Skip to comments.Maybe Karl Rove Has a Point
Posted on 02/07/2013 6:50:50 AM PST by Perdogg
click here to read article
Yep, combined to the fact that a lot of less informed donors still think Rove's good because Bush won. (Regular Businessmen often trust big names to do the job because of hype - politics ain't the same as regular business). When Rove runs his trap, donors listen.
In late September, Rove crowed that Michigan was off the table. Any funding dried up. Perception became reality at that point. Three weeks later, it was a swing state again. Damage was already done, and we couldn't recover. At least we only lost 5 state house seats.
>And be replaced with whom?
Whichever primary contender that had the best chance. The fact that the democrats helped akin win the primary should have been a clue.
Bush "won" (barely) because the Rats ran lousy candidates, just like Obama won because the Republicans ran lousy candidates against him.
Rove should have considered his own admonition in relation to Willard, as well as Akin and Mourdock.
I actually respect your position regarding Akin. I think it’s in good faith and it has merit. His words weren’t the best.
I’m totally convinced, though, that Akin’s words don’t nearly rise to the level of bad behavior and comments by democrats in the past. We can cite theft, tax evasion, lying, sexual predation, etc., etc. AND those people were NOT abandoned by their party and DID win re-election.
So, in my mind it was the media frenzy, and the fact that the republicans joined in attacking their own. That is what brought down Akin.
As you recall, he was comfortably ahead in the polls prior to the frenzy, he was a multi-term congressman with a stellar conservative record, and he had the support of both the Senate campaign committee.
Those all say he wasn’t a “nut”.
At least they say that to me.
So, you are among those who believe his words were so bad that he would have lost no matter the republicans piling on. That is an intelligent, honorable position. I don’t question your analysis, conclusion, or partiality.
I’m among those who think it was the piling on that made Akin fail to recover.
By that time, it was too late, we aren’t like the Democrats in New Jersey who could just roll out Lautenberg as the last minute. The GOP bench is very thin.
Read #62. Akin had been a successful, conservative, multi-term representative in the US House. He was not a fly-by-night.
The sad thing in all this is that at a time we need solid conservative voices in the House, we have lost one in Akin. (I don’t think he also ran for his House seat at the same time. I’m not even sure that’s possible. I know that Ryan ran for his while running for VP, but I think that makes it different levels....state/national versus state/state.)
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.
I LITERALLY no longer care which party is in office. In fact, crashing sooner may be better than crashing later.
I also see it from this viewpoint: Where would the early church have been if it had put its faith in Rome? And I most definitely see western civilization as very much like Rome. Actually, more like Babylon. It is why I say that I moved here in the spirit or Revelation 18:4.
With due respect, and all frankness, I don’t understand how you are so deaf and blind to how FRIGGIN IMPORTANT THE TIMING OF WHEN WE HIT THAT WALL IS, NOT TO MENTION FRIGGIN IMPORTANT HOW FAST WE’RE GOING!.
Stage one cancer is not as bad as stage four cancer. If you don’t get that, I can’t help you.
Coulter was even more graphic about how she thought Romney was the most winnable, after first picking Christie.
But the Romney nomination disaster was due to much more than those two individuals.
He was up against a bunch of weak candidates who spent most of the race fighting each other and Cain blew up on his own, all after make believe (media driven) runs by two individuals who never intended to run and didnt.
Both Santurum and Newt were very weak candidates so neither got all the anti-Romney support to really challenge him.
Rove is not the all powerful puppet-master many want to make him out to be.
Romney was bound to lose that race in my view, but so were the others.
RE “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?”
Pointing out the weaknesses and flaws of Rove is valid but still does not address the authors points :
A number of EASY Senate races were lost the past two elections due purely to the candidate's stupidity and lack of self disciplined that had nothing to do with Rove or Romney. Akin and Angle are the most obvious. It was a throw away so bad that it almost reeks of setup. Something needs to keep that from happening again.
I agree with Rove that we need conservative candidates who can win elections. I disagree that he’s any better or smarter than anyone else in picking them.
Yes it was. So egregious that a lot of good conservatives wanted to throw up (Palin, Malkin, Levin, Rush, etc.). In a time where the democrat/media complex had ginned up the fake "war on women", he became the perfect face of the GOP (for them) with their meme. Had he been supported, the election loss that occurred would have been far worse, we could have lost the House as well, along with many more senate seats.
There were two other very good conservative candidates who ran against Akin, who polled as easy winners against McCaskill far after Akin's melt down. Akin would not step down because of his pride, arrogance and desire to make money, to gain prestige as a senator, instead he pushed on in the face of reality and handed back a seat to the leftists. He could have and should have abdicated.
As I said, when democrats pulled their support from Toricelli, Spitzer, and Weiner, they resigned. Akin should have done likewise, this was far from a simple GOPE thing, most conservatives were turned off (rightfully so) as well.
We need more like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, less like Todd Akin or Chritine O’Donnell
He was not fly by night, but he was not this great virginal tea party outsider either, as your six term statement shows. He did portray the idea of an outsider fighting big mean ole washington, and yet he’s part of Washington.
That dishonesty is one of the reasons I did not like him.
As I understand it, the district is solidly Republican. Not sure what “successful” means in congress, as he’s just kind of held onto a safe seat.
Stage one cancer is not as bad as stage four cancer. If you dont get that, I cant help you.
So, the patient may die in six months or maybe hold on for years. But the pain will increase and the life quality will decrease as it winds down, but it is clearly winding down.
Wait until the pain drugs no longer have an impact.
That premise needs to be reexamined. Karl Rove came about as close as was possible to turning those victories into defeats. The man is mostly "rote," remembering poll results, but not fully understanding why they were what they were. The man lacks analytic powers, as well as understanding what America is all about.
Rove has all the political competence of yesterday's luncheon leftovers, which someone forgot to refrigerate.
I won't even get into his ethics.
Rove seems to forget that it was the conservative displayed by W that got him elected. Not until W $h1+ on his conservative base and became a defacto Rat did his approval numbers fall into the toilet.
No, the disconnect is that you don’t know the difference between stage one and stage four, and who causes which.
Enjoy the purity of your irrelevance.
The problem here is complex to say the least, my own opinion is he should have dropped out, his comments were over the top in their stupidity, I'm as pro life as they get and frankly cringed when I heard what he said. It was simply horrid, he could not have been elected dog catcher after that. Yes, the media had a frenzy, but their was genuine blood in the water, not some fake ginned up thing.