One day after nutty Christine O'Donnell won the Republican senatorial primary in Delaware, Karl Rove said:
"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, truthfulness and sincerity of character that the voters are looking for. . . . I mean, there were a lot of nutty things she has been saying that just simply don't add up."That was yesterday. Today on Fox News, where he is a paid commentator, he endorsed this same "nutty lady" for the United States Senate.
So, how did Karl explain himself? Pushed by host Martha MacCallum to reconcile his remarks, he wiggled out of it this way:
Martha, Martha, my job as a Fox analyst is to give the best insights. She's eleven points behind in the Rassmussen poll behind the Democrat nominee Coons. So my job as a Fox analyst is to call it as I see it. My job is not to be a cheerleader for every Republican. It's to call it as I see it. Now, I've got a different role outside my Fox role, and that's where I'm helping to raise $50 million to help elect Republicans to the Senate. But when I come on Fox, you and your viewers expect me to shoot straight with you and that's what I was doing that night. And with all due respect, she's eleven points down -- that's not out of the game, but she's got to make up ground and make up ground quickly.OK. Fair enough, Karl. Let's just be clear about what you're saying. You don't take back your comments that she says nutty things. It's just that you'd rather have a Republican senator who says nutty things (and worse, is a troglodyte bigot) than to lose a seat. After all, she could be the 60th vote that turns control over to the Repubicans.
I admire the candor. If the tables were reversed, would I endorse an extreme left wing zealot if it meant the difference in keeping control of the senate? Probably. Not to run as president, let's hope, or to be in charge of Homeland Security, say, but as one among 50 senators? -- Maybe.
Ralph
"If the tables were reversed, would I endorse an extreme left wing zealot if it meant the difference in keeping control of the senate? Probably."
ReplyDeleteWhat is the extreme left wing zealot equivalent of anti-masterbation? My point is that I doubt any of us would be willing to step as far off of that cliff as Karl Rove. That this woman is potentially a Senator, or that Sarah Palin is a potential President is too far off the scale to contemplate. We elected a Grade B Actor and a legacy frat-boy. Haven't we already plumbed the depths of irresponsibility enough already?
"Haven't we already plumbed the depths of irresponsibility enough already?"
ReplyDeleteLet us hope so, but I'm not sure. The further to the right you are, the more fired up about the election -- and that will determine voter turn-out. So far, the moderates and liberals seem apathetic. Somebody has got to light the fire. I thought the prospects of these clowns getting in office might do it -- but so far it all seems to be just part of the crazy fabric of what passes for news these days.