Karl Rove tried to tame his monster --- and couldn't
by digby
In one of the more interesting discussions of the GOP's current "disarray", the American Spectator goes after Karl Rove for sabotaging Tea Party candidates. It's fascinating from beginning to end, but I find, to my dismay, that I have to stick up for Rove in one instance.
The Spectator:
Deception Two: Rove’s effort to marginalize Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King, with Rove lieutenant Steven Law, the head of Rove’s “Conservative Victory Project,” telling the Times that: “We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem.”
What “problem” is that? Back in August of 2012, when l’affaire Akin was burning up the political hot sheets, because King had the audacity to defend his friend Akin by saying politely that he had never heard such a thing as Akin was asserting — namely that a woman could not get pregnant from a rape. Saying as well of his friend’s controversial statement that “I would be open” to discussing the issue. Liberals instantly tried to make this polite admission of intellectual curiosity into something it wasn’t — that King agreed with Akin. When queried the next day, King ridiculed his critics for what they were trying to do, saying this, in a story the Washington Post headlined as: “Steve King: I’m No Todd Akin”:
“The liberal press and their allies have again twisted my words,” he said in a statement. “I never said, nor do I believe, a woman, including minors, cannot get pregnant from rape, statutory rape or incest. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, shameful, disgusting and nothing but an attempt to falsely define who I am.”
He added, “I have never heard of and categorically reject the so-called medical theory that launched this controversy.”
So under no circumstances did Steve King ever agree with Akin. Specifically, categorically saying so. And yet — there is Rove’s Steve Law saying that “we’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem.” Which of course raises the obvious question: If King never said he agreed with Akin — and specifically said he disagreed with him — why is Rove’s group implying something else?
Being "loyal" to a lunatic by saying that you'd be open to discussing whether women have a special chemical that makes it impossible for them to get pregnant via rape is hardly harmless. But I don't think that's what Rove was saying. He was saying that Steve King has a "Todd Akin problem", meaning that he can't keep his foot out of his mouth. He could have been more precise and simply said that Todd Akin had a "Steve King problem."
Steve King is an idiot who constantly embarrasses the party. It's not just that he's ideologically extreme, although he is. It's that he's a moron who often reveals the Party to be dumb as posts about nearly everything. Here are just four examples and they probably aren't the worst:
- "I don't want to disparage anyone because of their race, their ethnicity, their name - whatever their religion their father might have been, I'll just say this: When you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States -- I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam? I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror. Additionally, his middle name (Hussein) does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world."
- “There’s been legislation that’s been brought through this House that sets aside benefits for women and minorities. The only people that it excludes are white men...Pretty soon, white men are going to notice they are the ones being excluded.”
- "The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race - on the side that favors the black person in the case of Prof. Gates and officer Crowley.<
- If you can’t profile someone, you can’t use those common sense indicators that are before your very eyes. Now, I think it’s wrong to use racial profiling for the reasons of discriminating against people, but it’s not wrong to use race or other indicators for the sake of identifying people that are violating the law.
Rove is just trying to marginalize the crazy talk that certain members of his Party are so keen to blurt out any time they see a camera. It's not that he disagrees with them. He just thinks it should be more subtle about it.
I don't feel sorry for Rove, of course. He's one of the Frankensteins who created this monster. And he should know better than anyone that these folks will misconstrue his every utterance and lie about his record and intentions. They listened to all the lessons he taught them.
I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying the blowback. Nobody deserves it more. I only wish I could see him squirm when the camera pans to Ted Nugent tonight.
Update: Because this is so good for the Republican Party:
“He probably has shit for brains,” [Nugent] said of Langevin.
Nugent is “one of the most articulate spokesman” for gun advocates, [Congressman Stockman] said, and Stockman said he was “proud” to have him as his guest.
.