What is Charlie Rangel thinking?

On July 27, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized Charlie Rangel for his possible tax evasions. They listed a few of his questionable tax arrangements, then concluded with

All of this has previously appeared in print in one place or another, and we salute the reporters who did the leg work. We thought we’d summarize it now for readers who are confronted with the prospect of much higher tax bills, and who might like to know how a leading Democrat defines “moral” behavior when the taxes hit close to his homes.

On July 30, Representative Rangle replied in a letter to the editor. His first paragraph does absolutely nothing to respond to the charges. He also claims the ability to read the minds of the WSJ editorial board to understand their ulterior motive, which is to undermine health care reform. A classic ad-hominen attack.

Your July 27 editorial ("Morality and Charlie Rangel’s Taxes”) insulted me in an attempt to undermine my work on health-care reform legislation. But your slurs can’t change the fact that the Ways and Means Committee, which I chair, has already succeeded in negotiating and passing its portion of the health-care bill without a hint of the rancor you’ve resorted to in your mean-spirited editorial attack.

Whatever. I leave it to the reader to determine if the original WSJ editorial featured slurs, rancor, and was mean-spirited. But, as I noted, you see that Rangel provides no facts to dispute the charges. Anyway, what follows shortly thereafter is truly incomprehensible blathering.

Since when has it been the practice of a major daily newspaper like The Wall Street Journal to rely on the reporting of journalists “in one place or another” as the basis of a searing attack on the character of a public official?

Apparently, journalists are not supposed to rely on reporting of other journalists? And editorials are not allowed to attack public officials? What? What is Charlie Rangel thinking?