GOP could take Senate in 2014 if it avoids self-destructive candidates (Tokyo Rove knows best...)

Total votes cast in the 1st district Primary:

GOP Votes in Primary: 53,793
RAT Votes in Primary: 16,484

Sanford Votes in Primary: 19,854
Colbert Votes in Primary: 15,802

http://www.politico.com/2013-election/results/house/south-carolina/

I am rejecting that this crap about choosing people “of quality” is a trap. We want people who will stand with us. Now, you may not be “us.” certainly if you are with Karl, you identify with an elite class that holds itself a cut above the hoi polloi

If you are somehow indicating that I "stand with Karl" you are embarrassingly off base. I recently released an entire book outlining Rove's flaws and that of the entire GOP establishment. If you are also saying that we should be okay with any idiot who is right on the issues, then you are being naive and you are also more or less admitting that only idiots believe the right things. And if you think that Akin, for example, is okay simply because Rove opposed him, you are trapped inside a box. Rove was wrong about Akin, but so are tea party types who blindly supported him without knowing the full story.

that being the fact that many of O’Donnells personal problems were merely the typical “life is tough” stuff that we all go thru.

No, O'Donnell was a complete flake. Most conservatives don't sue their conservative employer claiming mental anguish and seek redress through the EEOC. That goes quite a bit beyond "life is tough".

Here's her wiki entry on the subject:

In February 2003 O'Donnell moved to Delaware to work for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), a non-profit conservative publisher of educational materials and bought a house in Wilmington. In 2004, she filed a complaint against ISI with the EEOC saying that she had been demoted due to gender discrimination. Later, on February 26, 2004, she was fired, and in 2005 she sued ISI in federal court for $6.9 million for wrongful termination, claiming gender discrimination and that her firing was retaliation for talking to the EEOC. She said ISI's actions caused her mental anguish and were a consequence of "ISI's conservative beliefs". She also claimed that she had lost future financial earning power because ISI's actions had offered a flexible work schedule to allow time for a Master's program while recruiting her to Delaware at half the salary she expected in Washington, D.C., then redefined her employment after she had moved and bought a house. ISI defended its action by alleging that O'Donnell had used company resources for her own media consulting work while on their time for Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ, which O'Donnell contends was agreed to before she was hired, and that ISI cited this reason only months later after the firing as a pretext. O'Donnell dropped the suit in 2008, stating she could no longer afford an attorney.

I agree with a lot of your posts and reasoned, well thought comments. I really disagree with you about Christine O'Donnell though. I think she is mostly a con artist, totally unfit for that GOP nomination.

You may be right about the ISI case - I don’t know, and I do not necessarily believe Wiki on it. My main point is that Rove and Dana Perino made a big point about some of her other financial difficulties, which just showed an arrogance on their part - especially since she was running for the Biden seat, a seat supported totally by government spending for 30 years - with taxpayers subsidizing everything two generations of Bidens have done. I just resent the arrogance of the beltway types, assuming that financial difficulties means incompetenece. Thanks to them, a lot of competent people have difficulty. That was my main point more than any particulars.

I’ve also met her, and in person, she is stunningly beautiful and very impressive. Maybe, ala Dan Quayle, she doesn’t come across that way on the tube...

At the end of the day, I don’t think any of it matters. We lost a few races with Tea Party candidates... so what?! Did Karl Rove expect the Tea Party to have a 10 for 10 victory rate otherwise he’d label it a failure? Well, it looks that way. The facts are these. The Tea Party took over the House of Representatives which, despite the atrocious leadership, has stalled the Marxist agenda. That would NOT have happened without grassroots conservatives, and we’d still be talking about Speaker Piglosi.

We failed to win the senate in 2010, but that was a pretty big f*cking mountain to climb anyway. We were something like 10 seats down. Ron Johnson was ours, Pat Toomey (though we may regret it now) was ours, and as much as the establishment like to forget they backed Crist, Rubio was also ours.
We lost again in 2012 because we ran “the most conservative candidate who could win” against Barack Obama, and conservatives stayed home. Todd Akin was an idiot, not a Tea Partier. Mourdock would have won, had Rove and the like not trashed him for comments that were blown out of proportion. We also had ‘easy’ races in Montana and other states, and Rove blew them all.

Oh, and before we forget to mention it. The guys with balls in the senate and the house... are also OURS! Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Steve King, Louie Gohmert. These are our damn people! Yet I bet we’ll still be hearing about Christine O’Donnell in the year 4027.

If we take the senate in 2014, it will not be because of Karl Rove. It will be in SPITE of Karl Rove.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.