OK, I'll Fill'em In

I ended my last post suggesting an apparently widening divide within the Republican Party, a divide between those who "get it" and those who don't. I challenged you to fill in the blanks.

Well, at almost the same moment I punched "publish", I turned to notice Karl Rove being interviewed on some TV news show. He's not backing down. While his tone was more reasonable than it was the other night during his already famous on-screen explosion, he still insists that Delaware GOP US Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell must quickly and publicly explain her many alleged ethical lapses.

Pencil Karl Rove's name into the "Those who don't 'get it'" column.

Let's assume that Christine O'Donnell is indeed the most ethically challenged politician since, oh I don't know, since Bill Clinton, or, if he's too old news for you, since New York Congressman, Democrat Charlie Rangel. She, and we, who at least initially support her because she's an unapologetic conservative, will have to deal with that fact in due course.

In due course.

But first I want to deal with this: Why do we almost never hear Karl Rove and other professional Republicans and pundits achieve high dudgeon this quickly when they comment, if at all, on the ethical lapses or downright criminal behavior of liberal Democrats? Why are they so spring-loaded, so eager it seems, to attack, to dismiss, and to destroy those who we assume are on their same side?

When Rove and those like-minded focus first on the shortcomings of our candidates rather than on those of the other side, I, for one, immediately shift my focus from the candidate to Rove. "Why", I ask, "are you doing this? Whose side are you on?" I also wonder, "Can I trust you? Should I trust you?"

While there's more to "getting it" and "not getting it" than just this issue, this is a really big part of it to be sure.