From The Hill (Thursday):
Democrats shot down a second GOP attempt in as many months to punish Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) for a series of alleged ethics violations.
Democrats easily tabled a motion House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) offered that was aimed at forcing Rangel to give up his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee while the ethics committee investigates the charges. It also would have ordered the ethics committee to establish an investigative subcommittee to look into the matter. The motion went down, 226-176, with only the five Democrats on the ethics panel voting “present” and eight Democrats not voting.
Only five Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats on the measure, far fewer than the 25 who voted with Democrats in late July to jettison another Boehner motion that would have censured the powerful chairman. Last week Boehner warned his colleagues not to vote against leadership on ethics matters.
More information on those "present" votes and those who didn't vote:
---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 11 ---
Barrett (SC)
Bonner
Burton (IN)
Delahunt
Doyle
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Kline (MN)
McCaul (TX)
Roybal-Allard
Scott (VA)
---- NOT VOTING 19 ---
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Conyers
Cubin
Dreier
Fossella
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hulshof
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kennedy
King (NY)
Lampson
Pitts
Poe
Renzi
Sestak
Snyder
---------------------------------------------
I'm working on a longer post with timeline about the charges against Rangel, in the context of other recent events. This is a very important and disturbing story because Rangel is arguably the most powerful and most reliably liberal member of Congress.
The most interesting question to me is Amberglow's: Who's going after Charlie Rangel?
In the meantime, until I get my stuff together, here's a place to discuss.
- a little night musing's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
What Amberglow said. As mentioned earlier, I received a
very compelling email from Charlie Rangel this morning and I feel this is a very worthwhile fight.
Thank goodness this has been put to rest....for now.
Who is going after Charlie Rangel?
I love this job!
I love this job!
Elixir, can you post that email here?
Thx
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
it's definitely an orchestrated effort--
and i bet more stuff will be released every week like the stuff already fed to the media.
The GOP has always kept indicted and investigated officials in their committee seats--always. We'll see if our party has the balls--i say they'll cave and remove him.
interesting Roger Stone thing
concerning Spitzer--he was the one behind all of that--
The unraveling of Roger Stone -- http://www.dailygotham.com/node/4182
Elixir, I've been wondering for months now who is after Rangel--
Can't be just Repubs. Is this part of the hostile takeover of the Dem Party by the Obama faction?
If Obama was financed initially by Wall Street money to be the firewall against a large Dem majority, that might explain why they're going after Rangel.
Whoever "they" are.... Any ideas?
Agree, Amberglow, that there's something coordinated going on.
Who benefits if he's ousted from the chairmanship? The committee? His Congressional seat? Defamed and defanged?
both parties benefit, i think--
yesterday i wrote this -- http://www.correntewire.com/campaign_upd... --
"in terms of immediate impact, i’d say it was Obama/Pelosi/etc, because he’s so powerful moneywise, and way more liberal than them in every possible way.
but in terms of longterm impact, this is a good time for the GOP to get rid of him since he always has made trouble for them and their cronies for decades, and they’d get a pushover and far more amenable if Pelosi picked someone now. Like with Spitzer—Paterson is far less aggressive and not at all interested in hurting fatcats/righting wrongs the way Spitzer was."
unless he's convicted of something,
he'll keep his seat--unless our local Dems get together to get rid of him or force him to "retire", that is, which they are not now doing.
It's the Chairmanship that's at stake---and it's one of the most powerful positions in the House.
I'm Completely Out of the Loop on This
But do we know who has made the various allegations against him? I saw where he referred himself to the ethics committee, but do we know where the allegations are originating? Perhaps a little (lawful, respectful, non-Malkinesque) digging is in order.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
that's the problem-- the
named orgs and people attacking are all after this stuff makes the news--
the NYT didn't give any indication of how the apartment stuff all came out -- and even goes on to say: " The State Division of Housing and Community Renewal does not publicly release information about rents paid by tenants in rent-regulated apartments. But The New York Times obtained a copy of the agency’s 2007 rent roll report for Mr. Rangel’s building, which showed that the congressman holds the leases on Apartments 16M, 16N, 16P and 10U."
but don't say how they got it or from who.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregi...
and a week later, the GOP went into action: http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate...
-- Conservative
watchdog the National Legal and Policy Center has called on the Federal Election Commission to investigate Congressman Charles Rangel's rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, including one used as a campaign office.
So far, it's all been the right coming out after each thing gets reported.
The Washington Post says the Times "revealed" the apartment stuff : Going After Charlie Rangel -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
" THESE HAVE not been pleasant times for Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.). For the third time in as many months on Wednesday, the dean of the New York congressional delegation had to face the media to answer questions about questionable practices.
In July the New York Times revealed that a New York City developer let Mr. Rangel lease four apartments in a Harlem building at below-market rents. One of the apartments was used as a campaign office. That's a no-no under New York State law, which requires rent-stabilized apartments to be used for primary residences only. Mr. Rangel dumped the campaign office. ..."
The newer stuff i think has all been Drudge and/or Murdoch/NYPost--or people scenting blood in the water after the apartment stuff.
Last year tho, there was an earmark controversy but that died out until all this new stuff revived it--from the NYTimes article on the apartments-- "Last year, government watchdog groups criticized Mr. Rangel for pushing through a $1.9 million earmark to build the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, which is to include an office for Mr. Rangel and a presidential-style library for his official papers."
so, if the NYT really was the first to report on this stuff--
the questions are whether:
the Times itself is out to get Rangel for some reason?
is the Times really who the GOP/Stone would have fed this stuff first--as opposed to Drudge or Fox or the NYPost or Wash. Times or Politico, etc?
was it Dems who first fed it to the Times -- which is far more friendly to Dems?
who wants him out of Ways and Means--and why?
Using the Times to start the ball rolling isn't really how the GOP usually operates. In fact, this kind of oppo research/digging/revelation is not at all stuff the Times usually has first--ever. They usually don't "reveal" this kind of thing until it's become "news"--i.e. after the rightwing noise machine has made it "news".
also, the Times has explicitly called for him to step down--
from Ways and Means in an official Editorial on 9/15-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/opinio...
Editorial
Chairman Rangel
"Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated. ...."
Alterman wants Obama to throw Rangel under the bus--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...
-- "... So Rangel, giving every appearance of putting himself above the law the rest of us little people must follow, will be a drag on Democratic fortunes in November, and is actually damaging the cause of democracy itself by creating a district in which his election is so certain a matter it requires a person of questionable mental competence merely to contemplate running against him.
Cynics might also claim that it would benefit Obama with white working-class voters to distance himself - even denounce so powerful and prominent a black politician, just as Bill Clinton reaped rewards from his famous Sister Souljah moment. Well, perhaps, but more than that, it would demonstrate the seriousness of his commitment to the kind of change he champions. What's more it would demonstrate the kind of toughness we need in a president and which pundits claim Obama lacks.
Rangel stuck with Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, despite the fact that Harlem is about as Obama-crazy as any neighbourhood in America. A walk down 125th Street reveals more Obama signs in the window than any thoroughfare in the US - at least any I've seen. So a Democratic denunciation of Rangel at the top of the ticket would provide Obama with a "three-fer" of good politics, good government and good timing. Political opportunities do not come much richer than that."
Now He's Outraged
at someone placing themselves above the law (if in fact that's even what Rangel did). Where's this outrage been for the last fucking eight years?
And I love how so much of this is still - STILL! - about Hillary Clinton. Obsession doesn't even begin to cover it with these pricks. And I also love how Alterman brings up - only to dismiss, of course - how Obama could screw over one of the most powerful AAs in Congress to appeal to white voters. But it's those blue collar voters who are racist. Not Alterman. Nope, not at all.
We are ruled by morons.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Could it be retaliation?
For supporting Hillary? Was he threatened and now they are following through to try to make him into an example?
I have read about other AAs being threatened with unseating if they didn't support Obama.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." - Albert Einstein
hmm---Novak last year--Rangel/Treasury/Paulson/taxes/AMT/etc--
Rangel Making History -- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/rangel_making_history.html
Alterman is just ignorant
when he says this:
"Rangel stuck with Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, despite the fact that Harlem is about as Obama-crazy as any neighbourhood in America."
The 15th Congressional District covers a lot more than just 125th Street:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel is serving his 19th term as the Representative from the 15th Congressional District, comprising East and Central Harlem, the Upper West Side, and Washington Heights/Inwood.
Edit: Here's a map, which may be meaningful only to New Yorkers.
We can't afford not to have single-payer!