-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Here’s what’s rich about the continuing back-and-forth between Karl Rove and Christine O’Donnell: The most significant concern about O’Donnell is the argument that conservatives should ignore qualifications and personal flaws as long as a candidate checks the right ideological boxes. Well, what candidate benefited from that calculus more than Rove’s pet project George W. Bush?
With the additional benefit of his family name, Bush was advanced past more qualified conservatives all the way to the White House. Then for eight years, we were supposed to ignore concerns about Bush’s policies, competence, and basic coherence. But he clears brush! We’re at war! He’s a good man!
Despite winning two presidential elections, the Bush years proved more damaging to the Republican Party than Christine O’Donnell’s Senate campaign could ever be, win or lose. Without them, it is impossible to imagine a president as liberal as Barack Obama and such large Democratic majorities ever getting elected. And it is precisely because of the 2006 and 2008 elections that conservatives are in the position of worrying whether they’d be better off with a single senatorial nomination going to O’Donnell or liberal Republican Mike Castle.
View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/20/karl-rove-and-the-bushwacked-g
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger| 9.20.10 @ 3:28PM
Well, of "personal flaws" and "ideological boxes":
If you are a pro-life voter, if you truly believe that abortion on demand means over a million innocents a year slaughtered in this nation, then what's the bigger "personal flaw": defaulting on a mortgage (O'Donnell) or supporting abortion on demand (Castle)? As for qualifications, if you meet the requirements set down in the Constitution for the office and receive more votes (O'Donnell) than you are de facto more qualified. Castle's so-called qualifications are what led so many Republican voters to turn up their noses at him and vote for O'Donnell. Duh.
Booger| 9.20.10 @ 3:28PM
Well, of "personal flaws" and "ideological boxes":
If you are a pro-life voter, if you truly believe that abortion on demand means over a million innocents a year slaughtered in this nation, then what's the bigger "personal flaw": defaulting on a mortgage (O'Donnell) or supporting abortion on demand (Castle)? As for qualifications, if you meet the requirements set down in the Constitution for the office and receive more votes (O'Donnell) than you are de facto more qualified. Castle's so-called qualifications are what led so many Republican voters to turn up their noses at him and vote for O'Donnell. Duh.
Siegfried X| 9.20.10 @ 3:42PM
"the Bush years proved more damaging to the Republican Party than Christine O'Donnell's Senate campaign could ever be, win or lose."
Absolutely. While Obama is destroying the COUNTRY, Bush & McCain nearly destroyed the REPUBLICAN PARTY.
JmsA| 9.20.10 @ 9:10PM
Hear, Hear!
Siegfried X| 9.20.10 @ 3:43PM
"we were supposed to ignore concerns about Bush's policies, competence, and basic coherence"
That's why we can never go back to the days of simply voting for each Republican which the leadership chooses.
Siegfried X| 9.20.10 @ 3:49PM
"The most significant concern about O'Donnell is the argument that conservatives should ignore qualifications and personal flaws as long as a candidate checks the right ideological boxes. "
That seems like a straw man. No one is arguing that here, at least not the conservatives. For us it is a choice between someone who has the experience and clean background but disagrees with us on issues vs. someone who agrees with us on issues but may have skeltons in her closet.
The best solution would be electing 535 Ronald Reagans, but the Republican Establishment is not recruiting candidates like that. Either the Republican or Tea parties should start choosing candidates who excel in all areas.
Eric Damon| 9.20.10 @ 4:37PM
No one is saying that is the argument that conservatives are making, but it is what the establishment is saying. The establshiment wanted us to overlook any flaws in their guys, so long as they had an R beside their names; we were supposed to just hold our noses and vote for who they told us was the best candidate.
With O'Donnell, Miller, et al we are seeing the people decide who the best candidates are, and the establishment doesn't like that. We The People are mucking up their plans to create a numerical majority filled with people who are just as likely to stymie conservative polices (Snowe, Castle, etc) as to support them.
I will take a real person who I can support over a lifetime political hack just about any day of the week!
Derek Leaberry| 9.20.10 @ 4:08PM
It is important for all conservatives to understand the menace the Bush family has been and still is for conservatism. Like Dracula, the Bush family needs a stake driven through its heart to put an end to this dreary, dangerous gang.
Dixie Pixie| 9.20.10 @ 4:47PM
…....ignore qualifications and personal flaws as long as a candidate checks the right ideological boxes......
Obama, Kagan, Summers, Holder, the list is endless.
S.L. Toddard| 9.20.10 @ 6:34PM
I love it when Jim Antle spits fire.
Curly Smith| 9.20.10 @ 6:51PM
"Well, what candidate benefited from that calculus (ignore qualifications as long as a candidate checks the right ideological boxes) more than Rove's pet project George W. Bush?"
Barack Obama. Heck of job Rovie!
clairesolt| 9.20.10 @ 8:02PM
Typical liberal thinking. Obtuse. Try simple cause and effect and you will come up with a different verdict.
Democrats won because they conducted a relentless and dishonest propaganda campaign. Too bad so -called conservative will join the chorus and dump on Bush. His honor and decency gave us a boost, and we sure needed it for when the crooks and crum bums came to town,
man_in_tx| 9.20.10 @ 9:44PM
Ma'am, pardon me, but you are not living in reality if you try to associate George W. Bush and "conservatism." The only association GWB had with conservatives was to use them to get elected so he could further his father's liberal, globalist agenda with the help of Rove's Macchiavellian skills. Remember Prescriptions for the elderly? Remember the bail-out? Remember Bush sitting by passively while our troops (whom HE sent to war) were being castigated in the world press and court-martialed at home? He could have stopped any of those courts-martial with a phone call. Please don't get me started. I live in Texas. I know how "conservative" Bush is. (Hint: He isn't.)
Patriot| 9.21.10 @ 12:06PM
Democrats won because GWB didn't defend himself or his party from the vicious lies of the Left. Pathetic. Stop treating him like a victim; the bully pulpit was his for eight excruciatingly long years. He should have at least tried to make the case for his policies.
He isn't a Conservative, he's a RINO.
Christopher Holland| 9.20.10 @ 8:24PM
What flaws does Christine O'Donnell has that don't apply to anyone else? She was the only candidate with the guts to run twice against Joe Biden, so now she is called a perennial candidate who couldn't win. She had trouble paying her student loan and her mortgage - wow, when was the last time that happened to anybody, especially in a recession? She had a dispute with the IRS - well, good on her, lets see more of that.
Ok, she is a flawed candidate, but she has guts and determination and convictions and that means an awful lot when it comes to turning the country around. The milksops tipping a bucket over her helped create this bloody mess, and they won't do much to fix it, either.
Robert Simon| 9.20.10 @ 8:53PM
I have been warning the GOP since 1988 about non-Reaganite candidates.Nobody listened.Now you will.
SoCon| 9.20.10 @ 9:35PM
Great column, Mr. Antle; I couldn't agree more.
GWB's presidency was an absolute pox on the Republican Party.
Please shut up now, Karl!
Jimbo| 9.20.10 @ 10:01PM
In 2005 O'Donnell filed a sexual harrassment lawsuit against her employer, ISI, a conservative think tank. I read the complaint and it claims she intended to enroll in a masters program which she knew she couldn't possibly do because she didn't have a BA degree at the time. Why would she file what is clearly a frivolous lawsuit against a conservative organization? How can someone who makes $65K not be able to pay a college tuition bill of $4800 for 17 years? And what's this I hear about her "boyfriend" bailing her out of a home foreclosure? Lots of questions. No answers. Back on the 90s, we conservatives used to say that character counts and that was why Clinton needed to be impeached. When did we change our position on personal ethics and character? Are we also supposed to be against tort reform too?
Don H| 9.21.10 @ 12:09AM
So? She's the choice of Delaware Republicans in a free and fair. Get over it already and support her ... or don't. Whining about her flaws won't help anyone except Coons.
Patriot| 9.21.10 @ 2:50AM
"We conservatives," Jimbo? Don't think so, troll; and if you're a "conservative" as you claim, why don't you object to O'Donnell's opponent, the "Bearded Marxist," Coons?
I'd take O'Donnell over a Marxist any day--wouldn't you? And if not, why not, Commie?
David Shoup| 9.20.10 @ 10:21PM
Hear! Hear! And who was spoon feeding Bush's flaming moderate policy and talking points to him? Karl Freaking Rove! I never really trusted the man. Someone tell Limbaugh never to have him on again, because I will refuse to listen to Rove. A Republican by himself looks good enough. Compare him to a true blue Conservative, and we all see who is weighed in the balance and found wanting: Karl Rove...and others like him.