Amazon

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Obama on The View, Sherrod, and Rangel

POTUS was on the View.  Uhggg... I guess that politics in 2010.  It's nice to know he doesn't know who Snookie is.  I am not opposed  to President Obama going on the View, I guess I am just upset I had to watch the View.

Shirley Sherrod say's she will file a lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Briegtbart.  Ok.  I guess that's an option.  Will she also file against her former employer?  Should she?

The House Ethics Committee announced 13 ethic charges against NY Congressman Charlie Rangel.  I hate to say this about my fellow St, John's Law School Alumnus, but he needs to settle this even if it means his resignation and he should have done it last week.  He has had a wonderful 40 year career in Congress and I would hate to see it end with his removal.  The battle over the finer points of the law and whether or not he broke any rules will not be the determining factor here.  At the end of the day, a vote will occur, in Congress, weeks if not days before an election.  I find it hard to believe that many House members will view this on the substance of the legal arguments as applied to the facts of his case and not on how it will influence the election.  The GOP will make Rangel a focus of their Fall campaign regardless of what comes out in the trial.  Public opinion will determine how House members vote especially those in tough races.

At the end of the day, politics will win out even if Charlie makes his case.  He knows this and this is why a deal will be struck soon.

2 comments:

  1. POTUS is in video and photo op mode - doing what he has to do or what his people feel he has to do. I think what he and his people have to do is figure out how to create jobs.

    My understanding was Rangel already had a chance to strike a deal but now the trial phase is about to begin. I don't think Rangel is going to fall on his sword for the dems. I think he is going to fight. After being around for so long and considering his age - he does not have as much to lose and he can use his trial pulpit to settle some scores. His thinking might be - why are they picking on an 80 year old man when there are congress people half his age committing worse violations than him and getting away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris- different topic. Why can't tax cuts on wealthy Americans and wealthy corporations be tied directly to *new* job creation and the amount of new salary they're adding to their payrolls?

    ReplyDelete