[Cringing Negativism Network]

Karl Rove either needs to go away, or the Tea Party needs to take flight.

If that is our choice now, I choose the Tea Party 100%.

No more Rove.

[jimbo123]

Tokyo Rove’s donors here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cmte=C00487363&type=A&cycle=2012

[livius]

There is always, among Rove and his ilk, the theory that the rich white RINO, preferably elderly, is the most “electable” candidate.

It’s interesting that many of our good new conservative candidates are women, Hispanics or even blacks (not to mention people of East Indian descent), but somehow Rove & Co. consider them “not electable” right off the bat. I think Rove needs to leave his RINO bubble and look around.

[driftless2]

The problem with moderate Republicans is they think they can have a responsible government with Dem-lite policies. They will take care of the welfare state better than the Dems rather than seeking to demolish it. I'm sure a lot of it comes down to moderate Republicans being much more liberal on social issues than conservative Republicans.

Many moderate Republicans probably agree with conservative Pubbies on economic and foreign issues but disagree on social issues. I think it's safe to say the majority of moderate Pubbies either support the liberal position or don't care much about homosexual marriage, abortion, gun rights, and other hot social issues.

[pallis]

Rove is is in the past, the wrong direction to go for the future of the Republican Party. The Tea Party is the only future the Republican Party has.

[kevkrom]

Buckley rule: Support the most conservative candidate who can win.

Personally, I think the Buckley rule needs to be extended to say "Support the candidate most likely to effect a conservative agenda".

A 100% pure conservative who can't bring others around to his/her point of view is as pointless as a "squish" who has the mythical "electability". The ideal candidate is someone with generally strong conservative principles and instincts, who has the ability and demonstrated experience of getting conservative principles advanced, and who is, yes, capable of getting elected.

The Buckley rule as-is has provided cover for so many to tout "electability" over principle. The correct answer to that is "at what cost?", that is, how much do we have to sacrifice in our principles just to "win"?