Then during last Sunday's Meet The Press debate, Mark Udall suggested that Charlie Rangel should step down from his committee chairmanship - even if Udall wasn't willing to return the campaign funds.
But by Friday Mark Udall decided to clarify his remarks:
“My quotes were misreported,” Udall said in a brief interview outside the Capitol Friday morning, where he was to cast his vote on the financial rescue package coming before the House. “I said, in effect, that if I were in Mr. Rangel’s shoes I might step aside. But it’s up to Mr. Rangel. He’s an American hero, he’s an enormous asset to the Congress...” ...So Charlie Rangel is a "hero" and "an enormous asset to the Congress" who is needed in his post, despite tax fraud. But Mark Udall said if he were the one who committed tax fraud, he would have stepped down. Why the distinction? Because Udall indeed is anything but "an enormous asset to the Congress," and no one else there would say they "need him"? Sounds like a campaign commercial I can believe in.
Contrary to media reports, Udall said Friday, it was a mistake to read his comments as a call for Rangel to step aside.
“The headlines suggesting I called on him to resign couldn’t have been more wrong. I was saying if I were in his shoes I might step aside as chair of the committee and let the ethics process play out," Udall said. “But we need him. We need him." [emphases added]
Either Mark Udall is chronically unable to make up his mind about important ethical issues, or he is working hard to obscure the truth from voters. Whichever it is, do Colorado voters need such (lack of) leadership in the U.S. Senate?