Representative Charlie Rangel would really prefer it if the House didn’t censure him. He was found guilty of 11 counts of ethics violations, and the ethics committee voted nine-to-one to recommend that the full House censure him, but he thinks a reprimand would be just fine, thank you.
It is titled “10 Reasons Why Rep. Charles B. Rangel Should NOT Receive Censure,” but it is not a hilarious Letterman-style Top Ten List. It is actually a list of other representatives who were censured for doing things that were “worse” than what Charlie Rangel did, and a list of people who were only reprimanded for doing things that were “worse” than what Charlie Rangel did (like Newt Gingrich).
Will it work? No, probably not. But censure is still an extraordinarily goofy 19th-century relic, so it really won’t be so bad, Charlie.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow him on Twitter @pareene