Hey, relax. The guy just lost his head for a second. I could happen to anyone . . .
How strong was the evidence against him? It seems to me that the entire Republican establishment cut deals for lighter sentences in exchange for testimony against Dwyer. Was he really a patsy or was he really the ringleader?
I’d say he was guilty as hell, though whether he was any more culpable than the others who cut deals is hard to say. If it hadn’t been for the public suicide, it would have just been a fairly mundane case of a highly placed official taking bribes.
BTW, while Dwyer was still in the PA legislature, he represented the part of the state I grew up in. I remember his names from campaign posters then.
I’m sure you could, but he lost his head for a lot more than a second. In fact, he plain lost it.
(To be excised at mods’ discretion, along with all other attempts to make light of this grisly topic.)
Please don’t try and turn the dope into Wikipedia. The banter is why a lot of us come here. As long as it doesn’t completely derail the thread.
This is still in GQ, but I will insert a little more opinion…
That’s a side of the situation I overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out. I guess we’ll never know what his mindset was, but I can reconcile the two now.
I agree with that sentiment, but in fairness, there are 25 posts in this thread, and only one of them really addresses the OP’s question.
Dwyer’s defenders still claim that he was framed, that he was a victim of political persecution. At his trial, Dwyer did not call any witnesses in his defense, and I think even his supporters would acknowledge there was little they could do to counter the evidence against him. His co-defendant, Bob Asher, appealed his case to third circuit but the conviction was upheld in 1987. The Supreme Court refused to hear a further appeal.
I don’t know anyone who thinks that Budd was not guilty. Asher might, but he is a douche bag in his own right.
I can’t imagine Budd was thinking at the time but…
Harrisburg is a pretty dirty place. When you are so ingrained in a culture of corruption and so many others are out there getting a taste by breaking (or at least skirting) the law, I can understand how he might think that he didn’t do anything wrong.
I guess its kind of like getting busted for going 10 mph over the limit when every other car on the road is going faster than you are.
In the end, maybe saving his pension was the motivation, but Budd could have served his time and probably gotten work as a political consultant afterwards. Former Attorney General Ernie Preate is a lobbyist for some prisoner advocacy group now that he is out. I am sure he isn’t going hungry.
It’s easy to see what was on his mind.
I"ve already addressed this in a [mild]PIt thread.
Perhaps my participation in Wikipedia on many topics, including the Budd Dwyer article, influenced what I’ve posted to this thread.
I absolutely HATE it when people post stupid, extraneous things to a thread/article which is supposed to be factual/informative/etx.
Now, before you get on my sh*t, I don’t in any way hate it when people post jokes/snide comments to questions in GQ. I do it myself. But, when someone is looking for factual info, and the best you can add is a pointless, off-track comment, then it needs to be addressed. At least before the topic has been addressed with some factual info.
I’ve done this over on the Budd Dwyer article when someone adds something about a band who recorded “Hey, man. Nice shot!” This might be an interesting post to a blog or a stupidly constructed web page about something, but if you’re trying to add something to a factual article, then stifle yourself.
If I’ve left out anything about my mindset on the topic, blame the wine. Just send me an email or post something, and I’ll try to reply.
Filter. From what I’ve seen, lots of other Wikipedia articles about people/events list cultural references, so why would you be averse to it in this instance?
This thread doesn’t need a “Trivia” section?
(Fellow Wikipedia geek.)
I agree, I mentally :rolleyes: when I reach a trivia section full of “xxxx is strongly reminiscent of yyyy” that needs pruning or the addition of lots of {{fact}}
You’re certainly correct about lots of the articles containing cultural references. That doesn’t mean it’s OK. When I’m trying to help on an article such as “cheeseburger,” I really don’t expect people to add episodes from the Simpsons in which a cheeseburger was mentioned. But it happens all the time. And the good editors take it out. It’s just hard to keep up with the crap when anyone can post and edit.