Posted on 07/16/2015 5:37:49 AM PDT by xzins
DC’s favorite political “strategist” Karl Rove has taken it upon himself to become the media’s go-to source for anti-Donald Trump comments, and Trump, no shrinking violet, has fired back with a tweet that “@FoxNews should not put @KarlRove on—he has no credibility, a bush plant who called all races wrong.”
The latest Rove vs. Trump smackdown has its basis in a Wall Street Journal article in which Rove defended his record against Trump’s criticism with this paragraph:
When I raised questions about his seriousness, Mr. Trump tweeted that I had “spent $430 million in the last cycle and didn’t win one race.” (In 2010, he donated $50,000 to the Crossroads political-action organizations for which I volunteer.) In the 2014 cycle, Crossroads groups spent $103 million to help win 10 of 12 targeted U.S. Senate seats and 10 of 13 competitive House seats. Not that facts matter much to The Donald.
Rove then threw this haymaker: “Mr. Trump could become the 2016 version of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, who tarnished the GOP brand in 2012 with an offensive statement about rape.”
But the Trump vs. Rove battle goes back further than this week’s news cycle. In February 2013 Politico quoted Trump as having this to say about Rove’s record:
“Why are people giving money to Karl Rove when he just wasted $400M without any victories?” Trump wrote. “Use your head. Karl Rove is a total loser. Money given to him might as well be thrown down the drain. Karl Rove’s strategy and commercials were the worst I have ever seen.”
Politico’s Kevin Robillard then offered this analysis of the burgeoning Rove vs. Trump fight, “Trump, with his bombastic tendencies, love of stunts and embrace of birtherism, could be considered the type of Republican that Rove and company are trying to drive from the party.”
Rove’s defense this week in the Wall Street Journal was disingenuous at best since Trump was clearly talking not about the last election cycle, but Rove’s recent record in general, and as we pointed out in our article “Why Does Anyone Listen To Karl Rove’s Empty Advice?"
After his epic meltdown on Election Night 2012, when he insisted in the face of the counting of real votes that his little white board projections still gave Mitt Romney “a path to victory” and after the expenditure of something like $325 million found Rove winning only 9 of the 31 races his American Crossroads Super-PAC played in during the 2012 election cycle.
As for Rove’s cheap shot comparing Donald Trump to Todd Akin, the conventional wisdom is that Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, two good and decent men who lost their 2012 Senate campaigns in high-profile gaffes, “cost Republicans control of the Senate” because they were “too conservative.”
That is a convenient lie put out by Rove and his allies to mask the fact that what really cost Republicans control of the Senate was the content-free campaigns run by Rove-backed establishment 2012 losers such as George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Connie Mack in Florida, Heather Wilson in New Mexico and especially Rick Berg who lost in North Dakota and Denny Rehberg who lost in Montana, even while Romney was carrying both of those states.
Republicans who ran as conservatives in 2012; Ted Cruz in Texas, Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Jeff Flake in Arizona, all won – even if Cruz is the only one of the three who has subsequently delivered on his conservative campaign rhetoric.
If Rove insists on precision in analysis of his record then here it is: He spent $428 million over two cycles to win 29 elections, a number of which were gimmes. That works out to something in excess of $14.75 million per win, an abysmal rate of return on investment.
Trump may have been imprecise in his language, but his larger point that Rove and his establishment Republican allies are “clowns” who have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in content-free campaigns on behalf of empty suit establishment Republican candidates was right on the mark.
In the escalating war of words between the Washington establishment’s favorite political guru, Karl Rove, and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump we’re going with Trump.
Here are links to Rove’s Wall Street Journal article and Breitbart’s coverage of Trump’s response. Please let us know what you think in the comments below.
It’s pretty clear that Rove is a Bush cheerleader. That’s actually pretty clear about the party line at Fox News, in general.
There’s an exception here an there.
But, I’m pretty sure that Brit Hume, Dana Pereino(sp) and Karl Rove have been branded on their flank side by the cowboys at the Bush ranch.
CR has to redeem his self after his “white-board” ass kicking..
The disappointing Geo. W. presidency is enough for me to disregard Rove.
Heck, I’d go with Marla Maples against Rove.
I’d go with Orville Redenbacher against Rove.
I’d go with Little Lotta and Snapper Carr against Rove, and they are fictional characters!
I used to think Rove was a champion of conservatism. Today I don’t think he’d have the ability to be the chalkboard monitor for his stupid ass board.
I wouldn’t deny that Rove is a smart, extremely knowledgeable guy.
It’s just that I think he’s very clearly picked sides, and it’s with the moderates/liberals instead of the conservatives.
And, like Trump says, he really has wasted a lot of money on loser candidates.
After what Rove has done as a favorite RINO I would prefer to watch him burn at the stake.
Trump’s strategy seems to be a simple one. Say what every one else is thinking but does not say. By doing this he gets massive attention at no cost.
Just sayin.....who was here first?
Fox dumped other pundits but Rove was kept on.
Donors to "American Crossroads" were outraged over Rove collecting Big Bucks w/ glowing reports abt Repub wins that never materialized.
I hope this momentary schadenfreude we are all enjoying doesn't bite us in the butt later, for now I'm just going to soak it in.
I'm on board with that....it is fun to watch, and the people he's irritating are people who need to be irritated. And I don't think it's going to bite us in the long run. I think it helps Cruz in the long run.
Meanwhile, I am only concerned about one thing...the way some conservatives are falling for Trump and ignoring a zillion red flags. It's cultish.
The mystery of the Trump run: Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall Trump saying in the past (2011) that it be based on his evaluation of the weakness of the candidates.
My guess is he thinks either Bush or Clinton would be bad for the country.
I agree with that. I remain a Cruz first advocate, but Cruz and Trump have gotten together, so I see that as a possible ticket that I would have no problem with.
Cruz or Walker as Veep for at least one term. But only Trump is up to the job of breaking up the GOPe, turning the Country around and directing it back toward its former greatness and exceptionalism.
Trump doesn’t have to kiss anyone’s rump for funds; and that is what makes him the only one to tackle the cartel in Washington, DC as it exists today.
Trump/Cruz 2016.
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.