Loyalties
By Mitch Berg
Reading the roll call for House Resolution 1737 – the censure of Charlie Rangel – it’s interesting to look at who voted what.
The resolution passed with a solid 333-79 margin. The 77 “nays” were a very partisan set, of course – 77 Democrats.
Of Minnesota’s entire delegation, only Keith Ellison voted “nay” – saying that Rangel didn’t deserve any punishment for his corruption.
Thanks, Fifth District.
December 3rd, 2010 at 6:19 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by History Matters and mitchpberg, NARN2. NARN2 said: Keith Ellison supported Charlie Rangel in censure vote: http://bit.ly/fvUSHZ #narn2 #stribpol […]
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:00 am
Keith would only vote “yea” if Rangel were charged under sharia law.
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:14 am
It’s legally, morally, physically and spiritually impossible for a brotha to be guilty of corruption so long as The Man exists and refuses to justly compensate descendents of slaves for centuries of bondage.
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:55 am
Expect anything different?
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:55 am
I thought this was a more interesting analysis. As Nate implies, there seems to be some race issues going on.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2010/12/race_not_party_defines_charlie.php
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:22 am
And Keith called Congresswoman Bachmann “a flat out LIAR”.
Stay classy Keith.
December 4th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Congressman-for-Life Ellison thanks you for your concern. Now bugger off.