Disloyalty That Merits An Insult

Washington Post ^ | 3/29/08 | James Carville

[poinq]

Disloyalty That Merits An Insult.

By James Carville Saturday, March 29, 2008;

Last Friday the New York Times asked me to comment on New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president. For 15 years, Richardson served with no small measure of distinction as the representative of New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District. But he gained national stature -- and his career took off -- when President Bill Clinton appointed him U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and later made him energy secretary.

So, when asked on Good Friday about Richardson's rejection of the Clintons, the metaphor was too good to pass by. I compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (And Matthew Dowd is right: Had it been the Fourth of July, I probably would have called him Benedict Arnold.)

I believed that Richardson's appointments in Bill Clinton's administration and his longtime personal relationship with both Clintons, combined with his numerous assurances to the Clintons and their supporters that he would never endorse any of Sen. Hillary Clinton's opponents, merited a strong response.

I was fully aware of what kind of response calling someone a Judas would evoke.

Certainly, it didn't take long for the resign-renounce-denounce complex to kick into high gear.

In a bit of bloviation that brought joy to my heart, Bill O'Reilly pronounced himself "appalled."

Keith Olbermann, about two degrees shy of the temperature necessary for self-combustion, quipped, "So if he's Judas in this analogy, who's Jesus?"

Even Diane Sawyer took the analogy to the extreme, questioning, "Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"

Others opined that my remark was "tactless" and "ugly."

[poinq]

In response to the article, Disloyalty that Merits an Insult, let me say that James Carville precisely describes what is wrong with American politics and what is wrong with the Clintons. Last week Bill Richardson indorsed Barack Obama for President. James Carville correctly lays out the situation. Richardson was an average congressman before Bill Clinton, then President, elevated Richardson to ambassador of the UN and later Secretary of Energy.

From that point on, Carville displays his innate lack of ethics. From Carville’s point of view, Richardson owes his career and allegiance to the Clinton family over the American people. He expects that Richardson owes big favors to the Clintons, even to the point of endorsing Hillary over someone else who may be, in Richardson’s mind, a better President.

Is this the kind of politics we want, where it’s more ethical to repay a favor than to do the will of the American people?

[NoGrayZone]

“Is this the kind of politics we want”

Who cares? They are libs, why would you expect anything more from them?

[the invisib1e hand]

he’s no dummy, Carville. He married a Conservative.

[NoGrayZone]

“combined with his numerous assurances to the Clintons and their supporters that he would never endorse any of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s opponents, merited a strong response.”

I have to agree on that point. You should NEVER pledge alliance if you can’t/won’t carry it out. I dislike all involved so it upsets me nil.

[ozzymandus]

Really? He divorced Matalin? :>)

[poinq]

I am mostly impressed at the lack of ethics. Its not so much that Carville did the wrong thing. Its more that he doesn’t even know the right thing. Most thieves and murders know that they did wrong. Or a person who takes a bribe may be tempted by the money to do something he knows to be wrong. But Carville seems to not even know right from wrong here. In a way, its a delicous proof of the congenital ethical limitations. Its not that the Clintons have no ethincal backbone. Its more that they have no ethics.

[the invisib1e hand]

well, he’s no dummy, at least.

[Bernard]

I just saw Mary Matalin on a talk show this week, and she looks ... tired? I would say much older, but that would sound so rude. She, on the other hand, looks like she is paying the price of James Carville's methods and views.

And Dennis Miller had the quote of the week when he referred to Carville as "A Satanic Chihuahua under a strobe light."

[top 2 toe red]

Remember that is the clinton camp that is saying Richardson assured his undying loyalty to the clintons by never, ever endorsing one of the shillary’s opponents...that makes the creditability of that statement minus zero and holding.

[NoGrayZone]

True point; however, Richardson is a lib and I have no doubts he went and sold his soul for a bit of “power”.

[Billthedrill]

“An honest politician is one who stays bought.” Color me unsympathetic. But given Hillary’s sweet, forgiving, and unvindictive nature, it’d be a good thing not to be wrong about, unless Richardson likes cooking over camel dung in a Mongolian yurt.

[NoGrayZone]

Judging from what I have heard and read, Carville is just reacting to what he thinks and or has heard to be true.

From an outsider looking in, it does seem Richardson threw the clintons under the bus, as have a lot of her “supporters”.

They will side with whomever they think will be the winner come Nov. and I think that’s pretty crappy for anyone to do to another.

[Hildy]

LOL! There's something that's one of the great mysteries of life...when they first married (and profited by writing a book about it), they were on Larry King's show. I was the first caller...I asked my questions plain and simple: How do you reconcile your very different value system? Since my politics are my values, I won't even DATE someone who doesn't share my political views...

I don't even remember what they said...The bottom line is that they are hired guns..that's all.

[Sender]

They have no ethics or loyalty. Look at any of the recent statements from the DNC or about the delegates and superdelegates. The entire focus of the Democrats is electability, who can best win in November and how to keep damage to a minimum. Any one of them would switch loyalty in a heartbeat if they though the other had a quarter-point lead in some shifting poll. The Democratic nominee is a product, nothing more. As long as they get a Democratic body into the White House, they don't give a rat's ass who it is.

Of course, every party counts electability and winning as a top criteria, because if you don't win, you don't get to wreck or save America, as the case may be. I'd like to think that the Republicans place more value on character and what is best for America first, then do their best to get that best person elected, but alas the Republicans too are marketing a product. They aren't concerned first about who would be best for America, they want the one who can keep them in power best by being attractive "across the aisle". Again, you gotta win to stay in power so they have a valid point, but still it's sad that marketing the product and winning seem to have eclipsed more important concerns.

I guess that's the world we live in now. May the best product win. I'm going to vote for the Republican product. It's better than the other brand, I hope.

[top 2 toe red]

Yep...six of one & a half dozen of the other.

[poinq]

I guess I don't think its important whether Richardson was clean in this. Did he sell out to the Clintons or sell the Clintons out. No matter what the realities of the situation are, they're not important. The biggest issue here is that the perceived breach loyalty, whether real or not, is a huge crime to Carville. In Carville's world of crony-ism, Loyalty is how we pick Presidents. Notice the total lack of comment on issues or best person for the job. In other words, there is no required loyalty to the American people.

Its like an atheist talking ethics. Carville doesn't understand the base levels of loyalty in politics. In Carville's mind God and Country come after favoritism assuming they come at all.

[NoGrayZone]

“I guess I don’t think its important whether Richardson was clean in this.”

Ahhhh, there lies our difference. I do. I don’t like any disloyalty from anyone for any reason. It turns my stomach.

Other than that, I do believe we are on the same page!

[RobinOfKingston]

Others opined that my remark was "tactless" and "ugly."

This describes james carville to a "t."

[poinq]

OK, let me point out that I think Richardson’s highest obligation of loyalty is to those who elected him. Or to those whom he swore to serve, the Amercican people or the people of the state of New Mexico.

If you would say that the Constitution or God is higher I will not disagree. But I will disagree if you are saying that he owes the Clintons or any other politician anything above the responcabilities to his office.

[ozzymandus]

Mary guest hosted for Rush one time, shortly after Bush I’s defeat. A lot of callers accused her of sabotaging Bush’s campaign because of Carville, and she got furious. She had Carville come on, and he spewed his venom on the audience for daring to doubt his wife. It really made me mad to have that snake actually getting airtime on Rush’s show to trash Rush’s audience. I don’t think Rush ever let her on again, but I felt like Rush owed his listeners an apology for letting either Mary or Carville on the air in the first place.