Charlie Rangel v. The New York Times

I'm surprised that The Times still takes this amount of time and puts this kind of effort into researching a story, especially with so much that seems more important going on. Are they trying to nail Rangel for illegal or unethical activity?

And on it's own Rangel's response looks pretty definitive and I'd certainly be inclined to accept what he says. Somebody got piqued.

Sometimes I forget how awesome the NY Times is in comparison to other papers - thanks for the reminder.

Chris Dodd says he's not going back to CT without getting something done. I thought the hearings today were impressive. Too bad there wasn't this kind of grilling over the money given to Wall Street, or even this kind of grilling given to Paulson. It doesn't sound like there's anything like enough senators to get something done though.

Well, if they pursued vetting the truth with the columns of William Kristol with as much alacrity as that of Charlie Rangel, I'd really be impressed.
.
That said, the expiration date on Charlie Rangel milk carton is coming due soon. I'd be surprised if he finishes out his term.
.
They're after him because of the subsidized apartments rents he scammed. And they're right for being after him.

What Kathy said @ #4. We got hosed by Paulson, AIG, and Citibank.

Imagine a world where Ahmed Chalabi's dealings had gotten half as much attention as Charles B. Rangel's has. The NYT still has much to atone for.

I think that's what's colloquially known as getting taken behind the woodshed and beaten with every piece of wood in it.

Paul Dirks nails it. The Rangel example is the exception that proves the rule. The fact that, once in a blue moon, the NYT demonstrates the capacity to both investigate government officials and deftly parry their defenses only tells me that 90% of the time they are mailing it in.

Note to Rep. Rangel. Don't mess with NYTimes. It can only get worse.

Note to self: do not ever let David Kocieniewski anywhere near my skeleton closet.

Rangel should retire. I am not wanting the kind of government we had the last 8 years even with dems in charge.

Two Comments - -

1 - Snap, Snap, Double Snap...

2 - Don't argue with people who buy their ink by the barrel.

Oh Charlie....

Rangel is a good example of the kind of casual corruption that occurs daily in DC. He probably doesn't even think he's done anything wrong.

It's interesting that the NY times has been going after Rangel for a while now. First it was his rent control office and then his vacation home in the Dominican Republic and now this. I get it NY times as usual whenever a black man reaches the pinnacle of power the investigations begin -- because this didn't start until he became chairman and he's been in Congress and awfully long time. Don't let the Obama victory lull you into a false sense of security because some things have remained the same. And by the way where is the investigations of the Bush regime and the Republican leadership?

Dee-I think Rangel has wrought this on himself. All the stuff they are nailing him on (and I don't know if he really is guilty) seems to me to be backed up and well sourced. His explainations do not jive. Finally, this is why I am strongly against people being this close to power for so friggin long. Its going to corrupt otherwise good people. But all this is my personal opinion and you mostly certainly can be more right. I just wish people could just please avoid even the appearance.

They're going after Rangel because he's a black man? You must be joking.
.
Please don't do that. It diminishes you.

Let's face it: long time in office, lots of corrupt influences. If you succumb it comes out at some point. The NYT has put a lot of resources into this; and Rangel is unable to meet the accusations head on so that they go away. Problem: power does not wear well on most politicians. And there are too many corrupt businessmen who know how to take advantage.

More on Charlie. Let's hope the Times doesn't read Politico
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16219.html

Where are all of the conservatives who complain that the NY Times is so one-sided? Note none of them will comment even while I am sure Rush Limbough is loving this piece on Rangel. Certainly he will take it as proof of Rangel's wrongdoing and go back to stating you can not believe anything the Times says.