I have been told that James Carville is actually rather nice, in public. I’m not entirely sure I believe that, but fine. The problem is that he also thinks in terms of clan and tribe when it comes to politics.
“I suspect she didn’t want Louie Gohmert rifling through her e-mails, which seems to me to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take,” Carville said. “Just like everything else before it, it amounts to nothing but a bunch of people flapping their jaws about nothing.”
For those unfamiliar, Gohmert is an outspoken conservative member of Congress who often jousts with Democrats. But he’s also a member of Congress, which is precisely the body that Republicans are accusing Clinton of trying to avoid with her “homebrew” e-mail server.
James Carville had some nice things to say about Ted Cruz:
“I think he is the most talented and fearless Republican politician I’ve seen in the last 30 years,” Carville asserted emphatically, as the panel discussed Cruz’s reported presidential aspirations. “I further think that he is going to run for president, and he is going to create something.”
That’s not to say Cruz would win, Carville noted, but “this guy has no fear. He just keeps plowing ahead. He is going to be something to watch.”
The ‘no fear’ thing here rings true to me. I’ve met Ted Cruz on a couple of occasions, and I’ll say this about him: seldom have I met a man in Washington who visibly gives less of a sh*t about what Official Washington thinks of him than the Senator does. He’s not really in DC to be liked. I’m not entirely certain that Senator Cruz likes to be in DC at all. Continue reading James Carville respects Ted Cruz in public.
At least, “post-apocalyptic” from the Left’s point of view.
So I watched this clip of James Carville furiously spinning the suddenly-more-plausible possibility of Obamacare going down utterly in flames as being the most awesome thing ever for Democrats:
By the way: I should ask Erick how he manages to avoid pointing and laughing at performances like this. I don’t know that I could manage the same self-control.
Anyway, Allahpundit watched the clip, too, and he’s got a legitimate question about whether Carville is correct and that this would be ultimately good for Democrats. The answer is… if it is, not in the sense that everybody is meaning. Except maybe James Carville: he’s clever enough to give out the wrong reasoning in public. Continue reading The post-apocalyptic future of Obamacare?
James Carville, reliable Democrat, on the President’s attempt to troll the GOP debate:
“I do think this is a really big debate and I think the White House was out of bounds…in trying to schedule a speech during a debate,” Carville said on “GMA.”
“Given a choice between watching a debate and the speech I would have watched the debate and I’m not even a Republican or even close to being a Republican,” he said, adding it will be a “barn burner.”
Which it will be, if for no other reason than Mitt Romney will have to take this debate seriously from the get-go. He’s not the presumed nominee anymore, and Romney wants that status back he’s going to have to up his game – which is why Carville (and everybody else in this business) was planning to tune in next Wednesday. And why they’re themselves a little ticked off at the President for trying to crash the party; after all, none of the professionals (on both sides of the spectrum) expect anything actually substantive from Obama’s speech anyway…
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”
We’ll hold up the inevitable knee-jerk defenses of Carville here – which will probably not start until 8:46 AM tomorrow morning – with a tart comment that hypocrisy is not going to cut it this time. If Carville is to be allowed to use the defense that he merely wished for Bush’s policies to fail, than so should Limbaugh; contrariwise, if Limbaugh’s comments are simply unacceptable, any time, any place, and with no mitigation, then Carville’s must be treated similarly. And Carville is assuredly aware of how that comment would have played out: the way he begged the reporters to not repeat that suddenly-inflammatory statement is diagnostic. So is the way that they covered up Carville’s mess, but never mind that right now. Continue reading James Carville explicitly expressed a wish for Bush to fail.