freecounterpoint: Another Rovian apparently doesn't like Reid

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Another Rovian apparently doesn't like Reid

4 comments:

Tecumseh said...: If somebody wants to argue that Mike Castle was too much of a squish for them to support, that’s fine — I can’t begrudge someone making cap-and-trade their line in the sand — but what was particularly troubling during the whole primary fight was the number of conservatives, including some I really admire and respect, pretending that a conservative firebrand had a serious possibility of being elected in this state. Even in a big Republican wave year, Christine O’Donnell never had a chance.

Duhhh... Next thing you know, we'll need to debate whether e^x>x -- well, for x big enough.; 11/04/2010 10:52 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: I'd be a whole lot more impressed by this line of "reasoning" if it wasn't for the sorry ass track record of the establishment repubs in this election, and the sorry ass record they possess in how "stalwart" they were in fighting against the whole socialist trend.
We have the establishmentarians pouring huge funds into California, for Whitman, for Fioriana, who ran nice McCainish establishmentarian campaigns, and got whacked by MoonBrown and Bruxa in the classical establishmentarian way. We have the establishmentarians ignoring, or actively undermining, the campaigns of Angle, O'Donnell, and, most criminally, Joe Miller. Whether through such as Rove or McConnel the DC party hacks made it clear that they were at least as intent, if not more so, in staying the surge of the Tea Party than they were in reversing Obamakleanism. It was Le Traison des Clercs, bigtime.

Look, without the energy and fire and clarity of purpose the Tea Party brought to this election, the great House results wouldn't have happened. Let the old guard, the "House of Bush" types, do the same ol' same ol' at this point the gains would have been far more modest.
Just to remind you, it was they who suggested Jeffrey's could be trusted, that Specter was preferable to Toomey, that bending over on judicial choices, such as Estrada, would surely win the cooperation and admiration of any future Dem congress or White House, and a thousand other bloody examples of their asininity if you but reflect over the last decade.
The Repubs were moribund, and the only movement that saved them was the Tea Party. Now Rove, & Co, the fixers in the Party, have shown by their actions that what they really fear is a genuine conservative opposition to what the Dems are pushing. It would have been nice if some of their determination to crush the peasant rebellions had existed when it came to denying Versailles its right to crap on this country.

O'Donnell, and the Tea Party was not the problem with the Republicans, not even close, and the Lords by their Castle were not the solution, not even close.; 11/04/2010 11:21 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Oh, yes, do remember how many of these anti-Tea Partiers were supporting Christie against Rubio [this after the primary]. It took a lot of pressure for them to "see the light".; 11/04/2010 11:23 PM
Tecumseh said...: Things are by far not black-and-white here, lotsa shades of gray, and various internal contradictions--as one would expect with the rough-and-tumble of politics. Yet, a few points:

* Yes, too much money poured down the drain with establishmentarian candidates such as Whitman or Fiorina, who were not at all better than the weaker Tea Parties candidates.

* Still, the point remains that one must account for local factors. Sure, Paul Fils did just swell in Kentucky, but he woulda have been creamed in Delaware. A is not always equal to B, pace Rot.

* Rebellions against establishment types are to be desired -- viz, Rubio vs Crist was just great. But there needs to be some rhyme and reason to this, not just an inchoate cri-de-coeur, and putting up an incompetent nobody such as O'Donnell, or a rather weak and inarticulate candidate such as Angle. A minimum level of experience and competence still counts--and it ought to.

* Speaking of Christie: it should be noted he endorsed Castle over O'Donnell. And he's not a total moron, is he?

* The most outrageous double-cross by the GOP establishment was that of Miller. This will rankle, and the self-inflicted wounds will not easily heal.

At any rate, what does all this say about the 2012 race? Too early to tell. Let's first see how things play in the House. As Rot said (paraphrasing der Rover), it's time to put up, or shut up. Flogging a dead horse such as O'Donnell will not help. There are other, more important fish to fry. Non?; 11/05/2010 12:25 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)