home

Carville's Now Defending Cheney?

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 02:48:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll admit, James Carville always has been tough for me to watch on tv. It's nothing personal, I just don't get his appeal. He figits, over-dominates the discussion and his lightening speech and country twang rub me the wrong way. Add that to his wife's politics, and he's a channel-changer for me.

Arianna makes a good argument today that he needs to take a vacation . On PlameGate, he's picking up his wife's talking points on Cheney.

Check out this exchange from his appearance on The Situation Room this week:

BLITZER: Should the vice president hold a news conference or grant an interview and answer the tough questions that are being asked out there?

CARVILLE: I've got a better idea. Why doesn't the president get out and have one? Harry Truman didn't say the buck stops with the Vice President. The buck stops with the President.
....
I think the first step is not the Vice President -- [it's] the President of the United States standing up, answering to the American people, answering people's questions... The Vice nothing. There aren't no Vices around here. There's one man in charge of this country and that is George W. Bush.

Matalin is still - paid or unpaid-- an advisor to Dick Cheney. She was a member of the White House Iraq Group. She testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury. Grand jury witnesses aren't under a secrecy order. You can bet James knows what Mary knows.

It just doesn't wash that he should be considered an effective Democratic strategist when he bashes the war and Bush, but defends Cheney in PlameGate. There are some conflicts of interest that even Clorox 2 can't get out, and his and Matalin's is a prime example.

< Talking Points is Hiring | Rights Groups Say CIA Used Poland and Romania >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Carville's Now Defending Cheney? | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: Carville's Now Defending Cheney? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    I didn't hear the interview, but the part you quoted doesn't necessarily sound to me like a defense of Cheney. If Cheney isn't doing right, it's George Bush's responsibility to put him out of the decision loop, easy enough to do since Cheney has no legal standing to make decisions for America. Probably there was more to it, but this particular statement is more of an attack on Bush (well deserved) then a defense of Cheney.

    Re: Carville's Now Defending Cheney? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    OK, I'll admit I like Billy Bob Thornton playing Carville much better than I like Carville himself. But I dont' get where the "defending Cheney" stuff is coming from either. The way I read it, Carville was reminding the interviewer that Cheney is not the dang President! At no time should any Democrat let George Bush off the hook by forgetting to remind one and all that he's in charge.

    Re: Carville's Now Defending Cheney? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Both Bill Clinton and James Carville cater to Southerners the same way that GWB does. TL is not from the south, so I can understand her not identifying with it. That's not to say I really identify with either; however, having been born here, I do understand it. It's simply a style thing. Sometimes Progressives/Liberals/or Democrats will take pot shots at Bush because of the Southern twang. They'll say it makes him sound stupid. I say that it isn't the Southern accent that makes him sound stupid, it is his WORDS and ideas that make him sound stupid. Most Southerners have the accent, but not all of us live in rusted trailers with rebel flags, dirty unkempt children, and George Wallace election posters in our living rooms (although undoubtedly a VERY uncomfortable majority percentage of Southerners at least nominally embrace Conservative, racially bigoted, and/or religious/cultural intolerant values). All of that said, although there is a percentage of truth and goodness in the words and ideas of Carville and Clinton, it remains that THEIR DLC is far closer to Conservatism where it effects all of us the most -- in our pocketbooks. We can all wail against Social Conservatism easily enough, but dollars are the lifeblood of D.C. and Corporatists are having a field day presenting virtually the same ideas and closed debate as if they were opposite sides of a coin. In the resulting misguided debate, American voter's (conservatives and progressives alike) have allowed Corporate Consolidation on a massive International scale to be a Footnote instead of the Central Focus. Nearly all of it "Trickling Down" to the consumer. The "Sucking Sound" is down to a whisper -- because a huge number of jobs are already gone (jobs that would have been created, if it wasn't for NAFTA in it's present form). It's still the economy, Stupid -- but not the way it was in 1992. Don't dislike Carville's (or Clinton's ) style simply based on their style, praise them for the good they accomplish, but never ignore ideals that are out of step with Progressive ideals (especially from anyone associated with the Corporatist DLC). Bombing and Starving Countries into submission for the sake of Corporate profits and cheaper iPODs ARE NOT Progressive ideals.

    Re: Carville's Now Defending Cheney? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    If anything the Carville/matalin Match up personifies what is wrong with Cable News it self. The each claim to represent both sides but sleep with each other at night. It is inevitable they will sooner or later be corrupted by it.

    Re: Carville's Now Defending Cheney? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patriot Daily on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    I interpret Jeralyn's comment as addressing the total Carville response, not JUST HIS WORDS. Carville's GOP-lite tactic was to switch the issue in his response to Bush rather than directly address the question of all the links to Cheney in the indictment etc. His avoidance, while a tactic, was also a substantive response in the sense that he changed the issue in the question. One problem the public has had with Democrats is that they have not in the past stated issues in a frank matter, such as the prior responses about whether they would have voted for the war had they known then about the lies, deceptions, etc. So, the other problem with Carville's response is that you can not ignore the current temper of the times, so to speak, with Democrats. Democrats are now, finally,speaking directly and frankly about the war, plame probe, wmd intelligence, cherry picking etc. In other words, Carville should get onto the same page and not avoid the Cheney issue. If Carville wanted to address Bush's role, he should have first addressed Cheney's role, and then said, yes, and we can't forget about Bush's role, blah blah. In short, Bush bumped the libby/rove/cheney story off the front pages with alito/flu stories, and then the Democrats secret senate move bumped the plamegate story back to the front pages, and now Carville bumps things back to Bush's court. So, yes, Carville defended Cheney because his little routine will be picked up by the media.

    Re: Carville's Now Defending Cheney? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    TS writes:
    Both Bill Clinton and James Carville cater to Southerners the same way that GWB does
    Clinton is gone and Carville is fading. And your point is?? PD - Problem is, no one beyond the left wing base is believing the BS being spouted about Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Plame-Wilson. Too much evidence out there, too availabe to too many people... Can you spell I N T E R N E T???

    Re: Carville's Now Defending Cheney? (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    i hope you take a huge bag o' salt with you, when you read whatever ariana huffington has to say. she was a twit during the 2000 election, and remains a twit today. carville is carville, take him or leave him. frankly, anyone masochistic enough to marry mary matalin deserves our sympathy. jim, i have to admit a certain admiration for your style, straight from the republican clearing house for misinformation: say anything, provide no supporting evidence, and hope some people are dumb enough to actually believe you. and there are enough dumb people out there. of course, it makes no difference what any talking heads or, in your case, empty heads, say. what matters is what a judge and/or jury hears.

    Re: Carville's Now Defending Cheney? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Jim, author, Wingers are from Mars: "no one beyond the left wing base is believing the BS being spouted about Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Plame-Wilson." Mr. Plame-Wilson? You're claiming the Ambassador married Valerie's father? No wonder you are terminally confused. Aside from the corruption, I mean.

    Carville's Now Defending Cheney? | 8 comments (8 topical)