Charlie Rangel charges Gore with polarizing the campaign

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/13081.htm

December 10, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday Howard Dean has weak support in the black community and charged that former Vice President Al Gore "polarized" the campaign by dropping into an event in Harlem to endorse the presidential candidate.

"I thought that Gore, like Clinton, would not have wanted to polarize the primary," said Rangel, who said the former vice president did not reach out to him before arranging the event in Rangel's congressional district.

<> " Rangel, who has endorsed Wesley Clark, suggested Gore was trying to use Harlem as a prop for his appearance with Dean without bothering to consult with - or spend time with - the people who live there.

Tomorrow, Rangel plans to formally endorse Clark at a Harlem rally to which he's invited black elected leaders from across the state.

(It will be instructive to compare the size of the black turnout in Harlem for Charlie Rangel's endorsement of Wes Clark tomorrow).

Rangel is the author of the Mandatory Universal Service bill aka the new draft. This is the man who thinks ALL our children should be forced to support the US military machine and he says Gore is polarizing America?

Whatever!

Because of the disproportionate numbers of poor and working class blacks and whites in the volunteer army, while upper middle class and wealthy kids get to go to college without having to go to war to do it. You can disagree with him on the draft, but it is not just an idle notion of his.

I noted that my favorite congressperson, John Lewis, as well as John Conyers backed that as well and I was hoping it was for just that reason. We don't need any more 'fortunate sons' (or daughters now!).

and great leaders rectify mistakes as best they can, say by withdrawing a bill.

Mandatory Universal Service has all the potential to be rife with favoritism for priveledged children. Different from the draft of seasons past, EVERYONE between the ages of 18-25 would be required to serve for 2 years. Non gender biased of course and loosley based on the Israeli model. Ask any Israeli who serves on the front lines and who sits safely behind a desk.

Clearly BiffCo is preparing for a draft and providing NO resistance to the idea. That alone should be sending up warning flares in Rangel's mind. Universal Service would indeed level the killing fields, level in the way of dessimating the lives of an entire generation or two.

What needs to change is the access to opportunity outside of a military career for poor kids in our country. Poverty and opportunity are the issues I admire Rangel's brilliant history of service for. This proposal is a reaction to an injustice that will be used to kill our children and feed a war machine led by a mad man.

I wish Rangel would withdraw the bill. It would send a clear and righteous message to the White House that we will not throw bodies at his whim.

He may mean well, but isn't he savvy enough to see what would happen with it. Let the neocons propose this on their own and see what becomes of it, they do NOT need Democrats to continue to do their dirty work for them. Innocent cannon fodder whose blood will be exchanged for $$$$ for our regime and their donors.

On the other subject, whats the big friggin deal. President Gore has the right to endorse anyone he wants at any time he wants, just like the rest of us. I'm really sick of all the belly aching over this. It does NOT reflect well on us as a group.

immediately. Why the heck do you think the Vietnam War ended anyway?

Because when wealthy middle class whites saw that they or their kids would have the same chance of getting shot up like poor blacks and hispanics did, rich college kids started causing a ruckus in the streets and their parents started to move their votes and their money in an anti-war direction.

THIS is the whole point of Rangel's draft bill--that people wouldn't be so cavalier in supporting the war if it were THEM or THEIR OWN KIDS, as opposed to mainly poor people or minorities who had to bear the burden of the fighting.

made me so angry that I hope Bill Clinton shows up with Charles Rangel tomorrow!

But I disagree with him on this, much like trying to bring back the draft.

I cannot believe anybody running for president and visiting Harlem would not pay courtesy to Charlie Rangel. Really, really dumb.

Another political stunt gone bad by Dean.

did he expect an invitation to a Dean endorsement?

How exactly was Dean supposed to "pay courtesy to Charlie Rangel"

You call him, you say, "Hey, Charlie, I'll be in your neighborhood...," or a staff person calls a staff person. It's just a courtesy and has nothing to do with who endorses anybody.

that it takes him opposing Gore to get all the press. Rangel could, of course, come out in support of another candidate - but that wouldn't buy him nearly as much exposure as opposing Gore's decision.

It's surprising that he can take so much time out of his busy schedule of forging the next Selective Service board to partake in political discourse.

:eyes: :smoke:

last night that really disturbed me.

He was on Charlie Rose and Rose asked him about Gore's action.

Coehlo said that Gore liked this sort of thing. He said that he could get back at Bush without having to run. He said by doing it this way, he could keep his business interests and drop in and out of the campaign whenever he wanted to.

The more I thought about it, the more bugged I got because it seemed to me that Gore had a personal agenda involved here, beyond just campaign tactics. Coehlo stressed the dual nature of how Gore could stay in his business pursuits and yet be involved in the campaign, almost vicariously

This comment stayed in my mind as I watched Ed Rollins on CNBC. He was asked if Gore was the leader of the party. Rollins said Gore could have been after 2000, but he dropped out of the scene for a year. That was his chance to be head of the party.

A further remark by Gloria Borger stuck in my mind...how many Dems were angry about how Gore stepped in just now, as the primary season really comes to a head.

(The last debate before NH is January 4--a matter of weeks, with a holiday season in between--why not wait until after that for this big endorsement, I ask??? I'm beginning to think people might sit on their hands come the general election if they still feel p o'd about what Gore did.....and you can be sure, the media will be reminding them.....)

and he appears to have a good heart, but seems inept as a congressman. I'm not sure whether he is an effective leader for the black community. He doesn't seem to be a visionary, nor does he seem to be able to articulate well as a public speaker. On the whole, he is better than Al Sharpton, but left lacking, when compared to a Jessie Jackson or Carol Mosely Braun.

And if Al Gore had given Charles Rangel a courtesy call? Since Rangel is a Clark supporter, what do you think the response would have been? You can bet that Rangel would have made his own pre-emtive strike in the media to try to diffuse the impact of the Dean/Gore event. For Rangel to get his nose tweaked now is disingenuous.

Elected to Congress seventeen times.

bio


It begins:

"Congressman Charles B. Rangel is serving his seventeenth term as the Representative from the 15th Congressional District, comprising East and Central Harlem, the Upper West Side, and Washington Heights/Inwood. Congressman Rangel is the Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Chairman of the Board of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Dean of the New York State Congressional Delegation."

To back it up.

More political hot air.

I see. Who else is not allowed to endorse right now?

announcing in Harlem (where Charlie serves and Clinton has his office) on the day of a debate...notice how many black people were there for the endorsement? One staffer behind Dean.

of the black vote within the democratic party. And I mean for the nomination, not the general election. He has to have some of it for the South, and the Midwest, and Rust Belt States like Penn., Michigan, and Ohio. Like I've said before, this race is not about just Iowa or New Hampshire, it's about the whole country.

Aside from this mistake, that Confederate Flag remark may come back to haunt him as well. It's still on the radar, it won't go away.

so does Shirley Lee Jackson, the chairman of the CBC, the majority of the Washington DC council members, and many others. I think Dean has stronger support than what Rangel says.

1. Her name is Sheila Jackson Lee, not Shirley Lee Jackson
2. Rep. Jackson Lee is not nor has she ever been Chair of the CBC
3. The current chair of the CBC has not endorsed Dean or anyone else.
4. The most recent past chair of the CBC, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas has endorsed Edwards, as have several other CBC members.

Elijah Cummings is the current chair of the CBC and has been widely reported to support Howard Dean...with an official endorsement forthcoming.

a "forthcoming" endorsement is meaningless.

I'm curious...

Bobby Scott, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (member of CBC and officer of the Progressive Caucus), and Sheila Jackson-Lee (member of CBC and the Progressive Caucus) are in Dean's corner

Mel Watt, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Albert Wynn, Frank Ballance to name four.

Dean still has 3 from outside of his home state...

You asked for numbers and you were given numbers. Now you want to parse the answer you don't like.

If Dean had any black people in his state and they endorsed him, Dean supporters would be crowing about how those closest to him and knew him best were behind him. But you want to dismiss the support Edwards has in HIS home state by the people who know him best because their numbers weigh against your argument.

Pathetic.

The bottom line is that Edwards has more CBC support than Dean does, at least in terms of the number of members who have endorsed him.

NC over Edwards in endorsements from members of the Congressional Black Caucus 3-2 - Congrats for Dean!

Your effort to diminish other candidates with such silly semantics - now that the numbers weigh against your argument, you now insist that CERTAIN CBC members don't count - does nothing to help your claim.

That is what I was arguing against.

The quote "several" have endorsed John Edwards was intended to diminish Howard Dean's support. Technically, usually, several means at least 3...so several have endorsed Dean and several have endorsed Edwards.

I'm happy with that.

noting that several CBC members have endorsed Edwards in any way "diminish" Howard Dean?

Dean! :)

Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday Howard Dean has weak support in the black community...

Uh, no. Polling shows that Dean is the best supported Democrat among African-Americans, with the possible exception of Rev. Al Sharpton.

This has translated into potential problems for Dean in the polls. A survey released two weeks ago by Gallup, for example, showed Dean's support at slightly less than half of Wesley Clark's support among African Americans nationwide.

Clark -- 15%
Dean -- 7%


http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000804.html

And the poll cited is likely older than that...before the endorsements from leading African-American national leaders.

The article cites those endorsements as good news.

How do we expect the media to be fair...when we're not fair in reporting information?

what am I citing poll #'s for when they're rigged or people don't answer truthfully...plus, it seems each polling company has different #'s?

Let's just work for our candidate and back whomever gets the nomination?

:grouphug:

when the polls come out about the 3rd week of January.....

Clark withdrew from Iowa, so he's got no hope of winning that state's Caucus.

at DU will be crying about January 20 if Dean was the democratic nominee!

will be crying come November.

Endorsements from half of the DC city council, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Jesse Jackson, Jr.

And there are 2 black candidates still in the race!?

So...how did the white candidates do with black support when Jesse Jackson was running??

Rangel seems to have a lot of wishful thinking...

it's still too early really; but, as with unions, populations don't necessarily just blindly follow their leaders

From Dean from the African-American community.

The article is Oct. 29th...almost a month and a half ago...and the poll cited is likely older.

The effect of leaders in the African-American community endorsing Dean would not be reflected here.

The Chair of the CBC has NOT endorsed Dean.

Even with 2 African-American candidates still in the race.

Which other white Democratic candidates have more endorsements from the CBC than Dean?

has the endorsement of four CBC members, compared with Dean's three.

I don't think that these numbers matter much - it's silly to get into a "my candidate has x number more black people in his corner than yours does" debate. But the numbers seem to matter to you, so you should know that Dean has fewer CBC member endorsement than Edwards does.

And yes that does matter in the face of reports that Dean from a strong white majority state in New England will have tremendous problems pulling in African-American support.

The reality is...Dean is doing basically as well as any other white candidate in pulling in support from leaders of the African-American community.

Edwards only leads 4-2 because he has the support of his home state representatives, but there are no African-American representatives from Vermont.

If you look at outside of North Carolina as being neutral ground, Dean has stronger support.

that Dean is working to eliminate. For Rangel to suggest that Gore didn't have the freedom to support his candidate is absurd. Gore doesn't need Rangel's permission to endorse anyone. It'll be interesting to see if Rangel seeks polpilot's permission to endorse Clark. I'm feeling a little 'polarized' by Rangel's endorsement.

Dean '04...

Sounds like Rangel's got personal issues with Gore.

"I thought that Gore, like Clinton, would not have wanted to polarize the primary," said Rangel, who said the former vice president did not reach out to him before arranging the event in Rangel's congressional district."

For one thing it was not Gore who organized this event. Is Rangel the representative of Harlem or the king of Harlem? I was not aware that it is necessary to reach out to Rangel before scheduling a speech within his district.

"Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday Howard Dean has weak support in the black community and charged that former Vice President Al Gore "polarized" the campaign by dropping into an event in Harlem to endorse the presidential candidate.

snip

Tomorrow, Rangel plans to formally endorse Clark at a Harlem rally to which he's invited black elected leaders from across the state.'

So if Gore endorses a candidate it is polarizing, if Rangel endorses a candidate it is reaching out to the black community, got it.

Wow,what a flattering photo the NYPost chose to accompany the article.


BUSH WHACKER: Former Vice President Al Gore lets loose a vitriolic attack against President Bush yesterday in Harlem.
- N.Y. Post: G.N. Miller

you Charlie endorsing before the primaries. You bad, bad boy.

Dean '04...

that during the Govenor's race in 2002 that if Carl McGovern didn't get to be the democratic nominee that he would Not be voting for Andrew Cuomo... that his support would go to pataki...how vindictive and "King" Shit like is that?

that people cannot tell the difference between individual Congresscritters and former Presidents and VPs. Geez.

Or do not at all understand why the tradition of non-endorsement existed previously? Before you continue with this utterly intellectually dishonest line of argumentation, I would suggest that you imagine the kind of whining you and other Deanies would do if Koppel's intuitions/rumors are correct and Hillary and/or Bill endorse Clark.

As a Clarkie, a Hillary or Bill endorsement would at best be a mixed blessing, due to the amount of massive Deanie abuse we would be almost certain to face.

attack by Rangel isn't "polarizing". Let me get this straight. He wants to endorse Clark, but President Gore isn't allowed to make an endorsement of his own. This is the type of hypocritical double standard I expect of the rightwing. I'm really starting to wonder about Rangel, first the call to do the BFEE's dirty work for them via the draft and now this. Hmmmmmmmm.