Over here, Josh Marshall asked Carville what he thought of the whole thing.
I think it’s on Josh Marshals site as well that he book seen on the desk in front of the three was a "Who’s Who. Novac seemd to be eyeing it a couple times. I think one of his defenses in outing Plame was that she was listed in Who’s Who. I think the plan was to discredit that claim and Novac knew it. Rather than have his little defense obliterated on TV, he took the opportunity to amscray before it came up. In my opinion anyway.
I still don’t understand why the Who’s Who is even an issue. It was not classified information that Joe Wilson was married to the former Valerie Plame; it was classified that the former Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. If the book doesn’t say anything about Plame working for the CIA, it’s a total red herring.
I think that’s a perjury thing related to what Novak told the grand jury about how he discovered Plame’s name.
Amen, brother.
This seems like a lot of pot-stirring to create a tempest in the teapot.
I haven’t seen the name KARL ROVE in this thread yet. Isn’t that what this whole “issue” is about?
Actually, I think he’s mellowed since the Clinton years. Since he isn’t shilling for anyone he’s much more entertaining. I laughed out loud when he dumped eggs on himself after the last election results.
I always get a bit of a sense that Carville isn’t quite serious. On some level he knows it’s a game and that his job is to be the crazy left wing assassin on talking heads shows. I always sense a bit of a glint in his eye, like he’s playing to get a reaction as much as anything. It seems like he and Mary Matalin go out of their way to play up the liberal/conservative dynamic of their images a little bit. I don’t see how they could stay married if they were really that divergent on everything. When you get the cameras off them, they’re probably both relatively sane, but sane doesn’t put bread on the table.
Very interesting that Carville though the tension was aimed at the moderator, Henry and at the Who’s Who book. That would make sense. Carville’s remark was not exactly polite but it was nothing extraordinary for a political talk show and it was certainly not the kind of thing that Novak has not been getting (and giving) for years on those shows. He can usually handle that level of smack in his sleep.
Snakes are mostly biforked, aren’t they? 'cuase if I’m right, their only competition as a TOEs in nature would be giraffes.
Just my HO, for I’m not on the recieving end.
Have any of the “family values” crowd that condemned Janet’s “wardrobe malfunction” made a ruckus over Novak’s potty-mouth? Or is this just another case of IOKIARDI?
I don’t get the connection between Carville’s comments and the Wilson story. His last words to Novak were “He’s got to show these right wingers that he’s got a backbone, you know. It’s why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you’re tough.”
How does this relate to the Wilson story? I don’t see it.
Shades of the administrations “we will not comment on an ongoing investigation.” But I very much doubt that Novak is unable to comment. He’s explained a few more details of the story in his column, for one thing, in an attempt to defend himself. Matt Cooper talked about his testimony on TV and wrote a pretty long article in Time about it. Novak doesn’t want to talk about the case. Personally, I think that’s because he doesn’t want his excuses scrutinized on live TV, but that’s just my take.
Bullshit. Publishing the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative was a cheap shot. This was harmless needling on a talk show.
Enough with the “bullshit”, people. This is IMHO, not Great Debates or The BBQ Pit.
That was my question, too.
If this was indeed a cheap shot, then it was a generic one, not one with any obvious connection to the Wilson/Plame story.
Like I said, I think Carville was insinuating that Novak had lost cred with conservatives (and thus needed to “show some backbone”) because of the widespread belief that Novak went belly up in the Plame investigation. If Novak chose to give up Rove rather than go to jail (not that I blame him, that’s decision which should not take more than a nano-second to arrive at for most people), then a lot of his fan base would probably see him as a coward and a traitor to the Leader.
Doesn’t shed much light, but what the hey:
Novak apologizes for cursing, walking off.
I look forward to the headline, “Novak apologizes for being a douchebag.”
Not to defend the ol’ curmdgeon, but Novak has had a lot on his plate in the past 120 days or so. He’s in his mid 70s now and obviously is not aging gracefully. In addition to the obvious stuff, CNN has recently discontinued both shows that he created and exec-produced for them (“Crossfire” & “Capital Gang”). Then add to that the fact that he’s a very late-in-life convert to Catholicism… that could speak volumes if one knew the whole back-story.
Creeping senility has been known to cover a multitude of sins…
-Richard
I’m with Zebra.
I didn’t see the original event or even hear much about it, except I did see this thread title when perusing the boards, and filed it away as something I’d check later.
So when I was watching some Tivoed episodes of The Daily Show, and they ran a tape of this event, I didn’t even connect it to the firing . I thought, “Hmm, he’s having a crappy week. But I wish they’d show what he got fired for. You know, the storming.”
I finally read this thread, and learn that this is, indeed, the event Dio labels “storming” That’s what passes for storming outside of Middle America? Lordy. Here on the farm, that wouldn’t even register as a “tizzy” and barely makes it to “snit fit.”
But he’s seventy years old. That’s as fast as he can move!