May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
Unlike other hit-and-run bloggers and journalists, I insist on giving credit where it’s due even to those I have criticized. After my post early in the weekend blasting Karl Rove for coming down so hard on Christine O’Donnell even after she won, but NOT blasting the living daylight out of Lisa Murkowski for her narcissistic, counterproductive write-in campaign, Rove DID get around to criticizing Murkowski. On Fox News Sunday, he called Murkowski’s new campaign “sad and sorry,” and “very sad,” and said flat-out that she can’t win. All credit to him.
Still, he spoke with far LESS vehemence about Murkowski’s knife in the back than he spoke about O’Donnell’s very up-front campaign as her party’s nominee. And he criticized Murkowski only while REPEATING and even elaborating on his attacks against O’Donnell. Therefore, he still has not even come close to making amends. He should be working behind the scenes to make sure that all money for Murkowski dries up, and he should STFU about O’Donnell’s problems.The fact is that Karl Rove is NOT just an “analyst,” but instead is actively involved in political strategizing and fund-raising. Therefore, for him to say that his above-it-all guise as an analyst requires that he say everything that is on his mind is as ludicrous as if James Carville pretended when on the air that he is just being a neutral analyst rather than an active participant giving a highly political point of view.
Because Rove wears two hats, he can be expected to pull some punches against fellow conservatives. This doesn’t mean he has to lie; it just means there are times when he should punt. After O’Donnell won, he should have punted — UNLESS he was bringing up her deficiencies in order to offer constructive advice about HOW to get around them. He SAID on Sunday that he was doing just that, but nobody who watched his angry rant last Tuesday night can believe that, and even on Sunday he spent far more time claiming to be doing it for O’Donnell’s own good than he did in actually saying anything of substance that was constructive. Meanwhile, his contempt for her still all but dripped from his mouth with every word.
I now give him credit for offering a few words, even if only slightly stronger than tepid, against Murkowski. He therefore answered, partly, my challenge from my previous post.
Considering how harsh he was on Tuesday night, that’s still not enough.
For what it’s worth, I just did a Skype interview with a San Diego TV station. Questioned about whether Demo attacks on O’Donnell would be a good tactic nationwide, I said something very like this:
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
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.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
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?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online