Skip to comments.How Karl Rove went from GOP mastermind to the right's political punching bag
Posted on 12/25/2013 5:54:41 PM PST by jimbo123
A decade ago, Karl Rove was President George W. Bush's right-hand man and one of the most powerful political figures in America. And even after his fortunes briefly dipped at the end of the Bush era, Rove roared to life again, tapping into and fueling the Tea Party movement through his massive super PAC, American Crossroads.
But today, with a GOP civil war raging between establishment types and upstart conservatives in the mold of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R), Rove's once-strong influence has begun to wane. An embodiment of the Bush-era Republicans who have fallen out of favor of late, Rove, too, has begun to come under fire from the populist right.
In the latest sign of Rove's diminished standing, a dozen super PACs are challenging his American Crossroads in the GOP money game, and aiming to promote their own preferred candidates in races across the country, according to the New York Times.
"Certainly I think there's a level of frustration with the state of things in D.C.," Randy Cubriel, a Texas lobbyist, told the Times. See if you can read between the lines here: "I think a group like ours, coming from the state, is probably a little more effective than some of the national groups."
Crossroads was widely criticized for not producing more victories in 2012 despite spending some $300 million. The group had dismal 16.7 percent success rate in the last election, according to OpenSecrets.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Rove was part of the tea party? I think not.
The way he ridiculed Sarah Palin was very destructive to the Republicans. Unfortunately , Rove has become enemy.
Tokyo Rove does not support Conservative women. He’s a $$$ grubbing A-Hole.
Would a college football team hire a coach and keep him for 10 years even though he lost 90 per cent of his games? Why then, should Rove have an unending forum on Fox to pretend to be head coach of the Republicans?
It is not that winning is so important, it is everything.
I’m a poor girl, but I’d gladly contribute!
>> being Bush’s right-hand man convinced many that Rove was a hard-core Conservative
A good point. But it shouldn’t be inferred that Dubya was a hard-core Conservative.
To play with a metaphor: almost alone among military and civilians in 1861, Robert E Lee believed that the war would be prolonged and difficult. The rest of his countrymen wearing both gray and blue, generally believed that a short war would be quickly won. At the outbreak of the war and for the next year Robert E. Lee was generally regarded to be a commander noted for his prudence rather than for his daring. However, even before Lee got command he recognized that the strategic landscape had to be redrawn if the Confederacy were to survive much less prevail and so he unleashed Stonewall Jackson to wage his magnificent Valley campaign of 1862 which entirely changed the dynamics on the ground in Virginia in 1862.
When Lee took command of the Army of Northern Virginia he and Jackson understood that the South must inevitably lose a war of attrition. He also understood along with Jackson that the battlefield extended beyond the presence of the enemy to the civilians who sustained the enemy and so Lee dared once again to overcome an intimidating strategic landscape. To overcome great odds, to undermine civilian morale in the North, to gain life supporting recognition from other nations abroad, Lee invaded the North and very nearly succeeded in those goals.
Next year, motivated by the same considerations and understanding that to take risks with his army was perilous, Lee also knew that the strategy of avoiding mistakes was one which made defeat ultimately unavoidable so he invaded the North again in 1863. As in 1862, Lee came close to succeeding in 1863. In the next year, 1864, on battlefield after battlefield Lee demonstrated his daring and resourcefulness in the face of daunting numbers.
By Appomattox in April 1865, no one could doubt that the Confederacy, at least in the theater in the East under the command of Robert E Lee, had done everything that could be expected of mortal men to do on behalf of their cause. Lee was not entirely perfect, notably on the last day of Gettysburg at Pickett's Charge his tactical genius eluded him but no one can deny that Robert E Lee, more than any man contending under his handicaps, did all that could be expected of him.
Time after time Lee risked his personal reputation and his army because he had integrity enough to risk his own name on behalf of of a greater cause. Four years after the war began, no one would say that Robert E Lee lacked daring or that he lacked strategic vision.
What can we say of Karl Rove? Is he daring? No. Are the demographic odds against Republicans overwhelming and must inevitably spell our defeat? Yes. Has Karl Rove conceived of a single strategy which would change the landscape, change the rules of the game, indeed, change the game itself and give Republicans a chance to save their country? No, no and no again.
Every cycle Karl Rove advances a policy of minimal risk, daring little, changing nothing. Every year our relative demographic vis-à-vis the Democrats deteriorates. What is Karl Rove's answer? To abandon one state after another to the enemy. Does he attempt to invade Yankee states and catch up the civilian population in his cause? No, because he has no cause that stirs the hearts of men, North or South, East or West.
Ludendorff once remarked of the inept Austrian army, "we are shackled to a corpse." And so the conservative movement in America is shackled to the Republican Party and the Republican Party is dying at the hands of people like Karl Rove. We have seen what imagination and originality can do against daunting odds. Newt Gingrich once showed us the way. Today, Ted Cruz Mike Lee, Rand Paul point to a new and daring strategy.
In politics as in war one is either on defense or on offense and defense is no way to win wars or elections. Karl Rove is essentially a trimmer who calls himself an architect but is really a bean counter. An architect builds but Karl Rove sets out only to cut losses and succeeds too often only in generating losses. Karl Rove protects his reputation, fills his purse, and presides over the dying spasms of a national political party.
Everyone on this thread is aware that Karl Rove is a Rino but he is also a moral coward and a man of extremely limited strategic vision. Stonewall Jackson is the man, I believe, who actually coined the phrase, "never take counsel of your fears" but Karl Rove's ears hear no other message.
rove makes a very good living screwing over conservatives and pushing those go along get aalong everyone makes money type of garbage rino crappola
He gave away his agenda when he backed liberal RINOs for Senate seats. I knew that a decade ago (and we still have his pick, Lamar!, as my senior Senator).
Out of the park.
I stole your's anyway.
You realize we lost both Houses under his leadership, right? Not to mention how we likely would have lost the Presidency no matter who ran, unless it had been Palin.
You weave marvelous tapestries.
Well, he would have, if he were on our side, but he isn't.
Nope, no way!
If you kick Rove’s arse for what he’s done, then I’ll gladly bail you out of the pokey.
And, that is precisely why Rove and the GOPes have got to be defeated in 2014, and rendered impotent for the 2016 election cycle!
If you push candidates who voters don't want, all the campaign money in the world isn't going to help.