Posted on 09/06/2004 12:32:58 AM PDT by sixxiron
With the new "dream team" of Carville and Begala in place, I thought it worthy of posting Carville's utter trashing of Zell and his blaming Republicans for making Zell turn on his Dem buddies. Key points: Zell Miller was Carville's former employer and Miller officiated Carvilles wedding!!! There is no bottom for Carville and this marks the beginning of the next phase in the battle for the White House. I wonder if Carl Rove forced Zell into writing a best-selling book which chronicled his disgust with his party more than a year ago.
Here is the transcript from MTP:
MR. RUSSERT: James Carville you ran that man's campaign for governor of Georgia in 1990.
MR. CARVILLE: Right, I did. It's a shame they put that poor man out there in the twilight of his career with a bunch of half-truths. Then they put him on TV after, out there making a fool of himself, and they're showing how he said, "Well, you said Kerry did this." It's the very thing that Dick Cheney recommended. "You said that he called them occupiers." In fact, President Bush had called them occupiers on three separate occasions.
You know, it's a shame, because Senator Miller's had a distinguished mid-career, and I'm very sad for him and the people that work for him that he's going to be remembered, as Joe Klein said, you know, probably the most, you know, hate-filled speech that he's ever seen at a convention. But the problem is, how does a man who sits on this thing, the vice president, who says that we expect to be greeted with roses and you said--you asked him in a follow-up question, "Well, suppose there's insurgents?" He said, "Tim, we don't expect that." How could he possibly, possibly question John Kerry's judgment about being fit to make decisions as a commander in chief?
The record of this administration is already out there. The president has admitted--and when it comes to the war on terror, in June, President Bush said, we can win the war on terror. By August, he had changed his mind and said we can't win the war on terror. So I think there are legitimate questions about judgment. I think there are legitimate questions that don't relate to what happened in Vietnam or not. But they relate to the record of this administration, the miscalculations, the errors and they are all in that report from this royal institute in London, that we've already lost this. We're not going to have a democracy there.
MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin, the vice president did say we'd be greeted as liberators, and now, Jim Schlesinger, Republican secretary of defense said that we are unprepared for the insurgency.
MS. MATALIN: We have never, ever, in our history or any history in war, found on the ground plans that went exactly as were planned. It's called the moment of contingency. We have said, the president has said, that the march to Baghdad was completed more expeditiously than had been expected. And it is true that Iraq's become a magnet for all the terrorist, and we do want to fight them there. We don't want to fight them here. And we are winning. This Iraq is in a relatively short period of time on the road to self-government.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Miller, spitballs, weak, wobbly. Was he over the top?
MS. MATALIN: No, this is--you know, Senator Miller is a man of great passion. If you look at his 1992 keynote Democratic convention speech, he was equally passionate. This is a man who is angry at his party, his party who left him. He is a delightful and loving and wonderful man who officiate at our wedding.
MR. CARVILLE: I love Senator Zell. I'm just so angry at what those cynical Republicans did to him, putting him up. and making him stay stuff that is indefensible.
MS. MATALIN: Well, you know, Senator Miller...
MR. CARVILLE: ...sticking him on TV when he was questioned on it...
MS. MATALIN: Senator Miller, since he's been in office, has been with the president. I saw him regularly on the Hill when I would go up there with the vice president. He was disappointed with his party on economic issues, on these issues of war and peace. He is a wonderful senator. He is a passionate man, brought just as much passion to the Democratic convention in 1992 and these guys just don't like the truth.
MR. RUSSERT: We've got to...
MR. CARVILLE: The difference is when Paul wrote Senator Miller's speech in '92 it was based on fact. When Karl Rove wrote Senator Miller's speech in 2004...
MS. MATALIN: Senator Miller wrote his own speech.
MR. CARVILLE: ...it was based on no fact.
MS. MATALIN: I think I know who wrote Miller's speech.
MR. CARVILLE: You know?
MS. MATALIN: Senator Miller wrote his own speech.
Carville will most likely pull the poll numbers up with his hatefilled lies. He has the nerve to say Zell's speech was hateful?
What was Carville worked up about when he did that?
Who? McGreevey?
The "my truth is that I am a gay American" Governor from New Jersey.
I'm not sure, but I think this transcript is from right after the convention.
Before he became involved in Kerry's campaign.
Has there ever been a time when she has betrayed the republican she was working for?
Cheney obviously trusts her and I definitely trust Cheney to make good decisions.
Well...Probably not, but at least he's an opponent with spine.
Loosing the 2002 elections...
Thanks!
Gee. I watched Mary throughout their joint appearance, and thought she definitely had that "Too bad it's a holiday weekend; that means I can't file for divorce until Tuesday" look about her.
I found that so remarkable I taped it.
This is what I was talking about.
Sounds like Mary Matalin held her own with Carville!
If she had, would we know about it?
I think we can assume that she hasn't otherwise she would not be working for Cheney and would not have been allowed in the Bush White House.
There is nothing more important to this President than loyalty.
You rock, my friend. Thanks for posting those.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Isn't it possible that loyalty can be blind?
'MR. CARVILLE: .... "You said that he called them occupiers." In fact, President Bush had called them occupiers on three separate occasions.'
_____________________________________________________________
I heard this "talking point" several times over the past days. I was curious so I did a brief Google search to see if I could find if the president actually termed our troops as "occupiers" (I'm very doubtful he would).
I have found lots of stories quoting the president and other high ranking officials as saying "we are there as liberators, not occupiers," but I have yet to find any support for the Kerry supporters claims. Does anyone have any links that vouch for their "occupier" claim?
My guess is that they are twisting words and taking them out of context (Shockers!).
I don't know why I blanked on that. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.