A Tale of Two Scandals (Rangel and Ensign)

[ProSense]

A TALE OF TWO SCANDALS, CONT'D....

We've talked a bit lately about a curious set of circumstances: Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics controversy is generating considerable attention, while Sen. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) criminal investigation is largely ignored, despite a series of recent developments. Chris Hayes and I had a chance to chat about it on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Friday night.

I'm delighted to see the question get asked in other forums. On "This Week" yesterday, Paul Krugman raised the issue, and said he doesn't understand the disparity, either. "There are actually two major investigations of members of Congress underway right now," Krugman noted. "There's Charlie Rangel, who's accused of some fairly petty, although stupid and wrong, ethical violations, and there's Sen. John Ensign, who's facing a criminal investigation and which actually -- it's even a story that involves sex. And you get no publicity whatsoever on the Ensign investigation."

Host Christiane Amanpour asked George Will if this is fair. He replied:

"Well, Rangel is much more important, because he's chairman of an important committee. And in fact, Rangel's misfortune is a national misfortune, because we desperately need -- and after the deficit commission reports in December, we might have had -- serious tax reform in this country. That requires a cooperative member leading that committee in the House."

As Jon Chait reminds us, that's wrong. Rangel isn't the chairman of an important committee; he was the chairman of an important committee. In March, Rangel gave up his Ways & Means gavel, and Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) is in the big chair now. Ethics charges against the guy who used to be a key committee chairman isn't nearly as interesting.

<...>

OK, so Will's wrong. But why is Rangel's ethics problem getting vast amounts of attention, while Ensign's criminal problem is getting ignored? I suggested the IOKIYAR rule might play a role here, and Chris made the case that it'd be a bigger story if Democrats pushed it more. Both seem plausible.

<...>

[David Zephyr]

1. K&R.

The media has given both Ensign and Vitter a complete pass.

Is it because they are Republicans...or is it because they are white?

I believe it is because they are white.

K&R.

[dsc]

3. I think people like Edwards might consider that a stretch

I think it is at least as much that they are Dems as that they are minority. Also I think Spitzer just might disagree with you too.

[David Zephyr]

5. Except for the fact that Fox News is saying...

"Republicans are being careful not to lump Waters and Rangel together, so it doesn't look racist" followed by "when we come back we will deal with the Rangel/Waters mess".

We actually watched Fox last night for the first time in eons and they are working the race issue for all its worth and going out of their way to remind their "audience" that the President is black..as if they had forgotten.

Still, your point is a good one.

[JuniperLea]

2. They are pummeling Maxine Waters now as well...

And she has stated that she reported her husband's relationship with the bank to the ethics committee at the time the deal was on her plate. I certainly hope this is proved out, but I have no reason to believe it will not. Yet she's getting her buttocks handed to her in the CA press right now.

[Overseas]

4. We have a very conservative mass media now. Very soft on the GOP. //nt

[angee_is_mad]

6. I know why

but DU couldn't handle the truth.