Opinion

The friends of Charlie

Charlie Rangel goes before the voters today, resolutely denying that he has dishonored himself, his office and the state that first sent him to Washington 42 years ago.

But Rangel’s disgrace is not his alone; virtually the entire New York political establishment is lined up behind him during the primary-election campaign that ends today — not the least being Gov. Cuomo.

“He has seniority, he knows the system,” rationalized the self-described reformer as he endorsed Rangel’s re-election bid last Friday. “And I think he is best suited not just for the district, but for his state.”

That’s ridiculous, of course, unless Cuomo knows something about Rangel’s “state” that he’s not letting on.

All of which raises a question: What would Charles Rangel have to do to win Cuomo’s active disapproval?

The congressman earned what amounts to Congress’ most serious punishment, short of expulsion: He was forced to stand in the well of the House and listen as then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi read the overwhelming verdict of his peers — that he be censured for ethical misconduct.

That was then. Now Pelosi, like Cuomo, is backing Rangel against several challengers in today’s primary — the most notable being state Sen. Adriano Espaillat.

And they’re not alone.

Mayor Bloomberg and his last two Democratic predecessors, Ed Koch and David Dinkins, are on board for Rangel.

So are nearly all of the Democrats eyeing City Hall next year: Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Comptroller John Liu, former Comptroller Bill Thompson and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.

As are ex-Gov. David Paterson and former state Comptroller Carl McCall.

This amounts to the cream of New York’s political aristocracy — curdled by time, ambition and profound moral myopia, but aristocracy nevertheless.

They’ve rallied to Rangel, mostly on the grounds that he shouldn’t be forced out of Congress until he finally decides he’s ready to go.

What nonsense.

What arrogance.

The fact is, Rangel’s endorsers fall essentially into two categories:

* Opportunists, fearful of offending Rangel and his operational supporters — unions chief among them.

* Or comrades in chicanery, many of whom made the long march with Rangel and have the boodle bags to prove it.

Just who falls into which camp isn’t important — what matters is that each lacks the courage to call Rangel out for the scoundrel that he is.

And they all should be ashamed.

As for Rangel himself, he’s treated the race as little more than an annoyance.

But why would he do otherwise?

After all, “he’s best suited not just for the district, but for his state.”

Isn’t that right, governor?