09/22/2010
If the real political history of the period from circa 2000-2010 is ever written–if America survives such that people can still write real political histories without being imprisoned, tortured, murdered, or simply silenced–it will not show that America was brought to the brink of doom solely by men like the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” and David Axelrod, but at least as much by men like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Karl Rove.And after all he’s done to harm America, Rove is still at it, as unapolegetic as ever, seeking, among other things, to sabotage the Delaware U.S. Senate candidacy of Christine O'Donnell, who in Rove’s eyes is guilty of the unpardonable sins of being a Tea Party candidate, and of beating Rove’s guy, nine-term RINO Cong. Mike Castle, in the GOP primary.
One of the motivations of the Tea Party movement is to take back the GOP from greasy operators like Rove, who work to destroy the life chances of the patriotic GOP base, at the same time that the Roves take the base’s votes for granted.
I think that Rove’s reputation for brilliance is a myth that owes its existence to his having hitched his wagon while young to a rising Republican alumni brat named George W. Bush. Rove has neither principles nor great intelligence. He is a hollow man.
" … .While I was never impressed overly much by [Christine O'Donnell], I do think that anyone who can make Karl Rove blow a fuse is worth something.
The "dabbling in witchcraft" thing should, I think, blow over. O'Donnell has long since repudiated witchcraft and is an evangelical Christian, so I have a hard time believing that her previous experiences are going to turn off conservative Christian voters once it is clear to them that she has been redeemed from her past sins….
As for Rove, his big problem is that whatever his reservations about her were during the primary, to continue to harp on her deficiencies after her nomination is counter-productive. He seems almost determined to make certain that she loses because she beat the guy he wanted in, and that is bad sportsmanship. I saw Bill Kristol on a Fox News show, and his treatment was far more savvy, admitting to her problems, and that he would have voted for Castle as more electable, but then saying that she actually had a much better chance than we have been told and stating that he would support her in the general election no question.
Not that I mind Karl Rove criticizing the nominee; but if he does, it should be for substantive issues of policy that he wants her to change her position on, or, if he does want her to lose, it should be because of sever policy differences that make him prefer the Democrat. What makes Rove’s treatment of her so bad is the fact that (a) it is not as if he has huge policy disagreements, and (b) it seems more driven by resentment over her defeating Castle than over a concern about her performance were she to be elected. His attitude seems to be "I said she was unelectable, and by God, I will make certain that if nominated she WILL be unelectable!"
Christine O'Donnell by Glaivester, September 20, 2010.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.