Shots In The Dark: The Democrats: Argh

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

The Democrats: Argh

Here's my prediction: Nancy Pelosi will be a political disaster for the Dems.

She's already gotten into a fight over the identity of her #2, at a time when she should be focusing the discussion on the Democratic agenda.

Meanwhile, a group of 13 Democrats has already—already!—zipped off to a junket in Panama sponsored by Pfizer, Citibank, AT&T;, American Airlines and Time Warner.

This is exactly the kind of corruption the incoming speaker should (have) put a stop to.

In both cases, there's a villain: Congressional hack Charles Rangel. He's the guy who called Dick Cheney a son of a bitch, and, at 76, he seems more interested in feathering his own nest and throwing his weight around than he is in doing good for the country.

Dick Cheney, by the way, probably is a son of a bitch, but if you're in politics, you need to maintain at least a veneer of civility in order to work with the other party. There's no reason to call Cheney a son of a bitch; it does no one any good, except in the most immature way. It's just dumb politics.

Rangel is the incoming chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, so get ready for an explosion of pork.

Pelosi needs to rein this old bull in right now, or he's going to be nothing but an embarrassment for the Democrats. It's an early test of her power. Let's hope she passes it. I fear she won't.

¶ 8:56 AM

Comments:

wait. hold on. you seriously think that it matters that Charlie Rangel called Cheney a son a bitch? The same Cheney who told Pat Leahy to go fuck himself on the floor of the Senate? The same Cheney who never apologized or showed the least amount of shame for this and in fact told the press that he "felt better" after swearing at Leahy?

Yeah, I'm sure the Republicans were genuinely on the verge of working with Democrats only to hesitate when they were shocked to discover that Rangel's a potty-mouth. Right. Because if anyone has ended civility in politics, it's not the party that tried to bring down a sitting President over a blowjob, called him a murderer, alleged his wife was a lesbian, and so on. No, it's the Democrats because ONE of them called Cheney a son of a bitch.

Interesting theory.

Although I agree with you that Pelosi could be a disaster.

# posted by Anonymous : 9:34 AM

You're so off on this one. It feels so GOOOOOOOD when I call Dick Cheney a son of a bitch!

# posted by Anonymous : 9:43 AM

Yeah, I just think it's pointless for Rangel to sink to Cheney's level. Satisfying though it may be, it doesn't accomplish anything.

# posted by richard : 9:52 AM

You're right on, Rich. Pelosi has never impressed me (she once said "America must be a light to the world, not just a missile" and that was in prepared remarks!) and she's not the one you want at the helm if you're trying to push bipartisan politics forward. And Rangel is indeed an embarrassment, he sticks his foot in his mouth on a weekly basis--sure you noticed his recent take on Mississippi. And pay-to-play Murtha isn't exactly an ethical role model either, just ask CREW. Putting these individuals in power positions will score political points with the far left but risks losing the middle (in '08)--where most of the country really resides.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:22 AM

scotty reston you are not!

use your franchise wisely and position the dems to think and act like grown ups-it worked on november 7th (demand more and you get it-so retail but hey, it works).

let's hold them to the standard they believe the mandate bestowed on them.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:26 AM

Democrats suffer from being the party of hyperbole, and their leaders are in desperate need of leadership credibility. It's that much harder when old school idiots like Rangel continue to run their mouths unchecked. Stay on message and keep people like Rangel in the background.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:31 AM

Stop name-calling and offer something substantive.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:37 AM

I'm confused—didn't I just urge Rangel not to name-call?

And by the way—delighted not to be Scotty Reston. Maybe I missed his best years, but when I read him during the '90s, there wasn't a lot going on there, and he was awfully cozy with the powerful.

# posted by richard : 11:42 AM

Reston easily positioned Eisenhower during the '50s on both foreign and domestic policy. And he did elegantly. The US was well respected back then and the media certainly played a constructive part in the conversation. Perhaps this generation does't appreciate that quality in either print or digital media.

But, if Nov 7 was any indication of what is to come, perhaps the media as well as the government could be well served to change its tone, do its homework and deliver for the public.

There is nothing wrong with being close to power just as long as you don't abuse it.

# posted by Anonymous : 12:02 PM

Your memory and knowledge of Reston certainly trump mine. But wasn't there considerable debate about whether Reston wasn't a little too close to power, particularly during the Kennedy years? (At least in retrospect, if not at the time.)

# posted by richard : 12:13 PM

He kept Halberstam on board when Kennedy wanted him muzzled and showed grown-up judgement during the Johnson transition.

Cui servire est regnare-didn't you go to Groton?

# posted by Anonymous : 12:49 PM

Okay, now I'm intrigued. Of course, that's an ambiguous slogan, much debated at the school itself. And much of its meaning depends, really, on how you define service. In this context, does service mean supporting power because you happen to agree with it? Or does it mean standing outside, independent of power?

# posted by richard : 12:53 PM

radar o'reilly-ifluence without power or perceived influence

# posted by Anonymous : 12:58 PM

Richard,

BTW, did you see the great quote from Verba in today's Crimson--that the new president search process is designed to avoid the perception of the Corporation as a "star chamber"?

# posted by Anonymous : 3:48 PM

Apropos the new speaker of the house, I can't help wondering, 'Might liberals can be misogynists too?'

# posted by Anonymous : 7:08 PM

a) late to the party, but how well did civility to Cheney serve Pat Leahy? Anyway, Rangel is in the other house and doesn't have to deal with Cheney up close and personal.

b) I'm a fan of Charlie Rangel's, but I'm curious to see evidence that he feathers his nest a lot. I admit that I don't pay a lot of attention, and that my take on him is based mostly on his attitude.

# posted by Anonymous : 7:15 PM

Rangel also has one of the best quotes of the Bush presidency so far:

WaPo: "Well," Rangel said. "I really think that he shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all; it shows that, in this great country, anybody can become president."

Although I guess maybe that's uncivil.

# posted by Anonymous : 7:56 PM

A civil war-pardon me but may I shoot you!

# posted by Anonymous : 7:13 AM

No question, Rangel has some good lines. Why, just the other day he said, " Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?"

Great line. Stupid, but a great line.

# posted by richard : 9:06 AM

Here's a great uncivil line from today's Crimson:

“George Bernard Shaw once said, ‘People who are merely specialists are basically idiots,’” [Stanley] Hoffman said, looking in Mankiw’s direction. “I don’t take it as my model, but there’s something to it.”

From today's article on the faculty meeting-
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515758

# posted by Anonymous : 10:02 AM

Civility is overrated. See Borat.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:43 AM

Who cares about Charlie Rangel calling Dick Cheney "a son of a bitch?" Unlike the other liberal bloggers, I happen to like Cheney alot - he is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in, regardless of whether it's popular. In short, he has character. That said, it's a free country, so call him whatever you want - not going to change the opinion of anyone who is intelligent.

Who the hell listens to Charlie Rangel anyway? He is the biggest embarrassment to the Democratic party. He is an embarrassing blowhard, period. Too bad he's in power now.

# posted by Anonymous : 2:29 PM

Dick Cheney has character? What kind of character liquors up and shoots his hunting partner? What kind of character presides over one of the most undemocratic administrations in history? What kind of character acquiesces in a Republican onslaught on gay marriage while exempting his lesbian daughter? Bush's evil is leavened with stupidity; Cheney doesn't have that excuse. Wake up and stop talking about "liberals". It's the conservatives that have been asleep for the past six years, letting this gang of corporate lackeys run amok in the name of false values they trot out like used car salesmen to sucker the evangelicals and other idiots.

# posted by Anonymous : 12:51 PM

To the above "anonymous" - that was a very dispassionate, cerebral and neutral diatribe on Dick Cheney - thank you for your words of wisdom.

Conservatives have made mistakes, absolutely. And they are learning their lesson. Sure, let's give Democrats a chance, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what they stand for, or what their strategy on the Iraq situation is?

I still trust the Dick Cheneys, Joe Liebermans and George Bushes of the world much more than the Charlie Rangels, Bill or Hillary Clintons, or John Kerrys of the world. I have no respect for people who are wishy washy on what they stand for, depending on who is listening, or what the polls show.

# posted by Anonymous : 3:28 PM

George Bush and Dick Cheney say they stand for family values and a strong defense of our freedoms. That is a lie. You are correct that they don't lie in a wishy washy way, though.

# posted by Anonymous : 4:06 PM

About Me