Praise Jesus!

I'm still bleating away Jim.

I had a chuckle when I saw this from the NY Times coverage on the release today.

"On the telephone outside the prison today, Mr. Siegelman said he had confidence that the federal appeals court, which will now consider his larger appeal, would agree with his view of the case — that he was convicted for a transaction that regularly takes place in American politics.

Otherwise, Mr. Siegelman said, 'every governor and every president and every contributor might as well turn themselves in, because it’s going to be open season on them.'"

Think about that for a moment. We're supposed to believe that a businessman giving $500,000 to a politician in exchange for a seat on regulatory board that oversees that businessman's industry is "a transaction that regularly takes place in American politics." If it is, God help us all.

How many politicians can you name that have ever received $500,000 donations of any kind? Bill Clinton got into all sorts of trouble for just letting folks spend the night in the White House in exchange for (much smaller) campaign donations. What do you think would have happened to him if he'd actually appointed those donors to regulatory boards that oversaw their own industries? He'd have been laughed out of Washington. Bill Clinton had a lot better sense.

Let me be clear; if the Siegelman prosecution was run out of Washington, I say uncover it by all means, and punish anyone who violated the law by undertaking a politically minded hit, whether it be Rove or Gonzales or whomever. Ditto the Spitzer investigation. But at the same time, a fair-minded person can say it's wrong for a governor -- of whatever party --to engage prostitutes, and it's wrong for a governor -- of whatever party -- to peddle important government oversight positions to fat cat donors. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

In my frustration over the saint-hood of Don Siegelman I may have argued a bit too stridently earlier, so maybe this clarifies somewhat. I still remain skeptical that Rove asked Simpson to try to get photos of Siegelman in bed with a mistress.

Nevertheless -- bottom line: one can suspect a political hit on Siegelman without turning him into some sort of saintly martyr. There's something unnerving about our politics today when everything has to be so black-and-white and where no nuance is allowed: Rove is evil, so Siegelman must be the Mother Theresa of Southern politics. That is NOT the case, I assure you. And Scrushy...well please.

So as someone who considers himself progressive and who has also watched Siegelman's career for some time, I would just encourage a more nuanced reading of this case, and a bit more skepticism of both sides. I hope that doesn't sound too unreasonable.

Ok. I'll await the inevitable comparisons to Charles Manson and Sean Hannity...

There is no doubt that this case against Siegelman is completely political. Everyone today believes that the US Justice Dept aggressively seeks to prosecute any Dem it can - especially if it is able to use a well-connected Alabama Republican judge like Fuller.

Seems pretty clear when someone confesses to bribing a Republican Alabama Senator but is never charged.

This is a good start but I really want to see Rove and the prosecutors involved in this, in jail.

"I still remain skeptical that Rove asked Simpson to try to get photos of Siegelman in bed with a mistress."

Sounds like EXACTLY the kind of stuff Rove was always digging for. If there's ONE piece of testimony that solidified my belief in her story, it was that little gem.

Give it up, poser. You aren't fooling anyone here. No matter how vociferously you vilify Siegelman, you can't just turn him into the sleaze-bag you want us all to believe him to be.

You seem to be quite familiar with Siegelman's story, why not start researchng some of the other characters involved with the same attention?

Seriously, we've heard your anti-Siegelman argument, can we get some balanced perspective?

I am guessing your repeated reference to yourself as a progressive is something of a front or an obfuscation.

Why even mention it (that you consider yourself progressive) in the first place?

Don't worry,we will label you by your words, we don't need you to tell us who you are, or what your label is, we can make that decision for ourselves.