A common talking point from the Right these days is that Democrats, liberals, etc. are bad because they support Venezualan president Hugo Chavez. But what actual expressions of support have any of them uttered?
I don’t know that any Democrats have sided with Chavez. It seems to me that if the Democrats were smart (a big if) they would say that the Bush administration’s poor decision-making has opened the US up to criticisim from the likes of Chavez.
or to “criticism”. :smack:
Best I could find was a Weekly Standard article from 2003 that complains about some Democratic Congressmen writing a letter critizing the Administration for not doing more to protect Chavez from internal opposition.
Bill Delahunt, US Rep from Massachusetts, set up a deal directly with Chavez last year to get cheap home heating oil for poor families in MA. Here’s the story from the Globe (may require registration). In the article, he doesn’t directly come out in support of Chavez, but he did thumb his nose at the Bush administration.
There’s some amusing stuff on the second page of the article about a discussion group Delahunt set up with members of the Venezuelan government. At discussions on Cape Cod in 2002, “Bottles of Scotch were in the guest rooms, and all had been consumed by the end of the session, a Delahunt spokesman said.”
Well, he lost this Democrat when he held up Noam Chomsky’s book at the U.N. the other day.
People like Chomsky give the Left a bad name.
Sorry for the misspelling in the thread title. Mods, can you fix?
A quick look around democraticunderground.com would answer that. Of course, they also like Castro and Saddam.
Didn’t Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) call him a “thug”?
Yes, she did. I don’t know if the question was about Democrats in general or just Democrat officeholders, though.
That’s a little unfair. I doubt if most people republican or democratic find his remarks acceptable. I don’t think a couple posts on a messageboard are representative of the way most people feel about what he said.
" WASHINGTON — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s insult-laden diatribe against President Bush brought an angry response Thursday from three of Bush’s harshest Democratic critics.
Despite tepid relations with Bush, two House Democratic leaders and a long-serving senator took exception to remarks by Chavez, who twice has called the U.S. president “the devil” while delivering remarks in New York City this week."
I’d like to know why they keep characterizing Chavez’s speech as a ‘diatribe’ or a ‘tirade.’ The man was calm and collected, and had a slight smile as he talked. He wasn’t banging a shoe against the lectern, for heaven’s sake.
As I have no interest at all in Venezuelan politics, I’m definitely not a Chavez supporter, but I don’t see why a speech referring to Bush as the devil is a ‘tirade’ but Bush’s speech about an ‘axis of evil’ is reasoned discourse.
Maybe Bush and Chavez should have a ‘point/counterpoint’ session and each can explain what exactly he thinks an evildoer is, does, and where one lives. And how we can recognize evildoers among us, so that we can promptly burn or stone them.
Well, the emphasis is on Democratic officeholders and candidates, since the smear-by-association is being used to try to get Americans to vote for Republican candidates.
Yeah, Democrats think THAT :dubious:
None. But then, talking points from the Right don’t tend to be based on reality.
Or, to quote one prominent lefty blogger, “But really, this is much ado about nothing. So Chavez said mean things about Bush. Bush and his administration has said mean things about Chavez and about lots of other world leaders. Who gives a shit what Venezuela thinks about the United States?”
Chavez’ stuff is getting some traction from the Usual Suspects on the SDMB, but with the elections coming up, the Democratic leadership realize they better distance themselves from it.
The extreme left-wing is over-represented on the SDMB, so none of their reactions can be taken as representative of the Dems in general (thank God).
People who can’t see any moral distinction between, say, Kim Jung-il and George Bush are not rational people, and can’t be reasoned with. Which is why Chavez and the president of Iran are dangerous. The best that can be hoped for is that they are trolling.
Regards,
Shodan
The devil analogy is in line with Bushs constant religious references. The sulfer stuff was a bit overdoing it. The sad thing is it can play at the UN. Which is an indication how far down Bush has taken the esteem of the US in the world.Mr. Connecticut cowboy has sunk the presige of our country.
I’m a liberal Democrat, and I have been one for a long time. Hugo Chavez is a very unusual cat. His country had been run into the ground by a string of corrupt, incompetent rulers. Venezuela should be a modern nation by now, with all their oil wealth, but the leaders screwed everything up.
Hugo is a loose cannon with a special talent for tweaking America’s nose. For all I know, he’s doing a worse job than his predecessors. He was once a coca farmer, and he refuses to cooperate with the US about cocaine. He has arranged to sell discounted heating oil to poor Americans. That’s in the face of the US government, who weren’t helping those people with their heating bills.
He rails at Bush for knocking down the governments of two countries and for threatening to knock over a couple more. Now, think about this. Hugo runs a country with a lot of oil underground, and Bush doesn’t like him, wants to push him around. A prominent American holy man (!?) has twice called for Chavez to be assassinated. From Chavez’s position, it looks like Venezuela is on the short list of targets.
So, do I like him? He’s said to be a socialist, or communist, or something like that. That’s not a good thing for South American countries, usually. I don’t think he’s a threat to the US in any way. He has his hands full at home. I like his sense of humor. And balls? He must clank when he sits down.