Replies

It’s not a matter of trust. I believe he was giving his assessment. I don’t disagree with your opinion of his assessment, although I do think he was quite correct that she was a flawed, questionable candidate who had no real chance of winning.

And it is funny to me that people who scream about how some democrat operative gets to be on TV and always seems to just say nice things about democrats instead of “doing their job”, and get all excited on those occasions where a known democrat tells the truth about a democrat don’t understand the concept when it comes to a republican.

Rove is being paid for his opinion, and we don’t like his opinion, but it does appear to be his true opinion.

What i mean is I don’t think he was lying about his opinion of her just to hurt her. I think he was convinced that the voters had chosen a person who was flawed and could not win, and that Castle could have won.

I also presume he was friends with Castle, and he was probably expressing that friendship. He also could have been upset at the way some supporters of O’Donnell had attacked Castle with false personal attacks like the whole homosexual thing (which did not come from O’Donnell).

If you look at information about her, she did have a lot of negatives, things that raised serious issues. Her supporters largely chose to ignore those issues, a few tried to dismiss them entirely. But ignoring or dismissing them doesn’t make them go away.

And I don’t think anybody doubts that Rove represents a different part of the republican establishment than the tea party. He was the architect of compassionate conservatism. But he wasn’t a political ideologist ever, he was a political operative, whose job was to get people elected, not run a think tank.

That’s why it’s so easy for conservatives to go from “Rove, you Magnificent Bastard” to “Rove, you Bastard”. The man didn’t change — just whether his operation was liked or disliked by the conservatives.