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 U.S. Senate candidacy of Delaware GOP primary winner Christine O'Donnell, who in Rove’s eyes is guilty of the unpardonable sin of being a Tea Party candidate, and of having beaten Rove’s guy, nine-term RINO Cong. Mike Castle, in the 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, whose votes it takes 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, in short, a hollow man.
Christine O'Donnell
....
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!"
That is all.
“Christine O'Donnell,” by Glaivester, September 20, 2010.
Years ago, I read a piece by Andrew Ferguson, who was a regular in The American Spectator. Ferguson wrote of something that happened in Washington. He called it "Failing Upward."
ReplyDeleteA Beltway figure would fail again and again, but would be still get appointed to high positions, book deals, etc. Ferguson didn't say this exactly, but it is especially true of Beltway "conservatives."
You can't find a better example of "failing upward" than Karl Rove. He was the advisor to a president who plunged to the lowest poll numbers since Richard Nixon and whose perceived failures led to the election of the most left-wing president in American history.
What is Rove doing now? Along with the usual book deal, he is constantly on the Fox News Channel depicted as a political expert.
David In TN
I'm sure Rove & his cronies would say that I'm just envious, but I just can't see many people turning from watching Fox, to exclaim to their friends and relations, "Oh, that Karl Rove is so brilliant!"
ReplyDeleteI can see people reacting that way to Charlie Kraut, even though I think he's wildly overrated. He does, however, have some insights and is undoubtedly intelligent, but not Rove, at least not in any substantial numbers.
I think this (“failing upward”) phenomenon is a substitute for an aristocracy. It started with money as a substitute for nobility, such that if you had been born rich, but were now broke, you were still “of” money, and treated as such. And now, it has been extended to courtiers who once succeeded in insinuating themselves into the circles of the rich and powerful, like Rove.