Carville said it first.... but no one threw a fit about it then.

Tweet

On 9/11 (right before the attack) Democratic strategist James Carville told reporters "I hope Bush does not succeed". Stanley Greenberg, Democratic pollster, was doing polls on the new president to see what doubts people may have about him so they could use it in focus groups. "We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted. Then the annoucement came about the terror attacks....Carville stands up and says " "Disregard everything we just said!". The press listened and NEVER printed the story that Carville and Greenberg(two top people in the democratic party)not only wanted Bush to fail but were actively trying to turn people against him. Why did they retrack what they said? Well because they knew the public would rally around Bush with the terrorist attacks going on and they KNEW they would have been crucified for saying that about him at a time when we were under attack. It was called self preservation. But why did the press never print it? I know right after the attacks the news was busy but what about the months and years after wards? Rush says he wants a new president to fail and the press is up in arms. Carville says that about a new president and the press covers it up. Carville has been very outspoken about Rush's comment and has said he is outraged. But he said the same thing about Bush. So isn't that kind of hypocritical? Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans. What do you think about this situation?