Monday, November 22, 2010

ELEVEN VIOLATIONS!

Charlie Rangel has been convicted of 11 ethics violations.

You knew that.

So many people seem so surprised!

I am not surprised.

I wrote a post referencing Rangel back in February of 2009 and again in August of 2009.

In both of the posts I identified him as a crook...which he was and is.

Now it has come to light officially.

His response is Nixonesque: Just because I behave like a crook is no reason to accuse me of being a crook.

(Maybe that's not fair to Nixon.)

Of course my liberal/progressive friends objected my characterization of Rangel, pointing out that he has been re-elected to represent Harlem for forty (40) years, and that must mean he is a "good person."

So why would the people of Harlem continue to elect a person so obviously devoid of positive character?

There are several possible reasons.

It might be that Harlem is districted in such a way as to guarantee election of a certain ethnic variety of person (read: black), and he was the only one running.

Maybe the people of Harlem would not even consider electing a person of another race. Whether you know it or not, that would make them racists.

Could be that the people of Harlem are just a corrupt as he is, and therefore it just seems natural to elect someone just like them.

If Charlie Rangel was such a good representative of his district, why do its people still suffer such poverty (24.3%)? If Charlie Rangel was such a good representative, why is the child poverty rate in his district so high (30.9%)?

Do the people of his district define his success by how poorly he represents them?

When Charlie faced his peers, he welled up with tears. It was as though he did not understand why they "picked on him." His tears were nothing more than those of a crocodile.

The truth is, as is reported in this Star Parker article, Charlie Rangel's attitude and unethical activities are but a symptom of a much greater syndrome: the corrupting power of power.

In fact, his attitude is the same basic issue as the entitlement mentality: "I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it, for whatever reason I want it, and I want it right now, whether I have earned it or not, and you should provide it for me."

The corrupt politician is no different from the common thief, except that the politician has more power and influence.

He says, "You have it, I want it, I deserve it, therefore I will take it."

Is there ever going to come a time when we demand that our lawmakers be of high ethical quality?

If so, when?

If not, why not?

11 comments:

Fredd said...

The longer these guys remain in office, the more removed from reality they become.

He truly, to the depth of his crooked soul, believed that because of who he that he deserved these things he stole from the people.

He, like most (if not all) liberals, thinks he is better than you and me, and accordingly is deserving more of the public pie than you or me.

That, and as yo point out, Joe, his district is racist and corrupt, that factors into the Charlie Rangel mess about as much as his flawed character and his flawed Democrat party's philosophy.

Joe said...

Fred: What do we do about the people who keep electing these pieces of scum?

tha malcontent said...

Great Minds think alike, Please see my blog of the day.

Leticia said...

It's a shame how people cannot see passed the color or race of a person.

When it should be out where the person stands on their views and if they are similar or equal to the constituents, right?

Politicians, crooked or not must be held accountable for their actions. We have become way too lenient.

selahV said...

It's too sad to comprehend why the people in his district re-elected him. He is doing nothing for them, which those stats affirm.

I don't understand him, nor do I understand a committee that does not expel him. selahV

Joe said...

the malcontent: I did. We are.

Leticia: Way too lenient...agreed.

selahV: I have concluded that the people of his district are just like him.

Scotty said...

"Fred: What do we do about the people who keep electing these pieces of scum?"

There was a time when I was against term limits. I always thought our votes were the ultimate action as far as term limits were concerned but, with each passing day I lean more and more towards term limits.

Joe said...

Scotty: I think term limits are an important part of the answer to career politicians and the problems they invoke on us.

Fredd said...

Joe/Scotty:

What do we do about the idiots that re-elect scum like Rangel? I am old enough to recall that Rangel ran as the reformer against scandal plagued Adam Clayton Powell, who was living large off the public dime, not showing up for votes, etc.

This garbage always comes full circle, doesn't it? The constituency that puts scum like Powell and Rangel in charge have no hope.

Term limits in their case will just elevate the number of rascals that come and go, that's all.

Lone Ranger said...

Rangel is a poster boy for how absolute power corrupts absolutely. He was elected as an idealistic Korean War hero, who campaigned against a corrupt politician -- Adam Clayton Powell Jr. And now, ironically, he has become more corrupt than the man he defeated. He remains because he is black, in a black district. Voting based on skin color is NEVER a good idea. Show me a city with a black mayor, a black police chief and a black superintendent of schools, and I'll show you a city where blacks live in the WORST of circumstances.

Scotty said...

Fred said: "Term limits in their case will just elevate the number of rascals that come and go, that's all."

But it would stop them from getting entrenched into committees that handle/squander million/trillions of dollars.