When the House votes Thursday to discipline Rep. Charles Rangel – who was found guilty of 11 counts of ethics violations – the 80-year-old congressman and war hero should receive a reprimand, not censure.
Did Rangel make serious mistakes by failing to pay some taxes and report personal income? Absolutely. And he should have known better, especially since he chaired the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which is all about tax legislation.
But should Rangel be forced to stand before Congress and face public humiliation? No.
Rangel has been through enough embarrassment. Censure is the highest ethics punishment a lawmaker can receive outside of expulsion. Why drag Rangel to the House floor and force him to stand before his peers and take a verbal flogging? It accomplishes nothing.
Was Rep. Joe "you lie" Wilson censured for heckling the President of the United States during the State of the Union address and bringing Tea Bag Tactics to our House?
Representative Wilson got off with an apology (of sorts), Charlie Rangel should get the same.
Humbled and apologetic, Rangel wrote a note to Congress: "I am truly sorry for my mistakes and would like your help in seeing that I am treated fairly."
Rangel shouldn’t get kicked while he’s down. A reprimand seems appropriate, especially since Rangel was not found guilty of corruption. Rangel is cantakerous, stubborn, and throws theatrical fits, but he's no crook.
If Rep. Joe Wilson got off with a reprimand after publicly disrespecting the President of the United States of America, a reprimand is certainly good enough for Rep. Charlie Rangel who is guilty of sloppy bookkeeping.
The House of Representatives passed a resolution Tuesday reprimanding Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting "You lie!" during President Obama's address on health care. The resolution states that the House "disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina."
Why have another televised high tech lynching of an uppity black man?
Never mind...we know.
No comments:
Post a Comment