Rangel or the Swamp?

David Paul Kuhn:

Draining swamps is not so popular today. It's bad ecology.

We could understand Nancy Pelosi's defense of Charlie Rangel this way. It's an issue of conservation. I've heard those San Francisco liberals love the environment. Forget promises to "drain the swamp" during the 2006 campaign. She wants to conserve her ally's job.

Don't get Pelosi wrong. Surely, if a powerful House member "has proven himself to be ethically unfit" we know "the burden" indeed "falls upon" his party to oust him. In such a case, party leaders would obviously ask: "Do they want to remove the ethical cloud that hangs over the Capitol?"

So Pelosi explained in October 2004. The subject was Tom DeLay. The House ethics committee had admonished the Republican majority leader. DeLay used the Federal Aviation Administration to track Democratic state rivals. He hosted a fundraiser with energy lobbyists while energy legislation was under consideration.

Pelosi argued: "We must stop the influence of special interests so that the people know that we are here for the people's interests."

After all, this is why we have institutions like the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. Except, that is, for the namesake and the center. An oil drilling company (special interest) made a $1 million donation to Rangel's center. The quid pro quo, allegedly, included legislative favors. The matter, like so much of Rangel's world, is under investigation.

Rangel has one of the powerful jobs in government. The New York Democrat is chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. The committee has jurisdiction over all taxation. And that's the rub. Rangel has a problem paying all his taxes.

The chairman failed to report more than a half million dollars in income. He later amended his financial disclosure forms. Perhaps it was a senior moment. The public servant simply forgot about his New Jersey real estate and a quarter million dollar account.

But perhaps he's just corrupt. There are other investigations. Possibly still more absent taxes, this time regarding rental income and a Dominican villa. There's the four rent-stabilized Harlem apartments used by Rangel, reportedly, well below market value. House lawmakers cannot accept gifts worth more than $50.

Rangel's cloud grew still larger on Thursday. The House ethics committee ruled that Rangel violated Congressional rules by accepting Caribbean junkets.

Thank goodness for Pelosi's past stands. Back in October 2004, the ethics committee had not yet acted on DeLay's links to a more serious money laundering investigation. But Pelosi saw that as no excuse. The cloud was big enough. Action had to be taken on behalf of the "people's interests."

Certainly, Pelosi is not foolish enough to not apply a Democratic double standard. Well, you know how this story goes. In Washington, the cynics are rarely proven wrong.

...

As Obama said during the campaign the enemy is cynicism or was it the swamp? OK, we know that Pelosi only meant what she said to apply to Republicans. If it was not clear at the time, it certainly is now. Perhaps she is hopefully that voters want notice, but I am sure the GOP will offer several helpful reminders this fall. Is this just another one of her itsy bitsy spider bites?

Did you really think she would be all that different?