Joe Conason: A wave of phony indignation over Charlie Rangel

[babylonsister]

A wave of phony indignation over Charlie Rangel
Joe Conason


Now that Charlie Rangel has relinquished his coveted chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee and may be facing worse days ahead, his humiliation stands as a mark of ethical consistency for liberals and Democrats. A Korean War hero and a symbol of African-American advancement, the likeable Harlem pol was brought to book not by the Republicans who are celebrating, but chiefly by the "liberal" New York Times and the Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who voted to reprimand him.

The Times originally investigated Rangel’s finances and fundraising and then published the stories that triggered the official ethics probe. The ethics committee, reorganized by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007, ultimately did not shrink from admonishing one of the most powerful and senior Democrats in the House, and continues to examine other allegations against him. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington -- a watchdog group funded by Democratic donors -- twice named Rangel to its annual list of “most corrupt” members of Congress (which is always admirably bipartisan, unlike such lists maintained by CREW's conservative counterparts).

Yet as the Republicans and their media epigones celebrate Rangel’s downfall, the contrast with their own typical tolerance of corruption in their own ranks is instructive. To draw political comparisons between the cases of Rangel and Tom DeLay, as some mainstream pundits and conservative commentators do, is glib and fatuous if not simply dishonest.

Keep in mind that none of the GOP pet media outlets, such as the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard or Fox News Channel, has ever initiated an ethics investigation of a Republican in the House leadership. Instead, these outfits habitually devote their efforts to protecting Republicans, no matter how crooked. Indeed, they tend to accuse the Times of “liberal bias” whenever the paper criticizes or investigates a Republican.

Five years ago, when DeLay came under intense pressure from prosecutors, the press and watchdog groups, the National Review urged conservatives to rally around him in an editorial, noting dismissively that “many of the offenses DeLay is being accused of—taking foreign trips funded by outside groups, attending events with lobbyists—are committed by every congressman on Capitol Hill.” Of course taking a foreign trip funded by an outside group (with corporate support) is precisely the transgression for which the ethics committee admonished Rangel.

But the same National Review editorial suggested that official rebukes by the ethics committee are unimportant anyway, at least when directed at a Republican leader: “The {ethics} committee did warn DeLay to be more careful, the ‘admonishment’ that has played in the media as an official sanction, which it wasn't.” In short, they didn’t believe an admonishment by the ethics committee was enough to get rid of DeLay, but it is reason enough to throw out Rangel -- and vote against the Democrats who pushed him out, just because they’re members of the same party.

more...

http://www.salon.com/news/charlie_rangel_dny/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/03/04/rangel

[classysassy]

1. Self destruct

the republican crooks must be rolling in the aisle laughing at the insane democrats,a republican would neve turn on against one of their crooks.