

I’ll climb on my soap box now…

Personally I like political blogs (as you might expect).  I think they are a great way for politically interested individuals discuss what is happening in the halls of power.  You should approach them with the proper perspective, though.

Bloggers have agendas.  Deal with it and don’t forget it.  One could argue that traditional media has them as well, but they are filtered more finely through editorial processes.

You can learn from blogs, but don’t trust them to be accurate.  Do your own independent research to confirm or deny anything you read on a blog.

Commenters can be mean and ignorant (the two typically go hand in hand).  Don’t take it personally.  Ignore it if you can.

Some bloggers think they are junior journalists, but they aren’t.  It takes no formal training to operate a blog.  Theoretically our work doesn’t measure up to the standards employed by reputable news outlets.  Keep this in mind.  If you’ve been reading about something salacious on blogs for a while, but it hasn’t made it into the mainstream media there is probably a reason, namely a dearth of concrete details and credible witnesses.  Say what you will about corporate media ownership they are in business to make money and scandal sells.  If they can justify printing a story that will attract ears and eyeballs you can bet your house they will run it - if it meets their standards (and occasionally when it doesn’t).

I don’t pretend to be some type of reporter and I don’t put on airs that I am unbiased.  I try to be factual and I beg you to point out any errors I ever make.  You’re not going to hurt my feelings.  I choose not to have advertisements here; we are all exposed to enough of that.  I blog because I’m a political addict and this is my hobby, my outlet.  It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than golf.  I’m not a trained writer - and it shows.  I enjoy vigorous discussion and I try to be respectful to opposing viewpoints.  You’re always welcome to kick off your shoes, look around, and engage in a dialog.

After “60 Minutes” ran their segment on the prosecution of Don Siegelman the story caused a fair amount of virtual ink to be spilled.  This was the hope of the Siegelman advocates, but it looks like the story is blowing up in CBS’s face.  Powerline has an excellent post detailing just how bad the 60 Minutes segment was and what a loon the star witness, Jill Simpson, is.

Obviously most people nationally are not familiar with the story about Don Siegelman so I thought I would write a quick primer and list some posts I’ve written on the topic.

Don Siegelman was governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003.  He was a strident supporter of an education lottery.  The measure was put to the Alabama voters and it was defeated in 1999.  His tenure went downhill after that and there was a chronic air of corruption.  He was defeated in a close election in 2002 by Bob Riley.

In 2006 he was tried and convicted on federal charges for taking a bribe from HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.  Siegelman took out a $500,000 loan for the education lottery campaign and he was personally responsible for paying it back.  An investigation by a Mobile Press-Register reporter named Eddie Curran revealed that he took $500,000 from Richard Scrushy and in exchange appointed Scrushy to a hospital regulatory board.  According to the prosecution great pains were taken to hide the transaction.  In 2007, one year after the conviction, he was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.

Since his conviction and incarceration it has become apparent that Siegelman intends to secure his freedom by trying to hitch his wagon to the US Attorney kerfuffle.  Over the last year his surrogates have spun an increasingly bizarre and unbelievable narrative about how the prosecution was orchestrated by Karl Rove and that approximately half the federal government was in on it.

Initially the conspiracy theories were peddled about by an “independent journalist” (read: too partisan and factually challenged for the NY Times!) named Glynn Wilson.  You can read about Wilson and his wild stories here and here.  He was the man responsible for giving us Jill Simpson, the rural attorney who claims to be Karl Rove’s personal secret spy.  Wilson’s leanings towards the Democrats aren’t exactly a secret and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that he is supported in large part by people affiliated with the party or even Siegelman and Scrushy.

The next individual to take the free-Don torch was Scott Horton who blogs at Harper’s.  Horton brought a small modicum of additional credibility to the table, but his pieces have the same look and feel as one authored by Glynn Wilson.  There is copious, seething hatred for all things Bush that clearly clouds their judgment.  Horton is exclusively a Democrat contributor.

Here are links to posts I’ve written with some background reading :

• Obligatory pre-60 Minutes Siegelman post
• Comments on the Don Siegelman 60 Minutes report
• Red Alert! - Worth a read
• Eddie Curran’s letter to 60 Minutes - A must read
• Credit where credit is due - almost
• Cynthia Tucker chimes in on Siegelman

Lot’s of crazy conspiracy theorists are finding a bit of egg on their faces right now.  The list is long and sordid, including, but most certainly not limited to, the New York Times.

After WHNT’s broadcast of the Don Siegelman segment on 60 Minutes suffered technical problems that resulted in the bulk of the story not being seen many assumed that it was an intentional act by WHNT.  The ringleader was, as usual, Scott Horton of Harper’s.  The veracity with which Horton and his ilk - including the Alabama Democrat Party - presumed it was an intentional political hit job was astounding. 

Horton immediately made up his mind that the blackout was an intentional act.  He claimed that some unnamed person at CBS told him it was an “editorial decision” by the station.  [I would link to the particular column, but he has since removed this language.]  He went on to state that the station was owned by Oak Hill Partners, which “represents interests of the Bass family, which contribute heavily to the Republican Party.” [Again, he has removed this from his site as well.]

Fortunately the internets often lets our words live on long after we might otherwise desire.

It turns out that all of the wacky conspiracy talk about the blackout was bunk.  (I’m just shocked.)  WHNT has since offered sufficient description of the technical errors, including a timeline of events.  Better yet, it turns out that the particular member of the Bass family that runs Oak Hill Partners is predominantly a Democrat contributor and has never, I repeat, never given one thin dime to George Bush.  The New York Times issued a correction to their piece and published an additional article that is something of a mea culpa.  As for Horton, he was a big boy and wrote his own “oops” piece which was quite fair - right up until the end.  Here goes:

I have now gotten considerably more detail on the political campaign donations of the investors behind Oak Hill Capital Partners, the investor group that acquired WHNT from the New York Times Company in 2006. The key figure in the Oak Hill group is Robert M. Bass. His campaign donation profile shows that he has supported both Democrats and Republicans, but that his donations to Democrats far exceed those to Republicans. The complete five-year search can be examined here. Note specifically that he has never supported George W. Bush–either in his races for governor of Texas or president. Sid, Edward and Lee Bass, who have been heavy Bush supporters, do not appear to have any interest in Oak Hill Capital Partners. Consequently, the supposition that the blackout at WHNT was politically driven censorship on the part of the ultimate owners has no merit. The station continues to insist that the problems were purely technical.

He was doing so well and then had to toss in that last sentence.  Instead of saying something to the effect of, “Gee, it really does look like WHNT had technical problems,” he instead opts to say the equivalent of, “They’re still cowering behind their excuse, but I don’t believe them.”  He stubbornly writes that the station “continues to insist” as though it is some petulant child unwilling to fess up to its bad acts.  He would have done better to just leave that last sentence out.  Something tells me that his ego and myopia just wouldn’t let him do that, though.  No, he has to interject a hint of disbelief that there was no intent, although he does so by cowering behind the “I’m just telling you what they said,” tactic.

Published here without edits or commentary…

Subject: Substantial factual errors regarding the “vivid story” and virtually every other major assertion made in Sunday’s piece on Don Siegelman, as well as questions regarding journalistic integrity and work ethic by 60 Minutes staff in the preparation and presentation of the piece.
 
From: Eddie Curran

Attn: Jeff Fager, Joel Bach, David Gelber, Scott Pelley, Rich Kaplan
Producers, host, management, of 60 Minutes
 
Dear Sirs,
         
I am, as at least David knows, a reporter with the Mobile Press Register. I did the stories that prompted an investigation of former Gov. Don Siegelman and his administration. I am on sabbatical from the paper, working on a book about the administration, the trial, and the aftermath, including the 60 Minutes show, and am no longer covering the matter for the paper.
          
I will be writing about the program, both in my book and, likely, in articles that I hope to publish prior to publication. I also intend to disseminate this letter because, frankly, I doubt it will ever reach you otherwise.  I would like here to ask some questions, and point out some errors. I will begin with statements by Doug Jones.
     
First of all, you introduced him as one of Siegelman’s lawyers. Are you aware that he did not represent Siegelman during the 2006 trial? I believe that if you were to ask viewers, they would have assumed as much. I trust you knew this; and for whatever reason, you did not mention it. Possibly if Jones had been at trial, he wouldn’t have told you, and a national audience, the following, as pulled from the transcript (all of the following in italics is as it was pulled from your web-site):
 
“Mr. Bailey had indicated that there had been a meeting with Governor Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy, a private meeting in the Governor’s office, just the two of them,” says Doug Jones, who was one of Siegelman’s lawyers.

“And then, as soon as Mr. Scrushy left, the governor walked out with a $250,000 check that he said Scrushy have given him for the lottery foundation.”

“Had the check in his hand right then and there?” Pelley asks.

“Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says.

“That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?” Pelley asks.

“That’s right, showed it to Mr. Bailey. And Nick asked him, ‘Well, what does he want for it?’ And Governor Siegelman allegedly said, ‘A seat on the CON Board.’ Nick asked him, ‘Can we do that?’ And he said, ‘I think so,’” Jones says.
 
And later in the segment:
 
In this new investigation, prosecutors zeroed in on that vivid story told by Siegelman’s aide, Nick Bailey, who said he saw the governor with a check in his hand after meeting Richard Scrushy. Trouble was, Bailey was wrong about the check, and Siegelman’s lawyer says prosecutors knew it.

“They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand,” Jones explains.

“That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case,” Pelley remarks.

“It was a huge problem especially when you’ve got a guy who’s credibility was going to be the lynch pin of that case. It was a huge problem,” Jones says.

First: Bailey was not the only one who “indicated” there was a meeting. Witnesses who testified included HealthSouth lawyer Lorree Skelton and company public relations officer (and also State Senator) Jabbo Waggoner. Both said (and I believe this was confirmed with company flight records) that they flew on the company helicopter with Scrushy, went to the capitol.

There, they met Siegelman and his aide Nick Bailey, and Siegelman asked that he and Scrushy be excused. The meeting, according to testimony, lasted about 30 minutes. Substantial testimony was given as to why this meeting occurred, and was considered necessary from HealthSouth/Scrushy’s point of view. I assume, given your months of work on this story, that you are familiar with this.

Second: Jones paraphrasing of Bailey’s testimony about his discussion with Siegelman following the meeting is not exact, not as strong as the actual testimony, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that there was no testimony that the first $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at this meeting (actually, as I assume you know, the check came from Maryland-based Integrated Health Services.) In fact, there was substantial testimony from a host of witnesses including former executives with Integrated Health, HealthSouth, and the New York-based investment banking firm that served HealthSouth and had a most interesting role in the $250,000 donation.

Jones was actually correct when telling your wide-eyed host Pelley that the check was dated after the meeting. However, it was given to Siegelman at a later meeting. Neither prosecutors nor witnesses at trial, Bailey included, said the check was given by Scrushy to Siegelman at the first meeting.

Doug Jones was flat wrong on this point which 60 Minutes thought so powerful that, out of what surely was a much longer interview, it used in the segment.

Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says.

“That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?” Pelley asks.

Bam! Killer proof that that the prosecution put on bogus evidence.

Only Jones was wrong, and it was 60 Minutes that put on the bogus evidence.

It is my understanding that 60 Minutes spent months on this story. That you did so and got so wrong this crucial element of the evidence presented to the jury is stunning.

I am sure that your sources on the defense teams have the transcript and if you asked, would provide it to you. If not, I will be glad to search my records for appeals briefs or could send you stories by me and other reporters from the trial.

The issue is simply not in dispute.

Your big witness – Doug Jones – was not at trial and he was totally wrong. I suggest you call him and ask him to provide the documentation to support what he told you with such an impressive degree of authority. Don’t rely on his memory – ask him to provide you with the documentation. This is what real reporters do and what an audience expects of 60 Minutes.
      
Dana Jill Simpson: I assume you are aware of her constantly expanding and evolving stories. That you even put her on television after reviewing these ever-evolving tales is incredible. Furthermore, you absolutely had to know of her association with the Siegelman and Scrushy legal teams that began, at the latest, in February of last year. Among other things, she has testified to doing what would appear to be an illegal credit check report on the judge who presided over the case.

We reporters in Alabama, no doubt because we’re dumb rednecks or being paid off by Republicans, have from the beginning seen Simpson for what she is: a very lonely person with a very – and this is your word – vivid imagination.

It would appear – or at least, CBS made it appear – that this particular Rove claim (there have already been several by her relating to her allegations that Rove was involved in the Siegelman administration)”) was new. This was suggested by Scott Pelley’s surprise, which I trust was not feigned.

As anyone who has ever worked in a newsroom knows, it is almost a daily occurrence for someone to come by or call and spin the most amazing stories. A few, a very few, are true. A decent reporter can usually tell the difference in about a minute.

The crazy ones are treated politely and ushered out the door as soon as possible. Considering her past stories — none corroborated by a single human being — 60 Minutes should never have interviewed her in the first place. However, after that mistake, once she started on the Rove tale, Pelley, the producers, the janitor, someone, should have pulled the switch.

This leads me to ask the following questions of the journalists at CBS:
 
After Simpson delivered these explosive and entirely uncorroborated accusations (again, all of her stories are uncorroborated)  did 60 Minutes ask Simpson where she followed Siegelman, as in what cities and on what dates?
 
Having done so, did 60 Minutes conduct a simple Nexis search of stories during that period? After all, Siegelman’s trips and actions were covered almost daily by the press, especially the AP.

And also asked her:

Who funded this top-secret mission? She does not live anywhere near Montgomery and one assumes that while carrying out this top-secret assignment she incurred hotel, travel, and meal bills. Did you ask her if she had any records of these bills? Is there anyone alive who can corroborate this?
  
Did you ask her: How was a big redhead like you able to follow Alabama’s governor for months without being seen by the governor or his security?

Did you follow him by car? Hide in the bushes? Hover above in a helicopter?  You claim that this was not the first “intelligence” assignment given you by Rove. What were the others?

You said you met him working on past campaigns. Which campaigns and can you provide us with a single person who also worked on these campaigns who can confirm that you worked on them and that, furthermore, you met Rove while doing so? 
  
Pelley, with a wink and a nod, noted that Rove worked in some Alabama campaigns. This is widely known. They were judicial races in the mid-1990s. I was in Alabama at the same time and, remarkably, never ran into Rove. I doubt Simpson did either though. However, if we are to trust your broadcast, you made no effort to check this out. You simply tossed it out that Rove had been in Alabama, as if our state is the size of Mayberry.

I’m not sure what would be worse, for CBS not to have asked such questions or to have asked them but not shown or reported that it did so to the audience, and given her responses and the results of your verification.

Instead of actually doing some legwork to support such a serious to say nothing of unlikely claim on national TV, the network simply covered its ass with the old, obviously expected denial from Rove.

Is that characterization of your journalism correct or incorrect?

There is no question, such as with the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry, that Rove has done some exceedingly distasteful things. However – if I may opine – that would not be sufficient reason for 60 Minutes to put on Dana Jill Simpson stories without subjecting them through a level of verification that any decent reporter could do in an afternoon.
 
Grant Woods: Ten years ago, on a non-investigative story about the tobacco wars, I quoted Grant Woods saying he’d spent much time working with Siegelman. Woods, like Siegelman, supported those lawsuits. At least three times as governor, Siegelman used state funds to pay for him and his wife to fly and stay at resorts for the annual conferences of the Western Attorney General Association.

Did you ask Woods if he and Siegelman are old friends? Did you at all wonder why a former Arizona attorney general had taken such an interest in this case? Do you suppose Siegelman might have asked him to help, such as by putting together that petition signed by 52 former attorney generals? And would you suppose they are more familiar with Don Siegelman as a friend, or the facts and testimony put on at trial?

If you knew they were old friends and didn’t disclose this to viewers, why not? Were you afraid it might dilute the power of what he was saying?
 
Did you ask Woods specific questions about the evidence at the trial that he did not, to my knowledge, attend for one day? It is my guess that he couldn’t answer basic questions about the evidence. What you have is an old pal of the governor’s speaking in bold generalities about a case I doubt he knows much about.
         
Also, Woods asserts the following: “I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.”

A reasonable follow-up question by Pelley might have been: But hadn’t he been defeated, “fair and square,” in the 2002 election?

In 2005, when he was indicted, Democrat Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley was all but the anointed party choice for the 2006 nomination, but you present Siegelman as if he was some vital force who Riley and the Republicans feared, and I dare you to locate a single political science professor in the state who would say as much. It’s not true, but for you, it was necessary. Without it, there would be no “motive basis” for the claim you assert with your opening sentence, which is more statement that question:  “Is Don Siegelman in prison because he’s a criminal or because he belonged to the wrong political party in Alabama?”

I assert that you made up your mind as to the answer to this question even before your reporters/producers began their investigation into the Siegelman prosecution. However, I welcome your comments to the contrary.
 
The leaks: Viewers were told the following:

Details of some of those investigations leaked to the press. And Siegelman lost his 2002 re-election campaign narrowly to Republican Bob Riley.

Then viewers were at that point shown an article written by myself and a fellow reporter, Jeff Amy, apparently this serving as evidence of “the leaks.” First off, a careful read of the piece would show that our story cited the Birmingham News, which initially reported the grand jury meeting in its paper the day before.
 
No proof whatsoever is offered to support what is stated as fact that the News or myself or anyone else received leaks from prosecutors. None. Because you have none. Prove me wrong.
 
Also, and I could be wrong here as well, but I don’t recall many grand jury type stories in 2002. There were dozens of stories on other matters, such as Siegelman’s use of a straw man to sell his house for twice its value to Alabama trial lawyer Lanny Vines; the revelation of a $500,000 payment by Waste Management to his pal Lanny Young after Young secured a secret deal from Siegelman controlled revenue department slashing taxes at the company’s massive west Alabama landfill; the many stories required to unearth the undisclosed “campaign donations” presented as routine by you; and many more instead.

And that’s just a partial list.

Instead, contrary to any evidence or proof, you connected Siegelman’s loss in the 2002 election to prosecutorial leaks for which you have no proof even occurred.

I am aware that Siegelman and his lawyer routinely blamed Republican prosecutors for stories in the Birmingham News reporting that Siegelman’s financial records had been subpoenaed, including holding a press conference, but they, like you, offered no proof. For my book, I recently called the News’ reporter, Brett Blackledge, who wrote that story Without identifying specifically who told him about the subpoenas, I will just say that Brett assured me it was not prosecutors.

No proof. None. Nor did you have the decency to call and ask the reporters.
 
Bill Canary: The following is a direct quote from the program: “The prosecution was handled by the office of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, whose husband Bill Canary had run the campaign of Siegelman’s opponent, Gov. Riley.”

Bill Canary did not run Riley’s campaign. According to everything I’ve read, he was one of many unpaid advisors. What documentation do you have supporting that Canary ran Bob Riley’s campaign?

If you don’t have any such evidence, why not?  As you know, you use this fact as a lead in to Grant Woods’ assertions that Leura Canary should therefore not only have recused herself, but brought in prosecutors from another district.

As with virtually your entire piece, you present false evidence to support assertions with no basis in fact.
      
Nick Bailey: You state, “And there was another problem with the prosecutor’s star witness: Nick Bailey was a crook. Unknown to Siegelman, Bailey had been extorting money from Alabama businessmen.”

Assuming that Bailey didn’t tell anything to Siegelman – and the evidence is that he told the governor about at least some of the money he was receiving — why did you neglect to inform viewers that Siegelman was also convicted of covering up a $9,200 payment from Lanny Young, the Waste Management lobbyist and G.H. Construction figure? As surely you must know, prosecutors presented substantial evidence, including bank records, showing that Siegelman and Bailey covered up the payment from Young to Siegelman by concocting a bogus “loan repayment” for an equally bogus motorcycle sale.
This was not even referred to. Nor were viewers told, even in a single summary sentence, that the Siegelman administration was beset by numerous serious scandals and that it was those, not leaks, that led to his electoral downfall. Did you ever think to consider, for example, calling any one of the half-dozen or so university professors who follow state politics and are quite familiar with such matters?

The Don Siegelman you presented was a squeaky clean victim of Republicans.
      
Should you wish to comment, I can be reached by the above phone numbers and e-mail address [withheld by me].
 
Sincerely,
Eddie Curran
 
P.S.: I had, for your information, read something in a publication called the Montgomery Independent indicating that the 60 Minutes program would broach allegations against jurors in the trial. I have records which I believe would prove the anonymously sent e-mails were frauds, and for pure humanitarian purposes wanted to call 60 Minutes to offer that evidence in the hope that, whatever was coming, that the jurors be spared.

I didn’t know any of your names, and, as I told David when he asked how I got his number, I got it from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as I assumed, correctly, that they had been contacted by you. I was treated with what I thought was astonishing rudeness by David for merely calling him. This suggested that I am or had presented as being “among the enemy” by your team’s sources. I can tell you that I have never treated a fellow journalist in that manner for the sin of merely calling me.