Re: Rove - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Re: Rove

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:

“Not at all. I mean, bring it on. You know, people who look at Christine O’Donnell for the first time just don’t believe she has horns on her head. She comes across as a nice young lady, well-motivated, with a bright smile and a cheerful attitude. It’s hard to make her into some sort of wacko, extremist demon. Sure, people can say it seems like she said some things 15 years ago that were a little ‘out there,’ but they also are sick of the vicious attacks against citizen-politicians who are just trying to get involved because they care about their country. So attacks on people like Christine O’Donnell, who come across as non-threatening, just cause a backlash. It’s not effective at all.”
Now THAT is the sort of thing King Karl ought to be saying!
Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!