An earlier blog entry today noted conservative blogging questioning whether Attorney General Bobby Dustin (whoa! not yet recovered from holiday!) McDaniel could adequately represent the state in the lawsuit challenging the let-no-gays-be-parents Act 1 legislation.
McDaniel says of course he can. "I don’t see any reason why we would not be able to vigorously and diligently defend the constitutionality of this act despite the fact that I opposed it on policy grounds." McDaniel said it's not unusual for the attorney general and staff to take legal positions that they don't agree with politically. He said he hoped no one would challenge the integrity of the state's legal team.
"As long as you have the attorney general being an elected official," McDaniel said, "political issues are going to be out there [on which] people want to know where you stand. People have a right to know where you stand on the issues. I don’t in any way regret the statements that I made before the election."
ON THE ARGENTA TIF: McDaniel wants it on the record that he was the legislator who in 2005 removed language that allowed for non-contiguous tax incremental financing districts. He sponsored the amendment, he said, "partially because Max yelled at me in a committee room."
UPDATE: There seems to be confusion about the meaning of that last sentence. The general was saying that Max wanted the law amended to remove the language allowing non-contiguous TIFs. So did McDaniel. Original language dating from the 1999 legislation (that allowed the scheme Hays is now pursuing) was removed in 2005, McDaniel said.
UPDATE II: Max here. I provide a bit fuller account on 2005 in the response thread.