PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Karl Rove declares war on the Tea Party?


BigRedChief
02-04-2013, 12:45 PM
Is this true or just NYC liberals stirring up shit?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us...politics&_r=5& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?ref=politics&_r=5&)

The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”

BucEyedPea
02-04-2013, 01:30 PM
The leadership in the GOP, the corporate-state wing, is starting to expel Paulies in the party who obtained some leadership positions,already. The same wing of the GOP purged after Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964. You'd have thunk the NeoCons would have been purged after the GOP lost to Obama in 2008 and 2012.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/article_cbede908-6c09-11e2-8a70-001a4bcf6878.html

blaise
02-04-2013, 01:43 PM
But what about the WAR ON WOMEN?

LiveSteam
02-04-2013, 01:45 PM
Give me Uterus or give me death

BigRedChief
02-04-2013, 01:46 PM
You'd have thunk the NeoCons would have been purged after the GOP lost to Obama in 2008 and 2012.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/article_cbede908-6c09-11e2-8a70-001a4bcf6878.htmlhow can they expel me if I'm not a member of the Republican Party?

Prison Bitch
02-04-2013, 05:38 PM
The leadership in the GOP, the corporate-state wing, is starting to expel Paulies in the party who obtained some leadership positions,already. The same wing of the GOP purged after Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964. You'd have thunk the NeoCons would have been purged after the GOP lost to Obama in 2008 and 2012.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/article_cbede908-6c09-11e2-8a70-001a4bcf6878.html

Yep. GOP, Inc. exists to serve itself. They don't have much more than 20% of the public so they need some useful idiots who are willing to let themselves be whored out to advance GOP Inc's goals.


I recall Kristol suggesting the Right drop immigration some time back, since they agreed with the GOP on the vast majority of issues. No willingness on the part of Kristol to maybe drop his support of immigration as a way of unification. That's not Something that had occurred to him.

J Diddy
02-04-2013, 09:13 PM
The GOP= The Grand Old Pile

BucEyedPea
02-04-2013, 09:35 PM
The GOP= The Grand Old Pile

That the Donkey's pooped out.

That's why there's few differences.

ClevelandBronco
02-04-2013, 09:40 PM
...The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.The group, the Conservative Victory Project, ..."

Republicans. Keeping the Senate safe for conservatives, even if they have to be liberals to get it done.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-05-2013, 12:50 AM
No sense putting a real conservative in when a Rino will do.

Direckshun
02-07-2013, 10:40 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/politics/new-rove-effort-has-gop-aflame.html?pagewanted=all

New Rove Effort Has G.O.P. Aflame
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: February 6, 2013

WASHINGTON — Their battle with Democrats will have to wait. For now, Republicans have their hands full fighting one another.

The strategist Karl Rove and his allies are under withering criticism for creating the Conservative Victory Project, their effort to help rebuild the Republican Party and win control of the Senate. Their pledge to take sides in primary races in an effort to pick candidates they see as more electable has set off a fierce backlash from conservative activists.

“This is not Tea Party versus establishment,” Mr. Rove said, defending his new project on Fox News. “I don’t want a fight.”

Yet a fight has broken out this week across the conservative media spectrum, with Mr. Rove drawing the ire of Tea Party leaders and commentators who suggest that he and other party strategists are the problem, rather than the solution, to the challenges facing Republicans.

The Congressional elections may be 21 months away, but the dispute has taken on sudden urgency as primary contests are already taking shape, particularly in open Senate races. Republicans must pick up six seats to win a majority.

In Georgia, the contest to fill the seat of Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican who is retiring, drew its first contender on Wednesday as Representative Paul Broun announced his intention to run. His candidacy was welcomed more by Democrats than Republicans in Washington, largely because of a string of comments Mr. Broun has made that worry his party’s leaders about whether he has the discipline and broad appeal to win a general election.

Mr. Broun, a physician on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, attracted attention last fall for saying that “evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory — all of that is lies straight from the pit of hell.”

A former member of that committee is Todd Akin of Missouri, a Republican whose bid to move up to the Senate failed last year after he contended that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy. His defeat was one of many by Republicans that led American Crossroads, the “super PAC,” to create the Conservative Victory Project.

The project is intended to counter the work of other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most vigorous effort yet by Republicans to try to impose discipline on the party, particularly in House and Senate primary races.

Several other Republicans in Georgia are considering running for the Senate. But the search for what kind of candidates the party should put forward — as well as whether leaders in Washington and the party’s top donors should even be involved in primary races — has focused new attention on the Republican infighting.

Chris Chocola, the president of Club for Growth, the conservative group that has taken an active role in Republican primaries, criticized the new effort by Mr. Rove. Mr. Chocola said it was incorrect to suggest that candidates backed by Tea Party groups were the only ones to lose last year, pointing to establishment Republicans defeated in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wisconsin.

He said the “electability argument” Republican leaders make in Washington had produced candidates who have not been able to inspire conservative activists.

“It’s those pesky voters,” Mr. Chocola said in an interview. “They get to decide who the nominee is.”

The Conservative Victory Project, which will be run by Steven J. Law, Mr. Rove and the donors who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races. They said that they would raise tens of millions of dollars and run television advertising against any candidate who is seen as too flawed to win a general election.

“A disastrous candidate can lose anywhere,” said Mr. Law, the president of American Crossroads. “We have to be very careful about candidate selection even in deep red states.”

As the Republican feuding intensified, the party’s national chairman, Reince Priebus, indicated that he had no plans to step in as a referee. He sought to straddle both sides of the argument, saying that it was nothing new for Republican groups to get involved in primary races.

“Primaries can be a healthy process,” Mr. Priebus said in a statement on Wednesday, “and it’s positive to see any efforts to help support and elect conservative candidates.”

But the Republican acrimony has consumed conservative talk radio, cable television and blogs for much of the week. Mr. Rove has taken a thrashing, particularly from the radio host Mark Levin, who suggested that Mr. Rove and his allies needed “a hard, swift kick” off the public stage.

David N. Bossie, president of the conservative group Citizens United, wrote a piece on the Big Government Web site that declared, “The Civil War Has Begun (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/06/The-Civil-War-Has-Begun).”

“This battle will be a long, hard slog against the establishment,” Mr. Bossie wrote, comparing the party’s conflict to the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

The testiness became personal on Wednesday when Mr. Bossie and the leaders of two dozen conservative groups released a letter to American Crossroads calling for the dismissal of its spokesman, Jonathan Collegio, because he called the veteran conservative activist Brent Bozell “a hater” in a radio interview.

“You obviously mean to have a war with conservatives and the Tea Party,” the letter said. “Let it start here.”

BucEyedPea
02-07-2013, 10:50 AM
how can they expel me if I'm not a member of the Republican Party?

NeoCons are in both parties. I didn't say they expelled you anyway.

BucEyedPea
02-07-2013, 10:52 AM
Yep. GOP, Inc. exists to serve itself. They don't have much more than 20% of the public so they need some useful idiots who are willing to let themselves be whored out to advance GOP Inc's goals.


I recall Kristol suggesting the Right drop immigration some time back, since they agreed with the GOP on the vast majority of issues. No willingness on the part of Kristol to maybe drop his support of immigration as a way of unification. That's not Something that had occurred to him.

Kristol told Paul to leave the party as well. But it's Kristol, a Progressive, who needs to leave. Remember he loves Obamacare, and was thrilled to see Obama be an interventionist just like Bush. He declared Obama, a Born-Again NeoCon.

BucEyedPea
02-07-2013, 10:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/politics/new-rove-effort-has-gop-aflame.html?pagewanted=all

New Rove Effort Has G.O.P. Aflame
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: February 6, 2013

WASHINGTON — Their battle with Democrats will have to wait. For now, Republicans have their hands full fighting one another.

The strategist Karl Rove and his allies are under withering criticism for creating the Conservative Victory Project, their effort to help rebuild the Republican Party and win control of the Senate. Their pledge to take sides in primary races in an effort to pick candidates they see as more electable has set off a fierce backlash from conservative activists.

“This is not Tea Party versus establishment,” Mr. Rove said, defending his new project on Fox News. “I don’t want a fight.”

Yet a fight has broken out this week across the conservative media spectrum, with Mr. Rove drawing the ire of Tea Party leaders and commentators who suggest that he and other party strategists are the problem, rather than the solution, to the challenges facing Republicans.

The Congressional elections may be 21 months away, but the dispute has taken on sudden urgency as primary contests are already taking shape, particularly in open Senate races. Republicans must pick up six seats to win a majority.

In Georgia, the contest to fill the seat of Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican who is retiring, drew its first contender on Wednesday as Representative Paul Broun announced his intention to run. His candidacy was welcomed more by Democrats than Republicans in Washington, largely because of a string of comments Mr. Broun has made that worry his party’s leaders about whether he has the discipline and broad appeal to win a general election.

Mr. Broun, a physician on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, attracted attention last fall for saying that “evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory — all of that is lies straight from the pit of hell.”

A former member of that committee is Todd Akin of Missouri, a Republican whose bid to move up to the Senate failed last year after he contended that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy. His defeat was one of many by Republicans that led American Crossroads, the “super PAC,” to create the Conservative Victory Project.

The project is intended to counter the work of other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most vigorous effort yet by Republicans to try to impose discipline on the party, particularly in House and Senate primary races.

Several other Republicans in Georgia are considering running for the Senate. But the search for what kind of candidates the party should put forward — as well as whether leaders in Washington and the party’s top donors should even be involved in primary races — has focused new attention on the Republican infighting.

Chris Chocola, the president of Club for Growth, the conservative group that has taken an active role in Republican primaries, criticized the new effort by Mr. Rove. Mr. Chocola said it was incorrect to suggest that candidates backed by Tea Party groups were the only ones to lose last year, pointing to establishment Republicans defeated in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wisconsin.

He said the “electability argument” Republican leaders make in Washington had produced candidates who have not been able to inspire conservative activists.

“It’s those pesky voters,” Mr. Chocola said in an interview. “They get to decide who the nominee is.”

The Conservative Victory Project, which will be run by Steven J. Law, Mr. Rove and the donors who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races. They said that they would raise tens of millions of dollars and run television advertising against any candidate who is seen as too flawed to win a general election.

“A disastrous candidate can lose anywhere,” said Mr. Law, the president of American Crossroads. “We have to be very careful about candidate selection even in deep red states.”

As the Republican feuding intensified, the party’s national chairman, Reince Priebus, indicated that he had no plans to step in as a referee. He sought to straddle both sides of the argument, saying that it was nothing new for Republican groups to get involved in primary races.

“Primaries can be a healthy process,” Mr. Priebus said in a statement on Wednesday, “and it’s positive to see any efforts to help support and elect conservative candidates.”

But the Republican acrimony has consumed conservative talk radio, cable television and blogs for much of the week. Mr. Rove has taken a thrashing, particularly from the radio host Mark Levin, who suggested that Mr. Rove and his allies needed “a hard, swift kick” off the public stage.

David N. Bossie, president of the conservative group Citizens United, wrote a piece on the Big Government Web site that declared, “The Civil War Has Begun (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/06/The-Civil-War-Has-Begun).”

“This battle will be a long, hard slog against the establishment,” Mr. Bossie wrote, comparing the party’s conflict to the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

The testiness became personal on Wednesday when Mr. Bossie and the leaders of two dozen conservative groups released a letter to American Crossroads calling for the dismissal of its spokesman, Jonathan Collegio, because he called the veteran conservative activist Brent Bozell “a hater” in a radio interview.

“You obviously mean to have a war with conservatives and the Tea Party,” the letter said. “Let it start here.”

This is feel-good, sound-good rhetoric but it's a cover for the Progressive wing of the GOP which is the same thing as the corporatist/fascist-wing, neo-mercantilist and the Establishment—globalists, empire, American hegemony with Third Way Socialism. The same thing Obama is building.

BigRedChief
02-07-2013, 05:56 PM
This is feel-good, sound-good rhetoric but it's a cover for the Progressive wing of the GOP which is the same thing as the corporatist/fascist-wing, neo-mercantilist and the Establishment—globalists, empire, American hegemony with Third Way Socialism. The same thing Obama is building.Is this why you call me a neo-con?

BucEyedPea
02-07-2013, 07:12 PM
Is this why you call me a neo-con?

No. I said why where I said it.

Prison Bitch
02-08-2013, 07:07 PM
I'm sure the Tea Party are scared to death that Karl's attack ads prove as effective as they did vs Obama this cycle.

Dave Lane
02-08-2013, 09:50 PM
Mr. Broun, a physician on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, attracted attention last fall for saying that “evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory — all of that is lies straight from the pit of hell.”

Holy mother of god!

BigRedChief
02-08-2013, 10:28 PM
Holy mother of god!He's got a lot better. If the Republicans nominate him the Dems may have a chance at the seat in Georgia.

Dave Lane
02-08-2013, 10:31 PM
He's got a lot better. If the Republicans nominate him the Dems may have a chance at the seat in Georgia.

Its fine to be an idiot but not on that committee. Crazy beliefs like that should force you to recuse yourself from sitting on the Science committee.

BigRedChief
02-08-2013, 10:36 PM
Its fine to be an idiot but not on that committee. Crazy beliefs like that should force you to recuse yourself from sitting on the Science committee.uhhh John Bohner appointed him CHAIRMAN of the Science committee this year. The guy who thinks evolution is straight from the pit of hell.:shake:

ThatRaceCardGuy
02-09-2013, 06:29 AM
Kristol told Paul to leave the party as well. But it's Kristol, a Progressive, who needs to leave. Remember he loves Obamacare, and was thrilled to see Obama be an interventionist just like Bush. He declared Obama, a Born-Again NeoCon.

I bet you know someone who knows Kristol.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2013, 08:52 AM
uhhh John Bohner appointed him CHAIRMAN of the Science committee this year. The guy who thinks evolution is straight from the pit of hell.:shake:

We don't need no stinkin' Science committee. I mean WTF?

What someone in govt believes about evolution, for religious reasons, is making a litmus test on religious beliefs. I thought you progs were opposed to discrimination?

Prison Bitch
02-09-2013, 10:29 AM
Vast majority of Americans polled believe they were created by God, not evolution. I don't see the outrage here.

BigRedChief
02-09-2013, 11:16 AM
We don't need no stinkin' Science committee. I mean WTF?

What someone in govt believes about evolution, for religious reasons, is making a litmus test on religious beliefs. I thought you progs were opposed to discrimination?Science is Science. Beliefs do not enter into the discussion. Discrimination is not in the discussion.

Evolution is how we homo sapiens came into existence in our current form in 2012. Scientific fact. No doubt, no debate. It is an acknowledged scientific fact on the same level as gravity.

And most of the same people think that people on earth are only about 5000 years old and dinosaurs are a fraud that never existed.

If you want to believe, have faith that God works in mysterious ways etc. thats your personal belief and thought process. Nothing wrong with that. You have a right to believe anything you want, but, its not Science. And I never understood why couldn't evolution have been God's plan?

BucEyedPea
02-09-2013, 01:04 PM
Science is Science. Beliefs do not enter into the discussion. Discrimination is not in the discussion.

Well, just what do you call a theory then? Until proven in empirical experiments, that is.

Evolution is how we homo sapiens came into existence in our current form in 2012. Scientific fact. No doubt, no debate. It is an acknowledged scientific fact on the same level as gravity.

And most of the same people think that people on earth are only about 5000 years old and dinosaurs are a fraud that never existed.

If you want to believe, have faith that God works in mysterious ways etc. thats your personal belief and thought process. Nothing wrong with that. You have a right to believe anything you want, but, its not Science. And I never understood why couldn't evolution have been God's plan?
Irrelevant to my point. It's a straw man. I wasn't arguing if it was science or not. I said we don't need mo stinkin' Science Committee or any litmus test in govt. The latter is exactly what you are advocating.

Science, if anything, needs to be free from govt.

Direckshun
02-09-2013, 03:01 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/08/the-five-stages-of-republican-grief/

The five stages of Republican grief
Posted by Ezra Klein
on February 8, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Something very interesting is happening in the Republican Party. It’s just not entirely clear what it is, or how far it can go.

Dick Morris and Sarah Palin are out at Fox News. Rep. Paul Ryan is helping House Speaker John Boehner talk his caucus down from the debt-ceiling ledge. Sen. Marco Rubio is going from one conservative talk-radio host to another to sell them on bipartisan immigration reform. Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal is telling Republicans to cease being “the stupid party.” Tea Party icon Jim DeMint left the Senate, while FreedomWorks, a Tea Party catalyst, went through a nasty, costly divorce with its figurehead, Dick Armey. Karl Rove’s super-PAC is turning its formidable financial artillery toward helping Republicans win primary elections against Tea Party insurgents.

The Republican establishment is reasserting control. It’s purging some of the hucksters who’d taken the party’s reins — or at least the airtime — in recent years. It’s resisting much of the brinkmanship that marked the last Congress and trying to present a more fearsome, united front against counterproductive strategies favored by the right. All of the major 2016 presidential contenders have made the same political calculation: It’s better to build a reputation as one of the party’s adults than as one of its firebrands.

“We’ve had a period of this movement at the grass-roots level, call it Tea Party or something else, and it seems to me we’re seeing the normal progression of a grass-roots populist movement,” said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota. “It ran out of control for a few years — that’s why we call it a movement rather than an organization. But it’s receding a bit now. That’s allowing natural leaders to reassert themselves, and institutional forces to reassert themselves.”

Just don’t call this process moderation. The Republican Party isn’t reinventing itself so much as reverting to its previous form. There’s little evidence of a rethinking of core Republican policy ideas. There’s no obvious analogue to the Democratic Leadership Council of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which was a moderating influence on the Democrats, or even to the “compassionate conservatism” that George W. Bush promoted to the nation in 2000.

That was particularly evident this week when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor gave what was billed as a major policy speech at the American Enterprise Institute. With the ambitious title “Making Life Work,” Cantor’s address was thick with policy but thin on new ideas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/05/eric-cantor-wants-to-make-your-life-work-heres-how/). Then again, that was the point. His aides told Politico that Cantor was “taking policies that have been on the shelf for a while, or back burner, and elevating them.”

The most significant idea was to convert federal education funding to a weighted-student-average model, as officials have done in San Francisco, where schools get more money if they attract poorer students. But the bulk of the ideas were half-measures, and it’s somewhat ironic that many of them are more fully developed in the Democratic agenda.

Cantor endorsed the Dream Act and green cards for immigrants who earn a master’s degree or doctorate from an American university, but he stopped well short of supporting comprehensive immigration reform. He offered a lengthy encomium to the government’s “appropriate and necessary role” in funding basic medical research, but proposed only that we reinforce it with the paltry sum we’re currently spending on social science research and cut some red tape. The section on tax reform was vague; the big idea on health care was repealing the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical device manufacturers; and the solution for working parents who want more time at home with their children was to permit them to convert overtime into flextime.

It was hard, listening to Cantor’s speech, to imagine the person whose life wasn’t working now but would work after this minimalist agenda became law. The ambitious headline belied a more modest aim: Cantor’s intention, he said at the outset, was to “focus our attention on what lies beyond these fiscal debates.” But the reason Republicans have centered their identity on the deficit is that it’s an issue of sufficient size and scope to excite a political party. It is almost impossible to imagine the party reorganizing itself around Cantor’s menu of appetizers and side courses.

Renewal, however, is a process. After the 2008 election, Republicans went through their anger phase, engendering the rise of the Tea Party. In 2012, there was denial, which resulted in their choosing the least provocative candidate on the theory that if Mitt Romney could avoid offending anyone, voters would instinctively, overwhelmingly reject President Barack Obama. Now we’re in the bargaining phase, with Republicans hoping they can change only their behavior while retaining all their ideas. The question now is whether the Republican Party will be forced into the final step of the process: policy change.

“The Democratic Leadership Council was founded in 1985,” said Kenneth Baer, author of “Reinventing Democrats.” “Their focus initially was on intraparty fights. They thought that the activists took over the party and the elected officials who represent real people weren’t relevant anymore. They weren’t playing a big role at nomination conventions and so forth, and that’s why Democrats kept nominating extreme candidates. It was only after 1988 that they decided they can’t just critique, and instead have to put out an agenda. So they created their think tank, and their first paper said you don’t need to raise the minimum wage, you should do the earned income tax credit. Then they moved onto national service and welfare reform.”

This is exactly what the Republican Party hasn’t done. There are, in corners of the Republican coalition, dissidents calling for a new approach. A surprising number of conservatives have, for instance, begun arguing that Republicans should break up big banks. A few indefatigable thinkers, including Bloomberg View’s Ramesh Ponnuru, continually argue that Republican tax policy should be helping families rather than lowering rates on the rich. A number of important voices in the party, including Ryan, have called for a focus on restoring social mobility, but the concerned rhetoric hasn’t been matched by serious policy. None of these strands of thinking appears close to blossoming into a new, or even slightly different, agenda.

That’s the problem with the Republican establishment reasserting control. They’re still the establishment.

Prison Bitch
02-09-2013, 07:01 PM
“The Democratic Leadership Council was founded in 1985,” said Kenneth Baer, author of “Reinventing Democrats.” “Their focus initially was on intraparty fights. They thought that the activists took over the party and the elected officials who represent real people weren’t relevant anymore. They weren’t playing a big role at nomination conventions and so forth, and that’s why Democrats kept nominating extreme candidates. It was only after 1988 that they decided they can’t just critique, and instead have to put out an agenda. So they created their think tank, and their first paper said you don’t need to raise the minimum wage, you should do the earned income tax credit. Then they moved onto national service and welfare reform.”

This is exactly what the Republican Party hasn’t done.



Are you referring to the same DLC that is now disbanded, since the Democrats no longer wanted to field moderate Democrats and have gone full-liberal?

BucEyedPea
02-09-2013, 07:03 PM
Looks like a continuation of this...http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518ZBorlVfL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-52,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Direckshun
02-11-2013, 01:35 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/new-rove-group-could-backfire-on-g-o-p/?hp

New Rove Group Could Backfire on G.O.P.
Nate Silver
February 11, 2013, 10:09 am

The strategist Karl Rove and his allies last week announced the formation of Conservative Victory Project, a new “super PAC” designed to lend support to what they see as more electable candidates in Republican Senate primaries.

The effort makes plenty of sense on the surface. Republican primary voters nominated a series of inexperienced and extremely conservative candidates in Senate races in 2010 and 2012, often with the support of the Tea Party and other insurgent groups. It can be argued that they lost as many as a half-dozen Senate races as a result, including the contests in Delaware and Nevada in 2010 and in Missouri and Indiana last year.

But conservative groups and activists have reacted very harshly to the announcement (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/politics/new-rove-effort-has-gop-aflame.html), while some conservative candidates who are potential targets of the group, like Representative Steve King of Iowa, have already sought to raise money (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/steve-king-karl-rove-launched-a-crusade-against-me/) off the backlash to it.

An analysis of Republican Senate primaries in 2010 and 2012 suggests that money is usually the least pressing problem for the incumbents and other establishment-backed candidates whom Mr. Rove’s group might be inclined to support. Instead, some insurgent candidates won their races despite having been at more than a 10-to-1 fund-raising disadvantage heading into the primary.
The table below reflects 23 Senate races between 2010 and 2012 in which an establishment-backed candidate squared off against an insurgent candidate in a Republican Senate primary. There are some judgment calls required in selecting the races, particularly because the Tea Party consists of no one single group but instead an informal network of organizations that tend to back highly conservative candidates. In other cases, some candidates, like former Representative Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania Senate primary in 2010, tended to be supported by both Tea Party and establishment groups; these instances are excluded. The list includes a number of relatively obscure candidates. I do require, however, that the candidates listed were viable enough to have filed at least one fund-raising report with the Federal Election Commission.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/11/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0211-senfunds1/fivethirtyeight-0211-senfunds1-blog480.png

These issues aside, the overall message from the data should be reasonably clear. The establishment candidates substantially outraised the insurgents, by an average of $4.3 million to $1.2 million based on the last Federal Election Commission reports that the candidates filed in advance of the primary. (The difference in median fund-raising totals, which reduces the influence of outliers, is just as substantial: about $3 million for the establishment candidates versus about $400,000 for the insurgents.)

And yet, the insurgent candidates won 11 of 23 races, or nearly half the contests. Joe Miller of Alaska did so in 2010 despite being at nearly a 20-to-1 fund-raising disadvantage against the incumbent Lisa Murkowski. Christine O’Donnell of Delaware defeated Representative Mike Castle that year despite having raised about $260,000 to Mr. Castle’s $3.2 million.

Does that mean there is literally no benefit to having more money in a Republican primary? Not exactly; as the chart below suggests, there is a modest but positive correlation between the share of the funds that went to the establishment candidate and that candidate’s margin of victory or defeat.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/11/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0211-senfunds2/fivethirtyeight-0211-senfunds2-blog480.png

However, the relationship is much weaker than it is in general elections for the Senate, when fund-raising totals have about twice as much power to predict the margin between the Democratic and Republican candidates. (The chart below reflects all Senate general elections between 1990 and 2010 in which both the Democratic and Republican candidate were viable enough to have filed at least one F.E.C. report.)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/11/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0211-senfunds3/fivethirtyeight-0211-senfunds3-blog480.png

Moreover, it is not clear that the correlation implies a strong causal link. Better fund-raising totals can serve as evidence that a campaign is well-organized, or has more grass roots support, which are indicators of candidate strength regardless of how the candidate actually deploys her financial resources. But if a candidate adds to her coffers through large one-off contributions, such as money from a super PAC or from her own savings, it may not go that far if the candidate is otherwise having a difficult time persuading voters of her merits. (Largely self-funded candidates, such as Linda McMahon of Connecticut and Carly Fiorina of California, have poor track records in recent years despite having gargantuan budgets.)

This may hold especially true in Senate primaries because they usually feature very light turnouts. (Ms. O’Donnell’s win over Mr. Castle in 2010, for example, came with a turnout of only about 58,000 voters in Delaware, representing about 30 percent of Delaware’s population of registered Republicans and less than 10 percent of Delaware registered voters of all parties.) The voters who do turn out in Republican Senate primaries are likely to be highly informed consumers of conservative-friendly news media outlets such as talk radio, prime-time shows on Fox News and conservative magazines and blogs. They may also weigh the endorsements of prominent conservative politicians and organizations. An insurgent candidate who is presented in a favorable light in these outlets may have plenty of ability to reach her target voters, even if she is spending little or nothing on paid advertisements and outreach efforts.

Mr. Rove’s efforts could backfire, therefore, if they result in the insurgent candidate receiving more sympathetic treatment through these channels; the amount of so-called “earned media” that the insurgent receives could outweigh the extra advertisements that the establishment candidate is able to afford.

A related problem is that the insurgent candidates could seek to raise money directly in response to moves by Conservative Victory Project, as Mr. King of Iowa is attempting to do. This could be the case especially when insurgent candidates were otherwise having trouble raising funds.

My analysis of fund-raising data, in this context and others, has found that it is generally the proportion or ratio of funds raised by each candidate that has the most power to predict races, rather than the absolute amounts. This is a consequence of the diminishing returns of campaign spending: the first $100,000 of spending goes a lot further in establishing a candidate’s viability than the marginal $100,000 after she has already spent $5 million.

Suppose, for example, that the establishment candidate has raised $3 million and the insurgent candidate $500,000, a six-to-one advantage for the establishment candidate. Mr. Rove’s group intervenes and contributes $1 million to the establishment candidate, bringing him to $4 million total. In response, the insurgent candidate raises $500,000 through grass roots groups, bringing her to $1 million total. Despite the absolute difference between the candidates’ fund-raising totals having increased, the ratio has declined to a four-to-one advantage for the establishment candidate from six-to-one previously, arguably leaving the insurgent candidate in better shape than before the fund-raising salvos.

The intuition is simply that it may be dangerous to raise the profile of an insurgent candidate for whom a little extra money and exposure could go a long way.

Where might Mr. Rove’s efforts be more likely to achieve their desired goals? One case would be in multiple-candidate primaries where there are two or more establishment-backed candidates running against one insurgent. This eventuality has come up quite frequently in recent years, such as in the Nevada primary in 2010 and the Missouri primary last year, when the insurgent candidate was able to win with 40 percent or less of the vote. By directing money to one of the establishment candidates at the expense of the other, Mr. Rove’s group could force the insurgent candidate to win an actual or near-majority of vote rather than a mere plurality.

The money raised by Mr. Rove’s group might also be more likely to help candidates if it is directed toward functions other than advertising which have a lower public profile, although coordination rules related to super PACs can limit such efforts.

But the money may be less likely to help if Mr. Rove’s group hopes to save struggling candidates through a barrage of advertisements late in the race. Republican voters have already been rejecting these candidates despite their overwhelming advantage in paid media placements, and often because they are viewed as too much a part of the Washington establishment. It will take more than a new super PAC for Mr. Rove to earn back their trust.

Direckshun
02-11-2013, 01:36 PM
Video: Karl Rove under fire from the right (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2149877775001/karl-rove-under-fire-from-the-right/?intcmp=sem_outloud).

Direckshun
02-11-2013, 08:53 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/campaign/281693-karl-rove-the-biggest-loser

Karl Rove: The biggest loser
By Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and national coordinator, Tea Party Patriots
02/07/13 11:30 AM ET

While Barack Obama is busy shredding the Constitution, Washington, D.C. insider Karl Rove is busy trying to destroy what is left of the Republican Party by launching a multi-million dollar Super PAC to usurp representative democracy, disenfranchise American voters, and concentrate even more power in Washington DC.

Rove and the professional “consultant class” think that only Washington D.C. insiders like them – not the American people – should get to decide who runs for public office.

That’s why he is launching the “Conservative Victory Project” – a Super PAC whose mandate is to wrestle local decision-making power away from the American people, so that only Washington DC insiders can hand-pick our candidates – against our will – again.

What happened the last time Washington D.C. insiders hand-picked our candidate? We got Mitt Romney; a man who struggled day after day to articulate a conservative position on the economy, which the consultant class told us was the area of his expertise.

The result of their “brilliant” campaign: four more years of Barack Obama.

That’s what happens when the consultant class decides what’s best for American citizens. They listen to focus groups instead of our founding fathers. They value polling over principle. And they choose mushy establishment candidates over strong, principled conservatives.

Their results speak for themselves. Barack Obama is still president. Harry Reid is still Senate majority leader. And Speaker John Boehner is still caving in to his Democratic opponents almost every chance he gets.

It is laughable that Rove is calling his new “command and control” group the “Conservative Victory Project.”

First: it is not a “Conservative” project. It is a project designed to shut out real conservatives, and to protect establishment Republican candidates who are hand-picked by a small cabal of Washington DC know-it-alls – over the objections of the American people.

Second: it takes even more nerve for Karl Rove to launch anything with the word “Victory” in it, when he just lost a winnable election to Barack Obama.

Rove ran the biggest political action committee in political history in the 2012 campaign – and lost big. The left, which humiliated Rove whose seemingly only strategy was to run ads and spend money, called him a “laughingstock” and correctly noted that “Election 2012 made Rove, even more than the Republican ticket, its biggest loser.”

Why would anyone want a loser picking “winners?”

This power-grabbing scheme is an assault on Federalism. It is an assault on states’ rights. It is a war on conservative principles and on local, representative democracy.

And it loses elections.

Aside from losing the 2012 presidential election, and handing our country to Barack Obama for four more years, here is what happened when Washington D.C. consultants forced their hand-picked Senate candidates on the American people, they lost: Josh Mandel (Ohio), Tommy Thompson (Wis.), Connie Mack (Fla.), Denny Rehberg (Mont.), Rick Berg (N.D.), George Allen (Va.), Linda McMahon (Conn.), Charlie Summers (Maine), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), Joe Kyrillos (N.J.), Scott Brown (Mass.) (when Scott Brown was a Tea Party candidate, he won. With Karl Rove in his corner, he lost). After a track record like that it is surprising it wasn’t renamed by donors as “American double-cross.”

Note the name change that will not have the baggage of American Crossroads’ abysmal record.

After Rove became 2012’s “biggest loser,” Donald Trump tweeted it best: “Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.”

Now, the Washington D.C. consultant class wants to waste even more than their donors’ money. They want to lay waste to the rights of American citizens to choose their own representatives.

Let’s hope that Karl Rove’s 2013 war on democracy is as big a loser as he was in 2012.

blaise
02-12-2013, 06:13 AM
WAR ON DEMOCRACY

BucEyedPea
02-12-2013, 08:11 AM
Aside from losing the 2012 presidential election, and handing our country to Barack Obama for four more years, here is what happened when Washington D.C. consultants forced their hand-picked Senate candidates on the American people, they lost: Josh Mandel (Ohio), Tommy Thompson (Wis.), Connie Mack (Fla.), Denny Rehberg (Mont.), Rick Berg (N.D.), George Allen (Va.), Linda McMahon (Conn.), Charlie Summers (Maine), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), Joe Kyrillos (N.J.), Scott Brown (Mass.) (when Scott Brown was a Tea Party candidate, he won. With Karl Rove in his corner, he lost). After a track record like that it is surprising it wasn’t renamed by donors as “American double-cross.”



This is true. The Rs that won were not moderates, they lost. Even 8 out of the 11 Ron Paul guys, endorsed by him as well won in the House.

Another question is why does Rove still get his talking slot on Fox with all this, while others lose theirs? Something to think about with Fox.

Direckshun
02-21-2013, 08:14 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/sensing-weakness-karl-roves-critics-pounce-87883.html

Sensing weakness, Karl Rove’s critics pounce
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
2/20/13 7:36 PM EST

For the first time in a dozen years, Karl Rove’s critics smell blood.

After his electoral wipeout in November — and motivated by years of resentment that’s spilling over — Rove’s credibility within his own party is at an all-time low.

His ability to sell donors on his new endeavor, the Conservative Victory Project, took a beating with a rollout in The New York Times, the newspaper conservatives love to hate.

Just this week, a tea party group grafted his image over a Nazi in an email pitch. Newt Gingrich, who spent much of 2012 lambasting Rove and the rest of the GOP establishment, faulted Rove for trying to handpick candidates. And last week, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad spoke publicly about phoning Rove to tell him his latest venture was ill-conceived.

Such open season on Rove would have been unimaginable even six months ago, as the Crossroads groups he co-founded cruised along to a $300 million fundraising goal. But that was before November, when a bad election night was capped by a bad Rove performance on Fox News — a call heard ‘round the world as he insisted the presidential race, which the cable network had just called for Barack Obama, was far from over.

He’s been re-signed by Fox, which guarantees him a powerful bully pulpit going forward. But, while it might be a stretch to say he’s gone from guru to goat, he will have to spend months making a case to skeptical donors, several Republican fundraisers conceded.

“He’s got a donor backlash and he’s got an activists backlash,” said one prominent Republican donor. Several people who cut big checks to Crossroads feel burned, this person said, adding some believe Rove is letting his group off too easy with his insistence that the problem last year was bad candidates.

“This idea that he’s the curator” of the Republican Party has taken a beating, said the donor. Further, the donor said — echoing sentiments made by others — the Times story about the Conservative Victory Project made both Crossroads and Rove a focus, as opposed to the process of picking candidates. And it set CVP up in direct opposition to another major conservative outside group, Club for Growth, that has been able to tout electoral successes.

To be sure, Rove remains a serious figure within the party — one who a number of donors still respect immensely — as evidenced by how few people would criticize him on the record.

Still, Gingrich’s column put a fine point on a common gripe among activists about Rove’s approach. Though CVP’s aim is to help prevent Republicans from nominating disastrous candidates like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, it fails to account for the fact that some establishment-preferred Senate nominees lost, too.

“In seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure,” Gingrich wrote on the conservative site Human Events in an op-ed piece. “Our problems are deeper and more complex than candidates. Handing millions to Washington-based consultants to destroy the candidates they dislike and nominate the candidates they do like is an invitation to cronyism, favoritism and corruption.”

“I think he made a strategic mistake in going after the tea party,” said one Republican donor. “That front page in the Times didn’t help it.”

The problem, the donor said, is “we have no messenger and no message.” And before people write more checks, the person said, they want to hear from Rove about what will be different.

A few rich Republicans have flatly rejected solicitations from Rove since Election Day, according to a GOP strategist who works with donors.

“They think he just screwed up,” said the strategist, predicting that Rove would never be able to raise as much as he did for Crossroads in 2012. “I still think he’ll have tens of millions to play with. I have no doubt that he’ll do $40 [million] to $60 million, but I don’t think he’ll ever see the $350-million mark again.”

In an interview on Fox News’ “Hannity” Wednesday night, Rove took umbrage at Bob Woodward’s recent criticism of him and defended his effort to sway primaries. Woodward said over the weekend that Rove was trying to create a “politburo” to ordain candidates.

“The last time I checked the Politburo … oversaw the extermination of tens of millions of people and during the Cold War threatened the United States with nuclear annihilation,” Rove said, “and just because Woodward is a center-left journalist, he can get away with calling me a communist and nobody is bothered by this.”

As for CVP, he added: “Look, if you take the attitude that nobody ought to be involved in primaries, fine. But if you take the attitude that some groups ought to be able to be involved in primaries and not other groups, then there’s a little hypocrisy there. And we have a right just like everybody else to be involved in a low-key collegial fashion.”

Rove referred a call from POLITICO to Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio, who was bullish about how the group will do this cycle.

“We’re confident we’re going to have the funding we need” to be a significant player in 2014 races, he said.

Collegio added: “Gingrich is right that we need [good] candidates across the board. … what created the media flashpoint is the cases of tea party candidates failing were far more spectacular than the slow-motion defeats of some of the more establishment candidates. But this was never about picking a fight with the tea party. This was always about something we should all agree with, which is finding the best candidates for general elections.”

Two sources with knowledge of Crossroads’ fundraising insisted it has fared well, so far.

A senior Republican operative was harsher in assessing Rove’s critics. That people who are “working and living in Alexandra, Va., would complain that somebody actually isn’t making a living off what he’s doing … and call him an inside-the-Beltway [person] is laughable.” Rove has said that he makes nothing off Crossroads and his supporters have angrily pushed back on the notion that his efforts are motivated by self-enrichment.

Another strategist, who’s worked with outside groups, took note that one of Gingrich’s complaints was with “billionaires” picking candidates. Gingrich was famously kept alive as a presidential candidate by more than $20 million in super PAC donations from Sheldon Adelson, the Nevada casino magnate who has long adored the former House speaker.

Dave Carney, who spent years as Rick Perry’s top political strategist and is well familiar with Rove, took a kinder approach.

Continue Reading Text Size-+reset“Karl wears big boy pants,” he said. “He is in the arena trying to be a positive force. Not everything a person attempts works out as intended and politics is a very public spectacle and all of your warts and failings are on display in HD! Criticism is a byproduct of this business and if Karl had thin skin he would have been a college history teacher a long time ago.”

The schadenfreude is not surprising considering Rove has a number of enemies in the consulting class and has been, in many ways, the shadow leader of the party for years.

“Nobody played more ironclad hardball than Karl for a long, long time,” said one operative. “When you don’t have all the power or cards, don’t be surprised [that] when you make mistakes … that long knives come out.”

Chris Chocola, head of the Club for Growth, was magnanimous about Rove, saying that despite the “repackaging” of Crossroads and “asking the wrong questions and identifying the wrong problem,” Rove has “ done a lot of good things and he’s a smart guy.”

However, Chocola added, “He’s taken a wrong turn here.”

Not everyone believes Rove’s fortunes have taken a hit.

“I don’t know if he’s going to have a problem or not, it’s hard for me to see,” said Fred Zeidman, a Texas-based Republican donor with deep ties to George W. Bush’s world.

“It’s hard for me to see” that happening, he added. “He played to the base for so long, and they loved him … he is no less smart than he ever was and he realizes we’ve got to win.”

“Do I think he might have problems raising money from some of the folks that gave him money last time? [Possibly] … but again for every door that closes, I think another one will open. … He admits his own mistakes, for lack of a better word, and he’s got his finger on the pulse of where America is.”

Another GOP strategist who’s worked with outside groups described the attacks on Rove this week as “over the top,” and suggested that groups like the Club for Growth
are using him as a straw man to motivate a donor base that is as listless after the 2012 cycle as anyone else’s.

While anger with Rove is running deep now, a Republican donor who speaks with him frequently said the likeliest outcome is that people come back to him later this year, given that there are few other options.

Asked why, the donor said, “because what else do they have to do?”

BucEyedPea
02-21-2013, 08:53 AM
Gingrich is using Rove as a whipping boy for his own aspirations too. Gingrich is full-bore Establishment Republican—Rockefeller Republican—who knows how to use the right rhetoric to lure conservatives. This is politics for ya'.

Meanwhile, I'm hearing Jeb plans to run and has also said he'd govern like LBJ. It just doesn't get any worse. Yet, Paul was put out to pasture.

Direckshun
02-21-2013, 09:00 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/republicans-seeking-better-returns-reject-kingmaker-rove.html

Republicans Seeking Better Returns Reject Kingmaker Rove
By Michael Tackett
Feb 20, 2013 11:00 PM CT

For more than a decade, Republicans have looked to Karl Rove for the solution. Now, a growing number see him as the problem.

Rove, 62, has put his imprimatur and donor money behind the Conservative Victory Project, formed to choose more electable Republican candidates and avoid such defeats as those of Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana, two races the party was banking on winning as part of expanding its U.S. Senate caucus.

That has drawn fire from numerous party activists, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and even businessman Donald Trump, all of whom say Rove shouldn’t try to play kingmaker.

“I am unalterably opposed to a bunch of billionaires financing a boss to pick candidates in 50 states,” Gingrich wrote in a Human Events article published yesterday. “No one person is smart enough nor do they have the moral right to buy nominations across the country,” added Gingrich, whose 2012 bid for the Republican presidential nomination was aided by $21.5 million in donations from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family to a friendly super-political action committee.

The fight between Rove and other Republican officials and activists is a proxy for the larger issues the party faces as its traditional apparatus wanes in campaigns dominated by independent groups and big-dollar donors.

Diminished Party

“The advent of super-PACs has been at the expense of the two-party system,” said Terry Holt, a Republican adviser to House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio. “In the current context, where the party isn’t as strong and big-donor influence can go its own way, you just have fewer ways for the party to stay broad.”

Rove is “responding to his experience and to the very real need for the party to be more competitive again,” Holt said.

The rift comes as party officials are working to build unity, become more competitive in statewide and national races and avoid confrontation with the anti-tax Tea Party supporters who provide an animated activist base even as many of their candidates alienate voters.

“This dust-up is the latest skirmish in the never-ending war between GOP pragmatists and purists,” said Jack Pitney, a professor of political science at Claremont McKenna College.

Avoid Incompetence

“The Conservative Victory Project wants to avoid the nomination of incompetent candidates, even if that means supporting a less conservative candidate over a more conservative candidate,” said Pitney. “Its critics see it as an effort to purge strong conservatives from the party.”

For Rove, it’s a rare moment where criticism is coming from fellow Republicans rather than Democrats.

He became a target for partisan attacks after serving as the principal strategist for President George W. Bush’s rise in Texas politics and two presidential victories. In 2010, Rove helped organize two of the most active independent political organizations -- bankrolled by unlimited funding from largely secret donors -- in a further effort to shape elections and expand the Republican Party’s influence.

American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies spent a combined $175.7 million on the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks campaign spending. The Crossroads groups backed the unsuccessful presidential bid of Republican Mitt Romney, lost 10 of 12 targeted Senate races, and were defeated in four of nine House seats.

Hide Record

Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, a grassroots group that promotes limited government and Christian values, said Rove “blamed Akin and Mourdock, anything to hide his record, which is just beyond abysmal. We are saying we are not going to put up with this. He is not going to tell conservatives what to think and not going to pick our candidates.”

Akin and Mourdock both lost to Democrats they had been favored to defeat after making controversial comments about rape.

Bozell and others cited a study by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington group that tracks political money, that found the American Crossroads groups had a success ratio of 1.29 percent of “$103,595,960 spent in the general election and ending in the desired result.”

Best Candidates

Rove declined an interview request. Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for the Conservative Victory Project and American Crossroads, said the groups had “come to the conclusion that we need to increase the caliber of candidates running for office in Republican primaries, and our goal is to elect the most conservative candidates in primaries who can win” general election contests against Democrats.

“We have made absolutely clear we are not trying to pick a fight with the Tea Party,” Collegio said. “We are simply trying to pick the best candidates available.”

That’s not how David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a Washington-based group that says it is “dedicated to restoring our government to citizens’ control,” sees it.

“I like it that voters get to decide,” Bossie said. “I think Rove is trying to defend himself and deflect from his failure. I hear from donors. I hear from grassroots people across the country who are offended by the very fact that Karl Rove thinks he knows best.”

“If American Crossroads has done a great job, why create some new entity with the name conservative in it?” Bossie asked. “So everybody thinks it’s good because it is from a conservative outfit?”

Governor’s Rebuke

Rove earned a rebuke from a leading Republican office- holder when the Conservative Victory Project indicated he would oppose U.S. Representative Steve King of Iowa should the Republican who is a favorite of Tea Party activists make a bid for the Senate seat Democratic incumbent Tom Harkin is giving up in the 2014 election.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, also a Republican, said Rove should leave the primary to Iowans.

Tim Albrecht, Branstad’s spokesman, said the governor “believes Karl Rove received his message, which is that meddling in the Iowa primary would be counter-productive to his efforts, and that Iowa Republicans will be making this decision.”

Collegio said he had no information on any talks between Rove and Branstad.

“It sounds like somebody from D.C. and outside of states and congressional districts is trying to make decisions for a local area as to what’s best for that local area, as if they know what is best,” said Jenny Beth Martin, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, which is based in Woodstock, Georgia, and says it has about 1,000 active local coordinators around the country.

’Local Control’

“That’s the antithesis of what our movement stands for,” she said. “We want local control. We want to choose our own nominees. We don’t want consultants from Washington D.C. coming in and telling us who they deem the most winnable candidates.”

The controversy prompted Trump to declare in one of many anti-Rove messages on Twitter: “I don’t like bullies. I am not going to stand around and watch @KarlRove target the Tea Party. Karl Rove gave us Barack Obama. Loser.”

John Weaver, the chief strategist for the 2012 presidential campaign of Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, said his party is missing a larger point about policy.

“At the end of the day policy is politics,” Weaver said. “It’s kind of the self-appointment process that people don’t like but at the end of the day primary fights should be over policy differences. To single out candidates and single out grass roots and spend more from sources not disclosed is not a healthy thing.”

Dave Lane
02-21-2013, 09:25 AM
Funny thing is, for once I agree with Rove. He is "right" and the more the Rs and TPers veer to the right the less meaningful they become.

Best of luck and hold strong to the farthest right positions you can find.

BucEyedPea
02-21-2013, 09:37 AM
Funny thing is, for once I agree with Rove. He is "right" and the more the Rs and TPers veer to the right the less meaningful they become.

Best of luck and hold strong to the farthest right positions you can find.

Instead of this bogus and meaningless label of "farthest right" —which doesn't say anything about issues—you should look at it from the pov of view of the Constitution or within the framework of what our govt was founded on: diffused power as a federal republic, a federal govt that is not too big, low taxes, freedom and prosperity. Not more programs, more war, more empire, more fascism, more socialism. That's really what you actually argue for.