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 4 5

*and

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Brent Bozell pushing back hard against Karl Rove

portlandon on February 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM

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

Exactly. “evil isolationist you-know-what h8r” knows darn well how alluring the Free Stuff, Sex, and Drugs Party is to young people. It’s as addictive as crack and twice as destructive.

He was also right that we cannot be the world’s babysitter. But I think I’m just going to have to let the fiscal cliff teach that lesson.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:37 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

We’re belly-aching like a bunch of whining Obamas.

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Some one ask Karl Rove what he was thinking as he watched the Texas Republican Convention before the primemary election between Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst.

Ted Cruz an unknown, tea party, base of the party guy, no money, no name person, who went to hundreds of tea party and other events all over Texas, and shook hands, made talks, answered questions, ask for money from us normal people.

David Dewhurst, would not go to tea party events, went to $1,000 a plate elite 40th floor dinners in dowwn town Houston, Austin, Dalls, Ft. Worth.

At the convention,,, Ted by a draw gets to speak first. He comes to the microphone, huge 5 min long standing ovation, he trys to talk, time after time more standing ovations, he ends huge standing ovation, the whole time thousands of “Ted Cruz For Senate Banners every where”.

David Dewhurst, the Party Establishment guy, Bush buddy, got rich on co-generation deal that former establishment Gov. put in place for guys like him , he got party hand out access to Texas Lakes where the water needed was.

Dewhust comes to the microphone. Three to Four “Dewhurst for Senate signs waived”. Only a spattering if polite applause.
Long boring talk. Polite applause, the same 3 or 4 signs waving.

This is where Karl Rove is at now, and he does not like it one dam bit.l

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 6, 2013 at 11:37 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.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Note for posterity, please: on this, we well and truly agree. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Ahhhhhhhhh . . . . . . (sigh of relief) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thank goodness, I can stop worrying about that.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM

P.S. Just looked up Palins track record on picks. None to shabby. Good instincts? Or are you just completely off the rails with hysteria this day?

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

P.S. Just looked up Palins track record on picks. None to shabby. Good instincts? Or are you just completely off the rails with hysteria this day?

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

He’s Kunt18′s butt-buddy, hysteria (and denial) are his trademarks.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Very well. I didn’t perceive it as such. My apologies.

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:40 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

It looks to me like getting burnt on Akin is the impetus for the change. Rove expounds upon just that in this Politico piece:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/karl-rove-defends-super-pac-cites-todd-akin-87245.html

I do think he’s going to have to have to implement some sort of quality control on which candidates his PAC is willing to back though. Rove has a reputation for only focusing on the (R), so in order for him to redeem himself with conservatives he’s going to have to address that.

Murf76 on February 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I go back to when Rove was in charge in 2002-06, he forced liberal Republicans down our throats. Yes in 2004 they won but America lost because those liberal republicans did not balance the budget and we did not get any conservative reforms.

BroncosRock on February 6, 2013 at 11:41 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

We’re belly-aching like a bunch of whining Obamas.

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM

More importantly, however: under the slack-jawed admiralty of the assorted Roves currently rotting the GOP from within: we’re losing like a bunch of Dukakis.

“Stay the course, for sweet, sweet comity’s sake,” demonstrably, is not enough to remedy that situation.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

rhombus on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

I actually think that they have passed some bills but instead of comparing and contrasting them, they just whine that the Senate has ignored them. They can’t honestly think that the media is going to look at them and inform the public, we need less lawyers and more salesmen.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

OMG Bmore I was supporting PALIN…are you that sarcasm-challenged!?

See when someone talks about pudgy, over-weight white guyz, more than likely he’s pokig fun at THEM, NOT Sarah Palin….

And hence the diatribe, Palin didn’t go to the right schools, Palin isn’t a pudgy over-weight white guy, OF COURSE Rove isn’t going to follow her lead…satire/sarcasm/irony….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM

More importantly, however: under the slack-jawed admiralty of the assorted Roves currently rotting the GOP from within: we’re losing like a bunch of Dukakis.

“Stay the course, for sweet, sweet comity’s sake,” demonstrably, is not enough to remedy that situation.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Probably the only time I’ll say this, but brilliant comparison.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:43 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

2004 was fool’s gold. Yes, a lot of social conservatives turned out. You know why though? Because late that summer when people were starting to tune into the election, that idiot Mayor of San Fran, Gavin Nuisance, was trying to shove gay marriage down everyone’s throats. True, the electorate was more opposed to it 8 1/2 years ago compared to today, but the backlash also help mobilize social conservative voters who turned out in droves for Bush that November. Also, it’s worth considering that Bush still had enough goodwill from a slight majority of the electorate 3 years removed from 9/11 that it helped push him over the finish line.

What’s funny is that the Dems are in the process of potentially making the same mistake in the wake of 2012 that the GOP did 8 years ago. Assuming that a vast majority of the country has changed ideologically just because their candidate won a relatively close election(1 state decided 2004; 4 states decided 2012). When in actuality it likely just came down to voters liking Obama more than Romney(much like they preferred Bush over Kerry) and enough goodwill shown toward the incumbent over a tough situation inherited(much like Bush in 2004) that he was given 4 more years to make good on his promises.

The only difference between 2004 and 2012 is that the Dems stuck to their principles going forward from the Kerry loss. The Republicans in the aftermath of Romney’s defeat seem to be in a desperate rush to move as far left as possible to accommodate Obama.

Doughboy on February 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Yeah Meloncollie mostly though I’m not a Joo-fearin’, white person lovin’ Paul-bot….

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Probably the only time I’ll say this, but brilliant comparison.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM

I genuinely admire a man who can publicly own up to his own shortcomings, however grudgingly.

There. Now we’re even. Shut up, and try not to spoil the moment. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Like it or not, small-government conservatism is a minority in this country.
KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Well, gee, I am all about doing what is popular instead of what works. The obvious truth is that we are going to have to fall flat on our collective faces before the rest of the public wakes up and conservatives will have the unsatisfying task of saying “We told you so!”.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM

JFKY on February 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Again, my apology for my misreading of your original comment. I do however fully expect the gilled one to show up shortly, having had Sarah’s name mention a few times here already. ; )

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM

He’s Kunt18′s butt-buddy, hysteria (and denial) are his trademarks.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Your intellect is only exceeded by your charm.

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I look at this as going to a knife fight and the other side happens to show up with a gun. I take Rove (his partner in this is Haley Barbour, never known as squish) at his word on this and that he is only trying to be a help, not a hinderance. We need big guns to win the war.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 11:47 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

Do you think he’d actually have the nerve to show up? I guess he might……hanging around Jeb Bush like a puppy dog.

tencole on February 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM

mention=mentioned

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Your intellect is only exceeded by your charm.

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Right back at ya, crazy cat woman.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Rove, you magnificent b@stard!

trigon on February 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Corsair on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

You are correct.

Rove used the Unified Republican Coalitions for the 2000 & 2004 elections, abused them, and shattered it to pieces. They grew Government, and their “compassionate Conservatism” has lead us to bleeding heart liberalization of the Republican Party.

portlandon on February 6, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Train the Conservatives how to deal with the media not throw them to the wolves.

Corsair on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Rove, every other adviser, and anyone considering getting in for 2014 should read this from Powerlineblog. Schadenfreude linked to it last night in the Scott Walker thread. It’s likely the best thing I’ve read about how to win in the last 2 years.

Oh, and by the way. Mr. Walker has been practicing David Horowitz’s model with great success.

CTSherman on February 6, 2013 at 11:49 AM

…I have a speech defect today…Ruck Rove!

KOOLAID2 on February 6, 2013 at 11:49 AM

…I have a speech defect today…Ruck Rove!

KOOLAID2 on February 6, 2013 at 11:49 AM

X-D
…for some reason I read that in a Scooby Doo voice…

Hey, maybe they can unmask Obama as a thief trying to scare everyone into obeying him!

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM

“We told you so!”.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Yes, that routine has become too routine. I grow weary. P.S I have not forgotten you. I found a nice piece of plum, as I know it was your fav, just haven’t had time to turn. I have a cold and am busy trying to get some money making work done. Soon. Otherwise the default is Juniper. ; )

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM

…I have a speech defect today…Ruck Rove!

KOOLAID2 on February 6, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Unvarnished truth is never, ever a defect. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Like it or not, small-government conservatism is a minority in this country.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Well, gee, I am all about doing what is popular instead of what works.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Well, golly gee. It’s not like we have a political party whose job, ostensibly, it is to sell free market principles and small government conservatism to the populace and represent those values in governance. They don’t actually ever do it. But that’s what their supposed to do. Maybe if they actually promoted and proposed principles and policies of free markets and free people, and then demonstrated the benefits of the same to the people when they got a chance to govern, small-government conservatism might be a little more popular, no?

besser tot als rot on February 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Well, golly gee. It’s not like we have a political party whose job, ostensibly, it is to sell free market principles and small government conservatism to the populace and represent those values in governance. They don’t actually ever do it. But that’s what their supposed to do. Maybe if they actually promoted and proposed principles and policies of free markets and free people, and then demonstrated the benefits of the same to the people when they got a chance to govern, small-government conservatism might be a little more popular, no?

besser tot als rot on February 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM

“Oh, now. That’s just crazy talk, that is!”

/Rove/Morris/Rubin/National Review

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 11:55 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?

If we’re left to deciding such things in a formulaic manner, we’re screwed. I thought the GOP was supposed to be the party of ideas and innovation. Surely, we can do a dynamic analysis in every race and make a determination on what will give us the optimal results or possibilities? Sometimes, the establishment RINO will be the best bet (e.g., Castle), sometimes not (Romney, Crist). Sometimes, the small government conservative will be the best bet (Rand Paul, Cruz, Rubio), sometimes not (COD – though I hesitate to put that charlatan in this category at all, but I know some people do).

besser tot als rot on February 6, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Well, gee, I am all about doing what is popular instead of what works. The obvious truth is that we are going to have to fall flat on our collective faces before the rest of the public wakes up and conservatives will have the unsatisfying task of saying “We told you so!”.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Probably. But we’re not there yet.

And every election until that happens, candidates espousing small-government conservatism will be at a disadvantage. And losing with honor is still losing.

Now, if, if, if you’re convinced that it’s coming, it only makes sense to hasten it. Therefore, you should vote for the biggest spendthrift, the biggest moral reprobate, the most irresponsible candidate, every time.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I’m sick of Rove and the tea party.

You’re both tedious. The rest of us are moving on.

Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

besser tot als rot on February 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM

I’m with you, per my comment at 11:42. They are waiting for the media to help them out. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 12:01 PM

The rest of us are moving on.

Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Let us know when you get there and what you find.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Didn’t Rove think Romney was actually going to win? Didn’t he actually get in an on-air fight about it on FOX news the night of the election? How is it that this loon has any credibility left?

While I harp upon that string, how is it that anyone associated with the Romney campaign has the temerity to even lift their pointy little heads above the ground where they’ve been hiding like gophers since November when every single hypothesis about Romney’s “electability” or alleged “conservatism” was proven false in every respect?

casuist on February 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM

I take Rove [...] at his word on this

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Charlie Brown. Football. Lucy.

Mix well, allow to set. Serves eight years of Obama (so far); additional four to eight years of Hillary also a possibility.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM

I think maybe some of the Tea Party folks and Rove are talking past one another; remember Rove is less of an idealogue and more of a tactician. He’s just trying to figure out how to put together coalitions and candidates that can win. Just as a football coach he doesn’t feel a loss based on principle does anyone any good.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I’m sorry you are under the weather, I know you bride will take care of you. I don’t think I really could pick between those two, they were so so beautiful. Anyway, I’m not going anywhere. Or at least if I do, you know how to find me.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 12:04 PM

As long as the republican establishment continues to allow the opposition to define them does it matter who the candidates are. Instead of action we get reaction. If they could articulate why fiscal conservatism works and socialism doesnt, get the message out and resonate with the voters they will continue to lose and we’ll continue to go down the tubes. I dont actually think Rove and his ilk can do that because they arent really fiscal conservatives.

ldbgcoleman on February 6, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Everyone who complaining about Romney as our candidate in ’12 can critique his effort and stratagy, howerever Rove e’tal can only back the players who are in the game.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Therefore, you should vote for the biggest spendthrift, the biggest moral reprobate, the most irresponsible candidate, every time. KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Now that doesn’t make sense, I want to be able to say “I told you so”. I’m not looking for speed, I’ll leave that to Obama, I’m looking for competence. And in ruining the nation, again, I’m leaving that to Obama and Democrats in general.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM


Sometimes, the establishment RINO will be the best bet (e.g., Castle), sometimes not (Romney, Crist).

Would prefer a Democrat to a RINO. At least I am not forced to listen to the media tout every statist government-expanding proposal as ‘bipartisan’ when in reality there are no partisans because ‘party’ has become meaningless in our era of a federal super-state that consumes more wealth than our nation could ever hope to produce, hence our unsustainable billions shading into trillions level deficits, and our upwards of US$16tn national debt.

The laws of physics are going to kick in sooner or later. Sooner, I think, rather than later, the fed is going to default. Then all hell will break loose.

casuist on February 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM

[KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM]

I tend to agree with you. I wish we weren’t talking so exclusively about the mere question of whether a candidate is conservative or how conservative he or she is.

It seems to me the issue is about who can make the sale to the public and with that, both conservatives and RINOs can be just as incapable of doing it and be just as likely to screw it up. The wins and losses are influenced just as much by what the candidate says during the campaign as it is by how they say they will vote when elected.

The problem the Tea Party has, or had may be a better word, is that they were running a bootstrap effort and were in a way stuck going to war with the people they had, people like O’Donnell or Angle, or Akin. That is not unsurprising with a grassroots effort just getting off the ground, and especially so when the people you have to choose from is restricted to those who volunteer to do it.

It’s been 4 years now, two elections cycles. Tea Party types are filling the ranks of the generic ‘establishment’ and the options will grow from the very limited choices we had in 2010 and 2012.

The 2014 campaign will be much more likely to show whether Rove is true to his word that he’ll go with the conservative that is most likely to win because more established conservatives will be among the choices after 6 years of work getting them established.

And, personally, I’d still prefer to see more work at the state level. We need states solidly behind working day in and day out on cutting the federal government down to size. That also has the additional advantage of getting conservatives ‘established’ so Rove has more options in his effort to keep his word.

Dusty on February 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Now that doesn’t make sense, I want to be able to say “I told you so”. I’m not looking for speed, I’ll leave that to Obama, I’m looking for competence. And in ruining the nation, again, I’m leaving that to Obama and Democrats in general.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Competence? That’s the establishment candidates in spades. The whole point is that they’re competent, but willing to sacrifice principle for electoral advantage. Isn’t that the entirety of the case against them?

And if you’re just looking to say “I told you so,” then you should be overjoyed that Rove’s doing what he’s doing. He’s opposing principled candidates who have less of a chance to win. If you win, you lose the ability to say “I told you so.”

Just look at the career of Allen West, a tea-party darling if ever there was one. Got elected in the 2010 wave, wound up whipping votes on the debt ceiling deal, then failed to adapt to his changing district and wound up out on his ear.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM

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

Well let’s just give up then, because a small-government philosophy is the only thing that can save us. Nothing else matters anymore; the only difference between big-government progressives and big-government “conservatives” (which is an oxymoron) is whether we face bankruptcy and fiscal doom sooner or later. I’d prefer sooner, because the sooner it happens the sooner we can pick up the pieces and start rebuilding. In any case, the Bushtard wing of the party is not the answer and never will be and Rove is steaming pile of fail.

Walter Sobchak on February 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I look at this as going to a knife fight and the other side happens to show up with a gun. I take Rove (his partner in this is Haley Barbour, never known as squish) at his word on this and that he is only trying to be a help, not a hinderance. We need big guns to win the war.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Thanks. That gave me a good laugh.

steebo77 on February 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Just look at the career of Allen West, a tea-party darling if ever there was one. Got elected in the 2010 wave, wound up whipping votes on the debt ceiling deal, then failed to adapt to his changing district and wound up out on his ear.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM

His changing district? You mean the one that got gerrymandered out of existence?

Walter Sobchak on February 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM


Everyone who complaining about Romney as our candidate in ’12 can critique his effort and stratagy, howerever Rove e’tal can only back the players who are in the game.

Would that that were true. But it isn’t. The reason for the GOP primary clown-circus is that that Romney’s funders and Rove’s own clique of big-money players closed ranks early around Romney so that no credible candidate could challenge the hapless “numbers guy” and failed former single term governor, who, as it turns out, couldn’t read a damned poll. The fix was in in 2010. The primaries themselves were but an afterthought. The irony is that Romney STILL almost lost the GOP primary contest.

I’m surprised that Rove commands any respect among any funder after the non-performance of his super-expensive but completely meaningless non-needle moving ad buys of 2012 in support of that Romney guy that everyone with any sense knew was going to lose in a blow-out.

casuist on February 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Rove is steaming pile of fail.

Walter Sobchak on February 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM


^ THIS ^
Were Turd Blossom held to precisely the same standards of accountability, re: electoral wins and losses, by the GOP-e’s assorted apologists and willing online catamites, as any given House or Senate candidate: he’d have been promptly and summarily discarded, back in November of ’08.

Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:18 PM

His changing district? You mean the one that got gerrymandered out of existence?

Walter Sobchak on February 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Oh, right, I forgot. Allen West was muscled out by a grand conspiracy of John Boehner, the Florida GOP, Charlie Crist, the Illuminati, Mrs. Calabash, and Mr. Gorsky.

Nobody’s entitled to a safe seat. Rep. West chose to project a message to a national conservative audience instead of his own constituents. So he lost.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 12:20 PM

“so that no credible candidate could challenge the hapless ‘numbers guy’”

[casuist on February 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM]

Who was the credible candidate you had in mind?

To my mind, there was a reason people went for Romney early, and I don’t fault them for it. There was no one else.

Dusty on February 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Everyone who complaining about Romney as our candidate in ’12 can critique his effort and stratagy, howerever Rove e’tal can only back the players who are in the game.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Seriously?!?….Rove put him there!

tencole on February 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Good luck and Gods speed!

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 12:23 PM

casuist on February 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Romney wouldn’t have been ny first choice either, IF we had someone else who was willing, ready, and able. The others had more than their share of chances (20+debates) to seperate themselves, unforunately they couldn’t.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Look in the mirror, fool Boehner.

Schadenfreude on February 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Write, if you get work.

kingsjester on February 6, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Would that that were true. But it isn’t. The reason for the GOP primary clown-circus is that that Romney’s funders and Rove’s own clique of big-money players closed ranks early around Romney so that no credible candidate could challenge the hapless “numbers guy” and failed former single term governor, who, as it turns out, couldn’t read a damned poll.

casuist on February 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Nor efficiently oversee the establishment/operation of an even marginally effective GOTV effort, come election day; nor, manage to win either his own birth state (Michigan) or the one state in which he’d previously bumbled away a governorship (Massachusetts); nor, cringe-inducingly, even convincingly sell himself as a reasonable alternative to The Worst Sitting Incumbent EVER in U.S. Presidential History.

Pfui.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:25 PM

I will concede that the folks that can get elected in the Northeast are never going to be my idea of great candidates and so I won’t badmouth them. Let’s have the same treatment for the candidates from the South and West who tend to be more in line with my idea of conservatives. I’ll stop calling your guys squishes, if you’ll will stop calling mine knuckle dragging racist Neanderthals.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 12:26 PM

West, was redistricted to a site 30 miles from his home, then again the fellow who was moved into his district, Hasner, also lost, it was a meltdown across the state,

narciso on February 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I’m sick of Rove and the tea party.

You’re both tedious. The rest of us are moving on.

Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

All three of you?

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

He’s just trying to figure out how to put together coalitions and candidates that can win. Just as a football coach he doesn’t feel a loss based on principle does anyone any good.

Tater Salad on February 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM

No, he’s the football coach who goes for the tie in order to make it to over-time and then loses in the last minute because he thinks the other coach will do the same.

LoganSix on February 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

I’m sick of Rove and the tea party.

You’re both tedious. The rest of us are moving on.

Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Cue the national day of mourning.

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Nobody’s entitled to a safe seat.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 12:20 PM

That includes Mike Castle.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I will concede that the folks that can get elected in the Northeast are never going to be my idea of great candidates and so I won’t badmouth them. Let’s have the same treatment for the candidates from the South and West who tend to be more in line with my idea of conservatives. I’ll stop calling your guys squishes, if you’ll will stop calling mine knuckle dragging racist Neanderthals.

Cindy Munford on February 6, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Will NEVER Happen!

SPOT ON CINDY.

ToddPA on February 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM

One can hardly blame politicians for understanding what kind of philosophy is capable of getting 51% in today’s America.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

And big government squishdom isn’t capable of getting anything more than 47%.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Nobody’s entitled to a safe seat.

KingGold on February 6, 2013 at 12:20 PM

That includes Mike Castle.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

… and, sweet mercy willing, all the assorted Boehners and Murkowskis of the party. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM

West, was redistricted to a site 30 miles from his home, then again the fellow who was moved into his district, Hasner, also lost, it was a meltdown across the state,

narciso on February 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Please don’t confuse King with facts.

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

And big government squishdom isn’t capable of getting anything more than 47%.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM

… against (“One mo’ once!” as Count Basie used to say) The Most Demonstrably and Catastrophically Unqualified Opposing Candidate in all of recorded U.S. presidential history.

Ever.

TWICE.

… but, you know: “E*L*E*C*T*A*B*I*L*I*T*Y!!!” Or something. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Sounds like what we heard during the last election “Romney is running as a conservative and is the only one who can beat Obama”. BULL! No Republican candidate can win without the conservative vote. Karl Rove is not a conservative, he is an Establishment Republican who mocked Sarah Palin and many of the 2010 midterm TEA Party candidates. Sean Hannity made his point even though Karl Rove did everything he could to talk over and dismiss it.

lea on February 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM


Who was the credible candidate you had in mind?

To my mind, there was a reason people went for Romney early, and I don’t fault them for it. There was no one else.

Nonsense. This is the lie that the Romney campaign wanted you to believe: Hey, I’m flawed–hell, I’m a progressive!–but I’m all you losers have, so put up or shut up.

The truth is that We have lots of effective Republican governors–a far deeper bench than the DNC–who could have run but chose not to because the big-money donors organized by Rove and Romney closed ranks around Romney. Hence all we got was a clown named Romney yet he STILL almost lost the side-show tent of never-had-a-chancers who contested his claim for the GOP nomination.

casuist on February 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM

… against (“One mo’ once!” as Count Basie used to say) The Most Demonstrably and Catastrophically Unqualified Opposing Candidate in all of recorded U.S. presidential history.

Ever.

TWICE.

… but, you know: “E*L*E*C*T*A*B*I*L*I*T*Y!!!” Or something. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Exactly. And the same losing clowns are firing it up again, telling the GOP how to REALLY win next time, baby.

They’re discredited. They’re jokes.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM

This:


Nor efficiently oversee the establishment/operation of an even marginally effective GOTV effort, come election day; nor, manage to win either his own birth state (Michigan) or the one state in which he’d previously bumbled away a governorship (Massachusetts); nor, cringe-inducingly, even convincingly sell himself as a reasonable alternative to The Worst Sitting Incumbent EVER in U.S. Presidential History.

casuist on February 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM

katy the mean old lady on February 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

One can only set the conversational bar so low, and no lower, without ultimately resorting to flash cards, or finger puppets. Have a heart. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM

You’re both tedious. The rest of us are moving on.

Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Is there more than one being inhabiting Moesart’s body?

steebo77 on February 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM

One can only set the conversational bar so low, and no lower, without ultimately resorting to flash cards, or finger puppets. Have a heart. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM

She wants Harvard-level debate from everyone on a political site, and snips when she doesn’t get it. Would be funny if she wasn’t so sad.

MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Is there more than one being inhabiting Moesart’s body?

steebo77 on February 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Do what they did in The Three Faces of Eve. Demand an audience with the core personality. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Brent Bozell pushing back hard against Karl Rove

portlandon on February 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Very well stated by Brent Bozell. Thank you.

lea on February 6, 2013 at 12:51 PM

This is all a GOPe diversion anyway. The more they can talk about Akin and O’Donnell and Mourdoch and Angle, the less they have to explain why their Mr Electable Inevitable got his ass handed to him.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 12:54 PM

The rest of us are moving on.

Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM

So that’s who the gilled one means by ‘we’.

wolfsDad on February 6, 2013 at 1:01 PM

If the goal is to nominate the most conservative candidate who’s electable, how do you determine who’s “electable”?

Yeah, good question. I’ve asked it a lot. It seems the answer to that one is “whoever the establishment says is more electable”.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Will the answer perchance depend on how likely a candidate is, if elected, to make trouble for the GOP establishment?

Eggggggzackly.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM

This is all a GOPe diversion anyway. The more they can talk about Akin and O’Donnell and Mourdoch and Angle, the less they have to explain why their Mr Electable Inevitable got his ass handed to him.

ddrintn on February 6, 2013 at 12:54 PM

“… and I would have gotten away with it, too, if not for that accursed, meddling Wasilla snowbilly she-creature!!!” (GOP-e, circa 2008)

“… and I would have gotten away with it, too, if not for some otherwise anonymous senatorial candidate out there in — what? Missorida? Arkanbama? One of those stinking, accursed ‘bitter clinger’ states, at any rate!!!” (GOP-e, circa 2012)

Come 2016, and Jebbie’s manifestly certain upcoming annihilation against the Cankles machine: they’ll be reduced to spluttering dyspeptically about interference from sun spots, or rogue weather balloons, in order to rationalize away their continuing failure. ;)

Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM

The guilding principles of the gop establishment in D.C.?

1. Power

2. Making sure their own teat to the Federal Sow doesn’t get cut off.

3. Defeating any threat to growing the influence and power of all their friends at the Georgetown cocktail parties.

THAT is what “electable” means to Karl “Bush man” Rove.

I heard the dog whistle to limited government Conservatives.

PappyD61 on February 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM

The guy whom the RNC scroomed.

Schadenfreude on February 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM


Come 2016, and Jebbie’s manifestly certain upcoming annihilation against the Cankles machine: they’ll be reduced to spluttering dyspeptically about interference from sun spots, or rogue weather balloons, in order to rationalize away their continuing failure. ;)

What will be left to nationalize by that point, I wonder? The largest single sector of our economy has already been absorbed by the federal super-state after the model of RomneyCare, something called ObamaCare or something.

casuist on February 6, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Rove and his whining and needing more money reminds me of the $8,000,000 that Dick Armey reportedly sucked out of FREEDOM WORKS for all his prowess and political juggernautness (yes, I made it a new word).

$8,000,000 from TEA PARTY supporters for what?

Only INDIVIDUAL candidates will be getting any monies from Possum Holler.

PappyD61 on February 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Competence? That’s the establishment candidates in spades. The whole point is that they’re competent, but willing to sacrifice principle for electoral advantage. Isn’t that the entirety of the case against them?

The case against them is that they sell themselves this way, but in fact sacrifice principle to gain exactly nothing. In other words, they declare themselves “competent,” “the only one who can win,” “a serious candidate” and then go on to lose spectacularly.

Ultimately, from where I’m sitting it’s looking more and more like the party leadership is simply not interested in winning national elections anymore, and simply want to cling to power within the Republican party structure at any cost.

Doomberg on February 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM

If the goal is to nominate the most conservative candidate who’s electable, how do you determine who’s “electable”

The bigger question is who decides that Karl–the little folks or the ruling class GOP as they did when they systematically destroyed Sarah Palin before we got to vote for or against her. The panicked and sent Rove, Will, Noonan, Parker, Krauthammer, Ingraham, acid-Ann Coulter and her soulmate Chris Christie (twice)then finished her off with a couple of well-aimed Dick Cheney wingshots as he went after her publicly (once for daring to support Cruz).
Anyone who doesn’t see the GOP hit job is blind.Anyone who assumes their failures to fight back hard is also blind.
Rove is now caught, but he is just an GOP elitist mouthpiece and the enemy is not Obama –it is us!

Don L on February 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

With that line of thinking Ron Johnson and Pat Toomey wouldn’t be senators now (from a blue state and a blueish purple state). To go with his logic, I guess Rick Berg, Denny Rehnberg, Heather Wilson and a few other moderates were too conservative to be elected (and some of those are in red states).

ritewhit on February 6, 2013 at 1:40 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?

When you are at WAR, better loaded guns (Conservatives) than empty ones (RINOS)

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Turd Blossom is full of crap!

MCGIRV on February 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM

To all:

Stop bitching and whinning… Enough with this oh woe me I am poor victim bull sh*t and the mean Republican establishment is picking on me… What do you expect? To have what ever guy you like runs without opposition in the primaries? It is not going to happen and you need to live with this absolute fact of political life in a democratic system of elections. There are primaries and people challenge each others in the primaries… Each faction put its candidate and each faction should do everything to make sure that its candidate wins… Therefore do your best to have your guy wins… It is that f***ing simple…

mnjg on February 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Long boring talk. Polite applause, the same 3 or 4 signs waving.

This is where Karl Rove is at now, and he does not like it one dam bit.l

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Love the description! We’ll try to get RINOPAC Rove to follow the defeat of Dewhurst!!

bluefox on February 6, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5