Posted on 02/07/2013 6:50:50 AM PST by Perdogg
“Their brand is strong because they bother to sell it.”
Can’t argue that. It’s been said here before, the nature of conservatives is individualistic where the nature of liberals is collectivist. The collectivist mindset leads to a strong party, and more of a lock step following.
It’s against a conservative’s nature to sell the party. But, as we’re seeing, to not sell the party is to not be elected.
Fwiw, democrats stopped standing by Toricelli, Spitzer, and Weiner when it was obvious they couldn't win for their stupidity.........don't kid yourself, they like to win.......
Rove gave money to Mark Rubio’s campaign in 2009.
Your post has it right.
Rove has no record to stand on. He’s just doubling-down on stupid. This last election was his ticket, and anyone can see how that worked out.
The GOPe is also the architect of all of the GOPs “open” primaries. That should already be getting Rove all of his “electable” candidates. How is that working?
Cruz and Rubio are intelligent, articulate, capable candidates. It’s a stretch to suggest they were comparable to Akin, McDonnell, and Angle.
The LOSERS in the establishment GOP pushed the LOSER Romney on the GOP primary voters, when 70% of the primary voters wanted someone more conservative. (Remember: Romney was the LOSER who lost to the LOSER John McCain who lost to Obama)
But “frontrunner” Romney was who the LOSER Rove wanted.
This was because Romney had what voters crave- he had electability! Despite never getting more than 30% in the, um... primary elections,... among GOP voters themselves...
So... the GOP lost (surprise!) and the LOSERS who lost it, to the worst pResident in history, want to form a PAC to ... do what exactly? Push candidates with more ‘electability’ again?
I applaud your off the grid moves, and we are in early stages of some similar strategies.
Having said that, when you post little drive thru comments on a purely political issue, like this one, you are begging for improper context. You and I share similar beliefs about spiritual things and similar strategy about personal things, but I guess I have a little more feel for what a secular political message board is about....
In other words, the fact that “no political party will solve this thing” is not a license to be ignorant of which one will destroy it the quickest.
OK, now how about all the GOP-E candidates in 2012 that lost? Including Romney. That knife cuts both ways.
Right on, bro.
All of the thoughts, reasoning and views presented in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution had their origin in the Bible - every one of them. They came from nowhere else. All our founders had a thoroughly Christian world-view, and they sought to maintain and promote that as much as possible.
Part of that view is allowing all freedom of religion - so the Muslims get their right to practice their religion from Christianity - but they do not reciprocate that view as their religion says kill all unbelievers. There could not be a greater contrast.
The Marxists, quite according to a patient and well-executed plan, have used our own system to take control of our system and destroy it. Which it thoroughly allows - when godly men cease to do their duty to maintain their values.
We have, collectively as Christians, given our country to the devil. By our non-action, and failing to continue to be “salt” to the unbelieving world.......
Here’s an irony for you. A lot of frustrated conservatives complain, and rightly so, about the establishment “forcing candidates down our throats” - and yet, many of them turn around and try to “force the Todd Akins” down my throat.
I didn’t particularly like Angle, O Donnell or Akin, and Mourdock was a decent guy who had a retarded moment. Yet I pulled for all of them on election night. I still know Bruner would have beaten McCaskill, I think Tarkanian would have beaten Reid, and O Donnell was worth the shot because Castle is just horrible.
Every situation is different. Rove is almost always wrong, but not always. The Tea Party is almost always right, but not always right. Nothing wrong with using our brains from time to time.
This is a fair discussion, so the side you represent has a fair point. Was Akin’s statement so egregious that he would have lost even if his own side had fully supported him and poured in it’s normal financial support?
I say that level of support would have seen a victory by Akin. Why? Because politicians accused of far, far worse have gone on to win.
Therefore, it was the media feeding frenzy that sunk Akin and not the content of his words.
Right, it is difficult to expect a relative newcomer such as Sharon Angle to go up against “the machine” like Harry Reid.
Thanks...HA—HA, not looking for a lynching today ? :)
I saw one freeper who last night entered a Tokyo Rove thread posting :”At least Rove doesnt support idiots like....” with similar followup comments .
it was pretty funny/fun to read his and the responses.
from post “ Suspicions about establishment Republicans are well-founded, but Rove has a point, as well. Purely as a tactical matter, why not weed out inept — or insane — candidates before they start spouting off about a woman’s organic ability to prevent pregnancy when raped? I’m no Sun Tzu, but winning elections seems to be a crucial part of politics. And if being right were enough, I’d be buying my lunch with a $20 bill featuring former two-term president Barry Goldwater.
Law says that Republicans have “blown a significant number of races” because candidates prone to the chillingly bizarre have won GOP primaries before falling to Democrats”
I was down of Rove when it seemed like most here were posting “GWB kept us safe” and used to try to beat up on me for dissing their legacy.
The above is a valid point about those nutbags, however pointing out that Romney was crappy candidate was a valid point too esp with his 47% comment to get rich donors $$$$(many who hate Romney are not critical of that though) , and Rove had his losers too.
The GOP seems such a mess now with one side wants to beat Dems at any cost which regularly backfires, and the other just seems to want to lose to Dems (most wont say that though but I have caught a few) still defending the nutbags who blew easy races, so I plan on watching this fight play out and judging later. I have little faith in either.
Rove and ANYONE who preaches electability and just-winism are enemies of conservatives of all stripes. Anyone who thinks we should line up behind anyone with a R beside their name for the sake of beating the Dems is a traitor to the cause, their country and a party politician, which is the worst of all.
Your insightful post deserves a Like button.
If there wasn't a Rove, you guys would have to invent them. When bad candidates get destroyed, you need someone to blame other than the candidate, and an all-powerful bogeyman is just the ticket.
Most of the electorate hasn't heard of Karl Rove and doesn't care what he says. Yet, astonishingly, a collection of nitwits can delude themselves into believing that Rove, simply by saying unpleasant things about a candidate, is personally responsible for Akin losing by FIFTEEN points and Christine O'Donnell losing by SEVENTEEN points.
Do you really think there are millions of voters out there (be they Republicans, indpenedents, or swing Democrats) that sit around anxiously waiting for Karl Rove to tell them who to vote for?
Both candidates lost, of course, because they were terrible and incompentent (and in the case of O'Donnell, unelectable in her state), not because of Rove.
“Your insightful post deserves a Like button.”
Thank you. :)
Yes, definitely. It was a FIFTEEN point margin. And Romney would have lost by 2-3 more points than he did.
Very good point, you need to call Rush and tell him that.
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.