Whenever someone on the right criticizes Karl Rove, there is an inevitable busybody who will say, “Stop attacking people who are on our side.” However, Rove is not on our side, and as chair of the wildly popular Committee to Publicly Horsewhip Karl Rove, it is my [...]]]>
MYTH: Karl Rove is on our side.
Whenever someone on the right criticizes Karl Rove, there is an inevitable busybody who will say, “Stop attacking people who are on our side.” However, Rove is not on our side, and as chair of the wildly popular Committee to Publicly Horsewhip Karl Rove, it is my honor to point it out to you.
Rove was a guest on Fox News Sunday yesterday, to defend his argument that Hillary Clinton’s health and age might be a problem in 2016. I don’t need to go over it, parse it, or create a study of it. All you need to know is, that his ego could not keep him from changing the talking points from substantive issues to a silly media frenzy with him at the center.
Before Rove hit the news with his “brain damage” crusade, we were talking about how Hillary Clinton failed as Secretary of State to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist group. Before Rove inserted himself into the news, we were talking about how the mother of one of the four Benghazi dead blamed Hillary personally for the death of her boy, and organized protests kept Hillary from speaking in San Diego.
Now, you defenders of Rove, tell me, what carries weight? Is Hillary walking around today with obvious mental incapacity? Is she losing her place in the speeches she’s been giving to make outrageous sums of money after botching the Secretary of State gig? No? Then what possible reason could there be to change the conversation and focus, other than to stroke Rove’s ego?
Rove defenders want to believe that Rove is acting in good faith, but how is attacking a woman personally going to help the Republican Party if she runs in 2016, while the Republican Party is having a tough time getting women to vote for them?
Juan Williams was right during the panel discussion yesterday, that Rove could be generating sympathy for Clinton. Yes, he is, and he’s not helping our side, because he is interested in being the center of attention, and that’s all.
Rove’s existence in politics seems to be for the purpose of cheapening and dumbing down the political argument, and that is in line with his view of regular voters. He believes we are stupid, and wants the Republican Party to not necessarily “win the argument.” It is the equivalent of throwing enough mud on the wall to see what will stick, and he wants desperately to control the narrative. But his offerings are only mud, nothing of substance, and he not only generates sympathy for a huge Republican foe, he keeps us from gaining momentum on real issues we really care about that should concern everyone about Hillary Clinton.
]]>
Since every time a person on the right disagrees with Barack Obama he or she is labeled a racist, the same attribution must be given to Democrats who openly believe they should have picked Hillary.
But that would be using logic, something most leftists are hard pressed to wrap [...]]]>
Since every time a person on the right disagrees with Barack Obama he or she is labeled a racist, the same attribution must be given to Democrats who openly believe they should have picked Hillary.
But that would be using logic, something most leftists are hard pressed to wrap their heads around.
The story in the UK Telegraph adds fuel to the possibility of a primary opponent to Obama, but we all know that there is nobody, save Hillary, who would have the balls to try it. The thing is, they don’t think Obama has done enough damage to the country, and his management of the flares caused by governing against the will of the people leaves so much to be desired.
Control is absolutely necessary to leftists, control over every aspect of our lives, and Obama’s lackadaisical approach is rubbing them wrong. They are starting to remember the phrase Hillary said, that Obama hadn’t actually done anything but give a speech.
Aha! Now they get it!