Posted on 09/17/2010 4:45:56 PM PDT by Dryman
No but I do hate odumbo
O’Donnell won but he kept yapping, violating Ronnie’s Rule.
>>”She threw it all away to make me look ridiculous. A MAN IN MY POSITION CANNOT AFFORD TO BE MADE TO LOOK RIDICULOUS!”<<
HAHAHAHA! That should be your tagline.
He is part of the rino regiment.
Even though I disagree with Karl Rove in regards to O’Donnell, I don’t hate him. However, I am a bit appalled at those who demand total obedience to one way of thinking and behavior. Isn’t that what liberals demand? Cutting Rove loose for one disagreement is the epitome of Political Correctness. We should be better than that. You want to get back at Karl Rove? Help Christine O’Donnell win the election and then graciously celebrate our victory.
Thanks for a thoughtful post. It’s nice to hear a voice of reason on this subject.
It’s absurd for me to trash everyone who doesn’t agree with me on everything. Good people can disagree.
Unlike so many of the paid commentators on FOX, Rove speaks bluntly and tells the truth as he sees it. I respect that and, quite frankly, find it much more enlightening than the paid tag-teams who just spout completely predictable opinions.
I may not agree with Rove or like what he says, but I find his take on the subject interesting. And worrying.
It is empowering to understand what others think, both those who will vote with me and those who will not.
I support both O’Donnell and Angle, realizing that neither are perfect candidates. It is a concern that perhaps conservatives need to vet their picks more carefully to be sure we’re getting true representatives who are electable, not just opportunists who want the limelight.
We need people who not only can win the office but be effective once they get to Washington.
There are many unpleasant posters on FR who want to destroy anyone who has an opinion other than theirs. They are but a drop in the electorate bucket, so I pray that their inbred mentality won’t hurt the conservative cause come November.
Rove on O’Reilly shortly.
I do not “hate” Karl Rove anymore than I “hated” Rush two years ago for bashing my candidate of choice (Huckabee) during the primary. But my opinion of the two gentlemen has been sullied by their actions.
What Mr. Rove did wrong from my point of view was three fold.
First, the primaries are the precise time for conservative and moderates to duke it out (then in the general we all unite behind the Republican). By supporting Castle over O’Donnell in the primary he exposed himself as someone who is “principally-Republican” instead of “principally-conservative.”
Second, and along those same lines, he chose pragmatism (winning back the majority) over principle. And DeMint is correct to say that is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Finally, and the MOST EGREGIOUS, he attacked the victorious Republican candidate O’Donnell AFTER the primary was over! And he continues to do so. And then out of the other side of his mouth he says he is “for the Republicans.” You can’t have it both ways.
Because it's this week and not last week or next week.
my open invitation for Rove to visit at home me is on hold
Maybe he’s busy reading poster histories so that he can decide who is “worthy” of his precious attention.
End of story. He makes those kinds of statements about Pubbies and Dems all of the time without elaborating.
Instead he laid out a laundry list of terrible sounding accusations which he didn't back up and don't look that bad if you investigate them. And he didn't stop with doing that on the Hannity Show he went on every show he could for the next 24 hours and repeated the whole list of accusations.
When that blew up in his face he responded by doubling down and repeating it some more. If O'Donnell's opponent, Coons, had the guts to go there it would rightly be called a "smear campaign."
But now Coons doesn't have to get in the gutter and level poorly based lowball accusations at her because Tokyo Rove did it for him and got more coverage of it, for free, than Coons ever would have.
Rove was on “Your World with Neil Cavuto this afternoon and he was back at it slamming O’Donnell. Now, this very moment, Rove is on BOR’s show doing it again. Karl sucks.
I can guarantee you one thing. You will NEVER see a democrat/liberal strategist trash a dem candidate the way the country saw Rove trash O'Donnell on the night of her victory. You would NEVER hear, for example, Carville or Begala downtalk a dem nominee; apparently they internalized Reagan's 11th Commandment and the GOP establishment refused to.
If she does win carrying the conservative banner, it will be in spite of, and not because of Rove's efforts. Once she was the nominee, a true conservative commentator, analyst, etc. would have offered advice in private and not trashed in public.
Eventually that sort of thing comes to an end.
Was this the time? Call that question #1.
Usually any candidate winning on the Republican brand needs a high majority of the available Republican votes ~ from all factions. The candidate will also usually need some percentage of the available Democrat votes. This is why it's usually said a candidate must appeal to all sides to get elected.
Was it the case that the guy under consideration could count on winning a high percentage of the available Republican votes in a test against a Democrat? Was it possible for the candidate to draw in at least a modicum of Democrat votes? Call that Question #2.
I think if we can address these two questions we can put Karl Rove's problems to rest ~ and also bring a close to his long run as a relatively successful political analyst and tactician. Question #1 ~ Was the candidate too old, or his career at an end?
This is a tough one. Older candidates have won other races. Inasmuch as his entire elective career encompassed periods of positive economic performance (compared to the current period) and this election is being held against the backdrop of a really serious economic catastrophe, I'd have to say he had actually never been tested.
This is described as a turn against incumbency ~ and true enough, incumbents are having some real problems lately. Castle would not be alone in having been an immensely popular politician earlier in his career and yet someone the public would like to get rid of this time. Question #2 ~ Was the candidate going to get a high majority of Republican votes as well as enough Democrat votes to win?
As was demonstrated in the primary, Castle, with a record Republican primary turnout, LOST.
The latest insurgent group, the TEA Party was quite willing to NOT vote for him in the general election thereby depriving him of the very high percentage of Republican votes he needed to win.
As if that wasn't enough, the Democrats had planned to run only a token candidate against Castle ~ and did so. There's a serious question about that candidate's chance of winning in any case ~ as well as his ability to attract traditional Democrat voters!
He is not a good candidate to oppose any Republican candidate.
The conclusion is that a younger, more Conservative candidate actually had a real opportunity to win in Delaware, and possibly win in a future election. Castle, in contrast, even if he won, this would have been his last election, and a future Republican candidate 6 years from now would probably not have as good a chance to win as Ms. O'Donnell today!
He who hesitates is lost. Strike while the iron is hot. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A stitch in time saves nine. Etc.
O'Donnell had the best chance any Conservative would ever have AND she had the best chance any Republican could have in this particular election in the face of the worst economic catastrophe of modern times. The Democrat burden was too heavy for the Democrat to overcome. The Republican wins.
I don’t hate Karl Rove, but I do detest what he stands for: Big government republicans. He is responsible for “compassionate conservatism” and for Bush standing around letting himself be a target for 8 years and becoming a lame duck Pres after 2006. We barely won the elections in 2000 and 2004, mainly due to his ineptitude. His dissing of a winning candidate(Christine,the one the people wanted)was uncalled for and a symptom of his elitist attitude.
At the 13 minute mark of Christine’s victory speech, after Rove’s diatribe, a tea party representative took the mike and stated that Rove came to one of their meetings about a year ago and asked to speak privately with them. What he wanted was for them to drop their support for Christine and back Castle. They told him to forget it!
Now, is this the work of an analyst or an activist?
Seems to me that there is a lot more to this story.
Maybe you'd like us to send you a resume to review so you can determine if we're deserving of a response?
Sheesh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.