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 ...
You can’t really think that Richardson gives a damn about the people who elected him, can you? His only “loyalty”, like that of almost all politicians, is to the advancement of his own fortune. Do you think Hillary would be “loyal” to him? I’m not defending Richardson, I just think he’s no worse than the typical RAT backstabber. Carville is “loyal” to the Clintons only because nobody else would have him.
Which one is the real golum?/Just Asking - seoul62........
Hey Serpent Head, Richardson already paid his dues when he stonewalled about Monica Lewinsky and his effort to get her out of Washington and into a job at the United Nations. Remember, Richardson was Ambassador to the UN around the time Hillary was pinned down by sniper fire in Bosnia. He figures he’s already gone through enough public humiliation for the Clinton Crime Family and he don’t owe them no more.
“A Satanic Chihuahua under a strobe light.”
Funny!
Remember Carville is a product of Louisiana politics....actually I think he is a product of the alien spacecraft crashes in New Mexico in the late 1940’s...
Bwahahahaahahahah!
And he's nipping at the socks of Obama. This is a very good thing.
The mafia offers the code of “Omerta” and the Clintonista crime family offers its own loyalty code. Loyalty is not owed in the absence of all ethical considerations. Of course, Richardson is worthy of contempt for other reasons.
Codes of loyalty in Washington are the reason we get all those earmarks and other semi-corrupt government handouts.
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.