James Carville: In His Own Words

[Darryl G. Thomas]

By the way, I read that James and his blushing bride are moving to New Orleans. They will be missed at the local Safeway.

Disloyalty That Merits An Insult

By James Carville
Saturday, March 29, 2008; A15

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."

Heck, I give myself some credit for managing to get the Clinton and Obama campaigns to agree on something -- that neither wanted to be associated with my remarks.

I know enough to know that comparing a former Cabinet secretary and sitting governor to Judas is inflammatory and provocative. I expected the coverage that it evoked.

Was it a desperate gambit for attention? Was I just trying to prove my point that both Samantha Power's resignation from the Obama campaign for calling Sen. Clinton a monster and the Obama campaign hysterically promoting Geraldine Ferraro's misguided statements were equally silly and superficial?

Not really. I was saying what I felt as an individual who -- with no encouragement from the Clintons but as someone who is proud to consider himself a friend of theirs -- thought that Richardson had done something deeply disloyal.

Earlier this month I decried the political environment in which, by whining about every little barb, candidates seem to be trying to win the election through a war of staff-resignation attrition. Politics is a messy business, but campaigning prepares you for governing. It prepares you to get hit, stand strong and, if necessary, hit back. I've worked on enough campaigns to know that the most aggrieved candidate rarely emerges victorious. And for all of the hypersensitivity we're seeing this cycle, this campaign has not been particularly negative or nasty compared with previous elections.

Fully aware of this supercharged environment in which the slightest slight is elevated to the most egregious insult, I waded in -- okay, dove in -- by demonstrating what constitutes a real insult.

I believe that loyalty is a cardinal virtue. Nowhere in the world is loyalty so little revered and tittle-tattle so greatly venerated as in Washington. I was a little-known political consultant until Bill Clinton made me. When he came upon hard times, I felt it my duty -- whatever my personal misgivings -- to stick by him. At the very least, I would have stayed silent. And maybe that's my problem with what Bill Richardson did. Silence on his part would have spoken loudly enough.

Most of the stuff I've ever said is pretty insignificant and by in large has been said off the cuff and without much thought to the potential consequences. That was not the case in this instance. Bill Richardson's response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency. In my mind, that is a debatable hypothesis. But, even more than that, I know that a former president of the United States who appointed someone to two Senate-confirmed positions is entitled to have his phone calls returned.

If Richardson was going to turn on the Clintons the way he did, I see no problem in saying what I said. Because if loyalty is one virtue, another is straight talk. And if Democrats can't handle that, they're going to have a hard time handling a Republican nominee who is seeking the presidency with that as his slogan.

James Carville, who managed Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, is a political commentator for CNN.

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, loyalty to an ex-pres. That's what's most important today.

Not the party. Not the country.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

It's sort of like the Mafia. Once you're in, you're in for life.

[Gary Sisco]

And like the mafia, you pay.

I have to say it cracks me up hearing this kind of shit re the Clintons, who are both vicious.

[jesus marion joseph]

The Cult of Personality reigns supreme.

[Bluebrew]

I think someone should tell James Carville that politics is not biblical but more like baseball free agency. You go where the situation is best for you, money and position. You don't stay some place where you know you're going to be a utility player forever when some one else offers you the opportunity to become an everyday player.

I'd also like it if we could trade politicians to opposite parties and to other countries. If that were the case we should be scouting France's Sarkozky and shopping Bush, Cheney and Rice around before their contracts are up.

We should also be able to outright or option politicians back to the minors. like if a president or a congressman is not doing well send him back to the AAA level, state government or even AA , municipal government for more training.

We should also be able to unconditionally release politicians who have lost their ability to perform on their own.

[patricia]

So, I guess that everyone that the Clintons ever did anything for who thought that they weren't just gathering brownie points for the future mis-read their motives.
It must be an uncomfortable situation to know that the Clintons don't do anything for anyone without expecting to be paid back, one way or another.
I wonder if Bill Richardson had known that his assignments had a loyalty pricetag he might not have thought twice about being considered owned.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

"So if he's Judas in this analogy, who's Jesus?"

I don't know, but we sure got ourselves a damn doubting Darryl G. Thomas!

Frankly I am shocked and made giddy that you people would come here, to a jazz board of all places, to disloyally dump on the Clintons. After all they have done for themselves over 35 years. Sad. Hilarious. Inspiring.

[patricia]

Everyone should be like the Loyal Bushies, willing to take a bullet for their benefactor?

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by patricia

Everyone should be like the Loyal Bushies, willing to take a bullet for their benefactor?

There is a monumental difference between loathing the President of the United States and loathing the former President of the United States and his wife. On a jazz board! What happened to the love?? Heaven, I'm in heaven.

[patricia]

I don't think that many here loathed the former President.
That said, most certainly were flummoxed by his allowing himself to be maneuvered into lying about his sexual picadillos under oath, the perjory being the crime, not the picadillos.

I couldn't help remembering that when Alberto Gonzalez, having learned from that, I'm assuming, suddenly came down with what can only be described as early onset Altzeimers'.

However, Bill Clinton's current role as rodeo clown for his wife in her bid for the Presidency seems above and beyond being supportive and leans toward him being obnoxious and insulting.

But, I guess having no-one before him in the role of a former President stumping for his wife for the same job, he's wingin' it.

[Monte Smith]

Rationalize it all you like, patricia, but I think your Clinton-bashing is phenomenal. Kudos! I heartily applaud the destruction of the former first family.

[Gary Sisco]

I didn't like Him a single bit, actually.

Carville'd would apparently place loyalty to a seriously flawed personality above his party's interests, never mind the country's.

"Stand by your man ...."

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Monte,

I can only speak for myself. I don't loathe the Clintons. I'm just disappointed by their campaign tactics. As for their "destruction" they'll be no more "destroyed" than Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. At the end of the day, Hillary will still be the junior Senator from New York, Bill will still be a millionaire and Chelsea will still be earning six-figures doing whatever it is she does for a living.

Cheney will be splitting time between his multi-million dollar estates in Maryland and Virginia. Bush will sell his ranch in Crawford (Laura wants out of that dump) and make tons of money on the lecture circuit. Rumsfeld will be chilling on his Chesapeake Bay crib eating crabs and drinking Coronas.

Meanwhile, the next 5 or 6 presidents will be trying to clean up the mess created over the last seven years.

[Bluebrew]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Monte,

I can only speak for myself. I don't loathe the Clintons. I'm just disappointed by their campaign tactics. As for their "destruction" they'll be no more "destroyed" than Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. At the end of the day, Hillary will still be the junior Senator from New York, Bill will still be a millionaire and Chelsea will still be earning six-figures doing whatever it is she does for a living.

Cheney will be splitting time between his multi-million dollar estates in Maryland and Virginia. Bush will sell his ranch in Crawford (Laura wants out of that dump) and make tons of money on the lecture circuit. Rumsfeld will be chilling on his Chesapeake Bay crib eating crabs and drinking Coronas.

Meanwhile, the next 5 or 6 presidents will be trying to clean up the mess created over the last seven years.

Boy there's plenty of truth in that Darryl. And we might add to that that the last 5 or 6 presidents haven't been exactly stellar examples of leadership either. I think Americans are just beginning to get interested in politics (last 20-25 years) and i think we are going to reevaluate many things about our history.

One thing though Darryl - Bush on the lecture circuit? It will take him four days to say on coherent sentence, One lecture one month? That can be seen as a bargain. You could go out, eat,take and and when you go back you wouldn't have miss anything at all.

The really important question nagging me is "Should I have mentioned Bill Clinton in that 'underrated tenor players' thread?"
After all this is a jazz board.

[Gary Sisco]

Bluebrew -- If Reagan could (and did) cash in on the lecture circuit, so could Bush. How much coherence could Reagan have had in his senilia? Not that Bush needs the money. His family's been living off his grandfather's money for generations.

[Uli]

Ford did the right thing. He had people paying for playing golf with him.

He and Chaney could probably make money selling hunting trips in Texas.

[Gary Sisco]

Too liberal dems, perhaps.

Anyone familiar with firearms would have sense enough to be at least two miles from Bush or Cheney when they're armed.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I think Bush will do very well on the lecture tour. Here's why. Last month, the conservative group CPAC had their annual convention here in the DC area. McCain got a lukewarm (at best) reception. Bush shows up and gets a standing ovation.

Now the "C" in CPAC stands for conservative. So I asked a co-worker here who is deep in conservative politics (she's attended this same convention in the past) why Bush's reception was so great. Even she's admitted that Bush isn't really that conservative.

Think about it, except for some rhetoric concerning social issues, and swinging the Supreme Court into a more conservative direction, what conservative principles has he upheld? A balanced budget? Smaller government? Limited involvement in foreign affairs?

Hell, he may have set back the conservative movement in this country for a couple of decades.

But the CPACers gave him a standing ovation.

Bush will make money on the lecture tour because he's convinced a lot of conservatives he's a true believer. That he's the second coming of St. Ronald of Reagan.

[Gary Sisco]

And just as smart.

The main difference is Bush was born senile.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Bluebrew -- If Reagan could (and did) cash in on the lecture circuit, so could Bush. How much coherence could Reagan have had in his senilia? Not that Bush needs the money. His family's been living off his grandfather's money for generations.

One thing that Reagan had going for him was that he seemed to be a nice guy. He was senile, of course, suffering from early onset Altzeimers', I think for his entire Presendency, but he was entertaining in a weird sort of way.
Bush, on the other hand, is thouroughly enjoying that people feel obliged to laugh at his lame attempts at humour, just because right now he is the biggest dog on the block. Surely he doesn't think of himself as a fabulous wit??

What bothers me is that he has a mean, childish streak that he has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to exploit. Nobody dares challenge him, or suggest that his habit of giving demeaning nicknames for example annoys them. Journalists and others have livelihoods that depend on their having access to the administration. Every time I see someone like David Gregory participating in events like the correspondents' dinner with Karl Rove's lame rap performance, or a "press conference" with President Bush, laughing dutifully, with little if any follow-up, I wince.

So, when Bush is finally finished his thouroughly disastrous presidency, I think he will be genuinely puzzled when few speaking requests are forthcoming. Why would anyone want to voluntarily listen to him talk about...............what??

I could be wrong, of course. But Reagan in his bewildered dotage was at least entertaining. He could talk about his "B" movie career quite clearly, although his recent history was, to him, non-existant.

But, I guess we'll see.

[Gary Sisco]

Way I look at it, if people are dumb enough to spend good money to listen to a Bush lecture, have at it.

[tippy]

I would pay to twitch that little nose.

[Gary Sisco]

You better be careful. Tipper wouldn't like that in front of her kids.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by tippy

I would pay to twitch that little nose.

Hell, kiddo, if you're that close, and it doesn't cost more than $5 why not punch him out or at least sneeze on the front of his shirt??

[Gary Sisco]

Or follow his father's example and puke on him.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Or follow his father's example and puke on him.

Somehow I don't think that was as funny to the puke-ee as it is to us.
What does Emily Post say one should do, as host, at an official state dinner when the honoured guest barfs on your front??
Are you supposed to, in order not to make them feel that they have perhaps committed a faux pas, barf on their front in return?
If so, those Japanese politicians don't know from manners.

[tippy]

Apropos of nothing: James Carville was in Jesse James the movie.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by tippy

Apropos of nothing: James Carville was in Jesse James the movie.

The Brad Pitt one, which by the way, was filmed here?

If it was, I don't remember James Carville in it.

[tippy]

Yes, he was the governor or some big wig. He wasn't bad actually. It was the first time Carville's looks made sense to me (though you can't really tell from pic below - but in motion). I LOVED the landscape, patricia, it was knockout beautiful!!! (Also looked very cold.)