Karl Rove: My new group isn’t out to get the tea party, I swear

posted at 10:41 am on February 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

From last night’s “Hannity,” here’s the man himself responding to that NYT piece that set conservative media (and grassroots fundraisers) on fire. He’s eager to note how many tea-party candidates he’s supported in the past, both through American Crossroads and his own checkbook, but there’s still no answer to the key question: If the goal is to nominate the most conservative candidate who’s electable, how do you determine who’s “electable”? If you’d have asked me whether Rubio was electable in Florida in 2010, I could have given you an argument either way. He’s electable because he’s charismatic, has state legislative experience, might draw Latino votes from Democrats, and isn’t prone to moronic damaging soundbites. He’s not electable because he’s running as a conservative in a state won by Obama in 2008 against a popular moderate Republican governor in the primary. Which way would the Conservative Project Victory have come down on that? Per Steve Kornacki, which way would they have come down in Rand Paul’s race against Trey Grayson in Kentucky in 2010? Kentucky’s a red state so a tea-party insurgent stands a decent chance of winning the general if nominated, but Paul had “bad optics” baggage for the party in his criticism of the Civil Rights Act. How do we distinguish the disqualifying soundbites, like Akin’s rape comment, from the non-disqualifiers, like Paul’s take on the CRA? Will the answer perchance depend on how likely a candidate is, if elected, to make trouble for the GOP establishment? If you’re more of a libertarian than a “big government conservative,” it’s awfully hard to trust Karl Rove to separate the wheat from the chaff in primaries.

But then, we’re assuming that Rove’s main goal, and American Crossroads’s goal more broadly, is to boost establishment candidates. Is it? Or is this reorientation towards electability more about protecting their viability with rich contributors after a disastrous election year?

But there are plenty of Republican donors who are furious at Crossroads for wasting their money and aren’t going to be fooled by Rove’s rebranding strategy — or his promises that he will get better results the next time around.

I talked to one Republican operative in Washington who put it this way: “These guys took millions of dollars from big donors last year and lined their pockets. The new money will benefit all the same staff, pollsters, admen and vendors. It’s throwing good money after bad.”

Some donors will walk away, but not all. And by backing the most “electable” candidate in every primary, CPV now has a prefab defense to future losses: They can’t be accused of mismanaging their contributors’ money because they’re betting on the horse with the best odds of winning in each race. It’s like a hedge fund switching to a more risk-averse investment strategy after major losses, even though a lot of Republicans who went bust last year were establishment favorites who weren’t so risky on paper. “Electability” is really just Crossroads’s way of reassuring its funders that next time will be different — with the punchline being that they’ll likely be pressured into backing a few tea-party longshots anyway, just to keep grassroots conservatives from making the CPV endorsement a badge of contempt in the movement that candidates grow reluctant to embrace.

Exit question: Isn’t all of this just a variation on the old debate of whether it’s better to back strong conservatives in every race and risk ending up with a very principled congressional minority or better to support RINOs strategically in some states where conservatives are less likely to win and maybe achieve a squishier majority?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Anything else? 10 more minutes and I’m gone.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Well, I should bloody think so. Tonight being a school night, and all.

[::still convulsing in silent laughter::]

;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Spend the night looking out how to operationalize “Electable”…get back to me, seriously, if you discover some metrics….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

“Operationalize?” Yeah, lets stop being fools and realize that we can’t get everything we want all the time, elect the best we can get and then work to hold them accountable afterwords.
Done and done. ‘Night.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

You gotta love it when the toolish trolls turn on EACH OTHER.

bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

So like you; being a part of the group means you are correct, right? Nope.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Once again, here were the polls:
9 straight polls with Castle wining the general election.
The dismal results of the witch versus the communist.
What you wont grasp is that should have been a factor and simply demanding what you want wont get you there.
V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:43 PM

This is exactly right. Thank you for offering some sense here.

… and no one would ever be either gullible or spendthrift enough to pay you to convincingly feign actual intelligence, online… and yet: here you are, repeatedly (and unwittingly) humiliating yourself on my behalf, over and over and over again. Go figure.
Your increasingly evident bewilderment at finding yourself floundering desperately at the deep end of the conversational pool — alloyed with the most painfully obvious case of flop sweat in all of recorded online history — is sweet, sweet nectar, little monkey.
You. Couldn’t. Even. Answer. One. Single. Question.

Busted! Busted! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaaaa!
‘Night, all. Play nice-nice with li’l V7 for the rest of the evening, mm’kay? He’s so very, very… special.
In every applicable sense of the word.
[::walks away, shaking head and guffawing in combined sympathy and bemusement::]
Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

You sound like a junior high school girl. Your overdone, forced, unoriginal snarky act makes you look pathetic and desperate. Just thought you should know.

bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:50 PM

You gotta love it when the toolish trolls turn on EACH OTHER.

bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

So like you; being a part of the group means you are correct, right? Nope.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Sorry, thought you were Kent18.. my bad.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Sorry agin bluegill, that was ready-fire-aim.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Sorry, thought you were Kent18.. my bad.
V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 8:51 PM

I agree with you! Thought you were that HondaV65 guy.

bluegill on February 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM

DIAF, Porky Pig

james23 on February 6, 2013 at 8:53 PM

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaaaa! My God, but you absolutely, positively suck at this whole “internet” thingie, don’t you? Poor, dumb, befuddled brute.

Overcompensation for a lost argument.

The q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n portion of your original posting

The one that you couldn’t answer?

— was “was it worth it?”

Was that a specific accusation or rhetorical? Go look up “rhetorical”. The point was that the country is much worse off because people who call themselves conservatives effectively helped to elect a socialist. That’s stupid.

You just as baldly (and stupidly, as it turns out) stated everything else as concrete fact, sans any possible equivocation.

And you are showing that you can’t understand simple English.

I’m almost beginning to feel the first, faint stirring of what might actually be a sort of pity for you, at this point.

More overcompensation. You called me a liar and you were unable to back it with the text I wrote. All of this is just bluster to cover that you were wrong and without a coherent argument. Apparently you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

… squeals the chittering, dishonest online chimpanzee, incapable of even correctly pointing out the query portion of his own freaking posting! Again: BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaaaa! [::wipes tears away from eyes; composes self before continuing::]

You are like 13, 14, right?

… and no one would ever be either gullible or spendthrift enough to pay you to convincingly feign actual intelligence, online…

You haven’t been able to give me a coherent counterargument or even address what I wrote in a way that indicates that you understand it. This is just more overcompensation/psychological projection on your part.

and yet: here you are, repeatedly (and unwittingly) humiliating yourself on my behalf, over and over and over again. Go figure.

Still not a counterargument.

Your increasingly evident bewilderment at finding yourself floundering desperately at the deep end of the conversational pool — alloyed with the most painfully obvious case of flop sweat in all of recorded online history — is sweet, sweet nectar, little monkey.

Still not a counterargument.

You. Couldn’t. Even. Answer. One. Single. Question.

Ummm, No, I have given you answers and you aren’t man enough t admit that you were wrong. Just more bluster and BS.

Busted! Busted! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaaaa!

Still not a counterargument.

Night, all. Play nice-nice with li’l V7 for the rest of the evening, mm’kay? He’s so very, very… special.

Still not a counterargument.

::walks away, shaking head and guffawing in combined sympathy and bemusement::]

No one buys it, Thanks for the raging display of insecurity.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM

…and that’s all I have, ‘night.

V7_Sport on February 6, 2013 at 9:09 PM

shaddup
and piss your pants as you attempt to tell us, not a thing.
Hannity sucks too, btw

mickytx on February 6, 2013 at 9:16 PM

The definitive takedown of turd blossom and a call to arms.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/06/The-Civil-War-Has-Begun

rrpjr on February 6, 2013 at 9:34 PM

I’ve lost track who’s on who side in this argument, however those of you who may have stayed home to “show the ‘establishment’ a lesson” and not voted for Romney, you need to have your head examined. Romney may not have been your cup of tea, but a non-vote became a vote for Obama; and for that you can’t be excused.

PS. You are the reason we are having this argument.
PSS. If this doesn’t fit you, then ignore my post.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 9:53 PM

PSS. If this doesn’t fit you, then ignore my post.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Ignored:-) I always vote. There is always something to vote against if not for.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The definitive takedown of turd blossom and a call to arms.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/06/The-Civil-War-Has-Begun

rrpjr on February 6, 2013 at 9:34 PM

WAR! Rove’s tactics will light a fire under all Conservatives and Tea Party members nationwide. He started it and we’ll by the Grace of God finish it.

I read almost half of the article you linked to, will finish it now.

Thanks.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM

O/T Fox has not renewed Dick Morris contract.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/6/dick-morris-out-fox-cnn/

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:08 PM

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM

FYI, vote for the conservative in your district or state, get him/her nominated, and Rove will give your candidate money; that’s how you can “show Rove”. He wants to win as bad as you.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 10:18 PM

FYI, vote for the conservative in your district or state, get him/her nominated, and Rove will give your candidate money; that’s how you can “show Rove”. He wants to win as bad as you.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Sho nuff. that is why when Christine O’Donell won her DE primary pud boy used his time on Fox not to say “she has a tough row to hoe” but “she’s a loose cannon loser, bich, crazy etc.” OK I paraphrased a tad.

arnold ziffel on February 6, 2013 at 10:31 PM

He gave no money to the Texas Senate primary contestants, HOWEVER he fully funded Cruz (who by the way didn’t need a lot of money in Texas to win the seat) during the general.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Proof?

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Still waiting TS. I’d really like to have this info. Link? Any proof whatsoever? Don’t make me contact Senator Cruz.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:35 PM

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM

FYI, vote for the conservative in your district or state, get him/her nominated, and Rove will give your candidate money; that’s how you can “show Rove”. He wants to win as bad as you.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 10:18 PM

LOL, there is only one thing to depend on Rove for and that’s opposition to any Conservative/Tea Party member Candidates. Have you ever seen Rove out on the Campaign trail for ANYONE? LOL

I plan on being on a Special Team in this WAR that Rove has declared tho:-)

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:40 PM

LOL, there is only one thing to depend on Rove for and that’s opposition to any Conservative/Tea Party member Candidates. Have you ever seen Rove out on the Campaign trail for ANYONE? LOL

I plan on being on a Special Team in this WAR that Rove has declared tho:-)

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Those who win the primaries must not f*** it up in the general elections by saying stupid stuff (Akin, Murdoch, etc…)… We need to f***ing vet the candidates at the primary stage to make sure that they can win the general elections in particular assured seats in conservative states… That is all…

mnjg on February 6, 2013 at 10:47 PM

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Yes. #War.

rrpjr on February 6, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Exit question: Isn’t all of this just a variation on the old debate of whether it’s better to back strong conservatives in every race and risk ending up with a very principled congressional minority or better to support RINOs strategically in some states where conservatives are less likely to win and maybe achieve a squishier majority?

No. Rove’s story is that all of this just a variation on the old debate of whether it’s better to back strong conservatives in every race and risk ending up with a very principled congressional minority or better to support RINOs strategically in some states where conservatives are less likely to win and maybe achieve a squishier majority

Too bad you can’t trust Rove farther than he can spit

entagor on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 PM

No. Rove’s story is that all of this just a variation on the old debate of whether it’s better to back strong conservatives in every race and risk ending up with a very principled congressional minority or better to support RINOs strategically in some states where conservatives are less likely to win and maybe achieve a squishier majority

Too bad you can’t trust Rove farther than he can spit

entagor on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 PM

The question is what would a very principled congressional minority achieve in term of governing? If you are not in the majority then you have no power…

mnjg on February 6, 2013 at 11:12 PM

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Those who win the primaries must not f*** it up in the general elections by saying stupid stuff (Akin, Murdoch, etc…)… We need to f***ing vet the candidates at the primary stage to make sure that they can win the general elections in particular assured seats in conservative states… That is all…

mnjg on February 6, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Your comment just muddies the water. What Karl Rove et al want to do is SELECT the Primary Candidates for the STATES. HE will decide whether they are “electable” in the General. B.S., that is just a ruse.
What he really means is that HE wants to Select a Primary Candidate of his choosing, i.e. not a Conservative. Then he and his group will fund his choice and attack and try to destroy other Candidates. Not too difficult to grasp this tactic of his.

Romney and his backers did the same thing in the Presidential Primaries, remember?

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Your comment just muddies the water. What Karl Rove et al want to do is SELECT the Primary Candidates for the STATES. HE will decide whether they are “electable” in the General. B.S., that is just a ruse.
What he really means is that HE wants to Select a Primary Candidate of his choosing, i.e. not a Conservative. Then he and his group will fund his choice and attack and try to destroy other Candidates. Not too difficult to grasp this tactic of his.

Romney and his backers did the same thing in the Presidential Primaries, remember?

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Any candidate needs a majorities or plurality of votes to win… If the Rove supported candidate ends up winning a majority of plurality of votes in the primaries then the problem is with the other candidates who could not win… Stop the bitching and whining about Rove and what call the GOP establishment and make sure your candidate win a majority or plurality of votes… It is that simple…

mnjg on February 6, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Your comment just muddies the water. What Karl Rove et al want to do is SELECT the Primary Candidates for the STATES. HE will decide whether they are “electable” in the General. B.S., that is just a ruse.
What he really means is that HE wants to Select a Primary Candidate of his choosing, i.e. not a Conservative. Then he and his group will fund his choice and attack and try to destroy other Candidates. Not too difficult to grasp this tactic of his.

Romney and his backers did the same thing in the Presidential Primaries, remember?

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 11:12 PM

So? Do you expect or want your candidate to run unopposed in the primaries or not being attacked? It is part of the elections… Candidates run and he/she who get the most votes win… If the Rove selected candidate gets the most vote in the primaries and win then it is not Rove fault…It is the fault of the other candidates who could not win… It is that simple…

mnjg on February 6, 2013 at 11:21 PM

mnjg on February 6, 2013 at 11:21 PM

You are allowing Rove’s explanation of his intentions to cloud your thinking. That is why you don’t understand the point I am making. Read more carefully a few articles on what Rove REALLY wants to do.

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Karl Rove has for more than a decade been the number one GOP fan of legalizing as many new voters as possible from a brown country where both parties are socialist.

He has shown that when conservative anti-establishment candidates win in the primary, he does not believe in pulling together, he believes in undermining them as much as possible in order to brand the right as losers.

He’s not trying to make the GOP win. Neither is the establishment he represents.

They’re supporting “the browning of America” even if it means that America eventually becomes Socialist. They don’t like the 90% white and conservative voting base the Republican Party has, and they are trying to build a new, socially liberal party with a new base they like better.

David Blue on February 7, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Why does Karl Rove remind me of Clinton when he too protested his innocence? “I do not know that (anti-conservative PAC,) that Ms Lewinski

Don L on February 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Foul, fat fool. Toady of the Republican under-ruling class. No internal moral principle.

ironked on February 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM

The hand writing is on the wall or white board! Enough of Rove’s BS. Why does Fox News keep him around or maybe they too are part of the problem!

Rocko on February 7, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Just finished listening to Rep Steve King (IA) that is thinking about running for Senate. Karl Rove or his Prez of the PAC is insinuating King may have an “Akin” problem. How dare they?
So Steve King is going to be targeted by this RINOPAC?

We need to counter this with letters of support for S. King.
When he decides if he is going to run for the Senate, then we can donate to the Senate Conservative Fund.

Rove started this WAR.

bluefox on February 7, 2013 at 9:06 PM

bluefox on February 7, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Forgot to add that King was on Mark Levin’s radio show.

http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930

http://www.senateconservatives.com/site?c=KY4F20384B3468B

bluefox on February 7, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Why does Sean Hannity continue to give anti conservatives a platform? Ie Karl Rove, Eric Cantor, etc. He is constantly sucking up to them on his shows. Eric Cantor fought against proven conservatives during the primaries, so he could stack loyalists. Rove needs no explanation.

dmart81 on February 8, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Yeah, riiigghhhhht.

Saltysam on February 8, 2013 at 9:10 AM

The best answer to the elitist sniveling cowards of the GOP remains here. Republican voters could get an actual education if they pay attention to it.

DannoJyd on February 8, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I wish Karl Rove and company, would take their limo RINO blue bloods and go away. You are not wanted any more since you are nothing more than “democrat lite”. If you back and support a candidate, this tea party person will NOT VOTE for them!

p51d007 on February 8, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Rove had his time and should now think about his memoirs.

We aren’t looking for operatives, or political hackery but for principled leadership.

virgo on February 9, 2013 at 4:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5