Did Rangle expose BIGOTS or the COLOR block of votes in our Country?
WSJ's Best of the Web Today has this to say about the Rangel censure:
"The Rangel Split
The House has imposed its harshest merely symbolic penalty on Rep. Charles Rangel, voting 333-79 yesterday to “censure” the New York Democrat who begins his 21st term next month. Back in March, when the ethics proceedings against Rangel were getting under way, we noted a fascinating essay by the historian Walter Russell Mead, who argued that the Rangel case underscored a split in the Democratic Party between “the old time pols of the urban machines” and “the grim and determined brigades of morally uplifting upper middle class reform.”
The Rangel vote underscores Mead’s point. While Rangel’s fellow Democrats supported censure, 170-77, the increasingly minority “urban machine” mostly opposed it. The vote among members of the Congressional Black Caucus was 36-1 against censure; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus also opposed the resolution, 11-6. Rangel also had the support of every representative from New York City except Michael McMahon of Staten Island, soon to relinquish his seat to the city’s only GOP congressman."
Interesting!!
Vote among NON- Black and Hispanic Caucus member was 326 - 32 (91% for censure)
Vote among Black and Hispanic Caucus members was 7 - 47 (13% for censure)
THEY DID LISTEN TO THE SAME EVIDENCE DIDN'T THEY???
Since I don't believe either group is stupid - although sometimes I wonder - I have to believe that the COLOR of Rangel had a lot to do with the meager 13% of COLOR representatives voting for censure.
Of course, I am sure they believe that COLOR was the reason that 91% of the other representatives was they reason they censured Rangel. But I really don't believe that there are 326 BIGOTS in our House of Representatives.
Do you?
"The Rangel Split
The House has imposed its harshest merely symbolic penalty on Rep. Charles Rangel, voting 333-79 yesterday to “censure” the New York Democrat who begins his 21st term next month. Back in March, when the ethics proceedings against Rangel were getting under way, we noted a fascinating essay by the historian Walter Russell Mead, who argued that the Rangel case underscored a split in the Democratic Party between “the old time pols of the urban machines” and “the grim and determined brigades of morally uplifting upper middle class reform.”
The Rangel vote underscores Mead’s point. While Rangel’s fellow Democrats supported censure, 170-77, the increasingly minority “urban machine” mostly opposed it. The vote among members of the Congressional Black Caucus was 36-1 against censure; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus also opposed the resolution, 11-6. Rangel also had the support of every representative from New York City except Michael McMahon of Staten Island, soon to relinquish his seat to the city’s only GOP congressman."
Interesting!!
Vote among NON- Black and Hispanic Caucus member was 326 - 32 (91% for censure)
Vote among Black and Hispanic Caucus members was 7 - 47 (13% for censure)
THEY DID LISTEN TO THE SAME EVIDENCE DIDN'T THEY???
Since I don't believe either group is stupid - although sometimes I wonder - I have to believe that the COLOR of Rangel had a lot to do with the meager 13% of COLOR representatives voting for censure.
Of course, I am sure they believe that COLOR was the reason that 91% of the other representatives was they reason they censured Rangel. But I really don't believe that there are 326 BIGOTS in our House of Representatives.
Do you?
posted by Jim | 2:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home