Over at Newsweek, Ben Adler
makes the case --from a liberal perspective -- for Democrats
stripping Charlie Rangel of his chairmanship. He's worried that
if Democrats circle the wagons to defend Rangel, it will hurt
them badly at the polls, just as the culture of corruption theme
contributed to Republicans losing power:
The Democrats were not elected on a
promise to return to the days of when the minority party had
more power in policymaking, but they were elected on a promise
to clean Congress's dirty laundry. Either Democrats prove that
the days of Duke
Cunningham-like behavior are over, or they will repeat the
mistakes of the Tom DeLay-era Republicans, and voters may
punish them at the polls for their hypocrisy.
I think Adler is right to be concerned. It wasn't just 2006 -- in
1994, Democratic scandals such as the Dan Rostenkowski House post
offfice fiasco helped bring Republicans to power in the first
place. While ideological voters tend to decide who to vote for
based on issues, election outcomes are often determined on
non-ideological grounds by swing voters. This is one reason why
ideological types are often surprised when their team gets to
power and it turns out that the public is not as supportive of
their actual policy goals as they imagined.
Has anyone considered the voters of Charlie Rangel's district
want the most corrupt, dishonest con man they can find. After
all, the voters of that district are no angels. Maybe the voters
are getting exactly what they want
tonypal| 10.8.09 @ 12:52PM
There is a bizarre mindset that afflicts liberal voters, although
it's easily understood given the simplicity of the liberal mind.
Basically, one's morality is defined by one's politics.
Bill Clinton was the ultimate example of the way the liberal mind
views morality. Clinton was an absolute lecher, a serial abuser
of women who was seemingly the embodiment of all that liberal
feminists despise in males. Yet the feminists defended him
vigorously in spite of the horrendous way he treated the women in
his life.
This was a constant source of frustration to many on the right
who were convinced that feminists were acting hypocritically, but
in fact they were not. The dirty little secret is that the
feminist movement is only interested in the advancement of women
if it furthers their true agenda, socialism. That's what animates
feminists, just as it animates the NAACP, an organization that
regularly overlooks racism from within the ranks of the democrat
party.
So, with Clinton, as long as he defended abortion rights, he was
always going to get a pass from the feminists. Now we have
Charlie Rangel, a man essentially running a mid-level criminal
enterprise. It's not so much that the voters of their district
want a criminal as their representative, they simply ignore it
because Rangel shares their views and brings home the bacon. I'll
guarantee that if tomorrow, Charlie Rangel announces he's had an
epiphany and is now a right wing conservative, the voters in his
district, along with Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the democrat
caucus in the House, will suddenly discover the criminal in their
midst.
…112 Show more Shortened Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://bit.ly/1N1qjK info http://bit.ly/19UEyI info http://bit.ly/3kzv6g info 3 tweets Tweet The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Newsweek Writer Says Rangel Must Go spectator.org/blog/2009/10/08/newsweek-writer-says-rangel-mu – view page – cached Over at Newsweek, Ben Adler makes the case --from a liberal perspective --…
Dixie Pixie| 10.8.09 @ 11:11AM
Has anyone considered the voters of Charlie Rangel's district want the most corrupt, dishonest con man they can find. After all, the voters of that district are no angels. Maybe the voters are getting exactly what they want
tonypal| 10.8.09 @ 12:52PM
There is a bizarre mindset that afflicts liberal voters, although it's easily understood given the simplicity of the liberal mind. Basically, one's morality is defined by one's politics.
Bill Clinton was the ultimate example of the way the liberal mind views morality. Clinton was an absolute lecher, a serial abuser of women who was seemingly the embodiment of all that liberal feminists despise in males. Yet the feminists defended him vigorously in spite of the horrendous way he treated the women in his life.
This was a constant source of frustration to many on the right who were convinced that feminists were acting hypocritically, but in fact they were not. The dirty little secret is that the feminist movement is only interested in the advancement of women if it furthers their true agenda, socialism. That's what animates feminists, just as it animates the NAACP, an organization that regularly overlooks racism from within the ranks of the democrat party.
So, with Clinton, as long as he defended abortion rights, he was always going to get a pass from the feminists. Now we have Charlie Rangel, a man essentially running a mid-level criminal enterprise. It's not so much that the voters of their district want a criminal as their representative, they simply ignore it because Rangel shares their views and brings home the bacon. I'll guarantee that if tomorrow, Charlie Rangel announces he's had an epiphany and is now a right wing conservative, the voters in his district, along with Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the democrat caucus in the House, will suddenly discover the criminal in their midst.
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 2:37PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Newsweek Writer Says Ra links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
koko| 1.12.10 @ 8:45AM
adidas outlet
all star shoes
art| 1.17.10 @ 4:17AM
nike shoes outlet
adidas shoes outlet