Posted on 09/17/2010 10:11:35 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman
With his recent criticisms of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Fox News, Karl Rove kicked up a controversy. His critique of O'Donnell was granular and well-informed. Having worked with Karl for a number of years, I know that he is nothing if not detail-oriented. Rove has taken O'Donnell to task for her checkered financial past, her history of litigiousness and paranoia,...
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
She has had problems but the point is Karl Rove sat there on national TV and unecessarily went into a detailed tirade about her; not on one show but 3 (possibly more). For a guy that is so detailed, why didn’t he bring out the flip side that Coons is an avowed marxist or better yet, where was he when Obama was campaigning and why didn’t he go through a whole laundry list on him?
Like David Limbaugh said last nite on Mark Levin’s show,(paraphrasing) we cannot afford to put people in that are not going to vote the right way; we are going to have less than pure candidates that may have had problems/quirks (his word).
Wow. Thanks for posting that. Yes absolutely clueless...and a useful idiot to their cause.
Talk about intolerant...
Why the Tea Party is toxic for the GOP
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Yet the Republican Party suffers its own difficulty — an untested ideology at the core of its appeal.
In the normal course of events, political movements begin as intellectual arguments, often conducted for years in serious books and journals. To study the Tea Party movement, future scholars will sift through the collected tweets of Sarah Palin. Without a history of clarifying, refining debates, Republicans need to ask three questions of candidates rising on the Tea Party wave:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082405001.html
Most Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are understandably concerned about the size and reach of government. Their enthusiasm is a clear Republican advantage. But Tea Party populism is just as clearly incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs. It is at odds with Abraham Lincoln’s inclusive tone and his conviction that government policies could empower individuals. It is inconsistent with religious teaching on government’s responsibility to seek the common good and to care for the weak. It does not reflect a Burkean suspicion of radical social change.
The Republican Identity Crisis
By Michael Gerson
Newsweek
Dec. 25, 2006 - Jan. 1, 2007
This reaction previews a broader, high-stakes Republican debate as we head toward the 2008 election. One Republican Party—the Republican Party of movement conservatives on Capitol Hill and in the think-tank world—will argue that the “big government Republicanism” of the Bush era has been a reason for recent defeats. Like all fundamentalists, the antigovernment conservatives preach that greater influence requires a return to purity—the purity of Reaganism.
But the golden age of austerity under Reagan is a myth. During the Reagan years, big government got bigger, with federal spending reaching 23.5 percent of GDP (compared with just over 20 percent under the current president). But the Reagan reality is more admirable than the myth. He wisely chose what was historically necessary—large defense increases and tax reductions—over what was politically unachievable: a massive rollback of government.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240579/site/newsweek/
He used to be no different than he is now. He’s just getting stupid and exposing his true beliefs. To think I once respected this “man.” /hurl
I watched Rove when he made his first on air attack against O’Donnell. He gave a litany of her faults, some valid and some false. You know what I found most unusual? It was his ability to list so many of the Castle campaign’s talking points in such quick order. Watch it yourself. It was almost as though he was reading from a script.
In my opinion, this was a clear premeditated attack on the conservative — after she had won. So, what was Rove’s motive? Could he quickly list Coon’s or Castle’s faults the same way? Hmmmm. For someone who claims to be in favor of Republicans, he’s sure acting strangely.
Gerson, a onetime Jimmy Carter supporter (he left the Democratic Party largely over abortion), was immediately attracted to Bush’s supposed “compassionate conservatism.”
Gerson angered libertarian conservatives with Heroic Conservatism, his October 2007 book, in which he argues that “America needs a conservatism that is heroic in its aspirations—this includes ‘compassionate conservative’ social strategies such as continued international AIDS funding, anti-poverty initiatives, and a government leadership rooted in moral values” (Blurb on “Heroic Conservatism,” Council on Foreign Relations). These views represent a formidable break with the libertarian portion of the Republican Party. According to Gerson, the moral urgency of poverty and health, both in this country and abroad, makes libertarianism appear out of touch with American values. In December 2006, Gerson advised Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential election: “Campaigning on the size of government in 2008, while opponents talk about health care, education, and poverty, will seem, and be, procedural, small-minded, cold, and uninspired. The moral stakes are even higher. What does anti-government conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing. What achievement would it contribute to racial healing and the unity of our country? No achievement at all. Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism—an idealism that strangles mercy” (Newsweek, December 25, 2006).
That guy is a piece of work. A common thread in his column is that he imples we are juvenile in thought. His words:
“But it is toxic for the GOP to be associated with the armed and juvenile..”
The air must be very thin where he sits.
I agree with you. Rove’s attack was premeditated. How else can one explain the way he quickly listed so many points against O’Donnell. My guess is, he’d been making those points for some time prior to the Fox segment on election night. In other words, he was quite familiar with Castle’s talking points, and rather than holding his tongue for the good of the Republican Party, he let loose even after he KNEW she was the nominee. He’s clearly not just a political commentator. He’s got an axe to grind, and he’s grinding it.
Rove wants the country to slouch left under a Republican majority and a RINO center.
Probably thinks it is a safer, controlled path to statist socialism than a runaway Democrat majority which is prone to draw a reaction to the right as we are seeing.
Rove/Bush promoted gradual socialism for eight years. But under a Republican majority and a “Gang of 14” in the center, there was no way to react to the controlled situation.
April 30, 2010
Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson reacts with outrage to the Arizona Immigration Enforcement Law.
columnist and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson pronounces the new Arizona immigration law “understandable — and dreadful.” Gerson says states do not have the authority “to take control of American immigration policy — an authority that Arizona has seized in order to abuse.” The effect of the new law, he argues, will be bad for everybody:
It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny — but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command “Your papers, please,” however politely delivered. The distinctly American response to such a request would be “Go to hell,” and then “See you in court.”
Someone posted earlier today that Rove should have just congratulated her and when asked about the rumors, deferred his opinion and state that 'let that come out by the opponent..(something along those lines)'. That's exactly what Rove should have done but like you said, he has an axe to grind.
Excellent finds kcvl. This guy should be exposed for what he is. I wonder how much ‘influence’ he has with readers.
We’re gonna have to spank thee silly bastards.
The Rinos are socialists. There really is no “slow” way to take a country down like they are doing with the DNC.
Intellectualism is also an "ism."
You cannot tell a man that he is a lowbrow any more than you can tell a woman that her clothes are in bad taste, but a highbrow does not mind being called a highbrow. He has worked hard, read widely, traveled far, and listened attentively in order to satisfy his curiosity and establish his squatters' rights in this little corner of intellectualism, and he does not care who knows it. And this is true of both kinds of highbrow — the militant, or crusader, type and the passive, or dilettante type. These types in general live happily together; the militant highbrow carries the torch of culture, the passive highbrow reads by its light. — Russell LynesAmerican Heritage: Do you think that the middlebrow still tends to look up to the highbrow as a source of taste and guidance, as you implied he did in 1949?
Russell Lynes: No, I think the lower middlebrow, at least, now tends to look upon the highbrow as an intellectual fraud.
This guy needs to remember what Tonto said to the Lone Ranger as they were surronded by angry Indians, "what you mean we in trouble white man?"
The great thing about recent events is that the party moderates, aka anti-Constitutional LIBERALS, are revealing themselves. The O’Donnell nomination is a defining point in the battle between conservatism and liberalism. Both sides are being laid bare.
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.