Maybe Karl Rove Has a Point

Human Events ^ | 2/6/2013 09:30 PM | By: David Harsanyi

[Perdogg]

Let’s put ideology aside for a moment.

Karl Rove, architect of the George W. Bush-era Republican victories, says he’s sick of fanatics running his party into the ground. So he’s devised a strategy to preemptively sink unelectable candidates early in the process. He’s formed a new super PAC to implement this strategy. It’s called the Conservative Victory Project, and it’s led by a guy named Steven Law, who was the head of another super PAC, called American Crossroads, which went something like 0-7 in the 2012 election cycle. (Not that anyone’s counting.)

Grass-roots conservatives, needless to say, are quite perturbed. “I’m filing the paperwork to form a super PAC to support freedom-loving conservative alternatives to (Karl Rove) on FOX,” tweeted former Rep. Joe Walsh. Surely, he won’t be the last to counter Rove’s efforts

[C. Edmund Wright]

Well I won’t be relying on the seat belt, I’ll be jumping out of the car first. And as such, how fast it’s going and how soon the wall will be hit are critical differences to me, so I’ll vote to slow it down - even if all that will do is buy me time to prep to jump.

We’ve gotten 20 years closer to that wall in the past 4 years - and we’ve picked up speed in the process. That’s because of Obama - and others who think like him. And they are Democrats.

[EyeSalveRich]

>Thank goodness Reagan didn’t “leave the R’s” and instead BECAME the R’s<
Reagan, did preside over the fall of USSR. Good. But he also balooned our debt to gdp ratio. VERY bad, and not at all conservative. If ballooning debt to gdp ratio IS republican, then definitely jump off the R ship.

[Lakeshark]

He lost it all by himself.

After his ridiculously ignorant comment about rape (yes, it was), he never recovered from being double digits behind a looney leftist. There were others that could have beaten her, that polled way above her after Akin's idiotic remarks. He had time to drop out and give the nomination to good conservatives that could have won, but didn't.

If saying he lost it all by himself is piling on, so be it.

[dfwgator]

He had time to drop out and give the nomination to good conservatives that could have won, but didn't.

Again, where was this candidate to be found?

[AFPhys]

Excellent way to frame this discussion. Thanks for expressing so well what I would have written.

Also, though you didn’t write it in your post, but it is worth repeating above comments that Rove and crew have had a pretty lousy record.

[cuban leaf]

Well I won’t be relying on the seat belt, I’ll be jumping out of the car first. And as such, how fast it’s going and how soon the wall will be hit are critical differences to me, so I’ll vote to slow it down - even if all that will do is buy me time to prep to jump.

We’ve gotten 20 years closer to that wall in the past 4 years - and we’ve picked up speed in the process. That’s because of Obama - and others who think like him. And they are Democrats.

---

That’s another post I almost completely agree with. The only part I disagree with is the part about Obama. Yes, he’s made it worse, but I put the responsibility squarely on the electorate. In fact, as one reporter said, if we had had the same electorate back in the day, Dukakas would have won handily.

And that is not a problem you fix with the next election. And I’ve spend the last seven or so years arguing incessantly (literally tens of thousands of posts) with liberals and they have only gotten more loud, more disrespectful and, most importantly, more numerous. The arrogant ignorance really caught me off guard at first.

I’ve been on the battlefield for a long time. I’ve seen the wins and losses and have some theories about what is going on which may or may be correct, but the bottom line is that “they” won. They actually won a while ago. If I had to pick a time our fate was sealed it would be when Nixon took us “officially” off the gold standard.

But again - and this is core for me - it is not the US I’m thinking of when I discuss this issue. It is the entire world. And its ruler is the sworn enemy of my God. I believe what we are about to witness is an event even greater than the fall of Rome. It will be fully global in scope and significantly worse.

It’s taken a while for me to get here. At first I was afraid it could get as bad as the Great Depression. Silly me. But we all know how that ended.

[arderkrag]

That’s exactly what a vote is! It’s no different than pulling a trigger! If I can’t live with myself after doing it and be proud of it, then I’ll make a different choice! I can’t look myself in the eye in the mirror in the morning after voting for another worthless CINO.

[tumblindice]

"Maybe Karl Rove has a point ... sick of fanatics" Sure he does--on top of his head!

[Mr. Know It All]

No, you can't, because what your attitude shows is that your are so arrogant and out of touch with reality that you look at a vote as something about "you." No, it's not that at all. It's not about you. That's not what a vote is.

That's the dumbest thing I've read today. My vote is about my choices and my choices are about me. They are mine. You don't have to like my choices, but that's too bad because I own them.

If voting wasn't about me, then I wouldn't have to be there to do it. Who tells you how to vote?

[Ohioan]

Gentlemen:

Regardless of how close we are to chaos; regardless of how corrupt, bribed, ill-informed, diverse & confused in every sense, the bulk of the population, today, the ultimate question is how do we improve the chances that after chaos--if it is unavoidable--some improvement in what follows is still possible--with or without the Republican Party.

Recognizing that Karl Rove is a force in the wrong direction is still important, if only because his half-witted pseudo-pragmatism diverts efforts from what we yet can do to improve the perceptions of those now "lost" inhabitants of the constituent States in our, at least once, Constitutional Federal Union.

There are ways to improve the perceptions of just about everyone--different ways for different folks--but still ways to improve the perceptions of reality among just about everyone not completely corrupted by entitlements and/or the Pavlovian conditioning that takes place in contemporary education. That concept includes reaching the largely-- but still not completely--corrupted.

Should we not make such an awakening the main focus; that is, doing all that we still can do, to spread understanding of the realities of life that are now outside the apparent ken of most of our political "Leaders?"

William Flax

[EyeSalveRich]

Election#1:
Major candidate #1 outlaw tanks in civilian hands they are dangerous.
Major Candidate #2 outlaw automatic weapons
result you vote for candidate one- best 2nd ammendment cand.

Election#2:
Major candidate #1 outlaw automatic weapons in civilian hands they are dangerous.
Major Candidate #2 outlaw saturday night specials and teflon coated rounds
result you vote for candidate one- best 2nd ammendment cand.

Election#3:
Major candidate #1 outlaw saturday night specials and teflon coated rounds
Major Candidate #2 outlaw “assault” weapons
result you vote for candidate one- best 2nd ammendment cand.

Election#4:
Major candidate #1 outlaw “assault” weapons with 20 round clips or more
Major Candidate #2 outlaw all “assault” weapons
result you vote for candidate one- best 2nd ammendment cand.

Election#4:
Major candidate #1 outlaw all “assault” weapons
Major Candidate #2 outlaw all semi-automait weapons
result you vote for candidate one- best 2nd ammendment cand.

etc. etc.
Congratulations, your love of compromise just enslaved everyone. stand up for what is right. If there aren’t enough intelligent voters to elect someone to do whats right then fight the information war, you already lost the voting war.

[Yellowstone Joe]

Thanks. Do you know how many times I need to post a comment?

Which probably means that by my asking they will most likely double the times I need to post. LOL

[Jabba the Nutt]

"Karl Rove, architect of the George W. Bush-era Republican victories,..."

Let's correct this, I believe Rove is the architect of Bush's victories (by the skin of his chinny-chin-chin. Did he affect congressional, senate or state elections? Not aware of that.

[Ohioan]

Some of Reagan's debt was a result of having to compromise with Democrats in Congress, to have a functional Government; much of it, however, was for a military buildup, which broke the back of European Communism (they could not afford to keep up).

This led to the surpluses under Clinton, less than a decade later.

William Flax

[cuban leaf]

I honestly don’t know the number. I’m thinking 20 or so might be good. Just post a bunch of polite and somewhat well reasoned responses and you’ll probably find them showing up immediately fairly soon. It’s what I did when I created this account after losing my account from 1998.

[ifinnegan]

“I have mixed feelings about this. On the on e hand, I am a Conservative and want to see true conservatives in the Senate. On the other hand, it is important that the candidate nominated can beat the Democrat.”

I don’t think there is any evidence that the supposed more electable candidate would win.

In fact exhibit A is Mitt Romney.

“In the last 2 election cycles, the Republicans threw away winnable Senate seats, notably Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada in 2010 as well as the Maryland seat that same year.”

Again, no evidence whatsoever that the more “winnable” candidates would have won these seats if they had been nominee.

This is all based on a false premise.

And again, Romney is the example of their strategy and he lost.

[Ohioan]

Did Rove affect Congressional elections?

See 2006--Rove Directed Republican Disaster.

Contrast the Tea Party victories in 2010 with the Rovian performance in 2006, for a graphic demonstration of who actually understands how to broaden the Republican base!!

Rove, as we have repeatedly stated, lacks genuine analytic ability. He is all about memories of yesterday's attitudes--all about chasing the results of yesterday's leftwing influences. He does not have a valid clue about how to reverse those influences.

William Flax

[ifinnegan]

“Well you have to admit, we’d be much better off if Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock hadn’t been nominated. They all took lead pipe cinches for the R’s, and gave them to the D’s.”

This pure fantasy, speculation or supposition on your part.

There is no reason to believe they were lead pipe cinches or that they would have won as opposed to the actual nominees who defeated the others in primary elections.

Mitt Romney, the lead pipe cinch did not win.

[Lakeshark]

Both candidates who lost to him in the primary held large polling advantages over McCaskill, even after the Akin melt down. They were both good conservatives who could hyave stepped in and won.

[ifinnegan]

“” . . . institutionalize William F. Buckley’s rule: Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.””

This is the crux of it.

Who is to say who is electable?

The empirical method is in place — the one who won the primary election is electable. They were elected the nominee.

That is the first pass.

These complaints are nonsense and not logical. To the degree they have logic they are arguing for a non-democratic process wherein candidates are appointed.