After Democrats won a majority in Congress in 2006, the leader of their caucus in the House, Nancy Pelosi said, “The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history“. Well, she’s now Speaker and gets a chance to put her money where her mouth is was.
With a committee chairman admonished by a House ethics panel, she should ask him to relinquish his chairmanship forthwith since he refuses to do so on his own:
Rep. Charles Rangel said Friday he won’t step down as chairman of the powerful House tax-writing committee after being admonished by an ethics panel for accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean. The public rebuke of one of the Democrats’ most outspoken leaders posed more woes for a party that had vowed to end a “culture of corruption.”
(H/t: Instapundit.) Instead of acting, Pelosi is refusing to act. She may talk the good talk on ethics, but in the three years that she’s been Speaker–and seen federal deficits soar and private sector jobs disappear–we’ve seen only lip service paid to ethics reform. “As of early January,” one blogger reports “’the most ethical Congress ever’ hadn’t punished a single congressman for ethics violations.”
Republicans should not take this lying down and should use whatever parliamentary maneuvers at their disposal to slow down the business of the House until Rangel relinquishes his chairmanship. If this were a Republican Congress, he’d be long gone–while the media would still be in overdrive, wondering why the GOP could not police its own caucus and featuring stories on the corruption in the majority party.
But, today, we get nary a peep from the MSM.
There are lots of reasons that Pelosi will not ask Rangel to relinquish his chairmanship.
–She doesn’t question Rangel’s ethics. The Clinton Presidency made it very clear that liberals believe one’s ethics are determined solely by one’s “stand on the issues.” Even if we assume that Rangel DID know that his trips to the Caribbean were paid for by corporations (of course he did), this hyper-technical violation of some rule has no bearing on whether Pelosi believes Rangel is ethical and fit to continue serving as a chairman. She’s not concerned that Rangel has been bought by some corporation because she knows that when he comes back from his Caribbean trips he’ll still be pro-abortion, pro-single-payer-universal-healthcare, anti-war, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay-marriage, pro-confiscatory taxes, and pro-every other aspect of the liberal statist agenda. Therefore, he IS an ethical man. In contrast, Pelosi ALREADY sees all Republicans as unethical and corrupt to begin with. She believes it is IMMORAL to oppose any aspect of her statist agenda. So, if a Republican were to be caught engaging in the same conduct as Rangel, that would just be Pelosi’s excuse to publicly condemn and ostracize the member and demand that he/she resign from all positions of leadership. The ETHICAL question has already been determined. Republican = unethical. The whole “rules violation” thing is really just a matter of procedural leverage that Pelosi can use on members that SHE personally believes are “unethical.”
–Reporters of the MSM share Pelosi’s twisted, morally-bankrupt definition of “ethical,” thus she knows that they will not challenge her (or point, laugh, roll on the floor, etc.) when she takes the podium and confirms that she is STILL the Speaker of the most ethical, transparent, intelligent, lovable, considerate, blah blah blah Congress in US history. She also knows that the MSM would not have the audacity to bring up anything that’s in the past and apparently has no relevance to what’s happening now–i.e. the fact that she demanded that action be taken against Tom DeLay in 2004 even though the ethics committee had not even acted yet. The MSM would never be so rude and uncouth as to bring up Pelosi’s double standards.
–She knows that if she calls on Rangel to step down, he will not, and that this will prompt the Congressional Black Caucus to circle the wagons around him (since the CBC primarily relies on skin color to determine a person’s “ethics”). Inevitably, there will be accusations of racism leveled against the white members of Congress seeking Rangel’s removal including Pelosi (this is apparently John Conyers’ only responsibility as an elected official at this point), and while Pelosi has always been enthusiastically supportive of the CBC’s race-baiting witch hunts as a highly effective political tool against Republicans, she’s not particularly interested in being the target of one of those witch-hunts herself.
I’m sure there are other reasons, none of which have anything to do with ethics, but those are the ones off the top of my head.
I do believe she forced Bill Jefferson to resign, but for reason known only to her, Charlie gets a pass
How do you know she has not asked him to resign?
Buck, good question–maybe she did ask him and he rebuffed her. If that’s the case, now’s the time for her to play hardball–and force him out.
As far as Nan is concerned… ethics are for losers. This Rangel is also a tax cheat… but so is the SecTreas.
One of the best Dilbert ‘toons ever covers this one:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/25/dilbert-on-sanctimony-in-bailouts/
#2: “I do believe she forced Bill Jefferson to resign, but for reason known only to her, Charlie gets a pass.”
The House Democratic Caucus stripped Jefferson of his Ways and Means committee seat when $90,000 was found in his freezer and he became the target of the federal corruption investigation. After Jefferson was re-elected by the imbeciles in his district anyway, Pelosi rewarded him with a seat on the HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE. It made absolutely no difference to her that the target of a federal bribery, corruption, and racketeering investigation (which ultimately led to his indictment, conviction, and incarceration) would have full access to top secret national security information and documents.
#3: “How do you know she has not asked him to resign?”
What? You mean secretly? What difference does it make? She told the press yesterday that nothing would be done because the ethics committee found that Rangel “did not willfully violate the rules.” Rangel has publicly rebuffed calls from Democrat and Republican House members to resign.
The “D” after his name.
If nobody knew his background and had zero experience, he’d be a perfect liberal candidate for president. Maybe if he raped some women…
Rangel’s been a dirty politician for years. Why didn’t the Ethics committee get anything on him when there was a Republican majority?
Bad politicians have nothing to do with their party affiliation….it has to do with their egos and how much power they amass over the years. Lots of backroom deals go on between the 2 parties and within the the 2 parties. Sadly, I have no doubt that he’s been around for so many years that he’s “got something” on the various people involved with this mess. My opinion: he should have been gone (at least from his chairmanship) a looooooong time ago. However, the people in his district keep electing him.
Look at Larry Craig – what a sad person and ultimately an self-centered, egotistical ass. Republicans previously got bad-behaviored members to fall on their swords, but Craig did an about face, made the situation worse and finally “retired” when his chances for being re-elected became zero.
electability by your district/state is all that matters in the end.
Charlie Rangel certainly manages to look the part. I don’t know if he was born into the stereotype or if he entered the snake oil business and began to look the part. His ten pound pinky ring, the eighteen inch cigar, the flamboyant hair, the twinkle and chuckle patter, the Runyonesque compulsive character adornments all make him a true piece of work.
One thing that does not emanate from the penumbra of Charlie Rangel is ethics. Or trust. Or anything that makes one feel that he is on the side of the angels.
Because that would be raaaaaacist!!!