Karl Rove’s courage
I just got one such solicitation from a Rove critic, an email from Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell, the 2010 failed GOP senate candidate from Delaware, who was raising money off of the Rove outrage. (You remember O’Donnell as the candidate who had to deny that she was a witch.) Hers was a race of just the type Rove is trying to shape. Had Mike Castle been the GOP nominee, he’d probably be Sen. Castle right now. Rove believes that candidates like O’Donnell gave away likely seats in Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, and Missouri during the last two election cycles. The GOP might control the Senate today if sharper candidates had prevailed.
This line of thinking outrages movement conservatives and Tea Party activists. They chalk up the defeats to the liberal media, which lampooned true conservatives by fixating on their minor missteps. By pledging to support more electable candidates, Rove is buying in to the frame that the media puts around true conservatives.
This theory may be reasonable or it may be poppycock. Either way, Rove’s detractors should thank him for bringing the debate into the open. Rove’s new effort is good for the Tea Party in the way that doubters are good for religions. No faith worthy of its Sunday parishioners crumbles under a challenge. Leaving aside whether Rove is really challenging the core of Tea Party beliefs, his efforts force those who hold a different view into being clearer about what they believe. Only if they go through that process can they make their case to Republicans who aren’t already true believers. Plus, if they can’t beat Karl Rove at the internal game, they’re not going to be able to beat the Democrats.
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
Close.
Karl Rove, Scourage
Rove’s an idiot. Period. He serves no constructive purpose.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 9, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Rove lied about Rep King on national radio. he smeared a decent man to further his talking point how is that courage?
unseen on February 9, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Even if you are all on board the Establishment train, why would you promote someone who hasn’t had a win since 2004? He can’t be taking credit for 2010.
Cindy Munford on February 9, 2013 at 11:33 AM
So the media only lampoons and focuses on the minor misstetps of true conservatives?
Why isn’t Mitt Romney president right now if not for media driven impressions among low information voters, John? I would love to hear your explanation.
Kataklysmic on February 9, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Breitbart has an article up quoting Rove saying he is a Reagan Republican and was in charge of Regan’s Texas campaign. Which is laughable to anybody who was alive at the time. But might work on younger people.
Fenris on February 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM
the establishment all want to link themselves ro Reagan while doing everything in their power to try to move the voters away from Reaganism. If it wasn’t so sick it would be sad. All they reall have to do is embrace reaganism but that would mean a big loss of their power and its return to the people so instead people like ROve lie and smear decent people.
I see Rove forgets to mention all the establishment candidates he supported in 2006, 2008 2010 2012 that lost.
Rove and Bush supported Spector over Tomeey in PA. How’s that working out Karl?
unseen on February 9, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Rove is a cancer on the GOP party and should be forced to leave the party.
unseen on February 9, 2013 at 12:07 PM
The real problem here is that these people aren’t being honest about the Tea Party’s record. There is no question that O’Donnell and Ken Buck were failed candidates and that the establishment-backed candidates in their primaries would have won.
But the same can’t be said for Sharron Angle (her establishment-backed primary opponent was equally bad). And, while Mourdock shot himself in the foot in the last weeks of the Indiana race, that incident only occurred thanks to Todd Akin in MO–decidedly NOT a Tea Party candidate.
And all this obscures the Tea Party’s many successes–Mike Lee, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and the 60+ members of the House elected through Tea Party efforts.
So fine. I am fine with having a national conversation about improving the Tea Party’s candidate vetting & selection process. Let’s start that conversation from an honest portrayal of the Tea Party’s record.
Outlander on February 9, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Rove is a douchebag. I wish the WSJ would dump him as a weekly columnist–a complete waste of a third of a page on Thursdays.
Maybe Hannity will continue his love affair with Rove, and they can both go down in flames.
BuckeyeSam on February 9, 2013 at 12:15 PM
You’re absolutely correct. A diffuse bunch of Tea Partiers around the country backed a small number of bad candidates their first time out of the gate in 2010. At what point do they get to live Christine O’Donnell down? Like you said, they ushered in Lee, Toomey, Cruz, Rubio, and that new NE Senator. I think Lee, Cruz, and Toomey are tremendous.
With regard to 2012, Akin was establishment. I can’t explain Mourdock. No one saw that screw-up coming.
What about all the establishment failures? Too many to count in 2012.
BuckeyeSam on February 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Good post. They don’t want an honest dialogue though. Just like the left wants Akin to be the face of Republicans, Rove establishment types want O’Donnell to be the face of the Tea Party. Stats about well coiffed establishment candidates who lost can be waved off. Threats to their power need to be caricatured and demagogued.
Kataklysmic on February 9, 2013 at 12:35 PM
At what point do we get to call these people out publicly for blowing two presidential elections in a row against an inexperienced, ill-educated, economically illiterate agitator?
Go away, Karl. You’re incompetent.
CurtZHP on February 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM
What exactly constitutes as “establishment”? Anyone who hasn’t address a TP rally? Can a “Tea Party Candidate” become establishment? What then, primary them too?
thebrokenrattle on February 9, 2013 at 12:52 PM
I’m sure a liberal rag like Slate and democrat lapdog like Dickerson have the Tea Parties best interest at heart.
clearbluesky on February 9, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Absolutely! DC is a cesspool of corruption and pointless partisan competition. Newly minted candidates aren’t immune to it just because they had Tea Party backing in their respective campaigns. One of the biggest flaws in the
Tea Party movementmovement conservatism since Buckley was a young man has been that conservatives are too comfortable in their victories. Every politician that finds success with Tea Party backing should know they are on-notice before they take the oath of office.gryphon202 on February 9, 2013 at 1:05 PM
What’s the criteria for those who should be primaries? Who decides? Should anyone be left alone or should they be challenged every election cycle? How can money and energy be saved for the elections against the Democrats in November of that year if we invest time to fighting each other in the first half?
thebrokenrattle on February 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Everyone should be primaried, every time. Both parties. Nobody should be allowed to get comfortable in their DC digs.
If only there were that many viable candidates in every district, every time.
S. Weasel on February 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM