Rayfield reports: "Karl Rove is backing a new effort to stop the Tea Party in its tracks. The Tea Party is, predictably, not pleased."
Karl Rove worked on Mitt Romney's campaign strategy. (photo: Fred Prouser/Reuters)
Karl Rove's War On the Tea Party
04 Febuary 13
arl Rove is backing a new effort to stop the Tea Party in its tracks. The Tea Party is, predictably, not pleased.
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Rove's super PAC American Crossroads is backing a new group, the Conservative Victory Project, which will enlist big-money GOP donors to fight back against Tea Party groups that are looking to oust Republican establishment candidates in the 2014 primaries. The idea is to prevent any more Todd Akins or Richard Mourdocks from making it through to the national stage.
From the Times:
"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."
The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party's primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election.
The right met this news with a combination of outrage and mockery. Ben Shapiro of Breitbart.com kicked things off by writing that Rove and American Crossroads are "posing as tacticians while quietly undermining conservatism."
"The Tea Party, which may nominate losers from time to time, also brought the Republicans their historic 2010 Congressional victory. If Tea Party candidates lose, it's because they weren't good candidates; if GOP establishment candidates lose, it's because they weren't good conservatives. The choice for actual conservatives should be easy," Shapiro wrote.
"I dare say any candidate who gets this group's support should be targeted for destruction by the conservative movement," wrote Erick Erickson on RedState.com.
W. James Antle III, Editor, The Daily Caller News Foundation, argued that Rove is "[b]laming the tea party for Bush's mess." He added: "These self-appointed saviors of the GOP call themselves the Conservative Victory Project, but many Republicans suspect they're out to prevent conservative primary victories."
"If Karl Rove wants to throw out bad candidates, I have four words for him. John McCain and Mitt Romney," wrote Judson Phillips, the head of Tea Party Nation. "If you are a wealthy Republican Donor and are thinking about giving money to Karl Rove or one of his groups, let me suggest you give your money to Bernie Madoff instead. You will get a better return on your money from Madoff or any other ponzy [sic] schemer than you will from Karl Rove."
"The biggest problem with the Republican Party is that no one in the establishment paid the price for two straight presidential defeats," wrote Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Magazine. "Instead the blame is being dumped in the Tea Party. And that's only fair, what with the Tea Party being huge Romney backers."
"People are imagining a problem that doesn't exist," Grover Norquist told the New York Times. "We've had people challenge the establishment guy and do swimmingly."
Politico reports that Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund, highly influential conservative groups that have helped far-right candidates win their primaries, mocked American Crossroads' new effort.
"They are welcome to support the likes of Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst," Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller said. "We will continue to proudly support the likes of Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz."
"The Conservative Defeat Project is yet another example of the Republican establishment's hostility toward its conservative base," said Matt Hoskins, executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund. "Rather than listening to the grassroots and working to advance their principles, the establishment has chosen to declare war on the party's most loyal supporters," Hoskins said. "If they keep this up, the party will remain in the wilderness for decades to come."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
You are thinking of Obama in the last...or rather first term. Have you not noticed that he is walking around congress and going straight to to people???. He is a lot more feisty now.
And Rove realized....a bit late...that he had nurtured a snake at his bosoom, and now it is BITING him.....a lot....I think he will have a hard time getting rid of it. For the snake...er...T party. may be too well ensconced in many areas.
I sincerely hope the republicans will not be able to get reasonable republicans.... if any are left... elected in the primaries. For we saw in the last election. That democrats will beat crazy T baggers.
The Democrats cannot win against them.
And don't accuse me of being a Republican. They are even worse than the hand-wring, issue-caving hypocritical Democrats with their snarly weaselly reactionary ways.
I am a Tea Party of one. Screw Rove.
(And please, get it straight, we live in a republic, not a democracy.)
Yeah, I know, this is a republic, not a democracy. But really, there's less of a distinction between the two than Tea Party members would have us believe. Here are definitions of "democracy" from Merriam Webster:
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
So we have a representative democracy, also known as a republic.
Enough of this tempest in a teapot argument! (Sorry, I just couldn't resist!)
:-)
"a democracy' is a dictatorship of the majority, and as you said, majority rule.
A republic is rule by agreement of the people: essentially rule by equal law.
Dictatorships have different laws for the privileged. Equality under the law is liberty's path and needs a republic with a Bill of Rights). Special rules for special folk is a democracy for a ruling class dictatorship.
(Hint: China wants us to get rid of the 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights.)
What the heck does that have to do with the price of rice in China???
Honestly, China wants us?.... did they say "Please"?
Yeah, I know, this is a republic, not a democracy. But really, there's less of a distinction between the two than Tea Party members would have us believe. Here are definitions of "democracy" from Merriam Webster:
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
So we have a representative democracy, also known as a republic.
Enough of this tempest in a teapot argument! (Sorry, I just couldn't resist!)
:-)
Well, it's not that simple. A republic is basically ANY form of government whose political offices aren't either hereditary or (as with the papacy) appointive. Soviet Russia was a republic, one of 15 in the USSR. What we have is a democratic federal republic.
They MADE it
Your ignorance is showing. Our problem is thaat we tax too little and spend too little. Reagan led us down the garden path toward destruction of the country by slashing taxes on the rich and corporations and loading them onto you and me.
And we live, not in a democracy OR a republic, but a democratic republic.
Pure democracy cannot exist in a nation this large, and a republic would be an outright tyrrany.
The follow-up question is, which system do you want to be living in, if you see them at odds? I note that people who continually make a distinction between a republic and a democracy are often taking a back-handed slap at the democratic process. Is that the case with you? If so, why do you assert yourself over the majority? (It is a question I'd really like to hear answered.)
The principle argument should not be about whether we are a Democracy or a Republic, but how to make our system more democratic so it represents the interests and will of the people. How to eliminate propaganda and thus improve informed consent? How to protect both the individual and the majority? And especially, how to introduce democracy into our economic institutions, so that out lives are not (effectively!) limited to selecting which totalitarian organization to rent ourselves to-- under the false guise that we are free to choose
No one has the right to dictate to another. A dictatorship of the majority is still a dictatorship. The Bill of Rights shelters us, and protects our minorities from a majority mob. You cannot protect both the individual and the majority. It doesn't work. Either the individual will rule or the mob.
The founders wrote the Constitution to subvert the mob (and the king). That is the distinction. Those who desire to rule don't like it much. Screw them, we have a republic of laws, not a dictatorship of men. The Rove ruling class hates it. Me I love it. But, as Jefferson said, it often requires blood. (and the 2d)
God help you for your ignorance. Why would anyone want it different?
You tell me.
The founders utilized the electoral college system and instituted a conditional democracy because they didn't trust the will of the common people. Though they were relatively enlightened men, they were aristocrats, a product of the class divisions of their time. But our institutions are "living traditions," and must always be examined for their ethical and practical fitness. They are not sacred. I believe that eventually our society will change again, and introduce a form of economically direct democracy to accompany a more direct political democracy.
If everyone believed in their right to do whatever they want at anytime, believed that no one has any claim upon them for responsible behavior, then we would never have any laws. Only the rule of the strongest. A.S Neil refers to the notion of doing whatever you want as "license" not freedom. I hope that you come to understand the distinction.
Mind your own business is a good thing. So is do not impose on another man's life or property.
You might take your own advice.
Nope, you live in a Plutocracy, republic or not. The Monarchs of our time are the Robber Barons who dictate to the government what is done with your taxes.
Rove is a shadowy fink for whoever he feels "should" be in power for the clearest path to right wing totalitarianism -then you know what you'll have then, right!?
Now we are an empire, as we always have been since adopting the Constitution, which was originally billed, by Alexander Hamilton, one of its primary architects, in Federalist Paper #1, paragraph 1, as an "empire, in many respects the most interesting in the world...."
Only the incapable ignorant or the willfully self-deluded have ever been able to think otherwise.
So which is it, your bliss, or the truth?
This alliance with the unsavory is not anything new in terms of tactics. Nixon's southern strategy where racist whites were courted enthusiasticall y by the Republican party. They have not been able to shake the racism out of the party since. If the Republicans hope for greater success with this divorce they will have to ban Rushbo and the loonies, too. But Rove may find out that the Tea Party tiger has him in its jaw and he is about to be devoured. I can't say I wouldn't be pleased. He deserves to be tiger poop. We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the Republican establishment will have a lot of fessing up to do, mea culpas galore and radically change their message on vital issues. Are they going to tell Inhofe that he's teh hoax and not global warming. Much to do if they hope to become a credible party again.
I confess, as a spectator I love messy divorces.
Kind of nice to see all the blockheads and numbskulls who want the destruction of America for the benefit of the worst people and corporations fighting for the principles of ignorance.
Yes, flippancy, it is pretty funny and can only continue as Rove and his ilk try to bring the clown car back on the road. Only two problems: the loonies are driving the car and their fear is the fuel in the tank. Limbaugh's head is ready to explode with rage and Beck screams his irrationaliteis as he is flushed back to the sewer he emerged from. Idiots all, the Repugs are in for a wild ride and can't do much about it when in the back seat. After rolling in sewage, it is hard to ask for a hug.
Whether its a Tea Party candidate or a Karl Rove candidate makes no difference to us Democrats. Thyt are all nutcase candidates. We will destroy them in 2014
Aygen
Istanbul, Turkey
I don't think the Dems need to do much, if anything. Never interfere with your enemy while he is committing suicide.
All of us try to find solutions, but there are some things that just simply need doing (Senate rules change, prosecute bankers, put people into the budget) that only the elected representatives and appointed courts have any legal authority to do. And that is why we try to elect Democrats, in the hopes that somebody will understand. I heard, in person, a speech by Michelle Obama in 2008 where she said that her husband "gets it." I'm still hoping that much more is done, and a real agenda for change occurs. The headline on NBC this evening is how drones used against Americans is legal; beats me how the lack of Due Process is legal. I want our representative government to work, but it was founded on a system where one representative stood for far fewer people than today; in 1776 the colonies had less than five million people (hence, Senate and Electoral College imbalance wasn't that important then). Today, one Representative in the House stands for about a million people, more or less (less in low population states where there are more Senators than Representatives .)
They were just people who were fed up with the Government's current course and wanted to rein it in to a more Conservative/Cl assical Liberal bent, got hornswoggled into thinking the Republicans would get them there. They don't have a seat at the table, they are not kings, just knights errant given bad orders!
If you spent as much time learning about them, maybe meet a few, as you do making fun of them, you'd find they're the rebels WallStWallFlowe rGirl wishes for, they at least have the spine to stand up for their beliefs, knowing how much they will be ridiculed, instead of succumbing to apathy and "Why Bother" martyrdom!
One of those regulations was allowing them to sell directly to the people and pick their own agents to do so instead of selling their tea at auction to wholesalers who then would sail back to the colonies to sell it to retailers.
Now before an Tea Partier makes a comment, if you remove the regulations about wholesalers entirely then you just allowed that same Tea company to sell directly to the people and put a lot of people out of business. Which is what happened in the late 1800s and early 1900s as Big Fish bought up Small Fish and destroyed competition.
In fact, almost all the conservatives were on the side of King George III. That's why George Washington said he hoped America would always be liberal, since conservatives are poisonous when they have power.
If you have a disabled child, they cannot inherit enough to support them if the state has helped pay for medical care, because the state will take back all the money first. That is a Federal law, and it means that the Federal government would rather see an adult disabled person homeless than able to manage a little bit. That is only one example of the hypocrisy; everybody has experienced (or will experience) something of that kind.
You are right of course. But why waste your time casting pearls before swine? The redFcheckers are hopeless, their ignorance astounding. God save us. RSN won't.
"A house divided," Lincoln warned "can not stand" and thus why the children of his party are falling apart. As much as I love watching them implode and turn against each other, hoping Rove ends up the biggest loser of them all, there's not much to celebrate over because while the kings fight, the peasants aren't gaining a thing.
I'd like to see Democrats take advantage of this divide, get off their arse, and show some spine, but the People aren't doing themselves any favors expecting them to fight alone. This could be the perfect storm; a mutiny on the ship against the corporate captains... But where are all the rebels?
Wall Street's Barry Obama is still president, after all.
Sometimes Wall Street wins by--ahem--losin g.
But there will still be one problem - you will STILL not be able to work with whoever wins...but go ahead and root against the T-Partyers.
(By the way, please try to stay left of center - the country needs that)
Nahhhh, Stupidity retains stupidity!!!
Karl Rove is many things, but stupid isn't one of them.
Here goes: What we call "the political right" is often divided and confused.
The big corporations want to make and keep money. Period. To secure that end, they'll try all sorts of manipulative schemes. Which explains why, sometimes, the big corporations can behave in "liberal" ways. (If liberals want to buy organic foods, or contraceptives, the big corporations will sell these items. Why not?)
However: Usually, the corporations move to the right. But there are fanatics on the political right who have their own agendas. Including racism, patriarchy, promoting religious bigotry and conspiracy theories, etc. Sometimes these social agendas can be tolerated by the big corporations. Sometimes - as Karl Rove knows - the fanatics are "bad for business."
The Tea Party was supposed to support the Republican hierarchy. Some of the Tea Party leaders went to extremes and the Republicans lost influence in some places. So, now, it's time for a bit of discipline. Maybe it'll work for Karl Rove and the big corporations. Maybe not. (Hitler and Mussolini had some tricks of their own. What's possible for the Tea Party?)
Now for a real shocker, what we call Conservative nowadays USED to be called LIBERAL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Liberalism
1.) The Government is supposed to provide protection from external threats (Military)
2.) The Government is supposed to provide protection from cheats and INTERNAL threats, not become them (Police)
3.) The Government is supposed to maintain what NECESSARY infrastructure the Private Sector could not feasibly/profit ably perform!
Tell that to Nixon--you know he founded the EPA, right?
Tell it to Reagan--you know he was the one who started handing out the "free phones" you blame Obama for and raised taxes?
What is your personal definition of not wikipedia?
I mean let's face it, even with the foggy description you gave us:
Obama and his department of State and Defense are doing their best to defend the country...of course they can only do so much if the Senate won't confirm a new Sec'y for him. Internal cheats and threats like...? And as for the infrastructure, you need to talk to a Republican run House about that and that would not be what you say is conservative-tu rned-liberal policy.
I believe, and this is my opinion, that you are a little confused.
But I believe anything you want, you will find a way to pay for. The real problem is that want and need USED to coincide.
Now only responsible people pay for what they NEED first, then if they have any left over, THEN buy what they want.
Losers buy what they WANT first, then if they don't have enough to pay for what they NEED, then they DEMAND others pay it for them! They don't have to use their bodies to get what they want, they can use yours! Work is for suckas, right?
If they'd put down some of their prejudices and throw away their labels, they could probably get with Occupy and make a good push against the ptb.
Which is who Rove works for, so, there ya go.
Elitists such as Rove, essentially looters and moochers, don't like it.
A guy can dream, can´t he?
So we've got a front row seat to this love fest between the Teapublicans and the power base of the White Wing. It's the Stupor Bowl where the Inbred Cross-eyed Crackers take on the Card-Carrying WhiteMen Insiders. Well, it's gonna be a hellova game folks with plenty of bloodletting on both sides. It's a shame somebody's gotta lose this thing, but as we all knew from the first, there can be only one.
Citizens United, its whats for dinner.
Is there such a thing as a good repub these days? Will let them fight it out, continue their hate and fear campaigns against one another...maybe it'll keep 'em busy for awhile.
RSS feed for comments to this post