Something To Ponder

How the hell did this “rap”…




…come out a full year after this rap?



Mario, the games are great, but your rhymes are ill.

And since I should be writing about politics instead of dicking around on YouTube, let’s just consider this hideous co-opting of a subculture’s work and complete lack of understanding by the mainstream a metaphor for James Carville’s stunning cluelessness about the Democratic netroots. I’ll always have a soft spot for Carville and Begala (their books are great), but James would probably be better off yelling at neighborhood kids to get off his porch than continuing to cash in on a reputation he earned in large part because Ross Perot was a spoiler candidate in 1992.

There’s a reason that the first rule in Carville’s “War Room” was “Change vs. more of the same.” More of the same for Democrats this year meant listening to beltway elites like Carville whose bad advice translated into electoral defeat.


posted by greg on November 17, 2006 @ 9:47 am

3 comments »

  1. I would agree that Carville has probably gotten more praise over the years than he really deserved. And I think his attack on Howard Dean was basically an effort to grease the skids for Hillary in 2008.

    Comment by jim marquis — November 17, 2006 @ 10:39 pm

  2. Perot was not a spoiler!

    On November 8, 1992—five days after the election—E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post:

    Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

    The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

    Comment by noneyobiznas — November 18, 2006 @ 9:27 am

  3. I agree that Perot was not a “spoiler”, though that seems to be entrenched conventional wisdom at this point.

    Comment by oyster — November 21, 2006 @ 10:54 am

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)