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: 1 2 Next »
Can’t argue with Karl about that, assuming he means it.
farsighted on February 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM
And fewer Todd Akins, Joe whatever his name was, Sharon Angles…y’all may hate him, but he is right. The GOP could’ve had the Senate by now.
nyclakerfan on February 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Funny how Karl Rove never says that we need fewer Mitt Romneys…
Stoic Patriot on February 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM
We need fewer John McCain’s, Romney’s and Dole’s.
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM
The reason there are more Christine O’Donnell’s and not as many Rand Pauls is because there are too many Mike Castle’s Karl.
Get a grip. Purge the RINO’s from the party and we won’t have to nominate “idiots” to replace them in primaries.
Defenestratus on February 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Let’s look at Karl Rove’s track record. What candidates has Karl Rove either worked for or actively supported? How many of them, even if they won, have advanced the cause of conservatism? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say… zero. Rove’s words carry zero credibility with me. From the beginning of his career, he’s set out to undermine conservatives and promote moderates.
Shump on February 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Less Karl Rove, please. Much much less.
somewhatconcerned on February 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Purging the party doesn’t get rid of idiots.
nyclakerfan on February 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Everyone can say what they want.
What we need is the right candidates in the right areas.
You can’t run a Rand Paul in NJ, and you can’t run a Scott Brown in Texas.
You run the most conservative candidate you can in the area possible. It’s as simple as that.
blatantblue on February 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Liar. If you believed in *free* markets Karl Rove, you would have supported Christine O’Donnell. The people of Delaware selected her–as bad as she was–over long-time establishment senator Mike Castle. But you didn’t. You threw a fit because your establishment guy didn’t win and you trashed the people of Delaware’s selection using your bully pulpit. You are only a team player when you get to select the players.
conservative pilgrim on February 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM
You people wanna know why we failed? There was never any strength in the “whipping” of the party.
Look at what Nancy Pelosi did. She can the liberals where she could, and the weaker liberals where she couldn’t run pure blues.
Then, she had the strength to whip everyone together and chorale everyone on important votes like the Affordable Healthcare Act.
THAT is how you do it.
blatantblue on February 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Heh. Must have slipped his mind.
conservative pilgrim on February 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Just remember, this guy is the master of electability.
A 9-21 record combined between American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS is considered not just a losing season, but a downright miserable one.
Stoic Patriot on February 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Most likely in every one of those cases a Rand Paul type candidate would have had a much, much better chance of winning the election. As long as long as the candidate wasn’t any closer in his/her views to Ron Paul as Rand seems.
farsighted on February 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Rove is right.
bluegill on February 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Conservative Pilgrim: The “people” of Delaware, as a whole did not select her. People vote in much fewer numbers in a primary and then tend to be more partisan. The point is for a WHOLE state to support you and vote for you in the general. There was no way that was happening with Christine O’Donnell. To suggest otherwise is foolishness.
nyclakerfan on February 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM
This obsession with Christine O’Donnell is pretty bizarre when you consider what just happened with Mitt Romney.
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM
The country and the future of conservative politics will be better off without this a*hole and his new machine determining who we should vote for before we even have a say.
somewhatconcerned on February 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Never forget that Akin was the Rove candidate in the race.
steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM
The guy’s been part of losing two presidential elections that should have been a walk in the park. Why are we taking him seriously?
CurtZHP on February 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM
We need fewer Mitt Romneys (John McCains, Bob Doles, etc.) and more Ronald Reagans.
steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM
She won the primary, regardless of how Delaware does it and people vote. You can make that sort of argument for every state in the country. The fact is Christine O’Donnell WON the primary over the establishment guy Mike Castle. If he was so much better and the people of Delaware were satisfied, then why didn’t he win? They choose differently. THEN people like Karl Rove and his ilk began to trash the Republican candidate rather than the Democrat one. They have their own litmus tests and would rather take down the candidate of their party who doesn’t meet that “purity test” rather than defeating the opposing party. Now, that is foolishness and the perfect way to a losing record, something in which Rove and his PAC seem to excel.
conservative pilgrim on February 18, 2013 at 10:50 AM
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
Yeah, selective memory. It doesn’t fit their narrative. Christine O’Donnell is a much easier target than the sure-winner Mitt Romney.
conservative pilgrim on February 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Rove “never goes away,”
Bob Woodward replied. Theand that’s the party’s problemFixed it for you, Bob.
Rove uses Obama’s wedge issues and divide and conquer strategies against conservative Republicans. Stop encouraging him.
Fallon on February 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM
No conservative can win in a solidly blue state. The Buckley Rule is outdated. If you want to create a respected conservative brand, run an intelligent, articulate conservative in such places even if he or she is bound to lose. Weed out the incompetents and maintain the highest standard of conservative candidates possible, but avoid a non-conservative unless all the conservatives are manifestly unqualified.
Seth Halpern on February 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Who made Karl Rove some kind of kingmaker?
“You will sit there until you are recognized by the Establishment!”
If the whole point, as he says, is to let sub-federal organizations decide who runs (that Federalism thing he claims to support but can’t quite figure out), why not actually do it and let the chips fall where they may?
Sgt Steve on February 18, 2013 at 10:54 AM
Blue Buddha!!!
Bmore on February 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Believing in free markets doesn’t mean believing in throwing good money after bad…
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Idiotic. The jackasses continue to blame the Tea Party when they were responsible for flaming wrecks who lost “gimme” races such as Rick Berg, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, Carly Fiorina, Connie Mack IV, and George Allen.
Robert_Paulson on February 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM
@JohnGalt23–
The DE people decided in the primary. O’Donnell was not a great candidate, but she won the primary. Karl Rove refuses to accept any responsibility in that loss because of his trashing the Republican candidate. He is not a team player.
blatanblue is right about the Democrats. Their party leaders exploit the Democrat’s sheeple mindset and power, connive, bribe, blackmail, force their policies into law because they can and their members obey. Karl Rove appears to envy that type of leadership and wants to impose that strident hand on the GOP with his tests.
AND the Democrats always support their representatives, regardless of how abnormal, crazy, and unlawful they are! The Republicans? We eat our own.
conservative pilgrim on February 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Even for a person like me, Rove is starting to go over the line. I was all for him taking out candidates like Akin, O’Donnell etc. But this constant public trashing of O’Donnell has made me acutely uncomfortable and is an insult to her. For the record, O’Donnell was elected as the nominee by the primary voters. Once that happened, Castle, Rove and all other pubs should have gotten behind her. When Rove trashes her, he is in reality trashing the Republican primary voters who voted for her. Tone it down, Rove. Now. And no, can’t compare her to Romney. He had a serious money advantage over his primary opponents.
tommy71 on February 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Maybe Rove can explain
* George Allen
* Rick Berg
* Scott Brown
* Carly Fiorina
* Linda Lingle
* Connie Mack
* Linda McMahon
* Denny Rehberg
* Dino Rossi
* Tommy Thompson
* Heather Wilson
steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM
She was a loser, in so many ways. For anyone to say otherwise is simply to be disingenuous. I don’t expect people representing this side of the aisle on national TV to sacrifice their credibility on the altar of team play.
Otherwise, they might find they have people spying on them from under their hedges…
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Fine. Then they can shut their traps and not say anything. Rove went out of his way to trash her and still does. He is developing an acute case of ODS.
conservative pilgrim on February 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM
The hypocrisy of Rove is astounding.
He demands Conservatives fall in line and support the nominee if a Romney type gets it.
But if a Christine O’Donnell type gets the nominee, he attacks the nominee, mortally wounding them.
Go stick it Rove.
portlandon on February 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Mitt Romney
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Yeah, the establishment faces of the GOP really helps:
Rove
Romney
Boehner
McConnell
McCain
Panther on February 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM
What we need are fewer talking heads bloviating useless truisms, period.
Republicanism, as you call it, Karl, is what allowed us Christine O’Donnell. Christine O’Donnell gave us Christine O’Donnell. More examination wouldn’t have solved that problem without dumping Castle and putting up someone who could defeat O’Donnell. Your efforts would never have solved it short of buying O’Donnell off.
Examination didn’t give us Rand Paul, either. Rand Paul gave us Rand Paul. Ted Cruz gave us Ted Cruz. Todd Akin gave us Todd Akin.
And here is where I don’t see you helping an awful lot. If Republicanism means markets and letting the pertinent Republican constituency do the examination and deciding, what the eff are you doing collecting big money from around the country in order to interfere with that? Oh, wait, you aren’t going to interfere, you are going to help!
Dusty on February 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM
…and the reason Castle lost in DE is that he was a liberal Democrat who hijacked the DE Rep party and turned it into his own personal fiefdom, playing deliberate musical chairs with the Dems over state offices to the point that only “joke candidates” like COD showed up on the R side in DE. O’Donnell wasn’t a witch, but she was his very own cute and perky Frankenstein monster.
ebrown2 on February 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM
… had built a business?
… had paid his own mortgage?
… had been elected to public office?
… doesn’t see people lurking under his hedges?
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM
I seriously love Karl Rove. He is doing everything possible to alienate the 20% of GOP voters who identify with the tea party, but is so monumentally toxic he won’t be able to attract any swing voters. This man is going to bring about the end of conservative influence in national politics.
libfreeordie on February 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM
…quoth the jackass from Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island.
ebrown2 on February 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Did vastly more damage than Christine O’Donnell could have even dreamed of doing.
You want to talk about losers then start at the top where it matters a hell of a lot more.
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM
It’s very difficult to “coulda-shoulda-woulda.” Christine O’Donnell was a pretty extreme case–there’s no doubt Mike Castle would have won the race and would have been more moderate than the Democrat who won.
The rest of the tea party “defeats” are not so clear. Mourdock was going to win in Indiana before he slipped and fell in the “rape” dog-crap left by Todd Akin (a non-Tea Party candidate). Those things can happen to any candidate. Sharron Angle is often attacked, but remember that her “establishment” primary opponent was no better, and the RNC spent what little money it had in California instead of in NV.
If Rove really wants to improve our candidates, he should invest money in running good candidates for lower offices (state legislature, county executives, governor/treasurer/auditor/etc.) to build a “bench” of good candidates. We lost a number of “winnable” Senate races 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 11:29 AM
As the head of our party? Sure. He carried a helluva lot more weight.
But the weight he carried he handled a helluva lot more competently than She Who Will Not Be Called A Witch.
Of course, the moment we realized he paid his own mortgage, he met that standard…
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2013 at 11:31 AM
…and O’Donnell beat Castle in the primary in the first place because he did not represent the views of DE Republicans and she was the only alternative on the ballot.
ebrown2 on February 18, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Actually…
despite pre-election polls that showed longtime Republican Rep. Mike Castle handily beating Coons in a hypothetical matchup, the voters who turned out today said they would still probably have sent Coons to Washington over Castle, backing him 44-43 percent.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/exit-polls-the-surprise-in-delaware/#more-132853
sharrukin on February 18, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Mike Castle would have voted for Chuck Hagel’s cloture last week, just like the democrat did.
Mike Castle would have voted with the Democrats on almost every issue of importance.
portlandon on February 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM
He’s trying to refer to a candidate vetting process, which didn’t happen in Delaware. Essentially Christine O’Donnell showed up to tea party groups and sang the right tune (small government, “real” conservative, unlike the RINO Mike Castle and the RINO state party), and so they decided to back her. Had the tea party groups been more experienced, they would have spent more time vetting her and should have found enough “red flags” to look elsewhere.
Outlander on February 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »