Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Harlem old guard versus new version of old guard: Rangel v Powell
Share:
by YankeeJim | August 9, 2010 at 03:09 am
131 views | 3 Recommendations | 4 comments
Photos
Lifer politicians, old guard versus new version of old guard is what the people of Harlem are getting as alternatives in the next election. Adam Clayton Powell was ejected from office for corruption and replaced by Charlie Rangel who is now being ejected for corruption whose seat is being sought by Adam Clayton Powell IV.
While we don’t know that Adam Clayton Powell IV is corrupt, we know that he is following in the footsteps of lifer politicians who can’t shake the public payroll and who is unlikely to do much to change the course of Harlem’s poor people.
Isn’t there a young Clinton that would like to represent Harlem?
“In Harlem, Rangel faces Powell: The next generation
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 9, 2010NEW YORK -- Forty years ago, a Harlem political legend named Adam Clayton Powell Jr. refused to step down from his House seat in the face of an ethics scandal. Rather than allowing Powell to retire on his own time, an ambitious New York assemblyman took on the incumbent -- and won.
the onetime assemblyman, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), finds himself charged with 13 violations of ethics rules of the House of Representatives. He is being challenged by a state assemblyman named Adam Clayton Powell IV, the youngest son of the man Rangel vanquished in 1970.
There is, suffice it to say, no shortage of irony to the contest.
"We were trying to be respectful and see if he would do the right thing and retire," Powell said in an interview. "Now I'm the one who is going to take Rangel out."”
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 05:50 on August 9th, 2010
Very similar to Chicago politics. It's all very corrupt and they're all very corrupt.
my.nowpublic.com/world/charles-rangel-resigns-house-ways-and-means-chairman
at 06:09 on August 9th, 2010
It's the system. I think the framers of the Constitution had it in mind that people would serve their country as representatives after having established themselves as being successful at something in the private sector.
As I said before, they established age 35 as the requirement for being president at a time when the average life expectancy was 35. They didn't expect people to last forever in office.
at 14:47 on August 9th, 2010
Jim: Funny thing back in the days of the framers: The majority of those that lived past the average life expectancy lived almost as long on average as people do nowadays. I didn't know that until recently when I was reading Paul Johnson's History Of The American People. Many of the framers were worried about the same thing that we worry about today. Namely special interests buying up politicians. That was one of the reasons why the framers decided to put representatives on salary. It's amazing how farsighted the framers were in that they were worried about things that we worry about today.
at 16:24 on August 9th, 2010
Excellent point. There is much wisdom in the Constitution.