[Oceander]

I think the author of the piece has misinterpreted what Rove wrote. Rove wasn't saying that Republicans should confine themselves to just tinkering with Obamacare, but that Republicans should come out with their own, workable, alternative to Obamacare. The pickings are easy on that because there were plenty of problems with the health care system pre-Obamacare, most of them caused by government. For example, repeal Obamacare and repeal the McCarran–Ferguson Act. The second will allow a lot more beneficial, consumer-friendly, competition into the health insurance market, which will tend to drive premiums down, particularly with Obamacare repealed as well.

That is why he makes the following statement further down in the article:
The Senate GOP, spurred in part by Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, has wisely developed a seven-point "Jobs for America" plan that includes market-based health-care reforms, ....

and concludes with this:
Americans will hire a party to run things when its ideas are fresh and new and fire it when they believe it's run out of ideas and has an agenda they don't like.

In other words, it's not enough to just attack Obamacare without putting up your own positive alternative; if all you do is attack Obamacare then you're proving that you're as out of fresh ideas and thus no better than the Democrats.

I hardly see that as a negative sentiment.

[lepton]

That’s how I took it as well...and to that extent, it is quite correct.

It’s how to do that where we may disagree with Rove, but this idea is basic politics.

[tanknetter]

You’re right. The point here is that there are a LOT of winnable elections where the GOP candidate can’t just run against Obamacare but needs to have an alternative, a Conservative alternative, in their back pocket that they can pull out and wave around.