Rove Declares War on Tea Party

Coyboy Byte ^ | February 4, 2012 | Staff

[yoe]

The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party has begun. On one side is the Tea Party. On the other side stand Karl Rove and his establishment team, posing as tacticians while quietly undermining conservatism.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the “biggest donors in the Republican Party” have joined forces with Karl Rove and Steven J. Law, president of American Crossroads, to create the Conservative Victory Project. The Times reports that this new group will dedicate itself 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 party’s effort to win control of the Senate.” The group points to candidates like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Richard Mourdock in Indiana as examples of Tea Party primary picks going sideways in major Senatorial battles.

[yoe]

One place to contact Mr. Rove is:
(be nice)
or if you use Face Book:
(again be nice) calling people names is useless plus Freepers are better than that.....appeal to their intellect.

[Fledermaus]

If Karl and a bunch of rich dudes want to throw their money down the losing races rathole, then fine!

[cripplecreek]

Fortunately Michigan has a strong grassroots tea party movement that is swelling up around the establishment republicans.

[C. Edmund Wright]

uh, maybe go back and re read my post. That was my point exactly. After the nomination was his, and he was attacked, he then tried to fund raise nationally as a tea party outsider, which was BS....

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Okey doke, I’ll vote for some other party. No biggie.

[Ohioan]

You have a good handle on Rove, but still credit him with more intelligence than he actually has. He is indeed the unprincipled "operative," whom you picture. But he sees reality as a still-life, a slide show of yesterday's thought patterns, with no real understanding of how to actually change anyone's philosophic or even emotional orientation.

The classic example was his unwillingness to trust his candidate (Bush) in 2000 with an election eve "fireside" type address. It would have been a Nixon "Little Dog" moment, if properly handled, with a huge audience--half of which would have been Gore voters, tuning in to see Bush squirm over the just released "news" of his DUI thirty years before. All Rove would have needed to do, is have Bush carefully schooled as to how to proceed: 20 Seconds to admit that he had once had a wild youth, followed by 28 1/2 minutes on a very appealing vision of the next four years.

No Bush would not have performed as well as Nixon; but with the right coaching, he could have held it together for twenty-eight minutes.

William Flax

[C. Edmund Wright]

You have a good handle on Rove, but still credit him with more intelligence than he actually has. He is indeed the unprincipled "operative," whom you picture. But he sees reality as a still-life, a slide show of yesterday's thought patterns, with no real understanding of how to actually change anyone's philosophic or even emotional orientation.

Perhaps you should see how I describe Rove in 120 thousand pages here (www.gone2012book.com) before you assume what I do and do not credit him with/for, etc. You will find out you and I agree a lot, and in fact, see 12 years of Rove's flawed shallow sterile small picture left brained B type processor analyzed.

[Lakeshark]

I'm not so certain Mourdock was a TEA party mistake, rather he was a victim of the hatred that unseating an incumbent brought him.

The fact that Lugar not only refused to help after his defeat, but went on to actively support the demonrat was what did in Mourdock.

I'm not mistaking Mourdock for Cruz (Cruz did not get that kind of opposition from the local GOP), but the sour grapes of an ex GOP power broker did him in. It was a sick display from a kindergarten loser who took his ball and went home, much akin to what some of the so called "conservative" purists did to Romney in like fashion.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I agree with everything you said about Lugar and the GOP establishment, but it was still unforgivable for Mourdock to make the mistake he did, especially with the lesson of Akin out there. That was just mystefying stupidity on a lesson still fresh in everyone’s mind.

[Lakeshark]

It wasn't so very smart, but neither was it the idiocy of Aiken. Aiken was a disaster, should have stepped aside, but got bad advice stoking his own foolish ego from the Huckster and others. He lost a GOP lock seat all by himself, with no one else to blame.

Mourdock simply got tarred by the same brush for saying something on the same topic (no, not wise, but not like Aiken).

He did not lose for that statement, nor would he have won had he been totally wise in his talking about pregnancy; it was Lugar that played the revenge card from the bottom of the deck.

[SaraJohnson]

The asshat has already been at war with the Tea Party. He knows we are at war with his dead, stupid party.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are correct about Akin, and Huck, and the ego, the stroking, etc, and that he lost a seat that was a slam dunk win.

As for how big a part Lugar played in Mourdock’s loss, I can’t say, so I’ll trust you on that. I was speaking more in terms of how Mourdock’s statement played into the national mood and overall perception of the “war on women.” In that regard, it was inexcusable for him to touch that subject publicly. As a result, he will be historically lumped in with Akin forever.