Reply With Quote
I see the circle jerk board libs have no comment.
WASHINGTON – Democrats nervously anticipating Rep. Charles Rangel's ethics trial know all about the media frenzy and negative ads accompanying election-season scandals. They generated it themselves in 2006, when Republican Rep. Mark Foley was forced to resign in disgrace.
Foley's misdeeds stemmed from his dealings with House pages and efforts by Republicans, then in the majority, to ignore and cover them up. Rangel's ethics charges raise questions about his management of money and taxes and his official role — and pose difficult choices for the party that won its majority in large part by vowing to run the most ethical Congress in history.
Rangel has long acknowledged that his ethics troubles had no upside for Democrats in difficult re-election bids. The good news, he said at a news conference Friday, was that perhaps the matter would soon end.
Not if Republicans, still feeling the decisive sting of the Foley scandal, can help it.
"Rangel announcement a reminder of Washington Democrats' 'Most Glaring Broken Promise,'" read the headline on a news release quoting House Republican Leader John Boehner.
Across the Capitol, Republicans in the Senate tried to get some mileage out of Rangel's difficulties with a briefing leading off with: "Dem Senate hopefuls stand by Charlie Rangel and his tainted cash."
That wasn't quite true. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., a candidate for the Senate, announced Friday he will donate past campaign contributions from Rangel to Indiana charities. His campaign received $12,000 from Rangel between 2005 and 2007, but Ellsworth said he has not received contributions for his Senate race.
For his part, Rangel vowed to fight the charges, starting with a public hearing on Thursday.
"I hope you do get some sort of satisfaction that this thing is coming to a head," Rangel told reporters.
That may or may not be a good thing for Rangel and the Democrats. There was an emphatic lack of meaningful comment from House Democratic leaders Friday, an indication that the way forward for the 40-year congressional veteran, beloved in many quarters, was unclear to just about everyone.
More clear was evidence that the stress of living day-to-day as a scandalized public figure had begun to weigh on the feisty, 80-year-old former Ways and Means Committee chairman.
Shortly after the ethics committee announced what amounted to an indictment on unspecified charges Thursday, Rangel snapped at a reporter for asking the "dumb" question of whether his job was in jeopardy.
He apologized Friday and convened a news conference to give reporters who had been hounding him everywhere he went a chance to ask any questions they wanted. But there would not be many answers, Rangel said, several times describing his situation as "awkward."
"My lawyers would kill me because they say the best thing in my best interests is not to make any comment," Rangel said during a news conference in New York. "I don't know how to say no comment."
Was he relishing the fight, he was asked?
" no," he replied.
On Capitol Hill Friday, several knowledgeable Democrats said any strategic planning had effectively been placed on hold until it became clear whether Rangel could avoid a public trial by striking a deal — or resigning.
Absent that, the choices for Democratic leaders were stark:
Option one: Urge him to cut the proceedings short by admitting guilt to some charges and/or resigning from the House. This would kick up a storm of unrest especially from the Congressional Black Caucus, which Rangel helped found.
Option two: Sit back and watch the New York Democrat's trial unfold, hope that voters aren't as incensed by Rangel's fundraising practices and his failure to pay taxes as they were over Foley's come-ons to former male pages. And get some defense ready for the Republican charges of hypocrisy and failure to "drain the swamp" of corruption as Democrats vowed four years ago.
At the very least, majority Democrats are getting a taste of what it's like to manage a transcendent scandal in the shadow of an election.
Four years ago, then-Speaker Dennis Hastert and other top Republicans were besieged daily by reporters demanding to know why Foley's conduct was allowed to go on for years.
Then, it was Democrats running the negative ads. And, while all the Republicans wanted Foley to quit, his resignation didn't stop the bleeding. The cover up became the story. Then came the election. Republicans lost the House.
I see the circle jerk board libs have no comment.
What is there to say? Rangel is unethical. I would rather he doesn't get re-elected.
There's quite a bit to say if you recall Nancy Pelosi promised to drain the swamp in which this maggot was a key player. One Pelosi defended until yesterday.
This isn't just about Rangel...it's about the entire Democrat-run Congress.
They're all maggots and need to be voted out. More than a handful of Republicans with them.
Politicians are shady, in general. I agree with that. There are some good Democrats, there are some bad ones, same with Republicans. I think Russ Fiengold is one of the good D's, for instance.
Any politician that could vote for the Obamacare monstrosity and the Financial Reform monstrosity is worthless.
I think that includes Feingold.
I also think you will eventually come to agree with my statement.
Eh, I think any politician that signed off on the Patriot Act monstrosity is worthless. We all have our issues. What I look for in a politician is consistency and willingness to speak his mind.
For instance, look at Ron Paul. I don't agree with the man much, but he doesn't demonize something when out of power, then when in power, turn around and change his tune. TONS of Democrats do this, and I'm sure, a fair share of Republicans. That's what bugs me. Stay true to your beliefs.
rangel has been in congress long enough. time to go charlie...
Rangel is toast, and deserves to be toast. Good riddance.
I see you have none either. Typical.
He should be out of office.
"it's about the entire Democrat-run Congress"
Want me to list the corruption under the Repug Congress? Google for "republican corruption"
Even with leader Tom Delay? John Ensign? Bob Packwood? Ted Stevens? Bill Frist?
and then there is the epitome of Repug corruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
Rangel is very probably a s bag who waited 40 years to get into a very powerful position, and then blows it.
DC is totally corrupt, not only the Dems, as Yoni's fair-minded bull goes.
Does the Senate and the House have ethics auditors?
I think every Senator and Representative should be subject to ethics audits on an unannounced basis.
The soggy cracker goes to the Chumpster.
You had no comment on your own article.The soggy cracker goes to the Chumpster.
That's actually a good thing.You had no comment on your own article.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
