Letters to the Editor
-
Traitor
By virtue of who he is married to Carville carries no weight with me. I personally could not live with someone that votes republican much less someone that works for them. The fact that the media uses him as a democratic spokesman shows their bias so clearly, use only useless dems that no one in their right mind would take serious. So even when he makes a coherent statement it gets dismissed outright.
-
I concur
Really! The response to all those "nasty words" should be So What ! Is that all you've got??? how original... concentrate on somthing a little more relevant and show your maturity instead of a sound bite.
-
mrsfxc
I thought the Republican party was the intolerant one.
-
James Carville - the Mahomet Gandhi of US Politics
Let us not forget that it is the victim's fault. If only they would stop whining, the mudslingers would all go away and we could focus on the issues. Let me know if you believe that one because I have a bridge for sale.
By the way, didn't Carville criticize John Kerry for not responding to the Swift Boaters quickly and forcefully enough? Of course that was then and this is now when it's his candidate doing the mudslinging. Not that Mr. Carville would ever let partisanship outweigh principles.
Mr. Carville is correct that politics is a rough game but maybe it's the mudslingers who need to toughen up and get use to being hit back.
-
mrsfxc
Such deep hatred is not healthy and won't lead anywhere. Talking with people you disagree with builds character and expands the mind and heart. I have always admired their relationship--I bet the dinner conversation at their house is never dull.
-
This election is 4th Grade
So we need to find a 4th grader to elect.
-
I love the smell of Carville in the morning. . .
I really do like Carville. I think his approach to politics is as close to spot on as I have seen. While it is true he is a Hillary supporter, he is not militant about it. He is open about it and generally doesn't let his support of her taint his objectivity. He is honest and straight-forward in his commentary and clearly isn't an ideologue (see his marriage).
I think he is spot on the point of calls for resignations. This whole "renounce or reject or fire" silliness isn't at all useful. We cannot have minor gaffs prohibit intelligent and willing people engage in political leadership. People like Power should only need applogise for impolitic statements and people like Ferraro should just be put in timeout for campaigns of harmful beliefs.
-
why not?
What's so wrong with an election that's like a "victorian debating society"? What's wrong with acting in a civilized manner? Shouldn't we demand that our elected representatives conduct themselves with common decency?
I get that politics is dirty, but why does it have to be? Look where it has gotten us.
A bit of an aside: Recently on CBC they re-aired a legendary debate from the late 60s between Pierre Trudeau (then Justice Minister) and Rene Levesque (Staunch Quebec Seperatist). These two men hated each other with a visceral hatred that is the stuff of legend, yet the debate was calm and reasoned with each man positing his beliefs and earnestly refuting the other's. Me and my buddy both were amazed at the depth of their intellects and the polite tenor of the affair...why can't politics go back to that?
I guess what I mean is why shouldn't the discourse be elevated?
-
For those with any background on Victorian society...
...the reason that "Victorian" is so often used as a pejorative outside of architecture is obvious.
-
I whole heartedly agree.
The longer Mark Penn has a job with Hilary the better.
-
What species of animal is James Carville?
I look at James Carville's face and head and I think to myself, "Somewhere a large tortoise shell is missing its tortoise."
-
We need "surrogate" cease fire
The word "surrogate" has come to mean "anybody even remotely associated with a campaign", instead of "people authorized to speak for a candidate". People who contribute to or otherwise support candidates should be able to speak their minds without having their words attributed to the candidate. Advisor's may or may not be considered associated with a candidate, depending on the situation, but sometimes "advisor" means "somebody who talked with the candidate sometime in the last 2 years". If soembody calls somebody a "monster" or uses the phrase "shuck and jive", it can be addressed, but should not be held against the candidate they support unless the candidate has specifically said that the individual speaks for them.
And, while we're at it - how about not asking candidates to answer for the beliefs of everybody who supports them. Both candidates do this, and it's ridiculous. Unless a candiate has chosen somebody to represent them in the campaign, they should not have to apologize for somebody else's actions.
-
I'm disappointed
Why didn't Carville address the real culprit in this "gotcha" style politics? It's the media that fuels this silliness -- both the main stream media, and the right-wing noise machine.
Of course, as usual, the Dems end up being the victims of the msm and right-wing radio/cable. The media, fueled by the rightwingnuttery, blow up some stupid comment by a Dem campaign functionary, and berate the candidate until they have to ask for his/her resignation from the campaign in order to shut the media up. Wonder what would happen if Obama or Clinton said: "She said something that I don't agree with, but I am not going to ask for her resignation. It is not a requirement that everyone that works for me agree with me on everything." In other words, tell the press to stuff it! Wouldn't that be refreshing and unique?
I won't be surprised if this Pastor Wright business destroys Obama. Obama better come out strong and tell the media that he is not going to let them paint him with the comments of his Pastor, forcryingoutloud -- as if he is joined at the hip with this guy.
Republicans tell the msm to stuff it all the time. Vitter and Craig still have their jobs, don't they?
-
Score one point for the Clinton folks
And Carville did is so slyly. The point is that Ferraro's remarks are not the same thing as Powers's. Powers made a personal attack on Hillary Cliton, name calling basically. On the other hand Ferraro's remarks reiterated the idea that blacks are a privledged class and whites are true victims of racism. That is much more serious, and needs to be addressed.