Posted on 09/21/2006 1:26:33 PM PDT by pabianice
Watching Nancy pelosi and Charlie Rangel defend Bush against the psychotic rantings of Chavez makes me laugh. One can come to only one conclusion: with the midterms seven weeks away and with the public making a quick turn to the right over recent events, even stone leftists like Pelosi and Rangel know when it's time to sing a different tune. Weren't these two only recently parroting all the nutbag slogans? "Bush lied, people died;" "Bush is the world's greatest terrorist;" "Bush is destroying the planet for his business buddies;" "Bush is manipulating oil prices;" etc. etc. How sweet to hear the Left's tunes change so suddenly. The next seven weeks are going to be a carnival.
The first of many Democratic "Sistah Souljah" moments that will happen between now and November.
Soundbite, News at 11pm. Business as usual tomm.
I thought their Bush-hatred was their only authentic attribute. Now we can't even trust them on that...
More like short-term damage control. Nothing to see here... move along.
Jimmah isn't going to like hearing Nancy call his pal a thug.
As Michael Medved said today, all Rangel was essentially saying is that "We don't need your help, Mr. Chavez, in criticizing the president. If we need helping in calling Bush a devil, we'll let you know."
Y'all give them far too much credit for doing the right thing. They are simply pissed at Chavez for stealing their lines and enabling Rush Limbaugh and co. to juxtapose Chavez's rant with their own. It's purely self-interest.
They were against him before they were for him.
To cite Common Tator, the party that changes its tactics is the party that's losing.
They courted the crap bed called chavez, time for them to lay in it.
They are worried that these two speeches may be the death knell for the UN, and all that UN pork that Rangel's state gets may move to Caracas.
Otherwise, they could care less.
You can bet ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBC will be playing the Rats condemnation of Chavez ad nauseum.
Right. How much is this going to back fire? I think a lot.
I guess Harkin didn't get the word.
The Republicans and “red” America appear to be able to maintain great respect for the values that delivered this country into the 21st Century, arguably, the most powerful and benevolent empire the world has ever seen; despite our turbulent and ugly past.
It appears that Democratic politicians and “left” leaning voters possess a guilty conscious about the path our Nation took to the 21st Century, and thus are uncomfortable with American supremacy; perhaps thinking/feeling that America is not deserving of the vanguard role it plays on the world stage and espousing its values as synonymous with “universal” values
I wonder, how are the past atrocities that America committed in the name of Manifest Destiny, its participation in Slavery, its reluctance to embrace emancipation, its well intentioned, but tragically misguided effort in Vietnam, any more vile than;
• 16th through 19th Century history of the Western European Monarchies
• French and German lack of racial and ethnic diversity in modern times
• China’s long history of human rights abuses
• The oppressive regimes of all Middle Eastern Totalitarian Dynasties
• Czarist, Stalinist, or Putins’ Russia
Is seems by comparison, that at the dawn of the 21st Century, the United States stands alone as a Nation that allows for both the full expression of human freedom while successfully assimilating all races, religions and genders into its society.
Republican politicians and “red” American voters seem to have a profound appreciation of our nation being the only in recorded history to be founded on an “idea”, with its expression finding a sacrosanct home in the Declaration of Independence. I suspect those supportive of Bush’s foreign policy think and feel that this country has lived up to that founding ideal, and therefore can be an example to all nations; in other words, we have become, that “City on a Hill”
The politicians and voters on the “left” appear to be mired in seeing what’s wrong with America, more than seeing what’s right, and thus find themselves turning away from joining the fight to win the global WOT; there also appears to be an all consuming “2000 Election” temper tantrum that manifests in sophomoric demagogic exhortations geared toward reclaiming the White House.
I wish these shenanigans could fall innocently into the historical bin of political self flagellation and rabid partisanship. The vituperative journalism of 1789 demonstrates that political nastiness is indigenous to our Republic; the stakes were high; so thus too was the rhetoric; however, in that era, the cycle of war amongst Nations was quite regular, and despite the horror of those wars, none of the great military powers faced extinction as a result of their never ending declarations of war.
Today, we face a starkly different paradigm.
“Toto…we’re not in Kansas anymore” could be the literary equivalent of the global economy and weapons capability of the 18th Century compared to the petrodollars that fund global terrorism in the 21st Century, and the nexus between terrorists’ interest in obtaining WMD, and their financial interlocutors.
What is needed around the country, in lots of Congressional races, are side by side pictures of Hugo and Local Rep. Moonbat using the same rhetoric. Tagline: What country does Rep. Moonbat really represent?
Or a Hugo/Dean ad, with the tag: The Voice of today's Democratic Party. Why are you a member?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.