Wretchard says: that’s the problem with backrooms. We don’t know who is in them because they are in back.

It also leaves open the possibility of backrooms within backrooms, so to speak; witness the ongoing debate as to whether Obama speaks for himself or whether he is the puppet of George Soros (or some other Moriarty). The recent sudden bipartisan piling-on on Charlie Rangel raises that kind of question, too. “There can be no question that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, would dearly like the Democrats to fight November’s elections without Rangel flapping for air in the barrel full of fish into which Republicans are training their fire. . . . There will be resistance to Rangel’s departure, primarily from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for whom Rangel is, for all his flaws, a revered elder statesman. But Rangel is now indefensible, and not merely because Pelosi wants to show him the door: His is a style, a method, a politics from an age when it was simply not done to ask uncomfortable questions of a black politician, lest that politician (and his supporters) retort that the questioning was racist. That protective smokescreen of ‘racism’ was good to men like Rangel, allowing them to go about their merry ways blithely, and untroubled.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-23/charlie-rangel-will-resign-next-week-predicts-tunku-varadarajan/?cid=tag:all1