He should have gotten the maximum sentence for his betrayal of the public trust.

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term meted out to a congressman in decades.

Cunningham, who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year, was spared the 10-year maximum by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns but was immediately taken into custody. He also was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution for back taxes and forfeit $1.85 million in valuables he received.

Cunningham accepted money and gifts including a Rolls-Royce and $40,000 Persian rugs from defense contractors and others in exchange for steering government contracts their way and other favors.

Federal prosecutors sought the maximum and his attorneys asked for mercy, but Cunningham, choking up as he addressed the judge, focused on accepting blame. "Your honor I have ripped my life to shreds due to my actions, my actions that I did to myself," he said.

"I made a very wrong turn. I rationalized decisions I knew were wrong. I did that, sir," Cunningham said.

I think the judge summed up my view of this individual and his crimes quite nicely.

"You weren't wet. You weren't cold. You weren't hungry and yet you did these things," Burns said. "I think what you've done is you've undermined the opportunity that honest politicians have to do a good job."

Given Cunningham's age, perhaps we will get lucky and see this be, in effect, a life sentence -- which i believe should be the minimum for such self-serving misdeeds.

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Will this development drain the Pro-Abortion voters from Pro-Life (at least for a) Democrat Bob Casey?

A prominent abortion-rights activist, Kate Michelman, said this week she is considering running as an independent in the race for the seat held by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, and his leading Democratic opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, have both said they are opposed to abortion. Casey upset some Democrats when he said he supported the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Michelman, the past president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, splits her time between Washington and central Pennsylvania. She said some women's rights activists have asked her to run.

"It is more about them wanting to express great frustration," Michelman said.

Casey is leading Santorum in the polls. His campaign released a statement saying, "Democrats are stronger when we work together on the many issues where we have common ground, and Bob Casey looks forward to doing that in the U.S. Senate."

A Kate Michelman candidacy may be a real gift for the incumbent.

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Last week, the president made the following challenge.

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.”

This leads Michael Reagan to respond as follows.

All of this begs the only legitimate question that can be posed by this deal: is it in the interests of the security of the American people? If it is, the deal is acceptable. If itÂ’s not, we ought to run away from it as if it were a case of bird flu.

Unfortunately, ReaganÂ’s response ignores the PresidentÂ’s point.

The deal was reviewed and approved under the normal standards applied to such transactions. The determination was hat there was no significant degradation of American security. As a result, the purchase was approved.

It seems to me that the “legitimate question” has been answered. Unfortunately for Michael Reagan, Michelle Malkin, and a host of other conservatives who I respect (and a whole bunch of liberals who I don’t), the answer of those with the power to make the decision and with the access to information that makes their judgment valid is different from the conclusion of the knee-jerk opponents of the deal. Disagreement on the outcome is not “begging the question.

Now, folks, since your question has been answered, why don’t you offer a coherent answer to the President’s challenge – why hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a European country? Any answer that boils down to “because they are Arabs/Muslims, just like the 9/11 hijackers” supports the contention of Grover Norquist (with whom I’ve rarely agreed, going back to his days running the College Republican national Committee).

"The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots."

IÂ’m hoping that my fellow conservatives, with whom I respectfully disagree on this issue, can start to provide answers that prove themselves to be better than NorquistÂ’s jibe paints them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.