Skip to comments.No, Karl Rove, Itís A Leadership Problem
Posted on 02/06/2013 4:28:06 PM PST by Mozilla
The Missouri senate race was shaped by the inaction and lack of leadership from the state party. Period. Ive spoken to many party insiders who agree. The establishment didnt want Akin those who claim otherwise embarrass themselves with their lack of knowledge about my home states politics. The moderate faction of the GOP wanted Akin gone. His rejection of TARP was unconscionable, his bad-mouthing of NCLB intolerable, and he spoke too much about Jesus.
The problem with this race, as Ive written infinity-times before, began before the general election. It wasnt the fault of the candidates, it was the fault of the party for not working to clearly identify a strong contender or develop another candidate. They just didnt like the frontrunner. The frontrunner didnt want to work with the party in the general after it tried to torpedo him out of the primary. Their surrogates and supporters ate each other alive. The party stood idly by and stoked the flames now and again.
Had Akin media training and party support from the onset of the general that comment would never have happened and McCaskill would have lost.
Grassroots still hasnt really recovered, as several groups I know stopped working with each other over the race. It was a genius plan, I thought, if the goal was to divide and conquer grassroots.
Which is why its ridiculous that Karl Rove is citing Missouris senate race as one of the main reasons for establishing his group.
(Excerpt) Read more at danaloeschradio.com ...
Oh, dear! That is the limit! the Karl Rove and the GOPe would rather lose ten times over than elect a candidate who speaks too much about Jesus!
Akin spoke out ONCE incautiously. But he had a very strong conservative record, and I was very disappointed to see how many Freepers swallowed the liberal line.
Who would you rather have in office, a pro-lifer who commits a harmless gaffe, or a baby-killer who never saw a kid he didn't want to kill? If the Republicans hadn't all jumped on Akin as well as the Dems, but defended him instead, he probably would have won.
The GOP needs to stick to conservative principles to keep the base while identifying appropriate emotional appeals to split off some parts of the 'rat coalition.
The eGOP is not trustworthy. They don't seem to have any core values or principles that defines them.
Today, there's no compelling reason to be or self identify as a republican.
The only compelling reason to vote for one is that there is a slightly better chance the republican will do the right thing instead of the progressive thing.
But, only a slightly better chance.
The much better chance is that the eGOP republican will spend as much, build the government as big as and take from you and consolidate as much power for the government as any garden variety demonrat would.
The only difference between the eGOP and the demonrat is that the eGOP won't tell you that's what they're going to do, but the demonrat will.
Make my observations incorrect and then we'll talk.
That is correct. Akin was leading before the comment and Missouri went for McCain. Women were persuaded by the GOP -E to dislike him and not vote for him. The grassroots got into verbal squabbles. Some conservatives wanted him to quit instead of helping him win. Talk about eating your own.
I meant Missouri went for Romney. Ha. I get them both confused, not hard to do.
Before Rove badmouths a candidate, at least he needs to have someone viable waiting in the wings, otherwise he needs to STFU.
Dana is not taking the right tack here. There is much to despise about Rove and the establishment (see this www.gone2012book.com) but this latching on to Akin as some kind of anti Rove hero is stupid. Akin is not the way, nor is Rove. I am really embarrassed that so many are falling for this Akin schtick. Being anti Rove is good, but it takes more than just that.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and Rove is right about Akin, but nothing else.
Akin wasn’t running in my state. My observation was that the media jumped on a statement he made. I haven’t had anybody tell me that his statement was false or even insulting. Rove opened his huge piehole and condemned Akin when it was too late in the game to get a new candidate. How did that benefit the Republican Party? It didn’t. It hurt the Republican Party. He could have kept his yap shut, but he purposely hurt the Republican Party. At best, he’s an ignorant, loud-mouthed fool. At worst, he’s a traitor.
Who are you going to cry to now, Christy Kreme? We’re done with you.
Karl Rove has some very queer ideas.
Is it beyond your comprehension that Rove and Akin could both be wrong? And puhleeeeeeeze - you don’t remember Rush and Levein and Hannity and many others telling Akin to stand down? Rove wasn’t even IN this story til weeks later.
But go ahead, bring shame on all social conservatives by backing every retard that climbs out from under a rock and throws the two key issues around. Really makes us all look inteligent.
I believe Rove was out the next day criticizing Akin.
Which Democrat political consultants were out there knocking Paleface Lizzy Warren for all her errors? None. They stood together with her and she won. What a novel concept. It’s called loyalty. Rove doesn’t have any. Loyalty is a two way street. If Rove can’t be loyal to Republican candidates, then why should anyone be loyal to him?
Sadly, a concept unknown to many on this site.