"George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country," responds Rep. Charles Rangel to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calling George W. Bush "the devil." "Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us." There is a certain logic to this. Isn't Chavez on one level accusing the American people of electing Satan president? If Bush is the devil, what does that make us? House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also jumped in the fray, calling Chavez a "thug" who "demeaned Venezuela." He is, and he did.

There are two ways of looking at this. One perspective sees the reactions as orchestrated, artificial, cynical, the work of political advisors looking to score points on an issue--patriotism--the Democrats have been allergic to. Another perspective says "bravo," "better late than never," and "three cheers for bipartisanship."

This may be the Congressional Democrats "Sister Souljah" moment. Remember Sister Souljah? The rapper who suggested that blacks take a day off from killing each other to kill whites instead? Bill Clinton positioned himself as a voice of moderation by taking on Miss Souljah. Clinton angered the Left, who were going to vote for him anyhow, but opened up opportunities with more mainstream constituencies. Pelosi, Rangel, and company did something similar here. Perhaps Democrats finally get this elementary point: Americans don't like anti-Americanism. Was their response to Chavez election-year posturing? Probably. But who cares? That type of response, the Left policing the irresponsible words of the Left, is bound to create a more healthy dialogue. Sure, it would be better if they meant it (I'm tempted to believe Korean War vet Charlie Rangel did, but didn't he once call Bush "Bull Connor," which in Harlem is akin to calling a politician "the devil"?). But that they said it is enough for now. Baby steps.

Politicians do things for all sorts of cynical reasons. Sometimes we should be happy when they do the right thing even if for the wrong reasons.

"Sometimes we should be happy when they do the right thing even if for the wrong reasons."

Agreed, totally. I'd rather Rangel and Pelosi provide that sort of baseline fodder for the media. Surely they have spoken up better for the U.S. than The New York Times et al. have for Pope Benedict and the West in general.

Please.... Who created the atmosphere that told the thug and the clown that they could come into our country and insult our president and get away with it? All Rangel and Pelosi are doing now is self-serving damage control. Talk about a thug and a clown....

I hope Pelosi and Rangel are doing this for the right reasons. After all, Venezuela is a far greater threat to American national security than Iran or Iraq are or likely could ever hope to be. I have long thought that Hugo Chavez's Venezuela to be a far greater threat to American national security than either Iran or Iraq. This seems to be one of the bitter fruits of the poor execution of our Iraq policy. In focusing on Iraq, we seem to have taken our eyes off of far greater threats to national security.

In any event, whether certain politicians meant what they said or not they are on record as saying what they said. Hopefully this will get people to talking about the threat from Venezuela. The first step to dealing with a national security issue is to get people to talk about it.

Unfortunately the preliminary results are not good. It seems most of the pundits are dismissing him as a "clown." America's elites STILL don't get it.

Its hard to believe that five years after 911 we STILL haven't done anything meaningful to achieve energy independence or to secure our borders. As I stated, American leaders STILL don't get it.

Rangel....
"George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us."

So he's condeming the entire democratic party and all libprogressives.
Good for Chuck.

Pelosi, represents people who regularly compare Bush to Hitler, and she refers to Chavez as just a "thug"?

These two don't deserve any good will or credit for their self serving statements.

I do believe Rangel speaks from the heart most of the time (or maybe he's just such a good politician that he's duped me into believing that). However, his speaking from the heart is also part of the problem.

From the Rangel letter:

"Those who take issue with Bush Administration policies have no right to attack him personally. It was not helpful when President Bush referred to certain nations as an 'axis of evil.' Neither is it helpful for a head of state to use the sacred halls of the United Nations to insult President Bush."

So, it's basically "Yes, I concede your point, but just don't make it in such strong terms".

Oh and "sacred halls" should tell you something too deep for my little brain to get around.

Sean, Their point is Americans can and foreigners cannot but you are right that over the last few years they have dropped political discourse right into the toilet.

I think Sean has it right. There is a third motive to consider. Chavez sounded exactly like a Democrat running for office. That equivalence scares the actual Democrats running for office.

It’s a positive step and inspiring when we witness a non-partisan action by pols from one party stepping up for pols from an opposition to defend them from an outsider. After all, at the end of the day, we are all we’ve got and it’s us against them.

The only problem that I have is that the very opinions and sentiments spewed by the Left in general are the reasons that a third world monkey like Chavez is emboldened enough to come on to our soil and insult our Government and its representatives. I might be naïve here, but it appears that he grossly misjudged the “hate Bush” factor in this country and was called on it.

On the other hand, does the Left learn anything from this, enough to decrease the negative rhetoric in the future? Unfortunately, I doubt that they’re smart enough to get the connection beyond the initial reaction by a few. I think, most times, their hatred and drive to win at any cost overrides their sense of national community.

"Chavez sounded like a Democrat running for office"

Are you kidding?

Chavez shounded like a punk who knew he could get away with dissing Bush cuz most everybody in the world has no respect for him anyway.

Its Bush's own fault. He's made America so weak and ridiculed abroad that pissers lie Chavez and Ajamehdad (or whatever) think they can walk all over us.

We need McCain or Wesley Clark to take over this country. Fast.

HiHi HeHe,

"We need McCain or Wesley Clark to take over this country. Fast."

HaHa! HaHa!

Although I still believe he could do a better job, it hasn't been Bush who's demonstrated overall weakness or behavior that would cause widespread ridicule. The "hate America" crowd including subversive writers like Chomsky, Hollywood’s elite and political rivals along with their leftist constituencies have done more to damage our reputation around the world than anything six years of Bush has done.

And plueease stop with the McCain talk. He would be a disaster. I deeply admire his service to this country, but he is a weak politician and I suspect that the Hanoi Hilton took out of him whatever he might have had to offer. He’s the ultimate RINO.

He has the third most conservative voting record in the U.S. Senate.

But I think I like Guliani.

I'm surprised to hear that Ben-T. Just think that he is too weak and is too close to and too quick to compromise with the opposition. Also, don't like the fact he was involved with the Keating 5. Sleaze factor, ya know. Just one of a pretty weak field of GOP candidates.

Again it's Bush's fault! I agree with those that say if these retards are against Bush then he must be doing some things right.

I'm going to take the non-cynical approach and commend the politicians for standing up for our president and our country.

I agree with Ben that The Mayor is the strongest candidate in a not-so-great lineup.

What do you guys think of Rick Santorum?

"I'm surprised to hear that Ben-T. Just think that he is too weak and is too close to and too quick to compromise with the opposition. Also, don't like the fact he was involved with the Keating 5. Sleaze factor, ya know. Just one of a pretty weak field of GOP candidates." -asdf

Yea, I pretty much agree. I like Giuliani, pro-markets, and doesn't take any crap about terrorism being caused by poverty or the west. But I think Romney or McCain will grab the nomination.I do like Romney, also. So we'll see I guess.

They always look better in the history books then they looked when they were around.

If he runs, I like Santorum a lot. One of the few real conservatives but probably won't make it back to the Senate in a state where Kerry carried the day. At least the polling seems to indicate that.

Romney is another possibility and I have really enjoyed having him as Governor. Smart and take charge. And pretty conservative in his own right.

Being for a candidate is one thing, elect ability is another. Senators (ex or otherwise) don't play well as Presidential candidates. I mean, really, what do Senators do (see John Kerry)? Governors play better as they have some clout and proof that they can manage.

I'm glad you mentioned Romney. I, too, like him a lot. He's a wonderful manager - Staples, the Salt Lake City Olympics, dealing with the sleazes in the MA legislature, finally getting rid of Amorello and inspiring some confidence in the damaged results of the Big Dig. He's a clean guy. I just hope that the country is ready for a Mormon president.

P.S.

I think Santorum has caught up with Casey in the polls. I heard them on Meet the Press a week ago. Casey was a joke. It's astonishing to think that someone like Santorum could have fallen behind a weak sister like Casey, who's almost as vapid as Kerry.

Personally, I think Rangel and Pelosi are full of it. I don't for a second buy what they said.