Thursday, September 16, 2010

In Defense of Rove

There is talk all over the blogosphere and talk radio about Karl Rove's resistance to the candidacy of Christine O'Donnell.  It was not all that long ago that people in the tea party were complaining of "party hacks".  I am among them.  I don't want to follow a candidate blindly, that is exactly how we got President Obama.  The average voter did not research on their own. 

There are some serious questions regarding Christine O'Donnell.  Her foreclosure, her lack of income, her being fired by company for using their resources to start her business, and her accusations of being followed and harassed but not reporting this to the police, and her campaign staff allegedly being behind the accusations of Castle being gay.  There very well may be logical explanations to all of these issues.  But wanting answers to these questions is not only our right, but also our responsibilities as voters and people who donate to her campaign. 

Politics is a nasty business.  Like it or not, your entire life is put under a microscope.  Every mistake that you have made will become public fodder.  While I don't think it should necessarily be this way, the reality remains that it is.  This is the exact reason that I NEVER would run for public office. I have way too many things in my past that I would not want printed in the newspapers or talked about on television. 

One of the things that the Tea Party has been saying is that both parties have become too powerful and are more interested in power.  The politico's in Washington are too entrenched, dishonest, and corrupt.  Why then would we automatically back a candidate that has these serious issues to clear up?  Her explanations on these have not been detailed and in many cases have just turned into attacks on other people. 

Rove has stood up and said that if we talk about wanting principled based government, we should only be backing principled based candidates.  Many don't even realize that this is O'Donnell's third attempt at office.  She is not a candidate that was motivated by the "Tea Party" movement to through her hat into the ring.  She is an ambitious flawed woman.  Not there is anything wrong with ambition.  Ambition is a good motivator, especially in a market based economy that we have in America. 

While we are all flawed and there will never be the "perfect" candidate there are some flaws that go directly to question of character.  Honesty is the very least that we should be expect from our candidates and our representatives.  If we just going to say "well, they all lie" than what exactly is the point of what we are doing?  The power to end all of this is in the hands of O'Donnell, she can answer these questions thoroughly and honestly and then move on.  One would think that with all that has been dug up during the primary process, there is nothing more damaging to come out.  If she answers these questions she then can concentrate her efforts on the general election and she may also find that she will start to receive support from the conservatives that have some questions about her honesty and integrity. 


Teresa said...

First, I would agree that she needs to answer these questions or answer them in more detail.

But, with saying that I see no evidence of her lying or trying to deceive the American people. Maybe, inexperienced though and vague in her answers.

For people to say she doesn't have a chance to win just becuase she's inexperienced or not in the "in" crowd and for others to rail against her just because Mike Castle didn't win the primary is sorta immature and childish behavior IMO.

Just a conservative girl said...

All of that may very well be true but that isn't my issue. My issues are about her.

I want to know if it was simply that the bank made a technical error in her foreclosure, why did she then sell the house to her boyfriend days before the auction? If it was a bank error it never should have gotten that far.

She has been caught in lies, one of which was by a conservative talk show host who initially supported her until he started fact checking her statements.

She went into this election with little or not shot at winning. The staff who worked for her were doing it because of belief. You don't take a job with a candidate like that unless you believe. They are coming out and saying that she doesn't pay her bills and she has not been honest with them.

She is being followed, but doesn't report it to the police? I am sorry, I can't get past it. Many of the problems that the republican party in DE have with her are things that go back two years ago when she ran then. This isn't about Mike Castle. This is about her.

There is a great deal of smoke there. I will not support a candidate that is only going to be as dishonest as the ones we already have there. I hope that I am wrong, but the tea party embracing her with all these questions may very well turn into a huge mistake.

Teresa said...

"I want to know if it was simply that the bank made a technical error in her foreclosure, why did she then sell the house to her boyfriend days before the auction? If it was a bank error it never should have gotten that far."

If she answers the question I don't see what difference it makes why the bank foreclosed on her. If she had financial woes that was in the past. Now she doesn't. She can relate more to the American people because of her struggles in life. Most people do have some financial issues at some point in their lives.

Which talk show host? References to what the person said and/or what they found out with evidence or facts to back it up?

Michelle said...

Rove may have helped her with his rants, but he has severely damaged himself. IMO this is a good thing.

Just a conservative girl said...

Would you feel that way if she were a liberal? It isn't the foreclosure, it is her answering the question honestly. If it were not a big deal than why not tell the truth? That is a question of her integrity and her honesty. I don't care that the house was foreclosed on, I care that she is blaming the bank instead of taking responsibility for it. In this current climate she is far from the only one who has lost her home. Tell the truth!!

Her campaign is paying her living expenses yet not paying her staff. Again, something that puts her character into question. I don't know the election laws in Delaware, but is that even legal? You are sending her money to pay her rent. Are you ok with that? I am not.

She made a statement that she won two district in the last election during a stump speech. They asked her about it, she denied saying it. Then they played the audio, she said she misspoke. It is very possible to misspeak, again that is not the issue, the issue is she went on to say that she tied. That is not true. When they told her that wasn't true she first tried to say it was, then turned into an attack on someone else. This was the local conservative radio hosts. They initially supported her until they started fact checking her statements and realizing that she has a Clintonian like relationship with the truth. They actually know her, she is more than just a concept to them.

hometown guy said...

Bravo CG! Judge a candidate by the content of her character, not the label following her name.

The Constitutional Crusader said...

I have avoided weighing in on this issue because, quite frankly, Mike Castle needed to go. If indeed O'Donnel has done some dishonest things that are worthy of attention, someone somewhere will bring them to light and they will come back to bite her in the ass. After all, the Internet is the one news source from which no one can hide.

Also, remember that Mike Castle was the favorite, and it was for that reason and that reason alone that O'Donnell was deemed "unelectable" by the establishment. Mike Castle has acted like a spoiled, entitled brat ever since he lost the primary. I don't know if O'Donnell is as corrupt as she might appear or not, but as long as she votes the way we want her to without getting involved in any CURRENT scandals, then she can have the seat, far as I'm concerned.

Just a conservative girl said...

I am just saying that there doesn't seem to be any good choices in that race. I just don't like the idea that we are supposed to rally around this woman and not ask the questions. The Tea Party Express endorsed her before much of this came out. After it did, they didn't want to pull their endorsement. Some of the people I have talked to don't want to hear any of this, and they need to. We need to be careful who are endorsing.

Malcolm said...

I wanted to comment when I first read this last week, but I was pressed for time. Credit to you for looking at Christine O'Donnell objectively and wanting answers to legitimate questions about her background. When I heard her interview with conservative talk show host Dan Gaffney, I was floored. I was glad that he asked her some tough, but fair questions. Her responses were embarrassing.

As for anyone giving you heat for not falling in line to board the O'Donnell bandwagon, that's unfortunate.

Teresa said...


Your just saying that because your pro-Obama and for the Obama agenda.

If these people (conservatives?)would rather have Castle in office, who is pretty much a Democrat by all accounts, since when a tough vote comes up, he votes with the Democrats then, when the GOP and the American people need him to vote for the people and not for his own political expediency or his own personal agenda or Obama's agenda, then I don't see much of a point in continung our rising surge of conservatism if people are going to side with the RINO and not back the true conservative when given that choice. You people are buying into the MSM (Left stream media bias) and backing out on someone who has made mistakes, changed her lifestyle, and is a true conservative who learned from her mistakes, but you act like nonone is allowed to make mistakes and run for office after recognizing those mistakes and changing them. Coons is a "bearded Marxist" who threatens America as being "America", will continue to ruin our country like Obama has been, and will continue to do so but you are willfully helping the o side by refusing to support a candidate who would help to stop the Obama agenda. These "conservative" actions and/or inaction are counterintuitive to the Tea Party philosophy and counterproductive to its main objective, stopping the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Agenda. After the primary election, Obama and Biden have both contacted Mike Castle and are urging him to consider a write in bid for the Senate seat and he is pondering that over now. Now, if he decides to do this write in bid, who do you think that this is going to help? It;s going to help both Coons and the Obama agenda.

Malcolm said...

Teresa: As usual, when it comes to me, you don't know what you're talking about. Even if I supported O'Donnell's viewpoints, I'd still say she needs to answer these questions. It should go without saying that people are allowed to make mistakes and everything in a political candidate's past shouldn't be held against them. For example, O'Donnell admitting on "Politically Incorrect" that she hung out with witches when she was a teenager is irrelevant to me. However, there are some serious questions about the integrity of the present-day Christine O'Donnell (which JACG accurately laid out) that Ms. O'Donnell needs to answer.

C'mon, you're calling Coons a "bearded Marxist"?! I don't even have to guess as where you heard that nonsense. The right-wing noise machine came up with that smear on Coons, but failed to mention that he never referred to himself as a Marxist in the article in question. Coons explained that the title of the article he wrote was a play off of a joke some of his friends made. After reading the article, this is clear.

JACG asked you a question, but you didn't answer it. Would you feel that way about Christine O'Donnell if she were a liberal?

Teresa said...


Yes, I would. If a person was being truthful and their party was railroading that person out of spite or sour grapes because their candidate didn't win the primary I would support him/her. Do you have a link to that interview? You will see on my site as well as her site how she has answered the questions truthfully.

"Her campaign is paying her living expenses yet not paying her staff." Link supporting this accusation?

"This was the local conservative radio hosts" Which one? This is the second time I have asked for the name of the talk show host and a reference/link? Please provide this.

What if after Mike Castle had won against O'Donnell, and conservatives like myself opposed him because of disagreeing with some of his record, his shady political views, and his being a RINO, how would you react?

That is something I wouldn't have done. I backed Scott Brown and would have respected the GOP and his being nominated enough to support Castle also, even though he is a RINO and may be very well against the philosphy that the Tea party movement ascribes to.

Teresa said...


"Even if I supported O'Donnell's viewpoints, I'd still say she needs to answer these questions."

I agree, as I stated above. Since then I have done research and have found evidence to the contrary which counters the unfounded accusations being made against Christine O'Donnell.

I find typical of you that you call the truth nonsense.
Here is a part of his essay:
"I spent the spring of my junior year in Africa on the St. Lawrence Kenya Study Program. Going to Kenya was one of the few real decisions I have made; my friends, family, and professors all advised against it, but I went anyway, My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe a strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear thinking Americans and sends back Bearded Marxists."

This is Coons explaining how he and others changed after going overseas. If you don't have the capacity to make that connection, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Malcolm said...


I read the article so you didn't have to bother including it here. Maybe you don't see the "bearded Marxist" line as the joke that I and many others do because it would require objectivity and a sense of humor. For the sake of argument, I'll play along with the "bearded Marxist" theory nonsense. Coons wrote that article 25 years ago! Do you have any evidence that Coons is still a Marxist?

In regards to the Christine O'Donnell interview with a conservative talk show host mentioned by JACG, I believe this is what she is referring to:

Part 1:

Part 2:

If you can defend her responses, I'd love to hear your argument.

Teresa said...

You obviously can't tell the difference between a joke and an essay. Oh well, What can you expect from a liberal democrat. Obviuosly not much in the category of ethics, morality, and common sense.

Well Coons certainly hasn't learned from his childish and immature philosophy. Obama is a Marxist, adheres to a Marxist philosophy, and so does Coons.

1) Biden won by 29.4% and so she could be right about the percentages, as far as the two counties go. Wilmington is a big city and a huge draw for votes so that county is much bigger than the other two. I know since I lived right beside the southern county growing up.
2)She made a mistake with her misstatement and admitted that to him, so, so what? That isn't a big deal.
3) The DNC and RNC always borrow money constantly and try to pay it off. They sometimes do and sometimes don't. They depend on donations also. So, big whoopie. No big deal there. In fact, Dan Gladney was acting like an a$$ at that point.

I've got more objectivity than you'll ever know. I can take solace in the fact that I will never be taken in by anyone like Obama and the fact that I didn't/don't vote for scumbags like Obama who are hell bent on ruining this country.

Malcolm said...

Teresa: You kill me! It is possible to use humor within an essay format.

If you have as much objectivity as you say, you do a damned good job of hiding it. In the numerous blog posts of yours I've read and the exchanges we've had in various comments sections, you have rarely shown any objectivity when it comes to politics. So-called "true conservatives" can do no wrong in your eyes and will always get the benefit of the doubt, while it's just the opposite for everyone else. If you wanna view the world in a simplistic manner like that, go for it. I've come to learn that things aren't always so black and white.

As for your comment about liberals/Democrats, that's what I've come to expect from you. Although I am a proud liberal/Democrat, I don't believe in demonizing everyone on the other side. In fact, I know some conservative/Republicans who can be rational and objective when it comes to politics. Because the alternative is scary as hell to me, I have to believe that conservative/Republicans who view the world as you do are the exception to the rule.

Just a conservative girl said...

The problem is that I don't think she is telling the truth about her foreclosure. That is my issue. Not the foreclosure. I don't care that she had money problems. Virtually all of do at some point in our lives. First she said it was a bank error. Then on Hannity she said SHE sold it. Now, I have never been through a foreclosure but my neighbor did. The house was sold at auction about two months ago. They were not the owners of the home when it sold at auction, they had moved several weeks beforehand. The bank had taken possession and put it up for sale. Her home was sold to her boyfriend three days before the auction. Which means she didn't sell it. The bank did. He paid above what she owed so she was allowed to keep the extra money, which is perfectly legal. But why not say that? There is no shame in having your house foreclosed on in this economic envirnoment. The shame is not being honest about it.

I have gone and read the initial news reports, I am not listening to some liberal talking head that is trying to distort her record. I have also read her own statements on these issues. When you have your own staff coming out and speaking against you, it is worth looking into. This is a winning campaign. You would expect sour grapes from a losing campaign.

The tax lien is irrelevant as that truly does seem to be an error. But how she uses her campaign funds has a direct relation to her integrity and her honesty.

You say that she admitted that she misspoke to radio hosts, no she did not. She then furthered the falsehood by saying she tied. She did not. It is hypocritical of conservatives to rail about the dishonesty of the democrats and than rally around someone who is doing more of the same.

She needs to open up her records to show how her campaign money is being spent. This money is coming from hard working Americans, they have the right to know how it is being spent.

At the end of the day, it is irrelevant what I think of O'Donnell as she won't be on my ballot. Something that I am very grateful for. Because I am tired of the lesser of two evils, and that is what the choices in that race is.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Google Analytics Alternative