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.<\/p>\n
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.”<\/p>\n
The conservative New York Post contacted Rangel for a response. He didn’t hold back<\/a>.<\/p>\n “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.”<\/p>\n “When you have those sorts of problems, you’re supposed to seek help,” Rangel advised. “He acknowledged that he has problems with communication.”<\/p>\n 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.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let’s call this the “no-nonsense” approach to public discourse. Rangel, like so many other far lefties, just can’t seem to handle criticism well, can he?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\nHow would Cheney’s supporters respond to Rangel’s contentious comments? Here’s a good example<\/a> from a prominent far-right blogger.<\/p>\n