No thank you, Karl Rove
But the problem with Rove’s easy solution — which is reliant on new candidates, not new ideas — isn’t just that it’s blithely unaware of its own past shortcomings, or that it will likely rely on the same old-guard apparatus that felled conservatives in 2012. It’s that its stated mission is startlingly defeatist.
Crossroads President Steven Law offered this obtuse description of the new group’s objectives: “We want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”
First, this begs the obvious question: What was the strategy before, if not to pick conservative candidates who can win?
But worse, the implied desire to root out Tea Party candidates in favor of establishment and moderate choices is an entirely wrong approach that will cannibalize the party.
As 2010 proved, Tea Party candidates can win, and they can win big. That’s because the principles of the Tea Party — limited government, cutting spending and balancing the budget — are principles that are popular with most Americans.
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
The first sentence was all I needed to read of this drivel. Losing by 10% is ‘sent to the woodshed’. That’s not what happened by a long shot.
Losing within the margin of error suggests more work needs to be done with voter ID laws. It also suggests that Republicans need to stop nominating Democrats.
baldylox on February 6, 2013 at 10:34 PM
This is Karl’s (and Lindsey’s and McCain’s) concept in a nut shell…the 15% “high info” Republicans will drive the 85% “low info” Republican’s to the polls.
No thanks, Karl. Believe it or not most of us already have transportation.
Limerick on February 6, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Rs were pretty much sent to the woodshed. They blew a huge opportunity in the Senate…huge. Instead the Left has 55 seats…that’s bad.
there’s no reason to re-talk the presidential race, but it was a disaster. Think this: the Rs were so clueless they 1. thought that they could win by default (stupid) and 2. all the cheerleaders kinda thought they would win even on election day.
Rove turns out to have been beyond clueless…he was in another world. So Karl has blown his street cred.
Bob Shrum had similar problems…a constant leader of the Ds, they didn’t start winning until Shrum retired.
r keller on February 6, 2013 at 10:45 PM
Rove’s goal was to run defense against a takeover of the party by the Barry Goldwater nematodes: anti abortion, anti gay marriage, gold coin buying, border blocking, English only speaking, gun toting, army enlisting, state college home schooling Neanderthals. The Palin droolers. He did his best. Heck, even Ron Paul joined his crusade
Now he is engaged in what he thinks is the coup de gras, an end run amnesty with a quasi Mexican CubanAmerican that if he can pull it off will dilute the vote of the Neanderthals for all future elections, so the party can back off all the BS they loaded in their platform since Reagan.
They have another Bush in the incubator. All Rove needs is another organization, with a new name and a slightly new game. Just has to divert attention from the golden ring he seeks
It took McCain Feingold to lock the leadership. Thanks to McCain, the amnesty might be fast tracked this time too. Cripes no wonder they let McCain run his sorry butt for President. Palin almost pulled it out of the wash, but had she actually won it, that would have been a nightmare.
How much money did his group spend to take her out, not that her familia didn’t help
This article is so lame, it has to be a plant. Guess they figured they had to paint Rove as a loser, because if they understood what he was trying to win, no one might want him to be a winner
entagor on February 6, 2013 at 10:57 PM
If they want us (tea partiers, cranky libertarians, etc.) to play the game, then they have to make sure we won’t leave. If we leave, the game becomes pointless because we are more in numbers than they (establishment types) are.
Once enough of us go Galt, it’s over. Our America will survive and theirs will melt from the heat of hyperinflation. Our motto should be “We are responsible for no debts except our own.”
platypus on February 6, 2013 at 11:51 PM
Ms. Cupp’s attitude seems to be “We can win without votes from stinking moderates!” Well, she’s wrong and so are other conservatives who claim that the Tea Party movement proves it. When you get to the Senate and Presidential levels, it takes big bucks to drive a message despite mass news media bias. Big donors are more interested in winning than ideology. That’s just a fact of life in a republic like ours. You have to broaden your appeal to build a majority.
What I witnessed last year was a party torn to pieces by people who assumed otherwise and too many Republicans who were condemned the candidate because he was “too moderate.” The truth was that he is more conservative than they were willing to admit, because he knew that one has to run to the middle in the general elections.
You can win primaries with this “my way or the highway” approach, but you’ll get torn to bits in the general. Karl Rove knows this, which is why his group is named Crossroads.
Baldylox is right. The Right Wing chose to sit in the woodshed and sulk; nobody sent them there. They were doomed from the start by their own failure to realize that this is marketplace for ideas, and they lost their share by becoming too narrow in their appeal. They don’t want to win elections; they want to be more Old Testament prophets and less salesmen.
As a result, the Left now believes it has such a mandate that it can boast “So what if abortion is the ending of life?” Nobody really explains why that is such a dead end for any society that wants to be healthy and grow. The same goes for all liberal issues like increasing borrowing and spending and decreasing our liberties and responsibilities. We can’t outsource the requirements for being prudent individuals to the government, because it will not be prudent for long if it can get away with it.
flataffect on February 6, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Please follow Dick Morris out the door Karl. You’ve proved to be ineffective, or at worst, complicent.
Clink on February 6, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Some good points.
Some on the right need to realize that if you keep telling people to get lost eventually they will take their advice.
NeoKong on February 7, 2013 at 12:01 AM
@flataffect: I saw no evidence that Romney was torpedoed by conservatives. If there’d been a mass exodus or boycott, Gary of New Mexico, who although quaint is not stupid, would have enjoyed more than a boutique candidacy. Rove is trying vainly to resurrect the extinct, fractured Bush base; he won’t endorse a more openly populist alternative à la Gingrich (whom Miss Cupp also loathes, btw) because he’s beholden to the ancien régime. But realistically, what alternative is there?
Seth Halpern on February 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM
Who is she again?
John the Libertarian on February 7, 2013 at 12:30 AM
@John the Libertarian: She is winsome and comely, and I fancy her.
Seth Halpern on February 7, 2013 at 12:39 AM
The problem is Romney had no conservative record. He had been pro-choice, started Romneycare and raised fees. If the base believes you are a conservative at heart, they understand when you swing middle. I’m a “severe conservative” Romney was never that man. The trick is to start with a conservative who can swing center. The last two elections we have started with centrists candidates who had to actually swing right for the primary. That does not seem to be working out well for us.
Look at Obama. He actually ran as a centrist(and some fools believed him).His base knew he was a hard core lefty.Granted he has the advantage of a huge free media machine behind him – but his base knew where his heart was.
D.L.Mc on February 7, 2013 at 12:56 AM
Rove is out of touch and out of ideas. Rove has FAILED at leadership, FAILED to follow the new Tea Party leaders, and he now needs to GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!
Rove tried to run unprincipled campaigns…which left voters with absolutely no reason to vote for Republicans. It is time for him to shut up and sit down.
landlines on February 7, 2013 at 2:02 AM
For the Governor of a very liberal state Romney had a very conservative record. Romneycare was supported by The Heritage Foundation when passed and was more conservative than the alternative. The problem for the GOP is too many purists like you who would rather have nothing if they can’t have everything.
Anyone who didn’t understand the stark differences between Romney and Obama is stupid.
Basilsbest on February 7, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Hey all you GOP establishment sycophants (King Mold et al) …
I want to ask … NO BEG YOU … to please keep Karl Rove’s face attached to your squish agenda.
The one thing that his ugly sad mug does for your cause is he ENSURES you will go down in defeat. He’s the most polarizing political figure in America – hated by everyone on the left … almost everyone in the middle … and a by a huge number of people on the right.
At some point – Florida Orange Juice decided that Anita Bryant was more of a liability as a spokesperson than she was an asset. So they allowed her contract to “lapse”.
PLEASE DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN WITH ROVE! KEEP THIS LOSER ON THE FIELD … IT’S GONNA MAKE IT A LOT EASIER FOR US TO DEFEAT YOU!!
HondaV65 on February 7, 2013 at 7:46 AM
That would mean that they have to stop depending on the media and democrats to pick the republican nominee. I have my doubts that the Republicans have the wherewithal to really do that.
Dr. Frank Enstine on February 7, 2013 at 8:10 AM
Rove is out of touch and out of ideas. Rove has FAILED at leadership, FAILED to follow the new Tea Party leaders, and he now needs to GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!
Rove tried to run unprincipled campaigns…which left voters with absolutely no reason to vote for Republicans. It is time for him to shut up and sit down.
landlines on February 7, 2013 at 2:02 AM
In all seriousness, isn’t the point of the Tea Party that they have no leaders?
thebrokenrattle on February 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM
Isn’t their an implied desire from the TP to root out incumbents that displease them? Shouldn’t the incumbents have support if the TP candidate isn’t up to snuff or do the TP candidates always get the benefit of the doubt?
thebrokenrattle on February 7, 2013 at 8:21 AM
The trick is to start with a conservative who can swing center. The last two elections we have started with centrists candidates who had to actually swing right for the primary. That does not seem to be working out well for us.
D.L.Mc on February 7, 2013 at 12:56 AM
This is a good point. Do you think the conservatism, of say, Newt would have been translatable to moderates in the general election? I have a feeling that any moves to the center would be blocked by the MSM and he would have been boxed in by them into talking mostly about his affairs and remarriages. Is there any candidates for 2016 that could successfully swing to the center and bypass the bias of the MSM?
thebrokenrattle on February 7, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Sorry, but you don’t get to blame purists for your loss. Your candidate won the primary and ran for president. He lost against a president with the worst economic record in decades.
You got everything you wanted, and lost.
Own it.
Irritable Pundit on February 7, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Enough people didn’t understand the difference to hand Obama the election. Tell us again what a great and electable candidate Romney was? *yawn*
gryphon202 on February 7, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Do you think the incumbents have done a good job of keeping Obama in-check? Do you think there are any incumbents out there who deserve the benefit of the doubt as opposed to TP candidates?
gryphon202 on February 7, 2013 at 8:40 AM
I’m very annoyed and I wonder if it happens to others. I sit here and type something that is most likely to long and the fracking site refreshes and everything I’ve typed is lost thus denying you fine folks my brilliant insights. Is it only happening to me?
Dr. Frank Enstine on February 7, 2013 at 8:44 AM
Obama won so I guess it was hard to tell the difference and that’s the point. Gingrich is a conservative as long as it’s good for him to be a conservative. Romney is too. We have politicians running for office and they have idealogues that are willing to do anything to get elected.
It looks like the Republicans party will have to decide between Rove or Rand Paul. Trouble is, most Republican’s can’t make a decision because they don’t have the courage of their convictions.
Vince on February 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM
And the voters such as myself will reject the Republican Party writ-large, and Rove and his buddies will continue to wonder why things are getting harder for them rather than easier.
gryphon202 on February 7, 2013 at 9:26 AM
If someone already has a seat in the House or the Senate, TP or non-TP, they should indeed get the benefit of the doubt as opposed to a challenger, because of the risk to the seat and the party’s numbers. We have to apply the Buckley rule long-term: Obama and his party can’t be kept in check unless we have strong candidates to challenge him that can win and win continuously. We do no good divided and fighting each other, Obama and his successor will clean up nicely if we do because leftists, for all their disparate interests unite firmly on election day.
thebrokenrattle on February 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Rove’s time has come and gone. He’s one of the GOP who has no real understanding of who and what this country is up against. He needs to be sent out to pasture.
petefrt on February 7, 2013 at 9:52 AM