Democrats Expressed Real Outraged on Rove, Compared to Tepid Outrage over Chavez

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: I want to start off with Hugo Chavez, and then we'll move on. There's just one more thing to do regarding this, and let me set the table. As you know, Chavez went to a church in Harlem yesterday and was his usual self, called Bush an alcoholic and a sick man, said he needed a psychologist, promised a whole bunch of cheap oil for the people of Harlem. Charlie Rangel came out and in a very timid manner, said, hey, hey, you don't come to our soil and do this. Leave that to us. We can criticize our president, but you can't. It's a stop-the-bleeding kind of situation. There's a huge backlash going on.

In fact, I was watching Fox this morning, and they had Richard Holbrooke, who is an example of one of the problems that we have in the country regarding the distance and the gap, the separation between the elites in Washington and average people in the country. Holbrooke was saying, "Why are you people at Fox even playing Chavez? Why are you doing this? I mean, to give this guy all this airtime, it's ridiculous."

Mr. Holbrooke, Chavez and Ahmadinejad are what make average Americans say, what's the point of the UN? In fact, almost everybody in the UN makes us ask what's the point. They come here and they bash us and they bash our president. Of course we want to see this. But one of the things that I was reminded of after the program yesterday, all these Democrats are saying he shouldn't be critical, he shouldn't be doing this, it's not his job, stay in his own country and do this and so forth. Remember, June 22nd, 2005, at a fund-raiser in New York City for the conservative party of New York state, Karl Rove made a speech, and here's a portion of what he said.

KARL ROVE: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers.

RUSH: Well-l-l-l. Can you imagine, do you know what the outrage was to that? This is what I want to show you. Rove says this about the Democrats, the Democrats went nuts. We're going to play that for you here in just a second. But as you listen to it, keep in mind that when Chavez said what he said, the response was timid, it was basically from Pelosi and Rangel. Bill Delahunt and Tom Harkin defended for the most part Chavez and said, hey, you know, it's Bush's fault, Bush is the one that caused all this, Bush has caused a loss of prestige to the country around the world. Now, you just heard what Rove said. Here's a montage of Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Clinton, and Carl Levin along with John Kerry, an outraged response that the Democrats had to Rove.

PELOSI: For him to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes once again just shows you how desperate they are.

SCHUMER: There's a certain line that you should not cross, and last night Karl Rove crossed that line. He didn't just put his toe over the line, he jumped way over.

THE LAUT: It's outrageous that he would suggest that those of us who disagree with him politically want to aid the terrorists.

HILLARY: The only way we'll know for sure as to what his real intention was last night in New York City is whether or not he retracts these comments and apologizes for them.

LEVIN: I thought it was shameful. He ought to apologize for it, the president ought to disown it. And it is just so disgraceful to split Americans, to divide Americans for any kind of perceived political gain.

KERRY: The White House's credibility is at issue here, and I believe very clearly Karl Rove ought to be fired.

RUSH: Yep, that's John Kerry there at the end. Karl Rove ought to be fired. So, you see that reaction to what Rove said about them versus their reaction to what Chavez and Ahmadinejad said about Bush. Then this morning on Fox and Friends, E. D. Hill interviewed Chuck Schumer and asked him this: What was your reaction when you heard him do the El Diablo talk and everybody started laughing and applauding? SCHUMER: Well, two things. Number one, what he said -- I said this yesterday -- despicable, disgusting. The worst part is not what he says, but what he does, he's really ruining Venezuela. He's nuts, he's crazy, he's a bad guy. But he craves attention. The more attention he gets, the crazier he gets. You know, he's like somebody who goes to Times Square and drops their trousers.

SCHUMER: Everyone looks at them but no one thinks much at them. As for the applause he gets, that really shows you something about the UN.

RUSH: Yeah, could have been talking about Democrats there, people that crave attention, do anything -- Chuck Schumer, I mean the most dangerous place you can be in Washington is between a camera and Chuck Schumer because you are going to get run over in a stampede. Oh, well, I just wanted to mention all of this and wrap this up just to show you when the Democrats really get outraged it's obvious, and they weren't outraged over Chavez because behind closed doors, probably going (applauding), yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, right on, thinking "good."

A couple more sound bites here on the Hugo Chavez just to wrap this up. Last night on Joe Scarborough's show, Scarborough Country on MSNBC, he interviewed the editor of the Huffington Post. Her name is Rachel. I don't know who she is. Which is an interesting point, how do these people who nobody ever heard of get guest appearances on a TV show? Anyway, what I said yesterday about Chavez and the Democrats was a focal point of Scarborough's segment and here's how he opened it.

SCARBOROUGH: Why do dictators feel so darn comfortable in America trashing America's commander-in-chief while they're treated like conquering heroes by people like Danny Glover? Well, Rush Limbaugh blames the media and Democrats, who he says have spent the past three years going well beyond being the loyal opposition and instead calling the president names that are at least as offensive as Mr. Chavez's attacks.

RUSH ARCHIVE: You know who's going to be jealous of this speech that Hugo Chavez gave, ladies and gentlemen, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. There's a reason why these guys feel comfortable and even emboldened coming here saying these things, and I'm not going to pull any punches. It's because they're just echoing the president's enemies in this country, be they the American left, some members of the Democratic Party, and all of the Democrat left-wing blogosphere. Many university professors had their sentiments echoed today by Hugo Chavez. What is different in Hugo Chavez saying that we need a psychologist to analyze Bush, and the American left saying that he's an insane lunatic and what have you? And Chavez -- this is the sickening part. The sickening part to me is that Chavez comes here, says it with confidence because he believes the vast majority of the American public is going to agree with him because he obviously listens to the US Drive-By Media in the way they deal with Bush. He sees the way Ahmadinejad is treated with great respect all over American television yesterday and last night. He can contrast that with the way George W. Bush is treated as a suspect, as a guilty suspect being interrogated each and every day by the Drive-By Media. There's no doubt he feels that he's in friendly ground, friendly territory, particularly inside the bar there in the Star Wars set.

RUSH: All right, so then Scarborough turned to Rachele Sklar, says, "What's your take on Rush's view of the American media and how they may have contributed to the president being bashed this week at the United Nations?" Now, listen to this answer and you tell me if she actually deals with the question or just launches into her own defense or attack. RACHEL SKLAR: I think the blame the liberal media thing gets really old, but what I found very interesting was the long, long list that Rush reeled off of all the so-called offenders of people who had expressed their feelings about President Bush. I mean, that's a very, very long list. So what does that indicate? That indicates a large proportion of people who have things they have to say about the president, things they want to say about the administration and they have grievances. And as far as I can recall that's kind of the whole purpose of the First Amendment. I think it's pretty dangerous for people from the right side of the aisle to make, you know, sweeping kind of vaguely threatening comments about people on the left side of the aisle demonstrating and expressing their feelings on the administration.

RUSH: Threatening? What I said was threatening to them? What does she think, that I was sending out a coded message to you people to launch attacks on liberal Democrats? You know, she didn't defend it, she did not answer, oh, this is getting old, what about the First Amendment and so forth. Yeah, you've got the First Amendment, but there are consequences to speech, Rachel. There are consequences. You don't say what you say in a vacuum. After all, you feel threatened? How about calling President Bush. He's the one that's gotta deal with a movie dealing with his assassination, and it's put together by your pals, people on your side of the aisle. You want to talk about being threatened, your gang did a book in 2004 describing how to assassinate President Bush. I guess that didn't get enough play so now we gotta do a movie that's going to come to the United States prior to the election. And you feel threatened? I understand that they do feel threatened, but they feel threatened for the wrong reasons. They're threatened with their own irrelevance and the upcoming defeat that they're beginning now to sense might happen yet again. Kathy in Ft. Lauderdale Florida, Open Line Friday, you're first up today. It's great to have you with us.

CALLER: Thank you. I love your show. I think I've been listening since '89. But I just wanted to say that yesterday I was looking through the Internet, and Charlie Rangel, I believe his comments and his protests about the way Chavez spoke, you know, he's saying how bad it was on the one hand. On the other hand he says, but thank you so much for the oil for the poor. And, you know, if somebody offered me a new car, and then they insulted my father and called him all manner of names, I'd tell him to take the car and put it where the sun doesn't shine. So to me it just says how insincere their outrage is.

RUSH: You're exactly right. You've nailed it. If Charlie Rangel were serious, he would tell -- as, by the way, Chicago mayor Richard Daley has, would tell Chavez, take your oil and shove it. You know, you have Bill Delahunt in Massachusetts who brokered the whole deal, and he came out, ah, what he said was silly but it's Bush's fault, he said that yesterday about Chavez. Bill Delahunt brokered Chavez's oil program for Massachusetts and anywhere else in the country they would take it. But not all Democrats -- this is the Thomas Lifson, the American Thinker reminding me of this -- not all Democrats are as craven as Delahunt, though. The Chicago Democrats of Richard Daley, who just vetoed the bill imposing pay scales on Wal-Mart and so forth, also told Chavez to beat it with his offer of $4 million in cheap transport fuel and then started probing Chavez's bid to penetrate Chicago's electoral apparatus through voting machine contracts.

So not all Democrats have gotten on board with Delahunt, but the ones that -- they weigh a question and they balance it all, and they say, "Okay, here's this guy and he says these rotten things about our president, we happen to agree with him, we just can't say so, but he's making me look really good to my constituents because they're getting cheap home heating oil for the winter when I can't take care of this myself with the oil companies in this country and so forth." So on the balancing scale, they side with the thug, they side with the dictator. But liberals frequently have done that with Fidel Castro. They admire these guys. You know, a lot of people don't understand it. I mean, a dictator is a dictator. A socialist is a socialist. Why in the world does Fidel Castro get lionized and heralded when he does come to New York. He doesn't have to come to New York to get lionized and heralded in certain parts of Manhattan, why is this? There are many reasons for it. I'm going to tell you, and you might find this hard to believe, but many American liberals and leftists envy the total power and control that these people have, and the fact they don't ever have to face an electorate. Chavez fits that bill, Castro has fit that bill for a very long time, and they envy it, and they respect a liberal and leftist who's been able to accomplish it. END TRANSCRIPT

KERRY: The White House's credibility is at issue here, and I believe very clearly Karl Rove ought to be fired.

"Move On FReepers" "swore" klintoon, hitlery, hanoi kerry, sanbdi ber(bur)glar, al bore, jane beno,
would be prosecuted for
pardongate, chinagate, the bribes in upstate NY in the 2000 NY Senate race, waco, etc, etc,
"when" the "time was right".

John O’Neill of Swift Boat Vets knows
that hanoi kerry is NOT done with his campaign.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1496625/posts

Oct 4th 2005, NOT 2004!

Q) Why are some "Move On FReepers" convinced they know more than John O’Neill and other vets.

"...Like most of you, I believed our mission was over. We could all move on with our lives, return to our families and homes secure in the knowledge we had done the right thing for America, and for our children’s future.

Regrettably, that has not been the case for a distinguished group of Vietnam combat veterans who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us during last year’s campaign. Their situation has become so critical that I felt compelled to break our long silence to inform you of this urgent matter..."

John O’Neill
Houston, Texas

Rangel had nothing but praise for Chavez in February upon taking low-cost heating oil for his Harlem district. It doesn't matter where it comes from, just as long as it is money. Can't they see that Chavez is not giving anything away. That money paid off in spades when the grubby hands came out grabbing for it.

Why in the world does Fidel Castro get lionized and heralded when he does come to New York.

Rush is right, but some other reason are that Castro disenfranchised the rich..All the Cubans are poor, but nobody is any more better off than any one else, with a exception to Party members of course Fidel is richer than any than else in Central America.

Castro is admired for surviving the American embargo, giving hope that Communist regimes will survive.

When Castro passes I wonder how many Jimmy Carters will flock to Cuba to help see that the government stays free of Capitalist influence.

Don't forget the part played in this fuel oil deal by Joseph Kennedy II. He's living up to his grandfather namesake, Ambassador to Great Britain, who picked the Germans over the British in the Battle of Britain.

It's an election year. Democrats must speak out against Chavez. The truth is, Democrats agree with Chavez and have said thing far worse her and around the world.

Anyone who would still vote for a Democrat hasn't been paying attention.

I think it's pretty dangerous for people from the right side of the aisle to make, you know, sweeping kind of vaguely threatening comments about people on the left side of the aisle demonstrating and expressing their feelings on the administration.

You mean like the guy from Salon licking doorknobs when he had the flu, Rachel?

Remember that?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.