Mediaite
Karl Rove dismisses tea-party backlash: We need fewer Christine O’Donnells and more Rand Pauls
Rove “never goes away,” Bob Woodward replied. The party’s problem is with messaging and connecting to voters, he added, yet the focus here seems to be on money, which he said isn’t the issue.
Woodward’s right, Rove said, elaborating on the need to research and examine candidates thoroughly. “The whole theory of Republicanism is to let the local state or district decide,” Woodward countered.
We believe in markets, Rove said, but further examination “means fewer Christine O’Donnells and more Rand Pauls.”
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: « Previous 1 2
Karl Rove has done to the GOP what pantyhose did to finger-f***ing.
BobMbx on February 18, 2013 at 11:38 AM
He lost to one of the worst presidents in history, in the middle of an economic downturn, with Obama losing literally millions of disaffected voters, with the Benghazi scandal, and Romney squandered it all. He was instrumental in the ORCA GOTV disaster, alienating Ron Paul and Sarah Palin supporters, and refusing to fight back.
We have very different definitions of competent.
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Lay off Joe Miller! He wasn’t a whack job at all. He never said anything controversial that would harm his campaign. The only reason he lost was because Murkowski split off centrists of both parties. The very fact that you didn’t know his name shows that he didn’t do or say anything harmful like Akin, Mourdock, Angle, and O’Donnell.
blammm on February 18, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Maybe. But he’s from a deep blue state. Obama won it by 20 points. Castle would have at least voted for Mitch McConnell for Senate majority leader and probably would have played a role in using his filibuster vote to at least force some moderation. (Remember, Olympia Snowe’s filibuster threat forced Obama to get rid of the “public option” and do insurance exchanges instead. The new Maine Senator would have voted for the “public option.” That change saved us a solid 5 years before the government fully nationalizes the health care industry.)
Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM
This is undeniably true, which is why I didn’t immediately come out against him like many did. But, he and his advisors have really dirtied the pool since his original announcement. Now he’s trying to go back and erase the last two weeks. We’ll see how well that works out for him.
besser tot als rot on February 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM
I wanted Castle to defeat COD in the primaries and all, but let’s be real. Whether or not Castle had defeated COD, the likely result would have been Coons voting for cloture last week.
besser tot als rot on February 18, 2013 at 11:47 AM
The problem Rove won’t reflect on is that his primary interest — personal gain — can be as much of a detriment to his espoused goals, than anything else out there. He’s out selling his opinion to the highest bidder while at the same time working as a campaign strategist, behinds the scenes for the most part, to advance Republican causes (I’m ignoring qualitativeness of the causes, please don’t start).
It’s pretty obvious by now that Rove, in the former capacity is a loose cannon, and enough of one that even he should realize it’s a big problem. But he get’s good money for his opinions, so that is never likely to stop.
In effect, Karl Rove is no better than Christine O’Donnell, but owing to his reputation and ability to draw attention, he is markedly worse. Karl Rove’s competence is behind the scenes, not in front of the camera.
Dusty on February 18, 2013 at 11:49 AM
I wholeheartedly agree. Romney’s campaign was dysfunctional, ineffective, and actually went out of its way to alienate conservative voters.
What’s funniest of all is how embarrassed Romney was by social conservative voters. He treated all of us like crazy uncles to be kept cooped up in the basement, and completely abandoned social issues on the campaign trail. Obama thanked him for doing so by moving the goal posts on him and running the field, in the process convincing a large percentage of women that Romney was going to outlaw birth control and legalize rape! (Had Romney actually engaged on those issues, and talked about Obama’s opposition to even reasonable abortion regulation, Obama wouldn’t have been able to do so).
Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 11:49 AM
Crickets from Rove’s defenders…
steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 11:50 AM
You know what I’d also like to hear from Rove? That we need fewer Mitt Romneys and more Rand Pauls.
Because as it stands now, it appears to me that for Rove, statism = electability. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
If he can remove the candidate’s statism from the electability equation, I’m all for it. But, Rove apparently thinks that if you have two candidates with equal backgrounds, other than their degree of statism, that the more statist candidate is more electable. And by a lot. That should be how the Democrats select a candidate. Not the Republicans.
besser tot als rot on February 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Don’t feel bad. He felt the same way for the fiscally conservative / free market voters.
besser tot als rot on February 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM
It went further than that. In the final week of the campaign, my mom saw a Romney ad in Florida specifically about how sane and not scary he was for not going after abortion and always supporting rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother exceptions.
Despite what was a giant middle finger to pro-life voters, she voted for him anyway, given the alternative. But how many voters who were ready to support him ended up staying home because of the crap like that that he pulled in the final weeks?
steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Ironic, because Rove’s new group wouldn’t have supported Rand, and instead pumped money into Rand’s opponent.
Ca97 on February 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Exactly. Romney let Obama choose the parameters of the political debate and then got slaughtered. Obama spent months defining Romney on social issues and his wealth and Mitt just sat there as if it didn’t matter at all.
Well it mattered.
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 12:00 PM
You want to stop Rove choosing establishment over grassroots candidates? Fine. Stop throwing away perfectly winnable elections.
bobs1196 on February 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM
I could be wrong, but didn’t Rove support Charlie Christ over Rubio and Rand Paul’s opponent in the primary?
Meat Fighter on February 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Like Romney?
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM
You guys are still getting finger-f****ed by Rove…so there’s that.
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 18, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Like the 2012 presidency?
besser tot als rot on February 18, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Tokyo Rove supported Rand Paul’s opponent. What a freakin’ liar!
Jayrae on February 18, 2013 at 12:13 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 12:15 PM
What we really need are fewer party hacks who will go on national television and trash the party’s own candidates after the primaries have already been won. But I guess we can’t have everything in life, can we?
Aitch748 on February 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM
That’s who I think of when I associate names with Karl Rove – not Jeb Bush or Mitch McConnell or Tom Delay or Arlen Specter, but Rand Paul. Rolls right off the tongue.
Oh, and the difference – the entire difference – between Christine O’Donnell and Rand Paul is that one succeeded and one failed. That’s the kind of insightful analysis that makes GOP consultants worth millions
HitNRun on February 18, 2013 at 12:22 PM
I heard Woodward say that, and thought it was a strange thing to say, since the new democrat campaigns take all that money from liberal billionaires and shun presidential campaign financing if it means they might win…
But the Rove comment should be corrected…that is for Senate candidates, not Congress. Rand Paul had name recognition and support because of his father. Christine O’Donnell does not have such a father. She could have won a congressional race in the right district, and that really is the way to prove yourself or not prove yourself to the public that do not know these people who want to run. You can’t just jump in for statewide office, especially in a blue state, and expect to win.
Grassroots candidates suit the grassroots offices like Congress and state rep.
Fleuries on February 18, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Rove and Rand secretly agreed to an unholy alliance. Rand would start talking and voting like the rest of the RINO squishes(amnesty) in exchange for Rove’s quiet support.
Wigglesworth on February 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM
[Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM]
Sure, I understand that and I agree with you on that. I agree with Rove that vetting is important. Not to take away from you good point, but it seems to me that using this case of O’Donnell to argue it makes the point a useless truism. The Tea Party groups then were a bootstrap efforts, with little experience and not a lot of resources. Some groups in other areas did better owning to different circumstances and group makeup.
So, while the choice of Christine O’Donnell wasn’t necessarily inevitable in DE, it was inevitable somewhere, and I’d suggest that happened to be DE. Any vetting process in DE would have resulted in Castle anyway and that was something the Tea Party Group found unacceptable. But even if it hadn’t been Castle, vetting in the manner Rove suggests wouldn’t have resulted in some other Castle clone, just because that was about the only thing the DE Republican party ‘factory’ produced. Their only choice was to go with whoever volunteered to do it and the one who volunteered had run in 2008 and had quite a bit of outside support on that try.
Let me point out that O’Donnell was the first iteration in a Tea Party process now heading into it’s third effort. The groups are more organized, there are fewer novices and more veterans, they’re more professional, if you will, now. Rove’s argument has much less relevance, if his argument is based on O’Donnell, as just about everyone here has pointed out with their own list of losers that they expect/fear Rove’s new plan will foist on us.
FWIW, this is some of the stuff I was thinking when I ranted about it before.
Dusty on February 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Bingo! Someone should tell the RINO squishes because they think if they acquiesce to Obama’s agenda then things will turn out ok for them. For example, how about every time you talk about things that can be done to improve the economy you mention how much it will help citizens and LEGAL immigrants realize the American dream. Amnesty? I’m trying to protect opportunities for legal immigrants who waited in line for their turn. It’s not that difficult. Instead we get these idiots who just us the word “immigration” as if we don’t have any laws.
Even though the dems problem is policy they never back down from a failed election. They just rebrand the message.
Wigglesworth on February 18, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Rove won’t like this either…
http://conservatives4palin.com/2013/02/breaking-governor-palin-to-speak-at-cpac-2013.html
Palin 2016
ChuckTX on February 18, 2013 at 12:35 PM
This is the type of person we need more of in Washington:
http://conservatives4palin.com/2013/02/governor-palin-celebrate-presidents-serving-with-pure-motives.html
We need a TRUE Conservative to lead.
Palin 2016
ChuckTX on February 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Romney lost for very different reasons than O’Donnell, Akins, et. al. There was never a chance that O’D could have performed as well as Romney actually did in that first debate.
I’ve never heard Rush praise the performance of any Republican (except for Ronald) as unexceptionably as he did Romney that following morning. Romney’s articulation of the role of government — and the principles sustaining that role — was as good as any movement conservative probably could have delivered. (I guess we’ll find out in a couple of years whether we really do have such folks waiting in the wings.)
Watching all of O’Donnell’s debate, the few clips that I saw of Akins and Mourdock, they weren’t even close. You can perhaps get away with not being all that bright running in down ballot races…but running for U.S.Senate is different…48 million (as was apparently spent in Montana)will expose a lot flaws; and you have to be able to do something more than run a few cliches.
The Angle case might be a bit different, and she might have been able to overcome the things she said, even though some of them were… Yet with some 14 million on hand less than 60 days before the election, she got killed on GOTV.
There might be some reason to compare Romney’s loss to Rehberg’s….but not the others…
Unfortunately RNC, the other Republican GOTV operations are not being very forthcoming about what happened, both in individual races and the presidential election. Being on the wrong side of the 70-30 stat of actual voters who said “he cares about me” is a staggering statistic (one that Rush noted that when he first saw it in the early exit polls, he knew it wasn’t good). It’s just not clear whether that’s traceable to the actual turnout and getting trounced there or something else. What is clear is that running an O’Donnell or Akins clone would not have made the national race any better….
Again…we’ll just have to wait and see whether our claimed deep bench can write a different ending in 2016. 2014 might be a good time to practice
EastofEden on February 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Little Lord Karl.
Bmore on February 18, 2013 at 1:09 PM
Oh yeah. This fight evolved just like I knew it would. Still in the micro, never in the macro. Its the Tea Party vs. Establishment vs. TrueCons vs. RINOs vs. Ronulans vs. Libertarian Republicans vs. Social Conservatives. Did I miss any faction? Guys, unless you unite, you’re never gonna beat the true enemy, the progs. The circular firing squad is getting old. And please, don’t blame other factions. Stay united or you lose. Your choice.
tommy71 on February 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM
Running Romney was clearly a bad mistake and the results show that.
More than six million stayed home.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/estimated-6.6-million-fewer-white-voters-showed-up-to-vote-in-2012/article/2513069#.UOysro76TMM
This wasn’t unpredictable, nor was it unpredicted. On every conservative website posters said, again and again that they weren’t going to vote for Romney.
Some of the too clever by half folks thought they were kidding.
They weren’t.
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 1:18 PM
Not really. Its the Establishments choice. Tea Party folks have thrown there support behind the GOPe long enough. This is not unity for the sake of winning, this is a last ditch effort to consolidate a failing party. Whigs.
Bmore on February 18, 2013 at 1:19 PM
And win what exactly?
Amnesty?
More Bush years spending?
Romneycare?
Medicare Part D?
Ever expanding government?
What are we winning?
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 1:22 PM
Romney only once articulated a clear economic conservative message–during the first debate, which he won. But that message never properly infused his campaign, and I don’t think Romney really believed in it.
The main challenge to selling conservative economic ideas is that most people see them as abstract. Most Americans don’t make a payroll, don’t invest in companies, and aren’t close enough to those that do to understand why “tax & spend” doesn’t create jobs. Corporate tax rates just aren’t things that ordinary Americans think about. Not so with the left’s ideas: “vote for us, and we’ll tax the rich and will give all of you free stuff” is a message that everyone understands.
Republicans can win the debate, but they have to understand the issues and believe in economic liberty to do so. Endlessly regurgitating the political consultant-approved “cut taxes!” line won’t work, but it’s all the Romneys and other RINOs of this world know how to do.
Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2