Posts
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has sunk to a new low, launching an irrational attack on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whose only “offense” was to mockingly criticize George W. Bush. It was bad enough that she pandered to the Bush regime, but she even resorted to a racial slur, calling Chavez a “thug.”
Pelosi's race-baiting is disgusting enough, but it becomes even more reprehensible when it is done in the context of pandering to a brutal autocrat like George W. Bush. Pelosi would rather grovel to an unelected politician like Bush, rather than support, or merely leave alone, a democratically elected and widely popular leader like Hugo Chavez. While Chavez respects human rights, Bush has people arrested without charge and tortured, both at home and abroad. While Chavez has respected press freedom in Venezuela, Bush has bombed Al Jazeera and his administration has threatened to prosecute US journalists who reported on illegal NSA spying on Americans.
Democrats continually promise us that so much will change if we throw the Republicans out in the Congressional elections. But, in so many cases (e.g., Terri Schiavo, the Alito filibuster, the Roberts nomination, Bush's illegal and unAmerican war in Iraq), far too many Democrats offered the Bush regime critical support to carry out its hateful and unAmerican agenda.
The Green Party looks better and better with each passing day. It is not enough for the Democrats to be somewhat different than the Republicans. Democrats need to provide vigorous and fearless opposition to what is being done to America and the rest of the world.
Psycho Woman Throws Knives At Children
13 years ago
I found this blog at Haiku's.
If you read the whole speech, it's quite good.
The Democrats love having oppurtunities to attack Bush from the right. It was oppurtunism and provincialism, Rangel and Pelosi's nonsense.
I agree that Pelosi was involved in an attempt to go to the right of the GOP. However, her choice of the word "thug" had the same intent as when GOP NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the leadership of the transit workers units "thugs," because they were mostly people of color.
"Thug" has become the racial slur of choice these days when politicians want to push a right-wing political agenda.
I think that's a bit of stretch. Thug is a racial slur? I also can't buy that Pelosi was "pandering" to the Bush administration. If she wanted to do that, she could start by not saying the vast majority of what she says about Bush. She's practically the anti-Bush, why would she pander to him? Most importantly of all though: Are you really going to call Bush a "brutal autocrat" and then shower Chavez with praise in the same breath? I'm no Bush fan by any means. He sucks. But dude, Chavez does too. If you think Bush is an autocrat, then Chavez is one all the more.
Chavez is a democratically-elected leader who is respecting human rights in Venezuela and abroad. You need to stop drinking the GOP Koolaid.
Being democratically elected does not preclude one from being an autocrat. Would it be fair to call Hitler an autocrat? He was democratically elected.
And using your defense of Chavez, wasn't Bush democratically elected as well? If you want to argue over Florida in 2000, let me say that Bush definately won in 2004, and that Chavez has faced challenges to his legitimacy and office as well. And beyond that I'm sick of arguing over Florida. Al Gore lost. Period.
Chavez is an autocrat because of his Marxist views. No Marxist can be called a defender of human rights. Marxism is an ideology of hatred for the individual and for human rights, an ideology of oppression and violence.
Now I'm no GOP koolaid drinker... I'm with you: Bush sucks. He and the Republican party are no friends to human rights either. It is with freedom that I am most concerned, and I condemn all enemies of freedom. If you want to say the same, I don't see how you can be so supportive of Chavez.
Actually, Bush never has been elected President. If not for massive election fraud, he would have lost both Ohio and Florida.
Now, Pelosi is pandering to Bush by saying that impeachment is "off the table" and by saying that cutting off funds for the Iraq War is "off the table."
Chavez hasn't attacked human freedom. Unlike Bush, Chavez doesn't torture people based on their religion. Chavez doesn't arrest people and detain them indefinitely without charging them with any crime. Any reasonable and objective look at Bush and Chavez would make clear that Bush is the only one to fit with the description of "autocrat."