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.”Gratuitous Lord of the Rings reference: Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Karl Rove Declares War on the Tea Party
Via Breitbart's Big Government:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On the one hand, the Tea Party has put up several horrible candidates that may have cost us the Senate this last election. Certainly, the 2010 midterm results enabled BO to get his horrible AHCA passed by a sliver of a margin.
ReplyDeleteBut they (Tea Party) have also put some great candidates up, Rubio, Cruz, etc., so they have a right to challenge some of these Senate lifers who they feel do not represent their interests. I'm a big fan of Karl Rove but I think we'd do better as a party to unite all segments and try to put forth the best candidates possible. I believe some of the old guard should be challenged as well.
If their purpose is to weed out pols like Murdoch, Akin, Angle, O'Donnell, etc., I'm all for it.
ReplyDeleteIf there purpose is to give us a bunch more McCains, then they can go, well, you know.
ReplyDeleteMatt, Karl said that the NYT misrepresented his group's aims (surprise, surprise!). The point of this new project is to have the party put up the best possible conservative candidates that can win the position. American Crossroads has spent millions in support of Tea Party candidates - not to mention his own personal contributions to them. Mr. Rove is doing this for his conservative beliefs, he draws not a cent of salary from American Crossroads.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings are that not all Tea Party candidates are paradigms of virtue and not all long-time congresspeople are monsters. They both run the gamut from excellent to terrible.
It seems to me that we have here an excellent example of the difference between professional politicians and amateurs. Or perhaps it would be better to say, between pragmatists and ideologues.
ReplyDeleteThe thrust of Rove's new PAC is to elect more pragmatists, because . . . well, ideologues are just icky, right? That's what the press always says. That what the democrats always say, about right-wing ideologues, anyway, though not their own, of course.
The professional politicians main job is to get elected, and re-elected. They claim that they do this in order to do good work. Indeed, some very few of them have done good work, but consider this, every bad Supreme Court choice, every bad Cabinet Secretary, every ridiculous compromise that has moved this country farther from her founding principles, nearly every poor piece of law, for the last fifty years has been done with the willing help of the pragmatists.
Oh, they whine afterwards that it was the best they could do. The best compromise, the best for the people. They hope that their comments after their failures will be remembered, rather than the failures themselves.
If that is their best, then it is time to try the ideologues.
I would rather the damn government shut down, than spend more billions of borrowed dollars.
I would rather the damn government shut down, than to drive more small businesses into bankruptcy.
I would rather the government shut down than to take more rights from the people, give more weapons to our enemies, turn their backs on our friends, teach more sleaze and false history to our children.
If the ideologues are allowed to try, and then fail, then at least they have tried. The pragmatists do not even try any more, and I am sick of them.
I agree with all your reasons to "rather have the govt shut down", dances, but I don't understand your other argument in relation to Rove's PAC. Do you believe he doesn't want people with conservative ideology to win seats? They spent millions on Cruz. How about Mourdock, Akin and the others I mentioned? I suppose you could say some of them are ideologues but they apparently didn't attract enough voters to get elected in what should have been republican victories. If we had put up better candidates in 2010 in critical seats, we could not have this Obamacare disaster that is starting to affect every one of us. I am really thankful to Karl for his tireless efforts to promote conservative ideology and get those candidates elected to office.
ReplyDeleteFlorrie, Rove is part of the reason that some of those others were not elected.
DeleteIn at least one case I can remember (though not the race), rather than closing ranks when 'his' candidate lost a primary, he continued on offense against the winning candidate on FOX, and did not in any way support their general election bid.
I do not see him as a conservative, and fear that he's so captured by the system that those he sees as 'the most conservative who is electable' is going to be someone that most of us do not see as conservative at all.
I don't see Rove as a conservative either. He's a political nincompoop, and his purpose in life is to protect the Republican establishment. They've given us one crappy candidate after another. Conservatism is splintering while the blithering blathering talking heads line their pockets and pamper their egos.
ReplyDeleteWe need new blood; Rove can follow Morris and exit stage left.
Sorry florrie, I know you like him. I'm ready for a man with a pitchfork, not a white board.
I respectfully disagree with what you are both saying.
ReplyDeleteAnd I respectfully give you a big hug and smooch. :)
DeleteI love being able to discuss prickly issues without the conversation devolving into a slugfest. Times are so chaotic that I cherish the input. We have ALLOT to discuss. :)
florrie, I have to say you've made a really good case. You are more informed on what Karl Rove and American Crossroads is doing than I am.
DeleteI've heard different things about Cruz vis a vis the Republican establishment - heard that he was not supported, heard that he was. What's the real story? Who did what for Cruz?
I like that your support for Rove is reasoned and objective - I hope you recognize my criticism of him is also reasoned and objective. He failed. There was a certain level of skill and art required to win in 2012, and the Democrats just ran the table. The political arts were very tech driven in this election and Rove just did not keep up. If he'd realized the ground had shifted out from under him he would not have been so surprised on election night.
Failure deserves no reward - this is a conservative principle. Why should Rove continue to lead?