In searching for overheated rants about Karl Rove, I came across this bit of revisionist history from Red State’s Eric Erickson:
In Delaware, many conservative, myself included, made the conscious decision that it would be far better to have the Democrat win than Mike Castle because of what Castle would do whispering in the ears of Republican leaders. Few of us thought she could win. But Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint get particular blame for their endorsements, which totally ignores that those endorsements came when it was clear O’Donnell was on a glide path to victory in the primary as Delaware Republicans were rejecting Mike Castle without much outside help from conservatives.
See? The teabags genuinely wanted to give up a safe Senate seat because:
1) Give up safe seat
3) PROFIT !!!
No. That is clearly revisionist bullshit. The tea party thought they could win with O’Donnell because people would be drawn to the purity of the purist teabag message of “small government for the corporations and big government for the bedrooms!”
As we all know, it didn’t play out that way here in Delaware or Nevada or with that creepy Todd Akin creep. So it is off to the rationalization races for Erickson.
Throughout the diary, Erickson’s main counterargument to Rove’s observation that teabagism is toxic to voters, is that the insane wingnuts are REALLY the sane ones in the party. And everyone knows how to spot a sane person – they are the ones screaming at the top of their lungs that they are REALLY the sane ones!!!
Well…It makes sense to wingnuts, anyway.