Mountain Views News          Saturday, June 9, 2012

15

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday June 9, 2012

HOWARD Hays As I See It


VOTERS TAKE A STAND

 

 “As people do better, they 
start voting like Republicans 
- unless they have too 
much education and vote 
Democratic, which proves 
there can be too much of a 
good thing.” - Karl Rove

 Those who saw a ballot 
in Sierra Madre last week realized that 
come January, no matter how we vote in 
November, we’ll have new representation 
in the California State Assembly, the State 
Senate and in Congress (though it seems 
unlikely our Sen. Dianne Feinstein will lose 
her seat).

 In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker 
survived, with a majority of voters, including 
large numbers from union households and 
supporters of President Obama, stating they 
disapproved of recall elections as a means 
of changing leaders. Despite this, voters 
turned the Wisconsin State Senate over to 
Democratic control.

 With all that’s in the news, I almost missed 
an update on a story I wrote a column on 
three years ago; it was a story that followed 
upon the mass firings of federal prosecutors 
and politicization of the Justice Department 
during the Bush Administration:

 Former Alabama Governor (Don) 
Siegelman earned his law degree at 
Georgetown, was a Rhodes Scholar at 
Oxford, and served as Alabama›s Secretary 
of State, Attorney General and Lieutenant 
Governor before being elected Governor in 
1998. He was instrumental in expanding 
auto manufacturing in his state and was a 
tireless advocate for universal education. A 
close race for re-election in 2002 ended with 
the Associated Press declaring Siegleman the 
winner and a victory speech.

 hortly after midnight on Election Day, 
however, Republican election officials in 
Baldwin County discovered a «technical 
glitch» and found that Republican Bob Riley 
had in fact won with less than one-quarter of 
one percent of the vote. Although Siegelman›s 
allies found it odd this «technical glitch» 
affected only the governor›s race among 
all the other measures on the ballot, the 
governor eventually declared, «I›ve decided 
that a prolonged election controversy would 
hurt Alabama», and conceded. That same 
year, Siegelman was indicted on federal fraud 
charges, which were dismissed when the 
judge threw out the prosecutor›s evidence.

 Republican lawyer Dana Simpson signed 
a declaration that she›d heard Bob Riley 
campaign strategist Bill Canary assure 
other supporters that «Karl» was working 
with U.S. Justice Dept officials to make sure 
Siegelman wouldn›t present a threat, and had 
herself been ordered by Karl Rove to «catch 
Siegelman cheating on his wife». (Soon 
after making these charges, Simpson›s house 
burned down and her car was driven off the 
road. «Anytime you speak truth to power, 
there are great risks. I›ve been attacked.»)

 As Siegelman campaigned to reclaim 
the governorship from Riley in 2006, he 
was indicted and tried on charges of fraud, 
bribery and obstruction of justice. It was 
alleged that while in office, Siegelman traded 
a seat on a state regulatory board for a 
contribution to the (unsuccessful) campaign 
for a state lottery to fund education, though 
the donor had already been serving on that 
board under three previous Republican 
administrations. Although supposedly 
having recused herself, the prosecution was 
guided by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, wife 
of Republican strategist and Rove associate 
Bill Canary. There was talk that presiding 
judge Mark Fuller, appointed by President 
George W. Bush a few years earlier, would 
«hang Don Siegelman». 

 A major prosecution witness was convicted 
of extortion, and it was confirmed he›d not 
been present at a key event (the writing 
of a check) he claimed to have witnessed. 
Prosecutors failed to turn over to Siegelman›s 
defense team notes from interviews held 
with this witness. Risking her job, a Justice 
Department staffer turned over documents 
confirming the prosecution›s inappropriate 
contact with jurors - allegations Judge Fuller 
refused to pursue. Leura Canary continued 
to advise subordinates handling the case, 
arguing that Siegelman›s charge that his 
prosecution was politically motivated was 
grounds for a stiffer sentence.

 Prosecutors asked for a sentence of 
thirty years, but Judge Fuller sentenced 
Don Siegelman to more than seven years in 
federal prison and a $50,000 fine. Siegelman 
was denied the customary 45 days to «get his 
affairs in order» and was led out in shackles 
to a maximum security prison, with much of 
the time spent in solitary confinement.

 In July 2007, a petition signed by 44 former 
states Attorneys General, Republicans 
and Democrats, petitioned Congress to 
investigate the matter. They noted that in 
the case of Alabama Governor Guy Hunt, a 
Republican accused of pocketing $200,000 
(no one was accused of profiting in the 
Siegelman case), the same prosecutor had 
recommended probation. In March 2008 
the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals approved 
release during appeals, but a year later upheld 
most charges - though agreeing to review the 
sentence.

 The above appeared in the August 22, 2009 
MVN.

 Last Monday, despite support from over 
100 former top states’ attorneys and election 
law experts, the U.S. Supreme Court refused 
to hear Don Siegelman’s appeal.

 A total of $63.5 million was raised by both 
sides in the Wisconsin recall effort, with 
$30.5 million raised by Gov. Walker (vs. $3.9 
million raised by his opponent), of which 
three-quarters came from out-of-state.

 As of last March, the two super-PACs 
controlled by Karl Rove had over $70 million 
on hand, after announcing a $25 million ad 
buy. He plans to launder $240 million in 
buying the next election.

 Over a decade ago, a hospital executive 
donated $500,000 to an Alabama state lottery 
measure, and was re-appointed to a seat on a 
state board.

 For that, former Alabama Gov. Don 
Siegelman will spend the next six years of his 
life in prison. 

Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall 
election is being heralded as a precursor 
of what will come in November. Pundits 
on both the right and left have described 
it in alternating tones of awe and disdain, 
both contrary emotions stemming from a 
common sense that Wisconsin voters were 
telling the American public something 
important about voter frustration with the 
state of affairs and their determination to 
alter that state of affairs. Perhaps that’s true, 
but only so in the context of other important 
election results which evidence a deep-seated 
and widespread angst that spans from coast 
to coast and from blue collar to white collar. 
Americans have simply had enough. 

Scott Walker became Wisconsin’s governor 
in 2010 on the promise that he would fix the 
fiscal mess that was Wisconsin at the time. 
What prompted the recall campaign against 
him was his desire to strip government unions 
of the right to collectively bargain against the 
very politicians to whom the unions have 
contributed so much in campaign donations. 
In addition, Governor Walker sought to 
reform education by insisting that teachers 
earn their pay and be held accountable for 
the quality of the education they actually 
delivered in the classroom. Both issues were 
union hot buttons, and so the public employee 
unions decided to go thermonuclear in their 
defense of their power.

Walker’s actions to bring reforms to education 
and budgeting were the place where public 
employee unions decided they would make 
their stand. They were confident that with 
enough money thrown against the Governor 
and with enough lies about what the reforms 
really meant, they would be able to preserve 
their political power and send a message to 
any other reform-minded governor in the 
other 49 states.

In their own words, Democrats described the 
recall effort as “a dry run” of their “massive, 
significant dynamic grass-roots presidential 
campaign”. This was a national election. But 
so was the “local” election in San Diego, CA 
and San Jose, CA. Both cities had ballot 
measures which targeted the overly generous 
pensions promises made to public employees. 
In both instances, the voters moved in 
decisive majorities to curtail the excessive 
pension benefits. California also witnessed 
the defeat 
of a new 
cigarette tax 
initiative. 
Wisconsin 
and 
California 
are both 
blue states, 
and they 
are both 
symbolic of 
the damage leftist, Liberal economic policy 
can cause. They are representative of a 
growing voter backlash that is sweeping the 
country. There is a sense in the land that 
Liberal economic policy is ruining us, and 
the statistics bear out that feeling.

Government spending, now at 23% of GDP, 
is at its highest point since WWII.

Federal debt is projected to hit 70% of GDP 
by the end of this year and 100% within a 
decade.

The percentage of Americans who have been 
out of work a long time is the highest since 
the Great Depression.

30% of young adults generally and 37% of 
young blacks specifically are unemployed. 

Almost 16% of Americans are poor, and the 
number of people receiving food stamps is at 
an all-time high.

U.S. Treasury debt has been downgraded 
once, and may fall further shortly.

The list could go on, but all it would do is 
further corroborate the legitimate sense 
that we’re not doing well and we’re certainly 
on the wrong track. In response, Liberal 
politicians have urged more spending and 
more taxation, while they’ve stood in the 
way of every meaningful and common sense 
reform of public pensions. It’s no wonder that 
Republican, Democratic and independent 
voters are striking back – in homogeneous 
states like Wisconsin and in heterogeneous 
states like California, and ultimately every 
where in between. 

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a 
freelance writer and has spoken to several 
civic and religious organizations on cultural 
and moral issues. He lives in the Los Angeles 
area with his wife and 3 children and is active 
in the community. He can be reached at 
gregwelborn@earthlink.net.