Karl Rove’s idea of electability: GOP elites keep getting it wrong

BIZ PAC Review (West Palm Beach, Florida) ^ | February 8, 2013 | Jonathon Moseley

[Moseley]

Republican insiders want to force Republican voters to choose more “electable” nominees than examples like Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, so Karl Rove launched the American Crossroads super PAC to counteract the tea party.

Undeniably, better candidates are better and worse candidates are worse. Unfortunately, that meaningless platitude illustrates the problem. GOP elites have no idea who is going to win an election, and there are several reasons I say that.

First, the establishment wants fiscal conservatives who downplay social issues. But drunken sailors are more restrained with money than establishment Republicans, the tea party complains. The trouble with fiscal conservatives is they aren’t fiscally conservative. Insiders evade scrutiny of massive over-regulation and soaring debt by scapegoating social issues.

Second, Rove’s type of candidate really isn’t qualified, because trust is the No. 1 qualification. If I trust how a politician will vote, why do I care what he used to do? Congress is not a resume fashion show. Rove’s preferred candidates fail the most important electoral test with Republican voters.

Third, is the Republican establishment any better at identifying “electable” candidates than Republican primary voters? Marco Rubio couldn’t win, the establishment told us. “Some [Florida] insiders whisper that Rubio expects to lose,” Real Clear Politics reported in June 2009, “but is running statewide to establish himself for a future race.”

Rand Paul wasn’t electable, the Karl Roves told us. Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Paul’s 2010 Kentucky race caused “squeamishness” among worried insiders. Now both Rubio and Paul are suggested as possible candidates for president in 2016. In fact, Ronald Reagan was unelectable, according to GOP elites in 1980.

What’s going on here? In 2010, O’Donnell won 40 percent of the vote for Delaware’s U.S. Senate seat. In 2012, Mitt Romney, the most establishment candidate in decades, won the exact same amount of the Delaware vote for president. Romney enjoyed a united party hungry for victory. O’Donnell fought uphill against a harshly divided party. Exit polls show that 16 percent of Republicans voted for O’Donnell’s rival, Democrat Chris Coons, helping him win the election. Yet both Romney and O’Donnell got the same percentage of Delaware’s vote.

So are we focused on the wrong things? Maybe candidates aren’t the biggest problem. Could it be that GOP insiders really stink at running campaigns? Are insiders out of touch with the voters? Insider theories don’t seem to work in real life.

In 2008, GOP moderate, war hero and Senate veteran John McCain got about the same vote in Delaware for president as O’Donnell, who had almost no money. Moderate Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross declared O’Donnell unelectable. But Ross lost his own 1998 race by 27.2 percent to 72.8 percent in moderate New Castle County.

The entire establishment enterprise assumes that GOP insiders actually know in advance who is electable and why. That key assumption deserves some closer scrutiny and deeper thought.

[wildbill]

“The tiniest, most insignificant gaffe by a Republican is blown out of proportion, because Republicans pile on their own”

Let me fix this:

A gaffe by a Republican is blown out of proportion, because the MSM piles on, the gaffe is exposed and publicized and we have to defend our party that it really isn’t racist, or denigrates women or hates gays or ‘takes a wide stance’ or whatever.

Like it or not, the MSM will hide the Dems gaffes or minimize them. We don’t have that luxury because we’re fighting the MSM for the good opinion of the voters.

It’s all so unnecessary—if we get better, more intelligent or informed candidates who don’t have foot in mouth disease. We can do better.

I just find it hard to believe that this thread has people defending kooks with radical political ideas. That isn’t conservative, that’s dumb.

[Moseley]

A gaffe by a Republican is blown out of proportion, because the MSM piles on,

This is undeniably true. But it is made worse by Republican "leaders" giving the MSM ammunition.

Of course, Republicans rush to be the first to attack other Republicans BECAUSE they are afraid that the MSM will attack them, too.

So the dynamic is the idea that if Republicans attack other Republicans they will be granted immunity from being attacked themselves by the MSM.

And so the MSM doesn't even have to do the attacking. They get other Republicans to do it for them.

[Ohioan]

Rove has no idea how to go after undecided voters. He has no idea how to restructure an argument so as to break down the preconceived responses to various questions, which flow from the Leftist bent in the media & education.

Any analysis must start with a fundamental understanding of the dynamics of human interaction; why people succeed, why they fail; a realization that we are not all alike--not even nearly so; a recognition that all civilized advances from the primitive, flow from a division of labor, something which is based upon the fundamental inequality of man; that all enduring progress is passed on via healthy family units, etc., etc. Those who understand these facts can tear up any Leftist on the planet in a debate.

Rove chases after the sentiments of yesterday--the product of the media & educational establishments' success in confusing the issues.

"Conservatives" who embrace Rove's approach are defeated from the start. They are intellectually dysfunctional, and too confused to even understand that fact.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Conservatives need to be very clear about one thing; the mainstream media are largely composed of persons who attended Leftist leaning colleges, and never had either the intelligence or the character to challenge the fallacy based dogma that the faculty were pushing. Trying to humor the bias of the lot is sheer madness. What we need are candidates who can speak in depth on television & radio, in terms that refute the prevailing fallacies that the Leftist media take for granted.

There are certain basic techniques involved in this. You trip levers of credibility, which help free the public from the stereotypes being imposed upon them, by calling their attention to basic experiences that we have all had. Those experiences do not conform with the Leftist theories.

Rove does not do this; does not provide the funding for those who can do this, to do so. Rather, he chases after ways to humor the erroneous false perceptions that the parrots in the mass media have created. It is a suicidal path.

William Flax

[wildbill]

Let me get this straight. Suppose you are a candidate for public office. You say you are a ‘true’ conservative.

In a public speech, you say something like: “Hitler was right, even if he was a little extreme. The Jews are responsible for most of our economic woes and are able to hide their influence because they also control the MSM and the entertainment world of TV and movies.”

1. You don’t think Republicans should rush to disassociate themselves and the party from such trash talk?

2. You think all Republicans ought to rally around you for this teensy weensy gaffe like the Democrats do? Don’t we have more integrity than that? We always claim we do.

3.I don’t give a rat’s ass if the Dems rally around their idiots. I don’t want to be like a Dem. apologist.

[fattigermaster]

So Akin is “like” a Nazi.

Wow.

[wildbill]

I don’t believe I said that. I was deliberately using a different example to prove a point about radical statements.

The point is that some people have beliefs which take them out of the broad mainstream of our culture. Religion is a political minefield since there are so many different religious beliefs, even among what is broadly described as “Christian”.

As a believer, anyone can profess anything. You can belong to that church that disrupts burial services and say it is God’s Will.

If you believe in predestination, you can say rape, war, incest, or ingrown toenails are God’s Will. But lots of folks believe the opposite, that God gave us free will to see what we could make of ourselves.

However, if they want to run for office, speaking up as though you believe you are an interpreter of God’s will, especially about beliefs that are on the fringe, probably isn’t going to gain many votes since it’s likely that more people disagree with you than don’t.

Look at how many folks on FR were basically intolerant of Romney because of his Mormon faith. They didn’t care if he was a good, moral man whose religious sect claims they are Christian. They were brought up to hate Mormons as a cult, worse than Hindus or Bhuddists.

I remember a time when Baptists and Methodists and other Christian sects were at each other’s throats over ‘dunkin’ vs. ‘sprinklin’ and Catholics...why those pagan-folk worshiped idols and were beyond the pale.

I guess all this simply leads up to the adage, “Religion and Politics don’t mix.”

[potlatch]

I love that old moss covered bus, lol.
Don’t give a hoot about Rove anymore.
Guess I go against the flow but I like Krouthhammer. He is super intelligent and I usually agree with him. Contrary to many ‘wishes’ here, nobody is perfect or right all the time.

[muawiyah]

The very best undecided voter is someone who was going to vote for your opponent but you succeeded in casting enough doubt about his ability that the former supporter is no longer a voting supporter.

At the same time you want to KEEP all your decided voters ~ so you work on that year after year ~ with constituent services, by speaking to small groups, by showing up for public ceremonies of note in your district, by holding crab fests (a favorite all around the Chesapeake Bay), by going to churches and sitting in the back row so you can be seen standing outside as the people depart ~ you'll want to kiss some babies, hug a priest or minister, unbutton your coat NO MATTER WHAT THE TEMPERATURE, and shake hands without a glove.

When it comes time for the election your job is then only two things ~ (1) let everybody know you are running again, and (2) keep on campaigning with your own peeps to keep them on the straight and narrow.

You do not need to go to the enemy ~ as did Akin ~ to be interviewed ~ 'cause they don't want to interview you!

[muawiyah]

In 1948 the Disciples of Christ (Christian) church and the Roman Catholic church broke the 450 year old ice and signed an agreement to recognize each other's baptisms ~ so it's been a really, really, really long time since the Baptist/Methodist wars of immersion vs sprinkling had any real long term meaning.

That dyke had been plugged!

What you do not want to do is to go for an interview or press conference with the enemy and debate any particular doctrine other than Christ crucified and risen ~ rejoice. Individual candidates from different faith backgrounds can figure out what works following that pattern. Most folks will buy the idea you are a good person if you adhere to your faith!

[muawiyah]

Separate item ~ people brought up to hate Mormons ~ hmm ~ that'd be the Apostolic Church of the First Born. They've been on their case ever since Joseph Smith jumped ship up there in New York. They even teach that it's OK to play bunco against Mormons ~ particularly Mormons.

Otherwise I don't know any church that teaches anybody to hate Mormons.

[PhilDragoo]

One Person was perfect. The rest are subject to scrutiny.

[potlatch]

[One Person was perfect. The rest are subject to scrutiny.]

How right you are Phil !

[wildbill]

Your on pretty thin 450 y.o. ice about a 450 y.o distpute between the Catholic Church and the Christian Church since the Disciples of Christ as a religious sect only began in the first decade of the 1800s.

From Wikipedia: “ Most Disciple congregations practice believer’s baptism in the form of immersion, believing it to be the form used in the New Testament. The experiences of yielding to Christ in being buried with him in the waters of baptism and rising to a new life, have profound meaning for the church.[42]

For modern Disciples the one essential is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and obedience to him in baptism.[43”

Now this is from Wikipedia, but I recall I had to do a full immersion if I wanted to join the Woodlawn Christian church to play basketball. Previous baptisms really didn’t count.

I guess it depends on how old you are when you think that its been a really really long time since there was divisions between religious sects between dunkin’ and sprinklin’. Lots of folks where I come from still think their way is the only true way and anyone who doesn’t is goin’ to hell—but things ARE lightening up over time.

My point is that religion is something where a candidate need only say “I have my faith and practice it, but it won’t affect my government service.” Most can get away with that, but if they go deeper into theology, it’s easy to get into the weeds real quick in politics.

[muawiyah]

The ice itself was 450 years old ~ the Disciples were barely a century old at the time ~ everybody knows that. This is the First purely American created Protestant church ~

[muawiyah]

When a candidate says he won't let his religion/faith get in the way of his governing he instantly loses 17 million evangelical voters. So you don't want to do that ~ you'll end up like the godless soulless doomed to hell's deepest pits Andrew Cuomo ~ who assures us every day that he's not about to let his religion get in the way of anything.

The way to do this is to affirm that your moral and ethical training (from my years in the XYZ church/synagogue/temple) will provide you guidance.

[wildbill]

I suspect you must be a member of the Disciples because “everybody” doesn’t know that—or care that they are the first purely American created Protestant church.

In fact, if you mention Disciples of Christ most folks eyes glaze over and they think you mean some weird little cult our in the backwoods.

It isn’t until you say, “You know, the churches that have Christian in their name and Texas Christian University is their religious university. That might get some recognition before their eyes glaze over again. Comparative religion is not the forte for most Americans.

[muawiyah]

We have a Freeper audience here where everyone knows the difference between the Church of Christ and the Church of Christ, and the term Uniate is not unfamiliar.

So, yup, ol' Jim Jones' bunch ~ or rather the bunch whose ministers were fooled.

[Moseley]

The point is that some people have beliefs which take them out of the broad mainstream of our culture

BELIEFS...? Or garbled statements?

Would you say that Barack Obama believes that the US Constitution is 2,000 years old (20 centuries)? Or did Obama mangle his words?

Would you say that Barack Obama believes there are 59 states (he visited 57 and hoped to visit the other 2)? Or did Obama mangle his words?

Would you say that Barack Obama meant to say "Israel is a good friend of Israel"? Or did Obama mangle his words?

Would you say that Barack Obama meant to declare war on privacy? Or piracy?

[wildbill]

I’m sure that your mother told you as part of the development of your character something like: “just because johnny does something wrong, it doesn’t mean you can emulate him.”

Further, this isn’t a ‘mangling of words’ by using the wrong word (piracy vs. privacy) or using the wrong date of the Constitution’.

However inarticulate he man is, its clear to most rational people that he was explaining some of his belief system. You can’t say something like “all other mainstream Protestant denominations are going to hell” and say this is just mangling of words or using the wrong data.

The consignment of all ‘unbeleivers’ to Hell (or death or dhimmi status in the case of radical Islamists)is such a common tenet of some sects and religions that it is a basic to their belief systems and actions.

I simply don’t know why you’d try to defend statements like that—unless you believe they are correct in YOUR religious belief system??? Do you stand for those ideas.