As the House ethics inquiry into Congressman Charles Rangel grinds on, political pundits, pollsters, 15th District residents, and other Representatives have been scrambling to assess the Representative’s future.

The House opened its inquiry in 2007 after the New York Times reported Rangel, first elected to Congress in 1970, rented four rent-controlled apartments for below market value; in response, Rangel himself called for a full investigation. The ethics committee has expanded its scope well beyond housing, and is now considering other questions: Did Rangel fail to disclose $500,000 of income in 2007? Did he pay the necessary property taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic? And as of last week, as new reporting emerged from the New York Times, did he have assets and income not included in his financial disclosure forms from 2002 through 2006?

The committee, including six Democrats and six Republicans, will wait until the investigation is completed before presenting its findings to the full House, which ultimately decides whether to take action against Rangel, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee.

Meanwhile, no two political observers seem to share the same opinion about Rangel’s future.

“My guess is it’s ‘rally around the local guy’,” said Maurice “Mickey” Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute. “That’s what usually happens.”

Carroll added that Rangel’s influence in uptown politics extends beyond populist appeal. “He’s part of the Harlem Mafia-cabal—Paterson’s father, Dinkins—they’ve dominated a long time. So far, no one else has been able to get him yet,” Carroll said.

Daily News reporter Juan Gonzalez, who has covered Spanish Harlem extensively, sees Rangel’s fate as part of a longer history of uptown politicians.

Between Rangel and his predecessor Adam Clayton Powell Jr., uptown has seen only two representatives in 65 years.  So voters, Gonzalez explained, “will look on the basis of whole careers,” not just at this moment’s dilemma.

It’s how voters behaved before, Gonzalez explained. “Remember: Charlie Rangel replaced someone kicked out of office, then let back in,” he said, referring to February, 1967, when the House of Representatives ejected Powell from the House after he was accused of misusing funds designated for the committee he chaired. By special election, Powell was allowed to regain his seat two months later. In the 1970 Democratic primary, voters, however, sought a new candidate who promised to clean up the political dirt and pay more attention locally and rallied to elect Charles Rangel, then a politically inexperienced 40-year-old.

This time, Gonzalez said it’s possible that State Senator Bill Perkins or Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV will try to seize the moment and take Rangel’s seat.

Wayne Barnett, a senior editor at the Village Voice who has covered local politics for close to 30 years, sees a clear window of political opportunity—for the governor. “I’m sure Paterson can function as a congressman but he can’t function as a governor. He’s the son of the Harlem gang, and he’s the byproduct of it,” Barrett said.

Barrett added he thinks it’s unlikely that Rangel will run again if the House votes to strip away his chairmanship of ways and means. “Why run if you don’t carry the weight that you carry with that chairmanship?” Barrett said. “I can’t see him going to election with all that hanging over his shoulder.”

Uptown, mixed opinions reign among residents.

Julia Lysaith, waiting for a M15 bus on 125th Street, said she sees no need for an investigation or a penalty. “When a man works as long as he’s worked, he’s obligated to get whatever he wants,” Lysaith said, unimpressed by a possible scandal. “If you dig deep into other people’s lives. You’ll be shocked to find out what they have,” she said. “There’s a limit to how much we should look into private lives.”

Heather Rodriguez, walking to her home on Morningside Drive, disagreed. “They need to investigate it,“ Rodriguez said. “I don’t think it’s really fair to use taxpayer funds like that,” she said, discussing Rangel’s alleged abuse of his congressional power to illegally rent apartments.

Other residents, looking at Rangel’s past political record, saw reason for a new congressman from Harlem.

Outside an Amsterdam Avenue bodega, John Horton said, “He’s not helping the small businesses anymore — he’s helping the big businesses.” Rangel had backed Columbia University’s plans to expand into West Harlem, forcing out a gas station, a storage place, and numerous residents, he explained. “He’s not for the community anymore. He’s sold out,” he said.

Mark Reyes, talking to the bodega’s owner, added his voice to the critics’. “He’s a flip flopper—he says one thing, and goes in exact opposite direction,” he said. But he doubted that Rangel would lose his seat, explaining that the congressman is a hometown hero, immune to anything other challengers can throw his way. “That’s going to keep him in office,” Reyes said.

But in recent weeks, Rangel’s precarious political position has fostered opportunities for political power grabs from Democrats and Republicans alike.

In early October, the House voted 246 to 153 against a GOP resolution calling for Rangel to relinquish his ways and means chairmanship. The resolution would have bypassed the U.S. House Ethics Committee inquiry, ousting the Congressman from the committee immediately.

At home, Rangel faced new trouble from old friends. His former campaign director Vincent Morgan announced that he will run for Rangel’s seat next year. ”I’ve been preparing for this for the last few years,” Morgan said in an interview, adding that he will need time to mount a full fundraising campaign. “I couldn’t wait until this was concluded,” he said of the Rangel investigation.

Morgan said he will campaign on restoring trust. Although congressional representatives are required by law to disclose earnings and expenses, Morgan said he intends to make his finances even more accessible and easier for a layperson to understand. What is needed, he said, is clearer information that explains, “exactly who you hire, and how much they’re paid.”

At Rangel’s office, a spokesperson dismissed the GOP resolution as politicking and called for due process. “Let’s look at this resolution for what it really is–a highly partisan effort designed to undermine the important work in Congress on health care reform,” said the spokesperson, who declined to be identified. “It’s also an attempt to circumvent House rules, which provide for a comprehensive, bipartisan ethics committee process for reviewing matters such as these. The Congressman himself initiated the request for the committee to review the issues and the members should let the process work as established by the rules of the House.”