Interesting Republican Take On Chavez

[ruggerson]

An acquaintance is a rabid Republican, very partisan, who loves to see the Democrats fuck up. He is to the right of Rush Limbaugh. Ran into him and we started talking about the UN and Chavez' speech and he opined, a little bitterly, that Pelosi, Rangel and others had completely defused the situation and made it totally impossible for Bush and the Republicans to tar the Democrats with any Chavez backlash.

His words exactly? "They handled this one perfectly." Which he said extremely grudgingly.

And I happen to agree with him.

[brentspeak]

1. K&R

:kick:

[yebrent]

2. I agree

I like Chavez, Pelosi and Rangel. Some of the more liberal Dems had to do something before the Rethugs and their media lapdogs used this week and all weekend to pound them with his statements. Pelosi and Rangel probably agree with most of what Chavez said, but had to make the calculated political decision to rebuke him for his comments. It also was an easy, and mostly harmless (non voting) way for Pelosi and Rangel to get some centrist credibility, which unfortunately is necessary in these times. Pelosi and Rangel know that the anger from some in the base will wear off eventually.

[MasonJar]

3. That is what is wrong with our country; politics always preempts

principle. I was totally abashed today to hear on NPR E.J. Dionne saying that Democrats would go along with the McCain/Bush torture chamber so as not to lose the election. I certainly do not want to lose another election, but disagree that thwarting our decency and principles is the way to win. What kind of win is that?
If we lose again, it is time to either go to the streets a la James Madison or flee. Shades of Atlas Shrugged where the big honchos left. What would the big honchos do without the little nobodies to work and buy?

[yebrent]

5. The win is a long term one.

The Dems can vote against the bill, but not filibuster it.

If they filibuster the torture bill, then they could be seriously hurt in the short term, which would mean the likelihood of not winning the House or Senate.

If they vote against it, then about a year from now, when it sinks in to the general public that the US has become what we always fought against, a country that tortures, the Dems can rightfully claim that they voted against it. The BIG win is that the Republican party can for the foreseeable future be framed as "the torture party".

When the Dems once again gain enough political power, they can then change the law.

Unfortunately the fight for power is political and you can't always gain power by sticking 100% to your principles.

On Edit: But they better be sure to cast their votes against it, otherwise in 2008, it will be the Iraq War Authorization vote debacle all over again. We can't be labeled flip floppers this time around.

[cally]

4. Yep, the politicos handled this one perfectly

This one could have hurt the Dems but they diffused it. I really get perplexed by some of the feuds on DU. I don't think I have to defend Chavez on DU. What the western media thinks of him is just irrelevant. What I want is a check to Bush's ability to take us to another war and a Congress who can help us thwart the impending crisis of global warming. Nothing else matters to me at this point.

[KaptBunnyPants]

6. I still doubt there was ever any Chavez backlash to tar Democrats with.

I know he's a quasi-socialist, although that appears to be more rhetoric than policy, but is there anyone out there who would be affected by a Red Scare campaign in this day and age who isn't already voting Republican? Fear of the Grand International Communist Conspiracy has atrophied with the collapse of the Soviet Union, I just don't see it as an effective issue for the general public no matter how they spin it. In fact, I believe this is the best possible way this issue could have played out for them. It kept us busy all week, and created a huge amount of animosity for each other. Of course, it didn't have to, if Pelosi and Rangel had kept quiet, it would have blown over once Repubs realized they weren't connecting on this one and moved onto the next distraction. This whole thing was and is a non-issue. I just wish it had been treated as such...

[Polemicist]

7. Nobody else can kick our whipping boy Bush...

It's a very simple rule. Only Americans are allowed to smack talk the US President. It's our job and we will do it. Other nations need to respect the office of United States President, even though we have an absolute baboon currently in office.

It's a no-brainer by the Democratic leadership. And absolutely a correct move. Do I personally agree with Chavez's statements? For the most part, yes. He went a bit overboard with the Devil stuff, but the comparison has some validity. But Chavez isn't an American, so he needs to shut up. We are the only ones allowed to abuse Bush like that.

However, if anyone does deserve the right to say bad things about Bush, it is Mr. Chavez. Bush and his cronies have been trying to overthrow him for years and they make up all kinds of lies about his government. I'm sure Chavez is correct when he says Bush has called him worse.

But when a foreign government official goes public with those comments, Americans have to close ranks. Especially when he says it on American soil. That's just the way it is.