Posted on 03/29/2008 11:26:57 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
From that point on, Carville displays his innate lack of ethics. From Carvilles 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 Richardsons mind, a better President.
Is this the kind of politics we want, where its more ethical to repay a favor than to do the will of the American people?
“Is this the kind of politics we want”
Who cares? They are libs, why would you expect anything more from them?
he’s no dummy, Carville. He married a Conservative.
“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.
Really? He divorced Matalin? :>)
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.
well, he’s no dummy, at least.
And Dennis Miller had the quote of the week when he referred to Carville as "A Satanic Chihuahua under a strobe light."
Remember that is the clinton camp that is saying Richardson assured his undying loyalty to the clintons by never, ever endorsing one of the shillaryâs opponents...that makes the creditability of that statement minus zero and holding.
True point; however, Richardson is a lib and I have no doubts he went and sold his soul for a bit of “power”.
“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.
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.
I don't even remember what they said...The bottom line is that they are hired guns..that's all.
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.
Yep...six of one & a half dozen of the other.
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.
“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!
This describes james carville to a "t."
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.
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.
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.