And Rangel (if he wants) will be elected by his constituents too.
I guess it’s true that it’s the other guy’s congressman who’s the crook.
It’s only a punishment if you have shame. Basically, what rachel said, but without the seppuku part.
It depends on the specific language in the motion to censure. Normally, it would last only for this Congress, so after the next election, the new Congress could do as it wants. Given his seniority, he’s likely to get back into some committee leadership position.
Assuming he runs & gets re-elected, that is. But that is pretty likely – he’s well liked in his district. And every Democrat since 1980 who has been censured was re-elected by the voters of their district. So it doesn’t seem to matter much to the voters.
And every democrat who has been censured since 1980 was a minority – either black or gay. Rather odd coincidence, hmmm?
Next on the docket… Jesse Jackson Jr, Maxine Waters and John Conyers (just hoping on the last one).
He’s not retiring. He was just re-elected in November, and when Obama and others said this year that he should retire, he said he wouldn’t.
I think Rangel is primarily upset about being censured because he fellow representatives are the only people he really respects. If he respected the public he’d have paid his taxes, or not made such a spectacle of himself after he was caught. He’s been in power so long that I think Congress is the only people whose opinion of him matters, so being reprimanded by Congress is a real blow.
Technically true but somewhat misleading. Every Democrat who has been censured since 1980 consists of two people: Charles Rangel and Gerry Studds (who was censured in 1983 and was gay).
What are you trying to suggest? That they target censures toward Black people and gay people?
It’s not an odd coincidence. It’s just…a rather dull coincidence. Who even notices that kind of thing? Especially when it is only 2 people.
Yeah. Pretty small sample.
Remember to that Senator Joseph McCarthy was also censured, by the Senate, and that lead to his political downfall.
In a body like the House or the Senate, your ability to influence is based upon your relationship with the hundreds of other members. Plus, your ability to control legislation through committee. Rangel has lost his committee assignments and his colleagues have given him a drubbing rebuke.
Rangel now has no influence in the House. Without influence, he can’t raise money for elections or give his constituents some form of service. This makes him vulnerable to a challenge. Unless Rangel can somehow quickly repair his reputation and earn the friendship and trust of those who voted for censure, he’s politically dead in the water.
He’ll either resign, or simply won’t run for reelection.
Since you mention Conyers, do all Congressmen get to tool around in government-paid Cadillac Escalades? One would think, especially in this economy, that they’d be driving Chevys and such.
Agreed… although I’d prefer they drove Fords.
I saw something a couple days ago on California’s fleet of luxury vehicles… but that would hijack this thing even further. Let’s get back to bashing Rangel !!
Members of the House of Representatives get to lease at government expense a vehicle for official use, including insurance costs, oil changes, taxes, etc.
The cost of these leases can range from a couple hundred bucks to almost a thousand a month. Cite.
Poor Charlie … those darn political slush fund accounts are just too complicated for him.
First, he didn’t realize he could have a legal defense fund.
And now there’s this.
That cost comes from the office allowance that each elected Congressperson gets. If they lease a Cadillac rather than a Chevy, they spend more of their allowance on that, and have less left for other office expenses, like staff, mailings, etc.
What I think is more amazing is that every person elected president of the USA since 2005 has been black, and all the losing VP candidates of the main opposing party have been women. Who would have thought this would happen?
Not to mention the fact that in the case of Rangel and Waters, charges were brought under a Democratically controlled House, Senate and Presidency. A ‘black’ presidency, no less. Where are the racists and homophobes supposed to be in this mix?
The Ethics Committee has an equal number of D and R.
However, the chairman is (for a few more weeks anyway) a D. I’ve got to believe that she had quite a bit of power. The investigation was slow-walked beyond the election and then fast-walked to get it over with while Charlie wanted to keep fighting.
Ethics charges are entirely an internal matter within Congress. The President has no say in the matter. Neither does the Supreme Court – I don’t think a censure can be appealed in the Court system.
Correct. It’s a political question: Political question - Wikipedia
I know that. The point was that government political environment in which Rangle found himself in trouble was not one that would be likely to be bringing charges against him because he’s black.