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 2 3 5

I’m all for a squishier majority, as long as the squishiest get nowhere near influential positions.

That seems to be the Democrat strategy, and it’s worked for them so far.

JeffWeimer on February 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Karl Rove was the architect of the greatest decline in Republican power in Washington, EVER. He came to Washington with the GOP owning the House, Senate and White House. It took him only 8 years to help engineer the biggest electoral disaster for Republicans in history, leaving Washington with the GOP in charge of NOTHING and the party a pariah, among not only the lunatic left but among its base, too – which is no mean feat.

It was only the Tea Party and conservativism (anti-Rovian conservativism) that rescued the GOP in 2010, but that was done only to have them defend America and stop the Indonesian and lunatic left from taking this nation apart and fundamentally deforming it. The Weeping Boner and his gang of cowards REFUSED to do that and, instead, colluded with Barky and the Dems to allow all the idiocy to continue without a pause – to which the GOP suffered losses in 2012, including losing the Presidency to the biggest idiot who’s ever occupied the White House, a guy with an 84 IQ, a record of disaster on everything he touched, and a burning hate for our nation and Americans that no one with a brain could miss.

I think it’s about time that Rove showed a little bit of integrity and just STFU and left the public stage. He’s a disaster, just like the Weeping Boner. They should both pick their loser azzes up and go home, never to be heard from again.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 6, 2013 at 10:51 AM

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?

More-correctly, it’s about whether the principled conservatives or the squishy not-quite-DemocRATs are the minority party.

Steve Eggleston on February 6, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Christine ODonnell had a résumé that could have been written on a pinhead and it took the Dems 30 seconds to uncover she couldn’t even pay her apartment rent in a timely fashion. Yet there was Mark Levin championing her purely for the fact she wasn’t Mike Castle. Maybe Rove means that.

And maybe he means the phony Democrat candidates no one’s heard of but register in primaries as “Tea Party!!” because the party powers on the left think its a clever ruse.

Marcus on February 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM

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?

Sounds like the same old argument to me. And everyone has a different definition of what “strong conservative” really means with their own hobby horse leading the charge. Yawn.

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM

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.”

That’s my attitude. I couldn’t believe all the idiots defending Rove’s new push the other day. I would have figured that even the usual GOP party hacks and shills would have been ready to jettison Rove. This imbecile and his American Crossroads organization was one of the major architects of our defeat in 2012.

Just goes to show the GOP party hacks are more interested in punishing the conservative base than actually winning elections.

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM

But then, we’re assuming that Rove’s main goal, and American Crossroads’s goal more broadly, is to boost establishment candidates.

Is this assumption based anywhere upon fact in the first place? For one thing, the man himself says it’s not about incumbent protection. For another, He himself just said that the establishment candidate is not necessarily the Buckley-rule candidate.

It’s about the money, all right, on both sides. I notice that Mark Levin has been awfully vocal about this incident – are his ratings dropping? He’s got a regular commentary gig with Hannity now, so I’m guessing they are.

And Rove is absolutely right about fundraising PACs with conservative-sounding names and no records capitalizing on this incident. I can personally attest to having received several fundraising e-mails from groups like “Conservatives for America PAC” and “Tea Party Future PAC” and such nonsense, all saying that Karl Rove is the devil and they need cash to fight him.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Mmhmm.

Jeddite on February 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Sorry Rove, but I can’t trust you, because when you were in power you force a lot of liberal republicans down our throats. See the 2004 and 2006 elections.

BroncosRock on February 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

And maybe he means the phony Democrat candidates no one’s heard of but register in primaries as “Tea Party!!” because the party powers on the left think its a clever ruse.

Marcus on February 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Why isn’t the stupid party doing something like that? Oh yeah… the stupid party.

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

It was Rove and his establishment that insisted from almost the beginning of the GOP Presidential Primary the Mitt Romney would be THE candidate. And they got what they wanted. As Dr. Phil would say: “how’s that working for you, Karl”?

Remember, the majority of conservative voters did not want Mitt and in fact Rove and Rush have both said that the Conservatives that stayed home lost the 2012 election. Again, “how’s that working for you, Karl”?

katablog.com on February 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Race a train to a crossing and die in agony, lying turd.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 10:57 AM

This is all about Rove making a good living. He’s a dinosaur and a lousy architect.

Vince on February 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Sorry Rove, but I can’t trust you, because when you were in power you force a lot of liberal republicans down our throats. See the 2004 and 2006 elections.

BroncosRock on February 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

The 2004 elections? Oh right, that would be the last time we won a majority in the Senate, and the last time the GOP has won a presidential election. Rove totally dropped the ball on that one, didn’t he?

I’m so glad we’re trusting candidate selection and backing to smarter people now. Sens. McCaskill, Reid, Coons, Bennet, and Donnelly certainly are.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM

You failed – big time. Man up and resign!

Shy Guy on February 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM

And Rove is absolutely right about fundraising PACs with conservative-sounding names and no records capitalizing on this incident. I can personally attest to having received several fundraising e-mails from groups like “Conservatives for America PAC” and “Tea Party Future PAC” and such nonsense, all saying that Karl Rove is the devil and they need cash to fight him.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Why are you so stubbornly backing Rove? Forget the whole “establishment vs. Tea Party” thing. Rove was a total disaster in 2012. He is a proven loser! Why is anyone here giving him the time of day?

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM

I think I will withhold judgement until I see his pudgy little weird suit color wearing azz at a Tea Party Rally. Let him mingle with the great unwashed and be seen there by the media. Man up, Karl.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen, ma’am.

kingsjester on February 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Why are you so stubbornly backing Rove? Forget the whole “establishment vs. Tea Party” thing. Rove was a total disaster in 2012. He is a proven loser! Why is anyone here giving him the time of day?

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM

I’m not “stubbornly backing Rove.” I’m calling out the dishonesty of those who say he’s protecting incumbents (he’s not) and of the phony-conservative PACs that seem to have sprung up to siphon cash out of TruCon suckers.

And newsflash: Our Senate elections in 2012 were “a total disaster.” Which, ergo, means that everyone who gave money to a candidate who didn’t win is as “guilty” as Rove is. Club for Growth backed a lot of turkeys in 2012 as well – I don’t hear a whole lot of opprobrium for them.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I think I will withhold judgement until I see his pudgy little weird suit color wearing azz at a Tea Party Rally. Let him mingle with the great unwashed and be seen there by the media. Man up, Karl.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Ugh. I understand the sentiment but I wouldn’t want this guy anywhere near the Tea Party even if he was a rock-ribbed conservative. He’s like another Dick Morris.

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Go to hell, Rove. Your attacks on Palin prove you are lying. Likewise your churlish attacks on tea party candidates AFTER they won their states’ primaries.

rayra on February 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM

This guy is a fat epic fail. The best thing to do would be to toss him, but he’s still on television selling the con to the marks so I guess we all have to listen to him…not.

Dack Thrombosis on February 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Who cares about Rove? He’s just a scapegoat now. What have conservatives offered in 2008? 2012? Lots of griping, lots of threats, lots of anger but NO CANDIDATE that the conservatives themselves could even get behind. Forget trying to convince RINOs that they aren’t committing suicide by supporting their social issues. If you can’t even unite conservatives to win a GOP primary, you’re not going to win much of anything.

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I think its silly to call Akin and especially Murdoch obviously flawed candidates that someone who vetted them could see their abortion gaffe coming. If these same guys were coached about the rape-Abortion question they probably win. The gaffe sank then and anyone who thinks that they have a 100% way of predicting who will make a deadly gaffe isn’t being sensible because if they could have seen these gaffes coming they could have prevented them in the nominee thus getting around the whole thing we have now convinced ourselves made these 2 “bad” candidates.

Conan on February 6, 2013 at 11:05 AM

OK,

Why did he say “We of Conservative Crossroads did not need to get involved in the Ted Cruz / David Dewhurst primary?”

Did he do it as Karl Rove and not via Conservative Crossroads?

Did he support Ted Cruz or David Dewhurst.

OK,

The slip of the lips,,, “Ted,,,, uh, uh, Tod Akin”, what part of his paniced brain put the neurons in that condition.

OK,

Who was the lead advisor to Pres. Bush when Bush went rogue on U.S. and tried to push amnest on the country.

OK,

Rove is just a “gold gofer” for the Two Party Evil Money Cult in Washington D.C.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 6, 2013 at 11:05 AM

I would just like to mention, FOX News re-signed Tokyo Rove for another year.

Mr. Arrogant on February 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM

S.E. Cupp Trashes Karl Rove’s ‘Refusal To Recognize Reality,’ Audacity To Presume He Deserves ‘Another Shot’

“If you remember back to that moment on Fox News on election night when Karl Rove refused to cede Ohio – that was emblematic, I think, of Karl Rove, American Crossroads, and the establishment’s problem over the last four years: refusal to recognize reality,” Cupp continued. “Absolute refusal.”

What she said. x1,000,000,000,000.

Turd Blossom just blew the two most winnable presidential elections ever, back-to-back, due primarily to his (and the GOP-e’s mulish, suicidal insistence) upon arrogantly p!ssing all over the party’s conservative voting base. What he actually knows about genuine “electability,” I could easily fit into a Pez dispenser… with room left over for the Pez.

‘Nuff said.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM

And newsflash: Our Senate elections in 2012 were “a total disaster.”

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Blame John Cornyn & the NRSC.

portlandon on February 6, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Who gives a sh*t about Tokyo Rove?

American Crossroads pulled MILLIONS of dollars from high-dollar establishment GOP rich folks before, and during the 2012 election.

They got, essentially … ZERO RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

Given the fact that Tokyo Rove completely failed this last time around … and given the fact that HE HAS NEVER WON A DECISIVE VICTORY when he was managing Presidential campaigns and running G.W. against complete dunderheads who were mentally unstable (Gore and Kerry).

I mean – he’s a little fat kid with a LOW, LOW success rate.

If there are still some rich folks out there foolish enough to invest in him – I say let ‘em do it!!

Dude’s a clown man … and the GOP won’t go anywhere with Americans until his face is no longer associated with the party.

Give him this though … his complete tiddy baby meltdown on Fox News on the night of the elections last year gave me more joy than sex. LOL!!

HondaV65 on February 6, 2013 at 11:07 AM

And if the the most electable Pub is only a shade to the right of the Dem, what good does it do the country? I’m tired of settling for squishes, I want the march of liberalism stopped. If Rove&Co. aren’t going to do it, I’ll vote for the candidate of a different party more in line with my views.

And that’s the whole idea. We voters shouldn’t have to suffer what a party tells us we can have. The party should be told what we demand of it. Otherwise, we’re nothing more than chattel while the ‘leaders’ get fat on donations.

Liam on February 6, 2013 at 11:07 AM

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Go look at your unworn inaugural ball gown. Then get back to us.

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Tis a free country, Karl. Do your work. If your Purple Elephants end up writing articles on why they lost I’m sure you will find a Red Elephant to blame.

Limerick on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

I would have figured that even the usual GOP party hacks and shills would have been ready to jettison Rove. This imbecile and his American Crossroads organization was one of the major architects of our defeat in 2012.

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Fish gotta swim; birds gotta fly; grifters gotta grift.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Dack Thrombosis on February 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I think Rove’s mistake in saying Ohio was still winnable wan’t him in denial. I think Rove was using his knowledge of the 2000 and 2004 election and thinking nothing had changed in Ohio for 2012. In other words Rove runs the GWB campaign over and over and we have a different dynamic and his message of compassionate conservatism or whatever you want to call his form of triangulation with groups like Latinos isn’t going to work over and over. We need new blood.

Conan on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Why is anyone here giving him the time of day?

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM

I don’t know. Aside from moonlighting as the lead establishment front man performing PR wet work against free-thinking and reformist conservatives he’s not even very good at his day job.

rrpjr on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

I’m with Rove on this, I’m done with retard candidates throwing away easy wins.

I know there’s some conservatives who’s main goal is not winning elections and changing public policy, but simply thumping their chest and beating these mystical “establishment” candidates.

I adhere to the William F. Buckley rule of the rightmost viable candidate that can WIN.

BradTank on February 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Give him this though … his complete tiddy baby meltdown on Fox News on the night of the elections last year gave me more joy than sex. LOL!!

HondaV65 on February 6, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Maybe you need a new lover? *LOL*

Liam on February 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM

And newsflash: Our Senate elections in 2012 were “a total disaster.”

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Yeah, establishment darling, Snott Brown lost his ass to a fake Indian.

Heeeelarious!!

HondaV65 on February 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Someone send that has-been Rove back to Clown College where he belongs!

pilamaye on February 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Maybe you need a new lover? *LOL*

Liam on February 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I’ve had 12 in the past 6 months! Maybe I need a vacation! LOL

HondaV65 on February 6, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Go Away Rove!

workingclass artist on February 6, 2013 at 11:10 AM

And how about we talk about the winning record of the Senate Conservatives Fund, the ur-example of a loyal conservative and successful PAC, unlike that Rove garbage?

2012 Contributions:

Todd Akin (MO) – lost general
Dan Bongino (MD) – lost general
Richard Mourdock (IN) – lost general
Josh Mandel (OH) – lost general
Don Stenberg (NE) – lost to more conservative candidate in primary (Oops!)
Mark Neumann (WI) – lost primary

as well as Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake, and Deb Fischer, who won. And who were also funded by Rove’s group.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Rove is in a rough spot – once public opinion begins to go negative – the grade of that slope increases very very fast.

I think he better stay off the air for a while – go low profile.

jake-the-goose on February 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I’ve had 12 in the past 6 months! Maybe I need a vacation! LOL

HondaV65 on February 6, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Is Jug Ears included in that body count?

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM

I’m so glad we’re trusting candidate selection and backing to smarter people now. Sens. McCaskill, Reid, Coons, Bennet, and Donnelly certainly are.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM

To say nothing, of course, Presidents McCain and Romney.

Oopsie.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I think you could safely bet money, a lot of money, on the possibility of never seeing Karl Rove at a Tea Party rally. I should also make it clear that I am not suggesting he should participate as a speaker, just hang around and listen to the people he thinks are stupid.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:14 AM

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I agree, TOTALLY, I mean you just can’t trust those VOTERS….you know the people that selected their opponents! I mean it’s really SUPPOSED to be a bunch of over-weight, pasty white guyz in glasses selecting the candidates!

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM

The answer to the exit question is that.. Yes, you’re going to have to support more moderate candidates in blue states. Take the Illinois Senate seat… A true conservative couldn’t have won enough suburban votes (i.e. the IL 10th) to negate the Democrat’s Chicago advantage. Kirk did. He’s good on Iran, military issues, and is a fiscal con. Why would we give that up just because of his views on abortion and gay rights? Not to mention the fact that Kirk stopped the career trajectory of pretty boy mob banker, who the Ds would currently be foisting on us as a future Presidential candidate if he had won.

As for the Rubio and Paul arguments.. I don’t think that anyone expected Rubio to be the 2016 R frontrunner at this time in 2009; he could turn out to be the exception rather than the rule. Paul’s comments didn’t cost him the race in ruby red Kentucky, but they might have in Florida or Ohio.

Illinidiva on February 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM

I’m done with retard candidates throwing away easy wins.

BradTank on February 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Particularly the “severely conservative” “electable” ones whose triumphal electoral inevitability is harbinged daily for months on end by wish-casting sites like “UnSkewedPolls.com,” and self-anointed GOP-e savants like Karl Rove… right?

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

It is a classic, never out of style, always ready.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM

To say nothing, of course, Presidents McCain and Romney.

Oopsie.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM

If you’re willing to go through the accumulated fields of candidates in 2008 and 2012 and tell me whom among them could have beaten Obama in the year they ran, I’m perfectly willing to listen. Make the case for Newt Gingrich, or Mike Huckabee, or Herman Cain.

I have absolutely no regrets supporting the candidate who had the best chance of winning at the time, and I especially don’t regret having switched to Romney in 2012 after Rick Perry and Herman Cain, in succession, convinced me that they were unsuited for the office.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM

as well as Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake, and Deb Fischer, who won. And who were also funded by Rove’s group supported by Sarah Palin and grassroot Conservatives.
KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:10 AM

fify

idesign on February 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I find it a bit odd that Karl says he supported TeaParty candidates in many instances, yet he supported Akin over Stillman. He says his group supported Akin right up to the point of his remark. Why didn’t he support Palins choice?

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:17 AM

If it is good for RINO’s of any sort, it is not good for U.S..

Keep it simple.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 6, 2013 at 11:17 AM

It is a classic, never out of style, always ready.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Snort

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Conan on February 6, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Akin was known for saying dumb things, which is why McCaskill and the Ds intervened in the Republican primary. Mourdock could have probably been coached to keep his mouth shut.

Illinidiva on February 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Go look at your unworn inaugural ball gown. Then get back to us.

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

*snort* Still mean I see. ; )

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I am not suggesting he should participate as a speaker, just hang around and listen to the people he thinks are stupid.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:14 AM

An existential conundrum: to do that, he’d have to be another person. That is to say, it is not conceivable that he, Karl Rove, would ever do that.

rrpjr on February 6, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I find it a bit odd that Karl says he supported TeaParty candidates in many instances, yet he supported Akin over Stillman. He says his group supported Akin right up to the point of his remark. Why didn’t he support Palins choice?

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:17 AM

I was wondering about that as well.

From the looks of it, Crossroads was spending money to help Akin shore himself up after he won the primary, and stopped spending money after the national embarrassment from his comments rendered him unable to win.

They stayed out of the Missouri primary.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:20 AM

O/T: Rand Paul is giving a tour de force of a speech to Heritage…

http://www.heritage.org/events/2013/02/rand-paul

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Go look at your unworn inaugural ball gown. Then get back to us.

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Ooooooooooooooh. That’s gonna leave a mark. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Christine ODonnell had a résumé that could have been written on a pinhead…

Yeah ,that kind of resume is reserved for community organizers to become Prsident.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 6, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Rove, your time is over. Go away.

nazo311 on February 6, 2013 at 11:22 AM

If the RNC and people like Karl Rove would just butt the f’ out and stop pissing off the base and reducing turn out like they have from Reagan to now. Plus the huge numbers who never ever vote at all because the look at what the establishment has done to the U.S. they just sit and wait for the other shoe to drop. Fully knowing the thing is broken and that no one has the honor to call out the fraud and crimes of the Two Party Evil Money Cult, of which Karl Rove is one of the main gofer’s.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 6, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Come on conservatives, we need to stop looking for someone to blame. Instead, work toward ending open primaries.

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 11:22 AM

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?

I don’t mind RINOs in certain states. Scott Brown in MassachusettEs was a no-brainer. It’s the most liberal state in the union. You’re not gonna elect a Jim DeMint type up there. But that doesn’t mean we have to settle for Chuck Crist over Marco Rubio or David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz. We don’t have to put up with the GOP Senate leadership looking the other way while Leena Mancowski wages a selfish write-in campaign in Alaska after losing the primary fair and square to Joe Miller(who would’ve won that race easily BTW).

The problem I have with Karl Rove regardless of whether or not we take him at his word here is that the guy is a certified loser. Sure, he was “the architect” of a squeaker over Kerry in 2004(O-I-H-O effectively decided that race) and what was essentially a tie with Gore in 2000. But he also allowed the Bush White House to be destroyed by the Democrat/media complex by never responding to the constant lies and smears which coupled with his penchant for big government, big spending policies pretty much destroyed the Republican brand in 2006 and 2008.

And that brings us to 2012 where Rove spent over a 100 million bucks and all we got in the end was Indiana and Missouri’s electoral votes going back to the GOP(which I’d argue was gonna happen even if he’d spent only 5 cents) and a net loss in seats in the House and Senate. Sorry, but the man’s been a disaster for the Republican Party for the better part of a decade. He’s like the Bob Shrum of the GOP. Why in God’s name would anyone take the advice of(and give money to) someone who p-ssed away 9 figures like that and who did such a lousy job advising his former boss that Obama was able to successfully blame the state of the US economy on him nearly 4 years after he’d left office?

Doughboy on February 6, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Why didn’t he support Palins choice?

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:17 AM

A rhetorical question right? Support THAT woman???? She graduated from a State School in Idaho, for Heavens Sake!

Is she pudy, over-weight, pasty white? I think not, and hence her choices are simply declasse and suspect.

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM

the candidate who had the best chance of winning at the time

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Unsupported assertion. Assumes facts demonstrably not in evidence, nor indicated anywhere in the existing historical record.

Prove it.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Karl Rove’s torpedoing of Christine O’Donnell was unforgivable.

She won the primary, and the moderate class always demand that whomever loses the primary should immediately endorse the winner.

Yet we have Rove Republicans like Lisa Murkowski & Dick Lugar who refused and see what happened?

Murkowski ignores the Republican party nomination and runs indie.

Lugar refuses to endorse Mourdock, which would have given Mourdock the win.

Rove makes his own fertilizer. Let him grovel in it.

portlandon on February 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I’m so sick of the fighting between factions of the GOP.

We are supposed to be conservatives, adults and the “responsible” party.

Time to start acting like it.

gophergirl on February 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Particularly the “severely conservative” “electable” ones whose triumphal electoral inevitability is harbinged daily for months on end by wish-casting sites like “UnSkewedPolls.com,” and self-anointed GOP-e savants like Karl Rove… right?

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM

I might be misreading you here, in which case I profusely apologize. But are you actually asserting that UnskewedPolls was a tool of Romney and the establishment GOP? Because if you are, that’s a special kind of crazy.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I don’t want to see Rubios and Cruzes taken out because of electability concerns—what do you know, they *were* electable!

What needs to happen is a little more political expertise on the part of the Tea Party. Christine O’Donnell was a lesson on Why You Don’t Go With The Sacrificial Lamb—the opposition has had years to store crap up on them in the eventuality that Lambie becomes a threat. You think Bill Maher just found those videotapes in 2010? NO! They had those stored back for years, in case Joe Biden was caught with a dead midget tranny hooker.

In Delaware, the Tea Party either needed to find an alternative to both Castle AND O’Donnell, or spent all that money and energy on a more winnable race. As I recall, by the time anyone was looking at Delaware, the chance to run anyone else had passed. This is Politics 101. Can the Republic wait for the political learning curve of housewives and retirees?

Now for my Billingsgate on the Establishment: I doubt the Great Conspiracy Against Conservatism was as much to blame for the Tea Party getting hippy-punched in 2012 as was the July 2008 agreement for everybody to get behind Romney. As if nothing was going to happen (or be made to happen) between July 2008 and November 2012. 0bamacare was deliberately modeled on Massachusetts for the precise reason of killing that argument from Romney. Occupy Wall Street was astroturfed to target Bain Capital. The Tea Party was taking conservatism in a winning direction not foreseeable from July 2008….

But by gosh, by golly, a deal was a motherfreaking deal, dammit! Everyone agreed on Mitt Romney in the summer of 2008, and by gosh, they were going to make him bulletproof in the primary, damn everything else. To their shock, and far too late, the Establishment realized that getting behind one guy that early actually gave the 0bama campaign time to prepare their case against him *GASP!* And fulfilling their agreement with the Romney campaign alienated a whole lot of potential conservative voters, who stayed home in 2012. That was dumb. That was really dumb, for real.

Both sides need to smarten up. Embrace and guide the Tea Party, not into squishiness, but in how to pick good candidates with good resumes, anticipate the media, and eloquently put forth the case for conservatism.

Sekhmet on February 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Given Rove’s recent track record, I would think that if he wanted to get rid of Tea Party Conservatives that he would need only support them.

weaselyone on February 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Maybe, Mr. Rove, your idea of conservatism doesn’t fit the rest of us. You know, the millions of voters who didn’t want to hold their noses and vote for a squish AGAIN. Personally, I see Rove’s track record of pushing big government and don’t consider that my idea of limited government and free markets. Which is why I don’t listen to this putz anymore. He’s trying to stay relevant for the donors is all.

search4truth on February 6, 2013 at 11:27 AM

I’m so sick of the fighting between factions of the GOP.

We are supposed to be conservatives, adults and the “responsible” party.

Time to start acting like it.

gophergirl on February 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Amen gophergirl! I’m with you. We need to stop blaming our own failures on someone else. What are we? Democrats?

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Christine ODonnell had a résumé that could have been written on a pinhead and it took the Dems 30 seconds to uncover she couldn’t even pay her apartment rent in a timely fashion. Yet there was Mark Levin championing her purely for the fact she wasn’t Mike Castle. Maybe Rove means that.

And maybe he means the phony Democrat candidates no one’s heard of but register in primaries as “Tea Party!!” because the party powers on the left think its a clever ruse.

Marcus on February 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM

If that’s the case, then more power to him. Whatever. The bigger problem is getting “establishment” Republicans to adhere to principled governance. What difference between an (R) and a (D) when they’re both spending us to bankruptcy, arming the Muslim Brotherhood, and opening our borders? Those are the kind of decisions which ALLOW for a Christine O’Donnell or a Sharron Angle.

If this is about winnowing out the Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock types who initially talk a good game and then implode on their own stupidity, yeah… I get it. Good plan. But it has to be MORE than that. It can’t just be about putting (R)s in seats. Those (R)s have to stand for something.

Murf76 on February 6, 2013 at 11:27 AM

hannity still calling himself a “conservative” and referring to rove as the “architect”.

i guess they’re still living in their pre-2008 fantasy world

renalin on February 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Unsupported assertion. Assumes facts demonstrably not in evidence, nor indicated anywhere in the existing historical record.

Prove it.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Annnd now I know you’re a fool. This is politics, not a court of law. I make my assertions, you make yours. I just asked you to make the case for another candidate in 2008 or 2012. I understand you not being able to do that, of course – as mediocre a candidate as Romney was, he was the best in a field of garbage.

I’ll take your lack of response, then, as all the “proof” I need (ha) that my point stands unchallenged.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Didn’t Rove proclaim that Obama was unelectable, and Hillary was the real opponent in 2008?

BobMbx on February 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I might be misreading you here, in which case I profusely apologize.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM

You are, and you should… assuming, of course, actual ignorance on your part, and not simply a special kind of disingenuousness.

Tough call, though, that.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM

I know there’s some conservatives who’s main goal is not winning elections and changing public policy, but simply thumping their chest and beating these mystical “establishment” candidates.

BradTank on February 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Uh, from what I’m seeing here, it’s apparently the GOP party hacks whose goal is to “chest thump” and who have little interest in actually changing public policy. Apparently, there are many here who would rather to continue to make excuses for and prop up massive electoral disasters such as Rove and American Crossroads and loser candidates like Carly Fiorina, George Allen, and Tommy Thompson instead of actually winning elections.

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM

If this is about winnowing out the Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock types who initially talk a good game and then implode on their own stupidity, yeah… I get it. Good plan. But it has to be MORE than that. It can’t just be about putting (R)s in seats. Those (R)s have to stand for something.

Murf76 on February 6, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Exactly. It does absolutely nothing for us to put Rebumblicans in seats if they have less brains than a liberal troll and less spine than a jellyfish. People stay home because of that, and I find it hard to blame them.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM

The 2004 elections? Oh right, that would be the last time we won a majority in the Senate, and the last time the GOP has won a presidential election. Rove totally dropped the ball on that one, didn’t he?

I’m so glad we’re trusting candidate selection and backing to smarter people now. Sens. McCaskill, Reid, Coons, Bennet, and Donnelly certainly are.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Uhhh… If the only way republicans win is to to repeat 2004, I’d rather lose.

I don’t want big government progressives running the country, regardless of what party they’re in. If we’re going to go full speed off the monetary and fiscal cliffs, I don’t want any part in it.

And while Obama is terrible, Bush was still pretty bad. Frankly, I blame Bush for Obama being president and for setting precedents on medical entitlements, hugely expanding federal control over schools, bailing out banks (crony capitalism at its worst), setting the “new normal” with deficits, loss of civil liberties, undeclared and unending world wide wars that we don’t seem to WANT to win…

Forget it, if the option is between a Bush-like candidate and an Obama-like candidate, I’ll stay home every time.

Timin203 on February 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM

rrpjr on February 6, 2013 at 11:19 AM

That’s my view also, which is why I won’t be taking any of his great advice and certainly won’t be giving him any money. I’m sure he isn’t all wrong, but then neither am I and I’m not trying to pick your pocket.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Unsupported assertion. Assumes facts demonstrably not in evidence, nor indicated anywhere in the existing historical record.

Prove it.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Annnd now I *SNIP*

Lack of support for central argument, noted.

Quelle shock.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Was there a point in your comment other than an attempt at sounding deranged? Watch the video again and see if you can spot Karls inconsistency.

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Perhaps I should have used unhinged in the place of deranged. No matter. Point made.

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Guys, the House of Representatives holds the purse strings. While I know that the Senate is mucking up a lot of their works, do they appear to be trying to hold down spending?

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Forget it, if the option is between a Bush-like candidate and an Obama-like candidate, I’ll stay home every time.

Timin203 on February 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Staying home when Roseanne Barr is on the ballot is not an option. :D

Archivarix on February 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM

What are we? Democrats?

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Only if the likes of Karl Rove continue to have their maladroit way.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM

When I was a little kid my dad got me a set of World Book encyclopedias. It turned out to be the best things he coulda got me. It was easy to read. When I got bored (and we’re talkin’ circa mid 1960′s), I read the darn things for fun. Except for maybe Vol T; the big picture of a tarantula used to scare the hell out of me. My knowledge of tartan patterns suffered.

But a World Book gets out of date. You could get a Year Book with updated articles, but when the set gets ten, fifteen years old, its entertainment value may still be high, but it becomes less reliable for information.

Rove is a walking encyclopedia, but stopped getting Year Books back in 2005.

apostic on February 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Ed, something seems to be wrong with the site. Whn I go back to hom, it nds to be rfreshed. same with going to the threads. I think others were having the same problem.

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM

I think Rove’s mistake in saying Ohio was still winnable wan’t him in denial. I think Rove was using his knowledge of the 2000 and 2004 election and thinking nothing had changed in Ohio for 2012. In other words Rove runs the GWB campaign over and over and we have a different dynamic and his message of compassionate conservatism or whatever you want to call his form of triangulation with groups like Latinos isn’t going to work over and over. We need new blood.

Conan on February 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

What’s so stupid about the way Rove refused to concede O-I-H-O was that it was irrelevant at that point. Even if Romney had pulled off the win in that state, it was obvious by then that Florida and Wisconsin were gone and Virginia wasn’t looking too good. Romney needed O-I-H-O and those other 3 states to pull off the electorate college victory and we all knew by that point that it wasn’t gonna happen.

Doughboy on February 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Let me see if I get this straight. 1994 a bunch of Conservatives take over the House by standing up for Conservative values. Then through several elections they continue to stand fairly united. Then in 2000 we get Big Government Bush 2 and the Rovians taking over and pushing, well, Big Government Compassionate Conservatism(basically continuing the progressive push of Clinton)and the congress fails to stand against him(for the most part) because Rove says it will make the pres look less presidential. This gets us to 2006 when the Socialists take over congress because they can outspend Bush(and Bush fails to stand up to it) Then in 2010 a new bunch of Conservatives take back the House by running and standing on Conservative values and Rove wants to immediately switch back to the losing ways of Bush?
Our problem is not with policies. We need to show and convince people that Conservative values work best (because they do) and we will start winning again. This is very difficult because the media is 90 percent against us, but it can be done. Look at Ted Cruz. He is getting out there on just about every issue and talking about why these things work. The press is trying to ignore him but it’s starting to get out. We also need to stop crushing our side when they make a stupid gaffe. We need to correct them and help them overcome them. Not force them to lose. Train the Conservatives how to deal with the media not throw them to the wolves.

Corsair on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Guys, the House of Representatives holds the purse strings. While I know that the Senate is mucking up a lot of their works, do they appear to be trying to hold down spending?

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Not that I can see. They should be passing bills NOW, even if they are ignored by the Senate.

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Timin203 on February 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I don’t know what you want me to tell you, then.

2004 was pretty much the Waterloo of the culture wars; social conservatism has been in decline since then, and the younger generation is now split between liberals and libertarians.

Which is actually quite hilarious, because they also are a part of the spoiled, entitled electorate that votes in presidential elections these days. I think one statement sums it up – in 2012, the voters picked the guy promising them money over the guy promising them a job.

One can hardly blame politicians for understanding what kind of philosophy is capable of getting 51% in today’s America. Like it or not, small-government conservatism is a minority in this country. Ron Paul was right (only time I think I’ll say that) – it’s a hard sell.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Only if the likes of Karl Rove continue to have their maladroit way.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Unfortunately it appears they will…we chose folly twice on a national basis and wisdom has all but been put on a bus with a one-way ticket.

Frankly I say run Palin/Limbaugh or some similarly fruity ticket in 2016 just so we can go out with a bang.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Ladies and gentlemen: The *A*R*C*H*I*T*E*C*T, in all his wonder mnd glory.

Marvel, agog. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Gee Bmore it was JOKE? How was it deranged…apparently Palin is not one of “us” and seems to be despised…so why would Mr Establishment actually follow her lead?

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5