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?
“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.
“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.
This describes james carville to a "t."
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.
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.