To be honest, I don't understand why anyone would ever think that standards should be judged by the quality of the curricula, etc., which is written immediately after the standards. Standards either represent a compelling, yet broadly appreciated view of the what students should know and be able to do within a discipline, or they don't. If they do, people will put up with failure along the way, because they recognize the goal has value -- and in particular, they don't have another set of more appealing goals waiting on the sideline.
The Common Core is vulnerable because it proposes an overly narrow set of goals, college and career readiness, that are not backed by a sufficiently broad consensus. If the standards fail practically, there is no philosophy to back them up.
My perma-caveat is that I have no opinion about the math side of Common Core (Dan).