Just to clarify on responses to the Dem statements on Chavez:

[Ken Burch]

1) We ALL want a solid Democratic victory in the fall; None of us want the status quo to go on.

2) The responses to the Rangel/Pelosi/Hillary statements won't really hurt that;

3) The real point is that those statements weren't necessary. The kind of people who would have been genuinely offended by Chavez' statements weren't ever GOING to vote for us;

4) It was legitimate to be disturbed by those statements. They were eerily similar to JFK's pointless anti-Castro stance in 1960, a stance that left JFK with no alternative to letting the Bay of Pigs happen.

Democrats have a very good chance to win this fall. Our best chance is to stand up clearly for progressive and humane values. Going anti-Chavez(not that we have to love the guy, but we have to recognize that most of his enemies in Venezuela are on history's dark side)doesn't help that.

As Jim Hightower reminded us, there's nothing in the middle of the road except "yellow stripes and dead armadillos".

We can't out-hawk Bush, so we shouldn't even try that. We can be the party for the non-hawk majority.

[Poppyseedman]

1. The real point is that those statements weren't necessary

Yes, statements by Rangel/Pelosi/Hillary were very necessary.

There are many people in this country who are politically middle of the road.

If the democratic party leadership did not defend the POTUS from a leader of foreign state who comes into our own country and defame him, they would have used his statements as proof the democratic party is not only anti war, but anti American.

It's actually the first time in a long the party actually beat the rethugs at their own game.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. If Rangel/Pelosi/Hillary felt

that calling * a devil was over the top, and felt it necessiary to address that particular issue, I would not be so disappointed, and disillusioned with them-

But, I'm sorry, the remainder of what Chavez said, was the UGLY- SHAMEFUL TRUTH.-
And thier feigned indignance and false outrage only proves to the people in the middle of the road, that the Dems are as full of ..... as this administration.

bush HAS gutted the Constitution, and intends on ignighting what is left of it- Chavez said that- and AMERICA has to WAKE UP- before it is absolutely too late.

America has needed someone to voice the ugly truth- sadly, the only one willing was someone who has nothing more to fear from us, or our policies.-

It's more than "party" issues- this goes to the core of what is left of America!-
If 'we' win in November, and the Dems in office give us this kind of wishy washy self interest representation, we've won nothing.
It will be an
Empty victory-

[Phredicles]

2. The reason why I think their statements may hurt us at least a little is

that, first, they confer a legitimacy on the Diabolical Chimp that is conterproductive to our efforts; and second, they might cause a few people who would otherwise vote Democratic to stay home, thinking "Same old wimp-ass Dems :eyes:".

Beyond that it's just really frustrating to see that politicial figures we look to for leadership still don't get that Bush is NOT OUR FUCKING PRESIDENT, and that he deserves no more respect or deference than he has displayed himself in these past six nightmarish years.:grr:

[RangerSmith]

3. I think you're wrong

Lots of folks in the middle are pissed and they want to vote against the reps this election, but, they aren't keen on the Chavez and Castro worship. It REALLY bothers them.

[Phredicles]

5. It's not "worship" of Chavez to

allow his remarks to pass without comment, or better yet, a "Bush may not be literally the devil, but he certainly has done some terrible things to our contry..."

[Ken Burch]

6. We aren't going to get the votes of people who want Chavez overthrown

There are middle of the road people, and we can win them with strong leadership and confidence in our values, but people who are offended by what Chavez said aren't middle of the road. They are right wing and completely uninterested in our agenda even in its most moderate form.

To go back to the JFK in early '61 view on foreign policy means to put ourselves against the hopes of most of the world. It means forgetting everything we learned after that.

[RangerSmith]

9. I think you'll find

the middle of the road people pretty ambivalent in regard to Chavez... they aren't out to see him overthrown, but they aren't fans of his and they don't feel he should be embraced.

There is only one group embracing him and they are in this party.

The middle of the road people will be wanting to vote against the reps this cycle... it's not going to be about voting for someone to many of them. We win nobody in the middle over to our side singing the praises of populists, socialists, and communists.

[AtomicKitten]

7. there is enough time for that sound byte to be forgotten

Had this happened a week prior, that would be another story.

America has a very short attention span.

[RangerSmith]

10. Thats probably true....

as long as the water cooler talk ceases as well. Which it probably will.

[doctor_garth]

8. the most disturbing

was Rangel's, but he's almost irrelevant anyway.

I was shocked at his defense of Bush as "my president".

Fuck you, Rangel, he's neither MY president nor yours, he stole two elections, started a war on lies, mass-murdered, tortured and raped foreigners in their own land, bankrupted the treasury and is destroying the US constitution. How can you literally kiss the ass of this anti-Christ, asshole?

The only person that should be upset is the Devil himself for being compared to that cancer of the universe.