Leading Liberal Admits that Conservatives are Right

James Carville is the ultra-liberal Democrat activist whom you may know from CNN and other TV appearances. He has a shaved head and is called “snakehead” because of the odd shape of his skull. He is one of those hyperactive socialists who has an answer for everything (a wrong answer, of course), and is always talking 1,000 miles a minute as if he knows it all, often becoming very emotional.

Carville is a major figure in American politics. And here are some comments that Carville made recently that are very revealing, with a Nikitas3 comment after each:

Carville said: “I think 80 percent of what’s wrong in the country is all contained in the Republican Party. I really do. And I don’t say that because I’m a Democrat.” Nikitas3 comment: Well, folks, I, Nikitas, am a conservative and I don’t “think” that the Democrats are responsible for “80% of what’s wrong in the country”. I KNOW that the Democrats are responsible for 100% of what is wrong.

This is a telling statement by Carville. It reveals liberals for who they are – they are like a bull in a china shop, throwing their weight around and taking over every institution they can and shoving their policies down our throats. But despite all of their bluster, even at the very top, after decades of telling us how to run our lives they still are not even sure of themselves, but only 80% sure. We conservatives, on the other hand, are 100% certain about what we believe. That is the difference between night and day.

Carville said: “I do think that I’ve gotten more conservative in some ways as I’ve gotten older. … I became a little more conservative politically when I realized that once something gets written into law, once it’s in the bloodstream, it’s really hard to undo it. You’ve got to be careful before making big changes.” Nikitas3 comment: Oh, gee, do ya think!? This is unbelievable. The guy is 70 years old and now he suddenly is realizing what we conservatives know at age 18. This is why we end up with disasters like the Obamacare law. Fortunately for the first time in history more than half of the country is saying that we need to get rid of a big new government program. Because finally Americans are coming to realize that these programs do not work. Obviously the disastrous Obamacare fiasco so far has even rattled Carville.

This is precisely what conservatism warns about over and over – the utter cluelessness of these liberals. Then notice that he says “I’ve gotten more conservative in some ways as I’ve gotten older…” Of course, because conservatism is not an ideology; it is common sense. That is why people become more conservative as they get older – because people in general and naturally become wiser as they get older. And that is why the leftists take over our universities and our media, in order to propagandize people when they are young and gullible.

Notice that Carville says “in some ways” he has become more conservative. Notice that he says “ways” which is plural. So why doesn’t Carville tell us other things that any rational person knows at age 18 that he is suddenly discovering? Like these things – that Democrat corruption has ruined our cities; that excessive taxation stifles economic growth; that Americans are fleeing liberal states and migrating into conservative states; that guns don’t kill but that evil people kill using guns; that Christianity is the basis for our freedom; that ‘green energy’ is a fraud; that ‘global warming’ does not exist. Gee, James, tell us more about all the wonderful things that you now know at age 70… after you wrecked the country for decades with your youthful stupidity.

Carville said: “I do think a valid critique of Democrats or liberals is that we seldom look at the world through the eyes of the dry cleaner or the guy with the lawn-mowing service.” Nikitas3 comment: Wow… Another major revelation, that Democrats don’t relate to “the common man”. So Mr. Carville, tell us more. Welcome to reality. This is what we conservatives have been saying about you liberals all along. To understand this all you have to do is watch an elite snob college professor try to befriend his car mechanic. In short, they live in two separate universes.

We conservatives have been saying for decades that the Democrats have turned into an Ivory Tower party that is separate from the people who build our country. Oh, sure, Democrats are right in tune with the welfare freeloaders and college professors and government workers and feminists and pro-abortionists and snob environmentalists. But the productive, positive, honest, hard-working people – the loggers and mechanics and utility linemen and the shopkeepers and dry cleaners and lawn mowers – oh, heck, those people just are not important to the Democrats. No, they exist to extract money from as far as Carville is concerned. What do you think the Tea Parties are? They are honest middle-class and working-class people, and the Democrats hate them.

Carville said: “I’ve learned some great lessons in life from Bill Clinton. And one was his rule for working a room: the moment you walk in, you pick out the most vulnerable, least powerful person and you go talk to that person first and foremost. You knock the MVP over to hug the guy who dropped the game-winning pass. Everybody notices it. And he’s probably the more interesting guy to talk with, anyway.” Nikitas3 comment: This is astounding. Notice that Carville does not say something here about Clinton’s policies or his substance as a leader. No, he talks about one of Clinton’s political techniques. Do you know why? Because that is what Bill Clinton is… a cheap politician. This example of Clinton “working a room” politically is typical of how demagogues like Carville see the merits of political officials – not as leaders and statesmen working for the common good but as politicians out for a quick photo op to get votes and power and money. It is shameful. If I were commenting on a legendary conservative like president Ronald Reagan I would say, “I’ve learned some great lessons in life from Ronald Reagan, like how to lead like a true statesman with integrity and confidence, and how to save a nation from disaster.”

Carville said: “Let me put it this way, If Al Gore had been president, 9/11 never would have happened.” Nikitas3 comment: OK, this is liberal insanity. 9/11 happened in September 2001 because Bill Clinton and his vice president Al Gore ignored terrorism for 8 full years of their presidential administration after the first terror attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993. The Bush administration subsequently got hardly any intel about terrorism from the Clinton administration when it should have received a library-full. Bush also had to deal with the “wall” that Clinton/Gore intentionally built separating CIA from FBI. This “wall” alone allowed 9/11 to happen because CIA could not share with FBI the intel that it had gathered on terrorists in its overseas operations.

Now here is a separate story. This is re-posted from downtrend.com by Robert Gehl about one of our leading Democrats:

Hillary Clinton might have a pretty hefty scandal brewing. It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”

Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

Dan Calabrese reports:

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

(Please bookmark this website and visit my Google sponsors. And please click the Google button (g+1) at the top of this page and recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook, MySpace and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.