Skip to main content

View Diary: Is Carville Emanuel's Sockpuppet? (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ignore Carville and he will go away (16+ / 0-)

    He's just fuming because the Dems are back on top and he wasn't a part of it because he decided to marry a top GOP strategist instead of staying in the game.

    We are Democrats, united, on the same team and must move forward in that fashion. This food fight is most unseemly, most counterproductive and quite boring to boot.

    •  Which is why Carville (23+ / 0-)

      needs to shut the fuck up.

      "I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer

      by Joan McCarter on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:57:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And why he needs to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PLS, sagra

        go the fuck away.

        Jon Kyl
        Incompetent, Bush's lapdog

        by Cato come back on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:31:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What if he's right (0+ / 0-)

        What then?

        •  Right about what? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HillaryGuy

          That Howard Dean screwed up the Congressional races, which are the purview of the DCCC, btw? That the DCCC wanted 50 races to begin with and it was Dean's job to find the funding for it? (Once again, the DCCC is in charge of Congressional races and fundraising for them.) That Dean has so mismanaged the DNC that he should be ousted? On the heels of a signficant victory?

          "I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer

          by Joan McCarter on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:39:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Any of those things (0+ / 0-)

            I don't really care what the point of contention is, I object more to the rather violently expressed notion that Carville (or anyone else) shouldn't be allowed to say what they think

            •  Well, sure, it's pretty distasteful (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mcjoan, HillaryGuy

              to a democratically-minded body of Democrats to impose gag orders on anyone.  People at dKos itself don't like being told to Shut Their F-ing Pie Hole, for example.

              But at the same time, I don't see how it's particularly productive for Carville to rain on the Dem's parade right now.  It's obnoxious, for one -- it's like the erstwhile team captain who watches the newbie lead the team to victory, saying, "Phht... I could have done it better."  That's like so totally obnoxious!

              Over and beyond that, it does something that Republicans are loathe to do:  break the party's united front.  Carville shouldn't be made to shut up, but does he need to share his critical musings openly with reporters?  Is that what Rove or Norquist do?  Can you imagine some prominent RNC advisor stepping in front of reporters immediately after the '94 victory and saying, "well, if they'd followed MY idea, we could have picked up 80 seats"?

              No one should be made to shut up.  But I reserve the right to say that they're an idiot for shooting their mouth off at the wrong time, and in front of the wrong audience.

              Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

              by Dale on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:54:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I support at 100% (0+ / 0-)

                doing things Republicans are loathe to do!  What Rove/Norquist do just got a resounding "NO" from the majority of Americans..

                Plus for most folks this is inside baseball, at this particular moment, the voters just let us know what they think & a Carville vs Dean public argument is not going to turn things around and put the GOP back in power.  (I do think putting Murtha at majority leader post wouldn't help us on the ethics reform front though)

                •  have you ever met Howard Dean? (0+ / 0-)

                  just curious, because you appear to have no idea who or what he is about. Free speech is great. Ignorance and lies are not.

                  Please explain at least possibility where Carville could conceivably be right re his castigations of dean's choices/ Please be specific. Free speech and all.

                  •  I haven't met Dean personally. (0+ / 0-)

                    I started participating in the blogosphere via the Dean for America blog in summer 2003.  If the archives of that are still around anywhere you are free to check, I don't know if they are or not.  That's how I found Daily Kos (pre Scoop era) in the first place.  I went to Dean for American meetups and organizing events in Rhode Island, summer 2003 - early 2004.  I heard him speak at a small high school in New Hampshire, late 2003.

                    Carville could be right in that the DNC's plan is sound, but implementation is not.  Or in that strategically, it's more wise to put up enough money to win more seats in the current climate, so favorable to us, than use all the money for long term party building.  He could be right.  It's about strategy and use of resources and what he sees as far as how DNC resources are being used and what potential it has.

              •  Again and again (0+ / 0-)

                It is the corporate media.
                It is the filter (gag) that screens out serious Democrats and promotes the corporation kissers exclusive venues.
                It is becoming even worse.  The ABC news division seemed on an even keel.  Anybody watched it in in the past few days?

                The corporate media is the enemy.

            •  He can say whatever the fuck he wants (6+ / 0-)

              behind closed doors with the powers that be.

              But carrying on this very public pissing match is harmful to the party. It's destructive. It feeds into the narrative of Dems in disarray. It does no one any good.

              If he has real, valid concerns about the way the DNC is being run, he has the ears of the people who need to hear it. Taking his fight to the press is distasteful and destructive.

              "I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer

              by Joan McCarter on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:07:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I mean, it's a big tent isn't it (0+ / 0-)

            One person's "let's maintain party discipline and STFU" is another person's views and interests getting trampled on and silenced, innit

            •  Again, isn't it a question of where (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Malacandra, kaye, Yamara

              those views are shared?  If Carville wants to share his strategic vision in closed session with other Democratic leaders, great.  But does he need to go straight to the media with his ideas?  

              Isn't this what we objected to with Lieberman?  If it was simply that he had dissenting views, would we have mounted a primary challenge?  Or is it that he systematically chose the mose public forums -- the little standing "O" at Bush's SOTU address; the Fox News interviews bashing Dems -- to air this dissent?

              Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

              by Dale on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:58:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Carville's presence is out of proportion (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Gryffin, kaye

              Dissent is one thing. Filling the most available airtime with a position that is made of nothing but self-aggrandizing fantasy bravado is disservice.

              It's deliberately counterproductive to the success of what most Democrats are after, and what they have been working for. Thus, he should "STFU".

              Carville is the magician's hanky, though. He's actually nothing. The more he's waving away out there, the more I start looking at the other hand: Rahm Emanuel.

              "To such thinking you have only to say 'the land you loved is doomed' to excuse any treachery, indeed to glorify it." -Tolkien, On Fairy-Stories, 1938.

              by Yamara on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:06:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  How is he right? (0+ / 0-)

          I mean that in all seriousness.  If Dean pursued a fifty-state strategy, against heavy opposition from the Dem establishment, and it succeeded in gaining Dems many seats, and even erstwhile skeptics are now attributing the win to Dean's decision to have someone competent running in every district, and money for certain races that the earlier strategy would have deemed lost causes, then where does Carville's brilliant strategy fit into all this?  How is he right?

          Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

          by Dale on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:44:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know and it's not my job to explain. (0+ / 0-)

            We'll never find out if he's right or wrong, if the answer is to order him to STFU.

            Surely if Dean is doing such a great job, the facts will stand up to scrutiny, yes?  

            •  Scrutiny (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HillaryGuy, Cottagerose

              McGovern and a lot of other people were right about the war in Vietnam. But the Democrats who had been involved in the prosecution of the war under the Johnson administration helped undercut his campaign in 1972. People in his own party poo-pooed him -- a veteran with 35 bomber missions over Europe and a Distinguished Flying Cross -- as some sort of soft hippy peacenik. The end result was that Nixon won handily, only to continue the war for another couple of years, to have his VP resign in disgrace for acts committed while he was still governor of Maryland, and to run out of office himself before he was impeached. Yet Nixon's the one who's generally regarded as the better statesman, his cronies (Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.) are the ones who are advising the current administration on Iraq.

              So sure, facts stand up to historical scrutiny, but a lot of damage can get done in the process, not only to reputations, but more importantly to people, the nation, and the world. The whole "history will be our judge" is so GW Bush, don't you think?

              Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

              by darrelplant on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:22:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i think daria might be troll-baiting (0+ / 0-)

                Now a non-HillaryGuy. No, I am still a guy, but probably with smaller balls than Rahm. But Hill's people piss me off. Rahm + Carville = a ton of ego

                by HillaryGuy on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:57:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  ? (0+ / 0-)

                  I feel pretty strongly about this - if we're in the reality-based community, we should be able to have a good honest debate and the truth will out.

                  •  cool, good enough for me. (0+ / 0-)

                    but the repetitive exact same questions you were asking seemed funny, that's all.  it's all good.

                    Now a non-HillaryGuy. No, I am still a guy, but probably with smaller balls than Rahm. But Hill's people piss me off. Rahm + Carville = a ton of ego

                    by HillaryGuy on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Debate (0+ / 0-)

                    Then present some facts of your own.

                    Adults -- and people in contact with reality -- know that the good guys don't always win.

                    BTW, the site you're linking in your sig, is that a Republican shill site, or what? I notice that a bunch of the "Most Corrupt" Republicans they're touting are on their way out from retirement or have been defeated at the polls. So that way they can include Murtha and Maxine Waters and pretend that it's a bipartisan slam on corruption? Interesting game.

                    Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

                    by darrelplant on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:45:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, it's not (0+ / 0-)

                      I mean, you could Google and read up about it before you accuse me of that.

                      •  Google (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't need to Google it. I just looked at the list of the people on the site and noticed that a number of people on their list were on the way out already. I didn't accuse you of being associated with the site, either, just linking to it.

                        On the other hand, the "It's OK if you're a Democrat?" sig looks a little twinky. Why be coy about it?

                        Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

                        by darrelplant on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:48:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ? (0+ / 0-)

                          I mean, you looked at the list of the people on the site and came up with a conspiracy theory about the site planting GOP names in there to masquerade as nonpartisan!

                          It's a liberal think tank founded by some ex-Clinton staff.  It listed mostly GOP because, surprise surprise, the most corrupt members are GOP.  

                          I have a problem with corruption.  I have a problem with folks glossing over Murtha's history in this regard by saying "whatever Nancy wants, Nancy gets" and essentially, it's OK, because we're Democrats.  It's not OK.

                •  ((( i think daria might be troll-baiting ))) (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  HillaryGuy

                  there's not a doubt about it.

                  Hey -- you don't get off saying "I have no idea how he's wrong and it's not my job to explain". Yes it is.  There's  a very odd ring to your comments. When someone feigns neutrality yet endorses, in a passive-agressive way, unfounded assaults, it's suitable cause to wonder why you raise the question at all about "what if Carville is right?"

                  If you have reason to ask that question and you are since, then you have some obligation to know what you're talking about, otherwise where is your value add to this discussion. What if they're right, you're a troll?

                  I have no obligation to find out one way or another, and it'n not my job to do so. Free speech and all.

            •  Facts are one thing, attacks are another (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Patricia Taylor

              If Carville has valid criticisms of Dean's management of the DNC, why doesn't he articulate them, rather than making ad hominem arguments on the basis of wild conjecture like "We would have won 50 seats in the House if not for Dean".

              That kind of statement cannot possibly be verified or falsified.  And no amount of water under the bridge can change that. Historical analysts can never verify hypothetical claims.

              What we can see is that Dean has raised record sums for a DNC chair in an off year, and has hired people in every state to help with grassroots organizing and strategy. When Dean does local fundraising across the country, rather than taking the money back to Washington, as his predecessor did, he leaves it where it can do good locally.

              These are verifiable empirical and incontrovertible facts. Whether these tactics ended up helping Democrats achieve victory is arguable. But Carville isn't arguing facts - he's making personal attacks.

              And that's not helpful to the health of the party or forwarding our understanding of the situation, regardless whether he's right or wrong.

              Victory has many fathers, but Howard Dean was the doctor in the delivery room.

              by Malacandra on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:46:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Thats what I thought the first time (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosette, Luetta, kaye, LithiumCola

      he made those comments.  The fact that he has reiterated them makes it clear he is working on someone else's behalf.

    •  He's fuming about $$$ (8+ / 0-)

      I doubt he's doing this at Rahm's behest or anything. I think he's pissed because Dean is starting to get recognition internationally as a shrewd strategist and he and others are starting to create a "new wave" of Democratic political strategists. This puts Carville's lucrative international consulting business at risk.

      You think KMart doesn't run around denigrating Target? Well, to Carville, it's much that same thing here. Dean and others of his ilk are competition.

      Maybe I'm too cynical and narrow about Carville's motives here, but it wouldn't surprise me ...

      •  Right, the labour party in the UK hired Dean (0+ / 0-)

        to advise them on their regional elections coming up in May.  I am sure Carville has burned with envy.  I guess he thinks he should be the only one to be able to put food on the table.

        Now a non-HillaryGuy. No, I am still a guy, but probably with smaller balls than Rahm. But Hill's people piss me off. Rahm + Carville = a ton of ego

        by HillaryGuy on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:00:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He's preparing the road for Hillary '08 (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rick, tmo, PLS, Cottagerose, CTDemoFarmer

      He's working to clear the way for her.  He doesn't care if it ends the DNC, the grassroots or the netroots.  They know what's best for the country.  It doesn't include the rabble.

      •  it's all good (0+ / 0-)

        Carville and his ilk are the past, and he knows it all too well.

      •  Mark November 5, 2008, in your calendar (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rick

        That is the day after Hillary goes down in flames, the post-Clinton era begins in Democratic politics, and the long-overdue work of reforming the party starts in earnest.

        "The pooh-bahs of the parties of all colours have made themselves actually more important than the individual electors."--Garth Turner, Canadian MP

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:26:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let her run in 2012 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kaye

          That's when her term as MY Senator is over. I say she has to stay in the Senate until then.

          Ah, but won't the Democratic President be running for reelection that year?

          Oh well.

          "To such thinking you have only to say 'the land you loved is doomed' to excuse any treachery, indeed to glorify it." -Tolkien, On Fairy-Stories, 1938.

          by Yamara on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:13:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Please make that your sigline... (0+ / 0-)

          ((( Mark November 5, 2008, in your calendar. That is the day after Hillary goes down in flames, the post-Clinton era begins in Democratic politics, and the long-overdue work of reforming the party starts in earnest. )))

          You said it the other day in a post on the "Russ is out" thread -- and it made great sense then. I think you should let that point punctuate all of your posts. but that's just me :)

      •  Exactly, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kaye

        that was the problem with Dean all along, that he wanted to bring the rabble to the table. He was a DLC darling before that. Clinton said something to the effect that if we could bottle what Howard has, we would win all over the country. You see, prior to being picked by a movement to be it's leader, Howard was a cracker-jack administrator. But Dean is from a very small NE state, one in which democracy still exists because you know your politicians. Howard's home phone # was in the telephone book, people could call their governor in VT. That's why Bernie won, and why VT was the only state to go for Dean... long after he hadn't a prayer.

        That was Howard's achilles heel for the DLC, his belief in democracy.

    •  And I used to like Carville too... (0+ / 0-)

      I once thought he was one of the best political strategist in the Democratic ranks.  Now I realize he is just a relic of the past.  He can't conform to the political game of 2006, so he denounces the way the netroots and Dean play the game.  Which is why he now works for CNN instead of running someone's campaign.  

      It's the equivalent of your grandfather denouncing the computer because he thinks the typewriter is the only way to type letters.  

      The Dems have great VP candidates for 2008: Richardson, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius, etc, but who's going to head the ticket?

      by DemBrock on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:30:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But that's not true (0+ / 0-)

      <sigh>

      I feel like I'm in bizarro world here

      There are things that are true and things that are false

      Dean's 50 state strategy being the real reason we won = not true (and whatever you think of the merits, successes, failures thereof, it wasn't designed to pay dividends so early!)

      Carville out of the game instead of helping Dems win elections = not true

      •  I'm not saying the 50-state strategy (6+ / 0-)

        is what won this. No one is, including Howard. What everyone in the Party besides Emanuel and Carville have done is recognize that every player, the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC, the grassroots and the netroots played a crucial role in this election.

        Emanuel's open war with Dean has gone on quite long enough, thank you. Carville has no place feeding it.

        "I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer

        by Joan McCarter on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:41:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  as my mom would say... you're just (0+ / 0-)

        ...talking to hear yourself talk.

        ((( Dean's 50 state strategy being the real reason we won = not true (and whatever you think of the merits, successes, failures thereof, it wasn't designed to pay dividends so early!)

        Carville out of the game instead of helping Dems win elections = not true )))

        If you have something to add of substance, please by all means reveal it.

        Global warming is not due to our oil addiction. Many things play a role.

        ---- Really? Such as? ----

        ((( Oh I don't know what else they would be, but one thing's for sure, there are other factors at play )))

        Note how useful the above statements are.

    •  Ignoring seems like a good strategy (0+ / 0-)

      This is my inclination as well.  Why give him any more fame or power?

    •  Carville has become the insignificant (0+ / 0-)

      talking head that CNN puts up beside the equally insignificant BAy Buchanan (shrill Bitch).

      No one listens to Bay and hasn't for a couple years. And now Carville is her pardner.

      Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site