Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Duke Nuked
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) pleads guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, and tax evasion. The suburban San Diego congressman and former Vietnam ace has resigned from what is said to be one of the seven or eight best deliberative bodies in downtown Washington, D.C., will be sentenced in February, and must forfeit more than a cool million and a swank pad in Rancho Santa Fe. "I can't undo what I have done but I can atone," Cunningham says in an emotional press conference. Things began to unravel for Cunningham in June when the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on a shady deal wherein Cunningham sold his Del Mar home to a defense contractor at a vastly inflated price. Plenty of classic goodies, use of personal yachts, etc., followed.
Against that grim bill of goods, I'll just point out that Randy Cunningham took the Eagles to the NFC playoffs five times, something most of his accusers haven't even done once.
House Democratic Leader and world-class drip Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) decries the Republican "culture of corruption." (I decry Nancy Pelosi, but who's listening?)
The Winecommonsewer|11.28.05 @ 5:36PM|#
I've decried Pelosi before myself and posted this link before but it is always great to see Pelosi skewered again here.
|11.28.05 @ 5:38PM|#
I have a funny feeling that we're going to forget about this
pretty quick, given a massive shitstorm that will no doubt hit the
GOP in the coming months.
Mike Scanlon has agreed to plead guilty in the whole Abramoff
thing. He may name congressmen under oath.
Tom DeLay will probably be aquitted since he has a good lawyer, but
the House Reps will probably not let him go back to his previous
job, fearing how it could affect vulnerable incumbents next
year.
And it looks like Patrick Fitzgerald may can yet another Bush
admin. figure...
|11.28.05 @ 5:45PM|#
This guy is my Congressman.
I've never voted for him. Ever. Last year I voted for the
Libertarian candidate.
We really need a change of government in this country. Sometimes I
think it's a pity we can't have a "Vote of Confidence" like they do
in Parliamentary systems. I'd like to toss every incumbant out on
their ear.
|11.28.05 @ 5:53PM|#
Fuckin Eagles.
zach, Eagles fan or Packers fan? Either way, your statement stands.
;)
And here in Philly, our "Randy" Cunningham would be
swiftly reelected in the face of such charges.
|11.28.05 @ 5:58PM|#
Wow, he pled guilty? He, like, admitted it? Whoa.
My favorite Cunningham moment was when he punted the ball ninety
yards. Is this joke tired, yet? I don't think so. Beats references
to overlords and hating America.
|11.28.05 @ 6:05PM|#
"I have a funny feeling that we're going to forget about this
pretty quick, given a massive shitstorm that will no doubt hit the
GOP in the coming months."
Comment by: panurge at November 28, 2005 05:38 PM
I agree, but I think there is another reason we are going to forget
about this...we are idiots when it comes to electing
politicians.
|11.28.05 @ 6:08PM|#
Martha Stewart goes to jail for lying back to a lying cop while Cunningham swindles the bejesus out of the taxpayers, abuses his elected office, and walks? That ain't right.
|11.28.05 @ 6:09PM|#
Wrong. It's whichever party is in power. Down here in Florida Land, we had scads of corruption back when the Democrats were commemorating 100 years of uninterrupted rule. Kinda figures, actually.
|11.28.05 @ 6:14PM|#
".we are idiots when it comes to electing politicians."
What I mean by this comment (I should�ve been clearer�sorry) is
that a lot of people are gullible during an election. We have to be
more careful when we elect politicians regardless of their party
affiliation. I get sick of tired seeing those damn political adds
on television and on print kissing babies and telling people how
they are �just like them.�
When I vote, I try not to elect a career politician because that�s
just asking for corruption.
|11.28.05 @ 6:16PM|#
Pro Libertate-
I think Tim Cavanaugh was saying the same thing.
And you are both 100% right.
|11.28.05 @ 6:16PM|#
That's funny--I actually half-expected someone to beat me to the punch with the right answer. Reminds me of that M*A*S*H episode where Henry asks Hawkeye to guess what kind of wood his desk is made of, Hawkeye says, "Oak", and Henry says, "No, it's oak".
|11.28.05 @ 6:27PM|#
No, this is the first figher ace of the Vietnam war Cunningham:
http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/cunningham.html
Shooting down a Mig is as good as a Super Bowl appearance. No
excuse to become a crook.
M1EK|11.28.05 @ 6:29PM|#
Personally, I find it completely useless as usual to find refuge
in the "oh, both parties are bad" rhetoric so common here when a
Republican is caught doing something horrible (oddly, never when a
Democrat is in the same position; at THAT time it becomes "oh, the
Democrats are awful").
It's a bit more likely to me that corruption stems from the power
base you play to - i.e., Tom DeLay was a corrupt asshat when he was
running for office the very first time; while that dude Jeffords in
Vermont doesn't get a lot of big-money campaign contributions. Or
Ron Paul.
But we can't explore that line of thinking because it might lead to
supporting a limit on big-bidness funding of campaigns. NEVER MIND!
BOTH PARTIES BAD! UGH! KERRY WORSE!
|11.28.05 @ 6:31PM|#
BTW, Randal Cunningham is far and away the best player to use in
Tecmo Super Bowl for the NES. Inhuman ability.
- Josh
|11.28.05 @ 6:35PM|#
Unfortunately Rep. Cunningham is probably going to get a slap on the wrist for these crimes, at least compared to what a ordinary citizen would receive.
|11.28.05 @ 6:40PM|#
M1EK-- my thoughts exactly on the immediate run to the "pox on both their houses" line when a Republican does something like this. I agree that power corrupts, yada yada, and the Democrats have their share of sorry bastards, but this current crop of Republicans really takes the cake. And I think minimizing the spectacular nature of their corruption with a reflexive "the Dems suck too though" undermines a clear understanding of what all-star crooks these assholes truly are. The Democrats, state-worshiping hippie hypocrites that they are, are a bunch of angels compared to Delay and company. We need them to take back at least a portion of this government before it's too late, if it isn't already.
|11.28.05 @ 6:46PM|#
Stretch, anything beats Rick Santorum.
And I'm an Eagles fan, although I do have a hard time admitting
that anymore in a public forum.
|11.28.05 @ 6:52PM|#
"Personally, I find it completely useless as usual to find
refuge in the 'oh, both parties are bad' rhetoric..."
Comment by: M1EK at November 28, 2005 06:29 PM
I disagree. I engage in this rhetoric because I hope that talented
politicians run on other party platforms (when I say other parties
I mean Libertarian, Independent, Green, Constitution, etc.) to
increase the number of choices, and to amplify the level of debate
in this country.
|11.28.05 @ 6:55PM|#
By what metric do we judge whether the current crop of Republicans "takes the cake?" M1EK and Jeff you are basing your conclusions on biased guesses.
|11.28.05 @ 6:59PM|#
Jeff, I'd even go so far as to say the current crop of
Republicans are far worse than the Democrats for the simple reason
that the Democrats, at least, are not hypocrites: they say they
like big government, and that's what you'll get from them. But the
Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government, and
government non-interference in private lives, and yet all they're
doing these days is expanding the size and power of government, and
increasing the ways in which government can interfere with yor
life.
In the name of small, limited government, of course. Bleah.
|11.28.05 @ 7:10PM|#
From the headine, I thought this thread was announcing the cancellation of Duke Nukem Forever. That or something about Hunter S. Thompson, may his soul rest in peace.
|11.28.05 @ 7:10PM|#
Jennifer,
I agree, for the most part. I do find the Democrats inability to
connect their supposed "freedom of choice" mantra with their
legislative instincts, especially at the local level, infuriating,
but even that seems more of a philosophical failure to understand
the logical conclusion to their party platform than the rank
hypocrisy you get from Republicans.
|11.28.05 @ 7:12PM|#
Basically the efforts of Democrats like M1EK are part of an
effort to hide the misdeeds of their own party.
As to party hypocrisy, the flip flopping of major Democrats on
GWIII is proof enough of that.
|11.28.05 @ 7:15PM|#
zeiner,
Exactly. Screw both major parties so that their demise brings about
something better.
Daniel Montiel,
To Democrats its "freedom of choice" so long as it is choice X, Y
or Z as determined by a group of "experts."
Deus ex Machina,
Yeah, I caught the Duke Nuke'm vibe from the start.
|11.28.05 @ 7:17PM|#
Daniel--
I would probably vote for a Republican if one ever ran for office.
Problem is, none of them do; it's nothing but a bunch of
big-government moralists calling themselves
Republicans.
|11.28.05 @ 7:21PM|#
I do find the Democrats inability to connect their supposed
"freedom of choice" mantra with their legislative instincts,
especially at the local level, infuriating
Both parties restrict freedom; Democrats will do it in the name of
health, and Republicans in the name of either morality or "national
security," depending on whether they're the religious-fanatic
Republicans or the America-can-do-no-wrong Republicans. Right now
I'll take the Dems over the Repubs for the simple reason that the
Dems are less likely to try and destroy my life due to my sex life
or lack of religion.
Yeah, so they'll raise my taxes. But a low tax rate won't do me a
goddamned bit of good if I'm only earning thirty-five cents an hour
in the prison laundry, anyway.
|11.28.05 @ 7:28PM|#
The Democrats are as big a supporter of the WoD, the major growth area in prison time.
|11.28.05 @ 7:30PM|#
Right now I'll take the Dems over the Repubs for the simple
reason that the Dems are less likely to try and destroy my life due
to my sex life or lack of religion.
Also, I lost a huge amount of respect for Repubs when the current
President's dad went on record as saying atheists should not be
considered citizens since it is, after all, one nation under
God. And I don't recall a single fucking Republican standing
up and saying this was an improper thing for a sitting President to
say about his fellow Americans.
|11.28.05 @ 7:32PM|#
Jennifer,
I hung on to the GOP through many issues, and I am only recently to
the point when I say I actually oppose them. It's the crumbling of
illusions and all that. The gay issues were the straw, much as I
hate to admit it, but there is a long line of things that lead to
the breaking of this particular camel's back. it's been depressing
to realize that, to paraphrase your comments, my majority GOP
voting record has never actually supported a single Republican.
|11.28.05 @ 7:33PM|#
By the way, when the first Bush made the anti-atheist comment I was still a believer, floating somewhere between soft-shell Christianity and Deism. But I still found the sentiment utterly repugnant.
|11.28.05 @ 7:33PM|#
For most of my adult life the Republican Party just seemed to be
the moderate wing of the Christian Coalition. In more recent years,
they seem less pious and more power-mad. To my eye, they are
willing to do anything to obtain power.
What's more, consider their status as the party in control of the
Executive Branch and both houses of Congress on 9/11/01, allowing
them to reap the lion's share of the full and dubious benefits of
both the wave of jingoism that swept the country since then and the
massive yearly increases in government spending. That they were on
top at this time has enabled their descent into corruption. (I want
to find less bombastic language, but I can't think of anything
quickly enough. Because I, unlike them, have an honorable day's
work to get back to, I'll stick with what I've put there.)
Cunningham, well, whatever.
|11.28.05 @ 7:36PM|#
Jennifer:
Both of your last posts have contained excellent points. However,
there are at least a few Republicans dedicated to smaller and less
intrusive government, while I'm unaware of any on the Democrat
side. That's why I am committed to use my vote to help ensure
divided government, regardless of how many clothespins I have to
use on my nose. I think the Clinton years with a Republican
Congress was as close to libertopia as we're going to see for a
while.
|11.28.05 @ 7:37PM|#
Daniel--
I'm surprised that the gay thing hasn't driven more true-believer
Republicans away from the GOP. Even if someone has a thing against
gay people, surely they realize that a War on Gays would, like the
War on Drugs, necessitate more erosions of freedom and liberty, by
persecuting yet ANOTHER victimless crime for which there will be no
victims complaining to the cops, so the cops can only arrest people
by snooping?
|11.28.05 @ 7:37PM|#
I have a funny feeling that we're going to forget about this
pretty quick, given a massive shitstorm that will no doubt hit the
GOP in the coming months
What makes you think this won't prove to be related?
|11.28.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Danel, Jf and other disillusioned Republicans:
Here's an article I read on BBC yesterday, demonstrating the way
the rest of the world is looking at the party; the thing which
inspires the greatest feeling of "WTF?" is the fact that, at least
in their eyes, the GOP is the party which stands for a
6,000-year-old Earth, and intelligent design, and (bad) Bible-based
morality like the active persecution of homosexuals. The article
also says that some Republicans are starting to fight back to make
their party non-insane again, but I personally think it'll be
damned tough for them to do much good; the rot may have spread far
enough to be terminal.
Or to put it another way: if you sell your soul to the Devil don't
be surprised when you can't buy it back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4469590.stm
|11.28.05 @ 7:49PM|#
Jennifer,
To be honest, I sadly disagree. I think most of the rank-and-file
GOP voters of which you speak would turn against the WoDrugs before
they would back anyway from any nascent War on Gays. The violent,
irrepressible "ick" factor that many people have regarding gay
issues, combined with religious fervor, makes this issue very, very
hard for some people to back away from, on both sides of the aisle.
Just this past weekend, I listened to a family member explain to me
that since gays "aren't all that repressed anymore," she shouldn't
have to be supportive of me in any way beyond not rejecting me
(She's a Clinton-loving Democrat, BTW). This is hardly a nuanced
opinion, and it leaves me with little hope that people with views
like this would ever vote against ANY anti-gay measure, regardless
of how intrusive is might be, or how many constitutional rights may
be trampled. Hippies, recovering or wanna-bes, at least have a
left-over high-school sense of "drugs = cool" to lead us to hope
that common sense may yet prevail in the drug war; I don't see much
hope on the gay issues besides time.
|11.28.05 @ 7:51PM|#
BTW, my starting "I disagree" was in regards to true-believer Republicans issues re: the War on Gays.
|11.28.05 @ 7:54PM|#
Jennifer,
Though I certainly don't support any anti-gay measures, comparing
GOP positions on gay issues to the War on Drugs just goes too far.
The GOP is not waging a "War on Gays". Even the sodomy laws that
were recently deemed unconstitutional were never enforced unless
part of another crime (rape, statutory rape, public restroom
indecency, ect.) Their only real high profile position is against
allowing gays enter into government sancationed marriages, which
from a strictly libertarian perspective doesn't really raise any
issues. I'm also against government sancationed gay marriage. Of
course, I'm against heterosexual government sanctioned marriage
too, but whatever. The drug war is a 500 lb gorrila. The gay issue
is a meaningless cultural squable.
|11.28.05 @ 7:56PM|#
Daniel, what you sy goes back to the issues mentioned in the BBC article--seems the party cares more about hating gay people and making America Safe for Christianity ('cause they were such an oppressed, politically voiceless minority before) than for cutting taxes, being fiscally responsible and decreasing the size, scope and power of government.
|11.28.05 @ 7:58PM|#
Even the sodomy laws that were recently deemed
unconstitutional were never enforced unless part of another crime
(rape, statutory rape, public restroom indecency, ect
Lawrence v. Texas. Nothing but two men having sex.
|11.28.05 @ 7:59PM|#
I think that the rot has spread far, but it won't be terminal
for quite a while, and the reason for this is the same reason that
moderate Republicans will find it so hard to shake this from their
party's stance--IT WORKS. Sorry to shout, but this adoption of
Evangelical Christian beliefs as policy, with reinforcement and
egging on from Christan leaders has really locked the GOP into an
us-versus-them scenario, at least in the voters' minds, and damn it
all--it's working. (Some) christians are lining up faster and
entrenching themselves deeper and deeper to fight these culture
wars, and the GOP strategic leadership is playing the tune.
Think about the reinforcement--from O'Reilly to Robertson, these
hot-button touchy issues are started in a community, brought up in
legislation, argued through the media, preached on on Sunday, and
then laid out in the voting booth. It's being played like a loose
slot machine in Vegas. It's going to be nigh-impossible to tell a
politican, "I know this strategy works and all, but we need to
change it, 'cause it's not the right one."
|11.28.05 @ 8:00PM|#
"For most of my adult life the Republican Party just seemed to
be the moderate wing of the Christian Coalition."
Comment by: Larry Edelstein at November 28, 2005 07:33 PM
It's funny how the GOP depended on the religious right to win
elections, but now it seems that they are losing support among the
majority of the voters. In my opinion the GOP deserves it because
they are constantly ignoring everybody but the religious
right.
"Right now I'll take the Dems over the Repubs for the simple reason
that the Dems are less likely to try and destroy my life due to my
sex life or lack of religion."
Comment by: Jennifer at November 28, 2005 07:21 PM
I keep finding myself siding with the Democrats in elections (only
when the two choices are Democratic and Republican) as well. The
Republican Party used to be my backup, but now it is starting to
change to the Democratic Party. Maybe I�ll switch back once the
Democratic Party is back in power of the three branches, which I
think will happen pretty soon.
|11.28.05 @ 8:04PM|#
the rot has spread far, but it won't be terminal for quite a
while, and the reason for this is the same reason that moderate
Republicans will find it so hard to shake this from their party's
stance--IT WORKS
I was unclear before--I didn't mean it's too late for the GOP as a
viable political party capable of electing people; I meant it is
too late for the Republican party to ever stand for what it did
when you were drawn to it. Small government? No. Fiscal
responsibility? No. Scientific knowledge? No--it's the party of
Saving America From Gay Marriage and Scorched Flags.
|11.28.05 @ 8:06PM|#
Yes, I have to disagree on the "meaningless cultural squabble"
label. With some politicians trying to remove domestic partner
rights, other states banning gay adoptions, others threatening to
remove(!) children from their current (gay) adoptive parents: all
of these are far more than just opposing gay marriage.
I could easily turn the issue around and say that all the victims
of the drug war were in fact breaking the law. With the exception
of the actual "gay sex is illegal" cases, most of the anti-gay
issues today threaten people simply trying to live their lives and
have the same rights as straight people. It's more than adding a
new kind of marriage to the state-sanctioned pile; it's equal
treatment.
Wintermute|11.28.05 @ 8:16PM|#
Damn, I had to scroll back up to see what this topic started out
to be. Turned into one of those Demopublican things.
Anyway, it was the Pelosi mention that made me scroll down. I just
read somewhere she has five kids. Oh great, another human either
greedy for offspring or fatalistic about the results of sex.
Even as a card-carrying big-"L" Libertarian, I leaned Green and
rejected the open-immigration plank.
|11.28.05 @ 8:16PM|#
What you said, Daniel--it just hit me, why I prefer the
Democrats these days despite the approximately 9,374 things I can't
stand about them: there have actually been states where laws passed
making it illegal for employers to offer gay domestic partner
benefits, and such. Republicans pushing laws requiring active
discrimination from private employers and citizens!
So that, ultimately, is the difference: the Democrats would
require an employer to offer benefits to gays even if the
employer didn't want to, while Republicans would forbid an
employer from offering benefits to gays, even if the employer DID
want to.
If these are my only two options, I'll go with the first one,
thankyouverymuch.
|11.28.05 @ 8:21PM|#
It pains me to type these words, but between the two forced "social engineering" options, I agree--make mine Dem.
Wintermute|11.28.05 @ 8:24PM|#
Oh yeah, and my take on the gay marriage thing:
What is not right is health and pension benefits and tax deductions
based on marriage. If those did not exist, gays wouldn't be
demanding it.
Gays have gotten a lot of legal gains in the last decade or so; and
if I were running a Democratic campaign (as I have in the past), I
would counsel strongly for letting gays enjoy their gains but
against supporting yet another gain at this time. You've got to win
before you can rule.
|11.28.05 @ 8:32PM|#
Gays have gotten a lot of legal gains in the last decade or
so; and if I were running a Democratic campaign (as I have in the
past), I would counsel strongly for letting gays enjoy their gains
but against supporting yet another gain at this time. You've got to
win before you can rule.
On a strictly pragmatic level I maybe agree with you, but I can see
why gays would find it utterly unacceptable. "Sorry, guys, you've
got to be socond-class citizens, be thankful at least you're no
longer imprisoned for it, and stop asking for equality."
Viking Moose|11.28.05 @ 8:32PM|#
torture wasn't as big an issue with the dems in power.
i do agree, to an extent, about the rushing to declare "pox on both
houses" is a cop out. However, there are times when it's a good
thing to remember. Generic comments about size of gov't in specific
areas is a good place for that. It is a good thing to remember when
there are no differences in end results of policies (e.g., bigger,
more intrusive government)
BUT! let's say we get some big scandal this upcoming year where
torture was just the beginning. then a "pox" argument would be,
imo, supportive of the reps/neocons, and worse than a cop out.
c'mon - show some sack and admit to being for those policies or
against!
it is along these lines that i decried the CATO article (gasp)
where they didn't take issue with the fact that ID is not science -
instead the author focused on the "get govt out of schools to
eliminate this church-state issue (that's just one of the problems
with it).
or when somebody says "i don't have a bone to pick in this
argument, but i'm for XX because it pisses off YY", when in cases
such as ID=science crap, they *are* taking a side. ("what the hell:
it's better than Irwin"). A buddy of mine is famous for this. He
never has opinions when his side gets busted. The classic case of
"yeaaaa for my side".
then again, there are times when it might be a good, generic
argument against the false dichotomy of one side that was pro war
for bullshit reasons and the other that was pro war for cowardly
reasons.
and i suspect there's the Cathy Young reflex to appease the loudest
of the whiners (christian conservatives at this point in time) so
as not be labeled "media biased". When Ms Young writes, often, that
is a blessing to read - to see that it's thought out from many
POVs. Sometimes it, unfortunately, doesn't work (still a BIG fan of
your work, Ms Young!!!!)
remember, fox is watched more than cnn.
good last point, Jennifer.
'later.
|11.28.05 @ 8:37PM|#
mute:
Yeah, and I could understand and deal with that. After all, I don't
care what people told the pollsters: I do believe that Newsom and
Mayor Whats-his-name from New York helped re-elect Bush by handing
the GOP a golden issue to run with in the form of various anti-gay
initiatives. Sometimes you have to slow down with what you have won
before you ask for more.
|11.28.05 @ 8:46PM|#
After all, in order to get the right endorsements, a Democratic politician in any blue state will have to make at least token gestures towards GLBT issues, and this will establish his "I don't want to kill you OR take away your health care" bona fides. Then, once in office, s/he can vote pro-gay all they want without having made it an issue in their campaign.
|11.28.05 @ 8:47PM|#
You mean he didn't try to get the judge removed? Call the
prosecutor a partisan fanatic? Say he was proud of what he did?
Call his donors to build a giant legal defense fund?
Man, what a wuss.
|11.28.05 @ 9:06PM|#
Jennifer,
I'm pretty sure that Lawrence v. Texas was a contrived case
prosecuted for the explicit purpose of testing the statute (the
defendants and prosecution were in cohoots). If I'm wrong I
apoligize, but that's how most cases where an uneforced but
constitutionally suspect (at least in the minds of our 5 wise men)
statute is involved.
|11.28.05 @ 9:09PM|#
1) I've only read half the thread so far but I'm pleased to see
that Phocion is back!
2) I like Jennifer's comment that she would vote for a Republican
if a real one ever ran for office.
3) There are two criticisms to level at the "Pox on both their
houses!" rhetoric. The first is whether it's accurate in the grand
scheme of things. The second is how it's used in a particular
discussion. For all I know, a careful examination of the grand
scheme of things may reveal that the two parties really are equally
horrid in each and every measure. And if that's your point, well,
we can examine it.
But if it's simply used to change the topic when somebody gets
caught with his finger in the cookie jar, that is obviously
problematic.
|11.28.05 @ 9:11PM|#
I'm pretty sure that Lawrence v. Texas was a contrived case
prosecuted for the explicit purpose of testing the statute (the
defendants and prosecution were in cohoots).
Evidence?
|11.28.05 @ 9:19PM|#
The two men were arrested and spent the night in jail, after a pissy neighbor tried to get them in trouble with the cops by filing a false report. I didn't follow the case history, but I never heard anything about this being a test case with the two men in on the deal...
|11.28.05 @ 9:52PM|#
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Texas Supreme Court also rule against the two gay men in Lawrence v. Texas? Was this just a ploy by the Texas Supremes to get the case sent to the national Supremes to get it overturned?
|11.28.05 @ 10:18PM|#
Thanks, Biologist. So lower courts in Texas ruled against the man and the Texas Supremes refused to review it. How far up did this benevolent conspiracy of yours go, FD&S?
|11.28.05 @ 10:36PM|#
Randy Cunningham? I know you're just trying to link the
guy to the grifter du jour, but that's the first time this Eagles
fan ever heard old Randall get that nickname.
Anyway, Cunningham took the Birds to the playoffs four times - the
fifth was mostly the work of Rodney Peete. Randall simply came in
after Peete went down in an ugly second-round loss to the Cowboys
best remembered for happening on the same day as the Blizzard of
'96. Counting the Cowboys loss, Randall's career playoff record was
1-5, though at least some of that is the result of playing under
three thoroughly inept head coaches - one of whom never again
served as an NFL head coach after being fired by the Eagles, and
two of whom did so for only a short while before permanently being
given the boot elsewhere.
|11.28.05 @ 11:27PM|#
And how is the Duke going to atone? Write a tell-all book that
his supporters and flunkie-friends will buy up by the thousands to
inflate it's sales and refill his bank account? Or as a feudal
samuri of Imperial Japan atoned for failing his Diamyo lord?
The man's admitting selling his Honor for filthy silver, my
expectations are low.
|11.29.05 @ 12:14AM|#
Fatetc,
Some have assumed, due to the circumstances of the arrest, that it
was a "set-up" to get a test case. I can't say that there has ever
been any real evidence of such, nor were the penalties Lawrenece,
etc. had to suffer (including being labeled a sexual offender and
being placed on Texas' sex offender list) faked.
|11.29.05 @ 10:41AM|#
Come on, Cavanuagh, Pelosi has such dreamy eyes....if you're a Bette Davis fan.
|11.29.05 @ 11:20PM|#
House Democratic Leader and world-class drip Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) decries the Republican "culture of corruption." (I decry
Nancy Pelosi, but who's listening?)
Neither one is my party, and I'll decry if I want to.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245