Anyone else think he sounds exactly like Frank Pentangeli?
"Rangel, 80, stepped down in March as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee as he was being investigated. He has spent more than $2 million, mostly from campaign funds, during the investigation and his previous lawyers indicated the hearing or trial phase would cost another $1 million.
"I am being denied the right to a lawyer right now because I don't have the opportunity to have a legal defense fund," Rangel told the committee. "Fifty years of public service is on the line ... I am not being treated fairly."
Personally I love it the big doosh has been soaked by his attornies, I'm wondering how campaign contributors feel about it?
Best comment of all I heard on the radio (and can't find transcripted yet) was when he was complaining about not having enough time to review the 40 pages of allegations brought against him.
Seriously? It only takes him a couple of days or less to digest a 2000 page bill 8) What really pisses me off is he thinks 40 years in the House somehow should absolve him of corrupt behavior and tax evasion. Whole lot of hoopla for what will eventually amount to a censure.
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=163037&catid=40
The Pentangeli thing is right on. I've been trying to place his voice for months now.
Frankie Five Fingers!
He's even got that doddering charm about him and self-righteous indignation. I think he's a fan of Coppola ;)
Apparently it works. Remember how Marion Barry kept getting elected? When you got that "charisma" people stay with you. Or Jim Inhofe with the state of Oklahoma.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2010, 09:18:09 PM
Apparently it works. Remember how Marion Barry kept getting elected? When you got that "charisma" people stay with you. Or Jim Inhofe with the state of Oklahoma.
Are you equating Rangel/Barry to Inhofe? I didn't know he had been convicted of 11 ethics violations or was caught on tape smoking crack.
Quote from: guido911 on November 16, 2010, 09:49:30 PM
Are you equating Rangel/Barry to Inhofe? I didn't know he had been convicted of 11 ethics violations or was caught on tape smoking crack.
No but Inhofe obviously thinks FAA regulations don't apply to him.
I'm equating corruption and moral bankruptcy to corruption and moral bankruptcy. No matter the format.
Yeah, equating them all! And there are a whole lot more where those 3 came from - on both sides! Newt Gingrich, too, to make the count even in this example.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2010, 09:08:27 AM
I'm equating corruption and moral bankruptcy to corruption and moral bankruptcy. No matter the format.
Yeah, equating them all! And there are a whole lot more where those 3 came from - on both sides! Newt Gingrich, too, to make the count even in this example.
How specifically is Inhofe corrupt or morally bankrupt?
Start with his campaign ad lies and just all around dirty nastiness when lying about opponents. (He was Karl Rove's mentor) That actually is just the little cherry on the top of the sundae.
Business dealings with his brother and insurance company.
Business dealings with money put up for "remediation" of lead problems in Picher about 25 years ago.
Then again 10 years later. Then again a couple years ago.
In the meantime, state "bought out" the town putting an end to his gravy train.
Another cherry is his sellout to oil/gas interests. As he likes to brag, they haven't given him enough money.
On a more humanistic morals level, he was "outraged by the outrage" that followed the disclosure of torture in Abu Graib. In other words, deeply offended when torture ends. In fact, voted against a law that basically said that we should obey our treaty obligations and not torture people. One of only 9 to actually vote FOR torture!
Plus, he has been particularly ineffective in representing the people of Oklahoma in every position he has held. Such a clear case of people of this state voting against their best interests consistently and repeatedly.
And when Murrah Building was bombed on April 19, 1995, this was the guy who, when was asked how many people worked in the building, replied "It depends on how many federal workers played hooky today." So sensitive!!
Or how about that on September 12, 2001, Inhofe blocked a Customs Service nomination the (Bush) White House had listed as "critical" because he wanted the Customs service to test plastic-detecting technology from a company represented by a close friend and campaign contributor.
More??
You friends with Jimmy??
I think Inhofe and Rangel are both old-timey patronage-style politicians. They understand the importance of bringing home $$ to their districts. Hence the hesitance on Inhofe's part to get rid of earmarks, and Rangel's confusion as to what he did wrong (when all he did was represent his district in a morally confused way for 40 years -- while skimming what he undoubtedly saw as his rightful cut off the top).
The lesson here is, bring stuff back to your district and you will keep getting elected. Full stop. Ethics be damned. Inhofe knows that, and so does Rangel. So did Ted Stevens, for that matter.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2010, 01:39:38 PM
Start with his campaign ad lies and just all around dirty nastiness when lying about opponents. (He was Karl Rove's mentor) That actually is just the little cherry on the top of the sundae.
Business dealings with his brother and insurance company.
Business dealings with money put up for "remediation" of lead problems in Picher about 25 years ago.
Then again 10 years later. Then again a couple years ago.
In the meantime, state "bought out" the town putting an end to his gravy train.
Another cherry is his sellout to oil/gas interests. As he likes to brag, they haven't given him enough money.
On a more humanistic morals level, he was "outraged by the outrage" that followed the disclosure of torture in Abu Graib. In other words, deeply offended when torture ends. In fact, voted against a law that basically said that we should obey our treaty obligations and not torture people. One of only 9 to actually vote FOR torture!
Plus, he has been particularly ineffective in representing the people of Oklahoma in every position he has held. Such a clear case of people of this state voting against their best interests consistently and repeatedly.
And when Murrah Building was bombed on April 19, 1995, this was the guy who, when was asked how many people worked in the building, replied "It depends on how many federal workers played hooky today." So sensitive!!
Or how about that on September 12, 2001, Inhofe blocked a Customs Service nomination the (Bush) White House had listed as "critical" because he wanted the Customs service to test plastic-detecting technology from a company represented by a close friend and campaign contributor.
More??
You friends with Jimmy??
Never met him. Sounds like the problem you have with Jimmy is that since you don't like his politics, he thus corrupt and morally bankrupt. Oh, and if lying in campaign ads and making dumb comments is tantamount to smoking crack and being guilty of 11 ethics charges, I guess every politician is equal to Rangel and Barry.
There is more to Jimmy than dumb comments. There is ineptitude, dishonesty, corruption, and moral bankruptcy.
But you don't see me complaining about Coburn. Or even Sullivan. Even though there are areas of disagreement (maybe not as many as you think) but I consider them both to be moral, decent men. I even admire Coburn when I disagree with him because he does appear to be such a decent honest man and takes an honest stance on issues. And the fact that he has pretty much done (or tried) everything for the people of the state that said he would do. Makes him almost honest, doesn't it??
And you do hear me going on about Randy Brogdon. Another Jim Inhofe type. Somehow the city of Owasso is enamored with him. I think Owasso used to be a more decent town. Lived there for a while in late '60s and there were good people there. Wonder what happened - could it be new people from Tulsa moving out??
And he will be censured.
At least I can relish the thought of this complete dumbass spending $2mm in attorney fees trying to fight off this predictable outcome which means diddly squat.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 09:19:29 AM
And he will be censured.
At least I can relish the thought of this complete dumbass spending $2mm in attorney fees trying to fight off this predictable outcome which means diddly squat.
Yep
QuoteThe House voted to censure Rangel 333-79.
Rangel, who became the 23rd House member to be censured, appeared at the front of the chamber while Speaker Nancy Pelosi read the resolution.
Rangel responded that he won't be judged by this Congress, "but I'm going to be judged by my life, my activities, my contributions to society and I just apologize for the awkward position that some of you are in."
"But at the end of the day -- as I started off saying -- compared to where I've been, I haven't had a bad day since," he said, drawing applause from the chamber. Rangel was referring to the day he was left for dead on a Korean battlefield nearly 60 years ago.
Censure is the most serious House punishment short of expulsion. His supporters asked instead for a reprimand, which would eliminate that humiliating appearance.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/02/house-votes-censure-rangel-ethics-violations/
They humiliated him. How harsh. They should have let him off with a lighter punishment.
Just heard on the news that now he's under investigation from the FEC because he may be using funds from his PAC to pay his legal expenses. He may get a double-censure!
Abusing while he's being investigated for abusing.
I'm still stunned this dumbshit claims to have spent $2mm in legal fees to ward off censure of all things. I have a funny feeling that money was funnelled to his attorney's account in the DR and will somehow trickle back into his campaign war chest.
Once corrupt, always corrupt.
So that's how Inhofe does it!! I always wondered.
Saw Rangel on O'Reilly tonight. He held his own IMHO.
Just hope it was off screen.
Quote from: guido911 on December 09, 2010, 10:10:52 PM
Saw Rangel on O'Reilly tonight. He held his own IMHO.
He's a master debater, and a good orator too. I just can't get past the winy liberal tone. His strength lies with his base who sees victomhood as more important than leadership. Huffington Post calls him "A True American Hero."
I think he is emblematic of everything self-destructive about the Democrat party.
Gaspar,
Absolutely!! There is no "True American Hero" about him at all!
Even Ted Kennedy would be closer on that scale than Charlie.
In just the same fashion as there is no "Great American Hero" about Oliver North, twice convicted, then let-off-the-hook architect and implementer of the arms for cash felonies of Iran-Contra.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 10, 2010, 08:02:45 AM
Gaspar,
Absolutely!! There is no "True American Hero" about him at all!
And even more so, there is no "Great American Hero" about Oliver North, twice convicted, then let-off-the-hook architect and implementer of the arms for cash felonies of Iran-Contra.
Smooth segway!
. . .and now for something completely unrelated.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:8XqPtnTOopGpkM:http://www.thebestonline4u.com/eeerik_estradasm.JPG&t=1)
Quote from: Gaspar on December 10, 2010, 08:06:13 AM
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:8XqPtnTOopGpkM:http://www.thebestonline4u.com/eeerik_estradasm.JPG&t=1)
Hoo!
Quote from: Gaspar on December 10, 2010, 08:06:13 AM
Smooth segway!
. . .and now for something completely unrelated.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:8XqPtnTOopGpkM:http://www.thebestonline4u.com/eeerik_estradasm.JPG&t=1)
Doesn't he drink with Hasselhoff these days?
Quote from: guido911 on December 09, 2010, 10:10:52 PM
Saw Rangel on O'Reilly tonight. He held his own IMHO.
I have to agree with the later comments that he avoided actually answering questions. I guess that's one way to hold your own.