<p>“RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS… ‘You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State’…”</p>
<p>There is a lot of political cover going on. Rangel and the Dems see that the lunatic from Venezuala is saying the same things that they have been saying and are afraid that the American public will start to equate the Democrats with the lunatic twins.</p>
<p>“There is a lot of political cover going on. Rangel and the Dems see that the lunatic from Venezuala is saying the same things that they have been saying and are afraid that the American public will start to equate the Democrats with the lunatic twins.”</p>
<p>And just exactly who would be to blame if the public had that perception? I’m just surprised it was Rangel. He’s normally a flame-thrower, himself. I would have thought Hillary would have held a press conference. And I’m not knocking her by saying that. I think she is smart and savvy.</p>
<p>No, Hillary has to preserve/redeem her street cred with the far left for her run for 2008. If they saw her making a statement like this, the left would use it against her just like “the kiss” was used against Lieberman.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt Rangel spoke out of fear regarding the anticipated election results. Sure, he’s in the minority party at present, but he’s ‘congressman-for-life’ in a district that is quite safe, he’s old (seniority) and Democratic Party agenda/goals are always second to his own objectives, and he has always made deals with the other side of the aisle. Hey, he was Senator Al D’Amato’s favorite house member. And you’ve never heard the Republicans complain much about him, have you?</p>
<p>Give him the benefit of the doubt; he seems genuinely annoyed at Chavez (and it serves him politically, LOL).</p>
<p>AM, that’s exactly my point. With her dodge to the center to make herself electable she angered the far left. She tries to make amends by attacking Bush as much as possible these days but if she were to have made a defense-of-Bush speech like that of Rangel, it would be the kiss of death for her in terms of getting the nomination.</p>
<p>I never said that I don’t respect her. Respect is relative. Relative to my respect for Gore and Kerry, Hillary is a saint.</p>
<p>LW, no Rangel wasn’t speaking out of fear for his own electability. I suspect that because he has nothing to fear, he was the perfect Dem to try to put a level of separation between Chavez and the typical Democratic rhetoric.</p>
<p>"I seriously doubt Rangel spoke out of fear regarding the anticipated election results. Sure, he’s in the minority party at present, but he’s ‘congressman-for-life’ in a district that is quite safe, he’s old (seniority) and Democratic Party "</p>
<p>Unless you take him at his word to resign his seat if the democrats don’t retake the house . . .</p>
<p>I do think he was sincerely annoyed, though.</p>
<p>No, Rangel has no fears about re-election–but he will be in line to be Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee should the Dems become the majority party, and the Republicans are going capitalize on that in the coming weeks in commercials. There’s your motive. By acting less anti-Bush than usual, he feels he may help his party by making the public at large more comfortable with him. It’s a good strategy. It would be nice to take him at his word, but he’s said things equally outrageous about the president himself.</p>
<p>I don’t think it matters what are Rep. Rangel’s motives. What matters is that he is right. I would like to think Republicans would react the same way if a Democrat was in the White House.</p>
<p>I sometimes find Rangel a bit too smooth, but in this case I think he said just the right thing and I applaud him for it. I think it had to do with being a loyal and proud American who somehow saw the difference between being a vocal anti-Bush citizen and party stalwart, whichhe is, and saying inflammatory things in a voice of hate and inciting voilence rather than discourse, which is what I feel Chvez did. It is one thing for Americans to be anti-Bush and say so. It is to my mind quite another for a visiting head of state to come to this country and speak as harshly as he has–and different from saying those things while in his own country, too. I do not by any means think in terms of my country right or wrong and I think the current administration is pretty much a disaster but I was really offended and annoyed by Chavez’s satements and behavior. And I think it is disgraceful that he had the forum he did at the church in Harlem, flanked by the wonderful actor Danny Glover as well as other black leaders.</p>
<p>This illustrates something that came up in another forum: an attack on a country unifies a country even if half the country hates the country’s current leadership. Happens here. And will happen in Iran if we attack them. Some of the military officers with whom I was having this discussion just about choke on any suggestion that we won’t be met by cheering Iranians bearing flowers.</p>