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 “war 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.”