Maybe Karl Rove Has a Point

Human Events ^ | 2/6/2013 09:30 PM | By: David Harsanyi

[Perdogg]

Let’s put ideology aside for a moment.

Karl Rove, architect of the George W. Bush-era Republican victories, says he’s sick of fanatics running his party into the ground. So he’s devised a strategy to preemptively sink unelectable candidates early in the process. He’s formed a new super PAC to implement this strategy. It’s called the Conservative Victory Project, and it’s led by a guy named Steven Law, who was the head of another super PAC, called American Crossroads, which went something like 0-7 in the 2012 election cycle. (Not that anyone’s counting.)

Grass-roots conservatives, needless to say, are quite perturbed. “I’m filing the paperwork to form a super PAC to support freedom-loving conservative alternatives to (Karl Rove) on FOX,” tweeted former Rep. Joe Walsh. Surely, he won’t be the last to counter Rove’s efforts

[lentulusgracchus]

The next Republican senate candidate in Delaware who was not named Christine O'Donnell lost by 30+ points.

Good one -- now why did I not hear that one before?!

;)

[C. Edmund Wright]

You must be smarter than your two posts to me, because they are both stunningly foolish and I know you are not as mentally handicapped as those posts would otherwise indicate.

And who ever said anything about love of compromise. That’s totally different than having a choice of TWO — period.

go away.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I think everybody recognizes that.

[cuban leaf]

Actually, if Titanic had started her engines at once and driven herself into the pack ice, most of the 1512 passengers and crew who died, would not have.

---

Yes. I’ve read about that. And to add that to my analogy, anyone suggesting such a thing would never get voted in. It sounds too scary and risky.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I said nothing about “telling you how to vote” but your use of that speaks volumes about your processing ability. What you are too obtuse to understand is that someone damned sure will tell you how to live as a result of your vote, and THATS the point I was making. And that person will be the WINNER and it won’t make a damned bit of difference how you voted or how you feel about yourself.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You won’t be able to look in the mirror the day after Obama’s bureaucrat pulls your plug either jack.......

But your “look myself in the mirror” PROVES I was right about the navel gazing. Thanks for helping out.

[Blackirish]

. 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? Therefore, it was the media feeding frenzy that sunk Akin and not the content of his words.
__________________________________________

Yes Akin’s and Murdock’s statements were so misogynistic, factually untrue,self destructive and just plain crude that it tarnished the entire party. These guys didn’t just shoot themselves in the foot they set off a grenade in the barracks taking out the whole platoon.

[arderkrag]

You won’t be able to look in the mirror the day after Obama’s bureaucrat pulls your plug either jack.......

SKY IS FALLING SKY IS FALLING

But your “look myself in the mirror” PROVES I was right about the navel gazing.

I never said you weren't, in fact, I affirmed it as the case. If voting isn't about oneself, then it's about nothing at all. I'm sure some would conflate it with some arrogant sense of duty, but voting is not about the country. It is about the purity of the individual casting the vote.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Death panels have now been admitted to by the left, but go ahead and luxuriate in your ignorance.

Meanwhile, being involved in something, and thinking it’s about YOU, when it’s NOT about you, is called narcissism. We got you nailed now.

[arderkrag]

Meanwhile, being involved in something, and thinking it’s about YOU, when it’s NOT about you, is called narcissism.

Yes, because casting MY vote is not about me.

We got you nailed now.

OH NO NOT THAT

[lentulusgracchus]

I agree. I much prefer to drown in icy water. ;)

[xzins]

Your points are both well made and well-taken. Lake believes the mistake was so egregious that it would have painted the entire party. CEdmund believes he was simply a placeholder.

Honestly, gentlemen, I have no problem with your points.

My point has to do with combatting the media frenzy or joining it.

Senator Menendez was also running and he was hit with an incredible scandal: underage prostitution, illegal flights on a donor's plane, and shady multi-million dollar contracts for that same donor.

How did the Democrats handle it? This is what Jordy Yager wrote for theHill.com:

It is more important for Menendez’s political future, however, that Democrats refrain from criticizing him publicly. If that occurs, the chances of him surviving this public relations crisis decrease dramatically.

So far, Democratic leaders are opting not to comment beyond a few words.

“Bob Menendez is my friend. He's an outstanding senator,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week, when asked about the emerging allegations.

Similarly, White House press secretary Jay Carney dodged a question at Friday’s press briefing about whether the president is concerned that a Senate Ethics investigation will hinder the immigration reform push because of Menendez’s key role.

“Well, I have nothing to say about that. I would refer you to the Senate,” Carney said.

They refrained from public criticism in a grossly worse case that involved real illegality and not just a slip of the tongue, because they knew it would sink Menendez' campaign.

So, I continue to think the problem was the piling on and contributing to the media frenzy. Rove was "the architect" of that.

It was a dumb, dumb response....or perhaps a sinister one.

[cuban leaf]

I agree. I much prefer to drown in icy water. ;)

That’s the sad part. Again, continuing with it as an analogy, “they” don’t think about it that deeply. They don’t realize that, in the end, it’s not risky at all.

[xzins]

please see #172

[Blackirish]

I disagree. To blamed it on the media is like blaming it on the weather it is what it is and those are the rules. Repubs will get slaughtered for what dims will get a pass on. If you can’t deal get out.

Second what Akin and Murdock said played into a whole narrative “The war on woman” that the Obama campaign and the media had been carefully constructing for over a year.

[Mr. Know It All]

At the same link there are other polls that did not show that candidate winning.

Polls have error. Averages of polls reduce the error.

There were polls showing Romney winning.

Polling averages showed Obama winning almost the entire year. Some polling averages showed Romney with a razor-thin lead after the first debate, but -- as polling usually does -- it reverted to the mean.

I'm sure that things like "reverting to the mean" mean nothing to you, which is why you can look at really conclusive polling data and come to the completely wrong conclusion. Maybe you can get Dick Morriss' job at Fox.

Available polling data shows that Steeleman would have beaten McCaskill.

[xzins]

I appreciate your comments, BI.

But, I still think it was republicans piling on WITH the democrats and the media

[Deagle]

Sorry! His idea of fanatics in the party are FAR different from mine! He is simply an establishment RINO overlord who is looking to hold onto power. He is not only out of date, he is out of his league with those that want to change the party.

[Mr. Know It All]

I’m not sure what you’re rambling on about.

Yes, there will be a WINNER, and yes, that WINNER may institute policies I don’t like. That doesn’t absolve me from a duty to vote my conscience. My life may or may not suck because I do the right thing, but I will have an eternity to suffer the consequences of doing the wrong thing.

[Waryone]

We are outnumbered because both the democrats and the elites and established republicans are against us. But I don’t see it as a something that can’t be overcome by standing for conservative principles. The GOPe won’t do that. It will look as if we are fighting ourselves when really we are just fighting socialist infiltrators in the republican party.

I had a talk with a lib the other day who was gleeful about gay marriage. I reminded him they were just as gleeful in 1973 about abortion but most of the kids now understand that abortion is the murder of a human being. The kids today realize their moms could have murdered them in the womb and they are not so supportive of abortion as they once were.

You are correct when you say our message is the right message and that we have to educate the young minds. In order to do that we have to rid ourselves of the so-called republican leaders who are more comfortable spouting socialist principles than conservative. There are those right here who can’t seem to begin to explain why amnesty, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, a weakened defense, deficit spending, and higher taxes are wrong. If people who say they are conservative can’t do those things, they don’t need to represent themselves as conservative. Until we can root out the Roves and others who want to use the title “conservative” for their liberal plans because they know it means votes, there will be problems.

Remember that not every corner of the country has been taken by the mush heads. As long as we separate from these libs in both parties whose ideas are guaranteed to ruin things for these young ones growing up, once they learn how bankrupt socialism is, they will be looking for something that works. If we disassociate ourselves from the republican socialists, they will see conservatism as something that works and will want it.