| Subject: Re: [EL] Rangel & Censure |
| From: Douglas Johnson |
| Date: 12/2/2010, 9:13 AM |
| To: 'Rick Hasen' <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>, 'Election Law' <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
This is pure political speculation, but my guess is that Rangel's very effectively framing the debate:
By opposing censure, Rangel makes censure the "extreme" punishment. His ardent opponents then stand on their soap-boxes and "demand" censure.
If Rangel is OK with censure, his ardent opponents then make speeches calling for his expulsion. They would not have the votes for that, but that's a conversation Rangel wants to avoid.
Rangel's allies can now reluctantly go "against Rangel's wishes" and vote for censure, instead of having to stand up and defend him against a move for expulsion.
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
Fellow
Rose Institute of State and Local Government
Claremont McKenna College
o 909-621-8159
m 310-200-2058
douglas.johnson@cmc.edu
www.RoseReport.org
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:53 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 12/2/10
A vote on censure will happen later today. I find it difficult to understand why Rangel, at this point, cares about whether he has a public censure or written reprimand. Peter Overby interviews former House members who talk about how the public censure makes them uncomfortable. But it seems to me that Rangel's legacy is tarnished, and whether or not he has an additional uncomfortable afternoon or not is not going to make a great deal of difference. What am I missing?
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:26 AM