Conservatives And Kos Agree: Rangel Should Step Down

I am in the Cult of Charlie Rangel. But even taking that into account, I think Kos is wrong - the accusations against Rangel do not amount to "corruption" even if proven. I do not believe he should step down. The allegations simply do not merit it. A reprimand? A rebuke? A censure? Perhaps. But Rangel is not accused of corruption - as the word is understood. Let me put it this way, when Tim Geithner resigns, get back to me.

As for the title of this post, I am taking at shot at BarbinMD, who has decided that thinking Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize is a capital offense - and means you are a Republican or in the Taliban. Weak weak stuff from her. Hey Barb, here is another Taliban agree-er:

Nils Butenschon, director of the Norwegian Center for Human Rights at the University of Oslo and a well-known human rights champion in Norway [said] “It seems premature to me. I think the committee should be very careful with the integrity of the prize, and in this case I don’t think we are in a position to really evaluate the full impact of what this candidate has achieved. Sometimes of course the prize is awarded to people who are in the process of making history, so to speak, but in this case I think it is too early to know that.”

Speaking for me only

< More On Obama's Not Bush Prize | Cilizza: Nobel Makes It Easier For Obama To Escalate In Afghanistan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I expect better from BarbinMD, that other person (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jes on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    interlopes a bit too much for me.

    been thinking about it (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Turkana on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:35:43 AM EST
    cutting "missile defense" from central europe was a serious step. so was opening legit disarmament talks with russia, which have already shown results. but more than anything, i'm struck by the timing. how does obama go to oslo if he's just escalated the war in afghanistan? those crazy norwegians...

    perfect nervous breakdown moment (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    we can only hope he snaps, there in his white tie and tails, in old europe, and realizes the folly of the war machine he's greasing, and pulls a multi-ethnic howard beale.

    we can only wish, no doubt, is the more apt description.


    he hasn't made his decision (none / 0) (#8)
    by Turkana on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    and biden, in particular, doesn't want the escaltion. this gives him political cover, and also adds political pressure. it will, indeed, be interesting if he approves the escalation, and then flies to oslo...

    he'll approve it (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    i see nothing in his personality at this point, to detect the kind of political and psychological spine it would take to truly chart a new and more humane/peaceful/productive course.  but i am not privy to his personal life and inner torments, so i would not be surprised if he finally did snap, perhaps as no other president in history has. his personal history, if nothing else, shows that anything can happen.

    on this one (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Turkana on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    i'm taking a wait-and-see.

    fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    can't say i'm not either, when it gets down to it.  just a tad less optimistic.

    i wouldn't say i'm optimistic (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Turkana on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    but i do think he's giving it serious consideration, and biden standing against the escalation has to be a key factor.

    I think he will take - surprise - (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    the middle road and send less than the 40,000 to 60,000 troops that McChrystal wants but increase the size by around 25,000.

    What Biden wants (none / 0) (#28)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I thought Biden wants to refocus efforts in Afghanistan on Al Queda rather than the Taliban, using fewer people and more technology.  

    and he doesn't want (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Turkana on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    to send tens of thousands of more troops.

    But Biden (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:08:50 PM EST
    is not proposing peace

    According to AP Obama will focus (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    on Al Queda rather than the Taliban but not necessarily using fewer troops than currently there.

    White House officials say the focus of the President Barack Obama's war strategy will be on defeating al Qaeda in Pakistan, while downplaying the need to completely eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid.

    The president appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said. link

    It is weird - kos is quick to believe (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:36:34 AM EST
    negative spin where it comes to supposed corruption.  There just aren't enough saints in this world to run this government - and frankly, I prefer mortals.

    I'm a cultist, too (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    Love the guy.  Very much doubt anybody's going to turn up any actual "corruption," either.  And hearkening back to the Sotomayor hearings, there's something deeply offensive about hearing pols with those deep, rich southern accents railing against the congressman from Harlem, doing their best to paint him as another Adam Clayton Powell.

    They really are doing their best to drive every single last minority vote in this country into the arms of the Democratic Party.

    So tax evasion isn't a crime???? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Pragmatist on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:46:54 AM EST
    I agree that there is no evidence of corruption.  However, I'm pretty sure that if I did what Mr. Wrangle did (failure to report income -- a fair amount of income) that the IRS would have slapped leans on my business, personal property and seized my bank accounts prior to any trail.  I think it only right for the Chairperson of the committee which oversees our tax code step down until the investigation is complete; he pays his taxes; and pays the penalties which would be required of any citizen to pay -- not the Tim G (lack of penalty) penalty.

    It's not corruption (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:49:28 AM EST
    And Rangel is not accused of it anyway.

    Concur -- it's not corruption (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Pragmatist on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    But tax evasion is a crime and the IRS would have kicked my door in years ago for what Mr. Wrangle did/is doing.  So the (rhetorical) question is: why is the IRS so slow to move?

    Ask them (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    I assume it is because Rangel self reported and paid his taxes.

    What do you think?


    Sorry -- seem to have a block (none / 0) (#16)
    by Pragmatist on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    about spelling Rangle...

    Still got it wrong (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:28:28 PM EST

    How do you define "corruption" for (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    purposes of this post?

    PS  Perhaps I am over-influenced by NYT coverage, but Rangel's section 8 apartments concern me.  


    Trading your office for private gain (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:53:39 AM EST
    How do you define it?

    Shoot. That is what is happening re (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:55:12 AM EST

    Merriam-Webster: (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    Another well-informed opinion (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    (that's snark, btw)

    He did pay the back taxes with no argument.


    Another clever sexual mentalist --- (none / 0) (#40)
    by Pragmatist on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 04:50:06 PM EST
    (that's an f'ing know-it-all) whose to busy trying to be clever that they miss the point.  So I'll articulate the point so that you don't have to exert any intellectual energy trying to figure it out & you can continue to expend your "intellectual capital" on being "clever".  He's the Chair of the committee which writes our tax laws and he willfully doesn't pay all of his taxes for  several years.  I'm sure his excuse was that he didn't read the law before he voted on it: ergo; it's ok not pay his taxes because he didn't know the law.  Further, if you don't know the tax code/laws hire someone who is qualified to prepare your taxes.  Great - he self reported.  Why?  Was he about to be 'outed'?  Did the IRS treat him like him like John Q. Puiblic?  I doubt it...

    Sexual mentalist? (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:36:55 PM EST
    My goodness.  Have you taken your pills today?  Doesn't sound like it.

    It saddens me when Dems adopt the (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    worse traits of the Republicans. The DNC took much the same tactic of BarbinMD in their first sentence of their response to Republicans criticism of Obama receiving the Nobel Prize.

    The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. link

    I don't expect political attacks to be civil. In fact, I have been known to cheer loudly when a Democratic politician blasts  the Republicans. Yet, somehow claiming people are siding with terrorists crosses the line for me. I hated that type of attack when the Republicans did it and I hate it when the Dems follow suit.

    And now Jed Lewison, who I've got no respect (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jes on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    for at all is following up.

    So conservatives are so bitter over President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize that they are actually standing with the Taliban in attacking the President for getting the award

    What hypocrites the "left" has become. It is embarrassing.  


    Plenty of hypocrites on both sides of (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    the political spectrum as well as a lot of people who do not deserve to be painted with such a broad brush.

    No Surprise (none / 0) (#44)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    Just look at the number of those on the "left" who voted against their best interests last fall and continue to mindlessly defend their decision.

    Jed's "stand with" trope ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by lambert on Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    ... is becoming tiresome.  And speaking of tropes, here's my all-time favorite Jed Lewison quote:

    I do hope people don't stereotype him just because he's old and senile. Maybe he shouldn't run because the last thing the elderly in this country need is the triggering of ugly stereotypes about their bowel habits. They already suffer from enough incontinence.

    Just the party faction I'd trust on health reform and Social Security!


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    I thought I saw some minister from Hamas congratulate Obama on the award.

    It does look pretty bad for the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    to boo the Nobel Prize and the Olympics in a two week span- I mean good god they actually cheered when the US wasn't awarded the games- we were criticized as unpatriotic for opposing policy but we should let it slide when Republicans quite literally root against America?

    Don't think I said we should let it (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:03:02 PM EST
    slide when the Republicans quite literally root against America. I said I thought either party comparing Americans to terrorists was over the line. If the Dems can't get their message across without saying the Republicans are siding with terrorists, maybe, they need to get more articulate writers. Regurgitating the Republican worst rhetoric gains nothing IMO.

    I Have a Hard Time (none / 0) (#43)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:25:27 PM EST
    in seeing the Olympic games coming to Chicago as being good for America. They have proven to be a financial White Elephant to almost every host city/country in the past, so I don't really care if we get them or not. This was a blessing in disguise because maybe the millions the Olympics would have cost could be used for a good cause like education, free clinics... Then again, knowing the mentality of the center / right, they'll use the money they "saved" for some grand military endeavor.

    Another cultist here (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:47:48 PM EST
    I have loved Rangel for many years, and I think this is bogus.

    Let us not forget that Rangel supported Clinton, not Obama, in the primaries. The Kos Kids never forget, or forgive, such transgressions.

    which part is bogus (none / 0) (#36)
    by pitachips on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    I love Rangel as well, but this has nothing to do, despite your best efforts, with the primaries. He should step down bc of the appearances alone - since when are you actually required to be convicted of a crime before a situation becomes so damaging to the party that you profess to love that you decide to maybe stop thinking about yourself for just a few moments.

    Rangel's shady use... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    of rent-stabilized apartments bothers me a lot more than the tax thing...I know the rent-stabilized apartment program is crooked as hell in NYC, but in theory it is supposed to afford residences to people who otherwise couldn't afford to live in this city, or to enable people on low or fixed incomes to stay in this city...and there's Charlie hogging up 4 of them.

    That seems pretty damn corrupt to me.

    Well, not exactly corrupt... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    ... in the sense of taking things in exchange for favors. But he certainly has a sense of entitlement and belief that he doesn't need to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Which doesn't reflect well on the party.

    Of course, he's far from being the only member of either party in that boat.


    Not a question of corruption (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by coast on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 04:28:26 PM EST
    An affair is not corruption either, but many a politician have stepped aside for that one.  Its the appearance of impropriety, and even more telling incompetence, that concerns me.  Why is so important for CR to maintain this chair? Is their no one else in the Democratic stable that can step up to chair this committee?

    Rangel is so crooked (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:20:55 PM EST
    they'll have to screw him into the ground when he dies.

    So you guys go ahead and defend him.

    What I find weird (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    is that the Nobel Committee was so easily able to overlook Iraq and Afghanistan.  How does that not enflame the Middle East.

    BTD (none / 0) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    shouldn't we police our own- or do we just boil things down to ideology alone, because at least so far it looks like Rangel's corrupt, and frankly if it gets worse its the one way we could actually lose his seat ala Jefferson and New Orleans.

    how are they squaring (none / 0) (#41)
    by pluege on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    reinforcement of bush state secrets, indefinite detention, extra-judicial kangaroo courts, and not prosecuting war criminals with the Nobel Peace prize? Awarding the peace prize to Obama is ABSURD and thoroughly degrades and politicizes the award.

    lame title (none / 0) (#42)
    by alex1 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 04:53:27 PM EST
    I get it, still isn't good.

    Oh, and I agree with you. Rangel shouldn't step down. That's between him and the party to work through. If he wants to potentially hurt the Democratic brand, have at it Charlie. GOPers do it all the time, so should we.

    You already know that I respect (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    the people who show up for the real fights in life and I don't think it is wise to call for the firing of anyone who is an actual producer of difficult to obtain social items that really matter over things that happen in most everyone's real life.  I fail to see the consumate evil that Charley has done the same way I fail to see the recent consumate evil of Stanely McChrystal.  Sweet Jesus, if anyone wanted Stanely fired you would have thought they would have wanted him fired when he was still torturing people.  Speaking only for me