RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

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 worked on Mitt Romney's campaign strategy. (photo: Fred Prouser/Reuters)

Karl Rove's War On the Tea Party

By Jillian Rayfield, Salon

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 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

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." your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+172 # ER444 2013-02-04 14:16
Isn't it fun watching the alpha dogs fighting in the dirt! Will the Democrats use this to their advantage and try to get more people like Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grason in Washington? I doubt it. They just simply don't have the balls. Obama will continue to try to compromíse with them and the result will be watered down nothing. Heh Dems, get out of the way and let Alan and Elizabeth lead!!!
+47 # MainStreetMentor 2013-02-04 19:00
Boy howdy on Lettin' Elizabeth and Alan (and maybe Bernie Sanders, too ...?) run the show. The Republican party became the RepubTEAcan party only because the Republicans wanted the growth in numbers, believing they could control them. But as with everything else they do - they never think things through to their logical conclusion. Well, if they're lookin' for destruction - Karl Rove is the KING!
+26 # Virginia 2013-02-04 22:18
One thing I've always said about the Republican hypocrisy - watch 'em long enough and they'll eat their own.
+10 # Regina 2013-02-05 00:04
No, ER444, they do have balls. What they're missing is BRAINS.
+3 # Walter J Smith 2013-02-06 11:10
Yeah, they have balls. Spit balls.
+5 # X Dane 2013-02-05 20:56
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 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.
0 # Walter J Smith 2013-02-06 11:13
You do have a serious point about the potential 'serious republicans.'

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.
+139 # jimbo 2013-02-04 15:33
these people are too stupid to understand their ideas are failing. The only thing the tea party has accomplished is to stop the wheels of democracy in changing times with their hate and stupidity. In another four years (after President Barach Obama) their ignorance will put them further behind America. The only thing they will have is their guns, and good luck with that. Begone fools with the rest of the 'conservatives' . You don't know what the word means.
-47 # Depressionborn 2013-02-04 18:54
Yes, the nation is taxed too much and the government spends too much. But don't blame it on me. Blame it on Rove.
I am a Tea Party of one. Screw Rove.
(And please, get it straight, we live in a republic, not a democracy.)
+48 # Gordon K 2013-02-04 21:13
(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!)
+16 # DevinMacGregor 2013-02-05 01:51
Thank you. I was about to say that. I am tired of that same tired line ... we are a republic not a democracy. Oh really? Do you vote for candidates? Do you vote for measures? Then guess what that is a democracy. All a Republic means is govt owned by the people and not a monarchy or hmmm an elite class. We have representative democracy. What low information citizens like Depressionborn mean is we are not a PURE or DIREST democracy to which the Federalist Papers were speaking against. If Depreesionborn had some civic classes he might see how they modeled much of our govt after the old Roman Republic which hmmm voted in blocks with majority winning those voting blocks. This is how we vote for POTUS by state voting blocks for example. Another is for amendments. Voting solely on popular vote for the nation would be more of a pure democracy. We here in California vote directly for propositions.
-12 # Depressionborn 2013-02-05 11:57
Not a small difference at all.

"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.)
+2 # ruttaro 2013-02-06 20:16
(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"?
+1 # ericlipps 2013-02-05 16:25
Quoting Gordon K:
(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!)
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.
+23 # brenda 2013-02-05 01:55
A few top Republicans would want the government to be a Fascist one, where labor gets dictated to and is powerless to change their quality of life, wages, and work safety.
+4 # X Dane 2013-02-05 21:06
They MADE it
+21 # flippancy 2013-02-05 07:11
Quoting Depressionborn:
Yes, the nation is taxed too much and the government spends too much. But don't blame it on me. Blame it on Rove.
I am a Tea Party of one. Screw Rove.
(And please, get it straight, we live in a republic, not a democracy.)

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.
0 # ER444 2013-02-05 14:27
No no!! Indee we tax too little, but we spend too much ON WAR. AND our Democracy isn't playing by the rules set out by our fore fathers. The last few Presidents have been waging illegal war without declaring it and without consent of the Congress ie. the people. Our Democracy is broken, and we need to fix it !!
-16 # Depressionborn 2013-02-05 18:34
+13 # PGreen 2013-02-05 08:29
"(And please, get it straight, we live in a republic, not a democracy.)"

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
-8 # Depressionborn 2013-02-05 23:45
I assert myself over a dictatorship.

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.
+4 # PGreen 2013-02-06 10:36
Apparently you do not like the democratic process, but you fail to explain the workings of your alternative is: a republic can be either a dictatorship or a democracy. I said that the principal argument of our time is improving democracy; in part, preserving the rights of the individual while achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. I strongly disagree with your statement that they are mutually exclusive or could not co-exist.
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.
-1 # Depressionborn 2013-02-06 22:08
I believe no one should have the right to interfere in the life of another. I did not say have the right to do what ever you want. I said the opposite.

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.
+3 # ruttaro 2013-02-06 16:46
Well, no the Founders did not write the Constitution to subvert the mob or the King. They wrote it because the Articlaes of Confederation were not working. Do the words "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union" mean anythng? The confederation was also a democracy but it placed almost all power in individual states and thus was not working. The founders, especially Madison, saw that a new system of government was necessary so they came up with the idea of federalism that divided powers. The Constitution became the rules for government and how power was to be divided, both between branches of government and between states and the federal government. Each article of the Constitution addresses each branch of government and what it's functions are exclusive to it. So we have checks and balances. After all is spelled out the Constitution then addresses the sovereignty of the individual within the Bil of Rights, expressing the inviolable rights of the individual from the power of the government. Finally, it is the Constitution that makes us a Republic as it sets out the framework for our democracy to function. Therefore, the United States is a democracy AND a Federal Republic - a form of government based on the shared powers between states and the federal government under the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution. Hate to have to spread the ignorance charge around but if it fits...
+20 # JCM 2013-02-05 08:34
Taxes are ar their lowest in a generation and government spending under Obama has decreased. After WW2 taxes on the very wealthiest were increased to help pay off our debt. Government spending was high and that boosted the economy. We do have a government spending problem - we don't spend enough and that's due to taxes being to low on the wealthiest.
-8 # Depressionborn 2013-02-05 18:33
Sorry, after WW2 spending was almost 21% of GDP, now it is a bit over 25%.
+18 # bmiluski 2013-02-05 09:56
Excuse me but because of the likes of you and the rest of the tea-bags, thousands of Americans couldn't be put to work improving our countries infrastructure because you voted against it. Yet you kept your 23 teabag congressmen happy with their farm subsidies of 100K/year.
+11 # reiverpacific 2013-02-05 18:38
Quoting Depressionborn:
Yes, the nation is taxed too much and the government spends too much. But don't blame it on me. Blame it on Rove.
I am a Tea Party of one. Screw Rove.
(And please, get it straight, we live in a republic, not a democracy.)

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!?
+7 # X Dane 2013-02-05 21:03
Depressionborn. It would help if you informed yourself. The taxes are the LOWEST they have been since the presidency of EISENHOWER. So you are wrong, wrong, wrong....and we live in a CORPOTOGRAPHY. We and all politicians...a nd you are OWNED by the big corporations.
-8 # Depressionborn 2013-02-06 05:45
Spending, not taxes. Money spent comes from somewhere. We pay one way or the other. There is no one else. My spending numbers were correct.
0 # noitall 2013-02-06 19:45
Spending DOES come from taxes for a large part. If I was filthy rich, I'd feel better seeing the country thrive with healthy and educated people, state-of-the-ar t infrastructure, green industry jobs, healthy habitats and environments and wildlife thriving knowing that I've paid a sizable role than having a embarrassingly fat bank account and squalor abounding. But maybe I had better up bringing. Giving a wad to where I want it spent and receiving hidden benefits doesn't cut it either.
+2 # Walter J Smith 2013-02-06 11:18
That "we are a republic" line does have a cute ring to it, and, indeed, once, perhaps, had a grain of truth in it.

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?
+14 # Cassandra2012 2013-02-05 09:53
These are not 'conservatives' (what are they 'conserving'??) Call them what they really are — right wing RADICAL extremists pretending to be living in a mythic past!
+77 # Linda 2013-02-04 16:32
Its kind of fun watching them in desperation eating each other :)
+68 # ruttaro 2013-02-04 16:37
This is the divorce the Republican party needs. Let the Limbaughs and Hannity's and Beck's go. As a political force, the Tea Party was only so strong as long as the establishment Republicans thought they could ride the TP anger to the White House. Unfortunately their cynicism and disingenuous embrace of the TP back-fired. They had a tiger by the tail and the Tiger bit back hard. Karl Rove was one of those cynical Republicans who tried to leverage the idiocy of the Tea Party to the main stream Republican's advantage. Now he's got religion.
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.
+10 # flippancy 2013-02-05 07:19
It is pretty funny when you think about it. The TP had a few legitimate concerns at the beginning, but they were led by morons and bought into the idea that it was the Republicans who had their back when the ones who actually did were the Democrats. They bought into the lies and now are stuck in a nightmare of their own making and locked into mortal combat, scum vs. scum.

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.
+4 # ruttaro 2013-02-06 10:59
The morons are still there and as vocal as ever. So are the numbskulls, dim-wits and the angry-at-the-wo rld crowd. The gun-loving, Bible thumpers, paranoids and the unhinged are stewing as much as ever. The world marches on and they are not happy with who is in the parade. They wanted an exclusive club and they got it, only they are the ones excluded.

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.
+2 # noitall 2013-02-06 19:48
They got taken over by assholes with $$$ Koch, Murdoch, et. al. right out of the gate. Money rules all and its ALL ABOUT MORE MONEY. If their rise of the weak minded wasn't staged by the big money, it would have petered out because of the misguided nature of it all.
+29 # Aygen 2013-02-04 16:38
February 5
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
Istanbul, Turkey
+25 # PABLO DIABLO 2013-02-04 17:00
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
+78 # Ralph Averill 2013-02-04 17:08
The Republican hierarchy is struggling with the Frankenstein monster of their own making. The Tea Party was never a spontaneous "grass roots" movement. It was created by the Koch brothers, among others, who thought they could manipulate their creation to their own ends. Well, now the monster is loose in the village and out of anyone's control.
I don't think the Dems need to do much, if anything. Never interfere with your enemy while he is committing suicide.
+9 # readerz 2013-02-04 23:05
I agree, except that many underestimate the tea party, and there is a rule: "Never underestimate your enemy." They also start with the premise that America has been broken in pieces: that is obvious when looking at cities that have areas that appear bombed out, or medical care that delivers poorer health, or schools that do not teach, or banks that seem to always get away with anything.

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 .)
-1 # EPGAH3 2013-02-06 19:48
And remember: You voted for him!
+6 # flippancy 2013-02-05 07:20
Actually, it started as a grassroots campaign, but needing money, they were co-opted by the Kochs and the like.
+50 # Street Level 2013-02-04 17:12
It was only a matter of time before they began to eat each other. It's what the sickly powerful do when there's no one left to hate or blame. Couldn't happen to nicer guys.
-45 # EPGAH3 2013-02-04 18:21
The Tea Party as powerful? Where?
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!
+40 # Okieangels 2013-02-04 19:03
Let's face it: if this were revolutionary colonial America, the Tea Party would be on the side of the King of England.
+4 # smartrussian 2013-02-04 22:08
No they would shit their pants and run the other way.
+9 # DevinMacGregor 2013-02-05 02:05
That is why their pick of Tea Party is funny. Do they really know what the Tea Act was? For one, it removed regulations from a single company allowing it to form basically a monopoly which would had put a lot of people out of business but yeah to the Brits viewpoint it would have gotten We the People cheaper tea and it would had since the second was allowing it to pay less tea tax.

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.
+19 # flippancy 2013-02-05 07:22
Quoting Okieangels:
Let's face it: if this were revolutionary colonial America, the Tea Party would be on the side of the King of England.

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.
+10 # readerz 2013-02-04 23:11
There is a lot of justified anger out there; the trouble is, the Tea Party people are being used by the big bankers that are, at the same time, stealing from them. I think the whole point is that most people do not have a "seat at the table" anymore. None of the politicians think anything through... they pretend to give with one hand while they take away with the other.

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.
+4 # kelly 2013-02-05 09:37
Why can't I give about twenty thumbs up? Finally a person stating the truth.
+9 # bmiluski 2013-02-05 10:02
It was the tea-bags that would show up at town-hall meetings and shout down anyone who disagreed with them....ala...b rown shirt/black boot hooligans.
+1 # Depressionborn 2013-02-06 22:15
dear EPGAH#

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.
+75 # WallStWallFlowerGirl 2013-02-04 17:22
Let's not confuse ignorance with arrogance; Rove is grossly arrogant but hardly stupid. Yet the beautiful irony about arrogant people is the potential to self-destruct, simply because they cannot accept defeat and/or an expiration date on their narcissism.

"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?
+13 # FDRva 2013-02-04 17:25
Sadly Wall Street GOPers like Rove do not need to win any elections to get their way.

Wall Street's Barry Obama is still president, after all.

Sometimes Wall Street wins by--ahem--losin g.
+33 # tm7devils 2013-02-04 17:25
OK, Democrats, here are your marching orders: When your enemy is doing their and back and stay out of their way.
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)
+31 # Aggie61 2013-02-04 17:27
In another 8 years, Hillary will be President and running for her second term. The Rightwing will be totally marginalized. Those angry white males and Stepford wives will become mere footnotes as our beloved country regains leadership in a modern, progressive world. A new generation of educated, forward-thinkin g, and socially-consci ous young people will re-form the nature of government. It is happening before our eyes.
+10 # chuckw38 2013-02-04 17:28
Perhaps Karl Rove will be dropped by the Tea Party.....
Nahhhh, Stupidity retains stupidity!!!
+4 # flippancy 2013-02-05 07:24
Quoting chuckw38:
Perhaps Karl Rove will be dropped by the Tea Party.....
Nahhhh, Stupidity retains stupidity!!!

Karl Rove is many things, but stupid isn't one of them.
+6 # kelly 2013-02-05 09:45
I agree. After the way he manhandled the elections here in Texas, stupidity isn't his downfall. But his paranoia will be. Just as the paranoia of the NRA will ultimately undermine its stance too. When the general populace see enough of these senseless murders, most using guns by the very people they call the "good guys" they will have to open up their cold dead hands, Karl Rove will finally have to concede the election and the tea party will take off the tin foil hats that have been blocking the spell check in their brains.
+25 # Smokey 2013-02-04 17:29
Reminds me of the infighting in the fascist parties during the 1920s and into the early 1930s - but, nah, that probably seems a bit harsh for some folks. So, I'll try something different.

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?)
+10 # cwbystache 2013-02-04 17:57
Well soon's I read this it seeped in from the side, hmmmmm, Night of the Long Knives Lite but you're probably right, even with "Lite" that's probably too harsh. Those parallels that are there, though, should't be ignored.
+4 # readerz 2013-02-04 23:16
The parallels are there, but nobody wants to see it. "Peace in our time?"
-10 # EPGAH3 2013-02-04 18:18
Does this surprise anyone? The Republicans are NOT Conservative, the Democrats are NOT Progressive!
Now for a real shocker, what we call Conservative nowadays USED to be called LIBERAL!
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!
+8 # kelly 2013-02-05 10:00
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.
-3 # EPGAH3 2013-02-06 19:45
If you believe that phones are an important part of modern living, great. Buy other peoples' phones with your money. But cellphones? Come on, THAT is a luxury!

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?
+26 # NAVYVET 2013-02-04 18:25
At least Rove doesn't want to round them up in a beer hall and slaughter them, as Hitler did his (equivalent) Brownshirts after they became an embarrassment to the Nazis. Remember (a) that the SS storm troopers took over the dirty work, much more subtly, and (b) that many of the Tea Partiers, just like the men who joined the Brownshirts, are poor, hurting people, stopped by Wall Street from climbing into the Middle Class. Some already despise Wall Street and many are fanatics only because they've been out of work, listening to talk radio, and mesmerized by untruth. Let's tell 'em the TRUTH! (I'm a Medievalist and could tell you of a hundred bigoted, violent, nativist, fanatic anarchist groups who became disillusioned and switched SUDDENLY to a far more enlightened social democrat orientation. This was common. Former fanatics can still stay violent, though, so beware.
+3 # kelly 2013-02-05 10:06
The beer hall event took place many years earlier. The night of the long knives took place in 1932 or 1933 after Hitler bacame chancellor and had already served his time in jail and written Mein Kampf.But you're right, he was getting rid of those that the party elite were "embarassed" about. The common people, the thugs, if you will. They helped with voter suppression and intimidation when it came to making him chancellor and were rewarded with death.
-2 # EPGAH3 2013-02-06 19:41
Well, the Black Panthers don't seem too unduly concerned about Long Knives...
+16 # jwb110 2013-02-04 19:07
It's always a good sign when they start eating their own.
-6 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 19:35
Maybe I'm liking those Tea Partiers a little bit more now.

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.
+16 # Mannstein 2013-02-04 20:17
The Republican Revolution is eating eating its own children.
+2 # smartrussian 2013-02-04 22:09
And good riddance I say.
+5 # bmiluski 2013-02-05 10:08
Be careful what you wish for. Something far worse could replace them.
+11 # roger paul 2013-02-04 20:57
Dear Depressionborn. ....get it straight we live in democratic republic.
+1 # Depressionborn 2013-02-06 05:55
of course, not a democracy, a representative republic ruled by documents of the people.

Elitists such as Rove, essentially looters and moochers, don't like it.
+2 # JSRaleigh 2013-02-04 22:21
I hope they both implode.
+3 # Papá Kokopelli 2013-02-04 22:26
Maybe something good can come of all this. Maybe the TP people will decide to form a third party, and MAYBE that will put a bee in the bonnet of progressives to form a party of their own. They will soon find it necessary to change a lot of states´ voting laws and election commissions, which are set up to exclude third parties. But then you might get to a situation where some real debate can take place, and some real progress can be made. No more Tweedledee and Tweedledum!!
A guy can dream, can´t he?
+8 # Kumari 2013-02-04 23:02
Oh for heaven's sake - any country in which citizens are actively prevented from exercising their right to vote, electorates are outrageously gerrymandered, and 600000 people don't have any representation in Congress has no right to utter the word democracy let alone call itself one! Americans are so good at collective self-delusion. And you have the nerve to claim to be taking democracy to the rest of the world! What a sick joke.
+4 # bbaldwin 2013-02-05 09:02
Rove has finally imploded. Yea !Porky pig put his money in the wrong people. Now he wants to jump out of the Tea Party. I hope the Republican party buries him.
+2 # kelly 2013-02-05 10:08
Why? It's more fun and kinda creepier to watch him bury himself and watch his friends watch him. Maybe they will get the message.
+5 # chinaski 2013-02-05 10:06
Karl Rove, in an epiphany of ruthless efficiency, instituting a negotiation-by- assassination policy that only he could manifest, has come to realize that one can actually be TOO stupid, TOO mean and TOO racist to be of any practical use to the Cause, and could even cause damage to said cause by 'expressing' said ignorance.
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.
+4 # dick 2013-02-05 22:36
Cla$$ warfare in the GOP.
+2 # coachjbar 2013-02-06 13:23
The power house conservatives invested $300 million in Rove sponsored organizations and lost. Thus the major spin out by Karl on FOx tv on election night. He is having his feet held to the fire with demands on production in return for their money. Head will roll!

Citizens United, its whats for dinner.
-1 # 2lilluc 2013-02-07 06:34
Oh goody! More things to hate, people to stomp on, villains to find, fingers to least they are doing it to each other now;good repubs vs. bad repubs
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.

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.