Rove: The GOP needs more Rand Pauls and fewer Christine O’Donnells

posted at 1:31 pm on February 18, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Karl Rove has been taking a lot of heat over the past few weeks for his new I-swear-this-isn’t-about-smothering-the-Tea-Party PAC-extension, whose mission is to help nominate what they deem to be the most ‘electable’ candidates ahead of the 2014 midterms. Rove again appeared on Fox News on Sunday to defend his new operation’s agenda and try to quell the circulating fears about his suspiciously establishment-shaped ambitions:

Let’s be clear, we did spend $30 million on behalf of Tea Party candidates. … We were the largest outside group supporting Rand Paul. … No, some people associated with the Tea Party — look, Todd Akin was not a Tea Party candidate. … Our object is to avoid having stupid candidates who can’t win general elections, who are undisciplined, can’t raise money, aren’t putting together the support necessary to win the general election campaign — because this money is too difficult to raise to be spending it on the behalf of candidates who have little chance winning in the general election. … The more we examine the quality of these candidates from top to bottom, the more likely we end up with fewer Christine O’Donnells and more Rand Pauls.

In a nutshell, no, this isn’t about quashing the unruly Tea Party, it’s about the Conservative Victory Project playing self-styled Republican-party policeman by more thoroughly vetting potential candidates in the first place.

To which Bob Woodward rejoined, “My last book is going to be called, ‘Some People Never Go Away,’ and Karl’s going to get his own chapter. … So you’re going to set yourself up as a kind of polling hero… The whole theory of Republicanism is to let the local, state, or district decide.” Heh.


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

The GOP also needs more Rand Pauls and fewer Mitt Romneys. Put those two together and he’d be on to something. Unfortunately, I suspect that he’s only going to approach it from one angle.

besser tot als rot on February 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Agreed. And fewer Romney’s, McCains, McConnells, the list goes on, and more Rand Pauls. No question. Guess everyone has to be better at vetting, huh, Karl?

totherightofthem on February 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM

And what did Karl Rove think of Rand Paul?

Only Kentucky’s open seat vacated by Jim Bunning causes the GOP squeamishness. – Karl Rove

And the response from the Rand Paul campaign was…

Don’t know for sure what Rove is talking about, but if it is Rand Paul’s strong support for reform through term limits, reducing the size and scope of government, and his solid, consistent opposition to Republicans caving in on bailouts and stimulus spending that is causing some Washington D.C. tummy aches, then that’s good.

Rand is leading in the polls in Kentucky because Kentuckians can’t stomach the nonsense from our professional politicians anymore.

Rove DIDN’T support Rand Paul.

sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Sounds like Rove just blessed Rand Paul

Philo Beddoe on February 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Rand Paul is better than Christine O’Donnell for now to Karl Rove .. until Rand Paul is considered a serious 2016 threat. Then in Rove’s eyes, Rand Paul will become Christine O’Donnell. Even Bob Woodward can peg this one.

jon1979 on February 18, 2013 at 1:35 PM

The GOP needs less Karl Roves!

unaffiliated on February 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Little Lord Karl Leader Of The Whigs.

Bmore on February 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM

The GOP needs more Rand Pauls and fewer Christine O’Donnells Karl Rove’s.

Midas on February 18, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Yeah, he’s right.

changer1701 on February 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Well, I agree with Rove on that one. I live in Delaware, folks, and Christine O’Donnell was wacky. She was also uptight. She could look good on camera, but in person she really was not impressive.

DaydreamBeliever on February 18, 2013 at 1:40 PM

I am so tired of Rove et al. misrepresenting the Tea Party’s record. Yes, Christine O’Donnell was a bad pick and yes, Mike Castle would have been a much stronger general election contender against Chris Coon. But the rest of the “Tea Party failures” examples aren’t as clear.

Mourdock was going to win in Indiana until he tripped and fell in Todd Akin’s “rape-rape” comments–a mistake that could befall any candidate. Sharron Angle wasn’t a perfect candidate, but she was no worse than her “establishment” primary opponent.

If Rove really cares about getting good conservatives, he’d spend his money supporting strong candidates for down-ballot races (state legislature, mayor, county executive, state treasurer, etc.). That’s where you build your “bench” of battle-tested candidates. We lost so many “winnable” races in 2010 and 2012 because we couldn’t find ANY candidates (conservative, moderate, or RINO) with the political experience necessary to win a competitive state-wide race. It’s not as easy as it looks!

Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Rand Paul does not know who he is, no one knows what Rand paul is going to turn out like. He is in flux and seems to be inconsistent and changes positions based on what is seemingly popular at the moment for him.

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM

In a nutshell, no, this isn’t about quashing the unruly Tea Party, it’s about the Conservative Victory Project playing self-styled Republican-party policeman by more thoroughly vetting potential candidates in the first place.

No. Rove is spinning. “More thoroughly vetting grassroots candidates” is RoveSpeak for “torpedoing grassroots candidates in the primary.”

OhioCoastie on February 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM

The GOP needs more Rand Pauls and fewer Christine O’Donnells

Having more states like Kentucky and fewer like Delaware would be terrific too. But seeing the establishment GOP guys lose Senate races in VA, FL, MT, MO and ND makes me wonder if it matters.

forest on February 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM

To which Bob Woodward rejoined, “My last book is going to be called, ‘Some People Never Go Away,’

Going to write a chapter on yourself, Bob?

rrpjr on February 18, 2013 at 1:44 PM

To which Bob Woodward rejoined, “My last book is going to be called, ‘Some People Never Go Away,

The irony screams like crazy

Nixon Nixon Nixon, Everything Woodward says or thinks is related somehow to Nixon

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Fewer George W Bush’s and more Reagan’s! That is what the party needs!
Fewer Boehner’s and more Gingrich’s! That is what the party needs.
Fewer Wall Street bailouts and and more personal responsibility! That is what the party needs.
Fewer medicare Part D’s and more welfare reform acts! That is what the party needs.
Fewer unPatriot Acts and more returning of power to the people! That is what the party needs.
Fewer …

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Having more states like Kentucky and fewer like Delaware would be terrific too. But seeing the establishment GOP guys lose Senate races in VA, FL, MT, MO and ND makes me wonder if it matters.

forest on February 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM

One thing is for certain: if a “Tea Party” candidate had run and lost in any of those states, the loss would have been blamed on the “Tea Party.” Heck, even without a “Tea Party” candidate in MO, they still tried to blame it on the “Tea Party.”

besser tot als rot on February 18, 2013 at 1:47 PM

No. Rove is spinning. “More thoroughly vetting grassroots candidates” is RoveSpeak for “torpedoing grassroots candidates in the primary.”

OhioCoastie on February 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM

That’s exactly right.

Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 1:47 PM

If you don’t want Christine O’Donnell type candidates, run better candidates AGAINST them. Don’t try to destroy them AFTER they’ve won the nomination.

portlandon on February 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Rand Paul does not know who he is, no one knows what Rand paul is going to turn out like. He is in flux and seems to be inconsistent and changes positions based on what is seemingly popular at the moment for him.

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Can you list a position that he changed?

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM

“…So you’re going to set yourself up as a kind of polling hero…”

Methinks he said something even more devastating:

“…So you’re going to set yourself up as a kind of politburo…”

Drained Brain on February 18, 2013 at 1:50 PM

He needs to shut up about Christine ODonnell. She’s not running for anything and not really seeking attention. I suggest he step up and run for something so we can disparage him for the rest of his life. Jacka$$!

Blake on February 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Can you list a position that he changed?

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Looking at your name here, it should be extremely self evident where he has changed his position. I do not take you seriously!

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM

portlandon on February 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Yep.

Bmore on February 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I haven’t watched fox since November. I can’t.

Reason #1. Dick Morris
Reason #2. Karl Rove

ted c on February 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM

I hope most architects have a better track record…

d1carter on February 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM

The GOP needs one less Karl Rove.

novaculus on February 18, 2013 at 1:53 PM

we need more DeDe Scofaza’s and less Pat Toomey’s!/Elite Opinion

rob verdi on February 18, 2013 at 1:53 PM

If you don’t want Christine O’Donnell type candidates, run better candidates AGAINST them. Don’t try to destroy them AFTER they’ve won the nomination.

portlandon on February 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Yep.

Mr. D on February 18, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………..,

……less Witch`s and more Aqua Buddahs!!!!!!!!
(sarc)

canopfor on February 18, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I wish Karl Rove would run into Alec Baldwin on a street in NYC. Just run into him–literally–and spill his coffee on him.

ted c on February 18, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Maybe Rove should become a TV Weatherman. Then, at least he would be right 30% of the time.

kingsjester on February 18, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Conservative O’Donnell was chosen by the Republicans in Delaware over the very liberal Mike Castle. How liberal was Castle? He endorsed the liberal democrat running against O’Donnell. Rove went after O’Donnell the minute she won the primary. He and his ruling class buddies doomed her chances in the general election. I blame Karl and all the other mealy mouthed GOP hacks for her loss and the losses by the other Tea Party candidates that they disparaged.

Funny that so many of the candidates Karl and the other GOP elitists endorse, like Castle in Delaware and Crist in Florida, change to the democrat party. That should tell you something.

fight like a girl on February 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM

It’s sophistry, since Rand Paul couldn’t have won in Delaware either, whereas O’Donnell would have had a decent shot in Kentucky. The emphasis should be on finding quality candidates whether they are likely to win or not.

Seth Halpern on February 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM

….. run better candidates AGAINST them. Don’t try to destroy them AFTER they’ve won the nomination.

portlandon on February 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Believe me, Rove did a lot of destroying before the DE primary.

Only AFTERWARDS he’s doing the destroying on national tv.

Sir Napsalot on February 18, 2013 at 1:56 PM

No. Rove is spinning. “More thoroughly vetting grassroots candidates” is RoveSpeak for “torpedoing grassroots candidates in the primary.”

OhioCoastie on February 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM

The problem is, “grassroots” candidates don’t always equal good candidates. There seems to be this idea that if someone isn’t well-known, says they’re the most conservative, and runs against the established name(s) that they’re automatically the best choice. Some grassroots candidate should be torpedoed, just as some established names should’ve been (like Crist).

I don’t think his comments are worthy of the attention they get, frankly.

changer1701 on February 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I asked this before in the headlines thread (twice) and never received a response:

Rove and his boosters constantly whine about the GOP “losing the Senate” in 2010 and 2012 (when taking it back from the Dems was always an iffy proposition).

But Rove gets a free pass for the 2006 and 2008 elections, when he and his acolytes LITERALLY lost the GOP control of the Senate AND the House (not to mention the Presidency), putting us in this predicament in the first place.

Rove, et al., created this situation and now they’re blaming others for not getting us out of it.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

The country needs a GNP… Grand New Party!

fight like a girl on February 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

If we’re talking about loser Republicans who committed gaffes and lost winnable elections:

1. Mitt Romney – head of the list
2. Todd Akin
3. George Allen
4. Richard Mourdock
5. Christine O’Donnell

of the top 5, two establishmentarians (Romney, Allen), two Tea Party (Mourdock, O’Donnell) and one in between (Akin). IMO, O’Donnell’s gaffes were the most benign, and she was in a blue state that elected Joe freakin’ Biden for a bazillion years. Wacky, stupid statements clearly don’t turn off the voters of Delaware. Picking on O’Donnell is a red herring.

sauldalinsky on February 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I agree. Rand Paul won his election, and Christine O’Donnell lost hers.

The sad part is that we don’t have two witches in Congress — Pelosi stands alone with no witchy opponent.

unclesmrgol on February 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

So Rove wants to have his own little Stasi interfering with the democratic process? Why am I not surprised? After all Rove gave us the second most damaging President to conservatism (behind GH Bush). Of course Faux News will never have the courage to put Mark Levin on its show, as all its commentators are square in Rove’s camp, like Romney lapdog Hannity for instance.

Faramir on February 18, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Looking at your name here, it should be extremely self evident where he has changed his position. I do not take you seriously!

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM

So if I’m Jewish it means that i think that the US should give foreign aid to Israel? Got it, and here i thought only democrats judge people by race color religion etc..

And BTW, Saying that we should stop all foreign aid and than saying that first we should stop the aid to the countries that hate us is not exactly a change in position

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 1:58 PM

And how does Rove explain the 2008 and 2010 losses of these candidates?

* George Allen
* Rick Berg
* Scott Brown
* Carly Fiorina
* Linda Lingle
* Connie Mack
* Linda McMahon (twice)
* Denny Rehberg
* Dino Rossi (once for Governor, once for Senator)
* Tommy Thompson
* Heather Wilson

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:01 PM

So if I’m Jewish it means that i think that the US should give foreign aid to Israel? Got it, and here i thought only democrats judge people by race color religion etc..

And BTW, Saying that we should stop all foreign aid and than saying that first we should stop the aid to the countries that hate us is not exactly a change in position

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Not at all. Just that you should be aware of his change in position over the last two months. It has been a whip lash event. He is either completely unaware of who he is or he is a blatant liar willing to say ANYTHING depending on who the audience is.

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I haven’t watched fox since November. I can’t.

Reason #1. Dick Morris
Reason #2. Karl Rove

ted c on February 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Me either – same reasons – but throw in BO’R too.

TCM has saved my sanity.

tru2tx on February 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Rove is missing the point. The point wasn’t O’Donnell winning. The point was ousting Castle. . . .and Lugar. . . . and . . .

Notorious GOP on February 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Rove had all three branches of elected government when he came in with Bush. He lost seats every single election with his candidates. He won less than 1% of the races he fully supported in 2012. He did eventually jump on the Tea Party winners because he was losing with all of his candidates.

To listen to Rove is to throw away $400 million.

Makes far more sense to primary out his candidates.

Steveangell on February 18, 2013 at 2:06 PM

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

How did he create the situation? Or, what should he have done in the role he had to prevent them?

changer1701 on February 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM

And how does Rove explain the 2008 and 2010 losses of these candidates?

* George Allen
* Rick Berg
* Scott Brown
* Carly Fiorina
* Linda Lingle
* Connie Mack
* Linda McMahon (twice)
* Denny Rehberg
* Dino Rossi (once for Governor, once for Senator)
* Tommy Thompson
* Heather Wilson

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:01 PM

In defense of Rove, nobody is saying that moderates win in purple or blue states, The real Rove question is why did Berg & Rehberg lose in a state that Romney won comfortably (aka Murdoch & Akin)

Maybe its just that the party operation sucks and that’s why we lose winnable races?

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Bob Woodward jokes that Rove is one “who won’t go away”????

Rove was a College Republican officer while Woodward was publishing his Watergate articles. It’s sort of the pot calling the kettle old.

If Rove wants “more Rand Pauls,” he can do without my money (which he has, anyway). Paul is just like his Daddy in that he can get conservatives cheering about the role of government or fiscal responsibility, but doesn’t stress his foreign policy views which, had they been in place since WWII’s end, would have us living in Soviet America today.

Trust Rand if you wish. He was twice manager of Daddy’s Presidential campaign and has yet to find an issue with which he disagrees. But he seems as able to fool conservatives as Obama is to fool the impressionable youth.

Adjoran on February 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Rove is missing the point. The point wasn’t O’Donnell winning. The point was ousting Castle. . . .and Lugar. . . . and . . .

Notorious GOP on February 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Further more quite possible O’Donnell would have won had Rove not constantly used FNC to campaign against her from the day she won the Primary. Rove also got Castle to break his promise to endorse her. She did not lose as much as she was destroyed by Rove and his RINO friends.

Steveangell on February 18, 2013 at 2:09 PM

What the GOP really needs is NO Karl Roves.

bw222 on February 18, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Rove is missing the point. The point wasn’t O’Donnell winning. The point was ousting Castle. . . .and Lugar. . . . and . . .

Notorious GOP on February 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Yes. This is the soft underbelly of his spin.

He detests the Tea Party at its essence. He simply understands to truly destroy it he can’t ever say that.

rrpjr on February 18, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Erika, correction:

Woodward said “So you’re going to set yourself up as a kind of politbureau…”, not “polling hero”. Take another listen, and I think you’ll agree.

ElwoodBlues on February 18, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Rove and his boosters constantly whine about the GOP “losing the Senate” in 2010 and 2012 (when taking it back from the Dems was always an iffy proposition).

But Rove gets a free pass for the 2006 and 2008 elections, when he and his acolytes LITERALLY lost the GOP control of the Senate AND the House (not to mention the Presidency), putting us in this predicament in the first place.

Rove, et al., created this situation and now they’re blaming others for not getting us out of it.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM

What about the Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012? Karl and the establishment of the GOP shoved McCain and Romney down our throats claiming they had the best chance to win because they were not “evil” conservatives. How about those elections?

fight like a girl on February 18, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Did Rove acutally say:

Let me be CLEAR!” ……and them proceed to LIE?!

HE DID!!

This reminds me of someone else for some reason……

williamg on February 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Not at all. Just that you should be aware of his change in position over the last two months. It has been a whip lash event. He is either completely unaware of who he is or he is a blatant liar willing to say ANYTHING depending on who the audience is.

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I like Rand Paul, and i listen to him when he speaks, I have yet to see that he will say “anything” that the audience wants to hear

The only fear i have is that deep inside he is a little Ron Paul, i guess time will tell

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM

You spent over $200 million on candidates and admit to spending
$30 million on so called Tea Party candidates. And that one
person is probably Jeb Bush and the Bushie family’s pet, Marco
Rubio.

And now that it serves your purpose, you want more Rand Paul’s.
Well, from what I could see, you wanted no Rand Paul’s during
the election.

What a crock.

Amjean on February 18, 2013 at 2:13 PM

In defense of Rove, nobody…..

WHENEVER you start a sentence with THOSE WORDS…..everything that follows is a LIE……..

williamg on February 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM

What the GOP needs is to be rid of Rove, the Bushes, McCain, Collins, Corker, Alexander, McConnell, etc. Rove and Bush gave us ObamaCare. Who appointed Roberts? Who gave us TARP? No Child Left Behind? Expansion of Medicare? Compassionate Conservatism? What say we give the Constitution a try?

MPan on February 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM

(sorry for the “troll bait,” but…)

We could also use a little more Sarah Palin.

Hm., wonder if allahpundit or Jazz will get the honors of ponitificating about her speaking at CPAC?

Hehe.

cs89 on February 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Rove also thought the GOP needed Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst.

sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM

How did he create the situation? Or, what should he have done in the role he had to prevent them?

changer1701 on February 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM

First, I think its important to note that Rove barely got Bush elected in 2000 and 2004, so the whole “Architect” thing really seems like a myth to me. Dumb luck, I say.

Now to the point, the guidance of Rove and his partners led Bush and Congressional Republicans to squander every bit of political capital they had accumulated since 1994.

The handling of Iraq was atrocious, with no one stepping up to offer a proper defense and push back against the media lies and distortions. Rove has admitted his own guilt in this regard.

No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the push for Amnesty, l’Affaire Abramoff, urging Mark Foley to run for reelection — Rove’s fingerprints are all over the place.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:17 PM

The Tea Party has given us a few great candidates (Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey) and a few terrible candidates (Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Aikin, Richard Mourdock).

The main problem is adapting the Tea Party message to the various states. Rand Paul might have narrowly won a Senate seat in Kentucky, but he probably would have lost Ohio or Nevada.

Frequently, grass-roots activism from the Tea Party can get a candidate to the Republican nomination in a multi-candidate field by winning 30% or so of the Republican vote, which only amounts to about 10% or so of the entire electorate. If the nominee is politically inexperienced, he/she can make “rookie mistakes” in the general election when confronted with the normally hostile news media. Sometimes, Democrats vote in Republican primaries to choose the weakest opponent for their preferred candidate.

One possible way avoiding this is to have two-round Republican primaries for Senate seats, where the top two vote-getters in the first round compete in a runoff a few weeks after the first round.
In this way, the eventual nominee (whether Tea Party or “establishment”) has majority support from Republicans, and more exposure to the wider electorate during the runoff period. This is the system that gave us Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who placed second in his original primary.

Another possibility is to recruit canidates who have already held elective office, preferably at the state level (Governor, State Treasurer or Comptroller, or a leader in the State Legislature), or perhaps the mayor of a major city or a member of the House of Representatives. These candidates have already won elections, and know what to say or not to say in a campaign.

We also need to avoid the “self-funding businessman” (or woman) type of candidate. While such candidates can often win support of the Republican “establishment”, and overwhelm their Republican rivals with ads, in the general election they are frequently shot down by Democrats and news media (I repeat myself!) as being too “rich” and “out of touch” with the poor and/or middle class.

Steve Z on February 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM

The problem is, “grassroots” candidates don’t always equal good candidates. There seems to be this idea that if someone isn’t well-known, says they’re the most conservative, and runs against the established name(s) that they’re automatically the best choice.
***
changer1701 on February 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I’d put it a little differently. The central fight here is between conservative activists (i.e. tea party groups) and the GOP establishment. When the Establishment(TM) runs candidates–Dewhurst, Crist, Specter, Lugar, Bennett, Grayson–without good conservative bona fides, the party base (rightfully) gets angry and looks to fight back.

I think overall, the Tea Party has done a fairly good job picking its battles. The PA, FL, TX, KY, and UT seats all went to good conservatives who beat out RINOs. But there have been some failures, like DE, IN, and CO, and the Tea Party has worked hard, in my view, to identify its failures and improve their processes.

Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Get rid of everybody, every last soul in Congress no matter who they are and start over from scratch.

Bishop on February 18, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Conservative O’Donnell was chosen by the Republicans in Delaware over the very liberal Mike Castle. How liberal was Castle? He endorsed the liberal democrat running against O’Donnell. Rove went after O’Donnell the minute she won the primary. He and his ruling class buddies doomed her chances in the general election. I blame Karl and all the other mealy mouthed GOP hacks for her loss and the losses by the other Tea Party candidates that they disparaged.

Funny that so many of the candidates Karl and the other GOP elitists endorse, like Castle in Delaware and Crist in Florida, change to the democrat party. That should tell you something.

fight like a girl on February 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Indeed.

Solaratov on February 18, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Bishop on February 18, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Yep.

Bmore on February 18, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Rove also thought the GOP needed Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst.

sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Rove also helped Kay Bailey Hutchison behind the scenes in her 2010 primary challenge against Rick Perry.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Romney and Republican losses have practically nothing to do with Karl Rove. That’s just convenient for the liberal media story that Republicans are nothing but a bunch of sheep.

And for simpletons who think it is as simple as getting rid of a couple of people, and then all will be dandy.

No wonder Republicans have a tough time nationally these days. So many of them just don’t get it.

Moesart on February 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I’m beginning to understand Rove is an idiot.

I thought he had some smarts but he is really a little man scared of democracy.

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM

More Rand Paul’s, less MCCains, more Ted Cruz, less Graham’s.

MoreLiberty on February 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM

The Tea Party has given us a few great candidates (Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey) and a few terrible candidates (Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Aikin, Richard Mourdock).

Steve Z on February 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM

The Tea Party also gave us Ted Cruz, Deb Fischer, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul.

And Akin wasn’t a Tea Party candidate – his opponents John Brunner and Sarah Steelman were.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM

And somebody is still defending the Christine O’Donnell train wreck?

You just don’t get it.

Moesart on February 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

We also need to avoid the “self-funding businessman” (or woman) type of candidate. While such candidates can often win support of the Republican “establishment”, and overwhelm their Republican rivals with ads, in the general election they are frequently shot down by Democrats and news media (I repeat myself!) as being too “rich” and “out of touch” with the poor and/or middle class.

Steve Z on February 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I think you’re generalizing here. Self-funded candidates can win and can be helpful to other candidates by (a) bringing new donors into the fold and (b) not taking money out of the existing GOP donor pool, leaving more for other candidates.

You are right, though, that self-funded candidates can be difficult to control and oftentimes are surprised by the extent of political scrutiny brought to bear on their personal and business lives. (Romney, for example, was caught flat-footed multiple times over his tenure at Bain Capital).

Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Rove also helped Kay Bailey Hutchison behind the scenes in her 2010 primary challenge against Rick Perry.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Karl Rove has been on the side of just about every liberal Republican out there. Why anyone even listens to this guy is the mystery?

sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

No wonder Republicans have a tough time nationally these days. So many of them just don’t get it.

Moesart on February 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM

yeah the Mittbots don’t get it. It was because of people like Rove that we got Mitt and the disater that was nov 6th 2012. These country club elites need to respect the will and intelligence of the people. Not try to train them like show dogs to bark on command.

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Get rid of everybody, every last soul in Congress no matter who they are and start over from scratch.

Bishop on February 18, 2013 at 2:19 PM

With the exception of Hank Johnson, representing Georgia’s Fourth District, of course.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Rove DIDN’T support Rand Paul.

sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Karl Rove is a lying sack of sh!t; always has been and always will be.

bw222 on February 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Rove=Establishment. ‘Nuff said.

HiJack on February 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

And somebody is still defending the Christine O’Donnell train wreck?

You just don’t get it.

Moesart on February 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Why keep mentioning O’Donnell all the time, period?

If Rove and his ilk are serious about re-branding the GOP, they’re idiots. Every time they bring her up, no matter the context, they reinforce the association between O’Donnell and all Republicans everywhere.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I like Rand Paul, and i listen to him when he speaks, I have yet to see that he will say “anything” that the audience wants to hear

The only fear i have is that deep inside he is a little Ron Paul, i guess time will tell

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Big surprise there. An idolater fails to see the flaws in their idol. Hence why I said, I do not take you seriously.

He has gone from strip Israel of all foreign aid to blessing them with total United States of America umbrella protection, as if they were in fact a state like Hawaii or Alaska.

If you cannot see that slide, then you are blinded by something significant.

I am out on who he will become as well. I think he may have some daddy inside him. I also think he may have some solid progressive inside him as well. The fact is though, that almost everything you know and see of him is a rehearsed facade that is there to persuade you he is something he is not inside. The problem is that facades slide and the true person inside is revealed, sometimes significantly twisted from the efforts to hold together their facade.

Yeah, he still wants to take away the foreign aid to Israel, so not really a flip there, but in the same vein, saying an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States of America puts us on the line with no wiggle room at all for several orders of magnitude more future costs, which due to the lack of foreign aid becomes an order of magnitude more likely to have to be paid! Not very smart, certainly not consistent, and it was a position that he allowed himself to be put into by not be true to himself and being honest with people about his true natural position on the issue.

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I don’t see a question there. I see a statement that I think I agree with, but no question.

GWB on February 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

And Akin wasn’t a Tea Party candidate – his opponents John Brunner and Sarah Steelman were.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM

yeap Akin was a seating congressman. chairman of several committees. He was establishment all the way. Brunner was self funded and Steelman was a Palin pick. either of the two would have been better than Akin but the good old boys including Mike huckabee wanted him. If I didn’t know any better I would think Akin self destructed on purpose to ensure that the long term dem won.

It is all a game to the establishment. the concept of R and D mean nothing to them.

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Our object is to avoid having stupid candidates who can’t win general elections, who are undisciplined

Are you stupid?
Undisciplined?
You should switch over to the Democrats.
Then you can win elections.
Ask Joe Biden, Hank Johnson, Sheila Jackson, Harry Reid, etc, etc.

itsnotaboutme on February 18, 2013 at 2:29 PM

If Rove and his ilk are serious about re-branding the GOP, they’re idiots. Every time they bring her up, no matter the context, they reinforce the association between O’Donnell and all Republicans everywhere.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

IMO Rove and his ilk are too stupid to understand that.

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Get rid of everybody, every last soul in Congress no matter who they are and start over from scratch.

Bishop on February 18, 2013 at 2:19 PM

you might be fishing but i’ll bite. I would love to see all 536 of the idiots sent packing.

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Shut up, Karl!!!

tomshup on February 18, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Little Lord Karl Leader Of The Whigs.

Bmore on February 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Love it, Bmore. You ROCK!!!

bluefox on February 18, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Karl Rove has been on the side of just about every liberal Republican out there. Why anyone even listens to this guy is the mystery?

sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

seems like the more people listen to him the more turned off of him people get. Maybe we should all really listen to him so we can all agree he is a snake and needs to be gone from the table.

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:33 PM

The Tea Party has given us a few great candidates (Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey) and a few terrible candidates (Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Aikin, Richard Mourdock).

Steve Z on February 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I don’t think Mourdock was a horrible candidate. He said something he should not have and the media ran with it. No different than Romney’s 47% remark or his campaign manager’s “Mr. Etch-a-Sketch” remark.

When Republicans say the wrong thing, it is front page news, lead story material. When Dems say something stupid like “you didn’t build that” or “putting people back in chains” the media works overtime to bury it.

bw222 on February 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I don’t see a question there. I see a statement that I think I agree with, but no question.

GWB on February 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

My bad. It was an invitation for Rove’s supporters to pick apart my statement, but none have really accepted.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Funny that so many of the candidates Karl and the other GOP elitists endorse, like Castle in Delaware and Crist in Florida, change to the democrat party. That should tell you something.

fight like a girl on February 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM

yeap deserves a repeat….

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Big surprise there. An idolater fails to see the flaws in their idol. Hence why I said, I do not take you seriously.

Yeah, he still wants to take away the foreign aid to Israel, so not really a flip there, but in the same vein, saying an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States of America puts us on the line with no wiggle room at all for several orders of magnitude more future costs, which due to the lack of foreign aid becomes an order of magnitude more likely to have to be paid! Not very smart, certainly not consistent, and it was a position that he allowed himself to be put into by not be true to himself and being honest with people about his true natural position on the issue.

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I guess that’s why you think Newt is the best thing since sliced bread

Anyway, i have no idea who will run in ’16 and i hope Walker runs, but if my choice is Rubio or Paul, i’m going with Paul

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 2:36 PM

When’s the last time anyone heard a Dem say something like “Our party needs more Elizabeth Warrens and fewer Martha Coakleys”?

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:37 PM

and a few terrible candidates (Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Aikin, Richard Mourdock).

Steve Z on February 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM

funny but Aikin were not Tea party candidates. Angle was only one teaparty candidate. it was a bad field in NV not many people wanted to run against a seating majority leader.
COD was better than castle thus she won the primary. Murdock was a good candidate that said something wrong and had the misfortune of running during Mitt ‘s campaign which had zero coattails and acted as a drag on all GOP races. A different candidate at the top of the ticket and Murdock’s comment might have not lost him the election.

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I guess that’s why you think Newt is the best thing since sliced bread

Anyway, i have no idea who will run in ’16 and i hope Walker runs, but if my choice is Rubio or Paul, i’m going with Paul

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I admit to his flaws! I see them and know they are there.
Newt has actual accomplishments in his life that attest to his world view.

See the difference? Look at a person and see no flaws because you idolize him and imagine future greatness in him he has not earned compared to look at a person, see the flaws and judge them based on both their accomplishments and failures.

astonerii on February 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Anyway, i have no idea who will run in ’16 and i hope Walker runs, but if my choice is Rubio or Paul, i’m going with Paul

OrthodoxJew on February 18, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I would most likely vote Paul instead of rubio also if that was the choice. I would like to see walker run maybe even Cruz. Palin’s decision to go to CPAC next month might also hint that she is getting back into politics. Who knows. the field is wide open and this is no time to settle on the establishment Rubio this early in the ball game. He did a jindal move in his response to the SOTU speeech. Im not sure Rubio is ready fro primetime. And I have a suspicision he is just a placeholder for Jeb so that conservatives can’t gel around one person.

unseen on February 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5