Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'I blame Karl Rove'
STG News ^ | 11/3/10 | William Way, Jr.

Posted on 11/04/2010 4:30:30 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-351 next last
To: RangerM
Most everything I’ve ever heard from Rove is not about Republican/Conservative ideology, but about winning.

I don’t know Rove’s true beliefs, but I do believe he is motivated primarily by his drive to win.

He believed that O’Donnell couldn’t/wouldn’t win. I would have voted for her, but I also agreed with him.

Voting for O’Donnell in the primary may have won a battle, but it lost a war. (in a metaphorical sense)

On the contrary, I think that the O'Donnell race may have been a lost battle, but a first step in winning the real war for the soul of the Republican Party.

Elections should be about competing visions, not about which gang gets its turn to plunder the taxpayers. A politician who is only about his gang "winning" should have no part in the Republican Party. A political consultant who is only about "winning" should have no role in the Republican Party.

If somebody is "electable", but once elected will simply work to advance the socialist agenda, then what's the point? Better to TRY to get actual conservatives into office than to succeed in electing another socialist.

141 posted on 11/04/2010 7:27:24 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

As a candidate running for election, yes. He followed the “when your opponent is losing, get out of the way and let them lose” philosophy and it worked fairly well (17 points I think).


142 posted on 11/04/2010 7:27:29 AM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
KARL ROVE IS AN ESTABLISHMENT FIRST REPUBLICAN, NOT A SUPPORTER OF CONSERVATIVES. That’s the real bottom line.

Karl Rove's PAC "American Crossroads" spent over $15M this election cycle to help stop Obama's agenda.

Christine O'Donnell allowed herself, and TEA party supporters by extension to be branded as bobbleheaded morons. She spent $3M dollars (incl. on "I'm not a Witch" which Christian Science Monitor rates as the #1 gaffe of the Top Ten Worst Moments in the Campaign....)which other TEA Party Candidates could've used to further our cause.

That is the final, real bottom line.

143 posted on 11/04/2010 7:27:44 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Suppose I were running against you in a primary, and one of my campaign workers "quit" my campaign and a couple of days later started up an Internet rumor that you were homosexual.

I win the primary. How likely are you to endorse me??

144 posted on 11/04/2010 7:28:14 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (I've been ionized, but I'm okay now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

As a candidate running for election, yes. He followed the “when your opponent is losing, get out of the way and let them lose” philosophy and it worked fairly well (17 points I think).


145 posted on 11/04/2010 7:29:53 AM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Karl Rove pushes his establishment line.

That’s the real, final, bottom line.


146 posted on 11/04/2010 7:31:14 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun
Rove helped keep Al Gore and John Kerry out of the WH, while adding House and Senate seats in 2000, 2002, and 2004

Why does your list stop at 2004?

147 posted on 11/04/2010 7:32:03 AM PDT by longjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
Do you really believe Rove has that much influence? You don’t think people can look at a candidate and make up their own minds? O’Donnell wasn’t a good candidate. Simple as that.

True, but they're all at some point along the "5 stages" trail.

We saw "denial" by the stout refusal to believe those lying, liberal polls showing O'Donnell losing by 15+ points.

Here we see "anger" -- it can't possibly be as you say, that O'Donnell was a poor candidate. It's got to be somebody else's fault.

There's not much "bargaining" to be done on this race, but you can look at the "we'll prove there was fraud" folks in the Nevada race for that.

"Depression" will come soon enough.

"Acceptance" may never come ... but if it does, perhaps the Delaware Tea Party folks might use the experience to find a good candidate next time.

148 posted on 11/04/2010 7:33:18 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

What will COD do next to advance Conservatism?

Has she said?


149 posted on 11/04/2010 7:38:16 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
"Suppose I were running against you in a primary, and one of my campaign workers "quit" my campaign and a couple of days later started up an Internet rumor that you were homosexual. I win the primary. How likely are you to endorse me??"

If you were a RINO, the whole of the GOP establishment would be telling me I needed to for the sake of party unity.

150 posted on 11/04/2010 7:38:25 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

That is not necessarily true.

Murkowski lost her primary and may still win the Senate. Lieberman has already done it. Losing a primary doesnt make you a weak general candidate, just makes you a weak party candidate.


151 posted on 11/04/2010 7:42:38 AM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
In Alaska, Kentucky and Florida the grass roots came up with great candidates and beat the GOP establishment.

In Delaware they beat the establishment, but with a candidate handicapped with tons of bizarre baggage.

Three out of four is pretty good.

152 posted on 11/04/2010 7:42:48 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (I've been ionized, but I'm okay now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

She’s never trashed conservatives that I know of... Tokyo Karl has quite a history on that one.

Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11th Commandment?

Rove = FAIL.


153 posted on 11/04/2010 7:43:31 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

“but if it does, perhaps the Delaware Tea Party folks might use the experience to find a good candidate next time.”

That is the key.


154 posted on 11/04/2010 7:44:42 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: longjack

We lost the House in 2006. It was more important for conservatives to make a statement than to help Rove and the Republicans remain in power. Similar to the O’Donnell race.

WORST MISTAKE EVER! !!


155 posted on 11/04/2010 7:44:57 AM PDT by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625; RangerM
The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.

--Said as chastisement to his staff for canceling an opponent's meeting with then Governor Reagan. Quoted on KCBS radio in 1972 by Reagan's gubernatorial chief of staff.

156 posted on 11/04/2010 7:46:01 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Who cares? Castle would have voted for a republican majority leader -- maybe.

Other than that, he would have voted with the democrats.

157 posted on 11/04/2010 7:48:29 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

What do you think COC will do next to advance conservatism?


158 posted on 11/04/2010 7:55:51 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

Ooops. I meant COD of course!


159 posted on 11/04/2010 7:56:45 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta

Sorry, folks Rove was correct, and ya’ll are just shooting the messenger.

The Tea Partiers focused too much on “purity” and not enough on electability. Extremely bad candidates got chosen in some races that should have been cakewalks during this election cycle.

The Tea Partiers literally wrecked the GOP in Colorado, nominating a Republican candidate (Dan Maes) who was so bad he couldn’t garner 10% of the vote, thereby relegating my party to minor party status in my state, a very troublesome development. (Dan Maes was so unpopular, that that fool Alvin Greene in South Carolina garnered over three times as many votes, percentage wise than Maes.)

In addition, The Colorado Tea Partiers brought us that fool Ken Buck who repeatedly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by his inability to stay on message and who continuously waxed poetic on dozens of divisive issues of little central importance to most voters. With her experience from previously winning state elections, Jane Norton, who Buck defeated in the primary, could have handily beat the unpopular Bennett.

Sharon Angle was a weak candidate too. Either of her two opponents would have waltzed over Reid.

And the really sad thing is that Senators are far more valuable than Congresspersons, since it requires a two-thirds majority of them to govern, and there are so few of them.

I’ve written repeatedly about the importance of electability, and not just being “conservative”. I was just commenting to my wife that the naive and starry eyed liberals get bad candidates like Obama who get elected, but the naive starry eyed Tea Partiers get bad candidates who don’t get elected.

Conservatives who have done well like Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, and my own newly elected Cory Gardner here in CO-4 on the eastern plains of Colorado first paid their dues in the state legislatures. It gave them time to mature as candidates, learn the ropes, and make their big mistakes in small ponds first. The military does not promote privates directly to generals for a reason, and unfortunately the Tea Party promoted way too many privates into generals who were essentially clueless about how to lead their troops to victory.

I admire and appreciate the enthusiasm and energy of the Tea Partiers, but this purity nonsense is totally self-destructive. It is simply not possible for a candidate to perfectly represent exactly ALL of the positions of more than a very few voters, maybe none, actually. Therefore, in addition to electability, it is necessary to agree upon a small number of core issues amongst the support group. Over hundreds of years (not just in the U.S. mind you) political parties formed to formalize this platform-building process to avoid the bloody self-destruction that results from a no-rules, no-holds-barred, hand-to-hand combat over “purity”.

Personally, I simplified this election to a single issue, namely, were you staunchly opposed to the Obama agend, would you follow through on your word to repeal Obammunism and were you the most electable candidate with the preceding two attributes. This greatly focused my thought processes and made my decisions easy about who to support with my energy and money.

People can whine all they want about Rove, but Rove did not cause a single loss by a candidate, he merely made predilections that unfortunately turned out to be correct.

In my book, the only thing that counts is results, not simply giving it the good ol’ college try. That kind of thinking is the same kind of false self-esteem-building nonsense in the public schools: it’s ok to fail as long as you try real hard.

Hopefully, the Tea Partiers will grow up, learn from their mistakes, and focus more on winning in the future rather than purity.


160 posted on 11/04/2010 8:00:14 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from The Right Stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-351 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson