Monday, September, 25, 2006 11:32 AM
CDB
writes:
A couple of points about this
Bear with me, these comments are long. (I am just catching up to things, as my internet access was spotty over the weekend.)
1. Baseball analogy: In a general sense it is good to hear elected officials be on the same page when it comes to certain comments made by someone deserving of scorn like Chavez. There was a point made on the Michael Graham radio show here (WRKO in Boston) that may summarize the general reaction to the comments. One caller provided this analogy: die hard Red Sox fans will scream for the the head of the general manager and others in the organization for every bad personnel decision, underperformance by players, failures to make the post-season, and simply failing to win the Series every year. With these execises in self-misery, the Sox fans will demand new blood and bemoan every decision being made by the target of their scorn (the ownership group, the general manager, etc.), but they will never throw their hands up and say, "OK, you guys are so screwed up, now I'm rooting for the Yankees." So, in a general sense, it is good to hear comments that we do agree with coming from people we usually don't agree with. However, by looking a little more closely, there are a couple of subtle points worth making.
2. Timing is mildly suspect: It did take Pelosi and Rangal more than 24 hours to come out. Given the fact that they are part of a party that has mastered the art of having a counter-argument to the administration within 90 seconds following the completion of any speech that President Bush makes, the fact that it took more than a day to put together two or three sentences certainly lends credit to the suggestion that they measured the political winds (gauging quite accurately that they would receive credit for speaking out) before deciding to say anything.
[On the evening of Chavez's comments, I posted a point that it was curious that we hadn't heard anything from a Democrat about the speech, with the point being that such (up to that point) silence indicated their tacit approval of what was said. Obviously other people were thinking the same thing, and viola, about 18 hours later that we started seeing Pelosi and Rangal's response.]
3. Where are the rest of the Democrats? There have been two representatives who comdemned the statement - one in a leadership position, and one whose district actually hosted that bizarre event with Chavez and Danny Glover in Harlem. OK, so, no one else took offense by the comments? When you only have two Democrats making statements (that took more than 24 hours to come out), and silence by the rest, you can't help but wonder if this was a token gesture made by the bare minimum number of representatives necessary, or if it was the spontaneous reaction by two House veterans. If it was a token gesture, it has no value. If it was spontaneous beliefs and personally held opinions, then, once again, the silence from the rest of the people in Washington speaks volumes. I wonder what the left-wing blogs are saying about Chavez????
4. How it may backfire: Politically, Rangal knew enough to limit his comments to, "Don't come into my country and start criticizing my President" or words to that effect. He can say that and never have those words come back to haunt him. Pelosi's comments were distinctly different (and, frankly, substantively better). She correctly pointed out that Chavez favors himself as a modern day Simon Bilovar socialist, but that he is actually nothing but a thug. She's exactly right on both. Of course, time will tell whether, politically, she regrets that point. There may come a time where the US will have to actually interact, either politically, diplomatically, or otherwise, with Venezuela. If it is President Bush who has to do it, we know that regardless of what he tries, he will be condemned by the Demcrats. If Nancy Pelosi herself has recognized that Chavez is a socialist, that will curtail her ability in the future to obstruct any action by President Bush by saying, "we should work with Chavez" or words to that effect. She has violated the cardinal rule of the Democratic Party tactic of opposing any and all things Bush, that is that she has actually identified a person as being "bad". After all, only simpletons in red states think in such stark terms, and calling a Socialist wannabe (who actively courts alliances with declared enemies of the US) nothing but a "thug" seems short-sightedly judgmental.