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
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 womans organic ability to prevent pregnancy when raped? Im no Sun Tzu, but winning elections seems to be a crucial part of politics. And if being right were enough, Id 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.
The tape of Akin saying the words is what sunk him.
The media feeding frenzy around the tape was completely out of the control of the Republican Party and there was nothing they could have done to stop it. Had the entire party backed Akin to the hilt, the media feeding frenzy would have been TEN times worse, and beyond hurting Romney, probably would have caused the Republicans to lose a couple of other close Senate and House races.
If the facts didn’t object to your characterization of Todd Akin, I would agree. But read the bio below. This is why Akin was NOT a fly-by-night candidate like O’Donnell. It is also why I think the media feeding frenzy is what injured Akin and not the content of his words.
Congressman Todd Akin was born in New York City on July 5, 1947. Akin served in the Missouri state legislature for 12 years before successfully running for the United States House of Representatives in 2000. Akin is a conservative Republican with uncompromising anti-abortion views. He received negative national recognition for controversial comments regarding rape made during his 2012 senate race, of which he ultimately lost to Democrat Claire McCaskill.
William Todd Akin was born in New York City on July 5, 1947, to Nancy Perry and the Reverend Paul Bigelow Akin. The family relocated to St. Louis, Missouri when Todd was a child. Akin attended Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, earning a degree in management engineering. He eventually applied this training to a career in engineering at IBM and the Laclede Steel Company.
Akin was involved in the military and theology, as well as engineering. He served in the Missouri National Guard from 1972 to 1980, and completed a graduate degree in divinity at the Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis.
In 1988, Todd Akin ran successfully for a seat in the Missouri House of Representatives. Akin was subsequently re-elected to this seat five times between 1990 and 1998. Over his 12 years in office, Akin voted for the legality of concealed weapons, and against increases in both taxation and funding for education. In 1995, he opposed Governor Mel Carnahan on the issue of state funding for abortions.
In 2000, Akin ran to replace outgoing Republican U.S. Representative Jim Talent, who resigned in order to run for governor. Akin was elected to the House, and was re-elected five times thereafter.
Akin’s record in the United States House of Representatives has been consistently conservative and is informed by his Christian beliefs. He is anti-abortion in all cases, including instances of rape and incest. He is also uniformly opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Additionally, he has spoken out against gun control, gambling and taxation. During his tenure in Congress, Akin has earned high marks from the American Conservative Union and the National Rifle Association. He has also found support from Tea Party organizations.
Akin’s leadership positions in the House have largely been related to the military. He has served on the House Armed Services Committee, including a position as chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
Karl Rove does have a point in that if we nominate bad candidates or good candidates who say stupid things, then we lose. Mourdoch and Aiken were just stupid, stupid guys to wade into the territory they did.
The problem is that Rove shoots his mouth off, when he doesn’t have a replacement candidate ready to go. It’s like quitting a job before you have another one lined up. It’s insane!
We are doomed to panem et circenses
I couldn't care less about Rove's gravy train. The sooner it jumps the tracks the better.
When a brand turns against its loyal customers and demands they change, that brand dies.
Guess what Rove wants to do.
The Tea Party is a start-up, and there will be a learning curve. The GOP-e is a mature organization, and they put up leftist candidates well coached to talk right and operate left.
Those folks who are willing to take the risks of running for a new political party are risk-takers and more likely than some to have a few skeletons or at least oddities in their closets.
So rather than throw these guys over, let's find a way to smooth things over for the new guys, or coach them on handling the press.
In an ideal world, the press would ignore these things like they've ignored the Menendez prostitution scandal. But we've got to work around that. The press will work with Rove to make sure that no true conservative ever runs for office again. We won't beat that by chucking folks under the bus every time Rove and the press get wrinkles in their underwear.
We need to do better if we hope to take over the United States Senate. We need to get better conservative candidates and win.
Why thank you captain obvious. However past performance is the best indicator of future performance.
Rove may be the wrong person to play kingmaker, but whats wrong with the sentiment?
Rove is asking donors to support HIS organization to get involved in primaries. Rove wants this because this is his way to "redeem" his status by presumably, in his mind, winning the primary and the general. He wants to be the so called 'genius' again after embarrassing himself.
In short, Rove wants to keep his lifestyle.
We need to do better if we hope to take over the United States Senate.”
And do what? The same old nothing but bigger government, higher taxes and more spending? Today, there is no difference between the Whigs and the Communists. Look at the last two Whig candidates for President, compared to Elmer Fudd.
They can do whatever they want and I’ll do what I want. If we collide, then so be it. Deo vindice
I agree. It was very poorly handled.
I think the worst part was the piling on IN SUPPORT OF the media and democrats.
But, your point is excellent. Had the Republicans worked back-channel to get this fixed, even with a solid candidate as a replacement (Not one who'd just LOST to Akin in the primary), I don't think we would have lost that Missouri seat for SIX more long years.
We had our own Thompson style candidacy here in Pete Hoekstra. What was supposed to be close turned into a blowout for Debbie Stab-me-now.
This guy needs to read my new tagline.
I can also give you Tommy Thompson, Pete Hoekstra, Connie Mack, and Rick Berg who lost winnable (arguable in Hoekstra's case, but I thought it should have been close) races.
Ideology is only one part of what is or is not an electable candidate.
I think the point is to have articulate conservatives not just conservatives.
A conservative who has no communication skills is utterly useless and easily destroyed by the MSM.
An ARTICULATE conservative will have the skills to deal with the MSM.
We have articlate and skilled conservatives so we can avoid the idiocy of an akin or other opportunist.
But of course by that time, there wasn’t going to be a viable candidate, so the best thing to do was to go to war with the army you have.
>he is directly responsible for the loss in the Missouri Senate Race
That line of “thinking” will only lead to more arm chair gynecologists getting nominated to lose the election.
akin sunk himself with his own mouth and should have stepped down. It looks like some have not learned from his mistakes.
And be replaced with whom?
There is no reason to presume, even in very liberal states, that conservative views make a candidate less electable. That has been proven time and time again. Conservatism and electability are not related measurements. Some conservative candidates are electable and some are not. Same with non-conservative candidates. The problem comes from people like Rove and even some of his critics here who conflate those measurements.
>Not one who’d just LOST to Akin in the primary
Why is it some refuse to accept the fact that the democraps are the ones who made akin the primary winner?
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.