Posts Tagged ‘charlie rangel’

You know if democrats keep giving us so many gifts we might spoiled:

The House ethics committee recommended on Thursday by a vote of 9-1 that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) be formally censured by the full House for 11 counts of violating ethics rules.

Of course there is no guarantee it will actually be done:

A majority of the full House would have to vote to censure Rangel or lawmakers could opt for a lighter punishment. That vote likely will wait until after the Thanksgiving recess.

If the House votes in favor of censure, Rangel most likely would have to stand in the well of the House for a formal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). A reprimand would only require the House to formally adopt the investigative committee’s report on Rangel’s activities.

Charlie Rangel withstood some of the most horrific combat in Korea 60 years ago, if you think he will be bothered by a bunch of pampered pols whose every secret he likely knows staring at him in the well is going to bother him you are kidding yourself.

Dissenting Justice details the political calculus of Rangel’s decision to take it:

It is highly likely that Rangel calculated that the House would not expel him. The Speaker of the House cannot refuse to sit a representative simply because the individual has committed ethical violations. The Constitution, however, permits expulsion of House members by a 2/3 vote.

Rangel successfully ran for reelection with the ethics charges pending. Rangel probably believed that if he won the election, he could escape the ethics proceedings with a punishment short of expulsion. The committee’s recommendation that Rangel face a censure suggests that his gamble worked.

Gamble smamble if anyone thinks there was any chance that the democratic party would expel a senior member of the congressional black caucus when they are totally dependent on the black vote to win any national election, particularly when his own district didn’t care is delusional. Rangel has been in congress for 40 years he knows how to count.

Stacy is a bit more blunt:

In other words, a meaningless verbal scolding. He gets to keep his job, his pension, etc. Michelle Malkin live-blogged the hearings, complete with Rangel claiming he had been “smeared” and John Lewis calling Rangel a civil rights hero.

I don’t actually see an issue there. Rangel is a genuine war hero and I’m sure was active in the civil rights movement. Being a war hero and a civil rights hero doesn’t make it impossible for you to be corrupt in financial matters.

It will be interesting to see how the left handles this.

I’ve always remembered a particular episode of Gilligan’s Island (Gilligan vs. Gilligan available online here) that had a particular exchange between Mr. Howell and the Russian spy posing as Gilligan. Mr. Howell puts his chess piece on an illegal square. Mr. Howell reacts indignantly:

Mr. Howell: Young man are you accusing a Howell of cheating? I’ll have you know I’m far too wealthy.

Spy Gilligan: To cheat?

Mr. Howell: No, to be accused!

It reminds me that there once was a time when our icons such as JFK were far too important to have their dirty laundry aired in public.

How does that relate to The Rangel/Waters issues? Consider this; as Black America gradually progressed in rights and influence, they also gradually took the places at the seats of power that their growing influence and the slow progress toward legal equality demanded.

Like all men and woman those people who attained power and office were individuals with their own strengths, weaknesses and foibles. However those foibles while they might be known in their own communities were not aired to the general pubic. Not because the community approved but because you didn’t tear down your own when it took so long to get to the mountaintop (this is of course not unique to the Black community). As blacks migrated to the democratic party and as the party became more dependent on their vote, it became a priority for the party as well to keep any problems in house with a tact cloak of silence. Thus any such suggestion became a racial issue and the proponent of such questions a racist.

Now however things are different, the digital age forces light on things that were once hidden (read Rev Wright) and with our first black president (sorry Bill Clinton) it is impossible to pretend that African American’s place in American society is defined primarily by the sins of the past.

James Clyburn not withstanding, Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics issues have nothing to do with race and everything to do with actions. The actions against them are not signs of the return of the Jim Crow past meant to keep Black America underfoot. It also shows we have progressed beyond the equally offensive but less violent era of tokenism.

This is the sign of a new era where we can look at a member of congress of any race and see…a member of congress. This means we can judge said member not on the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I think that’s progress and America in general and the Black community in particular are better off for it.

Update: Morgan Freeman knew what he was talking about.

As does Col Allen West:

…for revealing that in the face of corruption we intend to give Charlie Rangel a stern reprimand!

The Texas Democrat said he intended to call the head of the full ethics committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), to apologize for telling reporters that the subcommittee recommended reprimanding Rangel for allegedly breaking House ethics rules. The revelation was not included in the lengthy documents on the charges faced by Rangel that were released on Thursday.

So says Rep Steve Green.

Let me translate this for the general public.

“Rep Lofgren: I’m so sorry I let the cat out of the bag that we plan on punishing Rep Rangel; who over nearly 40 years in the house likely knows more secrets about members of the house than the CIA ever will; with only a reprimand rather than any actual punitive action. I’m sorry I’ve revealed that the ethics committee is not about to punish the man who writes the tax law for avoiding taxes thus putting all of us in an embarrassing position of having to explain why to the voters in a year when we are already in trouble.”

End translation.

If anyone was wondering why Rangel isn’t cutting a deal, you now know. And what will that mean for Rangel, lets look at some history:

A reprimand carries no consequences. A censure doesn’t either, except for the perception that it’s a stronger reprimand; Barney Frank got censured in 1990 for using his influence to fix parking tickets for his partner, but he still became chair of the House Financial Services committee. However, a Representative who gets censured has to stand in the well of the House to have the language read aloud, which at least causes momentary embarrassment. A fine would carry more sting, but an impeachment or expulsion would send a clear message about following the rules.

Or as Captain Ed closes:

Yes, this would mean that Rangel would get the exact same punishment that Joe Wilson got for exclaiming, “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to Congress last fall.

After all corruption and tax evasion is one thing, but defying THE ONE? That is unthinkable!

memeorandum thread here.

Krauthammer just said he is surprised that he would turn down a reprimand deal. Why should he make any deal? If they are afraid of doing more than a reprimand then he knows they aren’t willing to challenge him, and like I said, he knows where 40 years of secrets.

What does the Rangel case tell you about the democratic congress? They are more afraid of Charlie Rangel than the American people.

Update: I couldn’t help but think of the 4th doctor Episode City of Death and the Doctor and Duggen. Jump to 3:25 and you’ll see that in at least one respect the Democratic Ethic committee and the 4th doctor have one thing in common:

The text of the exchange is as follows:

The Doctor: If you do that one more time Duggan I’m going to take very very severe measures!

Duggan: Yeah? Like what?

The Doctor: I’m going to ask you not to!

Send that time lord to congress!

Update 2: Hotair has fun with it:

Gosh darn it, it was supposed to be a surprise! Perhaps a nice surprise, tied up in a little bow, and delivered on August 11th when Democratic Party leaders throw a big birthday fundraiser — er, party — for the man whose birthday passed two months earlier. Who knows? The combination celebratory good feelings, hard campaign cash, and the softball reprimand might have convinced Charlie to shut the hell up and take a pass on the ethics trial slated now for the middle of the campaign season.

gotta love stuff like that.

We start our trip around my blogroll with a little coffee at Ruby Slippers, a blog I really should be linking to more often. Mary Sue had this to say about the Coffee parties that CNN was so impressed with:

So, just how strong were these coffee party gatherings? One might describe them as intimate. North Carolina had all of five people show up An estimated crowd of 3000 protested today in Minnesota. What’s a couple thousand people though? CNN reports the two groups have much more in common besides their group strength, that is. Do they now?

Well both groups are made up of carbon based life forms that are made in the image of God that depend on the intake of oxygen to survive and are named after breakfast beverages, but beyond that I don’t see much. It is simply a truism that any group of any size that supports a cause that the MSM agrees with is more newsworthy than any group 50,000 times as large that they do not. It’s why the media is slowing starting to resemble a salesman who can only sell his wares to relatives.

Over at Legal Insurrection Bill Jacobson finds that one little word that would have saved Eric Massa his seat:

Timing is everything. Only recently, when it became clear that a single vote in the House may be the difference, was there a whispering campaign and leaks about Massa.

Massa’s departure has made it easier for Nancy Pelosi to get the necessary votes because the vote will be that close. If Obamacare passes later this week, as Pelosi is predicting, the departure of Eric Massa may be the reason.

Eric Massa may be paranoid, but that does not change the truth that people in the Democratic Party who wanted to pass Obamacare really did hate him.

Ask yourself this question: If Eric Massa had announced that he would vote “Yes” on Obamacare, would he still be in Congress?

Does he mean to suggest that Nancy Pelosi and company might actually consider letting someone stay in congress who is undeserving just to gain a vote? Why that’s a shocking suggestion. If you believe that then you’d believe that democrats would allow someone with tax issues to be treasury secretary or allow a person with irregularities to chair an important financial committee.

Finally Big Hollywood notes Megan Mullally’s shock at Jay Leno’s decision to appeal to a segment of the population hitherto ignored by the Hollywood elites:

She recently blasted former Gov. Sarah Palin’s stand-up comedy debut on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” at movieline.com, mocking both Leno’s comedy bits and his attempt to woo conservative audiences.

“Could it be any more bald-faced that he’s going after the red states? It’s insane. It’s just right out there, full on … amazing. And she was wearing jeans [note: said with a drawn out snarl]. ‘I’m gonna wear denim! I’m gonna dress it down!’”

Sounds insane, all right. Why would the host of a popular late night show give a platform to a gorgeous, charismatic politician who appeals to a wide swath of viewers?

Yeah, having a best selling author who commands large audiences wherever she goes makes no sense. Does Jay actually think it will get him to #1 in late-night again? After all appealing to conservatives hasn’t done Fox any good in the ratings has it?