In which Landrieu and Carville make my ass ache.

I just received a solicitation in the mail from the Mary Landrieu campaign.  It included a letter from James Carville stating that "We cannot afford to lose Mary Landrieu in the Senate."

The first thing that popped into my mind was, "Who the fuck are 'we,' James?"   I mean, the Democrats are supposed to Kicking Ass, not Kissing Ass.

I cannot imagine what list they got my name from, but sending me a letter from James Carville would piss me off, no matter what it was for.  His signature should always include, "From the man who brought you Zell Miller!"  His fifteen minutes are more than over.

That said, I can't fathom why Mary Landrieu could possibly think that she deserves progressive support.  When Bush needed a green light to invade a sovereign nation that did not - could not - attack us, Mary Landrieu was there.  When Bush needed a spineless Congress to say that, yes indeed, the Geneva Conventions are quaint and Torture is a necessary component of our New Endless Glorious War on Terra, Mary Landrieu was there.  When Bush needed additional Constitutional toilet paper regarding warrantless wiretapping, once again, Mary Landrieu was there.

Now, Mary Landrieu expects me to be there for her?   James Carville tells me we cannot afford to lose her in the Senate?  Here's a clue: Go solicit funds from that mythical "center" you fear and cater to so much.

IMO, we cannot afford to keep Mary Landrieu in the Senate.  The damage that she (and those like her) do to Brand Democrat is far greater than her measly vote for our Senate Incompetent Hack Leader Reid.  

Go, Mary!  Go boldly to that "center" and quit begging me for my "fringe" dollars.  

•  I hope she loses.

  No, I'm not from Louisiana.  But that didn't stop Sen. Landrieu from asking me for cash, so here's my $0.02:  I hope you lose Senator Landrieu.  I hope you are primaried, and/or I hope Louisiana is able to elect a real Democrat to the Senate in 2014.  

  by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:25:03 PM PDT

  •  The guy you support for president co-sponsored

    the Iraq War Resolution as well.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:34:28 PM PDT

    •  No shit.

      He also repudiated that support, and is demanding that Democrats stand up and stop the war.  Has Mary Landieu done the same?

      by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:35:27 PM PDT

      •  She's voted for withdrawal.

        That puts her way above Edwards in action taken.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:37:50 PM PDT

        •  She was for withdrawal

          before she was for the surge?  Nice of her to stand up, when it didn't mean anything.  What about Torture?  Did she say something profound before she gave Cheney her vote?  FISA?

          Mary Landrieu can kiss my ass, and go solicit donations from Republicans.

          by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:40:28 PM PDT

          •  Actually, she opposed the surge.

            She voted to express such an opposition

            by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:43:17 PM PDT

            •  She's wonderful

              on non-binding resolutions, isn't she!  But she voted yes on the supplemental, so she's not so good when it counts.

              by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:47:12 PM PDT

              •  She voted for withdrawal. If we had 16 more

                Mary Landrieus in heavily red states and 70 more in heavily red districts, our troops would be home by now.

                by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:49:53 PM PDT

                •  Like I said, she's just great, DL (n/t)

                  by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:51:06 PM PDT

        •  Was Edwards in the Senate

          when that vote was taken?

          Edwards's initial war support still rankles, and I'm not exactly overcome with warm fuzzies for the guy, but fair is fair.

          Anyway, in terms of action, I suppose nobody beats Kucinich. :-))

          by corvo on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 05:29:28 PM PDT

      •  You are so correct

        That previous comment is ignorant, failing to recognize that people can change.

        Edwards is on fire.   What need his leadership badly.

        by formernadervoter on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:46:36 PM PDT

  •  Let her fight on her own

    She has her corporate buddies.

    by fugue on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:35:52 PM PDT

•  re

  I don't like the company that man keeps...

  by cookiesandmilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:30:22 PM PDT

  •  Carville

    apparently has a soft spot for Republicans named Mary.

    by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:31:31 PM PDT

    •  Zing!

      by Marcus Tullius on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:32:07 PM PDT

•  here is my $.02

  stop making US senator a "show up job".

  by eddienic on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:33:39 PM PDT

•  I hope she loses.

  Yes, it would be great if we could have another David Vitter from Louisiana.  We wouldn't have to worry about a Senator being "right" only some of the time.    

  by TheProf2222 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:37:11 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure

    Mary Landrieu voted great on that minimum wage increase they snuck into that Iraq War supplemental.  But, nontheless, wishing Senator Landrieu defeat is an easy decision.

    by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:38:44 PM PDT

    •  Yes, if Landrieu had lost millions would be

      making 70 cents less an hour (about $1,500 less per year), because that would never have been put into the supplemental if Mitch McConnell was Majority Leader.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:41:40 PM PDT

      •  Yay!

        The Constitution is in tatters, we have more troops in Iraq than ever (and more debt than ever to the Communist Chinese to finance it), and the U.S. openly engages in torture -- all with Senator Landrieu's support.

        But the minimum wage is going up by $0.03 over 120 years, so it's all good!  Go Mary Landrieu!  LOL

        by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:44:07 PM PDT

        •  It means a lot to those who only make $15,000

          a year.

          by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:45:27 PM PDT

          •  Yes

            And a real minimum wage hike indexed to inflation would mean a helluva lot more.

            Mary Landrieu is not worth the trouble.  She needs to go.

            by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:47:53 PM PDT

•  Tipped and rec'd because James Carville is

  a Rethuglican in Dem clothing.  James Carville is sleeping with the enemy (Mary Maitlin is still working for Darth Cheney...) and he did everything in his power to make sure that both Gore and Kerry lost their elections.

  So, an endorsement of any kind from undercover Rethug Carville means he's supporting another Rethuglican in Dem clothing.  Looks like it's Landrieu this time, so let's make sure she doesn't get a penny and a real Dem takes her place.

  by Little Lulu on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:42:41 PM PDT

  •  He did everything in his power to make sure that

    Gore and Kerry lost their elections? You mean by failing to take an active role in their campaigns?

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:44:23 PM PDT

    •  No. I mean by giving them terrible advice,

      which is what he does every time he opens his mouth.  After all, he was the first one to demand that Howard Dean step down as the Dem chairman after we WON in 2006 thanks to Dean's 50 state strategy and the hard work of political activists all over the country.

      Taking advice from Carville is like taking advice from Cheney - exactly the opposite of the thing that will work.

      by Little Lulu on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:02:06 PM PDT

      •  Actually, he demanded it because Dean didn't

        spend the $10,000,000 he had available to spend on the election.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:04:36 PM PDT

        •  As always

          with these "Democrats," it's about the money.  

          Howard Dean wasn't on CNN with a paper bag on his fuckin' head.  James Carville was.

          Howard Dean is using the money to build the party, not on the DC power structure.  Given what the DC Dems have shown us lately, it's a damned fine decision on Chairman Dean's part.

          by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:07:26 PM PDT

          •  Thank you!!

            My sentiments exactly!!

            by RDemocrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:08:12 PM PDT

        •  And you BOUGHT that load of BS?

          Hahaha....many of us had been hearing for months earlier that Clinton people would be pushing to get Dean out after Novemebr elections no matter what.

          We wondered what tact they would take if the  Dems pulled it off.

          Personally, I think NONE of the apologists really believe the lies Carville and his gang use but will reinforce whatever they need to.... as told.

          by Jail the BFEE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:08:29 PM PDT

        •  Dean took a loan

          If spending more wasn't going to chance the results (much), then it would be wiser NOT to spend, as the load would have effectively meant less money for the 2008 cycle. Who knows what parameters Dean was looking and how he made his decision.

          What we do know is that Dean can be trusted, and these power playing establishment player can't be.

          Are you actually saying Carville is right to bash Dean on this? This Carville dude should first write to Dean and ask whatever questions he wants before getting up there and smearing him.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:59:00 PM PDT

      •  Agreed!!

        I lost all use I had for Carville when I heard his comments about Chairman Dean. I will back Dean over Carville any day!!

        by RDemocrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:04:38 PM PDT

      •  Except that

        Carville's advice has actually helped win the big Enchilada.

        by Pozzo on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:10:23 PM PDT

        •  No.

          Bill Clinton's charisma and Ross Perot helped win the big Enchilada.  Carville was there for the ride.

          by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:10:59 PM PDT

          •  Actually - Bush1 lost because a few Dems in

            the senate and congress kept pummeling him throughoout his term with constant investigations and the more that came out about his covert operations and the lies he constructed the more the people broke trust with that president.

            Then Bill Clinton came along and made sure Poppy Bush received all the protection he needed while BushInc regrouped and came back stronger than ever in the 90s.

            http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

            Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

            By Robert Parry
            (First Posted May 11, 2006)

            Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

            Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

            Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

            My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

            Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

            Clinton "didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people," Sender told me in an interview. "He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships."

            Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

            Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, "these centrist Democrats ... warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections."

            These Democrats also called on the party to reject its "non-interventionist left" wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

            "Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office," said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking. [Washington Post, May 10, 2006]

            Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

            by Jail the BFEE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:17:32 PM PDT

    •  No - by TELLING MATALIN about the challenge to

      the provisional ballots in Ohio and then Matalin having Bush call Blackwell and then the provisional ballot numbers dropping from 250,000 to 150,000.

      Yep - Clinton and Carville gave GREAT ADVICE after 2000's rampant election fraud - the DNC was to concentrate on raising money and buying a building in DC for 4 years instead of strengthening the party infrastructures that had been collapsed in all the red and swing states.

      Gee - let's guess what Clinton, Carville and McAuliffe gang was up to then.....was Hillary 2008 operational before 2004?

      Historian Douglas Brinkley in APRIL 2004:
      http://www.depauw.edu/...

      Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. [DOWNLOAD AUDIO: "VP Hillary?" 372KB]"There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered [unable] to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."

      Here's Clinton helpfully defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq in June 2004.

      http://www.cnn.com/...

      Clinton defends successor's push for war
      Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

      http://www.tpmcafe.com/...

      Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

      By M.J. Rosenberg |

      I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
      On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

      Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

      So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

      So what happened?

      James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

      "Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

      "Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

      Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

      by Jail the BFEE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:04:31 PM PDT

•  Got the same letter

  It went the same place, in the trash. I will not support anyone who doesn't support the Constitution first. I agree, Carville's time has come and gone.

  Great diary, tipped and recc'd!!

  by RDemocrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:46:48 PM PDT

  •  Best thing

    That could happen for LA Democrats is if a real Democrat primaries Landrieu!!

    by RDemocrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:47:37 PM PDT

  •  Oh,

    mine went back with a love note telling her she shouldn't ask for donations from Democrats when she votes with the Republicans.

    by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:48:36 PM PDT

•  Please

  See this diary on a Democrat who should be running in Kentucky who does support our Constitution, and deserves our support here:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by RDemocrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:07:27 PM PDT

•  Who do you suggest to

  replace Landrieu?

  by Pozzo on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:09:31 PM PDT

  •  A real Democrat (n/t)

    by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:10:23 PM PDT

    •  Like who?

      LA isn't exactly crawling with them. I am not an expert on LA politics but do study them pretty carefully. I can't think of any candidates who are both progressive and could win a primary challenge to an incumbent Democrat.

      by Pozzo on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:12:09 PM PDT

      •  I don't know who.

        Like I said, I'm not from Louisiana, and I don't know the lay of the land there.

        I would say, however, that having a traitorous Democrat is worse than having a Republican in the seat.  The Democratic Party has to mean something.  It cannot prove Nader right.

        by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:13:52 PM PDT

      •  I'm not sure he could win

        but I think Foster Campbell would be an improvement.  Or even her brother.

        Other than that, Mary Landrieu is probably the best we are going to get.

        by IhateBush on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 05:47:44 PM PDT

        •  The bench is not deep in LA

          I think the normal areas you would look for a challeger for a senate seat are:

          1. The Congressional delegtion. Good luck with that. All we have is William Jefferson, who will likely be in prison before November 08.

          2. The statewide elected officials. Her brother isn't going to challenge her. Foti, the AG is old and probably wouldnt' be much better. Kennedy just switched and might run against her as a Republican.

          3. Big city Mayors. Ray Nagin? totally inept and probably not that progressive, since he's an ex Republican. Marc Morial? Might not be a bad senator but wasn't electable statewide prior to Katrina's devasatation of the African American population.

          4. Former statewide office holders. Breaux? Worse than Landrieu, but likely electable. J. Bennett Johnston? Too old and not that progressive. Edwin Edwards? In Prison.

          by Pozzo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:51:22 AM PDT

•  Run an actual Dem against Landrieu

  What a loser she is!

  Actually thought sucking up to Bush would get more help after Katrina.

  She is a Dem in name only.

  by formernadervoter on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:45:22 PM PDT

  •  In Louisiana? Dream on.

    I still see people walking around with Bush shirts on here in Baton Rouge.

    by iowabosox on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:05:59 PM PDT

•  I got a letter, too.

  It went in the wastebasket unopened.  When I see the name Carville I
  want to throw up.  Landrieu should find another mentor if she wants
  to get reelected.  

  by djohnutk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:48:18 PM PDT

  •  You know, Carville actually tends to win races,

    as opposed to the Trippi's or Brazille's or Shrum's that Edwards, Gore and Kerry work with.

    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:08:34 PM PDT

    •  Brazille's Won.

      Unless you believe that 6,000 Jews in West Palm Beach voted for Pat Buchanan.

      by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:24:14 PM PDT

      •  It should never have come down to that

        The Gore campaign was not well run. Brazille deserves her pro rata share of the blame for this. She also did Mike Dukakis no favors in 88.

        by Pozzo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:54:27 AM PDT

        •  Right - the DNC should've SECURED THE ELECTION

          PROCESS. But, instead the DNC as headed by Bill Clinton and his loyalists oversaw the collapse of the party infrastructures in all the red and swing states like Florida and Ohio by the end of the 90s.

          And the problems even WORSENED after 2000's election fraud became apparent during the hearings -  under the stewardship of Clinton loyalist Terry McAuliffe who promised that the DNC would counter the RNC's tactics. But....he....did...NOT.

          I think McAuliffe's ineffective stewardship of the DNC was part of Brinkley's observations in early 2004:

          http://www.depauw.edu/...

          Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. [DOWNLOAD AUDIO: "VP Hillary?" 372KB]"There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered [unable] to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."

          by Jail the BFEE on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:35:12 AM PDT

    •  Clinton won becuz Dems in CONGRESS pummeled

      Bush1 with investigations on his covert dealings and FORCED bad headlines for him throughout that election cycle.

      Kerry had Bill repay that with headlines in 2004 that crowed about Bill's consistent support for Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war strategies.

      Here's Clinton helpfully defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq in June 2004.

      http://www.cnn.com/...

      Clinton defends successor's push for war
      Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

      (CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

      "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

      Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

      Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

      The Clintons and the Bushes didn't WANT an open government Democrat in the oval office - they had far too much to keep hidden over the last few decades. Bush2 needs Clinton2 to cover up for his crimes of office, just as Bill did for Poppy Bush.

      http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

      And THAT is why so many of us are against a Clinton2 administration.

      by Jail the BFEE on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:25:43 AM PDT

•  As a Louisiana resident

  I can tell you the fact that we have ANY Democratic representation statewide will be a miracle within a few years.

  by iowabosox on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:05:17 PM PDT

  •  What you have now

    is in name only.  If Democrats would actually stand up for people, it wouldn't take a miracle to have Democratic representation - just a spine and results.

    by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:26:04 PM PDT

•  Mary Landrieu

  James Carville tells me we cannot afford to lose her in the Senate?  Here's a clue: Go solicit funds from that mythical "center" you fear and cater to so much.

  Two years ago when Mary Landrieu enorsed Joe Lieberman after he lost the Democratic primary, she declared, "I proudly break with my Party to endorse Joe Lieberman for U.S. Senate!". Tell her to go solicit funds from the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

  by William Domingo on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:40:16 PM PDT