I never thought much of Democrat strategist, James Carville, because frankly, it seemed to me he always came on as some marginally coherent, yahoo kind of boob. However, I guess he's still revered by his audience and consequently was interviewed on CNN.
In a recap of the interview I found on Drudge, apparently Carville said, "As I go around the country and see various Democrats and talk to them on the phone, honestly I'm beginning to think that we have become the party of Jimmie Davis." He then went on to explain that "A long time ago a great three-time governor of Louisiana, Earl Long, said about Jimmie Davis, the two-time not very good governor of Louisiana, "You couldn't wake up Jimmie Davis with an earthquake."
Carville's concern is that "Democratic fundraisers, activists, supporters, and even politicians alike have somehow collectively lapsed into the sentiment that the president is going to be reelected and that we have a good shot to take the House back while holding the Senate." And to that Carville asks, "What are you smoking? What are you drinking? What are you snorting or just what in the hell are you thinking?" Because he thinks the coming election is far from a cinch for the president to win.
On that score, I agree with him completely, because I certainly don't think the contest will be a slam dunk re-election, and my guess is that incumbent hasn't a prayer of repeating. But I'm mentioning Carville because his take is 180 degrees polar to mine as to why the incumbent will lose.
Because Carville goes on to say that, "You can shoot five Bin Ladens, you can save 10,000 banks and 20 car companies, even pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don't think that you are connected to their lives and are fighting for their interests they will vote your tush out of office in a nano-second. For historical reference see Winston Churchill election of 1945 and President George H.W. Bush in 1992."
Now, the way I interpret Carville's meaning, it seems he actually believes the preceding actions of the administration are good things and ought be campaigned upon. However, I think he's totally missed the boat. Because it's expressly those doings that are sinking the administration, and they should.
The shooting of Bin Laden, for example, was the result of efforts begun by "W" Bush and then enacted by hundreds if not thousands of dedicated people. However, the incumbent chose to ignore them and tried to take all the credit for himself. And that ticked off a huge number of voters.
As far as the bailouts go, there are millions more folks who think it was absolutely wrong to save failing businesses with taxpayers money. They believe that those entities should have simply reorganized and fixed their problems themselves without government intervention getting them ff the hook. And there's the more subtle issue, as far as the auto business goes, whereas the Dem supported unions and their pensions contributed greatly to the car-makers demise in the first place.
And in regard to the banking problems, it was the lending to non-creditworthy mortgagees that ultimately took them under which is something forced on them by Democrats like Chris Dodd and the incumbent himself through Project Acorn.
So, as you go down the list of who's responsible for what, I think Mr. Carville ought to back off a bit in his approach and do some homework. Because if the incumbent actually runs on his record, which is even worse that Jimmy Carter's, he's going to lose in the biggest landslide ever seen in a presidential election.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment