I don’t think Karl Rove’s criticisms of Christine O’Donnell are fatal, although they are unusually personal. Being seen as the enemy of Karl Rove may be a positive in a blue state like Delaware.
No one now can argue that Christine O’Donnell wants to return us to the Bush years.
The highly personal nature of Rove’s attacks has me worried not for what he is saying, because the issues he is raising already were raised during the primary.
I’m most worried about what Rove is not saying.
He gives the impression of being someone who knows something we do not know, someone who knows that there is another shoe to drop but isn’t going to be the one to drop it. But when it does drop, he will be able to say “I told you so.”
If there were such a shoe, Rove should have dropped it during the primaries.
If there is no other shoe to drop, Rove should stop acting like there is because it is very corrosive to the campaign.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It's not as if her opponent, Coons, is a self-proclaimed Marxist, a "pet" of the beloved Harry Reid, is it?
I think Rove helped her. She's doing very well with "independents".
Rove may have helped her with his rants, but he has severely damaged himself. IMO this is a good thing.
Mmm, if there was such a shoe I think Rove not only should have dropped it in the primary but would have. This is just my gut reaction but I think they were afraid she was another Sarah Palin in the making. That is exactly what is happening too.
They knew the left would have a field day with some of her statements. There seems to be some concerted effort from some left-wing pundits to try and tamp that down interestingly enough. The more the left guns for her the more the right base will rally to her defense. Before they know it they will have another attractive woman they can't control.
perhaps Rove is just upset that his dream of "Compassionate, Big Government Conservatism" is being rejected. Back in 2004, I'm sure he thought it would be his legacy.
I'm beginning to wonder if there are any female candidates that Karl does like. Could it be that he's that "old school" or do powerful women make him nervous? Needs to see a shrink about that.
O'Donnell would do herself a big favor by taking Rove's advice offered today (or last night?) on Fox News: make a clean breast of all the questions about her personal finances and the ISI lawsuit by telling the truth (or something reasonably close to the truth in political terms) — and do it fast.
Why? Because if she doesn't, she will inevitably be dogged persistently and often for the next seven weeks about these issues and why she's tried to duck and bob and weave around them. Every Dem TV spot, every reporter's question at campaign stops and in interviews, the setups in debates (if there are any) will feature these issue over and over. To rail against the unfairness of it all, to assume that it's all about sexism, to moan that the MSM and the Establishment are ganging up on her, all of that will do no good. The issues will be there and run her into the ground.
But the fact is — as Karl Rove (now incongruously the enemy to some of you folks) knows with the crystal clarity of someone who's been around this stuff for decades — that many politicians have carried much worse baggage across the finish line as winners. But they don't do it by going into denial or ducking.
Voters — especially independent voters whose support O'Donnell must have to have any shot — can be very forgiving of stuff like not having enough money to make ends meet, going through some tough times, etc. Lord knows, a lot of pols have been caught ay worse things: not paying taxes, taking corrupt campaign contributions, cheating on their wives and so forth — and survived, even thrived. But one thing you cannot do is to stonewall or just tell the media — and by extension, the voters — to mind their own business (those old enough to remember Gary Hart's love trysts will get that).
O'Donnell should arrange an interview with someone who will not be terribly hostile but also not in her pocket (maybe whatever passes for Delaware's main newspaper). It should be a print interview so she can't be bombed by a brief video clip. And she should do it this weekend to limit the immediate reach of the coverage (Saturday for Sunday would be ideal) while getting all her answers on the record.
Going forward to November, she can then say whenever any of these matters come up that they are old news and she has dealt with them and is going to focus on the real issues facing Delaware and the nation and isn't it just like the Dems to try to trash people when they have run out of ideas.
Listen to Rove, The man knows what he's talking about.
And Pat, as I've posted here before, Kark Rove is the guy who's pouring money into Nevada to elect Sharron Angle (and Carly Fiorina and a dozen women GOP House candidates) — so is that the action of a guy who doesn't like female candidates?
One radio pundit I heard today suggested that Rove is taking this personally because he was working behind the scenes for Castle. Interesting, but purely speculative.
"This is just my gut reaction but I think they were afraid she was another Sarah Palin in the making."
umm… another Sarah Palin would be a *good* thing… no?
Palin brings a ton of good to the Republican party, if it wasn't for her, McCain woulda lost dang near 50 states.
quiznilo-
I wasn't saying it was a bad thing. I have defended her countless times on my own blog. I don't think what was done to her was a good thing though and I don't think it will be for O'Donnell either.
"…another Sarah Palin in the making…" Palin has proven over and over again that she has a better feel for the pulse of the American voter now then established politicians and pundits of both Parties in Washington, DC. Even my Independent friends who were really turned off by Palin at first are starting to give her second looks. For one thing, she hasn't turned around and disappointed them like Krauthammer has with his most recent comments.