From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman :   
      
   >>Or if voters demanded good government? The place would have been   
   >>nearly empty.   
      
   >This post is going to make some of you triple-check the From: line.   
      
   >Charlie Rangel was indeed a "walking ethics violation," but he was   
   >also a walking example of "good government."   
      
   I know what you are saying, and I'm going to agree with you, but I will   
   not define knowing how to negotiate, compromise, and wield power as   
   "good government".   
      
   I'm not even going to claim that his constituents were wrong to re-elect   
   him. But I am sticking with my point that they just don't demand good   
   government.   
      
   >He worked *incredibly* hard. He blathered far-left horseshit almost   
   >nonstop -- that's what kept him in office -- but, in conference and in   
   >committee, he worked closely and cordially with Republicans to find   
   >and do the right thing consistently. In particular, his service as   
   >ranking member and then chairman of the Armed Services Committee was   
   >clear-headed and rational. That's not to say I agreed with his   
   >policies generally or specifically, just that he wasn't as crazy as   
   >his rhetoric would indicate and that he was very much a man who could   
   >listen to reason.   
      
   I certainly agree with all this. You get the last word on the rest.   
      
   >. . .   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)