Sunday, August 01, 2010

Rep. Maxine Waters Gets Her Ethical At-Bat

On the heels of Charlie Rangel’s thirteen-count ethical violation barrage, Rep. Maxine Waters/CA will step up to bat to see if she can get safely around the bases on a single count violation. It seems that during the most recent economic meltdown, Waters helped out a bank that contained a stake owned by her hubby. Bad Maxine.

Now, it is not a slam-dunk that Ms. Waters was completely out-of-bounds. There is no reason that a bank, OneUnited, associated with her husband, should suffer unduly because she is a congresswoman. After all, the whole idiot-banking world was scrambling behind the mortgage crisis. On the other hand, if she lent extraordinary help, or worked to influence the result, a $12 million bailout for this specific bank (which Treasury officials have denied), then serve her up, right behind Mr. Rangel.

I work in a familial, and majority family-owned, real estate development business, so I understand how easy it is to mix business relationships with family/friends and vice-versa. I see nothing wrong with Waters advocating for OneUnited, as long as it was similar to the way she hopefully helped comparable others. But, getting someone a crucial look-see and tipping the result are very different. If Waters’ mere involvement would cause undue influence (reasonably), then she crossed the line from the get-go and will have to face the music.

In any event, it does not look good for the Black Caucus, the Democrats, mid-term elections or Nancy Pelosi's promise to drain the swamp of corrupt politicians. Stay tuned.

James C. Collier


Technorati Tags: , , , Charles Rangel, ,


BigmacInPittsburgh said...

Let's stop beating around the bush,Waters and Rangel have been in Washington too long and the culture of greed have affected them as well as others.

parvenu said...

In politics here in the good ole U.S. of A., nothing is ever as it seems and you have to look deep behind the scenes to find out the real reason for any significant political event. The real question NOT being asked is "just who is on the Congressional ethics committee?" If you lay out the makeup of the members of that honored and august body then you may get a hint as to the real reason that the Rangel/Waters ethic accusations are being processed 90 days before the Congressional elections. The timing is so perfect for the Republicans that it almost appears that the Ethic Committee is made up of all Republicans.

I know some idots out there are going to say "WTF, if they're guilty than they deserve what ever a Congressional trial renders for them." Sorry, that is not my point! My position is that the Congressional Ethics Committee has had the conclusion of these two investigations in their files for months. They also have a BACKLOG of other white Congressional people who have been investigated and are also due for citation, but the citations for these people have yet to be issued. So my question is why parade out these two members of the CBC, and why 90 days before a critical Congressional election?

Well here is MY hunch. First, the Republicans will be making an all out full press effort to take back the majority in the House of Representatives. Their strategy is to suppress the black vote around the nation (they ain't worried about the black vote in either Rangel's district or in Water's district), and if successful then they think that they have a good chance to win the House. So by selecting two old stubborn codgers, i.e., Waters and Rangel, who they (the Ethics Committee) rightly assumed would never plead guilty and would straight up opt for a lengthy trial to protect their long serving honorable political career.

A long drawn out heavily publicized ethics violation trial is likely to depress most African Americans and thereby discourage black voters and cause them to stay away from the polls for the Congressional elections in November. Look at it this way. The white Democratic and Republican vote will likely be a close split between the two parties. Likewise a close split independent vote between the two parties is also likely. However, any large African American vote stands predictable as tipping the balance of the election (House majority) in favor of the Democrats. In this current battle for the House, Rangel and Waters are simply pawns in a great political struggle. Both are significant to the political puppet masters only for their predictability and their racial symbolism.

So there you have it kiddies, American politics unmasked on these very pages. Nuff said.....

James C. Collier said...

parvenu, you ignored your question "just who is on the Congressional ethics committee?", and the implications of that answer on what you have provided. The ethics committee is made up of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans (4 and 4). So then the real question is why the committee is not partisan-ized stalemated on these two individuals?

Greg said...

I really am not trying to start a debate, but your second to last sentence mentions the reputation of the Black Caucus.

What do you think of the concept of the Black Caucus? Personally, it comes across as somewhat of a racist idea in the first place. Since when is it okay to create groups that exclude other races?

James C. Collier said...

Greg, I am not a fan of the Black Caucus and their exclusivity. I do not believe these type of organizations have a place in moving us forward to objective awareness of the issues of race. Too often, it seems like a sanctioned way of selling votes for money.