Skip to comments.Machiavellian Rove 'Kept Santorum Alive Until He Could Kill Rick Perry First... THEN Newt Gingrich'
Posted on 11/15/2012 6:34:51 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
It's over dude...
*** PING ***
The Santorum folks on here don’t want to hear this, but this is exactly what did happen.
Rick Perry took himself out.
Rove had nothing to do with it.
And Adelson outright said that he thought Romney was going to win the nomination but kept pumping money into Gingrich because he didn’t like Santorum’s anti abortion stance.
“The Santorum folks on here dont want to hear this, but this is exactly what did happen”
They didn’t want to hear it then, and they won’t want to hear it now. I’m bracing for the backlash in 5-4-3-2-1 lol
Good report on Doughnut Boy, RR. We have to neutralize him in future primaries if we ever hope to get a conservative nominee.
As to Rubio, I will never support him as long as he remains an amnesty/open-borders advocate.
I will not support any candidate so stupid that they want us to go along with giving away our own country.
This is beyond stupid. Rove is a convenient idiot to dogpile on but conservatives who supported santorum or newt (and the candidates themselves) and refused to budge shoulder the blame for splitting the vote. If conservatives themselves can’t unite behind a single candidate then how could they amass enough votes to win a presidential election?
First of all, that’s a ridiculous statement since all had more or less the same stance. Second, this is not about Adelson’s money, this is about Rove’s influence, which dwarf’s Adelsons.
I have no problem with putting a bullseye on Rove but recriminations against various primary candidates at this point is just stupid.
Yes, that is true...
I’ve always liked Santorum, but won’t deny that this probably happened. (I think though Perry did himself in with worse than lackluster debate performances).
Even more reason we should consider taking our ball and leaving the GOP. I bet an independent Tea Party could even out-fundraise them.
And none of the aforementioned will be the nominee in 2016. (You can throw Palin in there, too.) At this point, my guess would be McDonnell, Kasich, or Rubio--maybe Walker or Jindal, possibly Ryan.
These people are master manipulators. They choose who the nominee will be ahead of time then work the donors of the other candidates to make them win.
The Tea Party rose up in 2009 and 2010 and the establishment manipulators went full force in ensuring that the most moderate person they could find would be nominated. The fact that Romnney created Universal Healthcare in MA undermined the Tea Party’s main issue. They made sure Cain and Gingrich were destroyed so Romney could win Iowa, then New Hampshire, then went ballistic on Gingrich in Florida. The powers that be wanted Romney and Romney it was going to be. And their man lost, which was probably also the intent.
A real conservative could have won in a sweep and both parties knew it so they did everything possible and conspired to prevent that from happening.
Lot of folks around here think its some kind of badge of honor to pick the worst candidate who happens to have the right views - that somehow, it’s a sell out if you actually pick a good candidat with the right views - there is some kind of sick attraction to the most obnoxious, petulant, off putting unelectable social conservatives that I don’t understand.
All of the candidates in the field, Paul excluded, would have ended up with more or less the same impact on social issues if elected. Some seem to think its important that we go down in flames with the Akins, Mourdocks, Santorums, to prove how pious we are too. I don’t get it.
I am less concerned with Santorum supporters than Rove’s cynical abuse of the social conservative voting base over the past decade. He propped up Bush in 2004 and several Senate races with all of the marriage amendments and social issue votes to drive turnout. Yes, it worked politically, but it shows that to these political elites, we are all just pawns to get their outcome.
In this primary race, it was relatively clear Romney was a poor option, but also pretty clear there was not a better one out there. I supported Newt, but to think he would have done any better with the fundamentals in this is wishful thinking. He had a major gender gap even among GOP primary voters. It would have been tough with the rest of the voters. As brilliant as Gingrich is, he would have been a tough sell in the general. There just wasn’t a better option in the field. Perry was our only hope. Amazingly, if Huntsman wasn’t such a shlep and ran as a conservative, he probably could have run and won the whole thing. he had a great fiscal record. He’s a major league loser, though.
Excellent job, Reaganite Republican.
Rove and his American Crossroads won’t go away on their own.
We’re going to have to defeat Rove by eliminating his “moderate” candidates by exposing them straight away, before the first primaries.
Like Jim is suggesting, we’re going to have to narrow our choices to three and preferably two, early on and stick with them.
I will no longer watch Fox ad long as Rove is a contributor. Same goes for Dick Morris any of those other shills for the GOP establishment RINO’s. I’ve lost all trust in the GOP.
Rove does more to hurt our cause than help it.
I think that Rove is a good tactician. The problem is that he’s not a strategist. He thinks he is, but he’s a tactician. Rove and the Republican Party’s focus on tactics elected Bush....twice. It also elected Obama....twice. Rove would be good as part of a Republican election team, but not as the leader of a team. I don’t think that his ego will let him subordinate himself to be a team player.
Yeah, Santorum Stopped Gingrich. 11 > 2.
He’s exactly right, but as usual, got the wrong target. Gingrich cost Santorum wins in Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.
I sent Rick $100.
Still waiting for my sweater vest...
Karl Rove is probably one of the worst things ever to happen to the GOP.
Karl Rove is probably one of the worst things ever to happen to the GOP.
Altho this election was flat out stolen from us, and altho NOTHING will be done by the Stupid Party to go after the filthy bastards that stole it, I personally have had enough of Rove (the “Architect” as Hannity continually calls him . . . and I’ve had enough of Hannity).
This election was stolen with dramatic finesse right out from under our noses, and the powers-to-be in the Repub Party stood there like morons and let it happen.
There was no way we could’ve won this election:
* Airplane crash with hundreds of thousand military ballots gone
* Ballots found in trunks of cars, in warehouses, under desks, in filing cabinets, in graveyards
* Repubs being refused entry into voting precincts by the lawless bastards on the left, and nothing was done about it
* States being prohibited from removing felons and dead people from the rosters
Everything smells to holy high heaven, and the Stupid Party will do nothing.
You are correct. Romney gave us the best chance to win, and he came close. Did a lot of things right (e.g. Ryan), did some things wrong (e.g., not enough specifics on his five-point plan). Overall, ran a fairly decent campaign, could have been stronger, coasted too much toward the end.
yada yada yada - you insist on changing the subject. You can’t change the fact that Santorums vaprous campaign was kept alive by Mitt’s money, or the express purpose of beating Newt. Now, did both Mitt and Newt under estimate Santorum’s appeal to those anyone but Mitt voters? Yep, and I was inside Newt’s PAC warning about this as early as the first week of January. Did they make mistakes? Damn right they did. But that was after the period this article is talking about.
But nothing changes the fact that Santorum has no appeal outisde of a slice of the GOP electorate, and nothing changes the fact that he is a pro life liberal on may issues regarding unions, environmental issues, and big government. And nothing changes the fact that while he has a narrow slice of folks who loved him, he was offputting the vast majority of the country. He just doesn’t have that much ability.
What Newt and Mitt missed is that with Mitt’s scorched earth campaign, and teeny tiny turn outs in all states AFTER South Carolina, that narrow slice of Santorum support was a big percentage of the shrunken universe.
But again, nothing changes the fact that his campaign was floated by Rove and Mitt money for the purpose of destroying Gingrich.
Karl Rowe = James Carville
Both past their prime talking heads...and both are cockroaches that need to be stumped out!
He comes across as corrupt, slimey, and everything people hate about politics,
He needs to be sent far far far away.
McCain raised 1/3 the money that romney did and got the same turnout.
$$$$ is not everything if you have to get in bed w the likes of rove & co. .
I didn’t particularly like Perry, but saying his ‘lackluster performance’ did him in is silly. Obama had a terrible performance. It was the lazy b@stards in the GOP who just DID NOT WORK to win.
I heard that the Dems had 130 working outreach centers in Ohio and the GOP had six!
the only positive thing is that we came close to beating the Obama Machine even with both hands tied by this sh!t-@ss party.
Where the hell did the money go?And so what am I going to do about it? I’m going to, first of all, find out how the GOP works. What is its organizational pattern, how things get done.
Very few people know anything at all about any political party; it’s structure, its offices, how people get to positions of power. etc. This is what I need to know.
It’s what we all need to know.
3000 votes in Michigan which was under 1% and was a tie with Romney till the rules committee voted to change the rules in the middle of the night.
However Gingrich didn’t interfere in Michigan but getting out would have cost Romney the state and likely ended his run.
The race was over after Florida. It was just a matter of time. This article is talking about the critical time of Iowa through Florida.
The tiny GOP primaries in those states were vaporous niche contests. You can claim “states” all you want, but in the primary, unlike the general, “states” mean very different things. Just teeny tiny percentages of the voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan even came out. Rick’s shameless pro union sops helped him in those very union thug heavy states. That and the narrow niche he appealed to. Turn out was statistically meaningless.
But people who think that winning certain primaries has anything to do with being able to win those states electorally are just so out of touch with how the process works that I care not to discuss it with them.
Weakest field ever in a primary.
This points to my biggest revulsion towards Rove... his going on FoxNews and pretending to be an ‘unbiased’ political analyst while taking massive amounts of money and utilizing his platform to deliberately prop-up or deep-six candidates, according to who fills his wallet.
Of course, this invariably leads to the support of big-moneyed GOP-E Rino candidates of the ruling-class, and the slitting-the-throats of grassroots tea-party types. I despise Rove as much as any sleazoid Dem operative. Maybe even more.
Yup. I said FL was the last stand for a conservative alternative to Romney and Newt had emerged as that candidate in SC. I said if Santorum stayed in, it was to benefit Romney.
Those here enraptured by the sanctimonious establishment hack Santorum would hear nothing of it. They didn't care about his voting record, his GOPe ties, he had a nice family and was talking their values and they followed him like the Pied Piper. They would travel thread-to-thread in attack mode.
Now unlike the op ed, I think Romney was the right candidate in the end. He had the right skill set for the mess we find ourselves in. Who among us could anticipate GOP turnout would be as low in light of the crowds? It came down to ground game and people, like those who supported Santorum, refusing to ever vote against Obama because Romney was the nominee.
The so-called Tea Party failed to stop Obama's agenda, it lost ground over 2010 and produced more US Senate candidates who failed in states Romney won easily with tens, even hundreds of thousands of votes difference. Now some seem to think this is a mandate to hijack the agenda. It is nothing of the kind. It's time for introspection, time to reexamine how primary candidates are chosen.
These winnable but lost seats were the difference between a GOP Senate and Harry Reid's expanded majority against all expectations.
I have not seen a single of Akin apologist here admit to being wrong about him staying in the race. Instead they attacked, they demonized, the slandered everyone from Romney to Palin, from DeMint to Ryan, to their fellow freepers as pro-abortionists.
More delusions. Did someone spike the tea?
Agreed. Rove is the Rosie O’Donnell in a GOPe suit, of course. That old gasbag has done much damage.
“this is not about Adelsons money, this is about Roves influence, which dwarfs Adelsons”
Karl Rove doesn’t have near this kind of power. Most of these candidates did themselves in with a good pile on by the media. Rove may have contributed as he could, but he was not the prime instigator.
No, Romney did not give us the best chance to win.
If you get off the conservative boards and start looking around other places (like the comments on newspaper stories), you’ll see a lot of comments like”
“I didn’t think there was that much difference between Obama and Romney, so I just stayed with what I knew and voted Obama.”
That may seem shocking to us here, but consider the typical swing voter. They don’t spend much time gathering information on candidates, their understanding of issues is shallow, they get most of their information from TV commercials, and they make up their mind in the last couple of months.
Romney’s pitch to these voters was “Obama’s doing a bad job, I’ll do better.” Never really explaining why he would do better; he just trusted swing voters to believe he would do better. Meanwhile, Obama painted Romney as a guy that might screw things up again.
Swing voters ended up voting for the devil they knew, instead of taking a risk on the devil they didn’t know. By not explaining why swing voters should vote FOR him (instead of just against Obama) Romney doomed his campaign.
Had we run Newt Gingrich, we wouldn’t have done any worse, but because Gingrich could explain why swing voters should vote FOR him, there would have been a chance to win.
Reagan’s greatest asset was his ability to explain conservative principles so that everyone understood them, and understood how they and the country would benefit from them. That’s the candidate we need to find (and coalesce around) next time. Holding all the right positions isn’t enough, we need someone that can communicate those positions.
The only two GOP candidates in that last election that fit that description would have been Cain or Gingrich. Looking back, we should probably have backed Gingrich.
Eventually we’ll have to stop the historical revisionism and actually deal with the issues that we need to deal with to get back to winning elections.
But for now, these fanciful postings are always entertaining.
One nice thing of the election being over is that most of the site has gone back to acknowledging that Newt Gingrich is no friend of conservatives, or if he is in some ways, he’s a very flawed one.
I’d be surprised to find any serious number of people who think Gingrich would have actually won the election, or done any better than Romney did in losing pretty convincingly.
I certainly don’t think Santorum would have won either, but he would have run a much different campaign at least.
Of course, neither Gingrich nor Santorum would have had any money to compete against Obama, so if nothing else the loss would have been cheaper.
And I don’t see how Santorum had anything to do with Rick Perry’s downfall. I happen to think Rick Perry was the only candidate that actually entered the primary contest who could have won the election, but his failures were his own.
Karl Rove didn’t make Rick Perry into an incoherent babbler in a national debate. And Karl didn’t convince conservatives to make the primaries about Gardasil rather than the economy, or to get into prolonged battles about whether we should try to put a fence in the middle of the Rio Grande. Karl didn’t decide the number one problem facing the country was Texas deciding in 2001 to make money on children of illegals by giving them incentives to attend undercrowded state colleges.
I guess we could blame Karl Rove for Romney, although I think there are a LOT of people we can blame for Romney (I’ve decided to blame everybody who opposed him in 2008, for example. If we had picked him as our nominee back then, either he would have WON, in which case we’d be marginally better off than we are now, or he would have likely LOST, in which case he would have been DONE, and we wouldn’t have had him as our nominee this year).
Actuall, I’m not really “blaming” them, I’m just illustrating how you can use history to assign blame for things.
As I said then, with FL the writing was on the wall: it was going to be Romney. And it was.
Santorum supporters can continue to spin and deny and demagogue all they like but that's the history.
And Ms. I-Am-Not-A-Witch is still the canonical example.
And, tone down the fantasizing about Mrs. Grizzly.
He’s a sneaky moderate. I think he ruined GWB with bad advice. GWB’s natural instincts were much like his mother’s: fight back and speak your mind. But no. Rove put a stop to that. Huge mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.