--------------------------
Well said!
Posted on 12/02/2010 4:19:10 PM PST by i88schwartz
A reporter asks Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) if an average American citizen "went through similar circumstances as yourself that they may be punished in a worse way?"
Rangel lashed out at the reporter: "Please, I'm not a psychiatrist. I don't deal in average American citizens."
"I'll come back to you when you have a good question," he added.
The House overwhelmingly voted to censure Rep. Rangel.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Screw 2012. Garb the muskets and powder horns! Time to show these bastards why there’s a Second Amendment.
“I don’t deal in average American citizens.”
This - his arrogance - is what finally got Rangel caught in problems that had been known to many for a very long time.
His arrogance is sort-of justified in the sense that the Liberal Dims let the problems slide out of reverse discrimination - not wanting to go after Rangel, for years, because of his race. But the modern media would not bury it all like his own peers in Congress had. Naturally, after so many years he was, by circumstances, encouraged to believe that he was above such scrutiny.
He was not only not your “Average American citizen” he was not even your “average” Congressman.
Arrogance.
Time for the IRS to tackle Charlie’s bookkeeping and reporting.
--------------------------
Well said!
I don’t want a pass- by asking I was pointing out a double standard. If life were fair- NOBODY would get a pass.
That’s SUPPOSED to be what being a ‘nation of laws’ is all about.
Not jumping on your case at all (someone thought I was tonight when I wasn’t- started an unnecessary fight).
I am so sick of these entrenched politicians who not only feel entitled to retain their seats but totally forget that they are accountable to we the people, not the other way around.
Hey guys, guess which 2 Republicans voted not to censure Rangel.
Corrupt tool Don Young of Alaska and Pete King of New York. King voted against impeaching Clinton. Obviously he has some issues with seeing democrats punished for their crimes. Young believes only the voters should be able to punish congressman, also he lives in fear ethics investigations himself. It’s like how Gary Condit was the only guy to vote not to expell James Traficant.
Young and King were joined by Ron Paul in voting for a failed attempt at lesser punishment a “reprimand” or something.
He should have been expelled. Though it’s certainly useful that he continues to stain house rats will his presence. They should WANT to expel him.
Right. When all democrats wear carnations in their lapels, then things are put in perspective.
But I repeat, Sharpton is just a whipping boy. What about Conyers? Scandal ridden. Wife in prison for shady lobbying! Heck, the entire party:
Incomplete list of democrat criminals
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2029856/posts
THUG-O-CRAT hit list
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2464640/posts
Arrogance, the pride before the fall. Remember, He did say that he was pure and white as the driven snow.......
I do hope that Peter King and Don Young get TEA Party primary challenges.
Isn't a censure already a reprimand without any repercussions? Other than showing up in the Congressional Record, I don't see any difference. Should they just be given a "timeout" and a clean slate? I think not.
Yes. He would have had to give up his committee chair apparently, but that's irrelevant cause he already gave it up and the rats lost the majority.
The only "punishment" is that he had to listen to resolution condemning him. "You've been a very naughty boy Charlie".
So I'm mystified why they apparently wanted nothing different than a slightly less harsh rebuke. Just so poor Chuck can avoid the stigma of the word "censured" I guess.
Ah that’s the thing, for a “reprimand” they don’t have to read it out loud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/nyregion/19rangelside.html?_r=1
I wonder if Young will pull a Murkowski if he ever loses the primary.
Thanks for the link.
In the cited examples, Barney Frank should have been censured.
Some of those censured deserved a public flogging.
To earn censure according to some of these wimps, I guess you have to be convicted of a felony (or something).
Doesn't matter. Peter King is the the teflon RINO. He can do whatever he wants, and a bunch of freepers will still love him. He's betrayed us over and over again on major policies for at least the past decade and there are always numerous "conservatives" to go to bat for him and claim he's a good conservative who hasn't done anything wrong since impeachment. If ANYONE besides King votes the way he does, there's hell to pay for it. For example, Newt Gingrich's presidential chances were deep sixed after he went out pimping for Dede Scozzafava and attacked Doug Hoffman, whereas Peter King got a bunch of conservatives to fawn over the prospects of him running for the U.S. Senate. Lindsey Graham faced an outpouring of attacks from conservative blogs for suggesting a McCain-Lieberman ticket, Peter King got a pat on the back after doing that. And so on, and so on, and so on. And even when you post extensive proof of King's consistently treasonous record, his fan club will just make up false information about the demographics of his distict ("it's a very liberal district out there and King is the last Republican left in long island, he has to vote that way..."), when it reality his district is drawn to be Republican and voted AGAINST Obama, making it one of the most heavy GOP districts in a state where Hussein won 2/3rds of the vote.
>> Isn't a censure already a reprimand without any repercussions? Other than showing up in the Congressional Record, I don't see any difference. Should they just be given a "timeout" and a clean slate? I think not. <<
Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing, with the only difference being that a censure is read out loud in the well of the House and the person being censured has to stay there and listen to it, whereas a reprimand is just written "you've been a bad boy" notice. Reprimand is a fairly recent invention, it didn't exist historically and I believe they didn't start using it until 1978. They came up with it because some Congressmen decided that censures were "too harsh". That just goes to show you how out of touch Congress is, when they think telling one of their members he's been a bad boy might go too far and hurt his widdle feelings.
>> In the cited examples, Barney Frank should have been censured. Some of those censured deserved a public flogging. To earn censure according to some of these wimps, I guess you have to be convicted of a felony (or something). <<
Possiblity that wouldn't even "raise the bar" high enough for many Congressmen.Gery Studds got a censure for having sex with an underage congressional page boy, and he laughed off the "harsh rebuke" and got re-elected six more times. It didn't affect his seniority or clout in any way. Kinda like Peter King's and his conservative fan club. King could pass legislation to abolish capitalism or make Obama President for Life, he'd still have conservatives on here gushing about what a great patriotic conservative he is.
>> I do hope that Peter King and Don Young get TEA Party primary challenges. <<
Clintonfatigued; weren't you the guy who dismissed that months ago as a waste of time because King is "likely to be redistricted out of existence anyway". Have you changed your mind? In any case, conservative challengers have emerged to run against King for the last decade. The problem is they gain little traction because his adoring "conservative" fans go to bat for him no matter what he does. If the other 8,436 times King betrayed conservatives on a huge issue didn't result in backlash against him, this latest effort certainly won't.
” weren’t you the guy who dismissed that months ago as a waste of time because King is “likely to be redistricted out of existence anyway”.
Possibly. It’s been a while. New York state will lose two Congressional districts and at least one will be upstate New York. I’m not sure where the other one will be. But if the district stays intact, than we can afford to risk a primary challenge to Peter King.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.