Tide of ethical questions stains all politicans

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The rising tide of ethical questions stains all ships, as politicians in Washington and New York found out on Thursday.

With one scandal having forced a top House Democrat to give up an important chairmanship and questions about another New York congressman plaguing his decision to retire, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to defend her party’s ethics at her news conference.

“This is rumor city,” she said. “Every single day there are rumors. I have a job to do and not to be the receiver of rumors.”

The questioning follows Rep. Charles B. Rangel’s decision to put aside his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee while he faces an ethics probe. On Wednesday, Rep. Eric Massa of upstate New York announced he would skip reelection because of health reasons and denied reports, confirmed by the House leadership, that he was under investigation for harassing staffers.

In the New Yorkers’ cases, the ethical questions come amid growing ethical complaints against Gov. David Paterson, who announced he would not seek election in November. Several Democrats and supporters have already suggested that Paterson consider stepping down from the governor’s office he has held for less than two years.

Questions of propriety also touched the ongoing search for votes to pass the healthcare plan in the House, where Democrats are split over abortion, the costs of the bill and even questions about whether it goes far enough for liberals.

One possible vote is Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah, whose brother Scott was nominated by President Obama to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Republicans immediately questioned whether there was a quid pro quo, the appointment for Matheson’s needed vote.

Even though there is no evidence of any such deal, the appearance was enough for the question to be raised at White House spokesman Robert Gibbs’ daily briefing, where he promptly shot it down.

“I think based on Mr. Matheson’s ABA [American Bar Assn.] rating, based on Mr. Matheson’s long legal resume, and based on the support he has from somebody important like [Sen.] Orrin Hatch, who has agreed to help shepherd his nomination through the Senate, I think it’s a pretty silly argument,” Gibbs said.

“Would you like to extend that to what the Republican National Committee said was a blatant attempt to flip Mr. Matheson’s vote in favor of healthcare reform?” one reporter asked.

“I think that’s also a very silly argument,” Gibbs retorted.

--Michael Muskal

Twitter.com/LATimesmuskal