If you have to make the argument…

November 29, 2005

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, among the most conservative pieces of media real estate in the nation, had an interesting editorial on Duke Cunningham’s corruption today. The piece generally says the right things, but there was one sentence that stood out:

Mr. Cunningham’s graft doesn’t mean that all Republicans are corrupt, any more than former Speaker Jim Wright’s machinations meant all Democrats were on the take.

If you have to make the argument that Cunningham’s crimes aren’t a symptom of broader Republican corruption, you know Republican corruption has officially passed the tipping point. After all, why would the Wall Street Journal be defensive about this? Why would the paper argue that Cunningham’s disgraces shouldn’t tarnish his party unless the conservative editorial board was worried that there’s reason to lump Cunningham in with his disreputable Republican colleagues? In short, they wouldn’t.

To be sure, the Wall Street Journal has reason to defend its party against the inevitable conclusion. Cunningham is guilty, DeLay is under indictment, Frist is under investigation, Ney may soon face bribery charges, Libby is under indictment, the Bush White House is still the subject of a criminal probe, and the Abramoff fiasco could ultimately net a half-dozen lawmakers from both chambers.

Nevertheless, the Journal is tipping its hand. By even making the argument that not all Republicans are corrupt, the paper is unintentionally highlighting just how far the GOP has fallen.

There is surely at least one Republican who is not corrupt, just to be fair. S/he may not be in congress, but just to be fair, he or she must be out there.

  • It’s times like this that the massive right wing investment in creating their own media can pay dividends. They have a massive megaphone with which to scream about moral equivalence, and plenty of useful idiots like the Post’s Birnbaum to echo the blather.

  • The WSJ doth protest too much. Who’s saying that Cunningham’s plea means all Republicans are crooks? By responding to an argument that no one’s making, they’re making our point for us.

  • Wonder what they’ll have to say when the Abramoff imbroglio blows up and “at least 12 Congressmen” start getting letters? I think it was CB that brought up the fact the Republicans were intent on making the entire Lobbying Corps beholden to their party via the “K Street Project.”

    Still think that both parties are equally corrupt? We’ll see…

  • Just a thought…

    Now might be a good time to go after any corrupt DEMOCRATS.

    If we roust out a few bad apples on OUR side (assuming there are some) there will still be way more R’s to point at if anyone wants to keep score. And we will be the party of integrity, not just the party of lesser corruption.

    Of course we’d have to be on alert for the inevitable smoke-blowers who would say “all of them are just as bad”, but I think we’d get that BS either way.

    This bumper crop of corrupt R’s is a golden opportunity to clean up our own ranks.

  • Jim Wright did what again? Was he taking huge bribes and influence peddling? Were his actions of equal weight with The Duke’s?

  • Jim Wright did what again? Was he taking huge bribes and influence peddling? Were his actions of equal weight with The Duke’s?

    Good question. Wright’s scandal was not in Cunningham’s league. Wright became the target of a House Ethics Committee inquiry in early 1989, when it appeared that he used purchases of his vanity book to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum. His wife was also given a job and perks to avoid the limit on gifts.

    For that matter, it’s interesting that the WSJ had to rely on a 16-year-old scandal to disparage Dems, isn’t it?

  • “For that matter, it’s interesting that the WSJ had to rely on a 16-year-old scandal to disparage Dems, isn’t it?”

    It sure is.

    Wasn’t Mr. Gingrich found to have a faux paux similar to that of Mr. Wright? And neither was ever convicted of anything, heck, I don’t think any criminal charges were even brought as these were ethical violations–Mr. Wright might be an OK comparison for some of Delay’s smaller past shit in/on the House, but not the same as Duke.

  • They’re just using Judy Miller’s “we were all wrong” defense, as Bush is trying to do now with the Iraqi intelligence fiasco, come to think of it. Typical.

    • Comments are closed.