Karl Rove never met a man or a constituent group he didn’t seek to exploit for political gain…and as best I can tell, his scorched earth approach rarely, if ever, left him wondering about the welfare of the many innocent individuals that may have been consumed in the carnage he created with calloused and cunning calculations.
Mr. Wehner makes the mistake of many who live with the promise of privilege…those who have neither built the trough at which they feed nor done the hard work to harvest the feast that fills it…they stand shoulder to shoulder with other gluttonous and greedy purveyors of pain…sopping up the spoils while pushing the powerless under the proverbial bus. Pardon my disgust, but fine men aren’t made by driving on and over others.
While Karl Rove and his cronies see themselves as king makers, they climbed the pole of power on the backs of those they sought to sacrifice. His legacy of unleashing hatred upon homosexuals in order to herd the holier than thou hoards into the ballot box may be his hallmark…but calling him an honorable human being is simply another symbol of the corrupted Christian cacophony he sought to coerce.
Electability shouldn't be the point yet
Electability shouldn't be the point yet. We all become pundits and play this blue state/red state game, and we get away from the real issue, which is supposed to be picking the person who would make the best president. The one who could do the job the best. Bouldin's attitude seems to be that we shouldn't pick the best candidate, we should pick the most electable candidate. That we shouldn't take a chance on the best, most qualified candidate who is the strongest on the issues, if that candidate isn't also clearly the most electable. This horse race mentality is really cynical. I'd rather nominate the best candidate for the office and lose the election than nominate someone who is not the best candidate but who happens to be more electable. That is the democratic process.
I also wish people would be honest about the reasons behind this electability thing. John Edwards is was an obscure one term senator who is in no way more qualified, or experienced and tested under press fire as Hillary. But we don't hear people saying, "Edwards isn't electable" like they do Hillary and Obama. Why? It is because Edwards is white, male and protestant. Now I'm not saying Bouldin or anyone else here is racist or sexist. You don't have to be racist or sexist to think that the a lot of voters in the rest of the country ARE racist and sexist, and because of that a woman or a black man can't get elected nationally. If you think that, just say it. Bouldin should just come out and say, "I don't think Hillary can get elected because she's a woman and there are enough sexists out there who won't vote for a woman to be commander and chief" Just say it. My argument is that we will never know if a non-white male can get elected president until the day comes that we take the chance.
Hillary and Obama deserve the chance to be judged on the merits, where they stand on the issues, and NOT purely on this "electability" thing. We should not be voting for whoever is the most "electable" candidate to be the nominee. We should be voting for whoever is the BEST candidate. Regardless of whether they are electable or whether they are female or black.