Barbour Goes to War with the Club for Growth [joins TokyoRove]

National Review ^ | 2/12/2013 | Robert Costa

[entropy12]

My main point is not the list. My main point is that to win a candidate must be both, a solid conservative AND politically very savvy. The low information voters are easy prey to the socialist propaganda which tells them that money will be forced out from the rich and given to them. So it is a very difficult job to win elections now a days. Even Ronald Reagan would have a tough time winning in 2016.

[Servant of the Cross]

The other side of the story is that conservatives can also win elections:

Pat Toomey
John Boozman
Marco Rubio
Rand Paul
Roy Blunt
Kelly Ayotte
John Hoeven
Mike Lee
Ron Johnson
Jeff Flake
Ted Cruz
Deb Fischer

Yes, we need candidates who are conservatives AND politically savvy. And Rove/Barbour aren't using the right definition.

[onyx]

“We should manage our coalition and keep our party diverse and large.”

Those Big Tent Republicans are the death of the GOP.

They never learn, no matter the number of elections they lose.

[duffee]

I respect Governor Barbour and he has been good for Mississippi. The problems we are faced with today as Americans is because the socialist have been sucessful at dividing our peoples into groups and pitting them against one another, the rich, poor, blacks, latinos, rural, urban, surburban, gay, religeous, non-religeous, english-speaking, non-english speaking. Now Governor Barbour and Karl Rove are engaging in these tactics to divide the Republican party. Where will the Republican party be if they lose Conservatives? Where will the Conservatives be without the Republican party. We are running out of time and instead working to beat Conservative Republicans in primaries they need to be working to beat democrats.

[CatherineofAragon]

Keep the party “diverse and large”, huh? Including advocates for sodomite marriage, abortion supporters, those who want amnesty for illegals, etc. Nope, not for me; I have no unity with such things.

I never did like that bloviating gasbag.

[entropy12]

Exactly right you are. All those in your list are in my honest opinion politically smarter than the ones who lost.
Please no more candidates like Akin or Mourdock. The country is on the verge of a serious breakdown, economically, morally and militarily. We can’t afford any more unnecessary losses.

[iopscusa]

The Republican Red stench of Barbour was only slightly obvious unless you paid close attention to what this turd did not what puked out of his piggish mouth. FU Haley you’re another Rovian traitor.

[Servant of the Cross]

Barbour joins Rove ping.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I nail Barbour pretty good in the book in one section too

[Lancey Howard]

Haley Barbour is apparently a pandering liberal moron. He should be telling donors to DOUBLE their donations to the Club for Growth. Instead he wants to grease the skids for the likes of Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Mike Castle, and Mark Kirk? Barbour may as well just switch parties now.

[goat granny]

The big tent idiots don’t want conservative, but will support any rino or tepid republican.

[goat granny]

I remember a few years back a reporter asking Hally if he would run for president....His response was, when you see me lose weight, I am in the running......he has lost weight this past couple of years. He use to be a rock solid conservation, but don't know what he is now, my niece lives in Biloxi and she loved how he handled things compared to how Louisiana handled theirs's. And Mississippi got hardly and press, cause Republican

[dennisw]

If I’m not mistaken, the Club for Growth has always been soft on illegal immigration. They’re one of those groups who repackages their own special agenda as conservative orthodoxy. Good for Barbour for standing up to them.

They are libertarian capitalist. They are like CATO. Open borders and free trade. National sovereignty is way down their list. Agree somewhat with Club for Growth and CATO Institute but they have large shortcomings

[onyx]

You’re right.

[iacovatx]

You post is a hopeful sign — that smarter candidates are more likely to win. I would like that.
My concern is that smartness may be irrelevant in a Dem candidate. A Dem candidate can be more idiotic than anyone on the conservative side and they win anyway. If the R party runs smarter candidates, the Dem media will tell the voting public the R candidate is an idiot. I heard after the election from the Dem media that Romney lost because of his “gaffes”. The guy made a defensible comment about “47% of voters” and the Dem media simply used it as their campaign tool. If the R party doesn’t address the information system through which the voters’ opinions are shaped, the R party can run the smartest candidates in the country and still won’t win elections. Stated another way, a single ambiguous comment is all it takes for the Dem media to destroy an R candidate. A steady stream of appalling and offensive comments from a Dem candidate has no effect on the Dem’s candidacy. That is why I am concerned that Rove’s organization is taking on a battle that won’t produce wins. The need for smarter candidates isn’t as great as the need to communicate with voters although I also accept that the most appealing candidate may differ in type from state to state—relatively more conservative in some states than in others. That is just my opinion—thanks for reading and posting. I appreciate everyones’ contributing of points of view and enjoy reading them.

As for your comment regarding the country being on the verge of a serious breakdown, I must sadly agree. At this point, we will have to stop further damage, identify ways to repair the damage, educate and communicate about how to repair the damage, then actually repair the damage. That is a big task and it can’t begin until the American people personally experience the damage and resolve that it needs to be repaired. That first step is yet to be taken.

[entropy12]

Romney lost for many reasons. Not just one singular gaffe. I will list my opinions listed in order of importance.

1. He did not enunciate the message clearly. Just being for tax cuts and against tax increases is not enough. The candidate needs to explain why it is so in clear and simple language which even the low information voter can digest.

2. He never went for the jugular. Obama did, from the moment Romney was nominated. Romney should have learned from Newt how to deliver a punch which lands.

3. He avoided appearing on fair & balanced Fox News, which he should have done 2 dozen times after nomination.

4. Mormon religion was a problem for religious bigots.

5. He should have never said the 47% will never vote for him. Not as stupid as saying Rape does not result in pregnancy, but equally damaging. People can record and will record anything you say with today’s technology.

By smart candidates I do not infer high college grades. I am talking about political smarts. If one is lacking in that, election loss will result.

I really think most Americans are blissfully ignorant of how bad shape the financial situation is. Most do not understand compounding interest. When budget deficits are lined up as far as the eye can see, NONE OF THE PRINCIPLE is being paid back. Worse than that, we are borrowing money just to pay the interest on national debt. Any private corporation or individual would be considered legally bankrupt with the current national balance sheet.