Charlie Rangel’s blunt rhetoric for Dick Cheney

October 31, 2006

There are different schools of thought on how best to respond to dishonest and sleazy White House rhetoric. House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member (and would-be chairman) Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), confronted with Dick Cheney’s latest nonsense, took a rather confrontational approach.

This isn’t exactly elementary school, but for what it’s worth, Cheney started it. During an interview on CNBC, the VP said, “So if a man like Charlie Rangel were to be chairman of the committee, and sitting there with the gavel, all he has to do is not act, just don’t call up the legislation, and there’ll be a big tax increase.”

The conservative New York Post contacted Rangel for a response. He didn’t hold back.

“He’s such a real son of a bitch, he just enjoys a confrontation,” Rangel fumed, describing himself as “warm and personable.” Rangel said Cheney may need to go to “rehab” for “whatever personality deficit he may have suffered.”

“When you have those sorts of problems, you’re supposed to seek help,” Rangel advised. “He acknowledged that he has problems with communication.”

Asked whether he was resurrecting over-the-top charges he made last year that he believes Cheney is mentally ill, Rangel cracked, “I don’t think he’s shot anyone in the face lately, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.”

Let’s call this the “no-nonsense” approach to public discourse.

How would Cheney’s supporters respond to Rangel’s contentious comments? Here’s a good example from a prominent far-right blogger.

Rangel, like so many other far lefties, just can’t seem to handle criticism well, can he?

Please. Given Dick Cheney’s history, the right has no room to complain.

A brief argument between Vice President Cheney and a senior Democratic senator led Cheney to utter a big-time obscenity on the Senate floor this week.

On Tuesday, Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney’s ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush’s judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.

“F**k yourself,” said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

As far as I can tell, congressional Dems still have a long way to go before we catch up with the GOP’s rhetoric excesses.

As if I didn’t already want Rangel to get that chairman’s seat before… this could be sweeeet.

Hey Dick: GFY!

  • It is time for the “lefties” to start treating folks like Cheney and the administration’s biggest enablers with this type of well-deserved contempt. Hell the “righties do this all the time to those on the left, whether deserved or not. Time to fight back.

  • Why does the NYPost call them “over-the-top charges”? I find them quite reasonable for debate…

  • From Rangel’s Congressional bio: “Congressman Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948-52, during which time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star.”

    Dick Cheney on why he got five deferments in the Vietnam Era: “I had other priorities.”

  • yo, Dickie-poo—when Congress starts investigating your ugly carcass, and youn reply to their questions with comments like “GFY,” where do you think you’re going to wind up?

    here’s a hint—you can’t take your shotgun to jail with you.

    “Contempt of Congress” carries with it a nice fine (but hey—what’s a lousy “thousand” to Slick Dick?), but it also carries a penalty of up to one year in jail. If we can’t impeach him, then we can imprison him. He can’t preside over the Senate from a jail cell. He can’t go on FOX and talk his trash while he’s in a jail cell, either. And, the Supremes have repeatedly upheld the unilateral contempt authority of Congress—so Herr Bush can’t simply wave his magic Decider-stick and hand Dickie a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” There’s just no way for him to put a “signing statement” on a Contempt citation—and using a “pardon” to override such a citation is an overt violation of the Separation of Powers….

  • God Bless Charlie Rangel! He’s had enough of the Republican dishonesty and he’s not putting up with it. It’s just that the truth, in this case, isn’t pretty.

    “I don’t think he’s shot anyone in the face lately, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.” – Rangel.

    Anyone else think a Dem majority will be a lot of fun?

  • I think Dick Cheney has every reason to be afraid of Democrats in charge of the gavels.

    And the more he worries about it, the better it is by me.

  • OK, maybe I’m being mean here, but let’s hope that Cheney doesn’t do a “Ken Lay” and die before he goes to prison.

    God bless Charlie Rangel for standing up to the VP.

    One more thing, from Chris on Americablog (that I found utterly devastating and would like to see repeated by every Dem):
    “What struck me as especially interesting (though depressing) was a conversation I had with a family member of a US soldier who served in Iraq. I think that I now see where the missing $800M has gone over there, or at least a chunk of it. This person told me that on patrols in Iraq when US (and Iraqi) soldiers encountered insurgents, they would be fighting against well trained people who were all too often geared up in American uniforms and weapons that were provided to the Iraqi army. How can we ask American troops to engage an enemy that is equipped by America? What a bizarre situation and it unfortunately highlights the failures of this administration and Congress to offer any oversight.”

  • Poor Dick, he’s pissing his pants wondering what Democratic gavels will do to his “Legacy”.

    Thank goodness for Charlie Rangel, he knows how to call these bastards like he sees ’em.

  • Anyone else think a Dem majority will be a lot of fun?

    [petarado]

    Even if we don’t get a majority I wish more Dems would take a cue from Mr. Rangel. If you can’t beat ’em, mock ’em. Gods know the ReThugs have plenty of quirks that leave them ripe for teasing, they’ll hate it and after this round of pre-election shit slinging, what can they say? “Stop making fun of meeeee!” I’m sick of people taking these baboons seriously when they’ve made the US into the biggest joke on the planet.

  • Rangel should have responded that Bush and Cheney are going to raise you taxes by not dealing with the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is ensnaring more and more Americans and the Republicans do nothing because they don’t want to endanger tax cuts for the super-rich.

    Be smart. Turn it right back in their faces.

  • Boy, I hope Rangle gets under the big Dick’s skin and they get in to a public shouting match. I want to see Cheney on camera dropping the F-bomb. Like a bad courtroom drama, the lawyer breaks the witness out of character and dicipline and they stand up to vent their anger at being attacked. Of course, they end up admitting to the crime and saying they are not sorry for it. Dick certainly fits the mold and I’m sure has plenty to confess.

  • That is the kind of rhetoric the Democrats need. Good thing Rangel didn’t respond by saying, “Vice President Cheney’s statement is incorrect. The Democratic Party plans to implement fair taxes for middle-class workers…blah, blah, blah.” That sounds weak. Rangel wouldn’t say something like that in response to Cheney’s charge, but I worry about the tone the Democrats will take when speaking in public and on tv. Mock the bastards, don’t play their game.

  • Mock the bastards, don’t play their game.

    Am I the only one who thinks mocking them IS playing their game.

    Once we abandon civility and reason too, then what are we left with except nonstop verbal assaults from both sides? It’s bad enough we have to hear it all the time from the Republicans. Do we really want to adopt that stance ourselves and then that becomes the de-facto response from any political party.

    Frankly, I’m pretty unimpressed by Rangels name-calling. Maybe that looks like showing spine in the eyes of conservatives, but to me it’s avoiding the issue and doing a pretty spectacular job of stooping to their level rather than rising above it.

    Rangel is basically spending his time accusing Cheney of being a jerk, rather than of being demonstrably wrong. And that’s a problem because while the entire nation knows he’s a jerk, letting him spout lies without pointing out that they’re lies doesn’t do us any good.

  • OK, maybe I’m being mean here, but let’s hope that Cheney doesn’t do a “Ken Lay” and die before he goes to prison.

    Works for me.

    This dustup is just a little foretaste of what’s coming once the Dems take the House and start issuing subpoenas. Big Time and the rest of his criminal gang will defy any effert to ask them questions, much less hold them accountable. Boys and girls, can you say “constitutional crisis?” I knew you could.

  • I love how those scum operate – they kick you in the face and then mock you when you complain. Permanent 12 year old playground bullies is what they are.

    So when do we get lucky and Fat Bastard Asshole’s stents give out? Goddamned dickhead.

  • wow Rangel is unstable. Yikes. Cheyney makes a policy point and Rangle can’t handle the truth and freaks out. Typical for left liberals Dems these days. Dems need to get a hold of themselves and seek help for their rage and hate.

  • mysteve : Rangel should have responded that Bush and Cheney are going to raise you taxes by not dealing with the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is ensnaring more and more Americans and the Republicans do nothing because they don’t want to endanger tax cuts for the super-rich.

    From the article : Rangel said he is focused on Social Security, tax simplification and the Alternative Minimum Tax that is squeezing even some middle-income families – not what to do in 2011, when the Bush tax cuts expire.

    He did bring up the AMT. They didn’t choose to emphasize it, but it is in there.

  • And then there was the guy who he had arrested because he told Cheney as he was walking by that he didn’t like his policies.

    If we had more Dems who would show these people the contempt they deserve, people would like us a lot better.

  • When you’ve got a bully hovering over you with his fist and a sneer, you can stand there and say, “I really don’t think you should be doing that. Can’t we all handle this like civilized gentlemen?” —and get beaten to a pulp, with none of the onlookers the least bit interested in defending you.

    Or you can fight back.

    Yes, it’s playing their game, because it’s not a game you would have chosen. But pretending that it’s not happening and that if you close your eyes and think of England it will all just go away, is not a better strategy.

  • …That’s probably why Republicans think we’d be weak on defense. We demonstrate every day that we don’t fight back when we’re attacked.

  • Cheyney[sic] makes a policy point

    He then got in a major hit, saying on the Fox News Channel, “Charlie doesn’t understand how the economy works.”

    That is not a policy point. That is insulting.

    At what point are people interested in “not lowering the discourse” going to decide that it is okay? When they start rounding up people and putting them in camps? When non-violent activists are sent to Guantanamo because they are “enemy combatants”? When National Guard troops from out of state are brought in to shutdown a peaceful protest and they accidentally kill a few people? I’m just wondering what the line is…when am I allowed to get angry? How long should I just brush off people who want me dead because of what I believe? When do things stop getting friendly and start getting real for “The Concerned”?

  • ***Boys and girls, can you say “constitutional crisis?” I knew you could.***
    —————————————-jimBOB

    Hey, jimBOB—can you say “Contempt of Congress?” Can you say “Obstruction of Justice?” Can you say “A Democratic House holds the purse-strings, and a House Republican minority will NEVER be able to ram an amendment into a Legislative Bill?”

    Take your time on this one. I know that it’s been a while—but it’s just like riding a bike….

  • Am I the only one who thinks mocking them IS playing their game.

    From observing Cheney’s behaviour is it reasonable to think he’s got mental issues?
    From observing Nancy Pelosi is it reasonable to think she’ll hand us over to the terrorists?

    The GOP can’t play the mockery game, it doesn’t have the brains. Mockery has some basis in fact, which is what makes it so effective. The GOP doesn’t bother with facts. They lie and when some one calls them out they either come up with another lie or repeat the lie a bit louder.

  • Well, in a way, Cheney is right. They used legislative sleight of hand to get the tax cuts passed in 2001 – but because it was legislative sleight of hand via the “Budget Reconciliation” process, any fiscal measures could only be temporary, because they were passed with extremely limited rules of debate and with only a simple majority – the GOP basically passed the tax cuts by abusing a procedure designed to be used only in budgetary emergencies.

    And in their hubris, they assumed that with the “permanent Republican majority” that they would have plenty of time to go back, once they got overwhelming majorities in Congress once the American public embraced the “permanent Republican majority”, to revisit the tax cuts again, only this time legitimately, and make them permanent. Only they never got around to it and now they’re stuck, watching the clock run out on them. Funny thing is, they were all set to start debate on making the estate tax permanent (how much will Cheney’s heirs get to save if that happened?) the week that Hurricane Katrina struck – and they postponed that because it would be unseemly to vote massive tax breaks for themselves and the tiny uberwealthy minority of their base while New Orleans was drowning – and they just never got back around to it.

    So, yes – all Rangel has to do is sit there and the tax cuts themselves will expire – and the taxes will be raised on Cheney and his rich buddies back to what they were before 2001. No wonder Cheney is being nasty this time – it’s very personal and it could end up costing him and his heirs lots.

    And America should consider itself very lucky how we managed to dodge that bullet.

  • That’s probably why Republicans think we’d be weak on defense. We demonstrate every day that we don’t fight back when we’re attacked.

    Who care’s what Republicans think?
    Democrats certainly aren’t trying to go after votes from the “they don’t fight back so they’ll lose the war” crowd this election cycle. So if some totally obtuse idiots want to look at the world that way, why worry about them?

    Frankly, I think that the growing number of Americans who are fed up with the Republican nonsense and partisan bitterness aren’t really interested in seeing the Democrats amp up their rhetoric to the same level. They want one party to actually shut up and get things done. And pushing for an “I know you are but what am I” strategy just makes us look stupid.

    I guess this is just me though. Everybody else here seems to think this is the road to victory.

  • Steve # 25

    Did you have a point with all that? If you’re saying that a thin congressional majority will easily wrap the executive around its finger, I don’t think so. If you’re trying to say something else, a little less snark and more effort to communicate might help you.

    • Comments are closed.