Skip to comments.'I blame Karl Rove'
Posted on 11/04/2010 4:30:30 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
click here to read article
And once Castle had the seat, you had a Rat in Pub clothing occupying it.
I wish she had beaten the RINO -and- the bearded marxist.
But honestly, if we had let Bill Maher or Rachel Maddow or Sissy Matthews pick a candidate for our side, would they have picked anyone other than O’Donnell?
Her win would have meant she would seated immediately. That would stop the lame duck plans the dems are planning.
Same with defeating Manchin. We needed some senators to be seated immediately rather than January.
We have no indication at all that Castle would have voted with the republicans rather than Obamao.
All water under the bridge. No amount of money could undo Rove’s assault on primary election night.
O'Donnell supporters argued before the primary that it was better to lose with her, than to win with Castle. OK. I think we will probably never elect a more conservative DE Senator than Castle, lifetime ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of just over 50%, but I can see some merit in an argument that, assuming we hold the House, it is better to not take the Senate, unless we have 51 conservative Senators.
But many O'Donnell supporters want it both ways. They want to say that it is better to lose with her, than to win with Castle, then, when she loses, in a landslide, just as people like Rove said she would, blame Rove for her loss.
Either losing with O'Donnell beats winning with Castle, or it doesn't. If it does, then O'Donnell supports can say that she may not have won, but that Collins, Graham, Hatch and Snowe will look at happened to Castle and vote more conservatively, and we won't have the problem of conservatism being held responsible for what happens in the Senate, without having a conservative majority.
If losing with O'Donnell doesn't beat winning with Castle, then O'Donnell supporters, not Karl Rove, are to blame.
If all Republicans fared the same then that is no indication of her quality as a candidate, then--good, bad, or indifferent. So how she did says nothing about her intrinsic qualities, which I have yet to find.
But that's beside the point, because you are incorrect.
The losing Repulican candidate for congress got more votes than O'Donnell.
The losing candidate for treasurer got more votes than O'Donnell.
The winning state auditor is a Republican and got more votes than O'Donnell.
The winning state rep in district 37 is a Republican.
Not talking a Republican-friendly state, but you said "all" Republicans, and that's not the case.
BTW, O'Donnell had the backing of Palin and DeMint, yet that meant nothing compared to one comment by Karl Rove. I guess her fans are arguing that Karl Rove's endorsement or lack of one is more important than either DeMint's or Palin's.
Rove was not the reason for her losing, which is the premise of this article.
Rove is a political strategist...I’m not sure any of them have souls to look into. He was focused on getting the most Republicans elected and knew O’Donnell didn’t have a chance.
I still take the position that they didn't.
The previous poster took the tack that O'Donnell did the same as all Republicans in Delaware. You're saying Rove had a decisive impact on a 17-point loss.
Which is it--is O'Donnell such an incredible candidate that she could have won in liberal Delaware, but Karl Rove's disdain meant she was swept aside by 17 points, or did she have no hope of winning in Delaware?
Either way, how does that make her a viable candidate?
We knew before the primary how popular Castle was and that he had a virtual lock on the Senate seat.
That doesn’t apply to others in DE that didn’t make it.
I hope next election, the Tea Party Express and Tea Partiers vet their candidates better and use some common sense concerning the state they are competing in....instead of blaming Karl Rove and RINOs when they blow it.
Possibly, but he would at least have to caucus and explain his vote to the R side. NOW we have a guarantee that the Bearded Marxist -will- vote 100% with Reid. All water under the bridge. No amount of money could undo Roves assault on primary election night.
Apparently O'Donnell's loss dragged several down-ballot conservatives with her that Castle would've carried.
How does that help us?
What does that have to do with O'Donnell's lawsuit?
Because Rove sued Dick Thornburgh, it's consistent with a conservative philosophy to sue for $6.9 million because someone didn't get a promotion due to gender discrimination?
The straw's gettin' pretty deep around here! LOL
You guys've got nothing. She's gone, and good riddance to her. In a couple of months, when we have some distance, you'll see it...if we have any hope of living by our values, and not just as reactors to liberal attacks.
KARL ROVE could have shut up and said nothing after the primary.
HE DID WRONG.
HE IS WRONG FOR THAT.
He did nothing to further the CONSERVATIVE CAUSE - which is why WE are here.
We are not here to advance the Republican cause - unless it is the CONSERVATIVE FIRST.
I posted yesterday that David Horowitz wasn’t paid for an appearance he agreed to do for her last campaign. He agreed to do it for her for a small fee and she stiffed him. He was finally paid prior to this campaign.
I heard this on a local conservative radio show David appeared on. He has kept his mouth shut nationally because he preferred the way she would vote if she won.
However, this kind of thing really bothered me when I heard it. I didn’t post about it before the race, but now...hey, its a fact.
Could he have won?
Why didn’t I run??? In Delaware? I live in NC.
About as much as O'Donnell's lawsuit has to do with her suitability as a candidate. That's my point. Everybody wants to say "COD is bad because she sued a conservative entity." Well, if that's the litmus test, we need to apply it evenly.
I pick Coons over Castle.
If Rahm/Axelrod/Obama could have controlled the primary and chosen Coons-vs-Castle or Coons-vs-COD, which one would they choose?
And if KARL ROVE, second only to the Koch and Bush moniker, had come out in huge support for her, how exactly would that have helped win over a state which is 2/3 registered Democrats?
‘She’s gone, and good riddance to her.’
What a nasty thing to say about your buddy, Lady_GOP.
I was not agreeing with it. I think Rove is a souless twit and the reason for the failure of GWB’s second term.
There’s no justifying what Rove did to Christine O’Donnell but if you want to toe the party line knock yourself out.
Well, you get a 100% liberal over a 50% liberal plus a smaller minority for Republicans.
That makes no sense to me. I’d rather have a chance of someone’s support rather than no chance at all and we needed every seat in the Senate we could get. RINOs included.
You are correct. The Dems loved it.
“True believers” were her only base, and there’s just not enough of them in Delaware to get her elected.
Rove should have kept his mouth shut, but it didn’t affect the voting IMO.
I’m from Delaware. I voted for her in both the primaries and the general election. In fact, I voted for her the last election as well. That’s right - this is not the first time she ran. She ran before against Biden in 2008.
She did it without, to my knowledge, any assistance from the Delaware Republican Party, a group of elitists if ever there were any. This pack of idiots were responsible for not providing a viable candidate. Like it was illustrated in SC, nature abhors a vacuum. Here, the party just assumed that the Republican voters of Delaware would just go along with their fellow country club member Castle. If anything the guy was worse than Snowe or Collins, if that’s imaginable.
It just reached a point where I couldn’t pull the lever one more time for the guy. If it’s any consolation to anyone, I think the guy was going to be out in 4 years anyway - he’s had serious health issues and would be approaching 80 in the next election. No loss whatsoever. It wasn’t Rove, no matter how crass and contrary he acted. It was the elitists who run the state GOP.
Yes. But Karl Rove could not keep her from totally wasting the opportunity to explain that the PHRASE "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and how it is an example of how liberals warp the Constitution.
Karl Rove could not stop her from making that idiotic "I'm You" and not-a-witch detour.
The "Karl Rove is a demon" talk around here is indistinguishable from DU posts.
Wow. Imagine if Castle had won and Joe Miller had that money instead to use against the crooks in Alaska.
RECEIPTS SPENT REMAINS DEBT COONS, CHRISTOPHER A SEN $3,294,824 $2,337,312 $957,512 $250,000 10/13/2010 O'DONNELL, CHRISTINE SEN $4,924,506 $3,555,003 $1,360,328 $247,613 10/13/2010 MILLER, JOSEPH W SEN $1,980,296 $1,331,859 $647,934 $341 10/13/2010 MURKOWSKI, LISA SEN $3,416,929 $3,005,107 $773,826 $0 10/13/2010
True. And now take a look at the numbers in #126 for “opportunity cost.”
KARL ROVE IS AN ESTABLISHMENT FIRST REPUBLICAN, NOT A SUPPORTER OF CONSERVATIVES.
That’s the real bottom line.
The Stupid Party is a polite term for Democrat butt boys/ girls.
He did win.
He has even less influence on me today than he did before he went off on O'Donnell...on TV!
Rove showed how extremely immature he is when he doesn't get his way. Wonder if this is why he is recently divorced?
Rove needs to grow up!
Conservatives wanted to make a statement, Rove wanted to win.
We needed the win more.
I was ticked at him and Dana Perrino. He didn't have to like it, but he should have kept a lid on it.
All I am saying is that supposedly voters in Delaware were familiar with COD.
If you look at my previous post upthread, you will see that COD had some very real problems.
Actually, if Rove would have kept quiet, she may not have gotten all that campaign cash that poured in as a result.
I also find it odd that Palin never showed back up in Delaware, even though people were anxiously awaiting her appearance the other day. She did say she would go there and help her after the primary.
It’s not as if Delaware was the only example of Republican turpitude in this election.
In Florida, their candidate was Charlie Crist, until the grassroots folks pulverized him.
In Alaska, their candidates was Lisa Murkowski. ‘Nuff said.
In Illinois their candidate was pro-abort, pro-homosexual leftist Mark Kirk.
In Kentucky their favorite was former Bill Clinton supporter Trey Grayson.
Wake up conservatives. Too many of you are still snoring, or at least too groggy to think straight.
I think there are at least two issues being discussed here.
1. He caused O'Donnell to lose. Probably not, AFAIC.
2. Rather than suck it up and take a loss stoically he decided to diss the candidate, IOW, doing the democrat's work for them. He did do that AFAIC.
Because of #2, I wouldn't consider him a person I'd want on my side. Knowledge is good, but wisdom, i.e. knowing when to STFU, is a prerequisite for using the knowledge effectively.
I agree that he was angry...that was obvious. I wish he had not let his emotions get the better of him, but we all make mistakes. Even Karl Rove.
However, O'Donnell losing was not his fault, and Rove raised and spent large sums of money for Repubs..conservatives and RINOs alike. Rove is a good guy.
Rove helped keep Al Gore and John Kerry out of the WH, while adding House and Senate seats in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
I’m glad he’s on our side.
I did not nor will I give one cent to the RNC.
I decide which candidate gets my money.
I might buy that if he only did that once but that's not the case he continued his attacks multiple times. I would expect that from the democrats not someone in the Republican party. It appears now he's going to try the same thing with Sarah Palin. You're a fool Rove. That's a battle you'll never win.
So true and lets don’t leave Charles Krauthammer totally out of this equation either. He didn’t make any personal attacks on O’Donnell but he was just as negative on her as Rove. The two of them are largely responsible for her losing as is the RNC who did not back her sufficiently. Shame on all of them.
I dont know Roves true beliefs, but I do believe he is motivated primarily by his drive to win.
He believed that ODonnell couldnt/wouldnt win. I would have voted for her, but I also agreed with him.
Voting for ODonnell in the primary may have won a battle, but it lost a war. (in a metaphorical sense)
On the contrary, I think that the O'Donnell race may have been a lost battle, but a first step in winning the real war for the soul of the Republican Party.
Elections should be about competing visions, not about which gang gets its turn to plunder the taxpayers. A politician who is only about his gang "winning" should have no part in the Republican Party. A political consultant who is only about "winning" should have no role in the Republican Party.
If somebody is "electable", but once elected will simply work to advance the socialist agenda, then what's the point? Better to TRY to get actual conservatives into office than to succeed in electing another socialist.
As a candidate running for election, yes. He followed the “when your opponent is losing, get out of the way and let them lose” philosophy and it worked fairly well (17 points I think).
Karl Rove's PAC "American Crossroads" spent over $15M this election cycle to help stop Obama's agenda.
Christine O'Donnell allowed herself, and TEA party supporters by extension to be branded as bobbleheaded morons. She spent $3M dollars (incl. on "I'm not a Witch" which Christian Science Monitor rates as the #1 gaffe of the Top Ten Worst Moments in the Campaign....)which other TEA Party Candidates could've used to further our cause.
That is the final, real bottom line.
I win the primary. How likely are you to endorse me??
As a candidate running for election, yes. He followed the when your opponent is losing, get out of the way and let them lose philosophy and it worked fairly well (17 points I think).
Karl Rove pushes his establishment line.
That’s the real, final, bottom line.
Why does your list stop at 2004?
True, but they're all at some point along the "5 stages" trail.
We saw "denial" by the stout refusal to believe those lying, liberal polls showing O'Donnell losing by 15+ points.
Here we see "anger" -- it can't possibly be as you say, that O'Donnell was a poor candidate. It's got to be somebody else's fault.
There's not much "bargaining" to be done on this race, but you can look at the "we'll prove there was fraud" folks in the Nevada race for that.
"Depression" will come soon enough.
"Acceptance" may never come ... but if it does, perhaps the Delaware Tea Party folks might use the experience to find a good candidate next time.
What will COD do next to advance Conservatism?
Has she said?
If you were a RINO, the whole of the GOP establishment would be telling me I needed to for the sake of party unity.