Spinning for a sleazeball
Whatever happened to Nancy Pelosi's pledge to "drain the swamp?"
Spinning for a sleazeball
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
The Winter Olympics came to a close on Sunday with Nancy Pelosi winning the gold medal for verbal gymnastics.
As an ABC News guest, the House speaker twisted and spun and gyrated every which way in her valiant (albeit pitiful) attempt to defend her good friend, the Democratic albatross who epitomizes Washington arrogance and corruption, veteran New York congressman Charles Rangel.
If Pelosi and the House Democrats have a death wish, if they want to jeopardize their party majority in the November elections, then defending Rangel - and keeping him ensconced as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee - should help seal the deal. Swing-voting independents are ticked off at Washington, and what better way to direct their ire at the incumbent party than to have the House's Democratic leader spin for a sleazeball?
Last Friday, the House Ethics Committee, after 18 months of study, finally issued its first thumbs-down verdict on Rangel. Odds are, this report won't be the last, given Rangel's track record of helping himself to various government goodies. The ethics panel slapped him down for accepting corporate-funded trips to the Carribean (the corporations funneled the money through a charity) - a direct violation of House rules. Rangel says he didn't know what was going on, but the Democratic baron says that kind of thing all the time. To wit:
Rangel, who, as Ways and Means chairman, helps write our tax policies, has apparently spent years hiding much of his own income from the tax man. He failed to report, on required congressional disclosure forms, that he owned income-generating properties in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and the Dominican Republic. He also failed to report, on those financial forms, that he had two bank accounts with a combined value as high as a million bucks. He failed to report his dividend income from other investments, and he failed to report what he pocketed from the sale of a Harlem townhouse, not to mention the rental income he had made off that townhouse prior to sale. And he failed to pay taxes on rental income from that villa in the Dominican Republic.
This is the kind of material that the Ethics Committee is still scrutinizing, and we know about it because Rangel himself has already admitted: oops, I must've inadvertently forgotten to fully fill out those disclosure forms. Prodded by the committee investigation, he spent some time last year revising the forms - bringing them up to date, as it were.
Presumably, the ethics panel is also looking at Rangel's deal with a particular oil corporation, in which the firm reportedly agreed to cough up a million bucks for an institute that is coincidentally called The Charles Rangel Public Policy Center - and, in return, Rangel reportedly pulled strings in Congress to protect a tax loophole beneficial to the firm.
Rangel is already a burden to the Democrats, but, given the prospect of further ethics probe verdicts, he is destined to become their ball and chain, the ultimate symbol of insider entitlement and corruption in a tough election year. He's like a bad tooth that will only get worse - unless Nancy Pelosi yanks it now by sending a clear message that such sleaze will not be tolerated.
She can do that only by removing Rangel from his post as Ways and Means chairman. Indeed, seven House Democrats are now demanding that Rangel step down. (Here's Arizona congresswoman Ann Fitzpatrick, announcing yesterday that she intends to return Rangel's donations to her '10 campaign: "The bipartisan ethics committee has found that Congressman Rangel did not live up to the standards members owe to their constituents with this matter and continues to look into other serious breaches. While I deeply respect his lifetime of service as a soldier and as a U.S. representative, I can no longer accept his support.")
But Pelosi still prefers to play the verbal gymnast. On the ABC Sunday morning show, she was asked about Rangel. It was suggested that perhaps this was an opportune time to take away his gavel. Her reply: "Why don't we just give him a chance to hear the independent, bipartisan (committee)? They work very hard to reach their conclusions. Obviously, there's more to come here...The fact is, is that what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good. It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized the country in any way. So it remains to be seen what the rest of the work of the committee is." (Italics are mine.)
Whatever happened to Pelosi's strict standards of behavior?
Four years ago, she promised to "drain the swamp" and give us "the most ethical Congress in history," thereby suggesting that she would have zero tolerance for corruption. But now - perhaps out of loyalty to Rangel, perhaps seeking to avoid an escalation of tensions with the Congressional Black Caucus at a time when she's tallying votes for health care reform - she has considerably loosened her criteria. Now, apparently, all kinds of bad behavior is perfectly acceptable as long as it hasn't "jeopardized the country in any way."
So what does that mean? She now has a national security standard for sleaze? Rangel keeps his gavel as long as he didn't rent his Dominican Republic villa to members of al Qaeda?
Pelosi might be wise to remember what happened to a previous Democratic Ways and Means baron, Dan Rostenkowski. He was an old bull who abused all kinds of congressional privileges, only to be tolerated and indulged by the Democratic leaders. He became the face of Washington decadence in the congressional elections of 1994. And we all know what happened to the House Democrats in 1994.
-------
I understand that the comments section was shut down for roughly three hours today. My bad. I inadvertently zapped the system by putting a no-no word into the headline. In any event, I've been told that full ranting and ruminating rights are now restored. Thanks for doing that, Bob.
Does anyone read what Talvenada posts anymore? Seriously dude! I mostly agree with you but you have to stop defending yourself so much. That troll that latched on to you isn't going to shut up so why can't you just ignore him (or her)?— James TL- still, I agree about extending the House terms to 4 years. House gets 3 four year terms, Senate 2 six year terms. We entice them by grandfathering in the Congress that passes it (their 12 year clock starts ticking now). After 12 years they all would be gone:) Do you think it would help the political party that would add that to its election plank this November? If someone from the 'tea party' would lump that on their message they would be even more popular, imho:)— NEPhilly
- still - how about not only a 4 year term for the house but also repealing the 17th Admendment?— Mike Welbourn
- Mike Welbourn : my short answer is that I figured that would be impossible, so that's why I didn't mention changing Senate terms. Besides, why would you want the senators to be selected by the state legislature? Besides, if you repealed it, then the Senate terms would still be six years (article 1, section 3, clause 1) Actually, now that i'm thinking of it, the two year house limits are in there, too. .... Unless that was a sarcastic response by you. in which case my response is that the 17tgh ammendment affects the senate, not the house.— still_independent
- JAMES TL: It's actually not a problem, because Conse 'Pubs want to say Bush is no longer a topic of conversation. They cannot do that for 22 straight days. So, he actually did me a favor on this one, while I remind him and his Conse 'Pub buddies about what they'd rather forget. I have 19 days left before I get all tied up writing about The Phillies on http://isportsweb.com/ under MLB, baseball, NE East and Phillies. I won't have time for this very soon. So, 13 days out of 19 I can have fun with Bush supports/Obama hatters, like Mocky. I have 6 extra days to work with. So, I won't be here to be concerned with him until November-December. He stepped in a pile, and now he gets to smell it for 3 weeks.— Talvenada
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- NEPhilly : not to be cynical, but why wouldn't any politician campaign on term limits? It's never going to happen, and a freshman congressman (or senator) has no clout to advance it anyway. So they could be for it, knowing that it's never going to seriously come up.— still_independent
- BILLO: Smell the manure from Texas!!— Talvenada
- No it wasn't. I was think that Senators wouldn't have to go around begging for money for their campaigns at all. Also the reason they originally had senators appointed that way was to have some sort of checks and balances between the two houses congress. One of the major reasons the founders had senator appointed by state legislatures was to keep a check on federal powers. Look at the expansion of the federal government since the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913.— Mike Welbourn
- Brought to you by the Center for Globalization Research...................... Hush now, Honey, here's the word My Baby's gonna buy me a mockingbird If that mockingbird don't sing Baby's gonna buy me a diamond ring If that diamond ring don't shine We'll still have a real good time, So I'm making it clear Woah, woah.— Alvenada
- Mike Welbourn : I live in Jersey. I trust state legislators even less than federal ones.... Go "Soprano State" !— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- Still Liberal... You forgot his marks and IQ you phony.— Phil Checchia
- I am kinda wondering when Still Independent will be examining and challenging the vast distortions and baseless charges of Talvenada. I guess the faux " INDEPENDENTS " on here only attack conservative posters.— mgm65
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
