Permanent Majority is also a rather sickening phrase, imo. Its another way of saying Single Party State - a la China, Cuba, Russia - not countries we should emulate.
And, in 99% of cases (Modern Japan is about the only exception of a virtual single party state that isn't, you know, evil that I can think of), single party rule is a very bad thing. We learned how bad it can be in only 6 years. Imagine 60 years.
Long-term majority is fine with me. Or generational. But not permanent. Plus, permanent reeks of arrogance.
My interpretation of that statement is that they didn't run around pushing a 'radical' agenda. Rather, the Democratic victors heard what the people wanted, they believed in what the people wanted, and they ran on that.
In other words, the media and the public have become so well trained over the years by the RWNM to believe in the 'crazy liberal - the nutty tree hugger, the communist, the pacifist, etc, etc, etc" that the actual message appeared conservative. Though, the phrasing makes it appear that Time still believes in the RWNM meme.
The point, I think, of the passage was that these aren't DINOs, as many have asserted, but standard issue left of center (for the most part) Democrats.
wait, did he divest his share of Bain capital, or did he place his investment holdings in a "blind" trust? We all know just how blind those are (Senator Frist).
Also, just because a bigwig donates a lot of money to Democrats doesn't mean he's an ally. The Corporatist DLC proves that. He may be want to use clear channel to push Hillary v Romney, and win no matter what.
Carville is a sleaze. The much maligned Chicago Tribune puff piece had a few lines where Rahm went ballistic on Carville for suggesting that the final round of ads stop attacking on the Iraq issue and strike a "conciliatory" tone.
It seems that he is trying to sow discord, to set factions against one another.
And don't forget his legendary phone call after the 2004 election, telling his wonderful wife about what the Kerry campaign was planning.
Not to mention he was a late add to the Kerry campaign.
Maybe I'm reading something into nothing, but there seems to be a bad odor coming from the Cajun's general direction.
I don't trust a word that comes out of Carville's mouth. He is Zell Miller.
Banking can have a huge impact on Agriculture, clearly. Might have been a runner up choice. Between the financial institutions subcommittee (farmers borrow a lot of money) and the international trade committee, he can have an impact on Montana's Farmers, Forestry industry, and Mining industry.
Energy gives him power over National Parks and the like.
Government affairs will help him repeal "the damn patriot act"
I think the DCCC can get involved insofar as identifying candidates and convincing them to run. But NO giving a candidate money (or other support) for a primary. You're on your own for winning your primary.
Its a warmup for the big thing. If you can't raise your own money, can't identify your own non-DCCC supporters, and if you can't build your own organization to win the primary, then you don't stand a chance in the general. Trial by fire.
And the DCCC should keep it quiet when it asks someone to run. Don't publicly or implicitly endorse a candidate.
I hear nice things about Jim Leach. Archpundit is fond of him. Although, I think Archpundit said that he's already been asked to be the President of U of Iowa or something. Although, I'd imagine he'd take Ambassador to the UN over that. Hell, who wants to be in Iowa, anyway? Besides John Edwards?
Seriously though, I hear good things, so I'm inclined to agree on that front. Any truth to that or only a rumor?