James Carville is not my kind of democrat.

[cali]

In recent years all he's done is capitalize on his fame and try his damnedest to slay the progressive wing of the party. He used to attack repubs; now he spends more time attacking Howard Dean and the grass roots. He's the opposition almost as much as the right wingnuts. And Clinton's affiliation with him and others of his ilk, speaks to her contempt for the progressive wing of the dem party.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. He sure does not fit into my definition of what a Democrat should stand for.

[Mike Nelson]

2. Mr. and Mrs. Carville are opportunists FIRST...

...it should be obvious.

[Hieronymus]

81. Yes, they're both corporate whores .. they deserve each other.

[SharonAnn]

3. Nor is Harold Ford, Jr.

[Nailzberg]

4. I've gotten progressively more annoyed with him over the years

Now I'm at the point where I turn him off if he's one of the window people on a talking head show.

[sniffa]

5. he's a overrated scumbag

2004 made that readily apparent.

[annie1]

40. 2nd. I think the Clinton's like his circus act though. ugh. *sigh* Boy hillary really...

insists on making supporting for her as painful as possible. grrrr.

[BlueManDude]

6. He used to be a hero of mine. Years of Beltway celebrity have changed him.

I don't hate the guy but he's no longer in touch with the base of the party.

[mod mom]

7. No DU thread on Carville is complete, w/o some background:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S HIS WINNING THE HEARTS & MINDS OF THE PEOPLE OF BOLIVIA, ALL FOR PERSONAL GAIN:

Globalism extends to the American way of campaigning, it seems, and the hubris of the gringo strategists — earnest ex-Clintonistas employed by James Carville’s Greenberg Carville Shrum group — would be hilarious if human lives and a country’s political will weren’t at stake.

It’s a galling and provocative experience to viewers of any political persuasion, and a reminder to the left of how easily idealism can run amok.

The Carville boys were hired by Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, a.k.a. ‘‘Goni,’’ a patrician Bolivian businessman who served a rough term as Bolivia’s president in the mid-’90s. Goni’s legacy was an unsuccessful program of ‘‘capitalization’’ (i.e., he welcomed foreign investment and watched foreigners get all the jobs).
By 2002, the time of filming, unemployment is through the roof and rural campesinos are agitating for political representation. Goni is old news and his poll numbers are dismal. Enter Jeremy Rosner, Greenberg Carville Shrum’s point man in Bolivia, an articulate manipulator of mass moods (and a fellow who bears an uncanny resemblance to Seth Meyers of ‘‘Saturday Night Live’’ — reality parodies itself here better than any comic could).

-snip
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/06/30/a_campaign_in_bolivia_thats_made_in_america/

[sniffa]

8. again. scumbag.

:puke:

[MonkeyFunk]

48. OK

in the Woodward case, you have one factoid. Presumably, you want us to believe that means that Carville gave confidential information to his wife, who then used that information to let Bush/cheney steal the election.

But Woodward only says that Carville told his wife something. So answer these questions before we can fill in your narrative:

1) Was the information that Kerry was going to contest confidential?
2) If it was confidential, why did Carville know? He wasn't part of the Kerry campaign.
3) Once Dick Cheney knew Kerry intended to contest.... then what? What happened between 1:00am and 5:00am (or whatever the exact times are) that changed things so drastically?
4) Would Bush/Cheney NEED to know that Kerry was going to contest Ohio? Had they not planned to steal it until they got the word that Kerry was contesting?
5) If Carville were told, isn't it quite likely that he was told precisely because he could get the word to Matalin? Maybe Kerry wanted them to know his plans (presuming that the answer to question 1 is Yes)

[mod mom]

52. from TPM:

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

1. Campaign strategy should not be shared w outsiders. It was confidential until the campaign would deem it wanted to share w world.

2. Obviously someone w/in campaign shared w Carville (perhaps they were a DLC spy or perhaps they thought they were (WRONGLY) sharing w a fellow Democratic who might be working for the betterment of the party.

3. What happpened? Well unless the communication between the RNC and OH SOS is made public, we'll not know how Blackwell conspired to negate those votes.

4. Perhaps they thought they were safe. The Dem Leadership pushed for silence after 2000. Perhaps someone with connections who had a vested interest in Kerry NOT taking office, say like someone who was planning a run in 2008, said they would push for concession saying the party would look like sore losers.

5. I hardly believe Kerry (who has the goods on BCCI-which btw has connections to some Dems) ran his campaign toward a planned concession.

WHO BENEFITTED? I think you know the answer.

[MonkeyFunk]

55. What are the sources for all that?

[madfloridian]

9. Conflict of interest...married to Cheney aide and now might be working...

for the Hillary campaign? He does not need to have close access to our possible nominee while his wife is the enemy.

Besides, I just don't like him.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. No

being married to someone is not a conflict of interest.

[tularetom]

10. I'm not even sure he should be called a Democrat

He's an opportunistic buffoon who is only interested in rubbing elbows with the beltway power elite and getting invited to the A list parties. And the freak show with his hideous wife makes me want to :puke:

And his attacks on Howard Dean as the chairman of the DNC were lower than low.

[sniffa]

11. it's part of his plan to take over the world

[meegbear]

33. Hey sniffa, what started this latest tirade?

I saw an eariler post about Carville from someone, then this one and then another one after this.

What did Carville do to get her panties in a bunch this time?

[NYCGirl]

15. Check out their living room. Yikes!

[peoli]

18. OMG

[wellstone dem]

21. It's so clean because no sane living creatute

could stand to be in the room long enough to make a mess

[AZ Criminal JD]

38. You people must never have been to Louisiana

I have seen many living rooms with those type of patterns and colors in the Big Easy.

[Beacool]

46. Yikes!!!!! I guess that Mary loves pink...........

[Sultana]

51. .

:wow:

[loveangelc]

68. lol i like it

:yoiks:

[HughBeaumont]

86. Pepto Bismol and joke vomit.

It fits. As in:

What I have to drink when I listen to Carville speak.
Mary's political preference.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

90. LAUGHING SO HARD IT HURTS

.........................a family spinning the sensibilities of heterosexuality until the spin turns ...... pink.

Sorry, but this soooooooooo perfect in sooooooooooooooo many ways.

[WA98296]

99. This is a joke, right? It has to be.

[skooooo]

12. DNC

'nuff said

[cali]

14. no wrong

I'm continually taken aback by how many people here confuse the DNC with the DLC. Howard Dean is the DNC chairman and has nothing to with the Democratic Leadership Council.

[Armstead]

23. I think that was a deliberate reference

Carville is the classic DLC Democrat.

[mod mom]

20. DLC (Dems who Love Corporations):

The Trouble with the DLC
Posted August 13, 2007 | 01:14 PM (EST)


Why are Harold Ford and others from the more paternalistic and condescending quarters of the Democratic Party so keen on discrediting the rising progressive movement? What have been the consequences of their obsession with "the middle"? Most importantly, how have the Tory Democrats managed to bury the expression of deep progressive values, and what should the progressive movement do about it?

For three decades, advocates of "centrism" have used their money to monopolize the Democratic message and leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. Since its founding in 1985, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been leading this effort. How did they pull this off? Before we get into that, let's call them what they are. "Centrist" implies conciliation, moderation, compromise. It reinforces the mistaken idea that our political life falls along a neat, linear scale from left to right. That metaphor makes the center a pretty good and safe place to be. And that it certainly is not.

The plutocratic Democrats should be referred to not as centrists, but as industrial authoritarians. Their movement was born after the Nixon re-election in 1972. They blamed that landslide on Democratic Party rules changes that audaciously sought to include Americans formerly excluded from the back rooms of power. They fronted for older corporate interests -- oil and gas, finance, insurance. The are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House.

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-w-smith/the-trouble-with-the-dlc_b_60210.html



David Sirota on the DLC:

-snip

It was the DLC’s president, Al From, who in 2001 said that his goal was to give Democrats “a game plan to try to contain the populism.” Populism, you may recall, is defined as “supporting the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.” Al From has made that vision a reality. The DLC—which has been funded by the likes of Chevron, Enron, Merck and Philip Morris—has, until recently, been extremely effective at pressuring Democrats to ignore the will of the public and capitulate to big business’s demands. The DLC has also made a public spectacle of itself by berating Democratic candidates who actually stand up for ordinary people.

PUTTING THE “MOCK” IN DEMOCRACY—To be sure, the DLC never openly admits its objectives, or even its funding sources. Instead, it bills itself as quasi grassroots, holding so-called “national conversations” in an effort to create the impression that its corporate-written agenda has some semblance of public support.

Yet the media coverage of its most recent such “conversation,” in Denver this past July, tells the real story. The New York Sun noted that the meeting focused on pondering “how to counter the netroots”—i.e., how to counter the millions of grassroots Democratic Party voters who use the Internet to advocate for a more democratic political system. Perhaps most telling of all was the Rocky Mountain News’s note that the DLC’s supposed “national conversation” at the Hyatt Regency Hotel was, in fact, “not open to the public.”

In an August Rolling Stone column, reporter Matt Taibbi recounted his interview with one DLC leader, who called anti-war activists “narrow dogmatists.” Taibbi pointed out that recent Gallup polls have shown that fully 91 percent of Democrats support a withdrawal from Iraq, and he asked the DLC leader to explain this contradiction. “So these hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are against the war are narrow dogmatists?” Taibbi asked. “We have thirty corporate-funded spokesmen telling hundreds of thousands of actual voters that they’re narrow dogmatists?”

-snip

http://www.davidsirota.com/index.php/big-money-vs-grassroots/



The Democrats 2008 Choice: Sell Out & Lose, Or Stand Up & Win
Posted July 26, 2005 | 03:42 PM (EST)




The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates this week are busy genuflecting at Corporate America's altar -- otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Now, it's true -- the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party's traditional working class base -- a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans. Even so, the fact that these presidential candidates feel the need to bow down to the DLC is a troubling sign about whether the Democratic Party is really serious about regaining power in America.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda.

Now, you could make a credible argument that the DLC's corporatization/Republicanization of the Democratic Party was justified, had it led to electoral success for Democrats. Few would argue that today's split-the-difference Democratic Party hasn't followed the DLC's policy direction over the last 10 years. That means the last 10 years of elections really have been a referendum on whether the DLC's model -- regardless of any moral judgements about it -- actually wins at the polls.

And that's when we get to the real problem with the DLC -- its policies are BOTH morally bankrupt, and politically disastrous. The rise of the DLC within the Democratic Party has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the Democratic Party's power in American politics -- a decline that took Democrats from seemingly permanent majority status to permanent minority status. In this last election, just think of Democrats' troubles in Ohio as a perfect example of this. Here was a state ravaged by massive job loss due to corporate-written "free" trade deals -- yet Democrats were unable to capitalize on that issue and thus couldn't win the state because the DLC had long ago made sure the party helped pass the very trade policies (NAFTA, China PNTR) that sold out those jobs.

-SNIP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-democrats-2008-choice_b_4729.html

[Armstead]

29. You should post these as an OP (If you haven;t already)

These articles (especially the first) clearly explain why so many of us have a major problem with Hillary and her fellow phony "centrists." They are almost as much an enemy of traditional liberal/progressive values as the GOP.....Worse, perhaps, because that is the accepted role of the GOP. The Democrats are supposed to be the counterbalance to Corporate "free market" Conservatism.

From the first article:

"...It's not difficult to see the consequences of this strategy. Progressive base voters, especially in African-American, Latino, and other disenfranchised communities, were abandoned when it came to Democrats voicing their values. Democrats could appeal to voters in the so-called middle with technocratic policies, promises of competence, and wonkish mumbo jumbo that either: 1) avoided values altogether; 2) Or, appealed outright to the authoritarian, "strict father" side of white suburban voters. Crime is a great example. The industrial authoritarians promised super-heroic crime-fighting sprees that would even embarrass Republicans. Forget the root causes of crime, like inescapable poverty, illness, crumbling schools, the disappearance of hope...."

[mod mom]

36. I have posted them before, but continue to because there are always new eyes

to read them. The Clinton folks like to call me a broken record, bt what better way to get information out?

:hi:

Here's perhaps the most DESPICABLE quote from a DLC member, Al From:

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

SAYS IT ALL, DOESN'T IT? THESE FOLKS FIGHT FOR THE POWERFUL OVER THE PEOPLE!

[Perry Logan]

84. I question your logic. They were talking about campaign strategy, not public policy.

[mod mom]

93. Their record speaks for itself. Do you believe campaign strategy

should be different from public policy? I think an honest candidate would practice what they preach. And why would preaching to the powerful be a better campaign strategy than preaching to the people?

[denem]

88. And Nader should have participated in the 2000 presidential debates

Way to go for success.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. *** ****** ******DLC*** ***** *********** SUCKS

DLC: RNC in Drag

[mtnsnake]

13. lmao, on DU, Bill Clinton isn't most peoples' kind of Democrat either. So big deal.

It means nothing that 90% of the people here will undoubtedly agree with you.

BTW, Carville is more progressive minded than what your post gives him credit for.

[cali]

17. he may have been more progressive minded years ago, but I challenge

you to name anything that he's said or done in the last 5 or 6 years that serves as evidence for your claim. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that he has an antipathy toward progressives.

[mtnsnake]

22. Why should I have to spend time searching for that?

You're the one who initially implied he's not progressive. Then you implied he hasn't said or done anything in the last 5 or 6 years that's of the progressive variety. You're also claiming there's "plenty of evidence that he has an antipathy toward progressives".

It's you who's making all the claims, so if you would like to make a big list that supports YOUR claims, then knock yourself out. I'm just disagreeing with you. :)

[sniffa]

25. just go ahead and say he's backing Hillary and that makes him a lefty

[David Zephyr]

56. While I agree with your OP on Carville, don't minimize what Bill Clinton has done to combat AIDS

Bill Clinton has raised hundreds of millions of dollars to combat AIDS, to provide health care for its victims and negotiated a landmark agreement with drug companies and labs to greatly reduce the costs of their drugs and testing to millions with AIDS.

That is an achievement, a progressive one in every aspect, that he does deserve credit for.

[Cha]

54. Because you say so?..

Yeah, like you know what "progressive" is.

bill clinton is a big fat liar and so is james carville.

[madfloridian]

16. Ha Ha dueling gossip sites say Carville will join Hillary....

fighting over who said it first. I posted the Radar Online one earlier

This is from Big Head DC..

http://bigheaddc.com/2007/12/29/hillary-camp-cozies-up-to-wonkette-editor/

"We digress. Our original report on Carville follows:

Various campaign insiders are leaking to press outlets that Bill Clinton is peeved big time that campaign leaders for Hillary Clinton have allowed Barack Obama to take so many potshots at his wife without receiving a similarly negative response.

Several staff members may be fired and replaced, Big Head DC hears, with the likes of James Carville — someone who definitely knows how to play dirty politics. And a close Bill pal still.

Although Carville’s wife, Mary Matalin, is actively advising Fred Thompson’s GOP presidential campaign, Carville has rarely been involved in political campaigns as a principal adviser to a candidate since Clinton’s 1992 presidential victory."

Mary is a busy girl, advising the VP and Dick Thompson. Definitely conflict of interest.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. No

conflict of interest has a specific meaning.

Can you name one person who lost his job or faced legal consequences for a conflict of interest based on who he he as married to?

[JamesA1102]

19. Is there some loyalty oath that Dems need to take?

Once we start defining what a person needs to believe in to be a Democrat and that a person needs to think in lock step to a certain set of ideas or opinions then we are as bad as the GOP.

The Democratic party has a long history of being a big tent that included liberals in the northeast and west, moderates and conservatives in the midwest and south, working class union members and minorities across the country. Many were driven out in the 70s and 80s because certain litmus tests were applied. That shouldn't happen again.

I don't agree 100% of the time with Carville but I don't with Dean either. However, I would never say that either should not be allowed in the party.

[mtnsnake]

24. Best post I've read about that in a long long time

Thank you :thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

27. Excuse me???? Carville's wife is Cheney's aide and Thompson campaign manager

Dean is chairman of the party at least for a little bit longer.

How do the two compare?

[JamesA1102]

42. I'm not comparing them

Both were mentioned in the original post.

[madfloridian]

57. I am saying that someone with ties to the VP via his wife...

should not be so closely tied to our potential nominee. I don't think Carville has the interests of the party in mind anymore, I think his marriage to Mary has changed him..

This is about someone too close to Cheney's office and Thompson's campaign being tied to the Clintons right now.

It is wrong.

His attempt to sabotage Dean was a slap at the grassroots and an insult to the chairman when we just won back both houses. It has little to do with whether you like Dean or not. It is recognizing where Carville's best interests lie. After he gave private election info to her on the Kerry campaign, which she passed on to her boss.....he should NOT be trusted.

[JamesA1102]

60. So in other words

You're extolling guilt by association. And I thought that was only something the right did.

His criticism of Howard Dean was a slap at Dean and no one else. And he's not the only person in the party who has differences with Dean. As far as who's right or wrong, I don't know. But I don't have the blind allegiance to Dean that so many have. There things I agree with Dean about and things I disagree with him. Same with Carville.

Plus the whole thing with Kerry seems like much ado about nothing. There is no casual link to anything that hurt Kerry and what he told his wife sounds like something that they could have learned by turning on CNN.

Back in the eighties many on the left in the party took a no tolerance policy on anyone who did not agree 100% with their positions. As a result it drove many moderates and conservatives out of the party. Let's not make the same mistake again.

[madfloridian]

64. Not after he leaked election info that hurt Kerry. He was guilty.

Period. He should not be on the nominee's campaign committee when he is married to Cheney's aide. Period.

[JamesA1102]

So now you're going for guilt by innuendo

How exactly did Carville's conversation with his wife hurt Kerry?

[Armstead]

39. The DLC appears to want that

For example, Howard Dean -- a moderate Governor -- was branded by the so-called DLC "centrists" as a crazy boogey man who was "too far left" because he dared to challenge the GOP/DLC's War on Iraq, and deviated from the DLC party line in other ways.

[JamesA1102]

43. Can you provide a link

to where anyone from the DLC called Dean a crazy boogy man?

BTW Dean was not a moderate Governor but a very conservative, pro-business Governor with a poor record on environmental issues and has very close ties to AIPAC.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16280/

[zabet]

26. He used to be....

until he started sleeping
with the enemey and drinking
the KoolAid straight from the
teat.

[madfloridian]

28. Carville waited until Dean was out of the country to go on CNN and say fire him.

"On election night, Emanuel and Schumer were triumphant on the victory podium along with Pelosi and Reid, while Dean was conspicuous by his absence. It is perfectly clear that Dean had been banished from the victory podium by the DLC and their minions. Things took a sharp turn for the worse this week, while Dean was out of the country searching for more votes amongst the vast and groaning diaspora of overseas Democrats, a trip he had postponed until after the crucial election. Americans living abroad are a distinct species of political fauna. No longer mesmerized by the American media, they are able to observe the impact of Washington’s foreign policy from a new and starkly refreshing perspective. Few if any Americans abroad support the outrageous neoconservative policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

In a surprise assault worthy of the Ides of March, James Carville leapt into the breach for the DLC. In a savage stabbing lunge worthy of Casca, Carville planted the first dagger into the back of Governor Dean while he was away from Washington attending the conference of the Americas Division of Democrats Abroad meeting in the Dominican Republic to organize voter registration among the millions of US citizens now living overseas."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/669

[mtnsnake]

30. Why do you always start that shit when you know Carville never said to fire Dean

You've been proven wrong everytime, yet you never give up with that bullshit.

[madfloridian]

32. He said get rid of him. Geez, quit being so picky. He said replace him with Ford.

That means fire his butt.

No, I have never been proven wrong on that issue. Please show me where I have....links, please. Now.

[mtnsnake]

34. You were proven wrong every single time, just like you are today

When you can show me Carville's exact quotes that called for Dean's firing, then you'll have something. Until then, give it up and save us all a lot of time.

[madfloridian]

35. You are in total denial.

The world heard him, and you are in denial. That is true love and loyalty.

[mtnsnake]

37. OK, whatever floats your boat, madfloridian. nt

[bvar22]

53. Willful, Belligerent, Desperate, Denial

Late Stages.

[SOS]

41. Quote:

"Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, “In a word, do I think? Yes.” He added, “I think he should be held accountable.” He added, “I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9073.html

[mtnsnake]

44. That also has been debunked on DU because the reporter's name was never made public

Just the same, even if there was such a reporter, Carville never called for Dean's firing. Never.

Novak uses that same kind of anonymity ("Some reporter said this or that") all the time in feeble attempts at adding legitimacy to some of his tall tales.

[SOS]

50. More

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1116/p25s03-usmb.html?s=widep

[mtnsnake]

62. Again, it's nothing but heresay. There is nothing in quotes that proves your theories

Until you can show us a quote of Carville saying he called for Dean to be fired or dumped or whatever, all you have is gossip....people claiming some anonymous reporter heard Carville say something.

Don't waste my friggin time again unless you have a direct quote by Carville...you know, something in between those two little marks.

[madfloridian]

59. That is a flat out lie. It was not debunked. The reporter is quite credible.

You just make up stuff and keep saying it, don't you?

You don't seem concerned if it is true or not. That worries me a lot.

[mtnsnake]

61. If that's a flat out lie, then name the reporter. I'll wait for your response with a name

If you can't come up with the name of the supposed reporter who asked Carville that supposed question in that article, then you owe me an apology for calling me a liar....not that I would ever hold my breath.

[madfloridian]

63. Here is the name and his credentials....very good ones.

You know what? I do not know how you get away with calling so many people here liars. It puzzles me.

"Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

So, who is “The Carpetbagger”?
My name is Steve Benen. I’m a freelance writer, researcher, and political consultant, working in politics in one capacity or another for about 10 years. My articles and op-eds have appeared in a variety of publications, including Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, The Gadflyer, and Church & State. I’ve also been a guest on several radio programs, including NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” Air America Radio’s “Sam Seder Show,” Air America Radio’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” and XM Radio’s “POTUS ‘08.” In addition to The Carpetbagger Report, I’m the lead editor of Salon.com’s Blog Report (formerly the Daou Report), and have been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, the Guardian, Crooks & Liars, AlterNet, Political Wire, and Seven Days."

[mtnsnake]

67. lmao, Steve Benen is the guy who is talking about the anonymous reporter. He is not THAT reporter!!!

He is not the reporter that he refused to name in his own article. Read it again.

[madfloridian]

71. Scott is a reliable reporter at AJC. Here are his articles.

http://www.ajc.com/search/search/search/UnifiedSearch?restrict_search=null&encoded=true&query=c2NvdHQgc2hlcGFyZA==&daterange=all&PAGE_COUNT=1&sortBy=date&blogSearch=false

If you think I am lying, report me to the moderators. Now, please, and quit accusing.

[mtnsnake]

74. Then show me the article he wrote that shows he's the reporter who heard Carville say those words

If you think I am lying, report me to the moderators. Now, please, and quit accusing.

If the shoe fits, report yourself.

[madfloridian]

76. SOS posted the link.

I think when you tell someone they are lying, you should report them to keep DU honest.

I have had about all of it I will take.

[mtnsnake]

79. NIce try at turning the tables. With you it's always like deja vu. nt

[madfloridian]

66. And I did a search on Scott Shephard of AJC for you...take your pick

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scott+shephard%2C+ajc%2C+resume&btnG=Search

[mtnsnake]

70. Oh so now you're saying Scott Shephard is the anonymous reporter of that article? Gimme a break

[madfloridian]

73. You have called me a liar before.

Report me. I will wait to see what happens. You are not dumb, you can follow links from Carpetbagger and the AJC. Do it and quit accusing me.

If it continues I will write the administrators myself.

[mtnsnake]

77. Oh here we go with the sympathy routine...all because you were proven wrong AGAIN

If it continues I will write the administrators myself

Go the heck ahead and whine to the mods. I've done nothing but prove you wrong. Carville never called for Dean to be fired.

[madfloridian]

58. Thanks, I forgot the word "dumped".

:hi:

And I hear he still goes in front of college groups and disses Dean and calls him incompetent....and gets paid for it.

I hear the Canadian liberals recently paid Carville 50,000 to tell them to stand up for something. Good Lord my head aches.

[mtnsnake]

65. You just don't want to get it. That exchange is not from anything Carville said

It's only the author of some article who said some reporter (notice he didn't name the reporter), questioned Carville and that the reporter said Carville said something. Trouble is, nobody seems to be able to come up with this mysterious reporter. Obviously you'll promote just about anything, even people making up anonymous sources, if it lends creedance towards your lousy crusade against James Carville.

[madfloridian]

69. Well, a Scott Shepard wrote it at the AJC....here are other articles by him.

http://www.ajc.com/search/search/search/UnifiedSearch?restrict_search=null&encoded=true&query=c2NvdHQgc2hlcGFyZA==&daterange=all&PAGE_COUNT=1&sortBy=date&blogSearch=false

See, I am doing your work for you.

I have a suggestion...if you think I am lying report me to the moderators.

[mtnsnake]

72. Then show me THE article that he wrote which prove he said that Carville said those words.

Give me a link to his article that shows it.

[madfloridian]

75. SOS posted the link above.

I am going to contact someone here if you keep accusing me.

[mtnsnake]

78. Please do

contact someone. Go ahead...what are you waiting for?

[PassingFair]

92. Please.

Depends on what your definition of "is" is. :crazy:

Carville went on a SMEAR SPREE after the midterms, trying
to drum up support for LOSER Harold Ford. What he didn't say,
he had Begala out there spewing.

After such a rout, such treachery and sour grapes was a SIGHT to see.
You can have your Emanuel and your Schumer, too. Maybe they can become
ACTUAL Armed Forces RECRUITERS, and not just recruiters of WAR SUPPORTERS
after 2008. It might be FUN, HONEST work for them.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/james-carville-is-no-democrat/1001141717

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs1TLoLXhp4

[SOS]

94. One more time....

Since you won't actually read what others post, let's try again:

Here are dates, location and names:

Date: November 15, 2006

Place: Christain Science Monitor breakfast in Washington DC

Invited Democrats: Stan Greenberg and James Carville

Quote from CSM article of November 16, 2006: "Carville said DNC Chairman Howard Dean should be dumped. Carville added that Dean "should be held accountable" and described his leadership as "Rumsfeldian in its competence.""

Reporter's name: David Cook

Link to article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1116/p25s03-usmb.html?s=widep

If you still refuse to accept the facts, maybe you should call Mr. Cook at the CSM.

[mtnsnake]

97. You are truly challenged in the Reading Comprehension department

From you own link, the part you'd like everyone to believe happened is not even in quotes, that part being how Carville supposedly said Dean should be dumped. IT IS NOT IN QUOTES. GET IT?? The only parts in quotes are the parts, "should be held accountable" and "Rumsfeldian in its competence". The part YOU are claiming happened is only attributed to some OTHER reporter that David Cook, the auther of that article is relating to. He did not name the anonymous reporter, and the anonymous reporter is obviously not David Cook. Jaysus!

Carville said DNC Chairman Howard Dean should be dumped. Carville added that Dean "should be held accountable" and described his leadership as "Rumsfeldian in its competence."

Open your eyes. When you can find the first sentence in quotes, the one that's right there that paragraph I highlighted from the article YOU linked to, then get back to me, but until you do, don't bother wasting another precious second of my time. My frigging soup just got cold because of this!

[SOS]

100. So we've got your agreement

that Carville said Dean "should be held accountable" for winning in 2006 and that his leadership was "Rumsfeldian in its competence." Good reading comprehension!

OK. So far so good.

Now, the reason "dumped" is not in quotes is because Carville's quoted response to the question was "yes I do".

Your entire denial of this very public exchange (apparently not refuted by Carville) is based on the lack of credit given to the reporter who asked the question.
The tape recorded response was faked?
By one of America's most respected newspapers?

OK.

So here's the quote again:

"Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, “In a word, do I think? Yes.” He added, “I think he should be held accountable.” He added, “I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”

So it is your position that the first sentence is a fabrication, but the second and third sentences are accurate quotes?

OK.

Again, where is Carville's correction of the alleged mis-quote?

Forgive me if I prefer the account of the Christian Science Monitor reporter in attendance to your unsupported assertions.

One thing we can certainly agree on...Until you can provide Carville's correction or denial of David Cook's reporting, "don't bother wasting another precious second of my time."

[SOS]

96. Your turn to provide a link

You assert that Carville never said Dean should be "dumped".
Surely Carville is on record correcting the CSM article.
Please provide a link to Carville's denial or correction.

[mtnsnake]

98. see post above NT

[JamesA1102]

80. So no criticism of the leader is allowed?

Sounds like people who think criticism of Bush makes you a anti-American.

[mod mom]

101. The Nation: On James Carville demanding Dean's ouster

EDITORIAL | posted November 22, 2006 (December 11, 2006 issue)
The Odd Attack on Dean




Amid Democratic postelection celebrating, there was a bizarre outburst: a malicious attack launched by James Carville against Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, demanding his ouster. Carville's freakish initiative was bogus in every way. He has the same influence in party affairs as any other talking head on CNN--that is, none. In a year when the Democrats achieved their first real Congressional victory since 1992, Carville accused Dean of losing seats by not devoting more money to close House races.

The Ragin' Cajun was promptly stuffed. Don Fowler, former state party chair of South Carolina, observed: "Asking Dean to step down now, after last week, is equivalent to asking Eisenhower to resign after the Normandy invasion." Senator Harry Reid, the new majority leader, rallied to Dean too. "I didn't support his running for the chair of the DNC," Reid said. "I was wrong. He was right: I support his grassroots Democratic Party-building."

Carville's reckless foray, joined by pollster Stanley Greenberg, is worthy of comment only because the two are picking a fight that reflects the deep, potentially explosive fault-line in the party: the battle for control between old and new. Carville speaks for yesterday's failed politics--the Clinton years. Dean represents a more promising future with his aggressive efforts to rebuild a fifty-state party that grows from the grassroots up.

-snip
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061211/editors

[youthere]

31. James Carville scares the f*ckALL outta' me.

I used to kind of like him in a "silly uncle" kind of way, but now, holy shit...I think his wife has finally completed replacing all his body fluids with formeldahyde.

[BringBigDogBack]

49. With you.

100%

[no name no slogan]

82. He's part of the problem

He's a member of the "polical class" who makes his living off the current system. His services are for sale to the highest bidder-- even if they subvert democracy in other countries (Venezuela, anyone?).

A little campaign finance reform would put his ilk out of business-- which is another reason why it will probably never happen.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

83. CAN ANYONE SAY 'DEMOCRATIC BUSINESS COUNCIL'?

The DBC is the RNC in drag.

[Perry Logan]

85. I'm underwhelmed. The case against Carville seems to consist mostly of "throwing up" emoticons.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. Not Unlike Your Post

You're kidding.

Carville made a HUGE REPUTATION doing NOTHING BUT 'throwing up' emoticons !!

Wasn't he the one who said: 'When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil."

That's what made him so popular....originally.

Carville fell from grace with many of us when we discovered he doesn't believe half his own BS.

[PassingFair]

91. That should tell you something.

:puke:

[Myrina]

95. Carville is not a Democrat, he's an opportunist.

Whichever candidate or media outlet will write the biggest check, he'll work for.
He didn't get into politics for public service - he got into it because that's what he does: he's paid to be a pirahna and shill.

We need to be more careful when looking at the 'speech writers' and media folks who push candidates - they're not in it because they believe in the candidate or even the party's platform -- it's all about 'the win', 'the credentials' and the money.