Carville lets more slip about the attack on Dean after the election.

It appears he is pretty careless about blame when he is angry. And he appears to lay "blame" by not denying and saying to connect the dots.

This is a very long and interesting article, and interview at GQ with Rahm by Ryan Lizza. It gives a view into party operations and tactics that are rather stunning to put it nicely.

James Carville needs to bite his tongue and get back to whatever he is doing now. His anger toward Howard Dean is unjustified, and it is seeming to not be lessening.

This is the only paragraph I will put, but it is pretty strong in its implications.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5251&pageNum=1



Carville is right, sometimes silence is eloquent. I bet the Clintons don't appreciate that being said.

He still appears to be serious about replacing Dean. This is a good read, actually. Interesting. But Carville bothers me saying things like that....like he is intentionally trying to divide after a great election.

This was Dean's only response on it..from a Wyoming rally with grassroots.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/658

Carville is a has-been nonentity not worthy of all this attention.

But all the face time he gets on the shows indicates that there are still quite a few producers on the political shows who consider him . . . well, something. It would be nice if Carville went back and read his own book. But he's become such an in-demand uberoperative that lazy producers invite him on their shows without thinking.

He really does.

Seriously. They are either has-beens or complete unknowns. What they are is available, for a price.

Look, I admire Carville for his work with Begala during the 1992 election. The War Room was a moving documentary film. I've seen him speak a few times and his passion is palpable and I do believe he has good intentions.

But in my opinion Carville is old school. Dean and Emanuel are new school and together they kicked ass last month. Quite frankly, Carville is just a flickering flame that once was the limelight and he's just making noise in his last gasps of notoriety.

to that group as well. Whenever she comes on CNN, I turn it off or go find something to do in the other room. She is a has been as well.

that botched smear perfectly, labeling Carville and his ilk, the old democratic party.

who has learned a few parlor tricks of his own thanks to his Republican wife.

He is a traitor, she is worse. Harold Ford-"L"

Except I don't know what the "L" after Ford's name means. But the rest of it I agree completely. There are some Dems who are as tangled in the Corporate apron strings as the Repubs. If they think we're going to stand by and let that wing of the Dem party take over, they've got another thing comin'.

never liked him, never will, and I don't respect his comments about the DR.

:shrug:

Glad I'm not the only one having trouble with the abbreviations! Driving Range? :/

Did I win something?

Dean wasn't popular in Tennessee and Ford - and anyone with half a brain, including Dean - knew this. Ford was distancing himself from Dean for political reasons ONLY. Dean knows where he would help and where he would hurt and, thankfully, the man is not petty enough to pull money from states where he isn't popular (he got 4 percent of the vote in the primary in Tennessee). Dean's a consumate professional and doesn't take this sort of thing personally. I think both Ford and Dean knew the score in Tennessee and anything said wasn't taken as anything other than politics.

And, Ford was never interested, never approached and never knew about any "coup" to have him replace Dean. That was a figment of Carville's active imagination.

So I hope you rethink what you just said. You can not simply say Ford had nothing bad to say about Dean...and say it with a straight face. It was ugly, and it was painful to see him do that to a fellow Democrat.

You sound like you speak for all the folks in TN, just like Harold Ford pretended to do. You don't.

Ford said outrageous things about Howard Dean, undeserved things.

He made a fool of himself on Imus.

The only person Harold Ford has to blame for his loss is Harold Ford and possibly the people of Tennessee.

Corker may have been a crypto-fascist, but Ford was only marginally better.

just Google Ford Imus Dean.

It's disgusting, all right.

Harold Ford, "I know he does not speak for a majority of Democrats and I dare say Republicans in my home state"

Oh, right, Ford obviously speaks for the majority, that's why he won... Ooops, that's right, HE LOST! And deserved it!

hopefully TN democrats will elect someone else for the nomination next time around.

the Clintons, Carville, Emanuel and the DLC. We absolutely should not have this division. If the DLC continues to follow this line of attack - I will be on the warpath against them all or I'll drop out and let the right wing rise. There is no duplicity coming from Dean - just hard work earnestness, and success.

I don't think Carville is much of a Democrat anymore. I have no high expectations. I am continually perplexed by his in-between jobs outside the U.S. handling election (and public relation?) campaigns for dubious condidates.

Yeah Dubya was unpopular, and yeah many Americans have been angry at Congress, but I guarantee that if not for Dean's hard work, we wouldn't have won the Senate and probably not the House.

Dean is a wonder. I love him!

liking him when he married that witch...

Good gawd, what a silly statement. Not an iota of truth in it. Amazing.

Many years ago my Dad told me that the main difference between the Democrats and the Repos is that the Repos are elitists, that they really think only they are smart enough to run things.

but, since I can't stand the coverup wing of the Dem party, then I do not agree that both Carville and Dean are great Democrats. Dean has become MORE progressive in the last few years while Carville has become more about protecting the corporatists and the coverup wing of the party.

I remember once he said it should be done in smoke-filled rooms, but this is a different statement it appears, to Lizza. He sounds furious that the 440 something members of the DNC throughout the country actually voted without listening the party leaders. How dare he say this.

From the link to GQ



I think he is very angry, much angrier than I previously thought. I have hopes for Dean's strategy, but I never thought it would make them so angry. Guess I was naive.

the lessons available during Dean's presidential campaign: the more Dean was attacked, the more support and cash he received from the people.

Carville, Rahm, and other big-ass Dem power-strivers/corporatist types are in grave danger of being made irrelevant by people fed up to the teeth with the power-hungry and their flimsy, lip-service support for America and its people. Republicans are not the only ones who can be in trouble on that count.

Dean is a populist favorite who works with common sense, works for everyone, is organised, gets results, has a clear message, and it seems that he couldn't give a rat's hinder about the power struggles of wealthy, political high-up Dems who want to ride ever upward on the backs of Americans. Maybe that's what steams Carville and the rest.

i recall the DLC had its britches twisted back when Dean was ignoring the big money donors and focusing on money from millions of schlubs such as yours truly.

So sue me.

I think he should be careful.

I like what Rahm has to say at times, I just don't have as much trust of him as say, Dean.

Carville is way, way out there. The poison from his wife must have leached into his brain-pan or something.

But now I'm being mean, and here it is almost Christmas and all.:evilgrin:

I try to dial back on the mean this close to XMAS.

It's a karmic thing.

For both industry and leisure.

Merry, merry, dear AtomicKitten with a whip! :hi:

Merry Christmas! :hi: (You've got a wreath on your avatar, so I figured I'd go out on a Scotch Pine limb here.)

before he goes on television...he is awful, mumbling and stumbling over his words. Is that his point? Carville trained? Ugh....

The "Inside the Beltway" types, of any political persuasion, have nothing but the most thinly-veiled contempt for The Great Unwashed. Oh, they reach out to us when they need our voices, but the rest of the time, they cannot tolerate us rabble.

Thirst for power and self-gain as the number one motivator has a way of bleeding into any attempts to sound "sincere", no matter how hard the attempt, no matter how much cash is spent on "acting coaches".

True story:

We spent the better part of almost fifteen years losing elections because of these people. Now, with a new majority, a new geographical dynamic, and a new batch of exciting candidates, we should go, "Hey, you know what ruled? Triangulation, standing for nothing, and trying to find idealogical common ground with child molesters, war criminals, former and current Klansmen, and possibly Susan Collins". After all, that's sure what won us Senate seats in Montana and Virginia that seemed utterly impossible in 2004.

"Clintonistas" are totally irrelevent to the current political atmosphere, and if we're going to be listening to someone with poor enough judgement to have intercourse with Mary Matalin, let's just declare ourselves the New Whigs and scuttle off to political irrelevency now.

:rofl:

"Poor enough judgement...", purest gold.

Catering three obnoxious Christmas parties in three days does total wonders for both political worldview and general feelings on humanity.

:-)

As a recovering waiter with seventeen years of experience, I commiserate. But St. Patricks Day was always the REAL nightmare.

Especially after catering those Christmas parties.

:hi:

Merry Christmas, Clark2008.

what a terrific turn of phrase that was. "Poor enough judgement" indeed!

And none of the arrogant crappola of Rahm, who thinks Rahm is the only important person in the room. I don't have a problem with Rahm's "get after them" attitude, something we were all screaming about in 2004, but I do take issue with his shittiness toward other Dems, like Dean, which reflects on a lot of us who totally agree on the 50-state strategy, since most of us operate at the local level.

What Rahm doesn't get is, once you have a strong state apparatus up and working, what the DCCC and DSCC can do by layering ON TOP of that, it some powerful stuff.

not bullshit invented by other reactionary screamers here on DU, Mediawhore spin and out-of-context partial quotes.

How can we get in touch with him? I'm all forcalling, writing, emailing, or smacking him over his bald head to let him know how the PARTY feels!

I'll check google and see if I can find a say to contact him. If I find something, I'll edit this message.

OK, here's an email addy:

james@carville.info

Phone #: 703-684-0555

I say we sould GO FOR IT! Explain to this AHthatthe majority of the Party disagrees with him, and to STFU!

send e-mails to Sen. Clinton.

or on any of the threads before that the purported coup attempt against Dean was anything more than Carville talking trash, all on his own, which is what he does for a living.

There are claims of "allies" mounting an attack on Dean but no names are given. I think the author here is wrong about anybody besides Carville ever mentioning Harold Ford as an alternative. The fact that Carville even mentioned Ford, who wanted no parts of it, shows that Carville was talking without any plan or backing. What sense did it make to promote an unwilling candidate?

Its no secret that Rahm and Dean had a feud. That doesn't mean Rahm was nuts enough to try to take Dean out. Anybody with any sense knows that an attempt to remove Dean would cause a big party war that both sides would lose. The Clintons know that too. Carville's remarks that he wasn't ever told to stop mean nothing. The Clintons would have to be stupid to get involved at all, and they are not stupid.

This conspiracy theory was all over the place a couple weeks ago and it really upset me. Here's why.

I see the big picture this way, and I think its the way the insiders in Washington see it. We are fast approaching a time when the US cannot sustain Bush's tax cuts, the entitlement burdens of a retiring baby boom, our debt obligations, and superpower military spending. Something has to go.

Since the election, Bush has gone back to trying to cut entitlements. The Democrats have been receptive and offered to be "bipartisan" about it. Bush has also called for an increase in defense spending and Democrats have been receptive about that too.

Everything I ever read from the DLC centered on the need for Democrats to avoid "looking weak" on defense. The DLC propaganda even promotes a bigger military. One of the two founders of the DLC even says we should raise taxes to provide an even bigger military than the fascist Republicans would be willing to pay for.

The DLC went to work on their plans right after the election and the Internet left hasn't raised a peep. With the public soured on Iraq, this would be a perfect time to achieve a long held wish of the left, to reduce military spending by changing America's role in the world from globocop to international participant. Right now, over 80% of the public would support the left's wish. Even more would support cutting the military if they realized that the money to support the build up will come out of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The military industrial complex with its spokesmen in the GOP, the DLC, and even the Democrats in Congress are well aware of how endangered they are at this point. They fear the net.

While all this is going on, the left ignores the plans in Washington but had every blog engaged on this James Carville coup against Dean conspiracy theory. The theory appeals to instincts. The believer feels like he's a genius capable of connecting the dots in a way that ordinary news followers can't. The believer feels that he is street smart because he's sees the hidden evil in people. And most of all, the Internet left feels holy, because they haven't taken money like the DLC. The conspiracy theories become what its all about,and the stuff that goes on right in front of our eyes gets ignored.

I want to fight the DLC and all those guys as much as anybody. I just want it to be over the big picture, and not some stupid remarks made by some hack. That's why this theory upsets me.

that Carville is so embedded in the party structure, which as a strategist...makes you wonder. Carville works with Hillary closely, and with Bill Clinton as well. Close to Rahm, one of the few who can get access to that bunch at DCCC so freely.

I hope I am wrong, I hope the article is wrong. But Lizza is one of the more fair journalists. Not totally, but better than most.

Seems to me I read an article from a Chicago newspaper about Rahm COMPLAINING about Carville's phonecalls leading up to the election.

Carville told the reporter that. Rahm should deny it if not true.

Who cares what people say anyway? Sticks and stones and all that. I've never seen anybody get more worked about somebody just saying something.

No, I am not nearly as worked up as some others are. I just don't intend to let such comments slip by anymore without calling attention to them.

We have let the strategists like Carville have free rein over this party for too long.

and you keep bringing stuff up over and over again & bump your own threads all the time

Most definitely.

He has singlehanded revived the party and laid out a vision that has gained us new states and let us grow as a party rather than hem us up in a small little area and let the gop claim the rest. Dean's 50 state strategy is brillant.
I would caution everyone to remember what Carville said about the Clintons reaction to the coup. They are trying to take over the whole party and control it. This is dangerous and I think the breaks need to be applied to the Clintons.

If you applied the "breaks" to the Clinton's, you would need "brakes"!

with a loser? Wow, what a great idea, not.

Recall the interview with that DNC member during the convention, where she pulled the curtain aside and revealed that the DNC is expected to rubber-stamp whatever is put before them? That they not only decide nothing, but there's not even a pretense made that they're more than window dressing? That not only does the DNC have no power, but none of them even know exactly who the back-room boys are that do pull the strings and decide everything?

Seeing something like this from Carville should tell everyone that it's all about the few at the top, and that the rest of us don't matter a damn.

after the election. Thanks for bringing this to our attention as I know some would like it swept under the damn carpet.

carville's a nasty piece of shit just like his criminally insane spouse who is under dick cheney's thumb.

I'm so glad we have someone like Dean who is gifted with bringing people together as the head of our DNC.

I never take anything in any article except with a grain of salt...but just pretend Ryan Lizza only got half of it right.

You need to read what Rahm's aide said...it is pure hatred. It scares me the vindictiveness they have toward Dean.

they are against The People. Can't have us running things, can they?

Dean gives us the credit like Time mag did.

Carville is pissed that Hillary has to subject herself to a "demeaning" primary process. Carville prefers a Hillary nomination, preferably in New York City not in Denver.

And are putting out pre-emptive strikes.

it's all projection. And greedy corporatist bullshit that's pretty transparent. His contempt for Deamn mirrors his contempt for the little guy everywere.
Rahm doesn't want to face the fact that the base exists, and is very wary of power hungry assholes like himself.

screamers posting here on DU are NOT the 'base'. And it's posts like yours and threads that end up trashing Democrats like Rahm that exemplify why elected Democrats do well to ignore DU'ers.

Yes, we are the base.

Any man who feels the need to call reporters, other politicians, "fucking idiots" all the time needs to realize it is not endearing.

self hatred is always behind that jumping on the desk, balls to the wall, arrogant bull shit. It screams. "Look at me Mommy!".
Rahm, yes, your parents like your brother better, and it would seem for good reasons.

Pretty ironic that you defend those in power who are trying to split the party and attack me! LOL.
who'd you learn that little ruse from. Rahm?
Like it or not, these men don't enjoy the democratic process within the Dem party, they want all the goodies for themselves and they don;t even try and hide it. They treat us voters like morons, and your post blaming me, is more of the same. Nice try.

(Edit to add, before you start screaming "Prove it", I'll tell you now, Rahm didn;t take issue with this article, did he? Did he fire his assistant who is quoted as hating Dean? Deny not speaking to Dean for a year? No, because, doh, these people are doing his hatchet job for him, as it has always been, he is attacking but trying to keep his hands clean. Ya think his assistant expresses independent opinions that have nothing to do with Rahm? LOL. I don't think so. )

isn't Mary Matalin an interesting puppet master. Carville is hen pecked

But, I love the "KISS OF THE RING" article.

Rahm E is feisty, so is Dean - they're bound to disagree.

It drove Rahm and Carville nuts. “The thing that stuns me,” Carville says, “is that this is supposed to be a rigged deal—chairman of the party! The congressional leadership, the fund-raisers, people like that are supposed to decide. You are supposed to get a call and are told who to vote for! You’re not supposed to really vote on this shit!”

I think what we've seen in this election is that it's not an "either or" regarding moderates vs "the base" it's about a forced compromise between both. The following paragraph highlights this point rather well ~

Rahm does not lose a single Democratic incumbent—the first time that has happened since 1922. The exit polls suggest a vindication of sorts for Rahm’s devotion to Clintonism. The election was a revolt of the middle against Bush’s extremism. Then again, it was disgust with Iraq, the issue most dear to the left—and the one that Rahm’s sparring partner Howard Dean rode to power—that fueled the political earthquake.

The last line in the article is great, it's a must read!

I side with Dean and his 50 state strategy because it seems to be an obvious way to build a long term political force that had all but disappeared in most places. I like Dean's populist philosophy and his support for state and local parties. It makes the best sense to me. I think it was crucial to our win last Nov. and over all, I think it was more important to our win than the efforts of the DCCC and the DSCC was, and I see them as much more elite than the DNC

But, on a personal level, I like Rahm and Carville more now than i did before I read the entire article.

It's well worth the read.

Thanks for posting it.

K&R

What you just said. I think one can go through all of one's life without calling everyone they meet "fucking idiots." And thinking it is funny or ok.

I never had a real opinion on Rahm personally, I think he did his job what he had to do. No one I know ever wanted to take any credit from him.

But I despise Carville. I despise him for what he and Begala did on Crossfire during the campaign. They repeated the Dean is crazy so often that it was a big part of bringing him down. They were ugly about it.

I despise him for taking away the joy we felt after the election. No one was taking credit, we were all feeling some joy. Then he said Dean should step down.

I do not like people who have to call others fucking idiots just because they have the power. I don't like people who think they have to hurt others to make themselves relevant.

The article is fascinating. But I do not like either man at all, though I do give Rahm credit. Politics does not have to be hate-based within one's own party.

Maybe I could have phrased my post differently.

I should have said I don't dislike them as much as I did before reading the article.

When Carville came out about replacing Dean, I wrote him a rather critical e-mail, which of course I got no reply to. I think his post election remarks cost Caville and cost Hillery Clinton as well, and they should have. I think those remarks strengthened Dean as well, because they were such stupid remarks and they didn't at all correspond with reality.

But.. I don't hate either Rahm or Carville.

I feel that when they despise Dean as much as they do, and they definitely do, they are also not caring much for the DNC members, 447, I think, of them who voted him in. Or for us....the people in the party.

It bothers me that when they speak of him that way, they are speaking of those in the party who want to see control shift out of DC.

I feel they have contempt for us as well.

think they know better and evrybody else doesn't know shit.

Some DU'ers seem to enjoy seeing Dean as some kind of martyr or something.

There is no defense for Carville on this, and if Rahm doesn't like Carville's using him, he should speak up about it.

Instead of

“You can’t go into 2008 having a party chairman that is completely disconnected from the congressional leadership and the campaign committees,”

it should be:

“You can’t go into 2008 having a party chairman that is completely disconnected from the state leadership and the grassroots.”

"You can’t go into 2008 having a party chairman that is completely disconnected from the state leadership and the grassroots.”

You are right.

:hi:

n/t

As I read the exerpt you posted above, I was infused with the knowledge that this is a man for whom politics is, well, politics. It's all about power and prestige and who gets to make the choices, etc. It's much less so about policy and governance, or even acquiring the means to GET to policy and governing.

I don't have any respect for people like this. I really don't. Theirs is a view and a quest for power for power's sake over wanting to be in a political position in order to do great good for people. It's all about the power with him.

Unacceptable.

--

I just spent a few minutes reading some of the sidebar on your Journal. Fascinating step back in time to the DLC's war against Dean. They sounded literally hysterical, didn't they?

Ya know, if Carville et. al. were somehow to succeed in ousting Dean from the DNC, he'd be free to run in '08. Howdja like THAT??? :bounce: :party:


From the article: Despite the wins by traditionally liberal candidates in several districts, Rahm, with his insistence on playing to the middle, was undeniably the primary architect of the Democratic sweep.

I don't agree with that at all, but I'm sure Rahm does. Pffft. COuldn't have been done without the 50-state strategy. Period. Also couldn't have been done without Bush's precipitous fall in the polls. Rahm probably did his part, I'll give him SOME credit. But absolutely NOT all the credit.

Oh, and look at this nonsense: Most of the competitive races are in red territory, he says, which is why he feels his critics on the left are silly and naive when they argue that the key to victory is simply for the party to turn out more of its base. He’s getting agitated again, coming back to life. “There is no base!” he exclaims, and then digs into his steak.

Is that what 90,000 of us are doing here at DU? Anyone who thinks there's no base is so unbelievably out of touch they probably shouldn't even be in Congress, let alone heading up the DCCC. Sheesh.

Is the question. It has to be more than the 50 state strategy. Especially if it is showing results. there has to be a deeper reason. Is the 50 state hurting some sort of plans and why. Or is this an excuse for something else.
I would really like to know why.

to the state parties. Dean had to work to get at least 12 state parties out of bankruptcy and unlock the offices. That is my understanding from what I read at a blog...can find it tomorrow or the next day.

If the state parties start having a say then the DC consultants on the gravy train might not do as well.

It is about power and who controls it. I don't see how they with the irritating personalities can say Dean is so bad. So it must be about power. The party has been top down for so long, they want it to stay that way. They don't think it should be structured from the bottom up as Dean wants.

Selfishness, miopism and quite frankly laziness.

They don't want to do what it takes to truly build a Democracy like other Progressive Dems want to do.

Same reason LBJ wanted to be rid of Kennedy. They wanted power to be all theirs and were willing to do whatever it took. It didn't matter if it meant the total erosion of Democracy. Same for these individuals.

In that sense the Clintons are no different from the Republicans who are simply more obvious in their selfishness and greedy intentions.

I wish I was wrong, however look at the actions and/or the lack thereof support and or unity.

It is theirs to be had, and yet they refuse it.

The answer seems clear. They would rather support Bush and CO. than do the right and ethical thing.

and Rahm and Carville are all about the big playas, and insisting that the party needs that corporate money to "get votes". The reality is THEY want the corporate money to play with, and going to the voters directly, getting them involved as Dean does, disproves their methodology. Oooops.

If they want power for power's sake (and they do), that means they DON'T want average citizens to have much power -- that would erode THEIR power.

From the get go Dean was all about raising the grassroots and empowering them again in part by simply reminding us that we have the power. He does other things to empower average citizens, as well, such as getting the state parties back on their feet in his job as DNC Chairman.

But in general, the LAST thing the entrenched powers in Washington want is to cede ANY power to the rabble. They'll fight that tooth and nail, and have. It's all about power. Dean has enormous power by virtue of the fact of giving power away -- back to the people. And he's said as much. He calls it Zen-like, saying: We found that you get power by giving it away. We empowered everyday voters by letting them develop their own campaigns on our behalf...." That and certain other things that he did made him wildly popular with the grassroots and the netroots especially, but it threatened TPTB in Washington, and THAT meant he absolutely had to go. As one columnist put it (Ted Rall?) -- "At least they didn't kill him."

“The thing that stuns me,” Carville says, “is that this is supposed to be a rigged deal—chairman of the party! The congressional leadership, the fund-raisers, people like that are supposed to decide. You are supposed to get a call and are told who to vote for! You’re not supposed to really vote on this shit!”

Carville doesn't like that because it's not where he and his pals can get their hands on it.

This is only one of many Crossfire episodes where Dean was blasted, and they did it to other candidates as well. It was really bad somedays. This was one of the very worst with Carville and Novak getting vicious...James even said Dean had a "political lobotomy."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/29/cf.00.html

The whole thing was devoted to tearing Dean down, December 23, 2003 when he was still ahead in the polls...but the most pathetic part was this segment from the transcript. Utterly tasteless.



Yuck.

I remember this statement from the Progressive Review by Sam Smith, which pretty well sums up why Carville is so irate with Howard Dean. It is because Dean crossed the establishment Dems. He ran for president because he had goals for this country, forgetting to request an audience with the kingmakers.

http://www.davidbudbill.com/jme31.html

don't matter. It's still a "smoke filled room". This is helping me understand what Hillary did to Kerry in November. Any Democrat running who isn't Hillary is "betraying" her. Therefore, they will be destroyed. Wow -- do we live in a democracy or not?

show with his wife -- it was only one run. Can't remember the name of it. And Dean had a cameo appearance on it. So what's up with that? He BETRAYED the Dems, but he can still be on Carville's show? I just can't figure this guy out.

n/t

Carville is jealous of Dean's success with the grassroots. The fact that we took back BOTH houses of Congress is quite an accomplishment. He can't stand it. Now he just looks like a goofy Cajun.

Besides, I don't trust anyone who sleeps with a Repuke. Nobody. They've got to have a dysfunctional marriage.

I have a button I wear to political functions: I ONLY SLEEP WITH DEMOCRATS

:evilgrin:

I think they still believe this is the 80's or 90's and that we all get our info from DLC & GOP talking points put forth on Sunday News shows as opposed to "nutroots" communication.

I wonder if they were suprised when the attempted coup fell on its face:

"What- you mean the base dosent believe what we say on TV anymore- You mean the activist base has gotten the idea that should have INFLUENCE and INPUT too? What are they doing- TALKING to each other or something?...They used to just listen to us and assume it was conventional wisdom- what do we do now???"