Most everything I’ve ever heard from Rove is not about Republican/Conservative ideology, but about winning.
I don’t know Rove’s true beliefs, but I do believe he is motivated primarily by his drive to win.
He believed that O’Donnell couldn’t/wouldn’t win. I would have voted for her, but I also agreed with him.
Voting for O’Donnell in the primary may have won a battle, but it lost a war. (in a metaphorical sense)
It was personal, Karl was insulted because he couldn’t talk the tea party into not endorsing her, and Coats was his buddy. He was venomous in his rage against her on primary night. A first class temper tantrum. Karl trashed COD, then he trashed the tea party last week, then he trashed Sarah. I turn the channel now if he comes on, just like I do with Shep and Bambi.
Agree.
O’Donnell was not the best candidate to come down the pike but Rove clearly did not help.
Time for him to go...
I understand your views, but I've come to a point where I would rather have a liberal Democrat in a seat than a liberal Republican. I guess I've seen too many instances where moderate Republicans become the tail that wags the dog. Even if it costs us seats, better to have a Republican Party I can depend on, with fewer seats, than a Republican Party in the majority that ignores my conservative views.
Having read Rove’s book I am convinced he is as much of an empty suit at the Obamao.
After watching him on TV during the run up to the election it’s clear that he has no core values at all.
If Rove was just being pregmatic, he would have said I don’t believe she is the best candidate we could have fielded there, period. No, he went beyond that in an across the board full attack on her. It was beyond the pale, bitter and petty. Coons has to run again in 2012, let’s hear what he has to say about whom should run against him, Castle, the RINO? The results are the results of course but does anyone think they were not worried as they sent both the boy wonder and his comical side kick into De where they have a 2 to 1 advantage in party membership, to try to ensure they held the commic’s senate seat.
Rove is no different from Dick Morris. Neither of them care a whit about ideology; they're more interested in understanding what the electorate thinks and how that translates to the political sphere.
Yeah, Rove also thought amnesty would usher in a permanent Republican majority. He’s responsible for many of the 2nd term intiatives Bush wanted to pursue and only SS reform was correct.
He may have the drive to win but he’s clearly biased toward a belief system that supports bigger government and the establishment structure being maintained even if it clashes with attaining majorities.
It wasn’t his doubt that she could win that is the issue (for me). I didn’t believe she’d win and I still supported her just because I didn’t want Castle in the Senate. The real issue is that he went out of his way to destroy her the very night she on. With their (public) support the victory of Coons may have not been double digits and maybe her presence on the tickets brings more conservatives to vote down the line on other candidates increasing their odds to win even if she couldn’t. They sabotaged the bottom ticket in their need to destroy her. That isn’t smart politics, it is the type of politics of a desperate establishment determined to destroy the conservative grassroots’s agenda to move power from their hands.
The HOuse was smarter. After Scozzy in NY21 they left the grassroots alone and they now stand at a Majority in the House. Hayley Barbour left us alone and they have a majority of Governors. The Senate took the opposite road and they are still the minority. They deserve their minority status.
I don’t know Rove’s true beliefs, but I do believe he is motivated primarily by his drive to win.
He believed that O’Donnell couldn’t/wouldn’t win. I would have voted for her, but I also agreed with him.
Voting for O’Donnell in the primary may have won a battle, but it lost a war. (in a metaphorical sense)
On the contrary, I think that the O'Donnell race may have been a lost battle, but a first step in winning the real war for the soul of the Republican Party.
Elections should be about competing visions, not about which gang gets its turn to plunder the taxpayers. A politician who is only about his gang "winning" should have no part in the Republican Party. A political consultant who is only about "winning" should have no role in the Republican Party.
If somebody is "electable", but once elected will simply work to advance the socialist agenda, then what's the point? Better to TRY to get actual conservatives into office than to succeed in electing another socialist.
The team needs people like that....
Rove and his cohorts have by their conduct clearly defined themselves as enemies of the coservative movement. That is O'Donnels victory even though she did not win the election. Now we hit theoir money suppiers and undermine Rove et,al.Thats the point.
Voting for O’Donnell in the primary may have won a battle, but it lost a war. (in a metaphorical sense)
When you don't win an election, you have a result such as what happened in 2008.
I don't understand how some can lose this point ... An election is all about winning ...
Voting for O’Donnell in the primary may have won a battle, but it lost a war. (in a metaphorical sense)
When you don't win an election, you have a result such as what happened in 2008.
I don't understand how some can lose this point ... An election is all about winning ...