Found here. Short version: Charlie Rangel got away with it. …Dammit. It’d be nice to have some good news in contemporary American politics for a change.
Tag: charlie rangel
Well, so much for John Kasich for President.
Sure, the Obamacare/Medicaid expansion thing was and is horribly problematical. That was known. But then there’s this:
Kasich’s opening remarks, which were followed by a question-and-answer session, focused on his fiscal record as a congressman, where he chaired the House Budget Committee, and as governor of Ohio, where he has eliminated an $8 billion deficit without raising taxes. He also talked about the need for a renewed bipartisan spirit on both sides of the aisle, citing Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, and Jack Kemp and Charlie Rangel, as models for contemporary lawmakers to emulate.
(Bolding mine.) Charlie Rangel?
Um.
NO.
Rooting for injuries in its purest domestic form: Jim Moran vs. Charlie Rangel.
This is practically the Platonic Ideal of Let’s You And Him Fight:
Representative Jim Moran of Virginia, a Democrat known for his bullying behavior and loyalty to the Democratic House leadership, scolded Representative Charles Rangel of New York over his opposition to intervention in Syria on MSNBC on Tuesday night. Moran said that, because “we have the world’s largest military,” the U.S. has a responsibility to “do the right thing” and intervene. He bluntly told Rangel, a Korean War veteran, that “not only is your position wrong, but you’re going to cripple our president for the next 40 months.”
That, ladies and gentlemen, is going to be the measure of just how viciously the administration is going to try to whip – yes, I do think that my choice of metaphor is deliberate – its Congressional wing back into line. Jim Moran going Full Metal Neocon on Charlie Rangel, complete with a stealth deployment of the race card*? Truly, these are strange days. Continue reading Rooting for injuries in its purest domestic form: Jim Moran vs. Charlie Rangel.
Shenanigans in NY-13: did Charlie Rangel win, or lose?
Apparently nobody’s really sure at the moment: original reports had Rangel winning by 1,034 votes. However, what can be fairly described as tabulation “irregularities” have come to light, thus causing Rangel’s lead over contender Adriano Espaillat to shrink to 802 votes. With about 2,000 absentee/affidavit votes remaining, the primary election is still very much now in doubt. It’s also now going to the courts.
Of course.
Continue reading Shenanigans in NY-13: did Charlie Rangel win, or lose?
Oh, Charlie Rangel.
Why could he not have used his powers for good?
When asked whether the president was supporting his campaign, the 81-year-old congressman said, “God damn, that’s a good question.”
#rsrh My feel-good moment of the morning.
I was researching something else entirely when I came across this old post about Charlie Rangel and the tainted Mexican drug money that he at first accepted. At the time, I listed everybody in Rangel’s Rangel Victory Fund (where a large portion of the aforementioned tainted Mexican drug money ended up) and asked if they were planning to give that money back? To the best of my knowledge, none of them did. Then again, none of them are currently in Congress, so that kind of balances things out, huh?
Moe Lane Continue reading #rsrh My feel-good moment of the morning.
Odd thing with the spam.
It’s been mostly generating extremely angry ‘comments’ about Charlie Rangel being merely censured for doing stuff that would get most of us in thrown jail. Apparently spammers are as ticked off at Dizzy City Democratic games as the rest of the country; go figure.
#rsrh Glenn Reynolds is reading my mind…
…either that, or he’s just as cynical as I am in calling Charlie Rangel’s likely punishment a ‘wrist-slap.’ Sure, he was convicted on 11 of 13 ethics charges, but who here really expects expulsion? Censure? We’ll be lucky to see a reprimand… and, given the skeptical nature of the Hill article, it’s actually unlikely that the Democrats will either actually fine Rangel, or reduce his privileges. And forget Rangel resigning, of course: if he was seriously considering it, the reliably Democratic shills over at CREW wouldn’t dare to offer the suggestion. The Democratic Establishment: can’t live with them, pass the beer nuts.
Ach, well. At least Rangel couldn’t bankroll candidates this election cycle. That was something, at least.
#rsrh Rangel walks out of own ethics hearing.
I have to admit, I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, the guy is as guilty as sin. On the other hand, I don’t respect an ethics panel created under the 111th Congress and chaired by Zoe Lofgren, either. Something about how oversight in the former has been made a mockery of by the political party that would assign the latter to what should have been a serious ethics investigation. It’s hard to take this any more seriously than Charlie Rangel does, particularly since everybody knows that the Democrats won’t expel him from the House even after they find him guilty.
More here.
#rsrh Skeletons in Rangel *primary* challenger’s closet?
I say ‘primary’ because the likely Republican candidate – Rev. Michel Faulkner – in NY-15 does not, to the best of my knowledge, has a DUI arrest and two rape accusations hanging over him. This would make him different from, say, Adam Clayton Powell IV, who is the likely primary challenger (H/T: Instapundit) to Rep. Charlie Rangel; and before anyone complains, it will readily be conceded that Powell was convicted of a lesser charge on the DUI situation. It will even be readily conceded that the then 41-year old Powell claimed that the two sexual encounters (one of which was with his 19-year old intern) were consensual, and that neither woman (including the one with his 19-year old intern) followed through with pressing rape charges.
Again, I readily concede this. Sure. Adam Powell IV only drives almost drunk and gets permission before he schtupps his barely-legal employees. No worries there, right? Continue reading #rsrh Skeletons in Rangel *primary* challenger’s closet?