'I blame Karl Rove'

STG News ^ | 11/3/10 | William Way, Jr.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

There is a singular event that shoved the Republican Senate car over the cliff.

That event was the primary victory of Christine O'Donnell. This morning she used a phrase that is right on the money. That description is "Republican Cannibalism."

I personally hold Karl Rove to blame, followed closely by Senator John Cornyn. Rove is an establishment Progressive Republican of the first order.

Following O'Donnell's message of values victory in Delaware, Rove started slinging mud in her direction because he realized she was a woman that couldn't be bought & sold on a D.C. street corner.

It was Rove who almost exclusively undermined an untested Republican. When challenged, he became entrenched, making it a media story.

Coming out of a surprise primary victory, everyone would obviously be questioning O’Donnell’s candidacy.

It's the "Man Bites Dog" story. Rove turned an opportunity to help create an up-and-coming political star into much less.

The bottom feeder Rove chose for his personal aggrandizement to put blood in the water. The sharks had a feeding frenzy.

The result was that yet another "Traditional Values Candidate" was beaten by her own political party, & the momentum of several other races was slowed.

It gave Reid & others the chance to further paint traditional values candidates as kooks. The Republican cannibalism resulted in the Senate leadership failure to get behind Republican nominees.

The cannibalism by a self-professed REPUBLICAN strategist, wrapped up is his own glory led to lost momentum by MIller, Fiorina (albeit her real defeat was the unfortunate infection), Buck, Angle & Rossi.

His poor choices contributed to a decay of no less than 15 percent-point in Delaware. Had Delaware been advocated by Rove, rather than diminished, today we would be looking at a three-seat Senate majority, & a Republican Governor in CA.

[paulycy]

Scott Brown supports many liberal positions. Should we hate on him? Is he a RINO? Should we primary him when he comes up for re-election?

You're still missing my point.

It was discussed at length on this forum how liberal Scott Brown was. We, those of us who also defend choosing Christine and who understand that YOU CAN ONLY VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IN THE SPECIFIC RACE AT THE TIME said at the time that "he is our guy now. Next time, we'll see."

So the answer to your question is: It depends on WHO IS ACTUALLY RUNNING NEXT TIME as to whether we will "hate on him," call him a RINO, vote for him in the next primary. We don't know yet. IF a more constitutional conservative candidate shows up then he won't get our support. That's the way it works in the Big Leagues.

What matters is that we further the Constitutional Conservative cause at every turn. Otherwise this Repubic is history. Our loyalty is to the Constitution and to the Rule of Law, not to Man.

[Eyes Unclouded]

“YOU CAN ONLY VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IN THE SPECIFIC RACE AT THE TIME”

I understand that. You are saying people should just rallied around COD after the primary to get her to the Senate. What I am saying is that had this happened (for example a rally with heavy hitters like Palin, Bachmann, and Beck) standing on stage with COD it would hurt more than help. Now instead of just COD being asked about her issues it would be also Palin being asked why she supports COD.

COD’s personal issues have become a liability. Unfortunate? Yes, but true just the same. We can’t have her out there at Tea Parties there is simply no upside. If she was a witch who as a state official worked on fiscal issues with a strong conservative records I would say sure! It would show we care about people’s records and not their personal lives. Sadly the only fiscal situations COD has ever managed all turn out poorly from personal to previous campaigns. So it isn’t like we can defend her work record.

“IF a more constitutional conservative candidate shows up then he won’t get our support. That’s the way it works in the Big Leagues. “

This does not make sense. Within a GOP primary sure you can win being saying really conservative things. After the primary you still have to go out and win the general election. A team that only wins primaries doesn’t get to play in the Big Leagues they get stuck in the Minors.

I support challenges on RINOs when they have some chance of succeeding for the general election. Then it is a win win as we get rid of a RINO and keep the seat. I don’t support situations where we KNOW we are going to lose the seat just to get rid of a RINO which is what happened in Delaware and will happen if you run a Tea Party candidate in Massachusetts.

[paulycy]

I don’t support situations where we KNOW we are going to lose the seat just to get rid of a RINO which is what happened in Delaware and will happen if you run a Tea Party candidate in Massachusetts.

So in this case you hand a United States Senate seat to an avowed marxist.

You win. /s

[Eyes Unclouded]

No! You did! Seriously!

You are never going to take some seats with anything more than a RINO. Just won’t happen! Coons had the upper hand going into this. So instead of playing it smart and trying to to their part for the national aim of getting the chamber back the locals picked COD. I’m sure shes better than Castle. He’s still better than Coons!

Coons would have trounced COD (and he did).
Coons probably would have beat Castle but he had a better chance.

Coons goes to the Senate and are minority party. Castle goes and we have a shot at majority. COD goes we also have a shot at majority and as a bonus she is more conservative.

Coons is the bad option, Castle is better than Coons but not that good, and COD is great.

AT THE SAME TIME.

Coons is very likely, Castle is somewhat likely, and COD has no chance.

Given that something bad is probably going to happen how would you try to avoid it? Shooting for the ideal but unrealistic option? Being pragmatic and taking something not ideal but better than the bad option?

Deleware GOP picked to be idealistic and unrealistic. That isn’t how the budget gets fixed. That isn’t how Obamacare gets repealed. The truth is we need some RINOs. Can’t be helped. We worked with the USSR against Hitler. We worked with the jihadists against the USSR. Now we are working with muslim militias against the jihadists. That is how politics works. I’d rather have RINOs that let some conservative things happen and have to put up with some junk from them than have a small (but pure) presence in the Senate that really wouldn’t be able to get anything conservative passed at all.

Don’t let perfect become the enemy of good.

[Eyes Unclouded]

Thanks. Feel free to send it around. People need to remember what the cost of failure is. Those in charge of the status quo are always looking for ways to subvert the movement and sticking to an emotional approach just makes it that much easier.

[Diogenesis]

Eyes Unclouded:The fact remains we lost that race. We lost because of a poor campaign (poorly run not poor for $) by a women with no bona fide fiscal conservative experience but plenty of bona fide personal baggage."

No. The GOP lost because of Romney/Rove/Team Romney.
The very same Team that attacked O'Donnell.

Fact: The McCain/Palin ticket was up ++4 to 10 pts. in some polls, days prior to the election.
So rather than helping the GOP, Romney and
Parker and the rest of TeamROMNEY decided
…… to attack Gov. Palin to throw Election2008.

---

"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers…
have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election.
'Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,'
says one former Romney aide…
'The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney.
"Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a 'diva' and was going off message intentionally."

---

The Palmetto Scoop reported:
"The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romney’s former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin."
that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

---

Poor sport spoiler Romney doing what he does best:

Novak: "Fred Thompson drop-out rumors traced to Romney campaign"

Said Novak: "The rumors were traced in part to Mitt Romney's campaign,
trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson."

---

"Despite outspending his rivals by huge margins throughout the primaries,
(Mitt Romney, Carpetbagger UT,CA,MA,NH,Mexico) lost Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and California.
The only primaries he won were in Michigan, where Dad was governor; LDS states;
and a few states on Super Tuesday in which his California-obsessed rivals
couldn't spare the cash to advertise.
Only John Connolly in 1968 had a worse cash-to-delegates ratio.
And John McCain rightly did not like Romney's tactics during the primaries.
(W)hen (Romney's early leads) started slipping away, he resorted to unfair,
distorted, scorched-earth negative ads, betting that his opponents couldn't
afford to spend enough for the truth to catch up to his charges."
[Romney: A Mistake for McCain, 7/23/2008, Dick Morris]

---

[Eyes Unclouded]

Attacks on Palin may have played a role. However other factors were at play the bank meltdown for one. Even with such leaks and blue on blue sniping Palin was trending in that direction which was an inevitable result of the way she was introduced to the electorate by the media (katie couric for example). The McCain campaign was poorly run and towards the end erratic. You had comments about the economy that weren’t based in reality. You had a random suspension of the campaign. You had all sorts of people playing against each other for future jobs and positions post election. You had personal conflicts between people and alot of animosity towards Palin in particular but I don’t think any one of those played a critical role in the defeat. The country was fed up with Bush, there was a brewing economic crisis, the wars (McCain’s strong point) were largely a non issue, you had the first viable black candidate (one who completely ruled the media), and a huge budget difference between the candidates.

“The very same Team that attacked O’Donnell.” Once again GOP attacks may have played a role but O’Donnell did the greatest chunk of of damage to herself with her own mouth. Her resume should have been vetted and that stuff should have come out in the primary. A healthy state party would have realized that there was no way she could take that seat and either gone with Castle or found a more viable conservative.

On a side note that picture is hilarious did you make it or just find it somewhere?

[Grizzled Bear]

So all those newly elected Republicans, like TOOMEY. You're writing them all off. Two months before they take office.

In case you haven't noticed, the TEA Party carefully chooses which candidates it will endorse. I believe the elitists are too entrenched in the GOP for it to ever be properly restored.

Don't worry about the newly elected Republicans. Remember, at it's birth the GOP absorbed the Whigs and other parties. They'll have a chance to choose whether they'll have the TEA Party's support.

As far as your demented little Rove comparison, I'm furious at the little weasel for trashing O'Donnell right after she won the primary.

[Grizzled Bear]

I disagree with the opinion of darkwolf regarding COD. But, I support his/her right to freely express their opinion on this forum. As much as I would expect him/her to defend my right to express my disagreement.

He's got the right to his opinion and the right to express it. I've little faith that he'd defend your opinion if you supported O'Donnell. I've only been jabbing him in response to his attacks on O'Donnell supporters.

There are many temptations of incivility toward some posters that we disagree. Especially when we find their opinion obnoxious, and inflammatory, to our own view. The secret is to remain civil, in spite of the aggressions we might feel obligated to express, toward their motives, and/or ill-founded belief systems.

I'll assume you've not noticed he and "Palladin" use Wikipedia and "Gawker." Wikipedia is not a reliable source concerning conservatives and Gawker is a homosexual activist site. Any alarm bells going off, yet?

I'll admit, I went over the top. Alright, I went WAY over the top. I reached escape velocity and I am currently passing Jupiter and heading toward deep space.

But I degress.

I've always had an issue with bullies and have taken bizarre delight in pummelling them. It's usually better to remain civil; unfortunately, you can't reason with the unreasonable.

But thank you, takenoprisoner, for your well written note. You've made a lot of good points. I'll take your advice and tone it down a bit.

Prost!

[Grizzled Bear]

I understand that. You are saying people should just rallied around COD after the primary to get her to the Senate.

The issue isn't about a failure to "rally around COD."

The real issue is that immediately after the constituents of her state chose her, Rove, a self-important party elitist attacked her.

When party big wigs attack the candidate that won the primary, parties fade into obscurity. If you don't see the problem with Rove's behavior, you are part of the problem.

[GOP_Harley_Guy]

And snitching isn’t cool either.

[Grizzled Bear]

And snitching isn’t cool either.

Alright. I'll stop snitching if I can get one of those cool "Stop Stitching" T-Shirts. They're what all the stylish thugs are wearing, this season!

[GOP_Harley_Guy]

I think a HOG (Harley Owners Group) t-shirt would be appropriate.

[Darkwolf377]

For someone who keeps sending me emails full of rudeness and zero facts and an accusation that I am obsessed, you are exhibiting some strange behavior.

Jim Rob sent me an email which I chose not to read. Why I did that doesn’t matter, but the message was clear. I stopped posting about this person and moved on. Please see my posting history for today (my “day” starts much later than most, so there may be some overlap) and you will see I got the message and respected the request.

Now, you have posted to me about things I posted a day ago. Why would you do this if all you wanted was for me to stop posting this material? Are you looking for a fight? Are you looking for me to post more of those things? Why would you do that if you truly don’t want such things to be posted?

Based on your personal emails to me, which I respectfully request you stop sending, you have some issues.

I was asked to stop. It’s not my site so I don’t get to decide what is free speech and what is restricted, what is acceptable discourse and what is not. I have no beef with that. I have an opinion, but no one is interested in it.

I posted the facts on this person, not for some imagined personal reasons but because I value conservatism, and don’t want the MSM to have yet another took with which to savage us. I am no longer posting those facts, because they disturb some people who are her fans.

I have written this rather long post because while I have followed the request, I don’t want anyone to think that this means that certain voices in this party are going to be allowed to shout down principled opposition. All you’ve done is gotten me to follow the site owner’s desires. As I have been coming here for nine years, I have no choice but to respect those, because whatever my differences with him, I respect all he has done for conservatism, and all the information his site has provided for me over the years.

I’ve left this subject alone. You, claiming I have some issue, cannot.

That’s your problem. Please stop trying to make it mine.

Thank you.

[Darkwolf377]

took = tool

P.S. You’ve again posted the “wikipedia” and “Gawker” line you used in your email to me, and I will repeat what I said there, because of your insinuation:

You haven’t disputed the FACTS, which you would have if you could, so you attacked the source.

That says a lot about your position re: the truth.

[Grizzled Bear]

Look, I didn’t really read your last last FReep mail. I just sort of skimmed over it and responded with “good for you.” I’m sorry if that hurt your feelings.

To be honest, your FReep mail was about as long the post I’m responding to and I really don’t have time read either right now. Tomorrow really doesn’t look very good, either. I’ll see if I can get to it sometime next week.

In the mean time, stay classy.

[Darkwolf377]

One more try:

I never posted to you. You started sending me emails full of weird comments. I asked you to stop.

You now are posting to me on a thread I had stopped posting on. I asked you to stop.

Please stop sending me emails and posts.

Thanks again.

[Grizzled Bear]

Thanks again.

You're welcome.

[Palladin]

Great post.

To Christine: kwitcherbitchin’ and stop blaming Karl Rove. Man up, you immature little twit!

Here’s a poem to help you, Christine:

‘If’

by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master,
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And - which is more - you’ll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

[Palladin]

In politics, a good mind trumps a good heart.