Right-wing media turn on Rove for "trashing" O'Donnell
Right-wing media figures are attacking Fox News' Karl Rove for "trashing" Christine O'Donnell after her victory in the Delaware GOP Senate primary, stating that his comments were "disgraceful" and that Rove "came across as an effete sore loser."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Rove attacked O'Donnell's "checkered background," says she does not "evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness"
Rove: O'Donnell will have to explain "checkered background"; she does not "evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character." On the September 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Rove said: "One thing that Christine O'Donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election that she didn't have to answer in the primary is her own checkered background." He later said: "I've met her. I'm not -- I've got to tell you, I wasn't, frankly, impressed as her, you know, abilities as a candidate. And again, these serious questions about how does she make her living, why did she mislead voters about her college education, how come it took her nearly two decades to pay her college bill so she could get her college degree. How does she make a living? Why did she sue a well-known and well-thought-of conservative think tank?" Rove further stated during the segment:
ROVE: It does conservatives little good to support candidates who, at the end of the day, while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for. And we'll see how she can answer these questions. She sure as heck didn't answer them thus far in the campaign, and now in the general election, she will be asked about them.
SEAN HANNITY (host): I interviewed her, and I felt her explanations were far more plausible than what was played up.
ROVE: Did you ask her about the people who were following her home to her headquarters, and how she's checked each night in the bushes? Did you ask her - I mean, there are just a lot of nutty things she's been saying that just simply don't add up.
After Hannity said to Rove, "It sounds like you don't support her," Rove responded, "I'm for the Republican, but I gotta tell you, we were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate; we're now looking at seven to eight in my opinion. This is not a race we're going to be able to win."
Right-media attack Rove for his "disgraceful" remarks
Malkin: "Rove came across as an effete sore loser." In a September 14 post, Malkin wrote that Rove "trash[ed]" O'Donnell during the Hannity segment and he "[m]ight as well have been [Keith] Olbermann on MSNBC." Malkin later wrote that "Rove came across as an effete sore loser instead of the supposedly brilliant and grounded GOP strategist that he's supposed to be." Malkin, citing The Freedomist blog, also wrote that "Rove had met with Delaware 9/12-ers and Tea Party folks to try and convince them to back the 'more electable' candidate."
Warner Todd Huston: "The Veracity of Karl Rove's Political Analysis is Suddenly Suspect." In a September 14 Gateway Pundit post titled, "The Veracity of Karl Rove's Political Analysis is Suddenly Suspect," Huston cited the Freedomist post and wrote: "Rove is certainly entitled to his opinion and if he truly believes that O'Donnell cannot win in the general, then he should feel free to say so and we should accept it as such. But in this case we have a problem believing that Rove's analysis is simply his honest opinion when we find out from The Freedomist that Rove was trying to cut a pre-primary deal to help Mike Castle to win the primary." Huston further wrote that "Fox News should require Rove to answer to this charge":
Fox News should require Rove to answer to this charge. If he really did act as a helpmate for Rep. Mike Castle this damages Rove's veracity as an analyst. He has just made himself suspect. You can't be both a political player and an autonomous, disinterested analyst. Will Fox suspend Rove over this? They certainly should if he really did work to help Castle, in any case.
Dan Riehl: "Fox Should Suspend Rove And Investigate." In a September 14 post on his blog, Dan Riehl called Rove's comments "disgraceful" and also cited the Freedomist post to claim that "Fox should suspend him and investigate" and that "it seems impossible to trust Rove as an objective analyst." From Riehl's post:
Michelle Malkin has a very solid reaction to Karl Rove's disgraceful behavior on Fox News tonight. That is not why Fox should suspend him and investigate. According to this report, Rove was working behind the scenes on behalf of the Castle campaign to negotiate a deal that would have led to some Delaware Tea Party groups not supporting Christine O'Donnell, while giving Mike Castle a pass.
Especially given his comments on Fox News tonight, until this is resolved, it seems impossible to trust Rove as an objective analyst. In terms of the conservative movement, we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us.
Erickson: Rove "in full on meltdown" on Fox News. In a September 15 RedState post, Erick Erickson wrote: "It is a delightful morning. The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the GOP Establishment, including Karl Rove in full on meltdown last night on Fox News, has been beaten yet again in Delaware by the supposedly crazy girl from the fringe who could not possibly take out the 12 time elected Republican Mike Castle."
Levin says he will discuss Rove's "war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives." In a September 15 Twitter post, right-wing radio host Mark Levin stated he would discuss Rove's "was against the Tea Party movement and conservatives":
Buchanan: Rove "trashing" O'Donnell is a "horrible mistake." On the September 15 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Pat Buchanan stated: "This is going to be a crucial test of how the Republican Party handles the tea party. And what we heard Karl Rove say, really trashing this woman, is a horrible mistake."
NewsBusters: "[P]essimisitc" Rove "continued to rip" O'Donnell. In a September 14 post, NewsBusters' Mark Finkelstein wrote: "Even after Fox News called the Delaware GOP senatorial primary for Christine O'Donnell tonight, Karl Rove continued to rip the winner, questioning everything from O'Donnell's 'rectitude' to her 'character.' " Finkelstein further wrote that Hannity "defended O'Donnell staunchly, but was met with a litany of Roveian criticism."
------------------
Popcorn?
It is about the dollar value of the hatred of everything not in proper Con order. Rove gets a big dollar while some of the slugs lower down get scraps. Shoot down KKKarl and everybody moves up one.
I guess Seannie will let KKKarl explain..let's saee who blinks first.
But it should be fun to watch.
He is right here, I don't think he's stupid, but he is no genius.
But he was successful, which to many hardliners is admirable indeed; whether Rove is a good person or a bad person, is, i guess, between Rove and God/his conscience.
The GoP today is run by his legacy, but today's teabag-infected people are even more amoral than Rove ever was. We're seeing the changing of the guard. Tomorrow's Republican Party will be even more moralistic, more divisive and more "cultural" than even now.
That may all make a big difference if any of that was the point.
Rove and all of his co-horts are far more stinkin' rich than they were when he started. He may have been duping a lot of dullards, but ain't no dummy.
Any rescuing of the Republican party will not be from his doing, but rather they now have a common opponent to rally around - Obama.
Rove was a failure.
A strategy that concentrates on short-term gains is going to flounder in the long run.
Instead of the permanent Republican majority they were hoping for, and actually, truly imagined as a possibility in the earliest years of this century, they quickly lost their majority because the American public discovered that their short-sighted win-at-all-costs ideas failed in the long term.
The very things that brought the rightwing to power, the dishonesty, the deception, the omission of relevant information, seems to still be able to influence about 30% of the people at any one time. But they've lost the ability to cloud the vision of many others.
What the left needs to do is be able to drive the enthusiasm of the 40% in the middle and towards the other end of the political spectrum. If they stay home, then it's a pretty even race between the 30% looney right and the 30% dedicated progressives in our nation.
But I don't think the looney right can ever regain their chokehold, because Rove's political philosophy has that fatal flaw of selfish short-term self-interest.
We on the left need to ensure that we expose that selfishness at every opportunity. We don't do that enough.
A second fatal flaw in his plan was that they enlisted the help of the most extreme conservatives to help their cause, but they didn't really want to DO anything to help those extremists to reach their goals! They don't want to ban abortion, they don't want to reduce gov't spending, and they don't want to help the little guy! But eventually, when you invite the wrong kind of people to your party, they overwhelm the kind of people you DO want in your party. And when they realize that you haven't been working for their best interests all along, they will revolt, as we're seeing in this election.
And so, Karl Rove is pointing out how damaging to the overall cause it is for O'Donnell to have won the primary.
Because that is what independents loathe about the committed partisans. It's all about trashing and destroying the other side and then offering some phony olive branch of appeasement to the middle coveted 40% because you want their votes. The independents see right through that baloney and will not support it.
So if you are doling out free advice to the left, as it appears you are above, and all you have is name calling 30% looney while clinging to your own 30% as being the saviors of all things progressive and perfect, you will be stuck partying with your own 30%. Enjoy.
People (independents) are NOT bothered when you call a spade a spade.
That's simply yet another in a long string of YOUR baseless, kneejerk reactions to my post because of WHO I am, not what the content of the post is!
It's not "trashing" someone to point out their undeniable lunacy! And if they are lunatics, their own behavior destroys their credibility, NOT someone else pointing it out. The problem is NOT the person who documents the idiocy, it's the IDIOCY, doofus!
The other night on AMC's "Mad Men", one of the supporting characters was told to go apologize for some obnoxious thing he did, and he said "but, but, but, if I apologize, she'll know that I did this wrong thing", and the reply back to him was "well, you DID DO this wrong thing".
Somehow you think that pointing out the lunacy makes the person pointing OUT the lunacy look bad?
That's crazy talk.
And considering the barrage of name calling you do, I can't imagine one independent looking to your brand of trash and slash politics as something they want any part of, much less your phony olive branch of vote hustling.
Stick to your left wing fringe corner. Independents won't go near you.
well said rightie. that is one of the biggest reasons i am a independant. there are seperate issues of course but thats a biggie.
Find me one true independent who would take advice from Sue on how to win their votes and I will eat my hat.
I can't believe you are equating the whole of the "American left" to one poster who you obviously despise on one media watchdog site.
Also, I think if you want to see anger, animosity, name calling and hysteria, we both know that the "American right", especially in their media, have pushed that envelope to new extremes over the last decade or so.
I can't believe you are equating the whole of the "American left" to one poster who you obviously despise on one media watchdog site.
Also, I think if you want to see anger, animosity, name calling and hysteria, we both know that the "American right", especially in their media, have pushed that envelope to new extremes over the last decade or so.
It was a hoot.
Your denial of reality is the hoot. Your personal animus is a hoot!
It's not MY fault that he makes baseless personal attacks and I destroy his arguments.
I don't follow him around, NOR do I attack his posts because HE wrote them. I attack the nonsense IN his posts, just as I would attack the nonsense in any other poster's posts.
But that's not HIS behavior. He, and his clone buddies, DO attack me because of WHO I am, and not what my posts contain. Because they can't really attack my posts for factual omissions or logic errors or leaving out valuable and relevant info or grammar or spelling errors or whatever.
Please, if YOU know a way to STOP him from behaving that way, feel free to stop him from behaving that way. It's not my fault AT ALL that he behaves that way. It's his choice and it is totally under his control. I debunk his nonsense, just as I would no matter who it comes from, and then I defend myself from his baseless personal attacks.
So, get a clue. It's totally unfair to equate his behavior and mine. We don't HAVE arguments. He makes bogus, dishonest posts, and I call him on his dishonesty and disingenuousness. I'd love to have an actual argument on the issues with a fair and reasonable righty. It's not my fault that he's a troll who's paid to derail threads.
'independent', what they really mean is 'clueless and easily swayed'.
I agree. And I think his biggest fear is coming true. All of those extreme factions that he poked with a stick and attempted to placate for political reasons are now cannabalizing his own party. That karma can be a real b1tch sometimes.
Yes he sounds very reasonable, but Irony is dead to him and he has absolutely no self awareness.
This, from a political operative?! Y' gotta be kidding! Might as well get such criticism from Charlie Rangel of Bill Clinton!
KKKarl, there is no other side for you. You are are circle within a circle..no one wants you, jerk.
As a political operative, I am sure that he is an expert on rectitude and truthfulness. And Charlie Rangel is an expert on tax law, and Bill Clinton is an expert on moral rectitude.
Tuurd Blossom vs. Caribou Barbie vs. Dogma-Driven Dummy
Fire up the Cuisinart! (best home popper ever!)
It will be fascinating to watch this soap opera play out. As we've seen time and time again, the right does not approve dissent among its ranks. How many times have we seen Repubican politicians or conservative media stars retreat after criticizing their de facto leader Limbaugh? Recall how David Frum was tossed off the reservation for daring to speak some truth about his party. Just today, Boehner, after first suggesting that he is open to a compromise on taxes, is now repeating the party line. I also just saw a headline stating that the Republican leaders will support O'Donnell, just as they did with Rand Paul. Trust me: It will be a matter of hours before Rove backtracks. His stuttering in doing so will make Porky Pig seem like Cicero. The only time Republicans actually point out that their party members and supporters wear no clothes appears to be when they are leaving the political scene (e.g., outgoing Senator Bennett of Utah).
Many political "experts" have been saying all along that although the Republicans will score big this fall they will suffer in the long run by casting aside anyone who is not part of their hard-core right-wing lunatic fringe. Let's see. Remember the Titanic was deemed the greatest ship of all time before it met its fate. Maybe some of the Republicans will have cajones and stand up to the nuts who are sailing their seemingly flawless ship into an iceberg. Though I doubt it and certainly hope it won't happen for our country's sake.
Suddenly???
Wow. Incredible on so many levels.
Biden was too busy campaigning for VP. He ran for the Senate in absentia and won by a large margin over O'Donnell, 65 to 35 percent (257,539 to 140,595).
Randy
First, take crazy woman, who will basically say anything to make herself appear more right wing than say, Genghis Khan. Run her against a somewhat moderate republican who was actually sensible, and doing good work, and was no liberal by a stretch of anyone's imagination.
Take the duped republican electorate, and let them vote, and they can pretend that they're "angry" about something, and hence, they vote in the Tea Party candidate who promises to bring "we the people" back to Washington (how many times have I heard that campaign promise? Enough times that I just ignore it from anyone now).
She is sooooo looney, that she will get trounced in the general election. Just wait and watch. And what was once a seat that the republicans could have easily won, is now being contested by someone voted into the contest by a loud local minority of people (generally, only folks who are involved heavily in politics vote in primaries, and that would be the recent upswing of, again, old white people who are really really "mad" about something).
O'Donnell, doesn't have a chance, which is why the RNC is running away from her. It would be lost money to put any funding into her race, because she's going to get beat down.
They've been used for years by those leaders, and they're fed up with it. They actually (delusionally) thought that the Republican Party actually WANTED to ban abortion, for example, but they've finally figured out that they don't actually want to do that at all - they simply wanted it as an issue to drive voters to the polls. They've figured out that they aren't going to get their way with banning gays from having equal rights, and they blame the inactions of those on the right for that. They now realize that the free spending Republicans while George Bush was in office didn't really want to decrease the size of the gov't as much as they wanted to fill the pockets of the rich even more!
And because the RNSC is trying to prevent EVERY extreme righty from deserting the ship, they are throwing a bone to O'Donnell, and giving her some token money that won't help her win the election.
"characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character"
Like Manson criticizing the conduct of a fellow inmate for seeming irrational and bizarre.
Terrell Owens said it best... and, now we can use it in politics.
Maybe he can come up with another wedge issue before Nov. to save his ass. And theirs.
FOX??!?!?
OBJECTIVE???
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
thx for wasting my time making a post :(
Mainstreaming Marxism for America
This is exactly what MMFA does. The conservative misinformation is that Miss Good Ship Lollipop is a fraud and the Cons like Hannity/Malkin cannot accept the truth expoused by the wonderful arcitect KKKarl Rove.
-From the "About Us" portion of MMFA
The word "correcting" is in their very mission statement.
They have MUCH more to their mission statement. Another whole two paragraphs.
If you could find that first paragraph, how come you couldn't find the next two? Huh, dummy?
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
So, as I explained below, and as I explained to you last week, this behavior furthers the conservative agenda, and there's more to MMFA's mission besides the first of three paragraphs in their mission statement. I swear, this isn't rocket science.
Their behavior furthers the conservative agenda.
Stop the concern trolling. MMFA knows what their mission statement is.
Until fools stop feeding troll posts, the next best option is to warn people away from them. And until concern trolls stop with their nonsense, like we see in this chain of posts, people like me will CONTINUE to mock and call out concern trolling!
You don't like me ruining your day? Too bad, so sad.
Having no political or even professional resume combined with her newly adopted tea party positions is a recipe for guaranteed failure in a state where Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans.
Rove is a despicable individual but his criticism here is on the mark. She, like a lot Tea Party candidates, are simply unelectable in general elections.
These Tea Party candidates are going to ruin Republicans, as in Delaware, as in New York. But I guess that is good for Democrats.