Dustin over at Georgia Liberal has a question for DuBose Porter over his recent comments about corruption under the Gold Dome in the wake of Glenn Richardson’s abuse of power, using his position as Speaker of the House to influence legislation for a lobbyist he had a relationship with, which Porter says was common knowledge.
The Democratic caucus did not put up a nominee for Speaker to run against Glenn Richardson at the beginning of the session. You can listen to the audio of Porter from the floor on January 12th, the first day of the new session, explaining they choose not to do so because of the budget crisis the state was facing. In fact, not only did the caucus not offer a nominee of their own, Porter seconded Richardson’s nomination.
What this says to me is that DuBose Porter knew of the affairs and ethical problems, but seconded the nomination and did not object by putting forth his own candidate (however futile that might have been). Now, I understand that he probably could not have gotten his choice through; however, he did not even put up one as a “protest.” More importantly, he SECONDED the nomination of a politician whose ethical problems were something, in his own words, “everyone around the Capitol knew to be true.”
You cannot champion ethics reform when you seconded the nomination of Glenn Richardson, possibly the most unethical Speaker in recent history.
Porter’s campaign is already seems like it’s dead in the water, but does this hurt his credibility, not just as a candidate, but as an effective leader of the Democratic caucus? What say you, Democrats?