In Defense of Rove


Intense criticism is mounting against Karl Rove over his launch of the “Conservative Victory Project,” a new American Crossroads initiative that seeks to vet GOP Senate candidates while squeezing out unelectable political prospects. Conservative critics of Rove see his new venture as an “incumbent protection program” and an assault on the Tea Party. But the accusations miss their mark. It is difficult to deny the disasters that cost conservatives precious political power in the last two elections – disasters that could have been easily prevented if there had been a system set up for the careful scrutiny of candidates. Surely, the conservative movement would better be served by a more effective filtering out of unelectable candidates through a project like Rove has designed.

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” says Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the conservative organization responsible for the creation of the 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.”

Jonathan Collegio, communications director of American Crossroads, further illuminates the rationale behind the project:

“Somewhere between four to seven U.S. Senate seats were lost over the last two election cycles, not because of the messages that the Republican party had, but because of the messengers, the lack of candidate discipline, as well as a lack of ability to raise sufficient money to compete.”

Some of those messengers were indeed very much off the charts politically. Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s ludicrous comment about “legitimate rape” more than likely cost Republicans a Senate seat retained by the extremely vulnerable incumbent Claire McCaskill. McCaskill was widely predicted to lose before Akin’s blunder. Richard E. Mourdock, who ousted Indiana Republican incumbent Richard E. Lugar in the primary, was defeated by Rep. Joe Donnelly for a seat long-held by the GOP. His widely publicized statement that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen” was a decisive factor.

The 2010 election saw similar defeats of other dubious candidates, such as the highly grating loss by Sharron Angle to a very vulnerable Harry Reid in Nevada, and Ken Buck, who lost a close race to Michael Bennet in Colorado, very likely due to his position that abortion should be prohibited even in cases of rape or incest. In the cases of Bennet, Akin and Mourdock, these candidates do not even represent the popular Republican Party view of allowing abortion exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. All it takes is one question from one reporter on their extreme position, and the race is as good as lost. How many more times will conservatives permit this scene to play itself out?

Perhaps the most glaring example of the type of election forfeiture Rove and Crossroads seek to avoid with their new project comes to us from Christine O’Donnell, who ousted Rep. Michael Castle in the primary, only to be defeated by Christopher Coons in the 2010 election in Delaware. O’Donnell represented the epitome of an undesirable candidate. She had held no elective office or had any experience in government prior to running for the Senate, and a veritable collection of off-the-wall comments, as well as a series of business problems, ranging from unpaid debts and taxes, to IRS liens and misused campaign funds, made her an easily beatable candidate. Coons trounced O’Donnell in the election, winning by a margin of 17 points. By contrast, an exit poll taken following the vote showed Coons would have beaten Castle by a single point. Considering that poll was taken after Coons’ victory, it is quite possible Castle could have overcome such a slender margin during a sustained campaign. Instead, a man with a serious prior flirtation with Marxism was sent to the Senate.

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Rove attempted to defuse criticism coming from conservative circles. The foremost accusation is that Rove is attempting to form an incumbent protection movement aimed at protecting establishment GOP candidates from “upstart” Tea Party candidates and their “over-the-top” conservatism. “This is not to protect incumbent Republicans,” explained Rove. He continued:

“It is to get in races where it is important to have a winning candidate. It is to try and find the most conservative candidate who can win the so-called Buckley rule. Our job is not to protect incumbents, it is to win races by stopping the practice of giving away some of the seats like we did in Missouri and Indiana this past year, and that may mean telling the incumbent Republican that if he is going be in the race, he shouldn’t expect any funds from Crossroads in the general election.”

The claim that Rove is “at war” with conservative grassroots is similarly hyperbolic and is disproved by the tens of millions of dollars that Crossroads has given to Tea Party candidates, even against the organization’s better judgment. “Crossroads is second to none in our support of Tea Party candidates,” Rove affirmed:

“In 2010 and ’12, we spent over $30 million for Senate candidates who were Tea Party candidates. We spent almost $20 million for House candidates who were Tea Party candidates … We spent $2.9 million for Marco Rubio, more than any other group. We spent $2.7 million for Ron Paul. We spent $5.1 million for Sharron Angle in Nevada. We spent $8 million in Colorado for Ken Buck. We spent $1.4 million in Pennsylvania for Pat Toomey, the former president of Club for Growth. We spent more money on his behalf than the group that he used to head. And then in 2012 we spent $5.9 million in Indiana for Murdock and $3.3 million in Missouri. We ran ads up until the point where Akin made his stupid comment.”

As Rove notes, the Tea Party has certainly brought the GOP some good candidates, such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, which Crossroads has supported. But it has also supported terrible candidates, which the entire conservative movement, including the so-called “establishment,” has no choice but to waste millions of dollars on in vain. Like the Republican Party itself, the Tea Party movement is not immune to attracting unseemly characters and supporting those who do damage to the conservative cause. The influential Tea Party-aligned group FreedomWorks, for instance, suffered an embarrassing leadership fallout over a book royalty dispute. Veteran Republican politico and former chairman Dick Armey resigned from the organization after he and other staffers alleged group president Matt Kibbe was exploiting FreedomWorks to enrich himself through a book produced with organizational resources. As one internal source told the Daily Caller, “There is a feeling by a lot of folks that FreedomWorks is shifting over to become a promotion vehicle for Matt Kibbe more than an organization that focuses on public policy and elections and being a service center to the grassroots.”

The Conservative Victory Project will maintain its own identity, operating as a super-PAC, independent of both American Crossroads and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. This autonomy, along with the intention of disclosing the names of donors, is considered critical. The inevitable showdowns between competing Republicans is likely to make some donors squeamish about supporting intra-party battles that could eventually benefit Democrats, much like the Republican presidential primaries gave the Obama campaign plenty of ammunition to use against eventual nominee Mitt Romney.

One candidate for the 2014 races reportedly being targeted by Rove’s group is Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who is considering a run for the Senate seat in Iowa currently held by retiring Democrat Tom Harkin. Efforts will be made to see that he doesn’t get the nomination, due to his outspoken and incendiary comments that would likely alienate a majority of the electorate: King contended that terrorists would be “dancing in the streets” if President Obama won the 2008 election, unnecessarily denigrated illegal immigrants as “dogs,” and called former Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) “a great American hero.” Other Senate races where provocative would-be candidates are seen as potential general election liabilities include Louisiana, Alaska and Georgia.

A more rigorous vetting process for such loose-cannon candidates will likely improve electoral outcomes for the conservative movement. In 2010, for example, prompted by nationwide dissatisfaction with two years of complete Democratic control, the Senate, just like the House, was ripe for the taking by Republicans. In the end, Democrats maintained a 51-47 margin (with 2 independents). Thus, the three very winnable Senate seats lost by Angle, Buck and O’Donnell cost the GOP control of that chamber. After that, the Democratically-controlled Senate, led by Harry Reid, enabled Barack Obama to keep his profligate and irresponsible spending under wraps by refusing to pass a budget for more than three years. Had Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they would have very likely forced the president to veto responsible budgets which, in turn, might have led to a different result in the 2012 presidential election. Moreover, as mad as conservative groups may be, Jonathan Collegio reminds them that losing control of the Senate “made it impossible to stop Obama’s fiscal cliff tax hikes last month.”

In 2014, Senate races will see Democrats defending 21 seats, compared to only 14 for Republicans, giving them a similar advantage to the 23-10 one they held in the 2012 election. Democrats gained two seats, courtesy of Mourdock and Aken, but 2014 is fraught with far more peril for their party. Barack Obama isn’t on the ballot, meaning voters can only express dissatisfaction with his policies by taking it out on other Democrats. Off-year elections also tend to attract voters who are paying closer attention than the so-called “low information voters.” Thus, the excesses of dubious candidates with hard-line positions that thrill primary voters, while they alienate the general electorate, are likely to be magnified.

Conservatives of all strips were burned by the outcome of the 2012 election and are understandably searching for the cause of their electoral misfortune. But they must look honestly at the factors that produced crucial losses for the cause and ultimately allowed the radical agenda of the Obama administration to continue damaging the country. The Conservative Victory Project is a legitimate attempt to prevent unforced errors in the candidate vetting process and needlessly giving up political power to the opposition. The conservative movement is not advanced by fomenting its own division and fighting with each other instead of fighting the enemy.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Of course, it is much more efficacious to circle the wagons, as opposed to bitter in fighting.

    However, to target King, due to his outspoken truthfulness, is to miss the forest from the trees. Moreover, is Rove also gonna target Bachmann and her supporters, for daring to speak out against the Islamic infiltration?

    To wit, this is the same "genius" who is best buds with Grover Norquist, and it is beyond dispute that this "fiscal conservative" is an implanted Muslim Brotherhood operative.

    For heavens sake, is Rove gonna vet/support the same addled bunch which brought the Repub Party to this abysmal point – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/29/republican-na

    Time for Rove to step aside….every "wonder boy" needs to know when to hang it up.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Steadyhand39

      Rove uses the wrong examples to target King. The Republicans lost elections including the Presidency by allowing candidates with extreme, narrow, religious viewpoints. When voters heard the abortion and rape comments by Akin,Murdock and Buck, the average voter wrote Republicans off as extremest, authoritarian, ignorant, crackpots. In politics, religion should be limited to what many of our founding generation called "the religion of America", religious principles all could agree on. The rest was left to individual, personal belief. Ref. the 5000 year leap, by W. Cleon Skousen,p.78.

    • Glennd1

      Oh would you please shut up already. Why don't you focus on your own country's politics? You are uniquely uninteresting and add nothing to the dialog.

      • Ghostwriter

        Glennd1,please stop acting like a twit. AdinaK has a perfect right to say what she wants,even if you don't like what she has to say.

        • Glennd1

          And who gives a hoot what you have to say about it? She's on here 24/7 babbling nonsense on every single post, promoting her blog. By doing so she exposes herself to criticism. I happen to blog on 3 sites and have run others in the past, so I know what she's doing. She's building traffic for her site, not adding anything of value to the conversation. I find her commentary simply a re-hash of soundbites and tropes from already idiotic talk show hosts.

          Perhaps if she missed commenting on just one article and had something interesting to say every so often I wouldn't bash her, but she doesn't so I bash. What are you guys going to ban me now? Fyi, I know who you are.

          Hmm, she uses your site like a personal promotion machine, but I share my thoughts and views purely in the spirit of interchange – and you seek to correct me? Pull your head out of you know where. Or are one of you related to her or something?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What are you guys going to ban me now? Fyi, I know who you are."

            Oh please. What a baby you are.

            "…but I share my thoughts and views purely in the spirit of interchange "

            Right, with thoughtful comments like…

            "Oh would you please shut up already."

            Oh the joys of spirited interchange, especially from those who are pure at heart and completely without flaws. My life's enriched thoroughly already just from your contribution to this thread.

          • Glennd1

            I'll put the totality of my comments up against hers any day in terms of substance and thoughtfulness. She's just 'link dropping' and saying anything remotely attention getting to do so. Her entire approach is straight out of a guide on how to build blog traffic. Maybe you don't know about internet marketing, but I do and trust me, that's what she's doing.

            I think many people here are immoral cretins. I say it right up front and don't mince words. I come here to confront ignorance and bigotry – isn't that ultimately the spirit of the forum that you want to create? Real debate and back and forth, not just an echo chamber of seals clapping for each other? Lots of what passes for commentary here is stupendously offensive, so please, don't dare criticize my style. I'm after Adnina on content, not style, fyi. She's a bore and is just doing marketing. I'll point it out every time I feel like it. FP can ban me of they like, but I won't change what I say or how I say it to curry favor with you or them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I think many people here are immoral cretins. I say it right up front and don't mince words. I come here to confront ignorance and bigotry – isn't that ultimately the spirit of the forum that you want to create? Real debate and back and forth, not just an echo chamber of seals clapping for each other?"

            I'm not critical of your ideals. I'm critical of your execution. Also. debating who is generally a better contributor, you or someone you object to, is not high on the list of noble pursuits. If you sincerely think you need to pursue that, at least come in with a lot more tact.

            I am harsh some times, but I believe that I can justify it. I don't think (subjectively) that you can justify your belligerent approach. Save your moral outrage for more crucial issues for crying out loud. Apparently a lot of people appreciate her blog.

            I understand your objections and the specific criticisms you list. I think your point of view is not necessarily wrong, but it's highly subjective and as I said, since others do appreciate her presence here, you are using up your anger on trivial and purely subjective arguments. Therefore you lose credibility.

            Will that get you banned? Oh come on now.

            "FP can ban me of they like, but I won't change what I say or how I say it to curry favor with you or them."

            A man of integrity. Maybe you should be president. Good luck with that campaign on transforming the nation by transforming your credibility on an Internet forum.

          • Glennd1

            Adina is a better contributor? Based on what? I'm belligerent to folks like you here because you conflate opposing Islamism with supporting Zionism, when the Zionists have committed horrendous, immoral acts that you and many others on this site seem to just ignore.

            But I never complain about the fact that you comment. I never suggest you don't belong here as long as you are engaged in a real debate – if I thought you were link-dropping, I'd blast you too. As for your subjectivity comment, no it isn't. It's a fact that she's first or early on almost every thread. It's a fact that she does short comments with inflammatory, sound bite-ish lines and that she drops a link at the end of each comment. If she's just here to talk, she would do none of that. That's not subjective, it's inductive reasoning. If you don't know the difference, that's your cognitive deficit, not mine.

            Surely it is subjective whether someone 'likes' what she has to say or not. But it's not subjective that she is here marketing her blog and that her commentary is as I describe it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Adina is a better contributor? Based on what?"

            Who are you talking to? Are there voices in your head that you attribute to others?

            "I'm belligerent to folks like you here because you conflate opposing Islamism with supporting Zionism"

            Me? You're belligerent towards me? I hadn't noticed to be honest. As to your conflation accusation, there's a difference between conflation, which is losing distinctions, and noting relationships accurately. There is a strong relationship between support of Zionism and opposition to jihad. If you knew ANYTHING true about the history of Europe and Israel, you'd know the biggest foe of Western civilization and culture is Islam. The physical front of that war is in Israel. But hey, don't let any of those facts bother your bigoted, emotionally derived dogmas.

            "when the Zionists have committed horrendous, immoral acts that you and many others on this site seem to just ignore. "

            Remember that I warned you about using facts as opposed to lies. Given the huge proliferation of lies that happen to line up with your vague unsubstantiated accusations, I can say that statistically you're either a liar or a dupe.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "if I thought you were link-dropping, I'd blast you too. "

            OK, so on the surface you want me to think that although you're opposed to anyone who opposed your bigotry towards Israelis, we're to think that this attack is all about the constant addition of URLs to her blog. And that leads to you "blasting" comments. Well whatever. Blast away. You'll probably get blasted back unless you adjust your message appropriate to the circumstances.

            I don't care about disagreement. I'm pretty flexible about style and content. The only thing I hate next to liars are those who use over-the-top theatrics and rhetoric to make their point when they should be showing more respect to their audience. Most readers want her to keep doing what she does. It's easy for you to look away.

            I can only conclude that what really bothers you is that others DO like to read what she posts. You're not speaking up for others who for some reason can't, you're speaking against a civilized ongoing discussion about the topics published on this blog.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It's a fact that she does short comments with inflammatory, sound bite-ish lines"

            Subjective.

            "and that she drops a link at the end of each comment."

            Objective.

            "If she's just here to talk, she would do none of that."

            Subjective.

            "That's not subjective, it's inductive reasoning."

            It's almost entirely subjective.

            "If you don't know the difference, that's your cognitive deficit, not mine. "

            Maybe you're so much smarter than I am that I just don't see how you solved all of the mysteries of the world that somehow undo all I've learned. Maybe.

            "Surely it is subjective whether someone 'likes' what she has to say or not."

            I have no objection to subjective opinions. The point is that subjectivity deserves respect as just that. No more and no less. People often use emotional arguments with subjective opinions with the expectation that it will decisively win an argument. We don't need objective evidence that people are free to speak and that popular contributors deserve at least a little respect if not for their sake but for the sake of those that want to read the contributions.

            In spite of what a few sarcastic trolls claim, I never said anything like "Don't publish anything but objective facts because nothing else matters." My main point day after day is that people like you diminish or hide objective facts to form their opinions, and then present them as facts. I say that objective facts do matter most, when you have them. And often, they matter more than anything else up to and including the destruction of silly emotionally-derived subjective arguments.

            "But it's not subjective that she is here marketing her blog and that her commentary is as I describe it."

            We're not arguing over whether that point is accurate. I simply don't care about her inclusion of hyperlinks or the occasional conversation drift because I don't need to read what I don't want to read. What we're arguing over (from memory, but I can go back and read again if I'm wrong) is that you used an over-the-top attack that was way beyond expressing a reasonable opinion. You passed the threshold of being left without rebuke. That's the bottom line. The second point is that you claimed you fight "bigotry" with your bigotry.

            I suppose people in the KKK thought of their victims as bigots too for wanting to assimilate in conflict with their views of what society should look like. It's obviously flawed thinking. When someone is as belligerent as you, you'd best be sure the objective facts line up with your opinions, and be sure you don't attack someone without some kind of just cause. Otherwise people will respond as they see is appropriate.

            I think we ought to spend more time working on the true causes of bigotry. If we really want to fight it, we'd should at least define it consistently. If we can't define it consistently using objective empirical facts as evidence, then using belligerence is surely counterproductive.

            Save your moral outrage for cases you can prove with objective empirical evidence. OK? It's not a threat to request you are banned or anything like that. I'm just trying to work on the same ends that you claim to be.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I come here to confront ignorance and bigotry"

            Me too. Let's see what we can figure out together. Tell me your thoughts on the problems with bigotry and ignorance today. What are the problems and consequences of the ignorance and bigotry that you observe? Let's discuss it clearly and rationally. You can be as "up front" as you want and as long as you are clear and rational, I won't have a problem. If I do have a problem. I'll try to explain myself in an up front clear and rational way.

          • Glennd1

            Specifically, I have several problems with bigotry and ignorance with respect to this site. I won't talk about the "world" or "society" but rather what gets presented here and applauded by you and others every day.

            1. Calling those who criticize Zionism (and when I say Zionism, I mean the politcal campaign to establish a state in Palestine that began in the late 19th century) anti-semites. While some may be, one doesn't imply the other. No matter how many times you say it or how many Zionists try to create dishonest arguments to prove it.

            2. Conflating being anti-Islamist with supporting Zionism. There is no connection between the two. Zionism and Islamism are both immoral in my eyes. Being opposed to Islamism doesn't demand support of Israel and Zionism.

            3. Tolerance for Muslim hatred in the comments area. There have been many hateful things said about Muslims here. There are also many negative and ignorant statements made about Islam and the Wests history that don't comport with the facts. Just one example? Bin Laden attacked us because we put troops in Saudi Arabia and for our support of Israel. He said so many times and built his case publicly. The director of the CIA Bin Laden unit for many years, Michael Scheuer describes this in depth in his book. Yet here, there is no tolerance for a conversation about our differences with the Muslim world based on our actions backing Israel and our own interventions in the region since WWII.

            That's my complaint. You guys ignore, for example, the entire New Historian movement in Israel and the many horrific facts about Israel's actions against the Arab Muslims living in Palestine at the time of Israel's founding. I dare you to watch this video of Shlomo Ben Ami http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzptCFV9mtU&fe… a professor and recent Israeli foreign minister under Barak, and digest what it his he confesses about Israel's founding. It was born "in blood" as he states it, and is a story of power, violent force and conquest. I'm not morally required to support it based on an accurate description. You are free to support Zionism as is your right, but to claim that it's a moral cause the U.S. must support is ahistorical and dishonest.

            That's my complaint. And before you rant, watch the Ben Ami video. Tell me where I'm saying something he hasn't about Israel's founding. You could also watch Benny Morris give a 1 hour precis on the facts here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEn2o_Jr3VA&li… , and if you aren't ashamed of supporting the actual actions of Zionists and then Israel, well you must have no sense of shame. Watch these two videos – I dare you. And them come argue with me.

            My problem with you folks here is that you won't watch those videos. You won't listen to the real facts and history. Instead, you listen to debunked frauds and liars like Dershowitz – who isn't even a historian. He's the David Barton (not a historian either) of Zionism, creating a false, revisionist history to suit his political purposes. Read Morris's books, 1948 and Righteous Victims. You may still be a Zionist aftwards, fair enough, but you will know that your hands are covered in blood if you do. Again, your choice, but don't dare demand that any American has a moral obligation to do so.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "1. Calling those who criticize Zionism (and when I say Zionism, I mean the politcal campaign to establish a state in Palestine that began in the late 19th century) anti-semites. While some may be, one doesn't imply the other. No matter how many times you say it or how many Zionists try to create dishonest arguments to prove it."

            There's a measure of subjectivity. I think that often the antisemitism don't know what they're being accused of. Most bigots have no idea about the true nature of their own biases. If you don't know that, well that's an even larger discussion. But I will simply say that I agree it's often not useful to take that approach.

            My usual approach is to challenge why anyone would attack such a critical ally, and why the resort to lies? Virtually every anti-Zionist I've had any conversation with is working with profound lies, and they are unwilling to think critically about any challenges to their narratives. Most of the anti-Zionist narratives came from Islamists, and the rest came from Soviets or Soviet dupes. How many anti-Semites fanned those flames? I can't say. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are dupes rather than irrational hateful bigots, until it becomes very clear. My standards for evidence are pretty high, but because in the end antisemitism is bigotry against Jews, there is no way I'm going to defend someone who's spreading lies about Israel just because it's not quite clear what their motives are.

            I know this is hard to understand from the perspective of one who actually believes that Israel as a nation "commits atrocities." Collectively they don't, and the rare individual or small group acting out is understandable. In my view after analyzing huge quantities of history and reporting from many angles, drilling down as far as I can to primary sources and physical evidence, the Israelis are being targeted for religious reasons even when the individual attackers don't know the origins of their motives. Because virtually all of them are based on lies.

            Occasionally there will be one or two who in war will be victims of circumstance. It's immature to use them as examples about how a nation is supposedly evil. Someone loses an olive grove, or has their family killed by enemy fire. They don't blame the terrorists for trying to deliberately draw fire towards innocents. Why is that? Well those that do blame the terrorists are killed by them. That only leaves jihadis and jihad collaborators to lie and threaten the press.

            We could talk like this for years. The question is whether you're willing to hear anything based on reality about Israel. And you claim to oppose Islam, but it makes me wonder if you have the facts about it. Why would you imagine they are victims in Israel yet so pernicious, belligerent and murderous throughout the rest of the world?

          • Glennd1

            BS top to bottom.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "BS top to bottom."

            Too complicated and nuanced for you. Noted.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "2. Conflating being anti-Islamist with supporting Zionism."

            Definition of CONFLATE

            1a : to bring together : fuse
            b : confuse
            2: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

            "There is no connection between the two."

            There is no connection between supporting Israel and opposing Jihad? OK…what do you think the war is about? I can't wait for this.

            "Zionism and Islamism are both immoral in my eyes."

            In your eyes. We know. That's why we're trying to discover the root reasons because I say your opinions are derived from dupery or bigotry.

            "Being opposed to Islamism doesn't demand support of Israel and Zionism. "

            Only from intelligent Westerners. The Chinese want to see Israel fail so that Islam can weaken the West even more seriously. Most people here in this forum assume you're a loyal American or patriotic Westerner until evidence emerges to the contrary. If you don't want the West to win, you hate Israel. Or you don't know much that's true about the subject.

          • Glennd1

            Well you could say go back to the start of the conflict after the Balfour Declaration and during the British Mandate and read what the British Parliamentary representatives who wrote up reports on what the source of the violence was in Palestine had to say. They were very clear about it. The indigenous Arab Muslims in Palestine believed that they were being stripped of their country. Don't believe me? Do the research – and until then, shut up. Your 'reasoning' is a babble of nonsense. Goodbye.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Well you could say go back to the start of the conflict after the Balfour Declaration and during the British Mandate and read what the British Parliamentary representatives who wrote up reports on what the source of the violence was in Palestine had to say."

            I already did. I doubt you have any that are new to me but why not try to be specific?

            "The indigenous Arab Muslims in Palestine believed that they were being stripped of their country."

            Right. They were lied to by Islamic supremacists. Instead of going with the facts, it was deemed better to go with politics. What about the indigenous Jews? Oops, There are none because lying Islamic supremacists said so and we're limited to what they say because we're loyal Americans that believe in freedom liberty and political expediency.

            "Don't believe me?"

            I don't believe you think you've gotten to the bottom of the facts. That means you're rather simple-minded. I guess it's possible your intelligence doesn't exactly eclipse mine.

            "Do the research – and until then, shut up."

            Gee, I guess I've been rebuked. As I warned you earlier, I am totally familiar with your narratives. Remember your claim that Dershowitz has been debunked? Well whether or not that's true, why do you recognize that can happen in theory, but can't happen when people tell the stories you like to hear?

            "Your 'reasoning' is a babble of nonsense."

            I know you can't make sense of it. I know.

            "Goodbye."

            So much for your fight against the "bigots," you against the world. Whatever.

            You're welcome here any time. The responses you get will depend on what you say. That's about all I can promise you. I can't promise you'll like it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "3. Tolerance for Muslim hatred in the comments area. There have been many hateful things said about Muslims here."

            I can see your point if you just take the most extreme comments completely out of context. Most comment threads lead to conversations. It's understandable in context when occasionally someone gets really upset and says "kill them all." I take that to mean they want to end the conflict decisively with the group we're discussing. In context, that usually means those Muslims who are causing or contributing to the problem being discussed. If someone comes from nowhere to say "kill all Muslims" and it's clear they simply want to kill anyone who can be identified as such, this person gets rebuked every time. You have a different sensitivity because you simply don't realize how effective the lies of the Islamic supremacists have been. Most Muslims are themselves dupes. It's really nearly impossible to imagine that anyone reached a rational conclusion that Mohammed was a prophet. One can say roughly the same thing about Hunduism or any number of religious or sects. Why do you suppose so much anger is directed at Muslims? Seriously. Why do you think that is? It's just their turn?

            There is an occasional need for subtle correction. But the kind of problems you talk about are caused by the jihadis. I never forget that most Muslims are coerced in to claiming loyalty to Islam. Most Muslims that I know are in that category of coerced and deceived and they just want to get along without displeasing allah. Their problem are caused by fear and ignorance but few if any hurt me in any way. I'm trying to help them as much as anyone else. My first loyalty is towards Western and American ideals. Anyone can join me in that. Anyone.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There are also many negative and ignorant statements made about Islam and the Wests history that don't comport with the facts. Just one example? Bin Laden attacked us because we put troops in Saudi Arabia and for our support of Israel."

            Oh my. Who said we are ignorant? Perhaps bin Laden is ignorant. Why would a Saudi attack the West for assisting his own king precisely as requested by the king? Why would a Saudi attack the USA or Israel because the latter pair are allies? This is just cause in your mind? What kind of nonsense is this?

            Bin Laden did not have rational reasons. He was not a rational person. He believed in Islamic history, which itself is based on lies. In his mind, Islam is always right to expand and anyone opposing that expansion is fighting his god. Therefore all of his moral opinions and claims must be adjusted with that knowledge. How dare you say you oppose Islam, and then start to defend one of the most destructive modern personalities in Islam and his fiction-based claims?

            " The director of the CIA Bin Laden unit for many years, Michael Scheuer…"

            I know Scheuer. He thinks like you do. You assume he has an accurate understanding of Islam, which he does not. We can use his testimony for the objective facts he can back with evidence, but that doesn't mean his analysis is any stronger than any other person who goes beyond the scope of their understanding. He's useful, but that doesn't mean you can quote him on just anything when he strays beyond his expertise. He knows facts about bin Laden. His opinions beyond that are no more valuable than anyone else's.

            Blowback my azz.

            Definition of PRETEXT: a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs

            "Yet here, there is no tolerance for a conversation about our differences"

            That's a lie. There is no tolerance for lies. Conversations are fine.

            "with the Muslim world based on our actions backing Israel and our own interventions in the region since WWII."

            When did conflict start with Islam? Did you know that Jihad was a component of WWI? If you were as familiar with history as you pretend, you'd see that the root cause of conflict in Israel is Islam. That is the start and finish. Occasionally other factors drift in, like the cold war between the West and the USSR, but essentially it's jihad.

            Didn't bin Laden ask Bush to convert to Islam to make peace with us? How would that reconcile anything in Israel? And if his motives were truly as you describe, why would he be so stupid as to confuse the issue by asking an openly Christian US president to convert to Islam in the middle of a war?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "That's my complaint. You guys ignore, for example, the entire New Historian movement in Israel"

            I think I know them better than you do.

            "and the many horrific facts about Israel's actions"

            Examining only one side of the war can lead to distortions, especially when naive people are exposed to these one-sided narratives. The objective of these men was to perform a religious duty of self-examination, not examination of the objective facts. It's confusing because they did use objective facts, but only towards the goal of self-examination. Did you not understand that?

            Benny Morris could explain it to you if you'd just listen to him rather than taking quotes out of context, which is a favorite thing to do when lying. You may be a victim of that kind of distortion, which leads to your emotionally-derived opinions about "atrocities." It's true. Israel killed some terrorists. In my view, they didn't kill enough of them. It's also true that because of Muslim perfidy, innocents died on both sides. Blaming Israel for Muslim perfidy opposes every Western ideal I know.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I dare you to watch this video of Shlomo Ben Ami http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzptCFV9mtU&fe…. a professor and recent Israeli foreign minister under Barak, and digest what it his he confesses about Israel's founding. It was born "in blood" as he states it…"

            You dare me. LOL. Been there, done that, refuted it many times. It's self-examination. He's crying out for emotional reasons. It's survivor guilt. It has no place in a rational discussion unless you place it in its proper context. It shows how much compassion Jews have for weak people.

            The jihadis deserved to bleed. Yes, Israel was born in blood that flowed because of unlawful Islamic supremacist aggression.

          • Glennd1

            So, no factual response, just your hatred of Muslims. Okay, now we know who you are. Do the world a favor: Don't reproduce or vote ever again. It's the least you can do for the rest of us…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So, no factual response"

            You published a link to a video. Present your case here and I'll respond here. Otherwise, go join your video and other supposed "evidence."

            "just your hatred of Muslims"

            Where's your case? You're pure bluff. I suppose you must have taken some college course from a radical moron and now you think you can teach others about the "facts" as fed to you. You mentioned only a few facts, like British reaction to jihad in light of the emerging importance of oil, and I replied clearly as possible given the space. I can develop any of my claims in later comments if needed.

            So how about quoting me to show my hatred of Muslims? You're so weak when you run out of childish things to yell.

            "Okay, now we know who you are. Do the world a favor: Don't reproduce or vote ever again. It's the least you can do for the rest of us…"

            Right. Of course you don't want anyone interfering with your march towards the perfect world you and your psychotic peers are "creating." Yes, you're the genius who just can't get through to the "bigots" who defend American allies from Islamic supremacist lies. In your spare time, you attack people for being Israeli and not crying over dead terrorists.

            Oh my, I just remembered that great statesman, Yasser Arafat passed away less than ten years ago. I just can't get over that living saint no longer being with us. Boo hoo. It must break your heart too.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I dare you to watch this video of Shlomo Ben Ami http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzptCFV9mtU&fe…. a professor and recent Israeli foreign minister under Barak, and digest what it his he confesses about Israel's founding. It was born "in blood" as he states it, and is a story of power, violent force and conquest. I'm not morally required to support it based on an accurate description."

            An accurate description of his emotional reactions to his feelings of guilt?

            Whatever.

            "You are free to support Zionism as is your right, but to claim that it's a moral cause the U.S. must support is ahistorical and dishonest. "

            I've explained myself many times. I'm familiar with every last claim you made and have been for years. Can explain or refute what I've written? I don't think so. You just hear this BS and assume anyone who supports Israel "just doesn't know" and must not be as smart as you. We already know about the liars and nut jobs who are promoted heavily by oil money and other jihadi income sources. We know. I have no fear of conversations. Who started this one? Are you to be congratulated for telling an Israeli to shut up as part of your peaceful dialog? Start from the top of the thread and after you read again, pat yourself on the back as mr. reasonable upstanding and compassionate citizen.

            Please. You're a dupe. Learn how to read critically and follow the evidence to its source. Do that patiently and you'll find many of those you quote are silly liars or emotionally unbalanced on their best days. At least the days when they're quoted by Islamic supremacists. Why does that carry so much credence with you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "That's my complaint. And before you rant, watch the Ben Ami video. Tell me where I'm saying something he hasn't about Israel's founding. You could also watch Benny Morris give a 1 hour precis on the facts here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEn2o_Jr3VA&li…. , and if you aren't ashamed of supporting the actual actions of Zionists and then Israel, well you must have no sense of shame. Watch these two videos – I dare you. And them come argue with me. "

            Bring it on. Where are those facts? All you have is bluff. Quote these people you say can make your case.

            Let's see what you have: Bin Laden, an Islamic supremacist, attacked us because we have a strategic agreement with Saudi Arabia signed in 1945 and we honored in in 1990. That makes us the bad guy. Oh yes, we support Israel, ipso facto we are bad. Hey, not only did bin Laden say so, but Michael Scheuer said that bin Laden said so too.

            Gee, it's going to take me all day to refute your powerful fact-based case against pro-Israeli Westerners. Actually it will take me years because you need to have all of your lies purged by authenticated historical narratives. That means history backed by objective facts.

            A true conversation goes something like, "Have you read or heard of ____?" That's not what you do. You're a lunatic because you read only one view, you don't know how to challenge it critically and now you think you can take on whoever disagrees with you because you saw some videos and read (maybe) some books.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "My problem with you folks here is that you won't watch those videos. You won't listen to the real facts and history."

            You do know that Mohammed is the root source of most of the lies you quote as facts, right? You think you oppose Islam, but you actually support it's lies. That's the definition of a dupe. Or you are a Muslim posing as "neutral" or "anti-Islam" in theory somehow to give yourself more weight in attacking Israel.

            I believe you're a dupe and not a Muslim, but I'm just explaining the possible ways you could be understood by those who do know the authentic facts of history.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Instead, you listen to debunked frauds and liars like Dershowitz – who isn't even a historian."

            I don't rely on Dershowitz for anything. And he was not "debunked" unless you think those two psychotic liars have more credibility than Dershowitz. I disagree, but it's moot to our conversation.

            "It's true. Israel was born in blood, born in blood I say. Why even a Jew said so and he's a professor damn it!"

            Oh please. Those are objective facts? Really? A war with blood? Holy cow, I feel so ashamed.

            You can't even make a rational case. Who started the war? Where is the objective empirical evidence against Israel for war atrocities accusations? Why don't you examine the war from a neutral perspective instead of skimming only emotional Israel-critical accounts? I don't care about emotional self-examination from the victors beneficiaries who feel guilty for various reasons having nothing to do with culpability.

            Grow up Glenn.

          • UraFecalLiberal

            Your inferiority complex is so manifest and infantile, that I am embarrassed for you.
            So far, the quality of your posts, and your thought, has proven to be inferior to Ms. Kudnicki's. You are whining, displaying a deficiency in character that needs praise and validation from without.

            Your posts are flabby with excess words, clutter, and detached symbols, low valence of exposition, and a default equivocation of Israel, Zionism with militant Islam and the Palestinian (an invented people) cause.

            Ms. Kudnicki is a pro, a seasoned intel pro. You are a schmo.

          • Glennd1

            LMFAO, a person who names themselve's "UraFecalLiberal" really has not standing commenting on anything – perhaps you don't realize that's what you announce with that idiotic name. As for the rest, hey, don't read my comments. But I will stand by my writing, thoughts and analysis against her's anytime. Also, I don't come here seeking approval or validation, as I know I will never get it here. What I do is weigh in with relevant commentary based on the article and dialog – I don't just comment for the sake of commenting, which is what Ms. Kudnicki is doing in order to generate traffic to her blog.

            And who cares who Ms. Kudnicki "is" – her commentary is superficial, filled with the soundbites of the day and she's in on every post early without relent. Nobody's commentary is that valuable. Or do you think that she must have something so important to say on every article here? Really? Who else does that? Answer? Nobody. While I disagree with most here, it is a place where people are engaged in real dialog. That's all I'm asking for. Is that so hard for you to understand? And of course, since you're defending her, you will now have to justify why her posting on every article isn't about marketing, but actually about content. Come on, I dare you to come up with a rationale for why she would do that other than marketing her blog? You seem to think very highly of your intellect, come up with a reason other than marketing why she would post the way she does.

            And while you're at it, take your expository valence and shove it up your backside.

          • UraFecalLiberal

            You know that Inferiority Complex that I alluded you have. Well, sorry, it is apparent that it is no complex, but simplex. You are certified as inferior in matters of logic, judgement, character, and breath. Kudnicki is at the top of the food chain, with the company of Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Rachel Ehrenfeld, etc.

            They are top floor, you are in the Mail Room, fantasizing about your drivel spittle and nonespeak. You sound like a verbose, college student of some limited ability to cogitate and reason. Hence, you whine and dismiss Kutnicki's carefully researched and in depth reporting.

            You are transparent, and by that I mean shallow. Your metaphorically beating of your ineffectual, effeminate small fists upon the virtual wall of Reality is a putznick's protest of a dim bulb fanstasy world where nobody takes you seriously and seriously dismisses you in under 1 second.

            Grow up and cut the ties with Mama's apron strings.

          • Glennd1

            You just debase yourself further with each remark. And I consider Pamela Geller to be a bigoted idiot, so putting Adina in her company is not much of a recommendation. As for your assumptions about me, lol. I sit here working in my lakeside house, I'm off for a business trip tomorrow, to Houston, to work on a 7 figure deal, as part of my director-level responsibilities for my firm. I'm in the top 5% of income earners every year, and my Mom's been dead since 1973. So, take your smug, fact free responses and shove 'em yeah?

            And then answer this one question. Do you think Adina is doing marketing or not by posting on every article, usually first, making short comments and link dropping every time like a bot or something? Yes or no? If not, well you don't know anything about internet marketing – I do, I've built and run several blogs and contribute to several. She's using this site for marketing. Period. Wake up.

          • UraFecalLiberal

            The neighbors say there is a strange odor emanating from one of the bedrooms in your house, similar to that of a dead body. And they find it curious that you always set a table for two, even though you live alone.

            You really are a very insecure boy. Let me add to your (self) knowledge: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_spoile

            Nota bene the hyperlilnk to: http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-

          • Glennd1

            I wonder, do you even see how your rabid partisanship and addiction to agit prop has destroyed your ability to think clearly?

            1. You did not answer my simple question about the nature of Adina's posting. Maybe you could try, it's called dialog. You still could. Do you not see the pattern of her posting and how it's exactly what blog marketers do, or not? Easy question. I've provided facts as to why I see it that way (first on most threads, a simple, sound bite riddled, short comment and a link every time). To actually logically disagree, you would have to come up with another view based on that fact-set. But you won't bother, as you are not here for dialog but rather to meet some inchoate need your deranged, angry mind requires.

            2. You again assume things about me personally that are not true. I'm not a liberal nor do I live alone.

            3. Spoiled? I'm a self-made success story who came up from nothing. I was beaten and abused like a bad puppy as a child – and have never, ever been accused of being spoiled. I was largely independent by 15 and was on my own 30 days after I was 18. I

            Stop responding instantly with nonsense and think. Nothing you say about me is accurate. You won't respond to plain, direct questions. You use a screen name that announces you as an nasty thug. Me? All I did was complain about Adina's link dropping, yeah? You took it to the place you have, not me. Maybe it's you who needs to get a grip on himself? Maybe it's you sitting in your basement? I only do this from time to time, it's not a lifestyle….

          • UraFecalLiberal

            Well, here it ends, sadly. The moderator deleted my last column. Like you, his insecurities overwhelped him, apparently. I think HE should read Adina Kutnicki, and pick up some chutzpah from her and other strong women.

            Say, might that also be your problem, Trenton? An aversion to strong, eloquent women? Seems very likely.

      • JacksonPearson

        Adina Kutnicki have just as much right to post here as you, I, or anyone else. She does focus on Israel because she lives under constant threat there, but adds her own opinions from her blog as relates to the topic being discussed. If you're bothered, turn the dial, or ignore what she has to comment on.

        If she's undercutting or damaging Front Page Magazine, then it should be the site operators call to shut her down and not yours. Calm down and cut her some slack. Just saying!

        • Glennd1

          I did not once claim she didn't have the "right" to post here. I claimed she's just doing marketing for her blog and that her commentary was garbage. So, just like a leftist, out of the gate you try and tar me as oppressing her somehow when I've done nothing of the sort. She's the one babbling on every post, spewing tropes and soundbites, all designed to drive traffic to her insipid blog. She's also an Israeli citizen, and just like I would to any foreigner, I tell them that I resent their focus our politics. She should fix her own country. But of course she is "free" to be a moron and annoying, just as I'm "free" to point it out.

          • JacksonPearson

            Your words, and self-tarring are done by nobody but yourself.
            PATHETICALLY, people like you make FOOLS of themselves, so be it…

            Keep posting Adina. Your contributions are appreciated

          • Glennd1

            So, no actual refutation of the accusation I've made then, yes? You really think Adina has something of so much value to offer? Or that she isn't on every single comment thread here, often first with the same short, link dropping format, along with simplistic and unoriginal comments? I mean, that's plainly what she's doing. You can't actually refute the facts on offer here, can you? No, what you seem to be up to is 'rooting' for your side or something – hey, have at it, but don't think this is anything other than an echo chamber then. How sad for you and everyone here.

          • JacksonPearson

            Blah, blah, blah. Stuff it. YOU'RE WORTHLESS

            Keep posting Adina. Your contributions are appreciated…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "She's also an Israeli citizen, and just like I would to any foreigner, I tell them that I resent their focus our politics."

            Everyone in the world with Internet access thinks they have a stake in American politics, and they can probably make the case that they do. However, my big objection comes from liars. If there are no lies to worry about, what's wrong with hearing from a foreign perspective? When that foreigner comes from a close ally, all the better. Do you object to Canadians posting here? Just wondering.

            If you made a strict and clear point about promoting her own blog, that could be understandable. But the counterpoint is that lots of people want to hear that and it's a trivial matter to simply ignore what you don't want to read and recognize that others do want to read it. I might make different choices but I don't think I've ever seen a comment from her that registered negative votes in sum. So without getting in to silly discussions about rights and threats, let's just recognize that it's easier for you to ignore than it is for her fans to remember to go outside the site to see what she thinks too.

            Is that reasonable or not?

          • Glennd1

            You "counterpoint" isn't a counter at all. In fact, you conceded elsewhere on this thread that my characterization of her commentary as "link dropping" and "blog marketing" were probably correct.

            I also resent foreigners telling us how to run our politics, and tell them so. You don't feel the same way, okay, but who cares about that?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You "counterpoint" isn't a counter at all. In fact, you conceded elsewhere on this thread that my characterization of her commentary as "link dropping" and "blog marketing" were probably correct."

            Some times more than 1 view can be accepted. Yes, it was a counterpoint. You're getting sillier by the minute.

            "I also resent foreigners telling us how to run our politics…"

            You resent foreigners and bigots too, right? Isn't that what you said? Israel is an ally. I resent foreign enemies. You align yourself with the latter whether or not that's your intention. You're the enemy agent, not her.

        • mlcblog

          She brings a lot to the discussion.

          • Glennd1

            Like what?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Links to her blog for starters. What, you didn't notice?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "To wit, this is the same "genius" who is best buds with Grover Norquist, and it is beyond dispute that this "fiscal conservative" is an implanted Muslim Brotherhood operative. For heavens sake, is Rove gonna vet/support the same addled bunch which brought the Repub Party to this abysmal point…"

      Precisely. They both need to go. Not because of bad theories about campaigning but because of what they refuse to deal with honestly.

  • sick on RINOs

    I was well versed with the other side of this story before reading (until I was sick) this one. Mark Levin has spent considerable time detailing and explaining the real world, not Rove's version of it.
    The author quikly lost me when quoting that fool Collegio (fool for his insult to Brent Bozell). But my attention ended when the author tried, as I have heard too many times before, to once again lambast O'Donnel.
    Bottom line, Rove and his ilk have lost far more elections, senate and especially Prtesidential, with their non-Conservative candidates than Tea Party types have. True whether measured in absolute numbers or as a percentage.
    Furthermore, and most importantly, the brightest, most eloquent, and effective Senators Conservative have are all of the type that Rove would reject, or actually tried to defeat.
    Rubio
    Paul
    Cruz (!!!)
    Nothing more needs to be said.

    • 77patriot

      The writer lost me right at the headline. Rove is a self-serving political operative. We tea partiers are as sick of him and his ilk as he is of us. Throw the bum out!

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        He's not someone we can vote out, he never actually runs for any office.

        That's the problem. He won't go away.

    • bill

      this article was published because David has a connection to Rove.

    • Gunner57

      Rubio isn't even eligible to become president. That stinkig liberal is not a ntural born citizen, Both of his parents are foreigners. But don't let a little thing like the Constitution stop your PC fantasy.

      • Fritz

        Marco Rubio was born in Florida, and both of his parents are naturalized citizens, refugees from the Castro regime in Cuba, they came to Florida in 1962 I believe.

    • SWOhio

      I stopped reading (after wasting too much time on it anyway) the article after the comment that O'DOnnel had no prior experience.

      Last time I looked, the Constitution does not stipulate that only money-grubbing politicians should run for and hold political office. In fact, the intent, is for the 'working man', farmers, lawyers, doctors, to serve in public office for the length of their term, and return to their daily jobs, similar to our civic duty of jury service.

      Political office was never intended in this country to be a career. Career politicians are called dictators in many countries because that's how it begins.

      Give us more folks with no prior experience in the filthy world of politics. Give us honest, hard-working folks and voters who are sick and tired of politicians who believe they are above the citizens they represent. And give us intelligent voters – wishful thinking, I know.

      • Fritz

        So the question is how exactly does one get prior experience in politics without running for office. Rove still has it on record of supporting Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California, and everyone knows how successful the Whitman administration is right? Oops that's right, there is no Whitman administration, Meg was defeated by Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. So much for the theory of Rino "moderates" being more electable in Blue states. How about Olympia Snow in Maine? She was defeated by an independent candidate, so obviously something wrong with the theory there too.

  • piperlord

    DITTOES on adina and sick of RINOS!

  • Arlie

    Rove = Bush family – yuck! NO JEB BUSH! Barbara Bush attacked Sara Palin a Patriot. The elite Bush family is most of the reason Amerika is no longer America. Rove is not a conservative. I have no "compassion" for him. There needs to be a true conservative party far away and above the corruption of the RINO party.

    • Questions

      Palin is a sadistic, self-serving moron. I'm no fan of former Presidente Jorge W. Boosh, but the idea of "President Palin" makes me sick.

      • davarino

        Is that because the media tells you what to think about Sarah? You might try having a mind of your own.

        • Questions

          The media doesn't "tell" me how to think. I think for myself, thank you. You just don't like the conclusions I've reached. Too bad.

          By the way, insulting someone isn't thinking. Too many radical Red State boobs, like yourself, write as thought it is. You should try asking yourself why it is that Palin is so deeply unpopular even among her fellow Alaskans. And why no sane person wanted to work on her presidential "campaign" staff, to the extent there was even a campaign in the first place.

          • Fritz

            What are you going to do with your life after George Soros dies and you have to move back into your parent's basement after Media Matters closes down?

        • Questions

          The media doesn't "tell" me how to think. I think for myself, thank you. You just don't like the conclusions I've reached. Too bad.

          By the way, insulting someone isn't thinking. Too many radical Red State boobs, like yourself, write as thought it is. You should try asking yourself why it is that Palin is so deeply unpopular even among her fellow Alaskans. And why no sane person wanted to work on her presidential "campaign" staff, to the extent there was even a campaign in the first place.

  • Tpartygramma

    You don't expect us to believe this tripe, do you? I can't believe that I read this on Frontpage! It has the sound of whistling past the graveyard. I don't buy any of it. This is war!

  • cedarhill

    The Rove problem is very, very simple. You have a coach that one a super bowl a decade ago but in the process assured his team will never win another one. And then he continues being your coach as you pile up loss after loss after loss all the while you're shoveling money by the truckload to him.

    Time to either fire him, get him to retire and write Memoirs of Big Winning and Big Losingm, or have him become a second lieutenant. But no longer a general, much less a staff officer.

    For the moderates out there, that means don't let him strike out three times in a row.

  • guest

    No more RINOS. When will people like this author realize if we keep trying to put liberal republicans in office and compromising all we seek then what the hell does it matter if a liberal Republican or liberla Democrat is elected? We will get the same results. Break the current Republican part and purge the likes of Rove. It may take years to recover if it is possible, but voting for the same liberal policies pushed by Republicans as still liberal policies none the less.

    • Kevin Stroup

      Guest is dead on. We are going the way of England. The Tories which are socialism-lite, and Labor which is socialism-high calorie are your two choices in Britain. But both parties are socialist. The Republicans do not even debate about socialism anymore because they feel too many people want the social programs. The Republicans argue that they can run them more efficiently. No, we need a true conservative, small-government party. I am so sick of RINOs. The country is broke and our infrastructure is decaying fast. We have too many people on welfare, unemployment, and getting subsidies. Nobody on the Republican side offers serious cuts to this stuff. We need an alternative.

      • Fritz

        That's one of the reasons that the U.K Independence Party is gaining traction, after the fiasco of the Cameron coalition pushing for gay marriage whilst Great Britain burns economically and wilts under the chains of the E.U, the UKIP will only gain more.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "No more RINOS. When will people like this author realize if we keep trying to put liberal republicans in office and compromising all we seek then what the hell does it matter if a liberal Republican or liberla Democrat is elected? We will get the same results."

      Precisely. We don't need a radical, just an honest straight-talking conservative to teach the actual principals of conserving our values and start rolling back lies and the crazy people in our education system who think lying is good for students, so they can visualize an awesome future without capitalism and "confusing gender decisions."

    • Malinse

      That was the most direct and simple way I have ever heard it said. Thank You. It's not complicated, like the elites want people to believe. How can a reasonable person not understand. But these are not reasonable people. They are opportunists who are only looking to line their pockets with our money. Obama, Rove, Reid, Bush; their time is over. It's our last chance to try and return to sanity. The Spirit of 1776 awoken in 2010 only to be crushed by the establishment Republicans and Democrats who didn't want their scam to end, the scam of enriching and empowering themselves at our expense. And this is true reason:
      "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18
      King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

  • Asher

    The Progressive Right is just as dangerous as the Progressive Left. They do not want wholesome conservative candidates and choose RINOS who won't stand against tyranny, thats why the Republican party has lost steam, people are sick of those who have been selling out America through Immigration, Obamacare, abortion, gay marriage, high taxes, and unemployment. They don't really seem to care about real people, Just getting re-elected, they also hate the teaparties which have stood on a foundation of values, fiscal responsibility, and a strong national security defense. Both parties now go after Conservatives who are the real solution to out of control Government!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The Progressive Right is just as dangerous as the Progressive Left. They do not want wholesome conservative candidates and choose RINOS who won't stand against tyranny, thats why the Republican party has lost steam"

      They're caving to the swing left in cultural hegemony and think power is more important than integrity to their stated beliefs.

  • geneww1938

    The predicted losers would have been winners if they were backed by the RINOs and they would be a lot better than the winners we now have. The time to fight is before and during the primaries. The RINOs lose to a real conservative and they pout and join the opponents. Karl and the rest can pack it in.

    I am looking for Godly, patriotic, candidates with character. Very few exist in the controlling levels of the parties.

  • Sebastianjer

    It appears the author has missed the mark…as does Karl Rove. The Tea Party is a young vibrant and increasingly powerful segment of the GOP. They are not the problem with the GOP they are its future. Have they made mistakes, yes they have. Have they had spectacular successes, even more so.

    Why didn't Rove just ask to meet with the Tea Party organizations and their related supporting institutions and discuss tactics on how to better vet candidates and create strategies for doing so? He did not, instead he immediately went for the big money solution, totally alienating the grass root of the party he says he is trying to save. Does this sound like a man who is the "architect" of future success? On the contrary it sounds like a man who has one trick pony which no longer can either perform or is even all that cute.

    To put it simply the Tea Party, all its growing pains not with standing, is the future of the GOP, Karl Rove is the past which is now a hindrance to future electoral success. The best thing that the Tea Party conservatives could do is just ignore him and anyone he supports.

    • Fritz

      Hmm lets see, the Bush administration and Karl Rove oversaw the routing of the Republicans in Congress in 2006. The Tea Party, on the other hand, lead to one of the greatest landslide victories in 2010. Karl Rove is to the Republic party what Dalton Camp was to the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada, he backs limp wristed loosing candidates over solid winners and then trashes the winners. In Camp's case he was in charge of the Diefenbaker campaign of 1961 where he transformed the largest majority government in Canadian history into a minority government, then defeat, then blamed Diefenbaker. He then pushed Diefenbaker out, a la Karl Rove style, and then pushed Robert Stanfield in, who lost every election thereafter.

  • mglvsjc

    I understand this…. we are the underdogs and there is a major lack of good candidates. Thats why we are stuck with BO for the next 4 years. In Florida there were a couple really good people but one running against Alcee Hastings and the other DWS herself. Try as you may…these are major forces to recon with in a democratic area. . You have to be sharp as hell and have lots of money behind you… Sad

  • rbla

    Rove and the Republican establishment, and that includes conservatives like Dick Armey, are once again preparing a great betrayal of the American people via amnesty. We have been hearing the same mantra over and over from these folks about the need to make the Republican Party more "welcoming" to minorities. That is all well and good but might I suggest that there is another victimized group with a much larger voting block that Reoublicans should try to be more welcoming toward. These are the White working and lower middle class who have seen their jobs shipped abroad while they compete with large numbers of third world immigrants for the ones remaining here; they have also seen their culture trashed and are the ones who must bear the cost of the social engineering favored by the elite of both parties. If the Republicans would champion the interests of this group they just might return to power.

  • cynthia curran

    Rove is the reason we have a Marco Rubio speaking half in Spanish instead of a Jeff Sessions. Republicans built there coaltion in the south because they were agains Affirmaive Action and force busing. Now Republicans have to appeal to Hisapnics because George W Bush allow 3 to 4 million more illegal Hispanics in to take Blue Collar construcation jobs from the native born to drive down the wages. Obama continue with allowing them to take jobs away from the native born.

  • cynthia curran

    These are the White working and lower middle class who have seen their jobs shipped abroad while they compete with large numbers of third world immigrants for the ones remaining here; they have also seen their culture trashed and are the ones who must bear the cost of the social engineering favored by the elite of both parties. If the Republicans would champion the interests of this group they just might return to power. How, true and Karl Rove and company have not did one thing for those people.

  • reader

    Mr. Alhert, most of the Republican candidates who lost in this election cycle – including Romney himself – were picked by the Roves of the party. And some of the ones they would not not pick – like Ted Cruz – are already the stars. Mind you, even Marco Rubio was not Rove's man. Rove was backing Charlie Frist back in the day. That alone should be enough reason to show Rove the door. So, spare us.

    • mlcblog

      Thank you. Spare us is the exact phrase I was searching for. Please.

      • Eddie

        Great point about Frist…
        What a liar. That's all he is…a liar…for his own personal advancement.

    • Donald duck

      And don't forget the establishment's support of Spector over toomey all the way until Spector couldn't hold on any longer only to jump to the dark side.

  • Pepper

    This media type has got to be kidding. He and Rove and their ilk should join the Dems. We conservatives would be better off.

    • mlcblog

      ha ha

  • NAHALKIDES

    I just went over to rove.com to check out what Rove has been saying lately. He favors the "bipartisan" "Gang of 8" senate proposal for amnesty for illegal immigrants. Anyone who takes such a position, which will destroy the Republican Party as a conservative political force, is a remarkably poor strategist for the GOP, and I'm afraid that includes Marco Rubio. Rove may talk about conservatism, but I doubt that he knows what it is. He may well have been "the architect" of Bush's compassionate "conservatism" which is the last thing this country or the Republican Party needs right now.

    • mlcblog

      Bush was a flaming liberal.

      • Jim_C

        By your metric, then, Reagan would be the same. Are you prepared to admit that?

        • mlcblog

          Au contraire! no corollary there.

    • Jim_C

      Nahalkides, it sounds like you understand the politics of this rather than just having an emotional reaction. If I were conservative, I would want Rove gone, as well.

      But Rove's strategy sounds like he would at least preserve the Republican party with an eye toward winning elections, rather than lose the middle and create a permanent conservative minority, which is at least where the demographics seem to be heading.

      This is an unnecessary strategy ONLY if you have a conservative rock star candidate. As we saw this last election, the GOP field was a joke. And right now, the only thing resembling rock stars are the moderates, or adopting moderate positions. And I don't see the GOP changing significantly enough in the next three years to change that.

      • NAHALKIDES

        To preserve the Republican Party by moving to the Left and becoming Democrats Lite isn't worth it to me or, I suspect, to most conservatives. The GOP is only useful to the extent that it can put conservative policies into effect; it does me no good to have statists politicians who don't respect my freedoms any more than the Democrats do but can put an "R" next to their name.

        Such a Republican Party would be useless even if it could win, but it wouldn't: the GOP can never win a bidding war of bribery with the Democrats; by trying to do so they have been the minority party for most of the past 70 years. It's only hope for electoral success is to appeal to middle-class white voters in the next couple of elections, then if it wins, shut the border tight to avoid millions of more poor immigrants who will vote Democratic swamping the country. This is the way we deal with the demographics issue.

        As to star candidates, there I must agree with you – we haven't got any. Rubio, Christie, and Jindal are already disqualified in my view. Of course, the Democrats don't have any stars either, although they imagine Hillary Clinton fits that description. I only hope there's somebody out there we haven't heard of, because if the Democrats win again in 2016 I doubt the country could survive.

  • Iron Yank

    This article fails to mention the many many candidates that Karl Rove backed and lost in the last election & before that. There are far more failures from establishment types than Tea party candidates so dont let misleading articles like this fool you. Rove also only backed (some) Tea party candidates only after they beat his pick in the primaries. He had nothing to do with Rubio, Cruz, Paul, ect. & is activly working against Conservatives like Steve King & Michelle Bashmann. We are done with Karl Rove & his cronies and he needs to shut up & get the hell out of the way or we are going to steamroll him.

    • mlcblog

      Thank you for this dose of Reality!!

  • Horace

    Democrats win because they understand that always backing the winner of their primary entusiastically and putting up a united front and enforcing discipline and promoting their candidates and ideology including their extreme wing. They also visibly respect their base and get out the vote. They understand the principle of coalition in politics, and they almost never say bad things about other members of their coalition. Rove doesn't respect religious conservatives, and actively tries to defeat them-Todd Aiken, Steve King, etc. He is a destructive non uniting force in the Repub party. Some tea party types are similarly destructive and non uniting. The primaries are the fair and legitimate battleground to settle these disagreements, and then enthusiastically back the winner. If Rove was seen to be a loyal supporter of Repub primary winners against the Dems, it might help. But he is obviously more of a kingmaker than a unity and victory guy. He might even welcome a split of the Republican Party, maybe even an Obama supporter.

  • Rostislav

    Very interesting! You know, some years ago I experienced the feeling that your America is God's own country indeed – it was when I've started to read Sarah Palin's books, to listen to her speeches, to witness happily the sincere enthusiasm of her audiences. I thought your land was really blessed by God with this unique Great American – so honest, so gifted, so humanly charming, so firmly true to the Christian Commandments and to her compatriots. It's only natural that this rare marvel was laboriously smeared by the Obama gang, but I can't remember equally mighty resistance titled "In Defense of Palin" – and it doesn't seem to me even a bit natural. For me and for many my Russian friends it was simply weird. But even more weird is to read now "In Defense of Rove", with a strange final of "The conservative movement is not advanced by fomenting its own division and fighting with each other instead of fighting the enemy". Fighting the enemy?! But the enemy of Rove was clearly not Obama, it was Sarah Palin and all the rest candidates of the true American spirit! Does the article's author intend to fight them again? Or does he think that a self-loving pretentious loser can bring victory to anything, but his own plans? Alas, it seems that I understand your country less and less now, – while the proud America of Sarah Palin was so simple to understand and to admire even thousands miles from her! Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

    • sick on RINOs

      Bless you my friend!

    • scum

      Are you listening to the same Palin that I am? Wow.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        So, you are aptly named.

        How sad.

    • mlcblog

      I, a true American girl, am also dismayed by all this. Rove reminds me of our bull in a china shop.

  • Kathy Adamski

    The year Bush ran, Phylis Schlafly said that he hijacked the Republican platform that previously stood for years for conservancy. All I could think was Rove had a hand in this.
    I would believe Mrs. Schlafly before I believe Rove's self defense.
    When he spoke to a group of Young Americans the audience was disengaged. Rove's countenance was of arrogance.

  • bill

    Lots of good comments. Bush likes high prices on crude oil as does BO. Why not focus on winning a state on one issue – defend OPEC one state at a time by turning natural gas and coal into gasoline.

    Sent to a solar guru at CalTech – Nathan Lewis:

    Dr. Lewis:

    The glut of natural gas should be feedstock to creating gasoline and diesel fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch process. States can finance these plants through debt obligation and the direction created through the initiative process. Graphene is fast becoming the material of choice for solar collectors. The ideal location for these panels is in space. The lowest cost way to overcome the gravity well and place the graphene solar panels in orbit is via railgun. An ieee study already has established the feasibility. Space based solar panels work 24/7 and can also mitigate global warming by shading Greenland.

    It is quite a bit easier to get a state to back an idea than the central government. Any popular leader can qualify an initiative or can be done with a slight improvement is speech recognition via IP telephony. Coal is also a feedstock for the Fischer-Tropsch process. Electricity is a byproduct these plants. Gasoiine would cost less than $2 retail for centuries. CO2 can be sequestered, Environmentalists can elect to pay an extra 10 cents per gallon of gas which would finance this solar direction of others.

    There is even an effort by a number of large companies to prevent the export of natural gas. So there are large players who can finance the normal cost of an initiative. Signatures on initiative petitions are legally now a matter of public record and the opinions of a lot of people are online. So the cost to finance whatever we want from solar is 100% doable and not all that great.

    Distribution already exists for gasoline so we really shouldn't rush into electric cars anytime soon.

    Quality leaders in the Tea Party are really few and far between. Why not we develop them via the energy issue. Defunding OPEC defends the USA and Isreal.

    check out: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/american-energ

    Whatever Tea Party guys who come forward to can popularize this idea should be elected to office. Sole qualification. Have to be better than Pelosi. Greens in SF like lower priced gasoline too … some of them.

    • Fritz

      Why not just offer ready made natural gas powered cars, which already exist elsewhere in the world, and a network of filling stations to allow practical operation? You can also convert a gasoline powered cars to natural gas with a $1200 kit. I really don't understand this fixation Americans have with gasoline, gas mileage, converting coal in gasoline, converting natural gas into gasoline, converting one type of energy into another is expensive and wasteful when it isn't even necessary. Have an extra pump at a gas station for natural gas like we do for diesel and sometimes propane, why make it more complicated then it needs to be?

      • bill

        Fritz,
        The distribution system is already in place for gasoline and diesel. Wait until 2 cars loaded with natural gas collide – massive explosion. You speak of Americans as if you aren't one. Low cost gasoline and the auto gave us personal freedom.

    • 11bravo

      I understand Arnold trying to sooth, or smooth out the differences in the base/TP/and establishment wings. Then he goes and tries to demonise Kibbe. We need all three wings of the party to win. Candidates need to put out their philosophy and solutions more so than seeing who will act more conservative. The base (religious right), needs to understand that running on their issues too strongly won't work. Being too squishy like Mitt turned after the primaries won't work either.
      Look at Reagan's 3 presidential runs, and how he put forward conservatism. Mitt can't win, Santorum can't win. It should be a cross between Cain, and Gingrich – ha ha ha!!!

  • Questions

    I vigorously oppose any and all amnesty proposals for illegal immigrants. I moreover oppose Hispanic and black "outreach" as inherently futile (how about if we actually reached out to the white vote?). That said, this piece grasps that excommuncating Karl Rove would be highly counterproductive for the GOP. Our party, regrettably, has nominated any number of social conservatives for high office whose personal histories and bizarre, off-the-cuff remarks are a total liability for responsible conservatives.

    What we really need is a Third Way — an alternative to amnesty-boosters like Rove, Rubio and Ryan, on one hand, and fundamantalist airheads like Palin, O'Donnell, Bachmann, Mourdock and Akin. Such an approach would eschew religious fervor as well as Big Government. Are there any takers?

    • Ghostwriter

      Well,the Republicans ignore you for a start,Questions. We shouldn't be in the business of racial bean counting. As long as we follow your idiotic prescription,we'll be tarred as racists. What we should be doing is crafting a message that appeals to ALL people,not attacking people of other races. Your racial rhetoric won't do the conservative movement any good.

      • Questions

        What's idiotic about racial "bean counting? " What do you think legions of misguided Republican "consultants" do as they recommend our party's suidice in reaching out to Hispanics by calling for amnesty for illegals?

        ALL candidates make mental calculations about the persons most likely to vote for them. Campaign funds and time are limited. Governing and campaigning are two separate political functions. To govern means to serve all the people, but to campaign means to target resources toward certain voting blocs. It is the smug, shallow moralizing of people like you, blind to the realities of race (you don't think blacks vote along racial lines?) that has gotten the Republcians into the fix they're in.

        • JacksonPearson

          Wrong.
          Fact: What's gotten the country into the fix it's in, is VOTER FRAUD.

    • Ted Peters

      This comment must have been written by a progressive operative trying to stereotype all conservatives as bigots. Sadly, it works.

    • Ted Peters

      This comment must have been written by a progressive operative trying to stereotype all conservatives as bigots. Sadly, it works.

    • scum

      What you obviously need to do is abandon the Republican Party. Then we can talk.

    • Jim_C

      I don't know much about him, but Rand Paul would seem to fit the bill you describe. And he has not been afraid to ruffle feathers with regard to race. And race is something where the pieties that come along with it are wearing thin–which is to say that statements which are merely "politically incorrect" make less news than they used to.

      But I also think Ghostwriter is right in that planning or calculating to go that route is probably electoral suicide on a national level, unless it is put in an expert way. Which is what makes non-white candidates so attractive to GOP leaders–there's a leeway they get that, say, Mitt Romney does not.

  • JacksonPearson

    IMHO, Karl Rove is going in the wrong direction.
    Instead of creating an unnecessary battlefield with conservatives, he should be mending fences and reconciling differences. There must be a concerted GOP and conservative effort to win back the senate and white house. It'll never happen if we fight and remain divided. The conservative Tea Party Movement is not going to magically disappear or change because he, or the old established GOP snaps their fingers.

    If our GOP led congress can bend for the Marxist in the white white house, than they had better learn to bend for the conservative people that vote them in.

    • mlcblog

      I agree. He appears to me to be very divisive.

  • Clark Patterson

    I haven't enjoyed voting for a President since Reagan and even plunked for Perot once because of the disgust of the move to the center left that has defined the Republican Party since Goldwater. The Contract for America was the last concerted effort and we keep running away from those successes. Rove and his ilk, (Mitt Romney/Scott Brown here an Massachussetts) keep pounding on the idea that if we get moderates in place then things can change. Guess what, with very few exceptions, the role of the federal government has expanded. Good intentions but with bad results? Rove is mining iron pyrite (fool's gold).

  • Glennd1

    If only we could find candidates as electable as you, lol. Get it straight. Not even a majority of Republicans want your reactionary, Christian Nationalist agenda shoved down our throats. You are a shrinking minority, and I couldn't be happier about it.

    • WildJew

      Can you provide some evidence of my Christian Nationalist reactionary agenda?

      • Glennd1

        Sorry, I meant "the" reactionary Christian agenda that you wanted the Republican Party to adopt. If you are who I think you are, you probably are only friendly to evango Christians so they will support Zionism, not because you actually think their reactionary views are of any merit at all. Otherwise, why would you be flacking for them? This site is promoting one of the truly most radical of them holding a seat in the U.S. Congresss, Michelle Bachman. She's a Dominionist, she thinks Christians have a divine right to conquer and rule the world in righteousness. Do you really a person who believes such a thing should hold elected office? In our federal government?

        • WildJew

          Dominion theology advanced by Rousas John Rushdoony and Gary North is radical form of replacement theology. I see no evidence Michele Bachmann is a follower of Rushdoony. A few years back I discussed political and Biblical matters with a dominionist. Like Rushdoony and North, he was an anti-Semite. I don't see any of that in Bachmann. I think you've been listening to the wrong people. Maybe you follow "The Young Turks" loons?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Maybe you follow "The Young Turks" loons?"

            Good call. I forgot about those retreads. So many liars spreading so many lies, I stopped trying to keep track.

          • Glennd1

            Read it an weep.

            Bachmann is close to Truth in Action Ministries; last year, she appeared in one of its documentaries, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. In it, she espoused the idea, common in Reconstructionist circles, that the government has no right to collect taxes in excess of 10 percent, the amount that believers are called to tithe to the church. On her state-senate-campaign website, she recommended a book co-authored by Grant titled Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, which, as Lizza reported, depicted the civil war as a battle between the devout Christian South and the Godless North, and lauded slavery as a benevolent institution. “The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith,” the book said.

            One could go on and on listing the Dominionist influences on Bachmann’s thinking. She often cites Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the anti-abortion movement, who held seminars on Rushdoony’s work and helped disseminate his ideas to a larger evangelical audience. John Eidsmoe, an Oral Roberts University professor who, she’s said, “had a great influence on me,” is a Christian Reconstructionist. She often praises the Christian nationalist historian David Barton, who is intimately associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement; an article about slavery on the website of his organization, Wallbuilders, defends the institution’s biblical basis, with extensive citations of Rushdoony. (“God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved,” it says.)

          • Glennd1

            they blocked my response. bachman has a long common history with Rushdoony and his works. Just google it.

          • WildJew

            Why don't you help me out. Give me a couple of credible links. I found a piece by Ryan Lizza ("Leap of Faith") in the New Yorker. Lizza says Francis Schaeffer (author of “How Should We Then Live?”) is Bauchmann's inspiration. Frankly, I've not read Schaeffer. Have you? As a Jew there are obvious theological differences I have with Bachmann and no doubt Bachmann holds political and relgious views I disagree with but compared to this twenty year disciple of Jeremiah Wright in the White House, do you expect me to reject Bachmann because of our disagreements? There were times in my life where I got it wrong. I suspect the same holds true for Bachmann and any number of believers.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I meant "the" reactionary Christian agenda that you wanted the Republican Party to adopt. "

          Which is what? "Reacting" to the destruction of our nation? Wow. We suck. Thanks for the wake up call. Reacting must be a bad thing. That's what they told you, right?

        • JacksonPearson

          "Do you really a person who believes such a thing should hold elected office? In our federal government?

          Dummy, would you rather have a Satanic athiest running YOUR federal government?

          • Glennd1

            "Dummy"? Wow. You seem to be the one presenting me with the false choice of a Christian Nationalist and a "Satanic athiest (sic)" when in fact there are many reasonable people of faith who don't believe what Bachmann does. And while I'm no Obama supporter, calling him a Satanic atheist is simply namecalling. He may be an atheist, but he isn't Satanic. You should also know that there are many atheists on the right in the libertarian camp and also in the "establishment" that Tea Partiers like to deride.

            We are conservative wrt limited, constitutional govt, fiscal restraint and prudence, strong defense, strong law enforcement and punishment for crime. We just share little of your social agenda, and can also say clearly that we know the world didn't start 6000 years ago – something Mark Rubio can't seem to quite get his mouth around. Atheists can be moral or immoral. Some are also Marxists, but not all atheists are Marxists or anti-American. Just sayin'…

          • WildJew

            I like Bachmann's foreign policy / national security agenda, to the extent I understand it. What part of her social agenda is so egregious that I should drop my support for her national security agenda?

  • bluffcreek1967

    Good lord, is this guy really defending the foolish and destructive Karl Rove!? Look, if it's not clear by now that Rove is a RINO with a disdain for deeply conservative candidates, including animosity toward the Tea Party, then there's probably nothing I can say to help you. Rove has been wrong so many times and recent events have proven that so much of his advice to Bush was dead wrong.

    But don't worry, Republicans never learn. That's why I and many others have left the GOP! They're too stupid to be reformed or saved, and many disappointments and tears will be shed in the coming years that will prove this very point. It's over folks, America's done!

    • Ghostwriter

      I'm sorry bluffcreek1967,but if we do that,thing won't improve. And your constant attacks on nonwhites won't help bring them into the movement. Attacking minorities ISN'T going to help us one bit.

      • bluffcreek1967

        Gee, really, things won't improve?! Yeah, that's right, let's stick with a party that keeps ignoring and taking for granted its dominant white majority! And let's keep supporting a party that heavily promotes RINOS and sticks its nose in the air over its Tea Party members! Yeah, and let's keep supporting a party that's rushing to give amnesty to all those 'family-oriented' and 'conservative' illegal Hispanics! Oh sure, they're just like us and they'll soon be registering as Republicans in no time! And let's keep supporting a party that's just a lighter shade of the Democrat party! And let's keep on supporting a party that time after time shoots itself in the foot! No, you go right ahead, but not me.

      • bluffcreek1967

        First of all, I don't "attack" non-whites. I speak the truth about blacks and Hispanics in light of history, human experience and common sense. I state openly what most whites instinctively know, but are afraid to admit because it's politically-incorrect. Secondly, you are very naive indeed to imagine that non-whites are going to align in large numbers with the Republican Party. They know quite well that those same Republicans who have recently called for amnesty were the same ones just a year ago calling for all of the Hispanic illegal aliens to be deported. They won't forget it either, and the Democrats will make sure they never do. And thirdly, I would never say you are hopeless in understanding some of the basics of race-realism, but you have obviously closed your mind and are unwilling to think deeper about these issues. It's been apparent in things you've said in your posts. You have drunk deeply at the well of multiculturalism though you may not realize it yet. Perhaps some day you will?

        How's that Kool Aid taste?

  • roy parrish

    What is going on here is the RINOS want to Conservatives to keep putting these career elites types on the gov feeding trough. They do nothing for our country, give speeches but do nothing. It is time to vote all incumbents out that are not real conservative action Patriots. RINOS & libtards are too simular to distinguish apart.

  • amspirnational

    Only the sector of the Tea Party which Ron and Rand Paul approximately represented are consistent small government conservatives, but Karl Rove, the Iraq War promoting waster of three trillion dollars (Iran thanks you much, Karl) is no better than the folks he's trying to purge.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    RE: "Intense criticism is mounting against Karl Rove over his launch of the “Conservative Victory Project,” "

    As well it should! – Rove is a dialectical prevaricator. ~ Rhymes with…

    Karl Rove is "the architect" of Eastern Establishment policies.

    Mark Levin said, …….."SO! WHO DIED and made KARL ROVE QUEEN for a DAY?!"

    Frankly, there is no defense of Rove, and that is the problem with today's GOP. Those who defend him, likely defend Boehner as well. Neither man is good for Conservatives and are part of the cabal that has fought us since Barry Goldwater. Mark Levin has very effectively demonstrated this with supportive facts.

    WHO CONTINUES TO GET RICH OFF OF GOP DEFEATS? – KARL ROVE!

  • marios

    Karl Rove is right in one thing that GOP and Tea Party have to be more organized, more disciplined in face of seized Power neo-commies under name of Dem's party. Era of great Individuals are over as Americans Bolsheviks (or fasci..ts, socia….sts) use strong. organization plus they control MSM and Educational institutions. Look at any country, for instance, Egypt, Lebanon, etc or even European countries: those who spent time and money to create strong organization then use it to win by democratic way. So, Rove is right. But …we People should press Rep's establishment letting them know that they have to support by all means such great conservatives as M. Bachmann… other wise they will lose again and again. We the People should be proactive not only on this site but do real things calling our Rep's and Senators, actively participate in local meetings with them, etc.

  • marios

    About GW Bush: Israelis overwhelmingly considered him as US Pres. best friend of Israel. We cannot expect that US will be more for Israel interest than Israel government (Gaza case).
    Look at leftists Jews in our country and in Israel: it was their idea first of all as well but not GW Bush about establishing Palestine state. MSM smear propaganda against Bush made even conservatives believe that Bush was so bad but it is not right, my opinion.

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    There is a strong populist undercurrent in some of the comments I have read. Do you really want to be in bed with protofascists and other drek? See http://clarespark.com/2012/09/10/index-to-blogs-o…. "Index to blogs on populist demagoguery."

  • carolb

    where was Rove and his supporters for Alan West, and Mia Love???

  • sablegsd

    There is no defense for rove. He's a leftist pig who hates conservatives and is a chronic LOSER. He can go to hell right along with obama.

  • JohnSvengali

    There is no defense for Rove. He and his minions are exploiting some bad results and offering their "wisdom" over small "d" democracy in our primary process. This writer glaringly omits the many RINO liberal-moderate candidates that lost.

    I won't defend the utter senselessness that brought Christine O'Donnell to the nomination. But if Rove and his ilk had their way, Cruz and Rubio would have been smothered in the primaries by establishment RINOs. Many liberal-moderate Republicans also lost. Can you say Scott Brown?

    Rove is a know-it-all troll whose methods and philosophical judgment aren't where we conservative Republicans wish to go, not in the least. Romney is a good man. But he and his surrogates weren't up to fighting the Marxist-Chicago radicals. Most conservatives knew that. Romney used his hardest punches on his fellow Republicans. After all was said and done, Romney fizzled out. The most crucial election of our lifetimes was lost due to establishment milquetoasts who couldn't finish the job. Yeah, they pushed everyone else out of the way and said, coach, put me in and I'll get the touchdown. But they fumbled in the red zone and we lost.

    The stunning thing to me is how they sold how anyone but Romney was considered unelectable. This myth-making and steam-rolling was characteristic of groups like Rove and Steve Law's. It was bullying fratricide that ultimately led to Romney's loss, typified by Romney doing the impossible in the third debate, making Obama look presidential. I have dubbed that debate the "Me Too" debate, as that was most of what Romney said. He was incredibly unprepared and ignorant of national defense and foreign relations off-script. He was, after all, a one-term governor. There's no question Newt was the best debater and the smartest person in the room. But Bachmann and Santorum would have also cleaned Obama's clock in that debate.

    I say we drum Rove, Law and their establishment fellow-travelers out of the selection and primary process. Furthermore, I suggest we petition or boycott FOX News until they get rid of Rove. (They just renewed his contract.)

    Finally, this writer's attack on Steve King should not go without being rebutted. Every point made against King was wrong in its perspective and substance. Terrorists of all types ARE delighted that Obama was reelected. I would add any of our enemies and rivals are also "dancing," if not in the streets, in private. Illegal aliens are a destructive force in this country. If the writer wants to suck-up to them, fine. I and most conservatives don't. The late Senator Joseph McCarthy was an American hero. Despite his personal flaws, his thesis was correct. And taking on communism within our government was heroic and incidentally proved to be true and prophetic. That establishment people and their front groups cannot be honest is disturbing. Using the mindset, presumptions and language of the political left is disturbing, especially by those seeking to choose our candidates for us. I never liked the idea of someone chewing my food for me; don't tell me how I should vote, either. Your record ain't so hot!

  • cynthia curran

    Cruz is ok but Rubio is a RINO with a Capital R on immirgation, expanding the Hispanics mainly Mexicans and Central Americans that have about half of their kids on free and reduce lunch programs isn't going to help the Republican Party.

  • cynthia curran

    Believe me Rove and his kind now are pushing Rubio. Rubio is giving his response half in Spanish, do conservatives that think that you should encourage English do this. Rubio, sucks, sucks, suck like Mccain and Jeff flake.

  • VLParker

    What a laugh. Rove the RINO is going to save the Tea Party from themselves. What utter nonsense.

  • waicool

    how did this Rove apologist get his article published on frontpagemag is what i want to know

  • Jim

    Carl Rove is the father of Republican losses. He would be the last person we would want to vet any one.
    The so called moderate candidates Meg Whitman and the other "Whats her name" were defeated.
    The Republican bosses suppressed their competition in the primaries. . The competition, as shown by the polls ,would have won the general election.
    It is the policies of the so called moderates that is killing main street. The public knows it
    but the author doesn't know they know it.

    • mlcblog

      I agree! spare us from these East coast know-it-alls, him and Krauthammer and Kristol and the rest of them.

  • Ted Peters

    I thought that the Tea Party was supposed to be about fiscal issues not social ones (ie., taxation without representation). Santelli started it all with his Wall Street rant. Then, somehow, the media tar and feathered the whole movement as a bunch of gun toting, nativist, mysogynist, fundamentalist, racist rubes. That ain't gonna get iit done against a media that is 100+% sold out on progressivism.. Rove is right… he just needed to be more subtle.

  • scum

    Conservatives are waking up: Karl Rove is not one of you, he doesn't have your interests at heart, and he's willing to do just about anything to amass power. A 'defense of Rove'? No.

  • Alan

    this is the secret as to why IQ influences conservative ideology: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0

  • Richard

    Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Karl Rove help George Bush Senior campain against Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s. Who was the true conservative, Reagan or Bush; I think we know the answer.

  • KLT

    First, Rove is not conservative or a conservative, but an opportunist. I agree comments about Steve King are way out of order…And Mr McCarthy was and is a hero. There is plenty of material availabe to us about that era, especially the Hiss situation, to know McCarthy had good reason to hold his hearings. It IS time for Mr Rove to go..Why all the hanky twisting about the lost senate seats. when all the smart people would not do a thing to help or advise the candidates in question but have no shortage of slings and arrows, and did not produce a winning candidate of their own…a president. Maybe there would have been coattails?

  • mlcblog

    All this may be well and good, but when I hear Rove talk it seems he is definitely against the Tea Party or conservative candidates. He never resonates with our ideals, just talks practical politics and detriments. So, if he does indeed have an inclusive stance, he would do well to learn how to present his ideas!! I have not yet heard him acknowledge the ideals that we so love and for which we get so engaged, as in the case of O'Donnell and, in my book, Palin. I believe it was Karl Rove who singlehandedly shot Gov. Palin, a proven administrator, down apparently because he seems to/wants to have superior knowledge than we. I still believe there is a huge amount of power within the "sleeping giant." Would Rove be able to recognize this? His head seems buried in statistics. All head, no heart does not read as attractive.

  • mlcblog

    OMG! Adina, are you telling me that Rove is buddies with that traitorous Grover-married-to-an-Islamic-infiltrator Norquist? That explains so much. My question now is what is up with FPM? When I saw KR at the conferences, I wondered. Money? Power? oh, NO!! Not my FPM.

  • mlcblog

    By the time Rove gets finished watering down the candidates he thinks are not electable, we are left with pablum….not very palatable to anyone. Au contraire! we want and need to inflame!! Lack of passion is my second beef with Mr.. R.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    The American voter should vote for candidates that want our Constitutional Repbulic to
    work for them and continue as the future of our posterity. Special interests pay only for
    candidates to be elected but the voter pays all of the bills and the elected Official must
    make that thier ground of understanding, if special interests promote a candidate, avoid
    that person and it may end it's pernicious effects in our political life. The majority of
    voters want a capatalist system to work in but the monied elites view us as herd cattle,
    we are shorn and used and ignored while we are worked over by the political hacks who
    see all as a never ending cascade of permanent employment with endless personal benefits
    and income, legal and not so legal. Clean candidates that do not bend on our laws and
    have no desire to continue amoral leglislation are strong of character with and expectation
    of American voters to support them as they are there to serve them and no others. A start
    at needed reform of our representatives may turn us from the path of degeneracy and failure.
    We are desperate for honest individuals with moral structure and are proud of our heritage
    as Americans……………………….William