When Carville is Your Role Model

Come on, you Center-Right folk! If you can’t manage to do better than James Carville, then what’s the point?

Remember when James Carville smeared Paula Jones, saying you’ll never know what you’ll find “when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.”

Remember the criticism he rightly received from conservatives for saying such garbage? . . . Someone tell me how Mr. Barron today is any different from James Carville then…

Read the whole thoughtful piece.

The worst thing about politics — the very worst thing about it — is how our political enthrallments help us to become everything we hate.

And so very quickly, and deceptively. It’s hate that feels like love.

The most insidious part of this Borg-like hate collective is how easily one can slip into its influence through the simple error of attaching real but disproportionate feelings of love onto things which are often illusory and ultimately temporary. I love my politics so much that I must hate you for your policies; I love my church so much that I must hate you for not loving it as intensely; I love the promise of my pension plan so much that I must hate you for pointing out that it is unsustainable; I love my opinions so much that I must not allow you to have opinions of your own.

Hatred is a twisting perversion of paradoxes wherein one can claim a love for God so fervent that it justifies hating another, even as God hates your hate, because it has been born of the absolute idol one has made out of one’s professed love.

Herman Cain has a lot of ideas, but as a candidate, he should, finally, have ended his campaign because he was really not up to snuff on foreign policy, and ineffectual in his policy descriptions, not because of what have ultimately been vague character sketches that he’s handled badly.

Nevertheless, becoming everything one hates does not help anyone. Herman Cain will be a memory, eventually. Not worth, perhaps, the damage to one’s spirit and soul.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick

    Thanks much Anchoress for the link…

  • Dynan

    Mrs. Scalia,
    Christ told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Not trust, trust only God.

    Recall, as we worship, so shall we believe, as we believe so shall we live. Even you
    and your mate separate at death. Sure, you have a vocation and an obligation to civilize the children but by death you should be focused on God and God alone.

    No politician is to be trusted. If you ever have a question, ask God at night. In the morning, after a nights rest, you shall have your answer.

    Dynan Candon

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Well, the long and the short of it is—we’re left with Newt Gingrich, a candidate with far more dirty laundry than Cain ever had, and much more history of shady dealings with women—and Mitt Romney, who will be savaged by the press for his Mormonism, and who doesn’t command a whole lot of respect on his own side.

    Whoever the Republican candidate is, he’s going to be savaged by the press, and, perhaps, smeared and libeled. We’d better be ready for this, come November. whether his ideas are weak or strong, good or bad, it won’t matter. What will matter is how the press will choose to attack him.

    None of the other candidates: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Perry, Cain, etc. came up to our high standards, or, for whatever reason, managed to stay in the race. They were too religious, too inexperience, they didn’t know enough about foreign policy, they didn’t have good economic ideas, they were too conservative, they weren’t conservative enough. The MSM attacked many of them, and made them look like fools, or villains—and the conservatives pretty much sat back and let the MSM get away with it—-because, you know. candidate A was too conservative, candidate B didn’t have enough experience and candidate C really didn’t have good ideas, candidate D wasn’t conservative enough—so it didn’t matter if they were attacked, because they weren’t the right sort of candidate anyhow; who needed them? Any day now, Reagan II will come along.

    But he didn’t. Mitt and Newt is what we got. So, we’d better decide now, which one we’re going to get behind, and we’d better be ready for what the other side throws at them. Because if Cain, Palin and all the other candidates had their weaknesses, flip-flops, shady pasts and bad ideas, well, Newt and Mitt have them too—and then some!

    I swear, we get the candidates we deserve.

    [Wouldn't surprise me at all to see a brokered convention -admin]

  • Greta

    None of us have a clue as to the truth of the charges against Cain. I agree with Anchoress that Cain had shown himself to be weak on foreign policy and a few other areas of concern and for my part had moved on to other candidates. However, I am very curious now to see if Cain decides to do as he indicated and to try to discover who was in back of these women and their charges. If he is innocent of the charges, and wants to spend the money to dig into the entire matter to clear his name no matter if he is a candidate, I think it would do a service to expose who would do something like this if it was all a lie. As I understand it, all these women who came forward were in some financial trouble (which does not mean they are liars) and as such could have been vulnerable to being used. If there is an evil moneybags running around doing this, it would be good to have them exposed. I do not know Cain in any way, but know someone who has known him a long time and swears that this is not in any way something one would expect from the guy.

  • Joseph

    If Cain is innocent, I sincerely hope he gets to the bottom of these charges. The people behind them (again, if he is innocent) must be exposed and made to regret their evil acts.

    Gingrich may have a lot of baggage, but, unlike Bill Clinton, he has shown remorse and his election could be a lesson in redemption. As for Romney, he may be a flip-flopper, but at least he flip-flopped in the right direction, unlike so many former pro-lifers and opponents of gay marriage who have been “enlightened”. I’ll be satisfied if he promises that he will appoint only strict constitutional constructionists to the federal bench, especially the Supreme Court. You can totally trust Obama: to appoint only left-wing activists

  • Elaine S.

    Is it too late to draft Tim Pawlenty? :-) If I remember correctly his major flaw was that he was too dull and not exciting compared to the rest of the field. Well, I think a boring candidate who will simply do the job without a lot of fuss is exactly what this country needs. You all see what happened when we went for the charismatic, exciting guy who promised hope and change….

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    That would be nice, but I think it’s too late, Elaine S. I think it’s too late for a lot of things.

    Cain may have been weak on a lot of issues, but he wasn’t forced from the race by being confronted on the issues.

    Over at Drudge Report, I see that Ron Paul has moved into the number 2 Republican spot, in a recent Iowa poll.

    We’re getting the candidates we deserve.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I’m afraid it is too late, Elaine S.—in more ways than one.

    Pawlenty was too dull. Cain was flawed. Allen West decided not to run. Palin was too Palin. Bachman was too religious, all of them were too. . . something or other.

    So now we’ve ended up with: Newt, Ron and Mitt—all of whom are as weak as any of the “weak” Republican candidates on various matters (if not more so), and all of whom having issues that the media will attack. Just remember—-if Christ Himself were running, the media would go after Him. The Republican candidate is going to have a hard time, no matter what.

    I mean, after all the debates, suspense, winnowing out the weaker candidates, this is the best line-up we could come up with?

    I think we’d better brace ourselves for four more years of Hope ‘n Change!

    We get the candidates we deserve.

  • dry valleys

    Personally I thought Gary Johnson is the only Republican who has ever aired any truly worthwhile views, being basically a sane Ron Paul. Naturally I’d prefer Obama over him but at least if someone of a libertarian tendency were nominated, a proper debate could be held on issues that are generally ignored, and that Obama hasn’t really done much to satisfy his base on, such as civil liberties, the war on drugs, and whether his foreign policy is just Bush III.

    In all honesty I’ve never thought a Republican would emerge capable of beating Obama. The Democrat voters will hold up well enough as, even if they don’t much care for him, they’ll view the other as worse (an extremely powerful force in politics which leads to the election of many who leave a lot to be desired). And if you never get people who think alike to me, you’ll have to persuade enough centrists (including those who voted for a Democrat without being left-wing) and who is going to do that?

  • dry valleys

    BTW, Ginger White is black. Lots of people, including this Michael Barron, are assuming she is white for some reason. They should do a search on Google Images before posting, maybe :)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Valleys, let’s face it.

    Obama hasn’t done much to satisfy anybody, except, maybe, the die-hard left. Four more years of him would be a disaster. As a socialist, you approve of him of course, but the rest of us can’t.

    Socialism does not work.

    Not that the Republicans look that good, either, at this point. I fear that a Ron Paul candidacy is a real possibility.

    We get the candidates we deserve.

  • http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/ Todd

    “Obama hasn’t done much to satisfy anybody, except, maybe, the die-hard left. Four more years of him would be a disaster. As a socialist, you approve of him of course, but the rest of us can’t.”

    Count me out of this pep rally. Mr Obama has done very little for the Left. An excruciating slow withdrawal from southwest Asia. No single-payer option. No crackdown on police brutality. Tim Geithner. Too beholden to corporate interests, though in his defense, I can’t quite get over the notion that corporations are holding the US economy hostage.

    I’d say this leftern Catholic is trending 80% third party, 15% Mr Obama, 5% blank ballot on the Prez line.

    “We get the candidates we deserve.”

    All they have to do is give us an option: none of the above. That would force the parties and the independents to cough up real candidates, not warmed-over businessfolk, repentant lobbyists, and career politicians.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Joseph, Gingrich may have shown remorse, and it’s good that he has.

    Let’s just hope he hasn’t done anything that hasn’t yet been brought to light—because if it hasn’t, it certainly will be, if he becomes the nominee, in addition to all his old baggage being dragged in as well. And if he’s done anything since his allegedly mending his ways, they’ll be sure to bring it up.

    Remember, the media is determined that the wonderful O will get his four more years; they will pull out all the stops for the Republican nominee, any Republican nominee. They still hate Palin, who isn’t even in the running anymore. Heck, she isn’t even governor of Alaska, anymore. But they still see her as a danger.

    And running for a political office is not really a good way for a repentant sinner to seek “Redemption”; better he should go into the wilderness and repent there, through prayer and fasting—or give away all his money to the poor—or just read his Bible more often. We’re not electing a messiah, or a parish priest.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Voting third party in this election will result in Obama winning again.

    (We will not even consider the possibility of Ron Paul winning! It’s only Monday, I haven’t had enough caffeine yet, Christmas is coming—there is only so much horror I can contemplate at the moment!)

    We do get the candidates we deserve. Even with the “None of the Above” option we’d still pick inexperienced activists from Chicago, or conservates-in-name-only, and we’d still sit back and let the media choose our candidates for us. Hope ‘n Change, anybody?

    We’re getting exactly the candidates we deserve.

  • dry valleys

    I am more a European social democrat than a socialist, and I can assure you that Obama doesn’t come anywhere near that. The whole reason why OWS happened on his watch is that the “die-hard left” weren’t happy, of course they will mainly vote Democrat but only in the same way that most of the tea party will vote Republican. As to what works or not, David Camoron and Nick Cleggover are coming out with exactly what American conservatives want, and it’s not yielding any known results.

    As I say, Obama is most likely to be better from my point of view than any Republican, but I’d no more anoint him than a conservative would Romney, yet conservatives will be voting for Romney with reluctance if he wins.


    As I say, I wouldn’t endorse someone like that but at least he could spark a good debate on a lot of things, before losing. :) I’ve spoken to some genuine libertarians, as opposed to neoliberal shills, and it’s quite often that I am on the same page as them, for example on the subject of corporate welfare. But there are almost no such people in electoral politics.

  • friscoeddie

    Because the GOP has such weak candidates , look to Michelle Obama to take and have a strong presence in the next year’s election cycle so that she will be a shoe-in 2016.

  • dry valleys

    Don’t know if that is a serious suggestion, friscoeddie, but it wouldn’t be a very good one if it was. It generally ends badly when politicians are succeeded by their spouses, unless they have carved out political careers of their own a la Hillary Clinton. And that goes for any relative or overbearing mentor, really. A Cristina Kirchner, a Yingluck Shinawatra or a Dmitri Medvedev (sorry to lump all these people together, but they have significant things in common) isn’t a good idea.

    Now, if Michelle stands for office herself and immerses herself in work it might be a bit better.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I don’t agree with you on Obama being better for the country than any Republican. I do agree with you that he doesn’t come near to being—well, a whole lot of things. A socialist by any other name. . .

    (The OWS, by the way, doesn’t seem to have been a grass roots movement. It may have been funded by Soros, it certainly had close ties to the unions. I suspect it was an effort to introduce class warfare into the current political debates, and stir up resentment of the “rich.”)

    Most of the libertarians over here support Ron Paul, or their own third-party candidate. Yeah, we could have some entertaining debates over that—but what’s the point? For what purpose? I’m more concerned about the state of the country, than I am about having yet another entertaining debate.

  • Rocco

    EWTN’s A Guide To Catholic Teaching And Voting


  • dry valleys

    I don’t mean debate as in a mindless slanging match on TV (they imported the format into Britain, and I don’t like it) but a serious discussion of issues that are all too often ignored, such as drug prohibition, civil liberties, the number of foreign commitments, etc. Just imagine a right-wing person confronting Obama over corporate welfare, farm subsidies, bailouts and his general intimacy with banks, etc, the kind of thing the Romneys of this world wouldn’t do. Ron Paul might do that, but Johnson is preferable to him, as this Alex Massie explains.

    As I’d “support” Obama over any known opponent, I’d want them to lose, so I just think they might as well make something useful happen on their way out rather than being a standard-issue Republican.

    WRT Catholic voters, it’s worth noting that the most closely tied tradition to Catholicism in the world is European Christian democracy. The funny thing is, although their school of thought and mine are locked in conflict in most European countries, we’d probably both look the same to an American conservative :)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Basically, then, it would all just be another mindless slanging match—a tad more intellectual, perhaps, but still just a waste of time and energy. Obama has been challenged on many of his stands—but he is still the Wonderful O, the Left still likes him, so nothing comes of it. He waffles, evades the questions, throws former followers under the bus. Nothing. Comes. Of. It. Obama’s connection with banks, with shady deals in chicago, his actual friendship with Wall Street, are facts many already know, or can easily find out, with a little internet research. Having Ron Paul try to engage him on this would just be a joke. (Paul would probably blame it all on Israel, anyway.) No one’s going to go, “Oh, my! Our eyes are finally opened!” The Leftist utopia will not suddenly materialize on Earth.

    Some of us tried to point out all these things back in 2008. We were informed that were racists, and, what’s more, mean o’ meanie-meanies! We said it was a bad idea to bail out the banks. We were called meanie-meanies again. Then OWS said it (along with a lot of other contradictory, not to mention silly things); we were told they were idealistic, and progressive. And if we criticized them, we were meanie-meanies. So it goes.

    Debates aren’t what we need at this point. We have the candidates we deserve—we don’t want to admit it.

    The people, of course, are never at fault. It’s the rich. It’s the Jews. It’s the liberals. It’s the Conservatives. It’s never the people. The people are above suspicion. /Sarc.

    Speaking of Ron, he’s anti-semetic, stuck on the gold standard and an isolationist. He blames America for 9/11. I’m not particualrly interested in hearing him debate Obama, or anybody else. (And, Elizabeth, I am sorry if my comment leads hordes of paulbots to this site, to defend their hero. Blame me, not them. I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.)

    Europe is no longer Christian, and its ties to Catholicism, and Democracy, are pretty strained at this point. Much of Europe does look the same to American Conservatives—though not in the way you think.

  • http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/ Todd

    RS, you just slay me.

    “… the Left still likes him …”

    Right. That’s why OSW has these big O’s on all their tents.

    “We said it was a bad idea to bail out the banks.”

    So, you were a liberal in 2008, lining up with Michael Moore? I seem to recall it was Mr Bush’s idea to come to the rescue of Wall Street criminals.

    I think I’ve been looking to the wrong people for entertainment in election 2012. I need to keep reading you, my friend. This is great. /no sarc.