Posted on 02/03/2013 11:18:18 AM PST by jimbo123
The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the partys efforts to win control of the Senate.
-snip-
The Conservative Victory Project, which is backed by Karl Rove and his allies who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too flawed to win general elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The GOP elites don’t want to win. They are on the same side as the far left. It’s a game of good cop, bad cop. The RINOs are the greatest enemy facing our country and should be treated as such.
It’s working great for them but it’s killing the country.
I totally agree with you. They are using us to collect their cushy pay checks and have a fancy life of perks and drunken parties.
They don’t care about America. They have always been part of the problem. Rove has always been part of the problem.
Why does the NY Times report this?
Voter suppression. Divide and conquer.
Alienating conservatives from the Republican coalition was decisive in gaining the Presidency for Obamunism in 2012. If they can consolidate the Supreme Court from this, they have a solid shot at strategic victory in their long march to overcome the constitutional limits on power.
When will we learn who the real enemy is?
The RNC jackasses have been hounding us for money on the level attributed to telemarketers. I finally told the assholes we switched to the Rat party. Calls have subsided a bit. We will give to the Tea Party conservatives, not the RNC.
Rove’s anti-conservative PAC leader gave an interview to the NY Times in this article! Didn’t you read it? Why is Rove’s SuperPac leadership courting the enemy at the NY Times?
There is no difference. These people are rats.
What the Republicans need to do is to come together with Conservatives and have a party that can work for what is right. Instead they are working to split us apart even more.
This typ of BS will not help the republicans , but it works great for the Dems.
What we need is a new party and let these RINO Mf’ers join the Dems or become forever lost in the wilderness of RINOism.
The last time these a$$ holes called me, I cursed that MF, and invented a few four letter words that did not exist before. He was not expecting a verbal barrage like that and whimpered he would take my name off their calling list. This was several years ago and I do not think I have ever been so angry, as I was that day.
Put history in perspective. Since Gerald Ford, all moderate Republican nominees have lost Presidential elections.
Yes, Reagan was a solid Conservative and while one could make an argument of the Conservative credentials of Bush 43, for the most part he was far more Conservative than his dad.
As for Castle and Lugar, while I concede they likely would have won their respective elections, what if they would have won? Would they have supported a Conservative agenda or would they have acted more like the Maine twins?
If the Republican Party continues to sell out traditional Conservative values, acting like the Democrat lite party, what have we or the Country actually gained?
I submit that those who turn out to vote in such elections would rather vote for the real thing instead of an imitation, while Conservative voters will mostly just stay home (which looks to be what transpired in the 2012 Presidential Election).
War it is then.
In short, the GOP-E which should be driven from influencing the party. They are also in a snit over Ted Cruz schooling their beloved Dewhurst, Marco Rubio driving Charlie Hotbottom Crist from public life. They would like to see to it that none of those non-elitist Georgia Congresscritters take their Saxby's seat. If Saxby coulkd be forced to retire by the barbarians, then at least they should "compromise to elect Chartsworth Worthington 32nd to replace him. Actually, they would really like a US Senate made up of 100 Thurston J. Howell IIIs for those old enough to remember Gilligan's Island. It would make our country utterly safe for Muffy's Trust Fund.
Make these spoiled twerps DEFINE what they mean by "conservative."
I’ll say this for Rove....he was right. And man, does that one hurt.
Christine O’Donnell was a lousy candidate,
So was Mourdock in Indiana, and the guy in Missouri.
They all had a bad case of “foot in mouth” disease.
Rove’s point that we need to get people who can think on their feet, have the ability to say what they mean, and are media savvy.
Somebody needs to be able to answer the “gotcha” game from the drive-by media and counter it effectively.
I do indeed remember Gilligan. I am old enough to remember him when he played Maynard G Krebs. I don’t think Dobie Gillis was ever intended to make him the main character, but that is how it worked out.
The main difference between the two Big Government parties is the names of the people they want to put into office.
They both want to tell us what we can do, loot the treasury, make their friends and relatives fat on the taxpayer, and figure out ways to keep themselves in office.
The main reason some people vote for the republican party is that they sometimes seem to be slightly less objectionable than the democrats.
Repeal the 17th Amendment !
The GOP-E have money and only money. Money is only a means to obtain votes. We have millions of grass roots conservatives: Pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-military, anti-tax (for folks of modest means too!), pro-God, etc. Organize the conservative groups, GOTV, win the primaries, win more general elections than has been the recent case, and the GOP-e can put their $$$$ where the sun shineth not! If they get too pesty, tax their trust funds.
I want more Ted Cruz type candidates, I’m sick of RINOS, what’s the point of having a two party system when they are all cut from the same cloth. It sickens me how Americans anoint politicians and they sit as if they were kings ‘till they drop dead, we need term limits, thanks Arizona for re-electing Juan McLame!
It's not so simple as to say "the conservative will always win" or "the moderate will always win." I think one can make a good case that those elections could have been won by more experienced and professional candidates. That might have been the incumbent (Lugar) or the heir apparent (Castle) or some more conservative candidate who was smarter and more savvy than Mourdock or Akin or O'Donnell.
Put history in perspective. Since Gerald Ford, all moderate Republican nominees have lost Presidential elections.
So that means what? Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney (though I suspect if Dole had won -- or maybe if any of them had won and done a decent job they'd be seen as honorary conservatives by now). And in the other column is Reagan. And the Bushes? Moderates or conservatives?
Let's try it a different way. In the last twenty years only one Republican has been elected President, G.W. Bush. According to the accepted statistics Republicans won a majority -- or even a plurality -- of the popular vote only once, in 2004. That suggests that any Republican, including a conservative one would probably have trouble winning in the current environment.
Okay, so Perot threw the first election to the Democrats, but lately it doesn't look like there's a hidden conservative majority out there just waiting for the most conservative candidate. Of course, if things do take a turn towards the Republicans a more conservative candidate could be elected. But it might not be because a majority was waiting for a true conservative, but rather because the whole country was so sick of the Democrats, that it would sweep a conservative candidate who otherwise wouldn't have been elected into office.
As for Castle and Lugar, while I concede they likely would have won their respective elections, what if they would have won? Would they have supported a Conservative agenda or would they have acted more like the Maine twins?
That's the big question. There are a few -- very few high-profile party swappers, like James Jeffords. Nowadays Senators usually vote with the party on the important votes. You have their vote in the all-important organizational vote at the beginning and on something like Obamacare, you get all Republicans voting together.
Lugar generally scored in the 60s or 70s in the ACU ratings. Compared to my Senators and Representatives that's actually not bad. Castle's ratings were worse. You would have had a good case to replace him with another candidate, but please, somebody who knew what they were doing.
I'm impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, We must broaden the base of our party when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing governments coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
Ronald Reagan
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.