CARVILLE Re: DEAN - "I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence."

[kpete]

Bonus Quote of the Day
"I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence."

-- James Carville, quoted by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, on DNC Chairman Howard Dean. Carville "likened the Democratic takeover of Congress to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/11/15/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

[LizW]

1. Good lord. I am speechless.

[Stephanie]

2. WTF?

Carville needs to STFU and save that conversation for the harpy he married.

[Horse with no Name]

3. I am sharpening my pitchfork and lighting my torch as I speak

this miscreant needs to be driven down to the depths of the hell from which he slithered from.

[elehhhhna]

94. Bastard can't even pick a decent WIFE but he's gonna judge other people?

F&$%&^ YOU, JAMES, and your drunkei war-criminal wife, too.

Poor kids. Mama goin' to prison and Daddy unhinged.

Call CPS.

[blm]

127. With a wife who is a WAR CRIMINAL, of course they want the anti-corruption, open government Dems

marginalized in the party.

I guess it's becoming clearer for more people every day now that Carville is in urgent mode and dropping all pretense and games like they employed with their "Kerry" problem.

[fooj]

118. You and I seem to fully agree on an awful lot lately...

MISCREANT- perfect word choice. I want the vile pitbull to take his treasonous hag and get the hell out of our party. IMO, he can keep his vulgar opinions to himself. I truly don't GIVE A RAT'S ASS what Carville thinks. He's a useless piece of crap...

:hi:

[riderinthestorm]

4. Jesus fucking Kee-rist, Carville has finally jumped the shark. nt

[deutsey]

133. I thought he jumped the shark before the 1st Clinton term ended n/t

[helderheid]

5. I suspected Carville wasn't on our side.

[springhill]

17. I'm telling you...........

I have suspected for a long time he's more of a mole than anything. Anyone married to someone like Mary Matalin cannot possibly be able to live with someone like that unless he shared many of her beliefs.

[helderheid]

28. you are so right.

[Cha]

32. I just had visions of mary matlin

serving mr matlin pig's blood for breakfast, sticking pins in him when he's asleep and withholding everything unless he does her bidding. I may be being too kind.

[elehhhhna]

97. Waaaay too kind. She's a war criminal. He doesn't want to raise their kids alone.

Do "the math".

That couple's been walking both sides of the street for too long.

Upside: she'll finally dry out in prison. Can't keep boozing like that forever, you know.

[ThomCat]

75. You got that right.

[Chimichurri]

6. Carville is the Intellivision of video game consoles -

Obsolete.



**edited to include photograph

[Buzz Clik]

7. Just perfect. We have a huge "I hate Rahm" movement at DU, and now this.

Some people don't know when to shut up.

[jgraz]

22. Well, where is Rahm? Why doesn't he back Dean up?

because he agrees with Carville, that's why.

[Buzz Clik]

60. You know that?

Or are you just joining the ranks of the I Hate Rahm Club?

This bullshit helps no one but the GOP.

[jgraz]

124. Yes, I know that

I've heard three interviews with him, including his Monday appearance on the Rachel Maddow show. He not only quietly accepts all credit for the election win, he also explicitely takes credit for wins like Jerry McNerny and Zack Space, both of which got no funding until the final couple weeks of the campaign. When confronted with candidates that he completely ignored, like Carol Shea-Porter, he just says "yeah, we missed that one" rather than giving proper credit to Dean's 50-state strategy for helping in races like hers.

And I don't think this helps the GOP. Letting pro-NAFTA, pro-war, pro-corporate Dems continue to run the party helps the GOP.

ETA: He'll be on Ring of Fire this weekend. Listen to the interview and see if he shares credit with anyone.

[Buzz Clik]

135. Great attitude.

So, we have a bunch here frothing at the mouth looking for Carville's head over a tiny article in one newspaper. We have folks like you telling us that Rahm is shit because ... hell, I can't even figure out why. Something to do with not banging a drum and singing the praises of Howard Dean every time there's a live microphone around.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this. I've seen Emanuel interviewed a few times, and he was great. Positive, team oriented, and willing to give all his efforts. I like Dean, too. Carville's a freak, but he's always been a freak -- and totally dedicated to the cause.

If you want to crap all over Democrats for strange reasons, that's your choice. Thus far, I cannot accept a single word of it.

[jgraz]

145. Strange reasons? We in the reality-based community call it "evidence"

Just because someone has a 'D' after their name does not make them immune from criticism. If you vote for the torture bill, for the war, against habeus corpus or for the bankruptcy bill, I don't care what party you belong to -- I want you out of office. And if you denegrate the progressive values of the new people in congress, I will crap all over you and I hope other people do as well.

It's too bad you can't accept evidence against people who share your chosen party affiliation. If you truly feel that way, I hear there's a website called the Free Republic where you might be a bit more comfortable.

[Alexander]

39. Who hates Rahm here? Certainly not me.

I think Dean's 50-state strategy was brilliant, but Rahm was definitely an asset for this election. He is the sole reason Harry Mitchell entered the race in AZ-05 (among other people), and Harry won.

We won seats in Indiana, North Carolina, Kansas, and maybe even Wyoming. Tell me with a straight face the 50-state strategy doesn't work.

It's people like Carville who are now a liability for us. This guy makes Emanuel look like Dennis Kucinich.

"Some people don't know when to shut up."

Yeah, like Carville.

[Buzz Clik]

51. Who hates Rahm? Here's a clue ... well, seven clues

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=245535
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=245708
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=245047
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2965194
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2966601
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2960841
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2957988

This is just a handful, but you get the idea.

btw, I completely agree with you, but I'd like to hear Carville's explanation for this.

[elehhhhna]

99. Serpenthead and S'cram are cut from the same cloth...

Very stretchy and imprinted w/ "DLC".

[Buzz Clik]

101. Ok. So, I need to hate them now?

[elehhhhna]

115. Was I talking to you?

You make a lot of assumptions for someone who makes so many assumptions.

Feel free to type pro-DLC 'til your carpal tunnels shrink away. Ain't gonna change any minds here, hon.

[Buzz Clik]

117. Were you? Were you not?

If you have private comments to make, don't post them in open forums. (Why has this suddenly become a difficult concept?)

[elehhhhna]

123. WTF do you think you are? The Boss of DU?

Shove off!


You can't even navigate this freaking thread, toots. LMAO

[Buzz Clik]

132. Nice.

[elehhhhna]

142. WHy is this all about YOU? It's "DU", not "D YOU".

[PassingFair]

148. LOL

Stop it elehhhna!

I'll send you to your rooms!
I don't care WHO started it!

:rofl:

[Crankie Avalon]

8. I guess he'd prefer his friend Terry McCaulliff (sp?) back. n/t

[blm]

46. McAuliffe did exactly what he was told to do - collapse party infrastructure in

the red and swing states and put all money into the shiny new building in DC, so Bush can have his two terms and Hillary can take over in 2008 and cover up for Bush2 the same way Bill covered up for Bush1.

Plus, Carville is married to a war criminal who would go to jail if the anti-corruption, open government wing of the party got into the White House.

[PassingFair]

58. Holy Crap, blm....

I'm really starting to LIKE you!

:hi:

[Buzz Clik]

65. You like that kind of screed? Why?

This thread is dedicated to bashing Carville for his self-serving insults of Dean's hard work, and you compliment blm for his trashing of the Clintons?

The hypocrisy is thick.

[PassingFair]

71. Her, and I go a LONG way back.

We have had our disagreements in the past.
We are having our AGREEMENTS now.

You are not a factor.

Thank you for your concern.

[Buzz Clik]

82. LOL! Pardon me for intruding on your social interaction.

I was under the impression you thought you were making a point. My bad.

[PassingFair]

85. I was.

To HER.

What part of "I'm really starting to LIKE you"
did you think was directed at



you?

[elehhhhna]

100. Boy. These Rahm and Carville lovers keep us all alert lately, huh?

Rude and full of baloney, just like their idols.

[Buzz Clik]

103. And now the insults.

It's like being back on Rightwing knuckledragger boards.

"We hate Carville. If you don't, you're rude and full of baloney."

God I love the Democrats.

[blm]

143. But when Carville hates on Democrats it's cool, eh? Especially if it continues the coverup

for BushInc that Clinton needs to take charge of once again.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[Buzz Clik]

102. There's a personal messenger on this board.

If you don't want your comments subjected to scrutiny, make them private.

That's your fault, not mine.

[blm]

147. We're OPEN BOOKS - unlike the coverup wing of the Democratic party and their

apologists and messengers.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[Cha]

111. Really! I started to "like

her" a long time ago. :)

I've liked you ever since you posted that reply in the Scottish forum when I was writing about "The Proclaimers"! :D

[PassingFair]

112. We were opposite forces working for the same

goals!

We're still 'haverin to true democratic representation!

[Cha]

136. And you weren't

cowerin' Cap N Hand!

[Old and In the Way]

83. You'd be wrong about the pronoun "his trashing of the Clintons"

and you'd be wrong not to understand her point. Carville is a Clinton loyalist. Bill, as much as I love the guy, does have skeletons in his closet that he wants to have the door kept shut. He and Bush , Sr. have a MAD treaty going, IMHO. Part of Hillary's 2008 plan is to control the whole Democratic infrastructure. Get everyone on the same page, so to speak. Obviously, Hillary won't do a direct assault, so Jim is doing the hatchet work. I think it will backfire, big time, on him and Clinton, though. Big mistake trying to take out Dean.

[blm]

129. They've been getting away with it for some time against Kerry, but now that Dean wants

to stay as head of the DNC they don't have the luxury of time to engineer the fostering of antiDean smears and rumors, so Carville is going full bore against Dean and doing it OPENLY.

More people are now seeing publicly what many of us have seen going on for some time now in behind the scenes fashion.

[blm]

69. Well, we've all been watching it go down now the last 4 years, and it's a lot easier

to see the Dems who are working FOR BushInc and which Dems work to counter BushInc.

Notice the ones who work AGAINST BushInc are the ones always targeted for blame and ridicule by the coverup wing of the party. The way it's shaking out is the Clinton team is always the one behind the scenes tearing at the anti-corruption, open government Democrats.


Parry reposted this at consortiumnews Nov 12:

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, C

[valerief]

9. So when will the Carvillian Carville get his FauxNews show? Must

be in the works with BS like that coming out of his mouth.

[sweetheart]

10. carville's an overworn hack

His loyalties lie between 2 republican pillows.

[Coexist]

11. GREAT RESPONSE from leftcoastjane:

http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/11/10/dean/view/

Take that guy Dick Morris for example, an in-with-the-in-crowd Clintonista back in that era, who now appears regularly on the Fox News Channel and has emerged as a harsh critic of the Clintons & Dems. Wasn't he always a mole? I don't want to sow paranoia, BUT, how do we know we aren't dealing with a whole stratum of damn moles, these self-appointed DLC/beltway "centrists" who want to tell us all what positions are safe for us to espouse, and what candidates are safe for us to nominate in our primaries? And who try to denigrate Dean's brilliant but obviously necessary return to the grassroots as the way of saving what they turned into a 16-state regional party? WE knew Dean was exactly right, and now we have to continue pointing out and supporting his work, so everybody can see how weakened the party infrastructure was before Dean came along. It's up to us to redirect our thanks from Rahm's side to Howard's side, and to make sure our party "leadership" "spokespersons" give the grassroots equal credit for the successes reaped already in this election. (And we need to shine a grateful spotlight on such as the MoveOn folks, DFAers, bloggers and others who will no longer submit to the DLCers' talking points, while we're at it).

And what we need to examine quietly and rationally for ourselves is the question: Why should we put past the Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeldians the very obvious espionage tactic of infiltration and subversion from within our own ranks???

[Nabia2004]

30. long been thinking the same

thanks for the post

[Coexist]

37. It was exactly what I was wondering about

and she writes much better.

[Cha]

57. Thanks for that FLDEM!

It parallells this I read from Paul Lukasiak yesterday..

"HOW RAHM EMANUEL LOST THE HOUSE FOR THE DEMOCRATS-- AND HOW ACTBLUE, MOVEON, MARKOS, JANE, DUNCAN, HOWARD DEAN AND A HOST OF OTHERS SAVED THE DAY"

"Despite all the praise being heaped upon Rahm Emanuel for the Democratic Party takeover of the House of Representatives, his strategy was a failure. The simple fact is that Emanuel's plan was to target 21 Republican seats as part of his Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's "Red to Blue" strategy, and as of right now, while Democrats needed to take 15 seats to regain control, only nine of those 21 DCCC picked seats have changed hands (three are still in contention). Most of these candidates were "hand-picked" by Emanuel, based on his perception of their prospects to win election---and most of them failed, often by significant margins-- and at great financial cost."

more>
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-rahm-emanuel-lost-house-for.html

I'm not saying I agree that rahm "lost" it for us..but it makes for an interesting view point.

[Buzz Clik]

68. Interesting, as in pointless assigning of blame during a smashing success.

I don't get it.

[Cha]

110. Because the media is giving

rahm all the credit? And there are other people to give credit to and maybe just maybe rahm shouldn't be getting soooooooooooooo much credit?

[Buzz Clik]

121. This again. Okay, I'll ask you: can you give even one example?

Give me an example where the MSM (not some dippy blogger) has given Emanuel ALL the credit for the Democratic victory. Just one. I'd love to see it and join you in your outrage.

It certainly won't be hard to find hundreds of examples quoting the dozens of other hard working Dems who made this a team effort.

But let's say for just a moment that every story -- every damned one of them -- gave Rahm 100% credit for the victory. Is that reason for me to hate or dislike or even think twice about him? Do you let the media think for you? Do you distrust them so much that you reject everything they say out of hand? (Clearly not -- the feeding frenzy on Carville from a 100 word article in a single newspaper has been amazing and amusing)

This group-think, blood in the water garbage makes me really nervous...

[Cha]

138. Okay..I'll put it this way..

Fuck mr mary matlin and fuck the people he works for.

[Coexist]

70. "only nine of those 21 DCCC picked seats have changed hands"

interesting.

[riderinthestorm]

89. That's not exactly a true picture though of what happened

While I'm not defending Emmanuel here, I do have some serious problems with his selective giving program, I believe the whole picture is more convoluted that this.

For example, my district was IL CD#6, Tammy Duckworth V Pete Roskam for Henry Hyde's seat in RED, RED, RED Dupage Co (look it up if you don't know how red this district is).

Tammy only lost by 4000 votes. She (and Emmanuel) singlehandedly took this County and turned it solidly purple. My ballot did not contain one single other Dem candidate to vote for besides Blagojevich and Duckworth. Every single other seat was an uncontested rethug. But NOW there is a much more credible, solid, grass roots Dem base in Dupage County. I will bet $$ that more Dems will finally have the nerve (and $$ and grass roots support) to finally run for local office. This will only serve to expand our base.

I know that most can't understand the $3 mill that went into this race but I swear, it will be the best $3 mill, in the long haul, that the DNC has ever invested. Denny Hastert's district is right next door and he has to be watching with some alarm at the big blue wave that is rolling out from Chicago and lapping at his front door.

[Coexist]

108. thank you for that extra information

I hope the blue wave laps at this Florida shore someday.

*sigh*

[glitch]

90. Indeed. This is a long game they've been playing, they'd be fools to ignore the

fifth column option. They are corrupt, but they are not fools.

[Last Stand]

146. Maybe some insiders set Dean up in the primaries, too.

I was never convinced that "the scream" had much to do with why Dean didn't advance. He's as credible as anyone out there. I have to believe the Repukes are afraid of him.

[Spazito]

12. Wow, he isn't even trying to hide his real republican agenda anymore!

Asshole doesn't come close to describing this irrelevant, yesterday's news creep, imo. The only thing I can think is that after it became public that he clued in his repub wife on the impending Kerry challenge in Ohio in 04, carville was persona non grata to the Democratic leadership in this recent election and carville is trying, pitifully, to get petty revenge and, instead, showing his true traitorous roots.

[LiviaOlivia]

13. The AJC article

Carville Says Dems Should Dump Dean over “Rumsfeldian” Incompetence
By Scott Shepard | Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 12:00 PM

Democratic strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party because of incompetence.

Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.

~snip~

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.”

~snip~

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2006/11/15/carville_says_d.html

[gulfcoastliberal]

21. I think that's more the fault of R Emmanuel

Dumping $3 million in the Duckworth campaign rather than support other candidates could've netted more seats. As it was, he couldn't even score in his own backyard.

[Buzz Clik]

62. Perfect -- you're doing the flipside of Carville. Feel better?

You're certainly not helping the cause.

[Mz Pip]

14. It's only been a week

The Dems haven't even taken over yet. It's yet to be seen what they will pursue. There will be investigations and if the findings warrant vigorous action I don't doubt the Dems will pursue it.

Dean did a terrific job. THe Dems won big. Rummy just made a mess of things. I see no comparison.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Marnieworld]

15. Get this man a paper

He is clearly behind in current events.

Dean had a success not matched in 30 years.

Dean should send him a dagger saying he found it in his back. What the fuck is he talking about?

[rinsd]

16. Good god, will you stop this shit Carville!

[PassingFair]

66. I thought it was all in our imagination, rinsd.....

we are NOT making this up.

We weren't making up the Rahm crap, either.

[rinsd]

84. WTF are you talking about?

I think this is Carville trying to get himself a piece of the power pie and happens to be doing it in a shitty way.

You think he's some deep cover mole.

Big difference.

"We weren't making up the Rahm crap, either."

Uh yes you were. Some progressives are trying to assert power the old tried and true way of stepping on the heads of others to be more bouyant.

Rahm did alright. In fact much of what he did fit in with Dean's 50 state strategy of expanding areas where Democrats are competitive. Dean deserves most of the credit but the slamming of Rahm by certain progressives is so much partisan bullshit.

[PassingFair]

88. Rahm is stirring the pot by himself

so is Carville, the only question is --
is it for their personal benefit, or the
aggrandizement
of the house of Clinton.

[elehhhhna]

150. imo rahm is shilling for HC, Carv is trying to save his warcriminal wife's ass.

[Cha]

67. Can you imagine if we didn't have

Grassy NetRoots? This shit of mr mary matlin's might be served up as gospel instead of the ramblings of a bitter ol' mopin' mole.

[JetCityLiberal]

18. Shut up James, you are over

Dean brought this blue wave, cry all you want.

[Demit]

19. MM burrowed into his skull and sucked the brains out a long time ago. n/t

[KoKo]

lol's....plus Matalin could go down in prosecutions of how we went to war

since she was part of the Iraq Group who was helping cherry pick info and spread it to the media for Dick Cheney.

Carville's wife could be and should be in deep doo doo. Whatever comes out of his mouth is because he has to save his wife's butt.

Your description of Matalin was :rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

20. Man, I really liked Carville once... now, I'm just disappointed

I wish he would stop attacking Dean. Dean's strategy paid off big time and Carville knows that. Other than personal gain, I can't think of a reason he's doing this.

[robinlynne]

73. Well, he definitely helps the republicans. How do we get rid of him?

[HaggardsMethDealer]

23. You can count on hearing more of this kind of garbage

The DLC and the Hillary Whores are freaking out over Dean's popularity so they are trying to kneecap him right now. They know that if he holds too much power in the Democratic Party that Hillary won't have a chance in hell in the primaries.

He's just a Hillary Whore and Dean needs to call him out.

[bahrbearian]

78. Good Post , I love your user-name..

Now we need a NuggetsMethDealer to post here.

[gratuitous]

24. Oh, now Carville thinks the Dems could have picked up 50 seats?

I'd certainly like to see where he was predicting this before November 7. You've certainly got a huge log of TV appearances and writings, Mr. Carville. Where did you say that you thought the Democrats could/would/should pick up 50 House seats? Whispering it to the north wall of the bathroom doesn't count; a public pronouncement to that effect, if you please.

Otherwise, this is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

[Cha]

25. Fuck you Agin' Cajun!

mr matlin sounds like he needs some attention. :freak: :cry:

[Hoosier Dem]

26. The Swift-Boating of Howard Dean has begun...

I for one am not surprised. The Clintons and their DLC vultures have had bile in their mouths ever since Dean took the DNC Chairmanship away from them. They are just itching to get it back.

I'm sure they're also pissed that Dean was able to get BOTH houses of Congress back while their lapdog McAuliffe failed miserably at every chance. Just makes McAuliffe look more like a bigger boob.

They will make it thier mission to drive Howard Dean out. As an outsider not controlled by the DLC, he is a threat to their plans for 2008. They want to control the DNC to make it easier for the "Succubus of Chappaqua" to get the nomination in 2008.

[zulchzulu]

27. Carville is only making Dean look BETTER

Aside from the Ragin' Cajun getting some whoops from his tight-lipped automaton old lady, he is not only NOT making sense but he's also nailing himself as someone not to trust as a campaign advisor.

I'm still quite pissed at how he whispered into the enemy's ear on Election night and help stop a Kerry administration in its tracks... that's already unforgiveble.

But this smarmy buffoonery on dissing Dean after what was an OBVIOUS success on Dean's part...is just childish.

[Beelzebud]

29. It's official. He's a Republican plant.

I'm not joking. Look at who he's married to. Think about Bob Woodward's revelation about how Carville called his wife, Mary Matlin, to inform her on what the Kerry campaign was thinking about doing.

This guy is, for lack of a better term, a Republican spy.

We need to purge this motherfucker, and everyone like him, from the party now. Not next election cycle, but NOW.

[Le Taz Hot]

91. He's not a plant.

He's whoring for Hillary. One more reason NOT to support Hillary in the primary, like we needed another one.

[OneBlueSky]

96. he's not a plant . . . plants have higher IQs . . . n/t

.

[patcox2]

116. He's not a rep. plant, he's a Hillary plant.

If you can't see that, you are blind. Carville is the Clinton's creature. They are centrist, pro-corporate DLC types. Dean, and this election, have moved the Democratic party leftward, and Hillary is trying to regain control by attacking Dean.

[SeattleGirl]

31. Carville is REALLY pissing me off!

:grr:

[Cass]

33. What is with this guy lately? Can't he find it in himself to say ANYTHING remotely congratulatory

about the democratic wins last week?? Whether he likes it or not, this win was accomplished with Dean's leadership. This sniping is really unprofessional and, IMO, speaks volumes about his agenda.

[Pithy Cherub]

34. No he didn't! Carville is BRAIN DEAD!

he is a pod person. :wtf::wtf::wtf:

Evil James Carville brings SHAME to honorable democrats.

[ComerPerro]

35. I don't trust anyone who sells centrism and is married to a RW pig

He doesn't believe in progressive causes or Democratic or liberal ideals.

Its just a product, he just happes to work for Coke, his wife for Pepsi.

[The Count]

36. He's right, cuz look at the quagmire Dems are in ---Oh, wait, silly - we won!

:crazy:

[bklyncowgirl]

38. Your lame old Donkey just won the Triple Crown, so what do you do....

Fire the trainer.

Yup, makes perfect sense to me. :sarcasm:

My feeling is that this has more to do with the Clintonistas wanting a Chairman who will back Hillary than anything having to do with Dean's competence or lack thereof.

I'm interested in seeing where the Big Dawg comes down on this one.

[Individualist]

40. DLC hates progressives

Carville is an ass.

[Beelzebud]

41. Don't run from it. The correct word is Liberals.

I'm done being a "Progressive".

I am a Liberal, and proud of it. Liberalism founded this country!

[Individualist]

50. Did I say I was ashamed of being described as "liberal"?

No. Unless I'm mistaken, Dean describes himself as a progressive, and Dean is who we're talking about.

[Beelzebud]

54. Dr Dean needs to take back the word Liberal!

My post wasn't meant to denigrate or offend you. If you took it that way, I apologize. :)

[Individualist]

63. I agree with you,

but our elected officials seem to be afraid of the liberal description. Maybe when they assume the majority in January, they'll stop running from it. One of the things I've always admired about Ted Kennedy is that he is a proud liberal. Apology accepted. :)

[terrya]

42. Carville is a Republican now, right?

That's what I'm picking from comments like this.

[Alexander]

43. Ah yes, the Dean-hating is in full swing by the right wing of the DLC.

They'd rather the Democrats lose elections than have a grass-roots progressive at the helm.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

44. Just another hired gun.

[Kagemusha]

45. General Carville's army would have its supply lines cut off,

would be surrounded deep in enemy territory and, after taking a long series of losses from bullet and disease, would surrender whole to the enemy and beg for mercy.

[wicket]

47. Fuck Carville

He's such a sell-out hack.

[Skink]

48. How does a guy that is for public financing of campaigns not agree

with Dean.

[Tatiana]

49. OK, that's it. I'm officially *OVER* Carville, period.

This alone, is such a LOUSY, petulant, jealous comment to make. But given the state of this country right now, given that the American public is looking to the Democratic party for guidance and true leadership, to go public with such bull$hit is unforgiveable.

I respect what he and Begala did to help get Clinton elected. I respect Carville's right to his own opinions, including the obvious personal dislike of Dean. But I can't countenance this attack on party unity or cavalier dismissal of a strategy implemented that was, overall, successful.

F him and I don't think we should pay him anymore attention. That's obviously what he wants. He's no better than Lieberman or Dick Morris, in my book.

[Botany]

52. What a snake!

"He said he tried to meet with Dean to argue for additional spending for Democrats in the
final days of the campaign, but Dean declined and gave no reason why."

Maybe because Jimmy told his wife who told Rove that Kerry was going to contest Ohio
because of the # of provisional ballots. Rove then called Blackwell and the # of provisional
ballots suddenly became less then the # bush "margin of victory."

[PVnRT]

53. Yeah, kiss my ass, redneck

I am done with listening to this southern-fried jackass.

[BurtWorm]

55. I don't think it was Dean who failed to support Lamont in CT

I think that was Schumer. And I don't think it was Dean who had Democrats obsequiously applauding Traitor Joe in the chamber this week. I think that was also Schumer. Talk about failing to pursue the enemy!

[Richard Steele]

56. So Carville has declared 'failure' 2 months before Dems even take office?

SNIP:
"Carville "likened the Democratic takeover of Congress
to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won
but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated."

Hey, Jimmy, 2 points:

1: Gettysburg is generally considered to be
the TURNING POINT of that war; Confederate
defeat was INEVITABLE afterward. It was a VICTORY, get it?

2: FUCK YOU, you smug little sack of rancid weasel-shit.

[David Zephyr]

59. Don't get mad at Carville, he's just doing the Clinton's biddding.

It's the Billary Corporation.

[bklyncowgirl]

72. I agree with you . Carville's working for Hillary. Hillary doesn't trust Dean.

Would you want a guy who believes that your husband helped screw up his presidential bid to be running the party just when you are ready to go for the big prize?

Would you want someone who was not only supported by Al Gore, but who has several key former Gore staff members working for him at DNC?

The motivation for this otherwise inexplicable attack is very clear.

[robinlynne]

76. And I don't trust HIllary.

[elehhhhna]

104. Me neither. Never did. Never will. Opportunistic triangulator, she.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. It's the election, stupid.

[Elidor]

64. Oh, where's that thread from last week?

"Carville didn't REALLY call for Dean to step down. He was just thinking out loud about Harold Ford." Yeah, right. :eyes:

I want to see all those DUers who apologized for him last week come back and do it again.

[shrub chipper]

128. That's what I said earlier in this thread.

They do owe us an apology.

[smoogatz]

74. DLC=Democrats Lose Continually

Honestly, I wonder sometimes if it isn't their strategy to lose unless the Dem candidate(s) in question are sufficiently corporatist to satisfy their big-money donors. Dean's 50-state strategy made those first and second-tier races competetive--and put the 3rd-tier races in play. He didn't lose a Dem-hled seat, and he won in places like Montana, Indiana and Missouri where less than a year ago the DLC had completely bailed. They sneered at Dean for sending people to places like Montana, and now they're saying he didn't do enough? Christ on a soda fucking cracker. The DLC and their corporate masters are a cancer on the Democratic Party.

[DaveJ]

77. Why is everyone pissed at Carville?

I don't understand. He was obviously insulting Cons more than Dems in the OPs quote.

[Joe Chi Minh]

79. Interesting that he thinks Democrats are still interested in his opinions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Me Re: Carville: I would describe his statements as DLC drivel.

[bunny planet]

81. That does it. Carville = Mole

He even looks like one with those slitty little eyes that look like they are just blinking and getting used to the sunshine.
STFU Ragin' Cajun', more like Raygun Cajun if you ask me.
Dean's success makes you even more irrelevant than you are already James. If it walks, talks and quacks like a Republican, it is a Republican.
The James Carville of 'The War Room' is no more.

[w4rma]

86. Carville can go suck an egg, far away from Democratic consulting positions. (nt)

[rateyes]

87. Screw you, Carville....

and the horse you rode in on!!

[elehhhhna]

92. HIS WIFE IS A WAR CRIMINAL. Has he no shame? NO! He has not.

[Patiod]

93. I always liked Carville

He sponsored a Bartcop event, let us use his restaurant, and spoke to us, back in the day when a lot of us at Bartcop felt like an awfully small minority. Plus he nailed Pennsylvania ("Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama inbetween") and used to do a great job on Crossfire.

But screw him. Does he think the 50 state policy was some sort of mis-step? And taking the SENATE was a screw-up?

Yikes. What are you smokin' there, JC?

[Guaranteed]

95. Carville is as *green* as Kermit the Frog.

It ain't easy for him, I'm guessing.

[Vanje]

98. I'd describe James Carville, as....Matilianlike

in his devotion to Karl Rove

[mcking]

105. As I said after his last anti-Dean quote:

I want some of HIS drugs!

He's hallucinating even more this week than last.

[AllexxisF1]

107. I am just shocked.

WTF! Carville, holy Jesus why can't people in our party beat the shit out of each other in the back room instead of the front page.

[stillrockin]

106. Excuse me ????

:dunce:

[democrank]

109. No surprise to me.

If you`ve followed Carville`s statements in the past (like those of his buddy Paul Begala) you won`t be surprised that he is (again) attacking Howard Dean.

James Carville is an insider. Dean, (like liberal, populist and progressive Democrats) is an outsider. The outsiders are used only for their donations and votes since their ideas and principles are meaningless to corporate beltway Democrats.

Since the election, I have yet to hear any House or Senate Democrat so much as mention Howard Dean when the credits are being rolled. Dean is synonymous with anti-Iraq War Democrats, the lepers of the Democratic Party. That`s why over the next few weeks we`ll wait for Jim Baker. Then we`ll wait for some commission to study that report. Then we`ll wait another few months while we have a few more hearings. Then we`ll wait while we negotiate with the all-powerful Senator Lieberman. Then we`ll wait for a few more polls. Then we`ll wait to prove we can change the tone in Washington and work with "our friends across the aisle." In the meantime, more legs will get blown off, more caskets will get sent home under the cover of darkness, more billions will get charged to our grandchildren and more soldiers will be on their fourth or fifth tour.

Go ahead and throw the tomatoes. I`ve been through this before, listening to General Westmoreland`s BS at the same time I was watching the television camera`s lying eyes. It was called the Vietnam War.

[JaneQPublic]

113. Carville needs to put the trashcan back on his head.

And never take it off.

[patcox2]

114. This is Hillary's work, not Mary's. Don't be deluded.

This is just Hillary's first machiavellian move towards the 2008 nomination. Her brand of centrism and DLC politics was completely refuted by Dean in this election. She is desperate to put the Carville kind back in power so they will support her.

Carville never won shit for the democratic party, all of our worst losses were all when he was in his ascendency, and like GW, Clinton never could win a majority of the vote either. Hillary will destroy the party to ensure her victory with this kind of savage backstabbing campaign.

[dogday]

119. James Carville=Zell Miller

Both blow-hards, full of poop, and just frothing at the mouth for attention.... And both secretly working for the other side, oh wait, Zell said he was, Carville has been the coward....

[ceile]

120. What is his problem?

No body else to pick on, so let's get the guy that helped win us both houses? Does this make sense to anyone??

[undeterred]

122. Some people really should STFU, like Carville.

[BlueEyedSon]

125. Carville is a Giant Douche

[Major Hogwash]

152. Quote of the day!

That is funnier than hell.

[MoonRiver]

126. PIECE OF SHIT!

Carville must be completely marginalized. He's sold out to the dark side. :mad:

[d_b]

130. Ignore that goofy fuck

His time is past.

[StraightDope]

131. Will someone please kick Carville's ass?

All the way across the aisle where he apparently belongs.

[zulchzulu]

134. Marching orders from the Hillary/Big Dog camp?

I haven't seen Bill Clinton with Howard Dean in recent rallies...is Carville trying to derail Dean to set the stage for the Repig landslide in 2008 if Hillary gets the nomination?

First of all, she won't make it through the primaries, but yunno...

[AtomicKitten]

137. wow -- snark on the half-shell

First of all, to discount HRC is just ludicrous, and that's coming from someone who won't vote for her in the primary. Her monster lead in the polls and in fund raising is of epic proportions; to deny that is almost certainly wishful thinking on behalf of another potential candidate that isn't faring so well in the polling consistently perhaps?

I am constantly amazed at the jostling that goes on politically, in the real world and especially here at DU. Reminds me of the block wars in Our Gang and just about as mature. The declarations made regarding motivation and alliances and the like is pretty breathtaking and, no offense, I find it really funny.

I'm standing back allowing it to unfold. May the best Democrat win.

[shance]

139. That is such a Mary Matalin response. Obvious who's so worried about Dean.

And shouldn't mary mary quite contrary be sporting a pin-striped jumper cracking some rocks by now?

[alarimer]

140. His leadership won back Congress

Carville can go Cheney himself.

[LaPera]

141. Fucking Carville...GET laid dude, by someone that's alive & warm and will actually move!!

You henpecked, republican shill!

[mhatrw]

144. War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Victory is Incompetence.

Or more precisely, Dem Victory = DLC Loss.

[Swamp Rat]

149. Here ya go:

:D

[Christian30]

151. Here's the DNC/Dean response

Democrats Stand Behind Dean; Carville "Got The Facts Wrong"

November 15, 2006 5:27 p.m. EST

Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Staff Writer

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The Democratic National Committee (DNC) says it "gladly" spent millions to finance its victory over Republicans this November.

In an interview with All Headline News (AHN) DNC Communications director Karen Finney says strategist and pundit James Carville "got the facts wrong" when he said Democrats could have won more races if they had put more money into the fight.

Finney says the DNC knew 2006 would be "very important" and spent $30 million on campaigns, up from the $9.8 million they spent in 2002.

Carville, one of the leading Democratic strategists and a sharp voice within the party says Democrats could have won as many as 50 seats in the House, yet Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, never authorized the necessary campaign spending.

Yet, Finney contends Carville "simply doesn't know the facts about what the DNC did in this election. In addition to the $30 million we put into the '06 races, the DNC happily did take out a <$10 million> loan because Governor Dean is committed to helping Democrats win."

Finney adds that Democrats were fundraising "to the wire" and spent half of the $10 million loan on Congressional races.

Carville, on the other hand, tells the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, if he thinks Dean should resign; "In a word, do I think? Yes... I think he should be held accountable. I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence."

According to the paper, Carville likened the Democratic takeover of Congress to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated. Carville believes, "We should have chased them down."

Yet, after a big win, Democrats see no reason to abandon Dean. Former DNC Chair Don Fowler says, "This is is nonsense... Democrats won a great victory on November 7; control of the United States House of Representatives, control of the United States Senate, majority of Governors, and majority of state legislative bodies. Governor Dean deserves to continue as DNC Chair."

Nebraska's Democratic Chair Steve Achelpohl, in an open letter to Carville, adds, "From my perspective, Governor Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in many years... Our Party is well-served by Howard Dean. He gives Democrats hope and opportunity in all parts of the country, many far too long ignored by the National Party... I strongly supported Governor Dean for DNC Chair."