Sometimes on DU we have some pretty silly litmus tests for elected Dems...

[Skinner]

...but this Chavez thing has got to be the silliest--and most overblown--one I have heard yet.

So, Hugo Chavez called Bush the devil. I'll admit that when I heard about it, I thought it was kinda funny. I chuckled.

But I wasn't expecting elected Democrats to get on TV and pump their fists and yell, "FUCK YEAH! YOU GO, HUGO!" I wasn't even expecting them to go on TV and say, "Yes Wolf, thanks for asking. As a matter of fact, I agree that George W. Bush is actually Satan himself." There would have absolutely nothing to gain from doing so.

The anger at Rangel and Pelosi and other Democrats here on DU is much ado about nothing. The leader of a foreign country called the president of the United States the devil. I really don't think there is anything wrong with Democrats responding that we have legitimate disagreements with Bush, but calling him the devil isn't really appropriate. Sure, it's fine on Democratic Underground. But it's not really the type of rhetoric that we should expect from our leadership.

Don't like the Dem leadership's response to the Iraq war? Fine.

Don't like the way the Dem leadership is running the 2006 campaign? Fine.

Don't like it when Dems kiss Bush's ass? Fine.

But if you're ready to throw the bums out because they aren't making Hugo Chavez the honorary leader of the Democratic Party... That's just silly. On the one-to-ten scale of "things that actually matter" this Chavez thing rates a zero. Maybe a one.

So let's get back to arguing about stuff that matters. We've got an election in less than two months.

[AZCat]

1. I don't have a tv but I am curious...

How much attention has this been given by the MSM? I know there was some coverage of it, but is this being used as another "War On Christmas"?

[Eric J in MN]

18. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" covered the Chavez remark...

...two nights in a row.

[KaptBunnyPants]

139. That last one really pissed me off.

This is the liberal smear machine, hard at work. According to the Daily Show, Chavez is both evil and bat-shit insane, and so are all his supporters. He even called out Cindy Sheehan and Danny Glover for being "insane" enough to visit with him. I turned it off right there, and I doubt I'll be watching again. Which is a shame, the Daily Show and Colbert Report are favorites of mine, but I can't stand listening to people who I know are lying to me.

That's why Pelosi and Rangel got to me. I didn't care about them chastizing him for violating decorum, but calling him a thug crossed the line. More importantly, they are establishing the limits of acceptable beliefs. Now, it's no longer acceptable to support Chavez, and those who do are to be considered insane or stupid, even by the "Left". It's like everything Chomsky said about how political discourse is managed in our country came to life, right in front of my eyes. Part of me had hoped that Chomsky was just a crazy, bitter old man, like all his detractors have been telling me. Seeing it for myself was depressing, to say the least.

[Eric J in MN]

161. I'm not going to stop watching Jon Stewart, and I'm not going to

...stop supporting Cindy Sheehan and Danny Glover.

Though I didn't like Jon Stewart's remarks on Chavez, either.

[KaptBunnyPants]

162. That's probably true for me too...

I'll cool down and at least start watching Colbert again, he's never let me down. Regardless of last night, the Daily Show is one of the most politically honest shows on TV, I'd have a really hard time giving it up for good.

[question everything]

180. Thankfully, Stewart and Colbert do not adapt their shows

to the mood and opinions on DU.

I am always amazed when people are offended that favorite commentators and shows do not follow their strict rule of acceptable liberal thought and opinion.

We should praise their independence.

In contrast to Faux News and other RWers, we cannot predict what they will say at any given moment.

[Coexist]

2. Honestly, I was amazed that our leadership even RESPONDED to this

It was absurd and kept it in the news cycle longer than it needed to be.

I wish everyone would look at the Dem poll numbers that are NOT break-away leads anymore and put their energy into getting those back on track.

[geek tragedy]

12. They essentially Sistah Souljah'd Chavez. eom

[dubyaD40web]

3. Couldn't have said it better!

[NMDemDist2]

4. I saw a longer clip of that quote yesterday on Democracy Now! and it

was obviously a joke on Chavez's part. you could hear the crowd snickering too. the MSM's clip doesn't show the fact it appears he used it as a way to warm up the crowd

tempest in a teapot once again and spun until it lost any resemblance to reality

:banghead:

[Buzz Clik]

106. A joke? Bullshit. He's said this kind of thing before.

[John Gauger]

156. If you tell a joke more that once it stops being a joke?

I don't follow.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Amen.

NGU.

[Pirate Smile]

Thanks, Skinner. I hate it when these tizzys pop up and cause a storm.

[Arkham House]

6. Dammit, Skinner...stop making sense...

...you might start a trend...and then where would we all be...?

[LynneSin]

7. Welcome to the world of General Discussion Politics

Next we'll find out that Rangel and Pelosi prefer call it 'to-may-toe', and the 'to-ma-toe' supporters here at DU will be all outraged at this clear appeasement to moderate & conservative voters

:eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Funny you should say that

since the song has come up in the discussion of how to pronounce another controversial president's name ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2192605&mesg_id=2194611

:evilgrin:

[skipos]

8. AMEN!!!

:kick:

[meegbear]

9. Hear hear!

:applause:

[blogslut]

10. Smart move by Pelosi and Rangel, IMHO

We've got pundits n' others calling us hysterical, angry, conspiracy-riddled fools. Rangel and Pelosi piping up to condemn Chavez for obviously overreaching plays well. Sort of takes the wind out of the repub blowhard's accusations against us.

[EarthNeedsHope]

32. Considering their political ineffectiveness, they dont make many smart mov

The last 6 years have shown exactly how many smart moves these fellows have made, with Chavez now being a world hero.

[zanne]

64. Exactly. nt

[Hubert Flottz]

11. Charlie Rangel is a patriot...

I was sorry to see people trashing him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. Can you say....circular firing squad?

It's very discouraging to come here and read the many hate posts re: Pelosi & Rangel this close to the mid-terms, with the usual proclamation, "I'll Never Vote for Dems Again". Can we just move pass this issue, and stop lionizing Chavez, and talk about the issues that are killing our kids, and many innocent Iraqi civilians?

[dkofos]

57. Not a patriot to me. And neither is Pelosi

A true Patriot would have defended Chavez's right to freely speek his mind.

Even if they don't agree

[KittyWampus]

163. There's the right to speak freely... then there's a thing called decorum

And we expect our elected leaders to demonstrate decorum... especially when visiting foreign countries.

Do you know how shameful it was when Cheney wore a PARKA to a Holocaust Ceremony overseas?

[SmokingJacket]

14. It's nothing compared to their NONACTION on the torture issue.

I'm tapping my fingers here, waiting for them to say something.

Instead they're yammering about Chavez.

[magellan]

24. Tapping right along with you. (nt)

[BurtWorm]

29. Right on.

:applause:

[huskerlaw]

95. Agreed.

Sometimes (ok...often) the priorities around here are pretty fucked up.

[nam78_two]

142. Bingo! /nt

[MrModerate]

15. Let's talk strategy, and not handing 'Licans clubs to beat us with . . .

Chavez' remarks were inappropriate, offensive, and buffoonish. Any "You go, Hugo!" responses from Dems would have featured prominently in every 'Lican campaign commercial made between now and November.

Decrying Chavez' behavior was good politics, and not just because associating ourselves with that asshole is a sure vote loser.

Chavez has also downplayed the seriousness of Bush's crimes -- Bush is not "the Devil" (a mythological being as often portrayed comically as threateningly) -- he is a foolish, arrogant, dangerous, sociopathic, and very real threat to America and world peace generally.

While ridicule of the Jon Stewart variety is probably politically useful, outside of such contexts we need to make people realize how fraught with danger the situation is as long as there's a Congressional majority itching to enable the next Bushian disaster.

For our own safety, we need a Democratic Congress that will put the breaks on an out-of-control and rapidly deteriorating usurper.

[LTR]

16. Was anyone really surprised by Chavez's speech?

Really, anyone with at least half a brain in their heads expected Chavez to go all-out at the UN. Nothing new here. It's being blown up way too much.

Dems should have ignored it, or belittled it. And I think they did, thereby evading a potential GOP wedge issue. Much ado about nothing.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Not surprised, but kinda glad he bought his cause some press attention.

NGU.

[BlooInBloo]

17. thx.

[mmonk]

20. No litmus test.

I hate to see them run to the nearest microphone to distance themselves from Chavez because they are scared the republicans will try to link them to his statements. Makes them appear somewhat reactionary and defensive over nothing.

[LostinVA]

48. Bingo n/t

[stepnw1f]

119. exactly (nt)

[janx]

21. Definitely!

I've been looking at this board, shaking my head in disbelief... :rofl:

[Annces]

22. I will take truth over manners any day

And DUers outrage at Rangel seems on the mark to me.

[Clarkansas]

23. Kicked! We have some important elections coming up!

[Tin Man]

25. word.

Sorry folks, but Chavez is not a winning issue - end of story. Focus your outrage where it might actually helps Dems win this November.

[quiet.american]

26. On Rangel....

I'm in Rep. Rangel's district. I don't have much to say about his politics, because between elections, he is largely invisible. The only thing I can really remember him saying in the last few years was on the issue of Iraq, and that is that the draft should be re-instituted. That's all well and good, but is still a solution that would ultimately send even more of our African-American young men to early, violent deaths.

So now, Bush being called the devil by Chavez is the thing that brings Rep. Rangel's outrage to the fore and prompts a "patriotic" statement from him? Lovely.

[BurtWorm]

33. You miss the point of Rangel's position on the draft.

It's meant to force politicians to face consequences for their war votes from a constituency that has an actual stake in any war they vote for. In other words, it's ultimately an anti-war position.

It astonishes me how blind so many on the left are over this issue.

[BlooInBloo]

58. And then the idiotic lie of Rangel being invisible between elections...

DUers slay me.

[BurtWorm]

59. True.

I even get a Christmas message for Charlie on my answering machine. ;)

[quiet.american]

77. :) n/t

[quiet.american]

75. Excuse me, I'm part of his constituency.

While I receive communications year-round from those in other capacities who serve my district, it's rare to get anything other than a fund-raising letter from Rangel. He may be indeed be doing something, but it is largely invisible. And may I say, my comments come as one who votes for him, largely because there doesn't seem to be much of a choice.

[bigtree]

69. It's not a smart plan to hawk the draft if you disagree with it like I do

Either he's for the draft or his isn't. This wisdom of this notion of some staelth ploy to force responsibility from legislators escapes me. If enacted, it would result in a draft which would be the same as the last one. Folks like Bush and Cheney sitting it out, and others doing all of the fighting and dying. Then there would be the added incentive to war since they had the bodies to throw at it. The draft is for folks who still believe in the efficacy of war and armed conflict. It's more than appropriate to castigate Rangel for this if one is concerned with ending mindless militarism as a ready option for resolving disputes. Who wants or needs a ready force for the kind of muckraking presidents like Bush could potentially involve us in? It's also ridiculous to talk of a draft without first ending the needless deployments we have now. Why should we trust any government to involuntarily commit our children to battle? I happen to like him, but Rangel is full of shit on that one. It astonishes me how so many think that his draft option would change the behavior of those in Congress. Anyone who doesn't think they'd find some way to protect their own children is hopelessly naive and beyond reasoning with.

[BurtWorm]

83. The point is to give Americans a direct stake--a personal stake

in any war the country has. With an all-volunteer army, the government can throw a war anytime it wants with very little consequence among voters. This is not how a democracy should make war, because it makes war far too easy.

I guarantee that Republicans do not want a draft for this war or any other. A draft would make it much harder for them to stir up shit overseas.

[quiet.american]

74. No, I did not miss the point. Perhaps you missed mine. n/t

[tomp]

182. what astonishes me...

...is how many people have failed to see that u.s. foreign policy is a bipartisan policy.

[madokie]

27. Praise be the voice of reason

[Snivi Yllom]

28. I would argue it rates higher than a 1 in importance due to MSM coverage

Chavez was out of line. that kind of incendiary insulting vitriol is inappropriate at the podium of the UN. Period.

I am sure Chavez was counting on incredible media coverage of his attack. He is media savvy and know he would get huge coverage. What he did not count on was the overwhelming response to his speech by Americans was that it really inappropriate and over the top.

I don't know of Rangel or Pelosi responded because of the widespread media coverage and it was an opportunity for them. Rather, I prefer to think they were standing up as leaders, pointing out how inappropriate Hugo Chavez's buffoonery was at the UN.

In any case it rates higher than a 1 in importance because the opinions of Americans matter.

That a few DUers are pissed at Rangel and Pelosi for doing the right thing is what rates a 1, or even perhaps, a zero.

[EarthNeedsHope]

30. Maybe we just like Chavez and are sad Dems dont support him

I seriously believe he is the polar opposite of Bush and the greatest chance to provide an alternative to what Bush is doing to the world.

That's why I want domestic support for him. And there is more of it than the Dems are willing to admit.

[bridgit]

31. very well, maybe they'll listen to you...

[welshTerrier2]

34. you left a "biggie" off your list of issues that matter

first, i totally agree with your argument that how Democrats talk about the Chavez "bush is the devil" remark is "silly" ... we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about namecalling ...

but there is one issue that is very relevant that you didn't include in your list ... you included the Iraq War, 2006 campaign tactics and kissing bush's ass ... missing from the list, however, was bush's role in the 2002 coup in Venezuela that toppled the Chavez government ... the issue Democrats should be talking about relative to Chavez is the abuse, the illegal abuse, Chavez has suffered because of bush's policies in Venezuela ...

so, i disagree that the Chavez "thing" rates a zero ... the namecalling nonsense rates a zero but it is nothing but a distraction from an issue that matters very much ... once again, Democrats have refused to put a name to US conduct overseas ... when you argue that we should be talking about "stuff that matters", imperialism matters ...

[WI_DEM]

35. Right on the mark, Skinner!

[msongs]

36. is Chavez part of the "axis of evil" - a dems approved demonizing

phrase which may be considered calling someone a devil?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Deb]

37. I can stop searching for meat in the potatoes now

Thanks!

[BlooInBloo]

38. Why are so many frontpaging a post that discusses how stupid DUers...

... are acting?

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the silliness internal, as much as is possible?

[galileo3000]

39. Thanks you are right.

[Connie_Corleone]

40. Thank goodness. A voice of reason finally.

Thanks for saying what needed to be said, Skinner.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

41. "Just silly" is a really nice way of putting it

but I guess you didn't want to get your thread deleted. :P

Some of the reactions I read here were dismally predictable. There are a vocal few who seem to jump at any chance to label Democrats as Quislings. And others who confuse Americans' widespread displeasure with the war with a desire to hear an outsider denounce Bush with such hyperbole.

I am one who is frustrated by the Dems' apparent inability to punch our message home with same kind of clear, focused, single-mindedness that has been working for the GOP. But praise for Chavez isn't part of that message.

[niallmac]

43. What is happening to this country is not silly.

The PC moderated corporate diluted representation that we get from our
Democratic party in a time of a hyper nationalist fear campaign is not silly.

All I have seen from the Democrats is pandering compared to the fighting
I would expect when thugs in our White House successfully dilute the
Bill of Rights, spy on me, and lie our young people into harms way in
bogus wars while ripping the Geneva Conventions to shreds.

Hugo Chavez defines what is going on here by his use of hyperbole.
Pelose and Rangel once again confuse everyone by blurring the line
between the thugs in the White House and those of us who feel vaguely
that somehow their country is being stolen.

I listened to Hugos speech in its entirety last night and I am sorry
Mr. Skinner but I wish my own representatives had the guts he has.

Our party is intimidated even today in the face of legalizing torture.
This is not silliness Mr. Skinner. This is a country being bullied by
the oldest fascist Orwellian tactics in the book and a man from
another country who is not compromised by corporate campaign
money and American special interests spoke like a free citizen.

You go Hugo. I think I'll go read that Noam Chomsky book you recommended.

[Strawman]

44. People on DU are just reacting to the attention these Dems sought

for themselves. Looking for patriotism points so the next time they're on some news program they can answer the stupid GOP charge that they're "Bush haters" who "blame America."

Tell them to stay focused on what matters. It's not people at DU causing the problem. How about a strategy that addresses the structural problems that have kept real wages flat for the last 30 years for 80% of the population in this country?

[Tesha]

45. You miss the point.

> But if you're ready to throw the bums out because they
> aren't making Hugo Chavez the honorary leader of the
> Democratic Party... That's just silly.

You miss the point.

I'm not going to "throw the bums out" because they didn't
yell "FUCK YEAH! YOU GO, HUGO!"

But as Democrats miss *EVERY SINGLE CHANCE OFFERED*
to get some good press while bashing Bush, they facilitate
the electorate throwing the (Democratic) bums out in favor
of Republicans who at least seem to have the courage of
their convictions (even if their convictions are "five
to ten in a Federal pen").

This is *YET ANOTHER INSTANCE* where the Democrats were
handed a golden mace and, rather than whack Bush upside
the head with it in a blinding flash of sunlight, they
tossed the mace away as quickly as they could as if it
had cooties on it.

Stupid, cowardly moves like this won't win us elections.

Tesha

[AnnInLa]

46. I'll second this!

Just how silly to we want to be/appear?

[jdog]

47. This was an opportunity for the democrats

to turn the Chavez comments to a discussion of why the democratic party is a better choice for the american people. Instead of blustering in a nationalistic way, why not point out what the Bush administration has done for America's reputation in the world and move on from that? One could state, as Clinton did, that Chavez was "undignified" and then move on to point up what the democrats will do to end the war, create alternative energy options, address global warming, etc. We need to start taking these moments as opportunities and quit shooting ourselves in the foot!

[Mandate My Ass]

194. Well the congress and bush allowed deep cuts to LIHEAP

Chavez is doing something for the poor in the U.S. and that makes them all look bad. Where was the outrage when the utility companies decided last year they would cut people off in the middle of winter for non-payment when in the past they couldn't between Dec and April? There was none.

We can't have people like Chavez running around the country helping the poor and working poor. They were thrown overboard by both parties long ago and now they should just all go and die quietly so the middle class doesn't wise up that they're next.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Please Don't Use The Phrase "Our Leaders"

These people are the organizational leadership of the Democratic Party. They ARE NOT OUR LEADERS! We, the people, are the gov't. They are representatives of the people.

Talking about them as "our leaders" smacks of the same sort of cult of personality we here loathe among the Bushbots.
The Professor

[boolean]

50. Why is it OK for the GOP to let others do their dirty work for them?

Sorry, but when one of the most liberal of Democrats refers to a man who stole TWO elections as "my president", that bugs.

Nobody is saying they should cheer Chavez on. (Even though, no matter how horrible Chavez is, what he said was essentially true...) But bending over backwards to defend **BUSH**, of all people?! Come on. They at the most should've spun it and at the least not said anything. Why not let Chavez do the dirty work? The GOP lets evangelical Christians and racists do their dirty work for them ALL THE TIME.

[TornadoTN]

56. I thought the same and it warrants some thought

While I concur with Skinner's thoughts, I also raised an eyebrow when Rangel came out with his fiery speech about Chavez's comments. Perhaps it was just out of character for Rangel, because I could easily see someone like Robert Byrd making those same comments. It just seemed out of place and scripted more than anything else.

While we try to get our politicians to listen to us and stop trying to offer the conciliatory olive branch to the Republicans, they continually disappoint us with their efforts. I think that's what this matter is about. Chavez said something that we all agree with here on DU, however, in the world of international diplomacy calling someone the devil is pretty bush league (no matter how much truth it may hold). Yes, the Bush regime has done the same with impunity for years, which puts us in an even tighter spot. I can just imagine the campaign commercials that would pop up (especially in the south) showing how Democrats think "our" President is the devil. By coming out and showing some decorum, I believe it helps connect with voters that Democrats are not hell-bent on overthrowing this President and cuts off a strategic angle that the Republican machine was foaming at the mouth hoping to play: The Democrats hate the President angle. We can't afford to have this election be shaped as a "Democrats v. Bush" election, its an election about our very way of life and protecting our constitution. We have to frame the election as a reform of our entire system back to the way it should be, since the Republicans have done nothing but enabled this Executive Branch to carry out its twisted agenda and manipulate the American people into spineless cowards.

Having said that, I applaud Chavez on a personal level for saying what most of us really think anyway. Our President is an evil man that cares nothing about anything or anyone other than his own personal interests.

[musical_soul]

51. Deleted.

sorry.

[The Straight Story]

52. You mean things like THIS:

which sank like a rock:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2191204&mesg_id=2191204

Senator Feinstein Calls for End to Royalty ‘Holiday’;
Seeks to Recoup Billions of Dollars in Lost Revenue

September 15, 2006
PDF VersionPrint version

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) today stressed the importance of ending the royalty “holiday” that energy companies drilling in federal waters have enjoyed for more than seven years.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Interior Department’s Inspector General Earl Devaney confirmed that oil and gas companies have avoided paying the government billions of dollars in royalties due to an administrative error on drilling contracts signed in 1998 and 1999. It has also been reported that the Bush administration may be continuing to draw up new contracts which allow companies to avoid royalty payments.

[Generic Other]

53. I want to be able to tell the difference between a Dem and a Repub

Is that so much to ask? And yes, I am whining.

[Skidmore]

54. There are ways to say things and, as far as I'm concerned

the way Rangel and Pelosi chose to respond yesterday is still making me furious when I think about it. Tom Harkin had the correct tenor and tone and choice of words for a response. It was at once critical without losing fairness and embracing beliefs consistent with American ideals. It was not obsequious and denigrating of the essential truth of what was being said.

[BootinUp]

61. So let me get this straight

You think some of the people who voted for BushCo will vote for a party that encourages foreign presidents to use name calling against our country's President.

Because you do need some of those votes. We already got your vote Im figuring.

[Skidmore]

89. See Seabiscuits post following because that

is what I am saying also. As for "our country's President," I've never given * that title ever, note even after the 2000 trainwreck of an election. I've never voted for him and he does not represent me nor has he ever acted in any way that would indicate that he cares that the duties of the job he's assumed has been to represent Americans beyond his base.

[BootinUp]

93. I read it earlier.

I think you both miss the point. If you want to comment on politics as in "the art of politics" then use your political brain. If you want to express outrage, then do that. Outrage can have unintended effects though in the political universe thats not a theory its a fact. Elected officials are somewhat more schooled in the art than your average outraged citizen. I'll join you in some outrage on the torture issue though and a bunch of others as well.

[Skidmore]

108. Art and artifice are some times confused and often enough

neither have little to do with reality. The reality is that the nation and the world is suffering BECAUSE of both. A heaping dose of reality needs to be injected at all levels. May I point out that this is theoretically a "government of the people" and that the outraged citizen is not by definition a rube because he/she has not been schooled in the "art." Perhaps the elected officials need to be schooled in common sense. Let's flip this around.

[BootinUp]

113. Flipping it around it looks the same

Too much outrage and it just becomes noise.

[Skidmore]

117. No outrage means status quo.

And the status quo is dim,ugly, and vicious. No, we need the outrage, if for nothing else than to build a fire under those who "represent" us.

[Seabiscuit]

55. I don't think anyone on DU is using this as a "litmus test"

I think people are just appalled at all the Bush-ass-kissing engaged in by so many of our Democratic "leaders" in Congress, not to mention that utterly spineless POS, WJC.

Why can't they just keep their f'in mouths shut and quit volunteering all their Bush-licking pablum? Chavez wasn't their problem until they opened their big yaps. Now it is. Sen. Harry Reid has been smart enough, for instance, to remain mumm on the subject.

If they were going to say anything at all about the Chavez speech, they could have simply noted that the speech is a good indication of the lack of respect this administration has engendered around the world for us. But nooooo, they had to play their little "politically correct" game which has already cost us the last 3 elections, and kiss Bush's ass out loud for the world to see. It IS important that some of our Democratic leaders have stooped to this over such a trifling matter because it shows their spinelessness and worthlessness to the party's base (not to mention the rest of the world), such as those of us on DU. So it IS, IMHO, a subject worthy of discussion.

It doesn't really matter that Chavez' words sparked all this. Chavez injected some humor (e.g. "the podium still smells of sulfur", etc.) into a humorless situation, and for that he should be applauded. And he conveyed a sentiment felt by the entire world, minus the usual morons in the USA. Kudos for him for having the cajones to say what virtually everyone else on this planet is thinking. Apparently I'm not alone in this viewpoint: I just discovered that Senator Harkin (D-Iowa) has already expressed in his own words what I'm saying here. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2524430&mesg_id=2524430

Sure, the U.N. is used to a greater degree of "decorum" than that. But these are exceptional times and thank God or whoever or whatever that there's someone out there in a country named Venezuela that snared the ring and ran with it, and in a forum which guranteed a large audience. Considering the rotten things the Bush administration has done to Chavez personally and to Venezuela and its electoral process, I find it remarkable that Chavez was able to rise above mere vitriol and to the level of sparkling wit and humor he displayed. The audience in the U.N. itself found it funny enough to laugh about it all themselves.

As a personal note, this is my very first post on the Chavez subject.

[TornadoTN]

63. Well said

I would have preferred for Democrats to just have kept their mouths shut about the comments in the first place. When asked, they should have simply responded with something along the lines of "That's his opinion" and then follow up with a quick illustration of how the liberty to say such things - whether they be right or wrong - are under fire from this President and Congress. Perhaps even say "I don't believe he is the Devil, but we do have some serious differences on the issues which are impacting each and every American"

[Seabiscuit]

68. Thank you. We're in some good company on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2524430&mesg_id=2524430

[BootinUp]

118. You might want to read

Harkin's full prepared statement

“Yesterday’s comments by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela were incendiary and unworthy of a nation’s leader. While I understand the frustrations of many in the international community because of George W. Bush’s policies, I do not believe that gives them the right to come to our country and personally insult and attack the President of the United States. This is especially inappropriate at a forum such as the United Nations, dedicated to civil and peaceful dialogue among nations.”

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=3B684905-1D6F-48B5-B5C3D354BE011BAD&dbtranslator=local.cfm

[Seabiscuit]

166. You're right. Screw Harkin too.

What a pile of spineless wimps we've got for "leaders".

"I do not believe that gives them the right to come to our country...." FUToo, Harkin. The only reason Chavez was in "our country" was to attend the United Nations, an *international* forum, which just happens to be, inconveniently, in NYC. Chavez didn't come to our country to insult Bush, he came to the United Nations to give an address to the world, and he can insult anyone he wants when he has that podium.

What Chavez said was mild compared to what the overwhelming population of South America thinks of Bush, or what Latin America thinks of Bush, or what Third World countries think of Bush, or what Asia thinks of Bush or what the Middle East thinks of Bush or what Europe thinks of Bush, or what the entire friggin' planet, for that matter thinks of Bush.

It's an ugly job having to call Bush out to the entire world, but someone's got to do it.

[JimDandy]

158. You said it perfectly!!!

I agree with every point you made and this is exactly the path the Dems should have taken.

:thumbsup:

[eridani]

186. Exactly! Never, ever defend a Repblican--

--unless they are criticizing Bush. I don't care if they avoid endorsing Chavez, but I do care about the Bush butt-kissing.

[Moochy]

195. Strawman is using Chavez speech as a "litmus test" for true democrats.

Those who think that Pelosi was GENIUS in staving off some association with the words of chavez by the right wing are thinking about two or three chess moves ahead of where they should be.

Harry Reid's approach is the one I appreciate. Silence.

I'm off to grab some cotton candy over in the left end of big tent that is DU. I'll be over by the bearded lady and the Strongman, Chavez.

And BTW this DU'er will vote for any moderate or leftists democrat on the ballot, I recognize that we are a non-parliamentary system, and majority control of the house is the first step.

Subpoena Power!! Activate!

[bigtree]

60. Chavez got it right. He used humor to get his point across. I got it.

He doesn't want the U.S. meddling in his country's affairs, in their government, in their politics; he's defending, perhaps, his own life against some secret plan to eliminate him by this administration. I wouldn't put it past them.

Now Rangel and the rest can say what they want. I think they should have let the comments stand, but they have a right to their view and a right to express it. I think the amazing thing is that these leaders would jump on Chavez for his own problems with his own controlling plutocracy in Venezuela, yet they've yet to collectively depose our own despot for his crimes. I know they're out of power, but I won't hold my breath if we get into the majority, waiting for them to act against Bush and his cronies. Already, some are disavowing any plan to hold the necessary hearings and investigations if they achieve power, to hold this administration's feet to the fire out of some political fear of overreaching or turning off voters. It's no wonder that many in our party have doubts that Democrats will stop the fool. They only reinforce that perception of 'go along to get along' when they bend over backward to get in the way of harsh critics and criticisms of Bush.


Chavez spoke what other world leaders tell themselves all of the time. Bush is more than just an abstraction to their interests. Bush is bent on dominating them; his mandate, his ability to unleash the destructive force of our military against them on a whim. Bush has directed out naval fleet to the Persian Gulf, along with ships to set mines in the water, to intimidate Iran and possibly send missiles into the sovereign country. At the same time he's invaded and occupied two sovereign nations and encouraged, supplied, and fostered the destruction of Lebanon. This is not one who has demonstrated that he possesses any semblance of humanity. Bush may be ignorant, but he's also a murderous beast to the hundreds of thousands of innocents abroad who have found themselves in the way of his 'shock and awe.'

Chavez's statements came at a time where there is no substanative check on Bush's 'freedom agenda.' His appearance was truly an 'emperor has no clothes' moment that we shouldn't have to pull back from just because someone might find it offensive that to some of us, Bush is as good as the devil. His mindless use of our military forces alone is enough to condem him to hell, so it makes perfect sense that some would think of him as, and refer to him as, an emmisary of pure evil.

By the way, who was that arguing this week for the right to torture human beings? It was the devil himself, I believe, in the body of Bush. Truly, the devil himself.

[Lochloosa]

62. Chavez is the most unimportant thing facing us right now.

[rman]

130. Chavez is one of the most important things facing those in power

in the capitalist nations because he puts the interests of Venezuela above "US interests" (= Big Money interests).
That's why Chavez does matter a lot to "us" (people with virtually no power and virtually no capital) as well.

[The Straight Story]

65. democrats suck, bush is cool, and I think we should vote republican

Now - I don't really think the above of course :) but suppose I came on here, new to the board perhaps, and made it known I was a repug while trashing clintons, clarke, edwards, etc.

Even those who did not like those candidates would come to their defense and that of the party in general.

We might be really diverse here, and we all have our 'pet' dems, but we sure as hell stick together against those on the outside attacking us. We protest together, email together, etc.

Our system and elected leaders are not perfect by any stretch. But our people in government, in both parties, stand by the group as a whole when a part of it is attacked.

I can see why pelosi and rangel jumped the way they did. They don't love bush, but they see him as the president for now and know full well dems have voted with him on some issues, and they work each day in the government and are a part of the big wheels on this bus. This is our country, our government, and as a whole we may not like all the folks in it, but that is our internal business and not for some guy to come over here and start yapping. If they let him pass on it they may well feel it makes us all look weak.

We stand up for fellow americans, even when it sometimes makes no sense to do so. It is just a natural reaction, one I see here daily (I mean, come on - kerry was the root of all evil and allowed bush to steal the election and kill more people in wars....according to some anyway, but let a repug come on here and start blasting him and we will tell em to get lost and point out the log in their eye.)

[paulk]

84. actually, if you came on here as a DEMOCRAT- and trashed

the Clintons, Clark, Edwards, or whoever was that day's "Democrat to trash" du jour, for instance, just of the top of my head, say - Nancy Pelosi or Charly Rangel - you would get encouragement, accolades, and enough recommends to get your thread on the front page!

[rman]

132. yup, many people are quite disenchanted with the "leadership"

[KaptBunnyPants]

143. Only if you had valid reason for doing so.

I don't recall signing away my right to criticize Party leaders when I joined. When they act badly, they should be called on it. If you prefer blind loyalty, there is a political party I can think of that works like that.

[paulk]

148. actually, that's not the point I was trying to make

there are many posters on this board - Greens, Socialists, Anarchists, Libertarians, even Republicans, who pose as Democrats - and use the freedom that pose allows to make comments that wouldn't be allowed if they came right out and called themselves Republicans.


It's the most common tactic used, and the graveyard here is full of them.

[KaptBunnyPants]

149. Your right about that, but lets not let paranoia get the best of us.

That is one of the intended effects of that kind of psyop campaign, to make everybody distrustful of everyone else. I'm seeing a lot of accusations flying around today, and it's kind of scary.

[deutsey]

66. Jeesh, there you go again, Skinner

Trying to get DU'ers to focus on stuff that matters.

When will you ever learn, you deluded fool?

:evilgrin:

[kentuck]

67. I can understand the politics of Pelosi and Rangel statements...

However, I cannot understand a Democratic Party that will support "torture" and flagrant disregard for the Geneva Convention. If they do not unite to oppose this with all their strength, they may lose my support. There is nothing to be gained by not opoposing the Republicans on this issue. To hell with McCain, Graham, and Warner!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. Skinner, HERE is your real litmus test...

"I cannot understand a Democratic Party that will support 'torture' and flagrant disregard for the Geneva Convention. If they do not unite to oppose this with all their strength, they may lose my support."

At a time when there is legislation pending that would condone torture and absolve Bush & Co for their crimes, the fact that the bigger indignation from the Dems comes NOT from US torture, but remarks Chavez said at the UN is mind-boggling and INEXCUSABLE. PERIOD.

I don't think for one second any DU expected the Dems to call a press conference and embrace Chavez's remarks, but I think they didn't expect them to slam a democratically elected leader MORE than they have EVER slammed Bush! This was just the latest in a very l-o-n-g string of mealy-mouthed crap the Dems have been serving us for the past 6 years, and people are SICK OF IT.

BASTA! Enough!

I agree 100% with Kentuck -- if the Dems don't put up a fight on the torture legislation -- even if they are doomed to loose the battle -- then they stand for nothing and I am done with them. And I say this as someone who has been a registered Democrat since 1978.

[rman]

70. I didn't expect elected Dems to say "Fuck Chavez, you go, Bush"

I'd expect Repubs to do that.

And I don't think DU needs a guardian of litmus tests.

[NashVegas]

72. Yay, Skinner

People need to realize, it's not like elected Dems are in a position to negotiate anything with Chavez, themselves. There's nothing to gain by leading a cheering squad, for them.

[eridani]

187. If they don't want to cheer for Chavez, fine by me

That leaves STFU as the best option.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

73. There's POLITICS, and then there's the TRUTH.

Chavez spoke the truth, now let's get back to politics. :hi: :puke:

[BootinUp]

79. So Bush really is Satan? lol.

Truth is probably something that can be accepted by more than 5 or 10% of the people.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

81. He's doing the work of the devil.

"Truth is probably something that can be accepted by more than 5 or 10% of the people."

Yeah, like 50% of the people still believe there's a connection between 9-11 & Saddam.

[BootinUp]

87. I understand the thoughts

behind your post, and think it was a fine thing to attempt. But it seems we at DU have a lot to learn about politics, and how the truth is in the eye of the beholder (or voter), and that if too many "think" you are spouting non-truth it doesn't help you.

I don't have a problem with your truth.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

90. Thanks. It would be great if just one Dem leader had the sense

to get some humor into it:
"Well, I wouldn't go quite that far."
Theyre all timid humorless Mice rushing to the mics
to make sure nobody thinks they'd agree with the furr-ner who
mocked the Cat. I think Harkin came closest to not bending over.

[Zhade]

202. "Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal."

Just because one might be part of the 95% who WRONGLY think, say, that Chavez is a dictator, that doesn't change the facts.

[wiggs]

76. Good post as usual...but the point is that this is part of a pattern

The Chavez issue, alone and in a vacuum, is almost meaningless. What many DUrs are responding to, I think, is that we've seen similar lack of aggressiveness for several years now...failing to take advantage...giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't deserve it....failure to fully act as opposition during desperate times....

If this weren't the umpteenth time that we've seen some dc dems squander an opportunity to fully express how they are on the right side of an issue, then I'd agree.

So...I believe there should be room here for both sides of the Chavez issue.

[Roxy66]

78. Totally agree!! n/t

[Protagoras]

80. Thanks as always Skinner

Bring sense to the senseless is something we can always use more of here in GD :D

[Raffi Ella]

82. BRAVO!!

Thank You for saying this!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. No one expected the Dem leadership to

go on TV and say, "Yay, Hugo!"

However, there was no reason on earth for them to go on TV and condemn a passing statement by a foreign leader when they don't seem to have the energy to go on those same talk shows and condemn TORTURE and other egregious violations of the Constitution.

They're listening to the image consultants who tell them not to be "too strident" and to be "conciliatory" instead of to their consciences, which should be telling them, "That bastard has gone too far and must be stopped."

I'm afraid you've totally missed the point, Skinner.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

86. The simple Dem gutlessness is what's sickening.

[William769]

88. Just one of the reasons I am a member of this great board!

Keep up the great work!

[Hugin]

91. I still think the best reply to anything they do is a picture of...

the hind-end of a mule.

[SammyWinstonJack]

92. !

:thumbsup:

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

94. Thank you Skinner.

You've put this brouhaha into the perspective it deserves.

What I don't get is why there are not more people like myself, just wondering what the feck is wrong with this country? It's so obvious that the Pukes are gonna slice and dice not only the Geneva Conventions, but the US Constitution as well, and "some people" are worried about what Hugo Chavez said about Bunnypants at the UN..

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I'd be a lot more worried about this so-called "deal" on torture than anything else. This is real scary at least in my book.

[The Count]

96. How many names was Clinton called and what Dems defended HIM????

Or for that matter, what Republicans?
If, as some say, Pelosi and Rangel "play so well" how comes they are the but of Limpballas latest mouth foaming?
Because it's elementary: you don't appease bullies. The mere act of appeasement provokes more abuse.
At best, they should have ignored Chavez' words (does anyone here remember that bush ordered him kidnapped and he has the proof of it? - I feel that calling bush the devil is mighty benign of Chavez)

[madfloridian]

97. The 1.2 million who will get help from Chavez's fuel program for the poor

should turn it down if they think he should not be saying what he thinks about the man who took their subsidies away to help pay for the bills to keep warm..

They should be honest. Our Democrats should have just left it alone.

[Bluebear]

98. .

[William769]

107. The devil himself would also give fuel to help keep people warm

But then again he would want something in return. Same with Chavez.

[madfloridian]

115. Bush won't give help to those people. So what does that say about him?

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

127. bribery

[madfloridian]

134. Our leader refuses to help his own people.

Chavez is being political. Bush is being a bastard. I only remember once or twice that a Democrat has mentioned the heating bill subsidies being taken away by this administration.

[wyldwolf]

147. political bribery designed to soften him image

[eridani]

188. Gee, why don't the Rethug oil executives and Enron assholes try that?

They need the image softening even more than Chavez.

[Bluebear]

99. What would have been wrong about just shutting up for once?

The words hanging in the air were doing quite well on their own without Pelosi and Rangel. I am not saying "throw them out" over this; I AM wondering why they felt they had to address it at all.

[DinahMoeHum]

100. Thanks, Skinner. I'm really too busy at my day job AND

sending $$$ to worthy candidates endorsed by DailyKos, DFA, and the DNC Fighting Dems, plus volunteering time for the candidate next door to my district (John Hall NY-19) to waste time
on this silly "concern-troll" crap.

:kick:

[carolinayellowdog]

101. What's silly is this straw man

"But if you're ready to throw the bums out because they aren't making Hugo Chavez the honorary leader of the Democratic Party... That's just silly."

If you mischaracterize what members are saying, exaggerate and then ridicule it, you're contributing a lot more heat than light to the situation.

[WildEyedLiberal]

103. That pretty much IS what people are saying.

If you can read between the lines, that is. And the lines I see over and over and over are:

"VIVA CHAVEZ!!!!!1"

and

"FUCK RANGEL AND PELOSI CORPORATE SELLOUT DLC WHORES"

It's not hard to put two and two together.

[KaptBunnyPants]

146. Nobody has said that.

Find a quote, prove me wrong. Prove to me that people are calling for the Party to rally around Chavez. It shouldn't be hard, since there seems to be hundreds of threads on this subject. People are pissed because our leaders both mischaracterized Chavez by calling him a thug and for Rangels nausea-inducing defense of "our President". Nothing more, nothing less. I know you would much prefer to attack the straw-man, people usually do, but that doesn't change what the people you are talking about actually said.

[Moochy]

196. Strawman says

That dems should have had joint press conference with Chavez, and used his face on buttons for the Lamont campaign.

[Zhade]

203. Of course it's not hard, when you just make shit up.

(That's called 'lying', btw.)

[rman]

102. Who's worse, Bush or Chavez?

So why do most Dem officials support Bush over Chavez?
They could just have said nothing.

[Buzz Clik]

104. It's really, really simple:

1. The number of Democratic leaders who support Bush is near zero.
2. There's a decided split within the Democratic Party about Chavez. Some like him, some don't.
3. Taking advantage of an international stage to utter pure over-the-top lunacy about another world leader is bad form.
4. Bush is a lying, manipulated, manipulating, dirt-stupid chimp. But he's our chimp, and I won't tolerate some moon-faced crazed jackass saying the shit that Chavez said. Not now, not ever.

[rman]

120. I gathered as much,

it's just that i haven't heard much support from Dem officials for Chavez's remarks. Only one so far (forgot the name), and I haven't heard Kucinich say anything about it yet (though i may have missed it).
Of course this is not much of a surprise, given who owns the media.

[WildEyedLiberal]

105. This is the kind of "logic" that pisses me off.

It's so beyond wrongheaded to imply that it's either "support Bush" or "support Chavez." That is a false dilemma and you and every other DUer throwing a fit about this ought to know it.

I don't think saying that what Chavez said is inappropriate, crass, and thuggish means that they HEART Bush.

DU can be so fucking shallow. All people here care about is someone willing to call Bush stupid schoolyard names. Chavez called him the "devil" so he's the DU Hero of the Week. Is this second grade? I, personally, look for a lot more in a politician than his/her ability to hurl childish, puerile insults. In fact, that's usually a factor in the negative column.

If some random politician called Bush a "motherfucker" or something, DU would be clamoring for his presidential campaign. What a commentary on how shallow the thinking here has become.

[Buzz Clik]

110. Well said.

DU can be so fucking shallow. All people here care about is someone willing to call Bush stupid schoolyard names. Chavez called him the "devil" so he's the DU Hero of the Week. Is this second grade? I, personally, look for a lot more in a politician than his/her ability to hurl childish, puerile insults. In fact, that's usually a factor in the negative column.

Exactly. We're seeing a lot of Dems slide into the same mindless hate of Bush and everyone and everything associated with him that the knuckledraggers did with Clinton.

I have no respect for Bush and I despise what he's done. But let's keep it in perspective.

[rman]

135. It's what Dem officials do though:

denounce Chavez in defense of Bush.

This while everything that Chavez said is true. That bit about the devil and sulfur was humor, which was not lost on many, and nobody expected Bush would enjoy it - but who cares about that?

[WildEyedLiberal]

141. They didn't denounce him "in favor of Bush"

They denounced his words because they are infantile and unbefitting a supposed world leader. It's just not appropriate for a world leader to make "jokes" in front of the UN about other world leaders being "devils." If Bush did that about Ahmednijad or whoever DU would be livid. Yet it's okay for Chavez to act like a child throwing a tantrum?

And before you say "Bush says worse things," I'd like to remind you that it's not a zero sum game. One can simultaneously be disgusted with everything Bush is and has done and still disapprove of Chavez's third-rate Leninist rabble rousing.

[rman]

152. I wish Dem officials would denounce Bush more often

as severely as they denounced Chavez. And with Bush it's not just words.

[WildEyedLiberal]

153. Can't argue with you there n/t

[William769]

109. I support neither!

They are both in the same class.

[rman]

121. Would you also be glad if the Venezuelan secret service would be in the US

.. as you have said you're glad the CIA is operating in Venezuela because of Chavez:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2196883&mesg_id=2196958
?

[William769]

123. I am an American not a I am not from Venezuela

But please feel free to leave & go there & support him anytime you like.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

128. "I am an American not a I am not from Venezuela"

Easy for you to say.

[William769]

129. Very easy.

[U4ikLefty]

206. Yeah, "love it or leave it" is very easy to say. n/t

[Sparkly]

111. K&R

Thanks for that dose of rational perspective!! :thumbsup:

[yurbud]

112. it could have been teachable moment to explain why we are unliked in S.Am

"Well, Wolf, while I wouldn't call Bush the devil, to people in South America, he represents an extreme version of policies that have frustrated people's desire for democracy and chance to prosper by putting the demands of American businesses ahead democracy and even the lives of those people. Because Hugo Chavez wanted 16% royalties on his oil instead of the paltry 1% the oil companies and world bank demanded, we have called Chavez a dictator even though he won in landslides in internationally monitored elections, and the Bush administration backed a coup and recall against him.

Ironically, if we let those countries put their own economic interests first, it would actually help most Americans because the dirt low wages in those countries would likely rise and they would be less likely to lure away American jobs.

Our foreign policy now not only favors the interests of a handful of Americans at the expense of the rest of Americans, but at the expense of the rest of the world."

[bigtree]

116. the administration opposition to him is all about oil

and who he intends to sell it to. Esarlier in the year he announced that he was giving the 60% of oil that the U.S. buys and giving that business to China instead by the end of the year. That made Negroponte come out and call him Hitler because he dared to use his country's resources stratigically.

Hitler. Remember? It's all about the oil. The couldn't care less about how he treats his constituents. They just want a U.S. compliant leadership there. He has every right to make a point of calling Bush out with the same kind of insult. I'm surprised he was so restrained.

[welshTerrier2]

136. that's exactly right

if you're interested, check out these two threads and the articles they link to:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/92
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/96

here's my little "pocket edition" of where we are:

1. big oil essentially owns the US government
2. big oil, with the cooperation of the US government, has turned us all into oil junkies
3. alternative fuels, solar, wind, electric cars etc. have been shut down to protect oil profits
4. US foreign policy has been totally imperialistic to control the oil markets (especially in the Middle East and South America)
5. we have built hatred for this country from most oil producing nations
6. as new massive economies emerge, countries like China are building strong cooperative relationships with oil producing nations
7. Chavez, and other oil producers, will increasingly withhold oil from the US and sell to China and other friendlier countries

Big Oil, and the republicans, clearly are going to "stay the course" and use the US military to continue to try to steal foreign oil ... the Democrats have a tough choice to make ... if there is no viable source of fuel, we may be left with a steal or suffer choice ... not much of a choice ... Democrats will push for the development of alternative fuel sources but it will take time ... in the interim, it's not clear how they will vote ... Iran is NOT primarily about nuclear weapons; it's about oil ... and Venezuela, as you correctly pointed out, is not about democracy (does anyone actually believe this?); it's all about oil ...

Big Oil has hooked us on our habit ... they sell us the drugs we need and we "IV them" into our cars and into our homes ... they kill off all the alternatives ... they build hatred for us among the oil producing countries ... and now they tell the Congress we must fight for oil or die ... and the Congress meekly goes along ... and so, we now have a perpetual war that we cannot win and we cannot afford ... and still, the oil companies are reaping in record profits ... they're enjoying this game very, very much ... and who is standing up to stop them? the Democrats? hmmmmm, calling for the long-term development of alternative fuels and failing to tell the American people the truth about the battle that should be waged against all this corporate evil is hardly "stopping them" ...

without opposition, the downward spiral will continue on its merry way ...

[yurbud]

138. yep. The Chomsky book was a nice touch

[VOX]

114. All right, Skinner! Do not take the "diversion bait" -- thank you! n/t

[Poll_Blind]

122. Reply number 55 says it all, in my opinion.

#55.

Subject: What's silly is this straw man
"But if you're ready to throw the bums out because they aren't making Hugo Chavez the honorary leader of the Democratic Party... That's just silly."

If you mischaracterize what members are saying, exaggerate and then ridicule it, you're contributing a lot more heat than light to the situation.

PB

[kerry-is-my-prez]

124. It was part of the plan - the Dems are damned if they "do or don't"

and we here at DU and the left fall for the bait every time.

The Reps always find an issue that they know the Dems will be forced to endorse that will end up inflaming their base and lower the turnout. Notice these things alwsy happen around election time.

[Straight Shooter]

125. What our Dems did is to burst the balloon the Repubs had ready to go.

The Repubs were hoping for another molehill-into-a-mountain distraction to send everybody into a tizzy. All that Rangel and Pelosi and et cetera did was to deflate that fat balloon in a hurry. It's now become a non-issue, because none of the high-profile Dems are supporting Chavez's statement or defending why he might have said it.

As for me, I think Chavez has a damn good reason for saying it. But then again, I don't matter squat in D.C., do I? Nor do I influence as many people as Rangel and Pelosi.

It also took the teeth right out of the argument about "OMG! Imagine Pelosi as speaker of the house!"

[kerry-is-my-prez]

126. Anything that draws attention away from the REAL issues works for BushCo

n/t

[treestar]

131. Black and white thinking, no one said they had to pump their fists, etc.

I don't care if someone is a Democrat, if they say something stupid, why can't anyone talk about it?

I think Rangel's statement was childish and immature and I will say so whether he is a dem or rethug or whatever.

[Pastiche423]

133. For once, I am glad I no longer

live in Cali and that I don't live in NY.

I am sick, sick, sick of the political games being played. For fuck's sake, they are defending little lord pissypants! I will never vote for or support anyone that defends that war criminal.

[spoony]

144. I don't see it like that.

I don't think they were defending *, at all. They were defending civility in international dealings. I hold with the posters who think Chavez had very important things to say but ruined them with they way he went about it. That's what they were getting defensive about, the propriety of discourse.

[Pastiche423]

155. What utter bullshit

But go ahead and defend your leader.

[spoony]

190. And that's why you're not a diplomat n/t

[Pastiche423]

198. You Make No Sense

[spoony]

199. Frothing and chest-beating are not helpful in an election year n/t

[Pastiche423]

200. I neither "froth"

Nor do I "beat" my breasts.

If you want to continue to defend the war criminal, go right ahead. IMHO, that makes you one sick puppy.

I prefer to defend those that are helping their fellow human beings, not the imperialists.

[Mz Pip]

137. Keep making sense

and a whole bunch of people here will put you on 'ignore.' :eyes:

This is silly. Just because Chavez trashed Bush it does not automatically make him a Saint to me. Pelosi is right. Chavez is a thug.

Bad Bush. Bad Hugo. Not mutually exclusive realities.

Mz Pip

:dem:

[nam78_two]

140. God I have been thinking the exact same thing since this started

Its emotional hysteria. When did this personality-driven crap become the test of someone's political path. Whether you LOVE Chavez or HATE him, I don't see the point of voting for a US politician based on whether they LOVE Chavez or HATE him...
If you want to hate on Pelosi or Rangel, let it be for something in their voting records or something they did or said that is more directly related to their political work. There are so many more egregious instances of knuckling down to the GOP than this one.

I agree pretty much completely with this bit:

The anger at Rangel and Pelosi and other Democrats here on DU is much ado about nothing. The leader of a foreign country called the president of the United States the devil. I really don't think there is anything wrong with Democrats responding that we have legitimate disagreements with Bush, but calling him the devil isn't really appropriate. Sure, it's fine on Democratic Underground. But it's not really the type of rhetoric that we should expect from our leadership.


This whole "devil" type of rhetoric is what I expect from Falwell or Robertson-its actually exactly the type of fodder media types feed off of. Actual numbers, figures, facts and God do they abound here, are boring. Its not even like saying "war criminal" or "treasonous"...."Devil"?? "smell of sulfur"? That makes one sound like a crazy person.

[eridani]

189. Why is something trivial like the Chavez comments provoking their anger?

Kind of chickenshit compared to the fact that the Psychopath in Chief is asking them to write him a blank check for torture, no? Why aren't they ranting about THAT?

[slackmaster]

145. Kicked and recommended

:nuke:

[ieoeja]

150. As I said at my first Parent Support Group meeting.

"I think you're all nuts." (Oddly, they all seem to like me despite the fact that I was serious.)

I don't think elected Dems should have supported Chavez because he is president of Venezuela, not the US. So why should they care?

I don't think elected Dems should have complained about Chavez because he is president of Venezuela, not the US. So why should they care?

I don't think DUers should support/complain because he is president of VZ, not US.

I don't think people should call DUers hypocrits for cheering Chavez while decrying Idiot's use of inflamatory remarks in his "Axis of Evil" speech. It is *not* hypocrisy simply because Idiot *is* our president. Hence, it *is* our place to take a stance on his remarks as good or bad. The appropriateness of Chavez' remarks should be of concern to the Venezuelans, not us.

And I really, really think people complaining about people declaring people cheering Chavez hypocrits should just shut the fuck up.

Wait a 'sec. That's me! I guess I sh

[Rex]

151. I chuckled too, but it really is unbecoming of a supposed 'world leader'.

I mean I can do it with impunity because I am Joe Sixpack on an anonymous Dem forum. When our 'leaders' do it, it kinda diminishes their title and position. I guess that is why I have no respect for the POTUS, he does it everyday.

Pelosi - the thug comment was a little, well, stupid. But hey at least she didn't sound like a nationalist goon (Rangel). Yeah this all rates as a zero next to the all important elections, we should focus (not to say we will) on that and only that until we take over Congress. IMO.

[WilliamPitt]

154. *whew*

Better you than me, bro. I've been biting my tongue bloody on this for days now.

:toast:

[SheepyMcSheepster]

157. It has been crazy

I can't believe so many are so concerned with something that matters not one bit.

[buddhamama]

159. agreed

thanks, Skinner. :thumbsup:

[bigbrother05]

160. Correct ... what * said at the UN is more important

The real question coming from the UN sessions is, Will we let him do it again? What W said on this world stage linked Terra, Terra, Terra to Iraq then segued into Iran. These are just the kinds of things he did in the lead up to the current mess. Are his previous remarks comparing other leaders to Hitler or referring to Islam-o-fascists any less inflammatory?

Notice that most folks have ignored what the Iranian said because he was more low key in delivery, but just as adamant in sticking to his agenda. Everyone expected Chavez to take his shots at Bush. It was quite humorous in the way he did it to warm up the crowd before he got into his usual list of grievances, but no real surprises.

As I've seen in other threads, it was appropriate for Dems to have decried the tone of Chavez's remarks given the setting. However, they could have taken the opportunity to reflect on how the current Resident of the White House has frittered away the respect and support the world openly proclaimed after 9-11. His ill-conceived foreign adventures have reduced the prestige of the US Presidency to a punchline for third world wannabes.

[The Count]

164. NY Republicans were smarter: "doesn't merit comment" said Pataki and

Bloomberg. I loathe them both, but their reaction was correct. Dems always feel they need to try harder to prove they are patriotic - they are buying into the inferior position GOP&MSM puts them. It's pathetic, weak and infuriating.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

165. Thank You For An Overdue Smack Of Logical Reality.

I must admit that I showed more attention with the issue, from a pro-Democratic leadership/strategy position, than the situation really warranted. After reading your OP it is readily obvious to me, and hopefully many others, that this truly is a non-issue that doesn't come close to deserving the threadcount and attention it's been getting. I hope this OP is a strong catalyst for many to follow suit and regard it as a non-issue from here forward.

Thanks for the perspective. It's dead on.

OMC

[SeattleGirl]

167. Amen to that, Skinner!

Ever since that speech, GD seems to be all Chavez, all the time. Thanks for your post. :thumbsup:

[Cocoa]

168. DU has a reputation for being a bunch of kooks

I know it's a BS charge because of reality-based posts like this from the site owners. :toast:


p.s. some people think being a bunch of kooks is a good thing. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think for smart people to suspend their critical thinking skills in such critical times is dangerous.

[CrazyForKucinich]

169. They don't need to cheer Chavez, but they also don't have to put him down.

It's a two way street and we can see which way they're going. Nancy Pelosi can blow me.

[stuartrida]

170. Thanks!

:patriot:

[stuartrida]

204. Kick again

[LWolf]

171. It's possible that there is a reasonable perspective

somewhere between making him the honorary leader of the Democratic Party and the overblown, hypocritical outrage expressed publicly by some Democratic Party leaders. I don't know about litmus tests; I know that when Democratic leaders say and do things that directly oppose my position, it pisses me off, and I'm going to say so. When they publicly say things that, imo, weaken the Democratic Party, I'll tell them so. They earn my support, or not. Their choice.

Meanwhile, I agree that it's past time to move on. Chavez told the truth, and truth hits buttons. His metaphor, while not appreciated by many, was not unreasonable in context. We can say, "thanks for speaking up against our corrupt government 'leaders,'" and move on.

I'm up for hearing about the Democratic Party's plan of action to repeal the testing mandates attached to NCLB, get out of Iraq, implement Universal, single-payer health care, enact a fairness doctrine, and mandate paper ballots for all elections.

Where are those issues addressed, or where are we running candidates who have and will vigorously support them, this November? I'd love to fill each forum's front page with them!

[Crewleader]

172. Skinner ,thank you for having the Smart Sense

to know what really matters for the Good of All! :hug:

[Singular73]

173. Political Immaturity is common here.

The masses gathering with pitchforks.

I shake my head everytime I see it, and I see it here as well as the Freeper board.

I don't think the dems will take either the house or the Senate, but I do believe the entire kit and kaboodle will come our way in 08, and that it won't be too late.

Lets be honest.

The democratic party is a joke. A bad joke.

And they don't deserve to govern. They need a new paradigm. Some real leadership needs to break through from the rank and file, sit down in a room together, and create a message, and find a way to stay on message.

Until that happens, we will stumble into power (maybe), but won't keep it.

[deadparrot]

174. Thank you.

That's all I have to say on the Chavez subject. :hi:

[question everything]

175. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! (nt)

[Laurab]

176. Thanks, Skinner - glad I found this thread

I was beginning to think I was lost.

Chavez can say what he wants, I might even agree with him somewhat, and get a laugh out of it, but it has nothing to do with ANYTHING. Torture, war, another impending war......ELECTIONS coming up. The most important election in MY lifetime (aside from 2004, but that one is over), and all I see are threads about Chavez, and those "dumb" democrats. It's a bit disconcerting...

[philosophie_en_rose]

177. You're doing a fine job, Skinnie.

:thumbsup:

We don't need anyone to confirm that Bush is the devil.

Electing a Democratic majority is the best revenge.

[upi402]

178. Agreed OP - Heartbreaking when Dems froth on TV and radio against him

Chavez had the world's attention and gave a speech that will be replayed like Nikita's shoe banging speech.
Can't blame him after all we did to squelch him.
So much distraction in the media.
So few substantive issues.

The media missed his stinging truths. 100% whiff.
I still smell hairspray.

[Zorra]

179. I dunno. I really wish they had just kept mum about it.

Since Bu*h stole the Presidency, and was selected by the Supreme Court and was not democratically elected, I will never legitimize his fraudulent position by recognizing him as the leader of my country. I genuinely regard him as a grave danger to my people, my country, and my planet, and do not think that this is an unreasonable thing, given the evidence of the heinous things that Bu*h has done over the past 6 years. So I can't find it within myself to be at all indignant over anyone insulting Bu*h in any way, no matter what or where the circumstances. I will never forgive him for what he did to our democracy, and hope that our Democratic representatives share my outrage.

So I am actually very disappointed that some of our elected Dems did not simply refrain from speaking about Chavez' comments, because the roar of the silence would have been deafening.

That said, I agree with you, there is really no point in trashing elected Democrats over this issue.

[Swamp Rat]

181. "So let's get back to arguing about stuff that matters."

:rofl:

I agree.

Leave the "Bushler is the Anti-Christ" statements to crazy people like me. :D

[rman]

183. Right, the global progressive movement is so irrelevant to what

happens in the US...

[Swamp Rat]

184. huh?

:shrug:

[rman]

192. The comment is not directed at you,

(though inspired by your post), it is directed at the OP.

[LWolf]

208. You're right.

Now that everyone has had their opportunity for cathartic venting about Chavez, Rangle, and Pelosi, we can get back to what really matters, like:

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care;
Peace;
A new fairness doctrine;
Paper ballots that can be verified for all elections;
Social and Economic justice for all Americans, starting with the underclasses and working our way up the ladder;

Well-supported public education for all that is not controlled by the agenda of elitists....

That's enough to get started on, anyway. How many threads on the front pages of any DU forums are loaded with these issues?

[eridani]

185. What in fucking hell is wrong with the option--

--of just STFU? Don't agree with Chavez? Nobody would give a rat's ass if they don't want to say "I agree." When people of any party or any country criticize Bush, just STFU!!! What's so hard about that?

[bobbolink]

197. What's wrong? Too much logic. Yanno, like veggies--

it's distasteful, or something.

I'm pissed with Rangel for NOT taking the option of not responding. Adding to the din of anti-Chavez rhetoric is just ugly. I"m surprised at him, and very displeased.

Not that my opinion matters anywhere--

[symbolman]

191. "GO HOME YANKEE DEVILS"

Has been a CLICHE for so many years that I remember Mad Magazine having it spray painted on a wall in one of their features as a kid, and I'm over 50.. I agree with Skinner, good for a Chuckle, but BAD as a DIVERSION when there's SO MUCH work to do between now and November.

Here's something I'm going to be working on, I have a feeling that there will be MANY ADS featuring the phrase, "CUT AND RUN" Associated with the Democrats by SCREAMING REPUBLICANS. SO I'm getting a Flash together that I can offer for free to any candidate nationwide, that wants to use it addressing that PHRASE, and the sickening implications that DEMS are soft on Terror/Crime and want to bring the troops home instead of staying the course where 3000 Iraqis and god knows how many americans die each MONTH.. for NOTHING..

What are YOU doing between now and NOV, THAT is the Important issue!

Thanks Skinner..

[Nye Bevan]

201. But.... the Yankees *are* the devils

It's the Mets who are the good guys.

;)

[Clarkansas]

193. Back to page 1 for you.

Thanks Skinner!

[Blue_Roses]

205. thank goodness

the voice of reason

[JerseygirlCT]

207. Amen and bravo, Skinner nt