The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

21 November 2006

Charlie Rangel, Talk Radio


Rep Rangel Is One-Man Fodder Machine

For talk hosts searching for holiday- time topics, one man has proven even more valuable than Michael Richards and his ill- fated comedy act: Rep Charles Rangel.

Simply by cranking up his magic political gimmick machine, the New York Democrat can get talkers buzzing, even as party leaders run for cover. Recently, for instance, he handed pundits a pot o' fodder gold with this anti- Mississippi comment, according to the Clarion-Ledger:

Rep. Charles Rangel is poised to become chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee when Democrats take control of Congress in January. He told The New York Times that he wants to bring more federal money back to his home state.

He added: "Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?"

Rangel might as well have asked a whole state to roll up its sleeves and step outside.

Phones rang nonstop at talk radio shows. Some folks dashed off indignant letters to the editor, while others jumped onto Internet chat rooms to either defend their state or cast aspersions on New York and New Yorkers.

How did that help the Democrats?

This week, talk radio has also enjoyed a sustained boost from Rangel, as he attempts once again to push his "reinstate the draft" gimmick through Congress. Party honchos are again scrambling to put some distance between 'ol Charlie and their own political careers:

Rangel's draft proposal gets little traction with Democrats

WASHINGTON - The new Democratic-controlled Congress will not seriously consider reinstating the draft, even if concerns about the military's strength and resiliency grow, party leaders said Monday.

Key Democrats, including the incoming House speaker, House majority leader and chairmen of the House and Senate armed services committees, said they do not support a resumption of the draft. They predicted that the idea will gather little momentum in the 110th Congress, which convenes in January. Pentagon officials also restated their opposition to a draft. (Sun - Herald / South Miss)

Their comments came a day after Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who will chair the Ways and Means Committee, said he would again introduce a bill calling for a return to the draft, suspended since 1973.

Rangel's previous bids to reinstate the draft have stirred little interest in Congress but considerable agitation among some bloggers and talk radio hosts who suggested the public was about to be blindsided.

Are bloggers and talkers really agitated, or more likely thankful to have the likes of Rangel on the other side of the fence? After all, he has no real interest in bringing back the draft, it's simply a trick meant to undermine the war effort.

Hey Charlie, got anything else up your sleeve? It's going to be mighty slow during Thanksgiving, so this would be a good time to unveil your next gem!

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, greatly help to support this site's efforts. Thanks again!

Technorati tags:


  • You're not getting it.

    Rangel's whole POINT was to get dialogue going concerning the administration's willingness to let our soldiers die in yet more of its wars of choice, and to expand it to include even more American families lulled into a false sense of complacency.

    The fact that open and honest dialogue can be spurred by it is a GOOD thing, as opposed to the usual right-wing MO of just sweeping the issue under the carpet with yellow ribbon magnets and reality shows.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 21 November, 2006 22:24  

  • Yes, the old dialogue tactic. Because we know that there has been absolutely NO dialogue on Iraq.

    What a bunch of hogwash!

    By Blogger CowboyBebop, at 21 November, 2006 23:20  

  • Nice try at spin hash breath. "Honest dialogue"? You mean honest like throwing out the race card when it suits your purposes? Your pathetic.

    By Blogger Owen, at 21 November, 2006 23:30  

  • Who mentioned race?

    Does it have to be a white man who initiates any dialogue regarding wars of choice and wars on behalf of other entities, oweeee?

    "Hogwash" or no, cowbop, it's working. It's forcing the parents of the privileged and other groups of people who NEVER would permit their children to be sacrificed in such a battle to get a grip on what regular working people have to contend with.

    Very positive, and hopefully a prelude to the renewal of free speech and democratic principles, for so many years forsaken.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 November, 2006 00:40  

  • Rangel's whole point, hash, is to invoke the class warfare that practically tore the U.S. Armed Forces apart in the early 1970s. He's attempting to play the Vietnam endgame all over again, only this time the conditions of the world have changed regarding the 'main enemy,' but Rangel either doesn't see it, or he refuses to.

    And for your dismissiveness of the "administration's willingness to let our soldiers die in yet more of its wars of choice," I would remind you that, in this current second-longest overseas theater war in U.S. History (only Vietnam being longer), the current number of U.S. Deaths (2867 as of this writing) stands as a ridiculously low death rate for an overseas engagement of this nature. No death of a soldier is a good thing, nor is every day a safe day in the Sandbox. But your implication that Dubya and Cheney are rubbing their hands together and plucking poor, unsuspecting patriotic kids out of their simple lives and tossing them into a boiling cauldron is absurd, to the point of insult.

    The one thing that you, hashfanatic, and Rangel cannot get around is the fact that each and every person in Iraq VOLUNTEERED TO SIGN UP!!!

    Don't be stupid on purpose, hash.

    By Blogger JD, at 22 November, 2006 02:08  

  • “Rangel's whole POINT was to get dialogue going”

    So he insults people from the south to do what try and get the civil war started again. What an idiot.

    Go ahead Hash. Defend him some more.

    By Blogger pf1, at 22 November, 2006 04:47  

  • Rangel, a personal friend of the family. My wife went to school with his son. No trashing a brave Korean war vet. Owen and the other chicken hawks could not shine the man's shoes. just the word "draft' got 20 something Bush flunkies urinating in their pants. I love it
    I say draft every last AM talk show host who supported this war, their children and any filthy neo-con bush flunkie chicken hawk blogger {women included} who ever trashed "libs' for taking a stand against this war.

    And no Cowboybeebop, BEFORE the WAR, THERE WAS NO DIALOGUE about the WAR, concept over your head I see??? Remember pre "shock n awe" , we were all TRAITORS for saying no to Iraq, no discussion, on the right wing controlled cable news media at aLL, BEFORE THE WAR. 100,000 people protested before the war, the "liberal" media IGNORED IT. with a draft EVERY SINGLE dissenter would be heard. cons would rather OUR children fight their GOP profit wars. Never asgain would a pre-emptive invasion have an 85% approval rating and never again would the media become an outlet for government pro-war propaganda with a DRAFT. Cons desire a less free press, a complict media, and an unaware public.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 22 November, 2006 14:23  

  • This is an example of why many empathize with Rangel on the draft issue.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 22 November, 2006 15:41  

  • For what noble cause did all of these men and women die?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 November, 2006 18:15  

  • "with a draft EVERY SINGLE dissenter would be heard. cons would rather OUR children fight their GOP profit wars. Never asgain would a pre-emptive invasion have an 85% approval rating and never again would the media become an outlet for government pro-war propaganda with a DRAFT. Cons desire a less free press, a complict media, and an unaware public."

    Once again, Strawman, very slowly so even a moron like yourself can understand it:

    We. Have. An. All. Volunteer. Military.

    As such, anyone who signs up for the military stands a chance of seeing combat. That fact is made very clear to the young men and women when they sign up, and when they get to Basic.

    When the draft was suspended and the all-volunteer force was reinstituted back in the early 1970s, it took several years to weed out those who were drafted and didn't want to be there. In that interim time, it was unsafe for officers and NCOs to go into some of the squad bays. There was open drug use. Flagrant insubordination on the part of soldiers whose enlistment was almost up. Poor preparation. Poor training. You can reference the books by General Fred Franks, and by General Norman Schwarzkopf for ideas on what life in the miltary was like in the early 1970s.

    This barely-functional mob is the type of military that you, hashfanatic, and Charlie Rangel want to establish to defend this nation. So pardon my French, but fuck you and the horses y'all rode in on.

    So long as recruitment goals are being met voluntarily - and they are right now - anyone calling for a draft is attempting to inflict social engineering on the Armed Forces of the United States for political purposes.

    In my opinion, that approaches, if not actually crossing, the line of treasonous conduct.

    Take of that what you will.

    By Blogger JD, at 22 November, 2006 22:48  

  • Why don't you volunteer your tired ass to go out there and die, rather than sacrifice children from decent families for nothing?

    UNWINNABLE WAR, baby...and a war you chose.

    Don't kill any more American citizens for your oil, jd. Don't insist that our blood is cheap, for Israel's sake.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 November, 2006 23:33  

  • God Bless Cindy Sheehan on this Thanksgiving, a true American patriot.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 November, 2006 23:35  

  • "but fuck you and the horses y'all rode in on."

    JD, it sounds like you are losing this argument... or at least your temper.

    The real point is there is no shared sacrifice for this "war".

    There are so few of our troops fighting that they can't actually accomplish anything over there. Clear, hold, and build will never suceed. Every time they clear they leave to fight elsewhere and the insurgents come back as soon as we leave.

    If we really think it's worthwhile to win in Iraq we should be discussing a draft. Until then we will continue to send our young men and women out as moving targets in a shooting gallery with no hope of victory.

    But who cares? It's not even 2,900 killed. We won't mention the over 20,000 with injuries like amputations or brain injuries.

    By Blogger Ken, at 23 November, 2006 12:28  

  • The Democratic Party will not pass a bill on the draft. The party’s leaders are not going to listen to that idiot Rangel.

    IF they did their base would run for the border “urinating in their pants” with ones from this blog leading the way.

    Hash in the Army. God help us.

    By Blogger pf1, at 24 November, 2006 00:42  

  • The bush administration has really fucked up in iraq. we are close to being there longer than world war 2 notice all these chowder heads like brian write these glowing articles about rush and cheney. where were they when they was called to serve. oh thats right getting deferments.and if any of you really believe the war in iraq is protecting our freedom or fighting the war on terror. get a grip and pull your head out of your ass because this war has nothing to do with terror and iraq was never a threat to us.

    By Blogger nandgtrucking, at 24 November, 2006 07:49  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger nandgtrucking, at 24 November, 2006 07:55  

  • We are indeed blessed, that Rangel at least has some vision, and is willing to suggest a way forward, out of the neocon quagmire.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 24 November, 2006 15:01  

  • JD argues his pathetic agenda by trashing Vietnam vets!!! Lets see how this loonatic smears Vietnam vets just to play his little Republican loyalist roll. The thread was about the idea of the draft put forth by Rangel. The idea was to stir up the idea of a public being FULLY AWARE as to how our elected officials use our military. With a draft, America would have never agreed to an Iraqi war. Of corse JD in his acerbity turns it into bashing veterans who were drafted simply because a deocrat propsed this idea of a draft.
    *****his barely-functional mob is the type of military that you, hashfanatic, and Charlie Rangel want to establish to defend this nation****

    This 100% total hack, not only spits on Vietnam veterans, but later era World War 2 Vets, who were drafted in 1943, when the draft first started and many many Korean War veterans, and millions who served this country since the draft existed I believe 1941-1974. In the world of an historically ignorant, television influenced "neo-con ditto head", none of this matters because some Vietnam veterans had a few drug problems (afterall he saw it on the TV). The veterans were not responsible 100% for Vietnam war atrocities. J.D alludes because they were drafted they committed the atrocities, ignoring today's war atrocities committed by an all volunteer army. JD does not grasp, what war does to people, instead urinates on millions of drafted veterans, because they did not volunteer. Disgusting and displays the limited thinking capacity of the average right winger. J.D proves once more in a political discussion, right wingers will urinate on veterans to prove a point, just like the RNC urinated on Max Cleland, Kerry and many others. Later on these same creeps will shriek about how "we support the troops" as the troops get sentenced to jail terms fo atrocities this countries leadership should be held accountable for. Hypocritical and pathetic. Soldiers are props to the right wing talking head.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 26 November, 2006 21:40  

  • Mop

    Who was spitting on vets as they returned from the war. You are full of it. The people that should have been spit on are Jane Fonda and all the lib’s spitting on Vet’s. I know she and the liberal did nothing wrong, because they were protesting the war. I’m guessing you were not around when that happened so you will never understand why Liberals and John Kerry are disliked by most veterans.

    Would you like someone if they spit on your wife?

    Here is a member of you "Great Party"

    By Blogger pf1, at 27 November, 2006 02:15  

  • Maybe if you hypocritical Repug dirtbags would stop KILLING our troops and lying about it, Jane Fonda would LET you spit on her.

    3,000 men and women, killed for your lies.

    Countless others maimed, and not receiving medical treatment.

    For shame.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 27 November, 2006 07:52  

  • Typical liberal response.

    That’s ok we no the liberals were idiots back then. The more things change the more they stay the same.

    The Dem’s have control of the money next session lets see what they do.

    By Blogger pf1, at 27 November, 2006 10:31  

  • Pf1; Address the issue. Your buddy JS urinated on the troops

    {this barely-functional mob is the type of military that you, hashfanatic, and Charlie Rangel want to establish to defend this nation}

    I did not post this, Jane Fonda did not post this, your fellow wing nut posted this. I defended the troops, I do not care what someone like Fonda did 40 years ago, do not post a picture of Fonda, as if I do not know about her. I read books, I know history, I don't listen to right wing radio for my infdormation. I guess in your world Fonda is a new revelation to you or something. Spitting on the troops was wrong, again they are not responsible for WAR atrocities, the leadership who put them there is responsible. Today's anti-war crowd does not spit on troops, they have learned the reality of war. Soldiers are not responsible for the crimes committed during a war, the WAR is responsible, this enviornment creates the soldier's wreckless behavior. I pointed out a poster's disgusting view of drafted veterans, his view is NO different than those who spit on the troops, JD blamed the troops because they were drafted for their failures( and than ripped out of context a line or 2 from a book, that or some other right wing site instructed him to pull out in the event of debating the draft}, Fonda blamed the troops for their crimes. Not much difference betweeen Fonda and JD. Nobody is spitting on troops today. After all, the woman who right wingers fear so much Cindy Sheehan is a mother of a fallen soldier. No spitting from her, no spitting from "veterans against the war", no spitting from vetpac either. Times have changed, nobody is blaming the troops anymore for the crimes committed in this war of choice. I personally do not think the Abu Grab soldiers should go to jail, the people at the TOP should goto jail. Rumsfeld,Cheney, Gonzales, Negroponte. They ordered torture.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 27 November, 2006 10:56  

  • If anything, PF1 and his comrades are spitting on the troops, by devaluing their lives and demanding that they die for a pack of lies.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 27 November, 2006 15:58  

  • I hope that spitting on troops stays in the past.

    Fonda blaming the troops for crimes is not correct. She was against the war supporting the enemy.

    “Soldiers are not responsible for the crimes committed during a war” Yes they are.

    Hash I devalue no troops lives. I have two brothers serving now one in Iraq. I was in desert storm where were you.

    By Blogger pf1, at 28 November, 2006 05:23  

  • I wasn't in the Middle East but I doubt you were either...

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 28 November, 2006 09:00  

  • 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment out of Fort Hood

    I have seen war crimes not like the crap in Abu Grab. That was stirred up for political reasons. I have seen fingers of dead people in Kuwait cut off with bolt cutters just to get a ring.

    If my brother in Iraq gave a damm about what you thought I would have him post here, but he spend his internet time E-mailing his family and Muslim wife he met in Turkey.

    Yeah nether one of us has been over there. Idiot.

    By Blogger pf1, at 28 November, 2006 12:08  

  • Who cares about you, your brother, or the horse you rode in on?

    Look, if you're actually stupid enough to BELIEVE in Bush's "noble cause", after all you know, and you support killing Muslims, and invading their land, you probably deserve to have your head chopped off anyway!

    You weren't fighting for me or mine. It's another entity you owe allegiance to. Go there, and stop depriving real Americans of what they've earned...the hard way.

    Why not find a real job, efftard?

    I'm sure you know what to do with a lightstick....


    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 28 November, 2006 13:22  

  • Damm Hash you sure are entertaining. You sure are hurting my feelings with the “light stick” Let me try it “dodo head “ Sorry not as good as yours.

    Hash can you read. Look back, where did I support the war. I believe we were talking about the draft moron not if Bush was right about the war. Unlike you I do not follow a party blindly. I have said on this blog that I do not agree with every thing Bush has done. I also supported some things that Clinton did.

    What the hell have you done the hard way? I put my self through school and have a job what is your problem with that. Does a “real American” have to have a job handed to him? I see why you support the Dem’s you need someone to take care of you. If you had a “real job” you could take care of your self.

    Throw some more shat against the wall and see if it sticks.

    By Blogger pf1, at 28 November, 2006 14:23  

  • Who cares?

    I did all of that twenty years ago.

    And more.

    Probably with far less than you, and definitely with a whole lot less whining.

    Who cares about Clinton? Old news.

    Fulfill your obligations or go to Saudi Arabia, where you'll find more like-minded persons to cohabit with.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 28 November, 2006 23:21  

  • JD said:

    "This barely-functional mob is the type of military that you, hashfanatic, and Charlie Rangel want to establish to defend this nation. So pardon my French, but fuck you and the horses y'all rode in on."

    Well, then how come your fuckup version of the military lost Iraq?


    Losers, losers, NEOCON LOSERS!!

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 28 November, 2006 23:42  

  • Hash you are such a loser. I was talking College not elementary school. Go finish my pizza loser.

    By Blogger pf1, at 29 November, 2006 04:17  

  • If you'd gone to college and gotten good grades you wouldn't have had to mooch off our treasury and play soldier for a government check....

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 29 November, 2006 14:26  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger