29 Comments

1. Mike Silverman:

The Democrats are kind of like the Palestinians — they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

(in other words, they are their own worst enemies)

Sep 21, 2006 - 2:02 pm 2. David Thomson:

“An election once universally handed to the Democrats, is again approaching deadlock.”

I have consistently predicted that the Republicans will continue to control both houses of Congress. Furthermore, I now think it’s likely the GOP will pick up two U.S. Senate seats.

The Democrats are disingenuous pacifists. At the end of the day, they subscribe to Steven Spielberg’s ideological theme in “Munich.” The West has allegedly filthed on the Islamic world. Our imperialist policies are responsible for their rage and bitterness. Violence only begets more violence. Our military responses create more terrorists. The Democratic Party seems trapped forevermore in Vietnam. Nothing is going to significantly chance anytime in the near future.

Sep 21, 2006 - 2:11 pm 3. patrick neid:

charles rangle is still a fraud. read his exact rant/canard. he starts by equating chavez and bush as equals.
i believe his exact quote starts with this:

” while bush and chavez enjoy personal attacks on each other they can do what they want politically, but you don’t come in my district”…..

he’s continues to be what he has always been a race baiting cheap shot artist. the only reason nacy pelosi spoke up is because she heard all the echoes of previous democrat speeches on the floor and she’s in damage control. if there wasn’t an election coming she would not have said a word. they all agree with chavez and they themselves have said the same in many speeches for the last 3-4 years…..

Sep 21, 2006 - 2:33 pm 4. Charlie (Colorado):

What fascinates me is the degree to which you can explain Bush’s success by just a few old-West sayings:

- “Never complain, never explain.”

- “It’s amazing what you can get done if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

- “Don’t dig up more snakes than you can kill.”

- “If you wait by the river long enough, the body of your enemy will float by.”

Sep 21, 2006 - 2:51 pm 5. Fresh Air:

Roger–

It would appear that Karl Rove is really Chauncey Gardner!

I’m sure we can expect growth in the spring. The real question is, Does he like to watch?

Sep 21, 2006 - 3:25 pm 6. ricpic:

America is crapped on big time, in America! and the Republican response? thundering silence. Of course, for all I know, country club establishment Republicans may not have felt the humiliation, they’re above all that, don’t ya know; but the little people, the common man, you and me, were humiliated. An answer was called for. And none was forthcoming. Not from Bush. Not from Cheney. Not from Frist. Did Rove council that a response would be “bad” strategy? Do any one of them have a heart? Disgraceful!

Sep 21, 2006 - 3:52 pm 7. Fausta:

ricpic,
UN Ambassador John Bolton gave an appropriate reply, John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, dismissed the speech, saying, “I think that [Chavez's] rhetoric today shows exactly what kind of man he is.”

Bolton said: “We’re not going to address that sort of comic-strip approach to international affairs.

“The real issue here is he knows he can exercise freedom of speech on that podium and, as I say, he could exercise it in Central Park, too. He’s not giving the same freedom to the people of Venezuela.”

In a lighter mode,
Hugo told a news conference that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Mr. Chomsky before he died. (Mr. Chomsky, 77, is still alive.)

Scrappleface: GOP Funds Ahmadinejad-Chavez Speaking Tour

and you don’t have to buy a book to get a feel for Chomskian prose

Sep 21, 2006 - 4:21 pm 8. Terrye:

ricpic:

Condi Rice had a few choice words herself. But you know what? If Bush made a point of responding every time some moron took a cheap shot at him that is all he would ever do.

Sep 21, 2006 - 4:29 pm 9. ahem:

Frankly, Roger, I think she phoned Charlie this morning and said something like, “You protest on the east coast and I’ll protest on the west coast and it’ll give us the appearance of being very patriotic. We’re running a bit behind in some races and we need an injection of patriotism to win. Don’t worry, I’va already contacted everyone. You’re safe.”

Believe me; it was something like that. The left blogs are hardly covering this. They’ve been notified–except for one poor bugger on Kos who didn’t get the message.

Sep 21, 2006 - 5:24 pm 10. jedrury:

I disagree.

In fact, Bush/Rove or is that Rove/Bush, did do something in September, they went offense talking about Terror and how Terror affects the future of this country and the country positively responded as seen in the polls.

The leftist media responded, crying out how the only way Bush/Rove/Bush can get the attention of the American people is fear politics. Abramoff corruption had no effect in mid America, the Plame scandal imploded, so the story now according to the MSM is the politics of fear. It is their story line: their raison d’etre for Bush’s resurgence.

In fact, the only thing the American people really care about is safety. And the President proves his metal [and this guy has real metal], taking on his own party in what David Broder (WashPo), in slandering the President as illegal and reckless, calls the Independence Party of the GOP [Warner, McCain and Saint "Lilly" Graham]. This President understands what the people care about and hopefully in the remainder of this month and next month as the election draws he will prove again how abysmally the press and the feckless Dems have always “misunderestimate” this leader.

Sep 21, 2006 - 6:27 pm 11. Deagle:

Color me surprised! I expected a lot of Democrats to come into the fray and countermand this post. Where are they? Oh well, another boring Republican post – Heh. Where are all the Chavez supporters? Sorry, couldn’t resist…

Sep 21, 2006 - 6:31 pm 12. mikem:

I think ahem’s version is very close to what happened. Certainly the motivation was entirely political. My sister called me laughing with the news that Pelosi was posturing as an outraged defender of Presidential dignity.
A bit late, but I hope others caught Taranto’s (WSJ/Best of Web) reaction to Chavez’s “stink of sulphur” speech. He headlined his comment “He Who Smelt It…”. Laugh my ass off. I thought it was deliciously appropriate in its juvenile flavor.

Sep 21, 2006 - 6:34 pm 13. David Thomson:

“Frankly, Roger, I think she phoned Charlie this morning and said something like, “You protest on the east coast and I’ll protest on the west coast and it’ll give us the appearance of being very patriotic. We’re running a bit behind in some races and we need an injection of patriotism to win. Don’t worry, I’va already contacted everyone. You’re safe.”

Yup, that is probably what happened. Neither Peolosi nor Rangel would dare say anything unless “permission” was granted. The radical left is getting very scared. Gas prices continue to drop—and more Americans are talking about the war on terror. Democrats have the odds against them in November.

Sep 21, 2006 - 6:42 pm 14. Deagle:

David and Mikem,

I think you have pinpointed the Democratic response. We sould hear about his in the NYT’s tomorrow…

Sep 21, 2006 - 6:48 pm 15. Lem:

Here in NJ we have incumbent (D) Menendez running for the senate and he is in trouble. He is under investigation, though you wouldn?t know it by watching the local news. http://newsbusters.org/node/7713
Menendez used be in the locked democrat column, now is neck to neck with Tom Kean jr the son of 9/11 comissioner and former governor Tom Kean. Menendez slide started with “today we protest tomorrow we vote”. It didn’t play well here at all.

Sep 21, 2006 - 7:16 pm 16. Ray Zacek:

The Democratic plan in the NJ Senate race is to have Menendez drop out a month before the election, to be replaced by a clone of Frank Lautenberg.

Sep 21, 2006 - 7:27 pm 17. paul:

“The leftist media responded, crying out how the only way Bush/Rove/Bush can get the attention of the American people is fear politics.”

Yep, definitely a climate of fear produced by the evil minds in the White House. Hezbollah kidnaps three Israeli soldiers, kills eight more, launches rockets into Israel and provokes a mini-war with Israel that runs most of the month of August. Simultaneously the British foil a plot to blow up ten US airliners over the Atlantic and murder three thousand people. Without Rove/Bush peace would be at hand.

Sep 21, 2006 - 7:35 pm 18. Lem:

NJ democrats have a history of passing their office around like a playboy magazine at a high Scholl school yard. Torricelli, Menendez, Corzine, Lautenberg, and McGreevey have treated their office like a NJ Devils hokey puck.

Sep 22, 2006 - 5:19 am 19. ElMondo:

Call me weird, but even though I view myself as a conservative, I’m actually hoping that the Dems didn’t do it to posture for the citizens before the elections. I’m hoping that they did it out of genuine outrage at some dictator and oligarch – one guilty of the economic and social ruin of his nation, the other guilty of nuclear adventurism and supporting out-of-borders terrorists – trying to impugn the character and beliefs of leader of a government (and by extension that whole government) that by any and all measures has delivered more prosperity and justice to its citizens than either dictator could ever dream of.

In short, I’m actually hoping they realize there’s politics, and there’s the real world, and in the real world, Americans should stand together. I’m hoping they made their stands for the right reasons.

Granted, this is only a hope; the cynical part of me snorts and says “Yeah, right…”. But honestly… I’d trade being wrong about my cynical worldview for Dem realization of the dangers and just simple moral offensiveness of what Chavez and Ahmadinejad represent.

Sep 22, 2006 - 5:39 am 20. Knucklehead:

Lem,

Surely you’ve notice how feverishly the political consulting firm, Winfrey, Noble, and Barnes, has been doing the rehab scrubbing and polishing on McGreevey? If Menendez must be tossed in front of the bus McGreevey will pop up behind it.

Sep 22, 2006 - 7:00 am 21. AlanC:

Oh my.

ElMondo I admire your youthful(?) innocense and desire to see good in people.

“I’m actually hoping that the Dems didn’t do it to posture for the citizens before the elections”

Unfortunately, if they really believed it they would have done something similar at one of many opportunities in the last 5 years. But, no, they waited until 2 months before an election that they were supposed to clean up in, but is now apparently slipping away.

I like to indulge my fantasies by imagining what the country would be like if the Demons had shown this sort of patriotic unity over the last 3 years. You know, supporting the war and the goals of injecting democracy into the Arab hell hole. If they really meant it they could still have disagreed with certain tactics or approaches. But they also should have agreed with some and castigated our “allies” that were and are trying to stab us in the back.

But no, they are after nothing but their own personal power. They would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.

Sep 22, 2006 - 7:02 am 22. Knucklehead:

ElMondo,

Re: your hopes that Dems didn’t do it for heartfelt reasons… What did Chavez say that the Moveon, nutroots, Hollywood source of Dem funding hasn’t been saying with alarming vigor for six years now? No, Nancy and Charlie agree with Hugo but domestic politics do not allow them to applaud and demand they mutter something suggesting otherwise.

Sep 22, 2006 - 7:05 am 23. ahem:

They’re hoping you won’t notice the striking resemblance between them and monsters like Chavez. They agree with everything he says. Noam’s their boy.

This has the stink of Bill Clinton about it—it’s just that cynical. Look, if it were spontaneous, they wouldn’t have done it one the same day, would they have?

Sep 22, 2006 - 7:28 am 24. Steven Mitchell:

“This has the stink of Bill Clinton about it—it’s just that cynical. Look, if it were spontaneous, they wouldn’t have done it one the same day, would they have?”

You can never tell with Rangel. He’s capable of being a complete partisan idiot, with no embarassment whatsoever. He’s also incapable of letting something like this slide by without comment, even if that puts his prior idiocy on a bright stage for all the world to see. Heck, the man regularly goes on Fox News and makes no bones about his ultra-leftists positions. I think if Rangel wanted to pull a Danny Glover on this one, he would.

Pelosi, on the other hands, is such a lightweight that I suspect she gets her marching orders from somewhere on every public utterance.

Sep 22, 2006 - 8:08 am 25. markus:

David — “I have consistently predicted that the Republicans will continue to control both houses of Congress…”

As a Democrat, I too am less than sanguine about Democratic prospects. Although, I never have been terribly confident of them. We lack strong, inspiring leaders that are necessary to sell our message. And our sales and marketing professionals are simply outplayed and outmanuvered by Republicans. “One Party Country: the Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century”, by Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallstein, explains this well. (I noticed your favorable review in Amazon, David.) Also, the Republican message IS a simpler, easier message to sell, particularly with people like Chavez willing to cut free commercials for the RNC.

So I’ll be disappointed if Democrats don’t do as well as expected in November, but beyond the unpleasantness of losing again, so what?
If being on the winning team was paramount, I’d be a Republican. Did William F. Buckley decide to become a liberal in 1964 after Goldwater lost, capping over three decades of liberal ascendency?

Isn’t it better, more virtuous, to stick by one’s convictions of what is objectively GOOD public policy and what is not?

Also, from a purely tactical point of view, picking up a dozen House seats but not winning back control would probably be best for Dem propects in ‘08. Can you name me one single issue that has flummoxed the ruling Republicans over the past several years that is going to get EASIER in the next couple of years? Better to let the party’s internal contradictions — the difficulty of Washington power brokers and gravy train operatiors masquerading as anti-government “outsiders”, the social conservative/libertarian divide — continue to come home to roost. Anybody expect a Republican-controlled 110th Congress to accomplish anything more than the 109th Congress? Piss off the anti-immigration or anti-big-government crowd less? Anybody expect the situation in Iraq to markedly improve in 2007? If I were a Republican, I’d love to have Speaker Pelosi to kick around.

Sep 22, 2006 - 9:35 am 26. Steven Mitchell:

“Anybody expect a Republican-controlled 110th Congress to accomplish anything more than the 109th Congress?”

Not me.

“Anybody expect the situation in Iraq to markedly improve in 2007?”

Markedly, no. Incrementally, as it has since the get go, yes. That’s the good side of the MSM bias. When things finally improve so much that they can’t deny them, they are blind-sided once again. Of course, at least a few of the smarter ones are hoping to wait until after some Dem gains to suddenly reverse course. This sometimes works for them, with some people (see “Bush recession” that started in early, mid 2000), but more or often than not, it’s a MSM pipedream.

“If I were a Republican, I’d love to have Speaker Pelosi to kick around.”

Not me. I don’t think a Republican-controlled congress will accomplish much until the Dems regain sanity or completely self-destruct. Your choice as to which is more likely. The former would lead to some incremental, bipartisan, sensible measures being passed without Republicans being called facists, racists, etc. The latter would let the Republicans impose whatever they wanted, within certain limits. In short, the Dems need to lose hard enough to shatter the pipe dreams. “Speaker Pelosi” and “shattered pipe dreams” are incompatible.

“Isn’t it better, more virtuous, to stick by one’s convictions of what is objectively GOOD public policy and what is not?”

Yes.

“Also, the Republican message IS a simpler, easier message to sell, particularly with people like Chavez willing to cut free commercials for the RNC.”

Deluding yourself about the other side, not so productive. Ask yourself why Chavez speech effectively gives those results. Cheers.

Sep 22, 2006 - 9:49 am 27. markus:

“Ask yourself why Chavez speech effectively gives those results. Cheers.”

Cultural Anthropology 101, tribalism lecture. Chavez the clown presses all the right buttons of the Republican base, who internally react to him the same way black people react when they hear a white person calling them “boy”. It is one thing to be insulted by one’s own people, another to be insulted by an outsider, and on one’s own turf. And Democrats like Rangel feel an obligation to show which side they’re on when the chips are down, lest that tribal rage be transferred onto them even more than it already has been. It’s just a more potent version of the whole flag-burning debate.

Hopefully, Rangel and Pelosi’s comments will keep a few of those fannies in their seats on that fist Tuesday in November, licking their wounds over the immigration issue or whatever.

In reality, Chavez was foolish to play for the cheao seats as much as he did in his speech, which probably have hurt his chances of getting on the Security Council.

As usual, as Marc Cooper points out, it’s the decent Left, with leaders like Lula, that are once again tarnished or ignored: http://marccooper.com/the-chavez-show/

Sep 22, 2006 - 10:30 am 28. Knucklehead:

“Anybody expect the situation in Iraq to markedly improve in 2007?”

In the real sense of life being enormously better for Iraqis in ‘07 than it is in ‘06, no. As Stephen said, the improvements will be incremental.

The incremental improvements have the potential, however, to be equivalent to marked improvements on the domestic political front. I’ve noted before that during the “runup to war” there were many, many people who claimed to be against it not because getting rid of Saddam or whatever was wrong but because it would never take root unless the Iraqis did the fighting and dying for themselves.

Well, incrementally and now in very real terms, that is exactly what they are doing. I can see no good indicators that this will not continue to be the case and incrementally moreso. It will be very difficult for the Presse Ancienne to continue to portray this as meat-grinding, US occupation for another year when the fact is that it is the Iraqis who are doing the fighting and dying in the effort to build themselves a nation.

So, no marked difference in Iraq in ‘07 for Iraqis. Just more of the same bloody and difficult struggle to transform what was a brutal dictatorship now littered with Islamists into a modern nation. Darned difficult. Darned painful. To Americans, however, it could well look a whole lot more like an expensive but nevertheless worthwhile effort on our part. Coulda, woulda, shouldas about how it could have been done better or quicker will look more like what they actually are – griping and sniping by the people who didn’t want to do it or weren’t allowed to do it their way. That would be a marked difference in the overall attitude of Americans. That’s what my crystal ball sees for Iraq over the next year.

Sep 22, 2006 - 11:21 am 29. Steven Mitchell:

“That’s what my crystal ball sees for Iraq over the next year.”

I agree with your main analysis. When people persist in ignoring the thundering herd until the herd is right on top of them–well, they tend to get run over. Iraq may seem to get better overnight the same way the music and acting business is full of “10 year overnight sensations.”

I’m not so sure that next year is the year this happens. The powers of the MSM to be in denial continue to amaze me, when I thought I had seen it all. I don’t think they can hold out until St. Hilary is sworn in 2009, then give her the credit, though. (Not that I think she’ll be elected, but the NYT does.)

Sep 22, 2006 - 1:59 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: