Article

2005-11-29 Home Front: Politix

We should discuss Duke Cunningham at some point

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-11-29 11:13|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Duke was/is my congressman. I was proud to have him and defending him initially against the charges (he bought a house at a low price right after the San Diego fires). I'm sad to hear he was guilty all the time. It's shame and a sad end to an honorable career of service.

Duke will be mostly forgotten on a National Level by next year just as Trafficant and others were forgotten. Congressmen don't like pointing fingers at other Congressmen so its only the pundits and Duke has such a glorious record it will take the sting out of a lot of the bashing. At least that's my take.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-11-29 12:02|| 2005-11-29 12:02|| Front Page Top

#2 Put him away forever. And when he is rotting in prison - a real prison, please - let it be known that the next sob to try this sh*t can expect the same, war hero or not.

Posted by BH 2005-11-29 12:07|| 2005-11-29 12:07|| Front Page Top

#3 Wretchard had a very interesting post about the young Duke Cunningham. He was a heck of a fighter pilot. And I thought his letter of resignation was pretty good. None of that 'mistakes were made by my staff' BS. Other than that, good riddance, he was a corrupt idjit.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-11-29 12:46|| 2005-11-29 12:46|| Front Page Top

#4 I'll say one thing for Republicans. For the most part, when they get bagged, they do the right thing and quit. Right Senator Kennedy? President Clinton?

Posted by tu3031 2005-11-29 12:57|| 2005-11-29 12:57|| Front Page Top

#5 I was unaware any Republicans were defending him.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-11-29 13:02|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-11-29 13:02|| Front Page Top

#6 Yeah...first met him at a business function years ago....and some charity stuff later..sure fooled me...

Posted by crazyhorse 2005-11-29 13:23|| 2005-11-29 13:23|| Front Page Top

#7 This is the same Duke Cunningham that shot down Colonel Tomb, right?

Posted by Mike 2005-11-29 14:16|| 2005-11-29 14:16|| Front Page Top

#8 I was unaware any Republicans were defending him.

RC, I think you've missed Cyber Sarge's valid and very important point. It isn't that Republicans are defending this corrupt moron, it's that are not slamming this jerk for tainting their party's reputation. If the GOP cannot rise up and denounce this vile arrogation of power, then they rightfully deserve a thorough lambasting.

I have never seen an administration such as this one that is so entirely immune to the notion of conflict of interest. It is one of a very few factors that continues to inhibit any possible admiration upon my part for the oval office.

Common Cause has found that contributors to the 2000 Bush campaign frequently received rulings or legislation in their favor whether it was in the public interest or not.

"In each case, the Pioneer [$100,000 campaign contributor] has helped Bush win election and Bush Administration policies have benefited the Pioneer - in many cases, at the expense of the public interest."

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=196483

Watching Bush condemn insider corporate loans rings awfully hollow when you consider that he derived a significant portion of his wealth through loans obtained from Harkin. Cheney's affiliation with Haliburton, whether it is illegal or not still remains a conspicuous relationship. Before any of you begin ranting, mind one thing. I am not attempting to construe wrongdoing by making mention of these issues.

What I am doing is attempting to illustrate how this administration seems utterly immune to the notion that, not only should a politician avoid conflict of interest, but that politicians should avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.

This is why I applaud Cyber Sarge for his courage in seeking strong and unequivocal condemnation from the GOP with respect to Cunningham. I feel the republicans have done themselves far too much damage in terms of appearing like a "good old boy" network.

While it is up to the republicans as to whether or not they functionally address this, it grieves me that this administration has taken substantive action in fighting terrorism and yet has hobbled itself with repeated appearances of conflict of interest. I further contest the validity of Bush's faith based initiatives. Hundreds of thousands of American taxpayer dollars are lining the pocket of Sun Myung Moon, convicted felon and self-proclaimed messiah. The hypocrisy of America fighting theocracy abroad and installing it at home is simply revolting.

Many of you consider me to be anti-Bush, or to have some secret agenda. I do not. I let the facts speak for themselves. My hypocrisy meter pegs too often for me to admire Bush. Please try and remember that neither do I admire a swine like Kerry. Right now, I am sick to death of America's money driven politics and await some sort of true leadership to arise out of the ashes.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-29 14:21|| 2005-11-29 14:21|| Front Page Top

#9 Again, I'm unaware of any Republicans defending Cunningham. I'd have thought that was sufficient.

Apparently not. Apparently one party has to be held to the standards of sainthood while the other is allowed to solicit campaign money from foreign governments, conspire to have people murdered, collude with unions largely run by organized crime, openly embrace racists, and commit treason on a regular basis.

I'm certainly not happy that there are Republican politicians on the take. But until the freaking lumber yard is pulled from the eyes of the Democrats, it's sufficient for me that no one attempt to defend him.

(Oh, and I forgot the Democrats selling presidential pardons.)

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-11-29 14:43|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-11-29 14:43|| Front Page Top

#10 Many of you consider me .... to have some secret agenda.

Well, you got that bit right.

Posted by phil_b 2005-11-29 14:52|| 2005-11-29 14:52|| Front Page Top

#11 With respect, Robert, I don't think that expecting leaders to not take a bribe is expecting "standards of sainthood". Yes, the Dems are a bunch of treasonous criminals. That is irrelevant to the topic of Cunningham's behavior. As far as I am concerned the Dems can all go to hell, so I'm going to concentrate on the party that remains.

Glen Reynolds quotes Max Boot: "There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight." That's where I am. I don't quite trust the Republicans, but they're at least willing to kill the people who need killing. It would help a lot to see this guy disowned by his party.

Posted by BH 2005-11-29 14:57|| 2005-11-29 14:57|| Front Page Top

#12 Jeesh. The moment I found out he was guilty, was the moment he admitted it and resigned.

What exactly is it that you want us to do? Get naked and sit in a cold tub of water and whip ourselves with a cat of nine tails. Maybe we can tar and feather him, stone and kick him and then light him on fire.

The guy is a disgrace. Good riddance. If we were democrats we'd be arguing over the meaning of the word "is guilty" but we are not. We are shocked, saddened, and outraged. But he's already gone, so why the need to wail and rip our clothes?

Posted by 2b 2005-11-29 16:10|| 2005-11-29 16:10|| Front Page Top

#13 Well, you got that bit right.

So, spout it out, phil_b. What are you so afraid of? You act like I have some secret alphameric sequence that, once typed in here at Rantburg, will make you all want to go out and get sex changes.

You keep accusing me of maintaining some sort of secret agenda. I'd sure as he|| love to hear what you think it is, because it would be a big surprise to me. I call 'em like I see 'em. Go ahead and speculate to your heart's content, just be sure to note that it is your own speculation.

I've done my best to be straight forward here, right down to my dislike for Bush's faults, which are a bit too serious for me to overlook. My feelings about this administration are pretty well summed up by the quote in post #11 by BH. If Bush could just drop the faith-based sandbag, his position might be "where I am" too. Instead, there has been a near-continuous erosion of the separation of church and state under his watch. I'll repeat, if we had a Muslim president that was putting in place the sort of faith-based initiatives that favored Islamic charities in the same way the current program favors Christian ones, you'd all be in an uproar. Since it's not your ox being gored, you think nothing of it. Ptah had the good sense to figure out what I meant about this, sadly too few others around here seem to get it. Anyone ready for the church of Satan getting some tax dollars? That is the logical conclusion of the faith-based initiatives.

Separation of church and state is one of the prinicipal features of our constitution that has made America the fantastic super power it is today. The erosion of it is nothing short of treasonous in my own eyes. Call that a secret agenda if you will, but I seek a nation free from such blinkered theism.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-29 16:11|| 2005-11-29 16:11|| Front Page Top

16:35 ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding
16:35 .com
16:34 Edward Yee
16:34 Barbara Skolaut
16:29 Darrell
16:28 Steve
16:26 Barbara Skolaut
16:25 Darrell
16:22 BH
16:19 Ol Dirty American
16:17 liberalhawk
16:13 .com
16:11 Zenster
16:10 .com
16:10 2b
16:09 Shipman
16:06 Shipman
16:06 Dawg
16:01 Covert Floridian
15:59 Alaska Paul
15:57 Frank G
15:54 Alaska Paul
15:54 Aris Katsaris
15:54 2b