Gingrich: We can’t let Karl Rove and a bunch of billionaires handpick GOP candidates for Senate

posted at 2:01 pm on February 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Go figure that a guy whose candidacy was steamrolled by Romney’s Super PAC in Florida isn’t keen on the idea of Super PAC proliferation. But pay attention to what he says in the clip about campaign finance reform. If Rove’s new group does manage to torpedo one or two promising tea-party candidates in Senate primaries, you might see a sea change in grassroots opinion about the Citizens United decision and CFR generally. Says Newt:

I am unalterably opposed to a bunch of billionaires financing a boss to pick candidates in 50 states. This is the opposite of the Republican tradition of freedom and grassroots small town conservatism…

That is the system of Tammany Hall and the Chicago machine. It should be repugnant to every conservative and every Republican.

There is a second practical thing wrong with Rove’s proposal…

Republicans lost winnable senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. So in seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure. Our problems are deeper and more complex than candidates.

Handing millions to Washington based consultants to destroy the candidates they dislike and nominate the candidates they do like is an invitation to cronyism, favoritism and corruption.

The question: Would a ban on outside money do more to help or hurt conservative candidates? If you shut down Rove, you also shut down the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity (which might be looking to assert itself in primaries), Jim DeMint’s PAC, and other tea-flavored groups that can provide “seed money” for a promising grassroots insurgent who’s struggling to match the ad expenditures and name recognition of an establishment rival. Conservative media can and does help with that, but political media of any sort has trouble reaching low-information voters by definition. If you kill off the Super PACs, you’d better be prepared to donate early and often to the next Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz to help get their campaigns off the ground before it’s too late. Besides, as Nate Silver recently noted, the establishment’s money advantage in GOP primaries hasn’t translated into a lopsided winning record. On the contrary, if you’re banking on grassroots donations to propel a tea-party challenger to competitiveness, it might actually help to have Rove’s group out there stirring things up:

My analysis of fund-raising data, in this context and others, has found that it is generally the proportion or ratio of funds raised by each candidate that has the most power to predict races, rather than the absolute amounts. This is a consequence of the diminishing returns of campaign spending: the first $100,000 of spending goes a lot further in establishing a candidate’s viability than the marginal $100,000 after she has already spent $5 million.

Suppose, for example, that the establishment candidate has raised $3 million and the insurgent candidate $500,000, a six-to-one advantage for the establishment candidate. Mr. Rove’s group intervenes and contributes $1 million to the establishment candidate, bringing him to $4 million total. In response, the insurgent candidate raises $500,000 through grass roots groups, bringing her to $1 million total. Despite the absolute difference between the candidates’ fund-raising totals having increased, the ratio has declined to a four-to-one advantage for the establishment candidate from six-to-one previously, arguably leaving the insurgent candidate in better shape than before the fund-raising salvos.

The intuition is simply that it may be dangerous to raise the profile of an insurgent candidate for whom a little extra money and exposure could go a long way.

Could be that, in the Internet age, as information about promising candidates becomes easier to access and donating becomes as simple as texting, the value of Super PACs will diminish and insurgent candidates will be able to compete entirely through their own direct fundraising. Seems risky to me to think we’re already there, though.


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

Republicans lost winnable senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. So in seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure.

The Rove loses nobody wants to talk about.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Yes Newt and we can’t deport 11 million illegal alien Grandmas. Got it.

Wigglesworth on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

rove’s pac is better than the teabag pac. the teabaggers are pushing the republican party of a cliff. Did you guys see the buncha riled up teabags verbaly abusing John McCain, who himself is a teabag, but somehow managed to seem reasonable in the townhall.

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS: Obviously, you got a quite a round of applause there. Some in that room and elsewhere since that video has gone viral have said you should run for president. What do you think of that?

DR. BENJAMIN CARSON: Well, actually I’ve had people tell me that for many years now. If I had a nickel for everybody who told me that, I could finance my campaign.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:06 PM

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Put your sack back in your pants. Your “Teabagging” is idiotic.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

This should get good? We need to find those with really big deep pockets to help us get who we want in the states, not who rove says we want or need? Just don’t fund rove if you don’t agree with him on his/teams choice!
L

letget on February 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Rove is a big loser, from all angles. See 2012.

nonpartisan is a swine, with apologies to the clean pigs. None other uses the term “teabaggers”.

Its nom s/b nobrain.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Newt,

Knowing your ego will require to read this thread.

If the Republican Party and you want any speaking fees, want any power, want your Senate, House seats, your Gov.’s, State ledg. offices you had better not back down on this illegal immigration aka fraud amnesty and no better security on the borders,,,
“borders” all of them, South, North, East West, by sea, by air, by foot and by fraud.

Just do it and your back in power soon.

Back shoot U.S. and you will be history soon.

U.S.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Its brain is as small as its sack.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM

It is the sad state of politics in this informational warfare era. No one will ever be pristine enough to run for the GOP (Dems held to completely different non-standards and low moral expectations) and the PAC will just do the tenderizing of candidates so that the MSM can take over and finish the demolition in the run up to the election.

As damaged as Newt was by his own foibles and shortcomings, he provided some of the most galvanizing moments in the masochistic process that was the Republican primaries.

CitizenEgg on February 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Could be that, in the Internet age, as information about promising candidates becomes easier to access and donating becomes as simple as texting, the value of Super PACs will diminish and insurgent candidates will be able to compete entirely through their own direct fundraising. Seems risky to me to think we’re already there, though.

It depends on how lopsided the money advantage is and how much positive press the GOP establishment candidate can gin up. Part of Romney’s primary victory involved him getting the media behind him and moneybombing the heck out of targeted states with TV ads.

Senate seats may be more competitive because the media and the establishment only has so much money they can throw around.

Doomberg on February 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM

It’s very simple. Both sides need to run better candidates.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Your disgusting use of the phrase ‘Teabag’ shows you to be a morally bankrupt slob, and a pitiful participant in this site’s dialog.

Go learn some manners and come back.

jake-the-goose on February 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Can’t Texas just secede, and take Oklahoma with it?

OhEssYouCowboys on February 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Could be that, in the Internet age, as information about promising candidates becomes easier to access and donating becomes as simple as texting, the value of Super PACs will diminish and insurgent candidates will be able to compete entirely through their own direct fundraising. Seems risky to me to think we’re already there, though.

Dodad Pro is unavailable for comment – donations, however, are another matter. He’s totally up for donations.

Lily on February 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

It’s very simple. Both sides need to run better candidates.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

A relatively free land always, always, always deserves its leaders.

The people need to look in the mirror. If they want harlot politicians, they may remain harlots on the dole, in the majority.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:12 PM

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I’ll take a teabag over a shitbag, such as you and your WH squatter.

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 2:12 PM

buncha riled up teabags verbaly abusing John McCain, who himself is a teabag

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I say this kindly, and with all due deference: you are a moron.

Kent18 on February 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM

It’s very simple. Both sides need to run better candidates.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Having a stellar candidate that nobody knows about doesn’t exactly help your side to win.

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM

ps

Every “Mexican” holliday, thousands of buses bus 10′s of thousands Mexican citizens home to Mexico for the holliday.

There are 20 million illegals inside the U.S..

Many of them are just drug mules and drug dealers and the Zeta enforcers.

You, McCain the Bush’s etla all do hire them to mow your lawns, you do have contributors who make huge profits from the wage slaves.

Yes, all the Goverment low bids on public works of all kinds are won by the contractor who pays the least to the illegals and hires the most.

It is as great an evil now as the evil of the old south.

Sex slave operations in the peach orchards, in the cane fields,
wage slaves inlock down in restruants all over the country.

You all know, yet the lust is so deep and so evil.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 20, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Kent18 on February 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Thank you – some people use their keyboard as a faceless means of being complete a-holes. It really is incredible what people will type when they know no one is in front of them to knock their teeth out.

jake-the-goose on February 20, 2013 at 2:15 PM

partisan hack on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Get back over to Huffo or Daily Kos. Your wanted there.

nobar on February 20, 2013 at 2:15 PM

That moon base is sounding relatively sane, compared to the crazy proposals the administration is floating.

/

Christien on February 20, 2013 at 2:16 PM

DR. BENJAMIN CARSON: Well, actually I’ve had people tell me that for many years now. If I had a nickel for everybody who told me that, I could finance my campaign.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:06 PM

If the Good Dr Carson comes out and says he will run, I would give him every last dime I have!

(With the understanding he sticks to his guns)!

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Let’s not forget a winnable race in Missouri. And Indiana.

Social conservatism FTW!

Wait… what?

beatcanvas on February 20, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Newt Gingrich doesn’t just talk the talk, he walks the walk when it comes to this topic. For example, when billionaire Sheldon Adelson tried to finance his stillborn primary campaign, Newt valiantly refused and tore up the $10 million check Adelson tried to give him…… wait, what? Oh that’s right. This vile, debased slob of a human being was more than happy to let a billionaire single-handedly keep his fat ass in the game.

Armin Tamzarian on February 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Having a stellar candidate that nobody knows about doesn’t exactly help your side to win.

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM

True. Then they better market them better. Because both sides have done a lousy job of doing so. The real rancor I have is with the Rove clan dumping on the winner of the primary. All of Roves’s folks are sore losers. Indiana was a gimme, but Lugar and Rove slammed the winner. The Delaware race was a real slip of the mask for Rove and Company. Endorsing the Democrat, and openly destroying the winner.

Shameful.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM

A relatively free land always, always, always deserves its leaders.

The people need to look in the mirror. If they want harlot politicians, they may remain harlots on the dole, in the majority.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Also true. The lib candidates who win surely reflect the stupidity of the electorate.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

rove’s pac is better than the teabag pac. the teabaggers are pushing the republican party of a cliff. Did you guys see the buncha riled up teabags verbaly abusing John McCain, who himself is a teabag, but somehow managed to seem reasonable in the townhall.

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Just come out already, dude, you’re not fooling anyone; even your family knows.

Bishop on February 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Hey, this is likely a legal voter.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I may need to get a new popcorn popper before I watch CPAC, I have a feeling it is going to be working overtime. Any guesses who will get a better reception Palin or Romney?

KBird on February 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM

nonpartisan
inthemiddle
pragmatic
can.i.be.in.the.middle

What do the onwers of these HA handles have in common?

They’re all lefty trolls who signed up at the last open reg. They selected an unbiased sounding nic and made a poor attempt to seem impartial for a few days before finally giving up and settling into full on left wing hackery.

Kataklysmic on February 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Armin Tamzarian on February 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM

SKINNER! He said he’s against billionaire donors financing a boss who handpicks candidates nationwide.

D’OH!

Christien on February 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Every politician up election or re-election should be given Sodium Pentathol and then interviewed to discover where there hearts really lay…

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I may need to get a new popcorn popper before I watch CPAC, I have a feeling it is going to be working overtime. Any guesses who will get a better reception Palin or Romney?

KBird on February 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Oh! Nevermind that. Imagine all those idiot Ron Paul supporters roaming around like lost little puppies.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 2:28 PM

All this infighting between establishment/Tea Party/insider/outsider/fiscal/social conservatives isn’t doing our side a lot of good.

I don’t like Rove much, but I think there’s quite a bit of overreaction to his PAC. And everyone has done their fair share of picking losers, “Tea Party” and “establishment” alike.

DRayRaven on February 20, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Sad isn’t it…

Just yesterday a couple of young unsupervised kids thought it would be a good idea to call 911. Their ‘mother’ was absent, the kids got a good dressing down from the cops, they even lied for their ‘mother’… I hope she is fined heavily, and her kids should be taken away from her, she is a negligent parent.

She is an 0 supporter…

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 2:31 PM

If the Good Dr Carson comes out and says he will run, I would give him every last dime I have!

(With the understanding he sticks to his guns)!

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 2:18 PM

An utter waste of your money and the doctor’s time unless he moves out of the People’s Republic of Maryland. Highest concentration of moochers and parasites south of New Jersey. They likes their Obama and socialism.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Kataklysmic on February 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Are you saying Seymour Skinner is not who he says he is and is really Armin Tamzarian?

/

Christien on February 20, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I did say “IF“…I doubt he will run…he is an unknown…

I would think he is smart enough to realise that all by himself and move.

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Dede Scozzafava?

Marcus Aurelius on February 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

All this infighting between establishment/Tea Party/insider/outsider/fiscal/social conservatives isn’t doing our side a lot of good.

DRayRaven on February 20, 2013 at 2:30 PM

The question being asked is who’s side are the RINOs on?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Their own side…

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Gingrich: We can’t let Karl Rove and a bunch of billionaires handpick GOP candidates for Senate

headline by Allahpundit

.
D I T T O S !

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 2:36 PM

That moon base is sounding relatively sane, compared to the crazy proposals the administration is floating.

/

Christien on February 20, 2013 at 2:16 PM

The Moon base not only is/was a sane idea, it was a brilliant idea. Sadly, decades of Marxist indoctrination have infected America with a “Risk aversion” virus that has crippled our imaginations. Every great age of prosperity the human race has ever experienced has come at the advent of an age of exploration. The Marxist economic model is a static redistributive model predicated upon all wealth being a zero sum equation.

Under the Marxist economic model, their is no wealth creation, all wealth is a fixed and invariable sum, which can only be redistributed.

The “Laissez-faire”, or “Free Market Capitalism” economic model is predicated upon wealth being an open ended and inexhaustible property limited only to innovation, ingenuity and exploitation of available resources. Innovation and ingenuity being the more difficult of properties to harness the easiest is has and remains to increase the volume of exploitable resources.

This has and always will be achieved through expansion of territory, and that, through exploration of previously unknown or uncharted territory. The natural resources of the planet earth are by no means exhausted, but they are pretty well locked up. Increasingly by a Marxist left who correctly identifies exploitable resources as the basic foundation of all wealth creation.

The clear and irrefutable solution to every nation on earths economic problems is, to increase the availability of exploitable natural resources. A base on the Moon would begin a brand new “California Gold Rush”. The single and solitary factor stalling or preventing a new “California Gold Rush” is our infection of the “Risk aversion” virus. We do not go out exploring, we do not go out prospecting and we do not return with the mind boggling wealth that lays just out of our comfortable reach, because “There be Monsters Here” has been written in large letters across all the maps we posses.

SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM

If Rove’s new group does manage to torpedo one or two promising tea-party candidates in Senate primaries,

The key is winnable. When Rove inadvertently screws over the next Rubio, then I’ll be upset. Until then I’m fine with this, especially if it takes out Newt Gingrich again.

Illinidiva on February 20, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Can’t Texas just secede, and take Oklahoma with it?

OhEssYouCowboys on February 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Perfect!

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Can’t Texas just secede, and take Oklahoma with it?

OhEssYouCowboys on February 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Yeah, and probably Kansas, too. We need somebody we can reliably beat in football.

TexasDan on February 20, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Could be that, in the Internet age, as information about promising candidates becomes easier to access and donating becomes as simple as texting, the value of Super PACs will diminish and insurgent candidates will be able to compete entirely through their own direct fundraising.

I don’t see this happening as long as contributions to candidates are limited to $2500 while contributions to Super PACS are unlimited.

Mark1971 on February 20, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Uhh…Would this be the same Gingrich that made the “Scozzafava (endorsement) heard around the world”??

Don’t get me wrong,…I’d take him over Obama any day of the week, but…Let’s not forget, nor shy away from, the truth about tinges of ‘establishment-itis’.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63455-gingrich-endorses-scozzafava-in-ny-23-race

Talismen on February 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM

KBird on February 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Cruz.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM

All this infighting between establishment/Tea Party/insider/outsider/fiscal/social conservatives isn’t doing our side a lot of good.
DRayRaven on February 20, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I’m not so sure about that. The hugely contentious 2010 midterms yielded the biggest party gains in half century. Conflict can be good. It’s in the nature of our system, anyway.

Mostly, though, complaint is moot. This fight is going to take place. It’s unstoppable. Because it’s what happens when corrupt, inert and non-responsive power finally meets a critical mass of intolerance. It’s an old story. How the story will shake out we don’t know. Take sides and fight.

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM

SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Being Russian by birth, I was not averse to the idea of moon base itself (we used to be big on space exploration, you know), but rather the underhanded way it was delivered – as shameless pandering to Cape Canaveral public.

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I am unalterably opposed to a bunch of billionaires financing a boss to pick candidates in 50 states.

Well said, I agree.

And the more money elite cronies pay for elections and buy politicians, the more inflated money the government prints each month, the more they spend, the more they mortgage the futures of our children, the wealthier the the crony elite become and more they pump back to their corrupt politicians, the more totalitarian the state grows. It’s a cycle of corruption and tyranny.

FloatingRock on February 20, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Sadly, decades of Marxist indoctrination Flouride in our water and toothpaste have infected America with “Risk aversion” brain killing virus chemicals that has/have crippled our imaginations.
SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM

FIFM! /S

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 2:46 PM

rove’s pac is better than the teabag pac. the teabaggers are pushing the republican party of a cliff. Did you guys see the buncha riled up teabags verbaly abusing John McCain, who himself is a teabag, but somehow managed to seem reasonable in the townhall.

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

.
The problem with McCain is he’s NOT “reasonable” on the Senate Floor, in DC.

Now shut up, and let us finish “pushing the Republican Party off the cliff.”

You won’t shed a tear over it. You can’t WAIT to dance like a leprechaun, on the Republican Party’s grave.

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 2:46 PM

SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Being Russian by birth, I was not averse to the idea of moon base itself (we used to be big on space exploration, you know), but rather the underhanded way it was delivered – as shameless pandering to Cape Canaveral public.

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM

My condolences on you have fallen for thew Fifth Column Treasonous Media’s propaganda. Cape Canaveral/Cape Kennedy is and always has been the heart of America’s Space Exploration Community. Delivering that speech there was not pandering to Cape Canaveral public, it was the logical and respectful venue for that speech. The Fifth Column Treasonous Media correctly identified the powerful imagery that giving that speech there had the potential of invoking, and did everything in their power to shut down that imagery before it could take root.

That imagery, in the event that you are unaware comes from a speech given by John F. Kennedy.

SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Gingrich likened Rove’s plan to Tammaney Hall.

sounds like common sense to me.

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 2:53 PM

All Politics is National, nowadays.

Both Tea Party and ‘Establishment’ picks get supported by outside money (outside of the district they are runiing in, that is).

Rove has won for 8 years and lost for four. Not a terrible record when examined in toto. He’s certainly not all right… but not all wrong either.

Rather than tea party types demonizng ‘Establishment’ folks or ‘Establishment’ folks denigrating tea party types, wouldn’t it be better for Conservatism for all of us to bring what we have to the table and listen to each other for once?

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 2:54 PM

It’s very simple. Both sides need to run better candidates.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Yes, that is true. The problem is how people define Patriotism. Lots of people use it for self serving purposes or purposes that really don’t help the nation. Lots of times it is out of good intentions, which doesn’t help.

The bottom line is “The People” need to elect good people. It is just hard when we can’t even discern the times we live in, being deceived by the media and politicians, telling the truth, etc, etc.

Patriotism = living a moral life. But Patriotism for others = allowing people to do whatever the hell they feel like without realizing that what one does affects the other.

Gatekeeper on February 20, 2013 at 2:57 PM

I’ve been a straight ticket voting Republican since I could vote. I voted for Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain and Romney. Take a look at that list! The R’s haven’t had a conservative run in over 20 years!!! I’m done with the Republican party! I’m not falling for the “but but but a Democrat will win!” scare tactic anymore. If the Republican party is losing people like me they are done. It’s really sad that people like Newt worked so hard to build the Republican party, only to have it stampeded with RINO’s.

txhsmom on February 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking…

I would love nothing better than to see that happen!

I think it must be inherent in mans’ psyche to always be at ‘war’ with someone in opposition to ones views.

But the damage has been done and now even some of our own politicians believe what the media says about our conservative group…

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I am unalterably opposed to a bunch of billionaires financing a boss to pick candidates in 50 states.

I agree. For instance, I was appalled when billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson poured millions into the Winning Our Future super PAC that kept Newt Gingrich in the 2012 Presidential primary well past his sell by date.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM

In Montana it was outside money coming in with smear and outright lies in ad after ad about the R candidates. We could have had a business man elected to governor and a dependable R for senate. Tester has proven to be the rubber stamp we thought he would be and beyond that a do nothing with good excuses. Sound familiar?

Kissmygrits on February 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM

But the damage has been done and now even some of our own politicians believe what the media says about our conservative group…

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM

And there in lies the R party’s problem. For years conservatives defended Bush, even when we didn’t like every decision he made. When attacks are made against conservatives, the establishment never defends their conservative base. It was only a matter of time before we walked away.

txhsmom on February 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Handing millions to Washington based consultants to destroy the candidates they dislike and nominate the candidates they do like is an invitation to cronyism, favoritism and corruption.

I agree. For example, it was appalling that Newt Gingrich was able to use millions of Sheldon Adelson’s dollars to paint Mitt Romney as an out of touch plutocrat, a liar, and an etch-a-sketch during the primary, effectively doing Obama’s work for him, when Gingrich didn’t have a chance in hell of gaining the nomination, and would have been out of the race sooner without Sheldon’s money.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM

to paint Mitt Romney as an out of touch plutocrat, a liar, and an etch-a-sketch during the primary, effectively doing Obama’s work for him…

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Yeah, cause the Democrats would never have thought of that approach on their own. Well other than that is how they demolished Romney in 1994. /sarc

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM

SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I think you got me wrong. I am not opposed to having space exploration as a national rallying point, or even as a budget expense item. Had Gingrich delivered this message elsewhere, or even included it in his platform, I’d applaud it (sure beats “Muslim outreach” we have now). What I am opposed to is the pandering – anywhere, to any group, for any reason. Romney bought me by not pandering, but perhaps I mistook political ineptitude for honesty…

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

…you don’t have a clue…do you troll?

…and you have a teenie winnie bitzy little one…don’t you?
…We can tell!
When you sit to pee on the toilet…do you have too really lean FORWARD with your legs bent behind you…so you can aim at the water and not pee between the toilet seat and the porcelain rim…onto your bathroom floor?
We know!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking…

I would love nothing better than to see that happen!

I think it must be inherent in mans’ psyche to always be at ‘war’ with someone in opposition to ones views.

But the damage has been done and now even some of our own politicians believe what the media says about our conservative group…

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I see your point. But, I’ve always seen in the Traditional Conservative an impulse towards deep respect for fellow people.

From there, Conservatives should be able to temper their animal-like instincts and disagree without animosity (or worse).

Yet, at the same time, a Traditional COnservative sees the world as it is and understands the fallen nature of Man.

Who knows?

I guess I still think that everyone on the Right should be able to agree on the important things and disagree with respect on the things that are more tactical or stylistic in nature.

But, I guess I also agree with you… Wishful Thinking. ;-)

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Yeah, but Republicans don’t have to do the Dems dirty work for them. There were a 1000 ways to go after Romney in the Republican primary without playing the politics of envy and class conflict. That approach is what goes against the “Republican tradition of freedom and grassroots small town conservatism.”

Arch establishment Republican Newt Gingrich is a disgusting hypocrite, and another past his prime loser who needs to go away.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM

“… but political media of any sort has trouble reaching low-information voters by definition.”

I made the mistake the other day of watching five minutes of ‘Entertainment Tonight’…

… It’s worse than you think.

Low information voters wouldn’t know the crimes committed in Benghazi if they were sitting on their faces…

… nor understand just how bad our economy, debt, and how dangerous Dear Leader is.

I think it’s time to let the whole thing burn, and those of us who are prepared just sit back and let the heard thin…

Seven Percent Solution on February 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I think it’s time to let the whole thing burn, and those of us who are prepared just sit back and let the herd thin…

Seven Percent Solution on February 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I’ll be honest – and with all due respect – I simply don’t understand this anarchical spirit that has crept into some Conservative circles. Has it developed from a Rand-ian influence (ie, taking Atlas Shrugged as a manual for life)? Or from somewhere else?

I think there is a difference between a Traditional Conservative’s clear-eyed aprreciation for the fallen nature of the world and something that approaches an almost mischievous nihilism.

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM

“If you shut down Rove, you also shut down the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity”

This is like assuming that all mushrooms are either edible or poisonous. Like Pacs, there are both, good and bad. This conservative is willing to bet that he knows the difference(or at least should be allowed to have a choice)I believe that Rove also knows the difference and he’s looking to poison us on behalf of his sanctimonious elitist bosses in the GOP.

Don L on February 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM

There were a 1000 ways to go after Romney in the Republican primary without playing the politics of envy and class conflict.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM

To be blunt…Romney was totally out of touch. The ten thousand dollar bet, saying he was ‘unemployed’ too, etc.

“I like those fancy raincoats you bought. Really sprung for the big bucks,” – Mitt Romney

And justifying it…“Look, I’ve worn a garbage bag for rain gear myself,”

An out of touch plutocrat would be an accurate assessment.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Kataklysmic on February 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

They’re all leftist rats in a latrine.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Say, Newt, Karl isn’t the only problem with the Incumbistani Party you gots there.

There’s a bunch of DC insiders who have gone through the revolving door to consider.

And ‘compromisers’ who think that ‘compromise’ is a goal in and of itself, not questioning what it is they are compromising on.

The R Party became the Whigs this last cycle, its still twitching due to size but that’s about it, as the Elites resist change that is sorely needed within the Party. The problem is in the structure of the Party: it is a Progressive, top-down structure.

That only goes away once the State Parties get together and change the necessary documents to turn the highest levels into unpaid advisory positions that no prior office holder can be in, and that no one can be in for more than four years. Basically kill off the RNC and all its overhead as it is today and let the State levels figure it out for themselves. That means National candidates will actually have to deal with highly different organizations that can’t be bought nor intimidated from the central committee. That means you lose much of your voice in the Party, Newt.

But the Party members regain theirs and start to ramp up the volume.

That Party wouldn’t do things you would like it to do… sucks, that. Its the only way for the name brand to survive. The Party itself is dead in the Elite Head and that Head must go. A State-based party doesn’t need an RNC. And they don’t need the Elites that populate it, either.

ajacksonian on February 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM

but political media of any sort has trouble reaching low-information voters by definition.”

We weren’t beat by “low information voters” We were beat by folks who hate responsibility, want free lunches, guilt free “lust is us” life styles, the culture of death crowd, or just too many of the “aren’t we special” folks, those well educated, er, indoctrinated, perfect professionals who filled those New England ballets with proof of their lack of prejudice and their tolerance for anything the left says makes you better than everyone else.

Don L on February 20, 2013 at 3:38 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:30 PM

O.K., I get it. You don’t like Romney, you supported Gingrich in the primary, and you agreed with his approach. Perhaps Tea Party favorite Newt will run again in 2016 supported by small 5,10, and 20 dollar donations from the grass roots. Without Romney’s SuperPac to steamroll over him, he might just win this time.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM

O.K., I get it.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM

No you don’t get it. Romney has been a loser for decades. He stinks at campaigning and always has. Why you guys chose not to notice that little fact is a mystery. It isn’t that he’s rich. Most of those running are in fact very wealthy. It is that he doesn’t connect to anyone. Bush was wealthy too, but he could connect to people while Romney flails sounding like a cartoon parody, or worse.

Romney was never going to win and from what his son said, he didn’t really want to.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:50 PM

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

That settles it. You are either a management plant to irk everyone here and boost views, or you’re 14 years old. Which is it? You write like a nascent adolescent so it has to be one of the two options.

totherightofthem on February 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Excuse me for butting in but he also never seemed to know and understand what he was up against. Very few of them do.

Cleombrotus on February 20, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Excuse me for butting in but he also never seemed to know and understand what he was up against. Very few of them do.

Cleombrotus on February 20, 2013 at 4:17 PM

I don’t think he much disagreed with Obama which we saw in the debates with him and Obama giving each other a group hug.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 4:21 PM

with him and Obama giving each other a group hug.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Exactly. You always hug the one that’s chewing up your country and its traditions.

Cleombrotus on February 20, 2013 at 4:36 PM

SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I think you got me wrong. I am not opposed to having space exploration as a national rallying point, or even as a budget expense item. Had Gingrich delivered this message elsewhere, or even included it in his platform, I’d applaud it (sure beats “Muslim outreach” we have now). What I am opposed to is the pandering – anywhere, to any group, for any reason. Romney bought me by not pandering, but perhaps I mistook political ineptitude for honesty…

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM

No, I’m sorry, I don’t believe I have you wrong at all. You drank the kool-aid. Giving a speech about putting a base on the moon…FROM CAPE CANAVERAL is not pandering. It is THE MOST APPROPRIATE venue from which to make that suggestion. Allowing anyone to suggest or assert otherwise is known as drinking the Fifth Column Treasonous Media kool-aid. It is a complete and total failure to grasp the nature of appropriate venue.

One does not go to Sea World and talk about space exploration. One does not go to Jerusalem to give lectures on how the Holocaust was a fraud. There are venues where it is inappropriate to give certain speeches, and their are equally venues where it is especially appropriate to give certain speeches. There is absolutely no more of an appropriate venue to give a speech about building a base on the moon then Cape Canaveral/Cape Kennedy.

SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Scozzafavalavadingdong.

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Cry me a river Newt. Rove is doing the job that the wingnuts haven’t the plain sense to do.

And as for the Tea Party, just what the heck is the Tea Party any more? It started out as a non-partisan group in favor of limited government and fiscal restraint. It hasn’t been that for years. Nobody even knows who is in the “Tea Party” and who isn’t. Consider Rubio. He was a Tea Partier and according to many (including Rubio) he still is. Yet Rand Paul decided that he isn’t and needed to provide his very own Tea Party response to the SOYU. Did Rubio have his Tea Party card revoked but have the revocation lost in the mail? Perhaps he’s on double secret probation from the party? Oh the tangled webs.

MJBrutus on February 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

SWalker on February 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM

That was beautiful. And painfully accurate.

MelonCollie on February 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Sorry, I thought this was a Newt-bashing thread, not a Romney-bashing thread. My mistake.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Of the winnable Senate races Republicans lost, Romney carried the states of Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri, so these losses are the fault of the individual candidates, not the Romney campaign.

In Indiana and Missouri, Tea Party candidates made disastrous gaffes after winning their primaries. In Montana and North Dakota, candidates who had previously won statewide House races lost Senate races in the same electorate–what did they do wrong in 2012 that they did right in 2010?

Both the Tea Party and the Establishment have made mistakes in Senate races. Rather than blaming one or the other, we should devise a system by which a candidate has majority support of Republicans before starting the general election campaign.

In many cases, Senate nominees have only minority support within the Party, by taking 30 to 35% of a low-turnout primary between three or more candidates, and have trouble reaching out to the rest of the electorate, including the Republicans who didn’t vote for them in the primary.

One solution would be to set up two-round primaries, such as those in Louisiana and Texas, which gave us Senator Ted Cruz. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the first-round primary vote, a runoff is held between the two top vote-getters a few weeks later, which would ensure that the nominee has majority support among Republicans. This could also increase the name-recognition of the eventual winner due to the longer primary campaign, and eventually drive up turnout in the runoff. If a candidate is gaffe-prone, the runoff campaign might eliminate a candidate who might otherwise blow the general election like those in Indiana and Missouri.

In some cases, an Establishment candidate wins a primary because two conservative candidates split the Tea Party vote, or a Tea Party candidate wins against two Establishment candidates who each could have won a general election. If a two-round primary is set up, Republican voters get to decide which candidate represents a majority of them, and which candidate has the best chance of winning a general election.

Steve Z on February 20, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Any time Newt has an opinion, I can’t help but think that it was also his opinion that he could win this last presidential election.

Murf76 on February 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM

…you don’t have a clue…do you troll?

KOOLAID2

Oh, he knows about teabagging alright, lol. Better than most I suspect.

xblade on February 20, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Rove’s current proposal lost the last two presidential elections. The GOP echelon FORCED candidates on us that we conservatives did not want. Rove’s plan has been tried and FAILED.

Keep it up GOP and you will lose the entire party.

katablog.com on February 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Newter, I have some basic news for you. A collection of Billionaires already told us who would be elected POTUS and enforced it, two elections in a row. That is how we got Obama, duncel.

{^_^}

herself on February 21, 2013 at 4:07 AM

Gingrich: We can’t let Karl Rove and a bunch of billionaires handpick GOP candidates for Senate ANY office

FIFY

Just look at how well that worked when they selected Willard!

DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM