Chicago Tribune public editor Don Wycliff has a tough job - he's the man largely responsible for fielding reader complaints - and no doubt, probably gets a higher percentage of stream of consciousness rants laced with insults and profanity than anyone at the paper (besides maybe John Kass). I've always found him to be a reasonable professional and a man that generally avoids knee jerk conventional wisdom, at least, not without giving it some thought first.
Still -- when the man steps in it, someone needs to tell him to wipe the shit from his shoes, lest he get used to the smell.
From his column today about the relative importance of
Duke Cunningham's bribery plea:
He was not a fount of innovative ideas. His offense--taking bribes from defense contractors to whom he steered Pentagon business--does not seem to have been part of a pattern of congressional wrongdoing, like the House bank scandal of yesteryear.
* * *
From the perspective of the Chicago Tribune, it also is significant that he was a greedy guy from a district in California--his wrongdoing posed no discernible threat to Illinois, the Midwest or the nation.
While I applaud this diary, while I appreciate the TPM "Nice Try" brigade, and while I think there's even a bit of surface level logic in Wycliff's reasoning -- anyone that thinks we're winning the thematic battle on corruption needs to get out more.
I'm not saying we're losing - but it took our nation, and perhaps most importantly, the media, nearly 3 years to start asking the Iraq questions most of us had and posted in 2003. With the 2006 mid-terms less than a year away and our Republicriminals getting quite good at covering their tracks and throwing up smoke screens -- we don't have that kind of time.
The great part is -- Don wants to hear from you:
So there you have it, Dr. Amenta: one man's take on the relative merits of the two stories you wrote about. I'd be glad to hear any other reader's.
So where do we start in our quest to lead Mr. Wycliff and the Tribune to the light?
Why was Cunningham "Small Potatoes"?
Cunningham, a member of the House since 1991, is one of 535 members of Congress, 435 in the House. He was not a leader in his chamber or his party. He was not the margin of difference between majority and minority status for his party. He was not a fount of innovative ideas. His offense--taking bribes from defense contractors to whom he steered Pentagon business--does not seem to have been part of a pattern of congressional wrongdoing, like the House bank scandal of yesteryear.
One would think that a seat of the Appropriations Committee - which Duke's own
House page - still up called the
powerful House Appropriations Committee. I know we're not used to believing Republicans -- but it seems to me that having such say over the purse strings would indeed qualify one as "powerful". Let's not forget, too, his role on the Defense Appropriations subcomittee and seat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- a role, in fact, that Democrats would like to
shine a little light on.... In the War on Terra, it would seem a bribe taking congressman having access to some of the most sensitive of materials might indeed be a wee bit of scary.
Then, of course, there's the whole "does not seem to have been part of a pattern of of congressional wrongdoing" business. Yes, Mr. Wycliff, it's a tragedy, but we've apparently reached an age where corrupt politicians aren't going out of their way to take their kickbacks, bribes, faux-bribes, in clean, neat, and templated ways.
Still, even with the lack of podcasts of money bag handovers - maybe we can put some pieces together... I know, I know -- this is "investigation" rather than "transcription", but perhaps you'll permit me to partake in a bit of this quaint practice.
I won't do a total rehash of the great work TPM has done on the Duke, but just for fun -- pick out some prominent Republicans and google them together with "Mitchell Wade" (co-conspirator #1 in Duke's case) and MZM, inc (Wade's company). For more fun - try "Brent Wilkes" and ADCS, inc together with your favorite Republicriminal. Or -- you can just start at TPM's most recent post on Duke and work your way back.
When you consider the space Defense appropriations take up in our annual budget, consider that classified Pentagon spending has increased 48% to 27 billion since 9/11 -- well, let's just say that's an awful lot of money... and between the missing Iraq billions, the indictment of former WH procurement officer David Safavian, the Abramoff debacle, and other billowing smoke of waste and corruption -- I'd sure like to see a bit more than work than an empty "seems isolated" pronouncement.
Then there's the "his wrongdoing posed no discernible threat to Illinois, the Midwest or the nation".
Come again? A member on both appopriations and intelligence committees -- and his graft in a time of war poses no discernbile threat? I must have also missed the budget restructuring bill that ensured that only tax dollars from CA-50 were used to pay MZM for the work and non-work Duke won them.
Like I said - I don't think Don's a partisan hack covering for his buddies -- he's just a little slow on the uptake when it comes to Republican corruption.
Sounds like he needs a lesson!
LTE: Chicago Tribune
Letters to Wycliff: Don Wycliff