Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Alan Lange either misunderstands or deliberately mischaracterizes a post

Apparently, my blog entry yesterday entitled "What if Ed Peters falls apart on the stand?" was "pro-Scruggs" in the eyes of Alan Lange over at Y'all Politics:

Similar pro-Scruggs sentiments came out early on Tim Balducci (as he was the only one with contact with Lackey - by design, I might add).

I fail to see how musing that Ed Peters may (deliberately or not) be a terrible witness for the Feds is in any way "pro-Scruggs." Scruggs already pled guilty to attempting to bribe DeLaughter. How on God's green Earth would the testimony of Ed Peters at this trial matter one whit to Scruggs now?


Jim Craig said...

Maybe my blogmate is secretly in cahoots with Sarah Palin. YP says she's connected with Dick Scruggs, too.

nmisscommenter said...

I was shocked to discover you were pro-Scruggs, Matt. What do you do with all the wealth that comes with that?