Letters to the Editor
-
Things not going well...
Sometimes nothing goes right. Serving several years in the pen for bribery is bad enough--why get elected if you cannot enjoy the spoils of victory, right? ... but getting the uglier of two hoes sucks too, especially when you are going out of your way to promote California grapes, jacuzzis, the whole nine inches. I feel for you, bro.
-
The Devil works in mysterious ways
All the more reason to bring more "moral values" men to Washington, of course. Just look what the Devil did to defeat Duke Cunningham! The Devil tempted him to take bribes and fornicate with harlots, clearly -- Satan probably booked the hookers for him!
Obviously, the 100% ranking by the Christian Coalition wasn't enough to ensure his holiness -- they need Godly men with 150% rankings or higher, just for insurance against the temptations of Satan!
-
What's the point of this item?
Is the point that so-called Christian conservatives knew, or should have known, that Duke Cunningham et al. are hypocrites? That their endorsement or high rating of any particular politician is automatically suspect? While it's easy to say, this truly isn't quite so simple. Exactly HOW should the common people of this country divine the scummy nature of any particular person BEFORE any proof actually surfaces?
I'm certainly not sympathetic to either group that's apparently being skewered here -- Christian conservatives or corrupt, hypocritical politicians -- but what IS the point?
-
Jailhouse Fantasy
Well, at least he has this wonderful night to remember as he serves his time.
-
What is the point?
"Is the point that so-called Christian conservatives knew, or should have known, that Duke Cunningham et al. are hypocrites?"
Yes.
"That their endorsement or high rating of any particular politician is automatically suspect?"
Yes
"Exactly HOW should the common people of this country divine the scummy nature of any particular person BEFORE any proof actually surfaces?"
They're called 'republicans.'
-
The Christian Coalition rating
"Is the point that so-called Christian conservatives... endorsement or high rating of any particular politician is automatically suspect?"
Well, they sure don't have a good track record.
Does anyone know if they have ever given any democrat an acceptable rating? Do they even bother to rate democrats?
-
Is there a difference?
Richard Roberts, devout holyroller and Cunnigham 100 % Christioan endorsed hypocrite, basically one and the same.Good old repugnicans.
-
"Professor" and "thatboy"...
Again, I have little or no sympathy for the so-called religious right (which far too often seems to be neither) -- but it's way too cynical to conclude that the rank-and-file of such groups KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN exactly how depraved Duke Cunningham and friends were. That was my earlier point, which I may have not stated clearly.
How could the general public know of Cunningham's houseboat, his shake-downs of military contractors, or consorting with prostitutes before the proof actually surfaced?
If anyone deserves condemnation for intentionally "overlooking" the corruption of such politicians, it's obviously the leadership of these "Christian" groups, and anyone else in the media or Congress who DID know. No argument there of any sort. THEY can credibly be expected to have known what was going on.
-
The whole point...
... is that ultra rightist politicians who get full marks from the mullahs are ALWAYS fakes. It's just that they don't always get caught.
-
The point to me
is that the Christian Coalition doesn't care one way or another what their prized pupils do in their free time. (Not enough to bother to find out, anyway) Which would be fair enough I guess, if they took the same attitude towards people they obviously have such contempt for: Democrats, liberals, homosexuals, immigrants, minorites, etc. The point is that they don't care what the Duke Cunningham's do in their free time--be it a sex scandal or bribery--but they want to splash any Democratic scandal (Bill Clinton, et al.) all over the headlines, regardless of it's significance.
-
Anonymous?
I'm awaiting your standard posting on a subject like this.
Here, I'll do it for you.
Ted Kennedy! Barney Franks! Bill Clinton! Sandy Berger's pants!
-
a boiling pot of filth
Congressional Democrats: The Republicans said "let's get naked and get in the Jacuzzi".
Prosecutor: So what did you do?
Congressional Democrats: We got naked and got in the jacuzzi.
-
What's wrong with this picture
Where did Wilkes get the money to pay for his attorney, Mark Geragos? (Michael Jackson, Whitewater, etc, etc). If this was a high profile drug profiling case the US Attorneys would prevent Wilkes from using any of his illegal profits, (the man is technically bankrupt) to pay for legal fees. Wilkes deserves the same treatment as the Media Cartel. Questions are also raised about the current U.S. Attorneys office, formerly represented by Carol Lam, who almost didn't prosecute the Cunningham case in the first place, and who was fired for pursuing a Republican Congressman, rather than chasing a few illegals around the back country with warrants?
Evidently Wilkes and Cunningham will not testify at their own trial. The Wilkes defense is, "Everybody does it, this is business as usual in Washington." It should be interesting to see if a jury can be convinced of their innocence, but San Diego is a Republican sanctuary. Lam prosecuted a City Councilman on bribery charges using an FBI wiretap, and the judge threw out the juries conviction, summarily. The US Attorney's office under Lam promised to retry the case, and I think her replacement Karen Hewitt, also pledged to pursue it, but the councilmen launched counter suits, and will likely prevail. The case was a travesty of justice. Lam later went to work for Qualcom, a San Diego company. Her replacement is a member of the Federalist Society.
The deeper question remains, how many black contracts were steered through Cunningham? Duncan Hunter, former Chair of the Armed Services Comm, and a friend of Cunningham, declined to run for office again, and his son will try for his seat, same name. It's likely Hunter is up to his ears in this too, but this trial promises to be a white wash. If this is business as usual it deserves a lot more attention.
-
Yeah, I saw that in "Fargo"
MARGE
Okay, I want you to tell me what
these fellas looked like.
HOOKER ONE
Well, the little guy, he was
kinda funny-looking.
MARGE
In what way?
HOOKER ONE
I dunno. Just funny-looking.
MARGE
Can you be any more specific?
HOOKER ONE
I couldn't really say. He wasn't
circumcised.
MARGE
Was he funny-looking apart from
that?
HOOKER ONE
Yah.
MARGE
So you were having sex with the
little fella, then?
HOOKER ONE
Uh-huh.
MARGE
Is there anything else you can
tell me about him?
HOOKER ONE
No. Like I say, he was funny-looking.
More'n most people even.
MARGE
And what about the other fella?
HOOKER TWO
He was a little older. Looked like
the Marlboro man.
MARGE
Yah?
HOOKER TWO
Yah. Maybe I'm sayin' that cause
he smoked Marlboros.