The reason Pelosi and Rangel said what they did...

[kentuck]

This is just my opinion. But I think they did it to protect the Democratic Party in the upcoming election. No Party wants to be portrayed as supporting a Castro or a Chavez as Party principle. That could have disastrous political consequences, or so they thought. And they may be right? To me, it does not seem like such a big deal in the scheme of things. They have probably protected the Party from being "swift-boated" in November's election, but the reactions to their comments are understandable. I just think they have not been thoroughly scrutinized... :)

[snappyturtle]

1. I've been out of the loop for a couple of days.....

I don't know what Pelosi and Rangel said. I did get to read Chavez' speech to the U.N. To be truthful, I couldn't disagree with his viewpoints....at least I can understand why he feels the way he does.

[BurtWorm]

6. He actually did make a lot of sense

But of course, the US media can't look beyond the Diablo bit. If he meant his words to reach the ears of the average American, he took the wrong approach. If he meant to focus the debate in this country on the substance of his charges--about US interference in other nations' business--then, again, he failed. Personally, I doubt he intended his words to reach most Americans' ears. Those ears he did reach in this country essentially agree with him anyway.

[snappyturtle]

21. I agree with you about who Chavez' target audience

is....but, after reading it, I definitely feel he was putting the U.S. on notice to the rest of the world.

[niceypoo]

24. They should also have mentioned that Chavez sounds exactly like...

...Limbaugh, OReiley and Savage.

[snappyturtle]

30. Maybe I'm just stupid...but how so? nt

[barb162]

37. You know what?

When I saw him doing the Sign of the Cross and talking about sulphur, I thought, geez what an asshole. I think the guy made a fool of himself. If he wanted to go on a Bush bash- which is okay with me- he could have taken the religious overtones out of the speech and could have been taken more seriously.

Maybe too much like Pat Roberts or any TV preacher plus the jerks you mentioned?

[Roxy66]

2. Your right...they have the "Base" vote...but they need the "Middle"

to win in November. It pissed me off at first too, but I soon realized that if they sided with Chavez they would be torn apart in the "Media". Sucks big time!!

[Jawja]

18. But they didn't have to say anything

at all, did they? Did the media stick a microphone in their faces and ask them to comment? Why did they dignify Chavez by being so outspoken against him? Seems to me they helped the media make it a big deal.

[Clark2008]

28. Because they could see the Republican noise machine was

racheting up the swift-boat campaign to tie Democrats to Chavez: they, for once, got out in front of the impending smear and diverted it.

I also agree with Chavez's assessment of El Diablo, but I understand why, in a political atmosphere in which the right-wing corporate state-run national media would blast any Democrat while repeating any unsubstantiated Republican talking point, these Democrats would feel it necessary to distance themselves from Chavez.

Sad state of affairs, ain't it?

[Jawja]

43. Very sad.

Your premise makes lots of sense.

[Dorian Gray]

32. Is it possible

that they were actually outraged by the speech?

[trotsky]

3. That seems like a very reasonable explanation.

I'm sure you will be savagely attacked for it shortly. ;-)

[Dorian Gray]

33. I agree....

It is reasonable to do what is politically expedient. I am curious, however, if they are tired of the racheting up of rhetoric. Also, it's possible that they don't like our country being demonized (literally) and making our president the head demon.

[acmejack]

35. I'm sure.

Savagely hyperbole must be your stock in trade.

[Imagevision]

47. K & R

[liberal N proud]

4. They were doing because they respect the office

And no one but Americans are allowed to criticize the white house in such ways. And it does tell America that even the Democrats won't put up with extremist idiot world leaders, unless they are American Republican Presidents.

[bullimiami]

9. from what chavez has DONE i dont see an extremist idiot

I only see him portrayed that way in media that has an agenda.

maybe he will turn out to be the monster he keeps being described as, i dont know the future, i do know his policies have been pretty well received by the large majority of his constituents.
the ones who have been loudly in opposition are those who have gotten used to power and wielding it with impunity.

[liberal N proud]

16. True, Chavez does not appear to be the extremist, BUT...

Since the media portray him as such, the Democrats needed to play their game this time and denounce Chavez. It was a look good move more than anything.

[barb162]

38. I thought he came off as a comedian

and not to be taken seriously. That "sulphur" stuff was way over the top for a serious forum like the UN

[EST]

5. The thing these twaddlers keep forgetting is that the UN is not

the US. Chavez did not stand on US territory and insult boosh; he was at the UN, which is international territory.

The more pertinent story, in my opinion, is the fact that his (Chavez's) comments brought the house down. The anti-US and anti-* animus was palpable. The world hates us and we have the misguided publiclown party is to thank for that.

[bullimiami]

10. actually he went to harlem the next day and called him a drunk.

or so i read.

[tridim]

15. He is a drunk

Or at the very least an untreated alcoholic.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. How do you know that?

[tridim]

52. Because he admitted to being a drunk

and he never received treatment.

Even fully recovered alcoholics admit they are lifetime alcoholics.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

53. In my vocabulary

a "drunk" is an active alcholic.

I think it is quite possible to pull out of alcoholism on your own, with no treatment, no AA. AA with the higher power schtick leaves out a lot of folks. My husband, for example, was an alcoholic until his mid-thirties when we had a long talk about it and he went cold turkey. That was 25 years ago.

Now, whether Bush is an active drinker or not, I don't know. That's what I was asking. I was assuming you had knowledge he is still drinking. But if you are using the term "drunk" to refer to anyone who has ever had a drinking problem, then I understand. I don't agree with your term..it's a bit harsh, but I do still think of my husband as an alcoholic who, thankfully, does not drink.

[bigtree]

7. scared rabbits

It looks like pandering. It is. No one had associated his comments with Democrats. What they succeeded in doing is igniting folks to rail against them from their left. Did they really not see this coming? Do they really think they can afford to aggravate these folks in their own party before the midterms when they need party regulars to show up to make a difference? Do they really think the party has given enough to its loyal members in the way of opposition that they can afford to look past them to some appeasement of some unknown moderate or conservative who may have associated Chavez's comments with the party? I just don't see the political calculation that folks are trying to convince us of. Who are these voters who were offended by Chavez's remarks? Are they Democrats? Would they vote for us in any case?

Why couldn't Democrats let Chavez's Devil joke stand? Who are they trying to appeal to? Does it matter that there is so much anger at their inaction among their own party regulars? How does this help with that? Midterms are all about getting your base out. I don't think this helps. We're pretty angry out here. Playing coy politics is the furthest thing from many folks minds that I speak with. They want a firm, unapologetic opposition, not frightened rabbits pandering for the other party member's votes.

[Matariki]

13. what you said!

[tridim]

8. They are certainly playing a chess game with Rove

Good chess players think ahead and plan for the end game with every move, I think Pelosi and Rangel know how to play. Even if I'm wrong, it was smart letting someone like Harkin speak the truth and deflect the bullshit that we all know was coming.

[ktlyon]

20. if they don't make a play soon the game will be over

Things seem to be moving exactly the way the rethugs have planned not this UN speech thing but that the dems must kiss his sulfury feet over it. The polls are moving right, the 911 PR stunt w/George's keynote speech, and the continuing fear terrorists fear terrorists thing are songs in their play book. With the elections machines and other stop the vote, change the vote anti-american tactics of the right, the time is getting very ripe for the Dems to make a move.

[tridim]

50. The polls are NOT moving right at all

The Gallop poll was bullshit and the rest still have Bush in the mid-30's and congress in the crapper.

I do agree the dems need to make some big moves very soon. I think they will, but will the media take notice?

[Matariki]

11. The Democrats in charge need to not be so damned reactive

That's one of our biggest problems. They could have easily just not said anything.

We need to set the terms of the debate, not always be defending ourselves against stupid crap spun by the Republicans.

[LSK]

12. ummm, how about saying nothing???

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

14. exactly. nt

[Bluebear]

17. That's my only question too. nt

[BootinUp]

22. You don't think thats ammo for Rove too?

Why do you care so much about what they said about Chavez? BFD.

[LSK]

23. this is my 1st comment on the situation

But apparently I care so much about this situation.

:eyes:

Sorry, you picked the wrong poster to make your point about.

[BootinUp]

31. "so much"

was definitely overstated. Sorry bout that.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

19. You're prob. right - there's a reason the Reps & MSM were going on & on

They would not do that if there wasn't some type of advantage for the Repubs. If they thought it was a negative - there would have been no mention of it at all and it would have died.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

29. Now they're blaming Dems for the statements. "That's why Chavez felt

he could make those statements in the US."

[MamaBear]

25. If either Pelosi or Rangel had any clue about their base

they would have kept their mealy mouths shut.

Chavez said what he said on international territory. He was not in the United States. And representatives of the United States have said much worse about other world leaders in several fora of that body.

If the Democrats would quit worrying about some "moderate" voter someplace in the mythical middle, they would come out with a strong populist message and reinvigorate their base.

Instead, they do what they do, and keep that powder dry because sometime something important is going to come along and they're gonna fire off that sucker.

Sometime ... something ... important ... no .... really ...... really ....... important ......... too ........... important ......... to .......... ignore ..............

Yeah, let's keep those cards and letters coming, while they cash the corporate checks.

[barb162]

26. They keep getting elected , so they must have a clue

[barb162]

27. They did the politically astute move

It's better to be diplomatic

[malaise]

34. What many DUers missed yesterday was

how quickly MSM (MSNBC) had Buchanan on air attacking Rangel for having Chavez in Harlem.

All sensible people know that W is evil, but by responding early Dems killed the planned spin before prime time news last night. Even Scarborough was trying hard to connect them but he had to settle for Danny Glover. Sometimes political expediency takes precedence over the populist view. This is one of them. Bushco must go and the elections and key Dem talking points cannot be diverted. I didn't particularly like Pelosi's language but for once they took the initiative and killed the planned Rethug spin.

sp.

[Odin2005]

39. Exactly. It was pre-eptive counter-spin.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Politicians telling the people what they think the people want to hear.

Over many years I've discovered that we can always trust politicians...to be politicians. First, foremost, and always.

[Metta]

41. They're weak and lame. Could have mentioned C's justifications w/o overt

ly supporting him. Jeez, how hard is that? Any high schooler could have done better.

[midnight]

42. I suggest no comment would suffice........

Instead we want lots of comments on bringing home our soldiers, we want lots of discussion on paper ballots, and we want lots of discussion on illigal wire tapping.

[applegrove]

44. Chavez was acting like *. Of course he should be held accountable.

Anyone who acts like Bush on the world stage is ****ed up. Chavez could have not appealed to his base and gone to the UN with a message to the world on how Democracy and Trade don't redistribute income on their own and poor countries need reforms untill they finally become sorta equitable. That would be the purpose of going to the UN. That message was lost. Cause Chavez has an election coming up.

[watercolors]

45. They could have just kept thier mouth shut!

Most Dems did.

[Imagevision]

46. I agree, spinmasters Hannity/Limbscum would've had a field day

Don't agree with Pelosi calling Chavez a thug but it elinminated Hannity comeback bullshit!

[treestar]

48. Just curious, if they had said nothing at all, how would it hurt them?

They are that convinced that freepers are a majority in their districts, they are pretending to be freepers in order to get re-elected? Then don't they have to continue to represent such in Congress? Just trying to win is better than being honest?

If the People of this nation are that badly off, they need real leaders, not people who just cater to them.

[Union Label]

49. They're both playing political CYA

I'm not happy with it but they are after all politicians.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

51. But they're more concerned about staking out a position on Chavez than

making a LOUD position on torture.