Jump to content

Talk:Cunningham scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These articles need a lot of work, a lot fewer quotes, better organization. The Cunningham story is less complicated than the Abramoff one. We need to work on listing the boats and bribes etc. better. --User At Work 16:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few responses:
  • I think an inhibitor to all this is that the scandal does not revolve around Cunningham, but rather Wade and Wilkes. E.g., the one that pled guitly also addmitted to giving illegal contributions to Katherine Harris and Virgil Goode, but neither of these two Congresspeople were related to Cunningham.
  • The scandal also reaches into the Defense Dept, and probably the CIA
  • WSJ and San Diego Tribune [1] are reporting that investigators are looking into prostitution favors that Wilkes provided, and suggested that up to 6 congressman might get swept up in it.
And on top of all that, Wikes (or Wade) used Ed Bukham's lobbying firm -- making him only one step removed from DeLay, Abramoff, etc.!
My summary: because of all this, I think the scanel _is_ complicated; and, further, that calling it the Cunningham scandal is probably not accurate -- although I can't think of a better name for it right now.
My summary-II -- You are certainly correct in that these articles need a lot of work! -- Sholom
Response to the response -- people in general call this the Cunningham scandal. He's the highest profile individual associated with the scandal and is the poster boy for the bribetaking, with the yachts and houses and furniture and (evidently) prostitutes, with the explicit bribe list, etc. There are over 28,000 hits for "Cunningham scandal", and looking at the news hits, it's what the San Diego Union Tribune (which won a Pulitzer for the story) calls it, as does Hotline, The Hill, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post... [2]--User At Work 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the name at the moment, but there are parts of the scandal that have no bearing on Cunningham. Katherine Harris was up to some pretty stinky bribe taking from Wade as well. Quite what the scandal is going to be known as next week after the Watergate prostitution angle is elaborated on is anyone's guess. It is quite likely to end up being called Porter-Goss.--Gorgonzilla 00:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:
  • I still think this may need a more correct/better name; and
  • I also think that we don't know a better name yet, we may need to wait until the press settles one one.
I will also point out, that there are a few references to this scandal as "Hookergate". See here, where Ed Rollins thinks a number of Congressman are going to get nailed. Also see here where they even muse what the scandal will be called (with mentions of "Watergate II" and "Hookergate", since some of the activities took place at the Watergate). And apparently Joe Scarborough also used that "Hookergate" term [3]. I actually don't like that term (yet), because it takes away from the real scandal -- curruption involving national defense, and $millions wasted. -- Sholom 13:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cunningham scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cunningham scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cunningham scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cunningham_scandal&oldid=1198457695"