Rangel's Replacement: Pete Stark

[The Prof]

Rangel's replacement: Pete Stark - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

California Rep. Pete Stark — a controversial lawmaker who has a history of volatile comments about Republicans — is now chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, automatically moving up from the second slot after New York Democrat Charles Rangel relinquished his gavel Wednesday morning.

It would take an affirmative action of the House to remove Stark and replace him with another member of the Ways and Means Committee, according to aides familiar with House operations.

Stark — one of the chamber's most liberal, partisan and pugnacious members — has had his own recent run-in with the ethics committee, exhibiting bizarre behavior during an investigation that ultimately cleared him of wrongdoing.

POLITICO reported earlier this week that officials found Stark "extremely belligerent" toward investigators from the Office of Congressional Ethics and used a semi-hidden video camera to tape his interview during a probe of whether he improperly applied for a homestead tax exemption in Maryland even though his official residence is in California.

The incident is just one in a series of stranger-than-fiction episodes featuring the tart-tongued Stark.

He once accused a former Republican Ways and Means colleague, Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, of getting her information from "pillow talk," and called another, Scott McInnis of Colorado, a "fruitcake."

In 2007, he accused Republicans of sending soldiers to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Passing over Stark, a 37-year veteran of the House, could have created a series of new headaches for House Speaker — and fellow Californian — Nancy Pelosi.

Stark's ascension as chairman does make sense from a policy standpoint: The biggest item on the committee's plate right now is the president's health care overhaul, and Stark has been chairman of the panel's subcommittee on health.

If Pelosi hopes to keep Stark in place until the end of this Congress, there's little that critics could do other than complain.

But congressional observers believe that if Democrats hold their majority, there will be a battle for the Ways and Means gavel in the next Congress, which meets in January.

 

[The Prof]

Some comments:

1. Out with the Greasy Slickster.

2. In with the Stark Raving.

3. Everyone's known for years that Rangel's a rascal.

4. Offshore properties, unreported incomes, undeclared assets, corporate junkets, rent controlled apartments, abuse of congressional privileges, soliciting contributions on official letterhead, fixing tickets downtown...

5. HUSH MONEY FOR HOUSE ETHICISTS.

6. Can you just imagine how the Grey Lady, NY Times, would've behaved ALL THESE YEARS were the rotten Rep from Washington Heights a Republican?

7. Someone, say, like John McCain?

8. LOL!

9. The Lady lay silent all this time while the most corrupt character in the capitol sat.

10. And the party in power persisted complacent, no problem with a little pocket picking on the side.

11. Til NOW.

12. Charlie is, I believe, the THIRD longest serving member of Congress.

13. Ways and Means, probably the most powerful chair in the city.

14. Rangel's as rancid as ever was Rostenkowski.

15. Murtha came close.

16. The Culture of Corruption continues, carries on.

17. In the person of Fortney Pete Stark!

18. LOL!

19. Trust me---NO ONE IN THAT PARTY WANTS STARK RAVING STARK IN THAT SEAT.

20. THIS is an absolute DISASTER.

21. Politically.

22. Fortney Pete Stark (!) CHAIRING Ways and Means.

23. LOL!

24. Forgive me, but I don't think you've come to know old Fortney Pete as well as The prodigiously experienced Prof.

25. Stark Raving spends an hour with Politico, THE SOURCE for TV's finest political coverage in the morning, MSNBC's.

26. And Jonathan Allen comes away shaking his head.

27. "Bizarre."

28. That's about it.

29. Fortney Pete Stark is unambiguously that, bizarre.

30. Enjoy him!

The Prof

 

[Councilman]

If there was a law the required everyone who wants to run for office in the House, Senate, and White House to determine intelligence, as well as the propensity, to violate ethics rules, take bribes, or misuse the office or break the law in general, we would be discussing which party or group uses the results showing someone failed as their go to list to support and which uses the ones who past as the people who get support.

I think we would also find first there would be a lot of people dropping out early and secondly, I fear we would find there is no Stark difference in most candidates and all parties.