Redstate

The DOD needs to aggressively eliminate the other side of the problem - permanent ban on the bribing contractors, their corporate officers, owners, and a magnifying glass to related associates.

But I'm a bit sad for the man.  To echo John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=6182):

Normally, I have no feelings for these people that do things like this, and I honestly can't remember if `Duke' is one of these wingnuts who sends me up the wall, but for some reason I am a little sad. I always hate it when something like this is done by our military heroes.

I guess what I am trying to say is I have no sympathy for what he did, but I am a little sad for the man.  ....

Gee, what are the odds??

Innocent until proven guilty is great and all, but when you actually admit to bribery, fraud, and tax evasion to the tune of 2.4 million, then I'd say you got your hand caught in the cookie jar.

Corruption at all levels, for any party, should not be tolerated or excused and should be aggressively rooted out.  I say good riddance to rep. cunningham, and any other public official who defrauds and steals from taxpayers.

"You're doing a helluva job there Dukey" - President Bush

In all seriousness, this one really hurts.  That was a laundry list of felonies that this guy committed.  It is going to make this North County seat possibly competitive for a Democrat, not to mention that this doesn't help the national party as far as their image goes.  All around it was not a very good day for us.

Powder Blue Report

When this story first broke during the summer, the accusations seemed very daunting. But Duke stood up and said he would fight those charges and prove his innocence. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's good that he has stood up now and admitted his guilt. I just wish he had done so at the outset.

Duke Cunningham is a true military hero. But he has brought disgrace and shame to the United States Navy, the US Congress and to the United States of America.

I'm so disappointed.

I have to say I am impressed.  Bribery is the ultimate abuse of political office.  That said, I can't remember the last time I heard such a frank and bold admission of guilt.  This is not a Clintoneque half-apology.  This is the real deal, no equivocating or passing the buck-- and if he was worthy of little respect while in office, he is worthy of much, much more for facing the music like this.

The whole thing can be read here (PDF)

...but we now have one less corrupt politician in the GOP than we did this morning.  That always makes it a good day.  Think of the possible loss of the seat as useful negative reinforcement.

I agree. His apology letter was very frank and candid and seemed quite heartfelt. I hope that this is a new trend, because this would certainly set our politicians on the right course.

sympathetic to him if he didn't spend months and months proclaiming his innocence.  

I'd rather they were frank and candid while they were in office, instead of just after the fact when they were on their way out.  But you've got to start somewhere I guess.

Obliged for the link, btw.  :)

His district in CA is fairly heavy R anyway, but I think it'll certainly be easier to defend now that it looks like his replacement will be decided in special election rather than as part of the larger 2006 campaign.  Special elections tend to be more local and in this case, more local means more Republican.  Anyone know who will be up for the seat?--I'm sure the D's already have someone picked out--they've been eyeing the political demise of Cunningham for a while now.

corrupt politicians.

Sadly I think corruption is all too common in Washington, this is just a prime example of the worst of it.

I am glad he admitted it, and apoligized without a "but" caveat.  

Who woulda thunk it?

...the opportunity to go after other Republican Congressmen; I'm not surprised in the least that Zuninga had nice things to say.

I'm sure the good felon will not be reading this,  but were he to, this is my message to him:

The level of betrayal to your constituents has no measure, you've disgraced your family, and have not helped the reputation of fighter jocks or Viet Nam vets.  But that does not especially interest me.  I have no interest in your sincere, heartfelt apology, delivered after months of protestations of your innocence, when it became clear you would be convicted in a jury trial.

What I do care about is that you have also betrayed Republicans and conservatives in all these United States, because by your craven, deliberate, and spectacularly selfish behavior you have given the press and Democrats plenty of ammo to aim at us, and to further damage the furtherance of conservative goals.

So, thanks for nothing, pal.  Keep on putting yourself above others.

[to fellow RedStaters -- today, every radio newscast I have heard today started with "Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham of California......"   .  I recall specifically that during the heavily covered scandal regarding California Congressman Gary Condit,  the word Democrat was not allowed to appear near his name without a court order, a note from home, and specific clearance from the NSA.  In the final analysis, I expect no better from our commie leftist national press.  However, I expect much, much better from anybody that puts an "R" next to his/her name and runs for public office.]

and I'm not really that sympathetic to him now.  But not only did he admit his guilt in the bribery matter, but also flat out admitted his lying about it before.  That was not his only option.  To pick on a few Democrats, he could have pulled a Traficant (and went down kicking and screaming) or a Clinton (and half apologized).  He did neither.  I'll take this as a small and poignant act of honor in an otherwise shameful political career.

So what do we do if Boeing gets a kickback?

Bah.  Whose idea was it to encourage all those mergers?

I wonder if this all could have happened if the McCain/Feingold BCRA had been in effect?

Since we all know neither party has the corner on corruption, maybe the seat should HAVE to be turned over to the other party until the next regular election!

Prosecutor's can go after individuals. In this case, from the little I've read, it seems the offending bribers are smaller companies and officers. If you get into a larger or multinational company, give them a choice - punish themselves or face something akin to a antitrust action to excise out the offenders.

When SMU football got the NCAA death penalty, the basketball team wasn't effected (aside from some withering guilt by association). A prosecutor and/or judge and or federal agency could devise a similar remedy here.

I'm still of the view that as bad as this story appears, it's really the DOD that needs to clean house. How did one rep. get this far gone with influence along these lines? Some procurement folks need to lose jobs here.

This struck me as a very odd, clearly unlikely statement:

"I recall specifically that during the heavily covered scandal regarding California Congressman Gary Condit,  the word Democrat was not allowed to appear near his name without a court order, a note from home, and specific clearance from the NSA.  In the final analysis, I expect no better from our commie leftist national press."

I think you recall specifically wrong. Your assertion immediately struck me as hard to believe. The word Democrat was not allowed to appear near Condit's name? It's not clear why you would make such an assertion.

Here some easily found links from the usual suspects of the so-called commie press. They took about 45 seconds to find:

CNN.com Transcipt

July 14, 2001

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/14/cst.01.html

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT:

"Meanwhile, lawyers -- the main attorney for Gary Condit, the California Democrat ... "

"Abbe Lowell, who is the attorney for California Democrat Gary Condit ..."

BBC News

July 31, 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/1466957.stm

"Interest in California Democrat Gary Condit was aroused after a police source said Mr Condit admitted having an affair with 24-year-old Chandra Levy ... "

That wasn't very hard to find. So why make such an assertion?

It undercut what was your otherwise compelling and heartfelt post.

This guy spent his adult life as a war hero, a Congressman, a big shot. Now here he is, 65 years old, and the only thing it's ever going to say on his tombstone is "Crook." And this for a lousy two million bucks he couldn't take with him anyway.

Duke Cunningham was a GREAT figher pilot in VietNam, and risked his life in serving his country admirably. I'm just sad to see such a man

make such a terrible mistake. :-(

One guy's overdue act of contrition is Markos's chance to take a shot at other Republicans. I'm amazed he didn't blog his orgasm.

Doesn't he have some dead troops or contractors to crow over?

Schwartenegger's proposal to loosen the way the two parties have locked down the Congressional seats - and Reps interested in a healthy political system should as well.  Locking up seats makes corruption easier, one.

minimizing his jail term.

Cunningham's slide should be an object lesson on how power and influence corrupt generally, and more specifically the difficult problems we have in dealing with defense contractors.  That so much money is being spent by the government - on not the market - is an open invitation to fraud, corruption and abuse.  Cost + enables this, and I think Eisenhower got it right, which makes me think Cunningham is symptomatic of a much bigger problem.

I heard Cunnigham's speech on cable radio this morning (Tokyo) and agree that he sounded sincere.  Besides this hard fall, I hope he can turn his life around.  His taking of responsibility is a first step.

the right thing to do is to grab for it with both hands.

which is why we can find it possible to envy someone who has had a fall.  Maybe we should all be more prideful?

Cranston got near retirement and asked himself what he had to show for it.  Like his integrity.  But he to went for the big bucks after a legacy of what I thought was honest work for the people of his state. (CA).  

I guess the man reaches this point and grabs for the brass ring.  Maybe out of bitterness, I don't know.

It's funny you mention him. I was thinking of Cranston as well when I wrote that. Same thing: a lifetime of seemingly honorable service, tossed into the trash for a few bucks at the end. Sad, really.

welcome here at RS, Balfour?  

Roxanne Kowalski: I was being ironic.

C.D. Bales: Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.

It was clearly (I hoped) hyperbolic, and not to be taken exactly literally, which is why I threw in the note from home, and the NSA clearance.

Before I go on, let me say thanks for the otherwise kind and thoughtful response.

If I must be required to speak literally, then please let me revise and extend my remarks thusly, as to the point inre Gary Condit:

******************

To illustrate how the hard-leftist national press works the Dem-GOP divide to the advantage of the Democrats, I give you Gary Condit.  In May 2001, DC intern Chandra Levy disappeared, and it became known that US Rep Gary Condit(D-California) had had an affair with her, and was thus a 'person of interest' related to her disappearance.  I recall specifically (and this time I mean it) that the word "Democrat" in both TV and print coverage, was anything but prominent.  It's very hard to dig up transcripts, and places like WaPo and the NYT don't keep (for ready access) articles that far in the past.  Nevertheless, I recall specifically that Rush Limbaugh pointed out the same thing, and MRC was constantly harping on this point.

Typically we would see "Rep. Condit" (which the paranoid among us would note carries a suggestion of "Republican"), or not hear an affiliation, or it would be mentioned well down the story, or "Gary Condit, D-Ca".  Entire episodes of GMA, etc, would discuss the scandal at length, and yet the Democrat affiliation would be mentioned not once.  These things I specifically recall.

*********************

Please note that I do not specifically object to the party affiliation playing very low.  That is as it should be, since it is not the Democrat Party that had an affair with Ms. Levy.  What I do specifically make note of, cynically, is that when a GOP person is involved in a scandal, then the word "Republican" is prominently bannered, shouted from the rooftops, printed in red, all caps, and tattooed on the butts of runway models (warning -- hyperbole in effect).  Balfour, this is ALWAYS true, friend.  I'm not bitching and moaning here, we've all learned to live with the rank hypocrisy of the press.  I point this out because you called me on it.

Inre the Condit coverage, in both the cites you give, the D word is well down the page, NOT in the headlines.  Let me just pile on a few more that do no better (if they mention it at all):

CNN, CourtTV, AP, more CNN,Washington Post, Modesto Bee (Levy's hometown), CBS, AP/Laredo, Boston Globe

Since you brought links from the BBC and CNN, I'll illustrate, using today's headlines, that the word Republican appears prominently when describing Duke Cunningham:

BBC:

US lawmaker quits in bribery row (headline)

A Republican congressman in the United States has resigned after admitting he took $2.4m (£1.4m) in bribes from a defence contractor. (subhead)

CNN:

Congressman resigns after bribery plea (headline)

California Republican admits selling influence for $2.4 million (subhead)

So, do ya see what I mean?

I saw him cry about losing his family and being 65 but might have missed him apologizing to us all for his corruption.

Somehow I get the idea his sobfest was all about him.

I am a Conservative.

And until these government loving pocket lining fools figure it out I guess we will have work to do.

... and this crime seems so unworthy of the man I came to know during that time in the summer of '95. There was never a hint of this in his background nor in his behavior. I tutored his daughter and came to know this family well, and my heart bleeds for them in this most humiliating of moments. Having said all of that, I'll try to remain objective in my commentary.

I agree that the punishment for this type of crime should be severe because those who propogate graft and corruption amongst our defense threaten the lives of each of our service men and women, and by doing so, endanger us all. The "Duke" I knew would never have done that... but he did. This should serve as a caution to every one of us because if an actual American hero like "Duke" could give into this temptation, it really could happen to any of us.

The man I knew was a man of conviction and honor, whose courage and trustworthiness had been forged and proven in the heat of battle. This man was hinted at in the man we saw today, standing up for his wrong-doings and readying himself to accept his punishment like a man.

For we are all human and have been born unto sin, but it is only those who accept that guilt and repent who find salvation from it. Though it may take from him most of his earthly possessions and all of prestige, through his actions today he has salvaged that which was best in him!

That was my district growing up. He's a good one too! He's an absolute conservative!

I don't want to get into a massive tit for tat here because, as I indicated in my previous post, I agreed with the overall substance of your post - which was a palpable disappointment and outrage at Cunningham's greed and bribery.

But with respect to the notion of hyperbole, everyone is entitled to their fare share of hyperbole. Lord knows this and other political blogs on both the Left and Right would cease to exist if hyperbole were somehow forbidden.

I guess where you ran into trouble with your hyperbole is when you used the term "recall specifically". The implication of recalling something "specifically" is that it is clear cut. Objective. Without question. Not an exaggeration. It is, in a word, specific.

Hyberbole, whether in jest or otherwise, is quite the contrary. Hyperbole is a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in "I could sleep for a year" or "This book weighs a ton."

I'm sure there are examples that can be found both in support of and in contradiction to your claim that the commie press will always refer to Republicans in scandal by their party affiliation, and never Democrats. But the truth is that there doesn't appear to be any overwhelming proof either way.

And lastly (and I know this will probably set many people's hair on fire), but referencing or citing Rush Limbaugh as evidence for a given statement is not an overwhelmingly objective source. Simply because Rush and the MRC (or Al Franken and Michael Moore, for that matter) says it, does not, de facto, make it true.

It would actually be really interesting to know if there has been a study done on this very question. With real data. Objective, nonpartisan sources.

Otherwise, it would seem we are left to generalizing, and, on occasion, hyperbole.

I'd like to pursue the hyperbole thing a bit more.  Yes, we explore all corners of the galaxy at Red State.

First, yes we are agreed that Cunningham's criminality has done damage to the GOP and to conservative causes.  I appreciate your backing.

OK, now why can 'specificity' not be a part of hyperbole?  The distinction between accuracy and precision is an interesting physical concept and applies here, IMO.  Under oath, I might admit that my to-do list for the weekend has 17 items on it.  If a buddy calls me to go fishing, I might say, using hyperbole, 'Look, Bill, I got a thousand things to do, can't go'.  BUT, could I not also say, hyperbolically, 'Hey, Bill, my wife has saddled me with 129 things to do, and THAT'S just before breakfast'?  And I think Bill would understand that I don't actually have 129 things to do.

I personally like hyperbole with precise (but not accurate) constructs.  Just my thought.

But now on to media bias.  You say But the truth is that there doesn't appear to be any overwhelming proof either way..  Sorry, dude, that's baloney.  The evidence is staggering, pervasive, suffocating.  You rightly suggest that anybody of any persuasion can pick out examples to defend his position, that's because there are literally millions of printed and spoken news stories, and we as conservatives certainly have our spies amongst the enemy.

But you ask about studies.  Yeah, they are out there, and when undertaken by parties without a dog in the hunt, they show consistent leftward bias.  Here's one that operates on an interesting and clever benchmark for establishing left or right bias.  It concludes, in short, that FNC is significantly rightist, and ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, WaPo, and NYT are all significantly leftist, with CBS and NYT being grossly leftist.  None of that should surprise anybody, except apparently you.  Let's keep in mind that the FNC draws about 5-10% of the newscasts of the combined lefty outlets, so don't claim to me that FNC 'balances it all out'.  It ain't so.  I have seen other studies, but can't dig them up right this minute.

Because Rush and MRC have a position does not speak to their accuracy.  I would urge you to pay more attention to MRC.  Absolutely they are conservative, but they post a daily dose of observed bias in the on-air media, with lengthy transcript cites, so that one can decide for himself whether the 'foul' claims are taken out of context.  They are also quite fond of pointing out the differences when a certain media figure (say, Terry Moran, ABC White House correspondent) is referring to GOP vs Dem people or ideas.  MRC craps out tons of objective data in defense of its positions.  

But in closing, Balfour, the media is so unrelentingly leftist and anti-conservative, it is just tiresome to have somebody require proof -- what I call the 'prove water is wet' game.  If I were to just ask you, 'what is the position of the major media regarding the USA-led liberation and reconstruction of Iraq', what would you say it is?  And would that position be left or right?

it was probably the sheer size of the government defense contracts and the difficulties in general in dealing with large contracts. Probably a lot of honest confusion over what donors wanted. He should have come clean earlier, but that he did so without a "but" is a sign of his honor and decency. It's a black eye, but fortunately it's a solid Republican district and we will probably keep the seat.

Don't make excuses for the man - I'm sure he knew what he was doing was wrong.  The temptation was strong, and he gave in - that simple.  I'm sure he found a way to justify it to himself; it's a natural human tendency whenever we're wrong but the wrong-doing satisfies a greedy aspect of our nature.

My bigger point is that there is so much money awash in the defense business that the corruption is not surprising.

...I mean, it's just gross.

Admittedly, the orgasm part was a little over the top.

Have you checked Brent Bozell's Media Research Center? They have been tracking and researching media bias for quite a while now.

Pelosi's statement was, typically, despicable. If she had stopped after the first sentence, her statement would have been entirely appropriate, but the rest of it is no better than the bovine waste that pervades Kos and DU.

The guy is a big time crook and deserves no sympathy. He betrayed his country, his oath as a congressman, his party as well as the family and friends he mentioned.

Also, was it Cunningham's son who was convicted of dealing drugs and got off relatively easy compared to his fellow defendants because of the Dukesters connections?

The whole family is an embarrassment in my opinion.

Shudder. With respect to the discussion of hyperbole, I cry "uncle".

Generally speaking, common sense tells me that when someone says, "I recall specifically", they aren't at the same time exaggerating for effect - comedic or otherwise.

Beyond that, I just don't care enough.

To your other points, I guess you didn't read my comments "specifically" enough. I wasn't debating the larger, more general question as to whether the media is biased to the left or right.

I was asking whether there are any studies that specifically support the poster's claim that whenever a Republican is engulfed in scandal, his party ID is identified, and never a Democrat.

That was his specific claim. I have trouble believing that claim given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

And I suspect there have been no studies done on this specific question, but would be interested to see one if there has been.

That's what I asking about.

I understand the whole "kicking the enemy when they are down" political tact; however, this is a missed opportunity for both sides to agree on the evils of this sort of corruption, and to do more to stop it.

Take money out of politics.

But then, I'm a staunchly pro-orgasm liberal.  

Take money out of politics.

Care to expound upon your inane comment.

The whole family is an embarrassment in my opinion.

While this whole affair stinks to high heaven, it does remind me of this hysterical Pat Paulsen editorial, enjoy:

http://www.paulsen.com/congress.html

As I write this post I am researching for a study that is specific as you mentioned.

I doubt one has been done that counts actual instances of articles about corrupt politicians that also mention democrat or republican next to the name of the corrupt politician and a comparison of the number of times it happens.

But I found this interesting link about the rise of the fourth estate. I include it just because it's interesting, but it's not the study you were looking for;

https://www.nber.org/books/corruption/GGG_CR_12-1-04.pdf

I give up. If the study was ever done, it's well hidden.

not, at least, since a war hero betrayed his country to pay for his pretty Peggy-o.

How could a congressman afford a multi-million dollar home, a rolls royce, jewelry, furniture, etc without someone in the family wondering how could this come about on a Congressmans salary. They are incredibly stupid or part of the corruption.

I have no sympathy for them. They are not directly guilty but are guilty by association and by not saying that wrong is wrong. Where are the families values?

Also a few months ago people on this site were saying that the folks in N.O were all criminals for taking stuff out of the WalMarts. No one was bothering to differentiate between the theives of TVs and computers and those who were trying to get necessities to survive.

It seems that people can justify anything as long as it suits their end means.

I'm pretty sure there has never been a study done on this specific question.

Which is why I doubted the original poster's assertion.

Among all the cries of media bias, the claim that the media always refers to GOP scandals by party affiliation, and never with Democrats struck me as particularly far fetched.

That just makes no sense.

I don't doubt that there is a certain level of bias in the media, but that specific claim never really passed the smell test.

I knew why you asked it, but you made me curious enough to try to find one.

Duke had all the members of his immediate family on the board of directors for the "charity" that got direct cash "donations" from the party of the first part (heretofore referred to as "the defense contractor").

Yes, his family is cupable, too.  Man, greed is ugly, and what's even uglier is the fact that he waited to get caught before stepping forward and apologizing.  The alligator tears weren't out of sorrow for doing wrong, but sadness over getting caught.

But I do not believe his wrongdoing paints our whole party with the brush of corruption.  

I'd rather not side track these comments anymore than I did by adding that line. It was superfluous and probably didn't apply.

I'd like to leave it by just saying I'm not a proponent of current campaign finance laws. I'd rather see a system that involved less money from sources outside of funds/means provided by the people via taxes/government.