11/10/12, “Karl Rove and his super PAC vow to press on,” Washington Post, K. Tumulty
“In the post-mortems of the 2012 election campaigns, it is already being written that the much-feared super PACs — those ostensibly independent, billionaire-funded outside organizations and their hundreds of millions in negative ads — turned out to be a bust….
Rove is pondering new missions for Crossroads to address weaknesses laid bare by the GOP’s back-to-back failures to win the White House and the fact that the party fell short when expected to win back the Senate.
Where until now it battled only in general elections and against Democrats, Crossroads is considering whether to start picking sides in Republican primaries. The idea would be to boost the candidate it deems most electable and avoid nominating the kind of flawed and extreme ones who cost the party what should otherwise have been easy Senate wins in Florida, Missouri and Indiana.
That, however, could put Crossroads at odds with the tea party and other groups that devote their energies to promoting the most ideologically pure contenders.”…
===============================
Ed. note: “Ideologically pure?“
- How does the WaPo define “ideologically pure” since they made that judgement?
- How does Rove define that term?
- What does Rove think are the 3 most important ideologies that make Republicans better for the country than democrats, if any?
- What are the alleged ideologies of the Tea Party?
- What are “ideologies” of “other groups” (other than the Tea Party) referenced by the WaPo?
- Why should anyone listen to Karl Rove when GOP membership is dwarfed by Democrat membership nationally? Why shouldn’t he leave the stage and let someone else exemplify the GOP?
to describe why it’s urgent that the next president be a republican.
Which is fine but a self-centered, unpleasant hack is taking up space where someone else could be describing why the GOP should even exist today much less win an election.
Rollins tells the world it’s no big deal, Obama and his team aren’t bad guys, the GOP just wants less redistribution. Perhaps embarrassed about being unable to describe an alleged GOP ideology, Rollins changes the subject and attacks Rush Limbaugh. Following from Rush Limbaugh’s show on 8/31/12:
----------------------------------------
8/31/12, “The Obama Good Guy/Bad Guy Debate,“ Rush Limbaugh transcript
“RUSH: “Our problem with Obama is he’s not a bad person.“
“Here’s Ed Rollins yesterday afternoon on Fox with Megyn Kelly. Megyn Kelly said, “You know, it was clearly a theme last night. Over and over again they pounded that it’s something to be proud of in this country to be successful, the foundation of what this country was built on is success.
Ed, did the Republicans make their case?”
ROLLINS: They certainly did to a certain extent. The president and his team are not bad people in spite of Rush Limbaugh gonna criticize us for saying he’s not a bad guy.”"...
[Ed. note: Rollins says, "criticize us." Who is "us?"]
(continuing, Rollins): "They just have a different viewpoint. And I think the viewpoint is that, you know, we need government to interfere, we need to redistribute wealth, government needs to be the referee. Our perspective is stay out of our way and let us just go. Give us the freedom to go achieve the things that we want to achieve as an American.”…
Rush: I’ve never stated that I want them to talk about Obama being a bad guy. My express desire has been that there be some leadership. …Their theme was, rather than bash Obama, which, I don’t want anybody bashing Obama….If I’ve had a desire, it has been for there to be, while we’re explaining who we are, all I’ve asked for is some ideology.
Just explain liberalism, just tell ‘em who Obama is in that regard.
Obviously they didn’t want to do it.
They were obviously afraid to say things like, “Obama doesn’t have the same view of America we do. In his (Obama’s) world, America is guilty, doesn’t deserve to be a superpower.” There’s a movie out there that people are showing up in droves to see that makes this point. Maybe they’re relying on that. I don’t know. But I don’t want to say he’s a bad guy....
Explain what conservatism is.
Explain what liberalism is. It’s so easy to do, and it’s highly educational….
A good guy does not accuse you of causing another man’s wife to die of cancer. A good guy does not accuse you of shoving grandma over the cliff to die in a wheelchair. Nice guys, good guys don’t do that kind of stuff….
I wanted the country spoken up for and defended. I want the contrast drawn between people who think this country’s guilty of something;
- that it was founded unjustly, immorally;
- that this country needs to be cut down to size;
- that this country’s the problem in the world.
All I ever said was, please don’t tell me he’s a nice guy. Don’t pander. I know you’re afraid. I know the Republicans are afraid of this deep emotional connection that some Obama voters have with Obama, and they’re worried that they can’t break it and their only hope of breaking it is to agree he’s such a nice, wonderful guy.
But he’s not. Nice guys don’t say the things Obama says. Nice guys don’t accuse you of causing another man’s wife to die of cancer. Nice guys don’t accuse you of throwing grandma over the cliff in a wheelchair. Nice guys don’t attack small business.
Nice guys do not blame the successful. Nice guys do not say that the rich get rich because they take from the poor.
Did Reagan keep talking about what a nice guy Jimmy Carter was in 1980? Did Reagan say, “Jimmy Carter, you know, he’s a great guy, I love his peanuts.” We played you the clips of Reagan from his acceptance speech in 1980. I don’t remember Reagan saying, “Yeah, Carter, he’s a great, great guy, good guy. Just a bad president.”
Is Obama out there saying that Romney’s a good guy? Just a failed governor? Is that what they’re saying? They’re saying some pretty insulting things about Romney.”
==================================
Rush Limbaugh as usual gets to the core. The GOP is afraid. Or they have no beliefs and no ideology but refuse to leave the stage.
Limbaugh's explanation of the difference between democrats and republicans was generous, open, and thoughtful. By no means narrow minded, shrill, or intolerant, as ever-intolerant Establishment GOP types might describe him.
Rush didn’t bring it up in this conversation, but it’s likely these guys want to make sure the hideous Jeb Bush is the next candidate. Not so much that Bush would win since he couldn’t even deliver the state of Florida to his brother in 2000, but just be the candidate. Candidacy is where these guys make their money.
Additionally, even Rollins’ bland reference to redistribution doesn’t hold up. The GOP had the ability to defund ObamaCare, knew that was why we gave them the House majority in Nov. 2010, refused to do it, refused to even discuss it.
Incidentally, GOP establishment PAC's such as 'Young Guns Network' have already spent good money to defeat Tea Party candidates, so it's not a new idea. Rove would be joining an ongoing effort. I don't have time to list them all right now, will do so later. via Free Republic
=====================
11/12/12, “Atlas Exclusive: Robert Spencer: Did “Islamophobia” Beat Romney?“
(Not at all.)
"And so what of the defeats of West, Walsh, and Hasner? The reason why the Republican establishment embraced none of them wholeheartedly and instead held them at arm’s length was precisely because they spoke the truth about jihad and Islam – or more of it than anyone in the Republican establishment was comfortable with. Meanwhile, Islamic supremacist groups targeted them specifically for defeat, and those on their own side were not willing or able to defend them from charges of “Islamophobia” and “hate.”
For eleven years now, the Republican Party has failed to offer a clear or coherent response to the jihad threat, or a clear or coherent alternative to the Democrat policy of appeasement and accommodation. It is just one more reason why the Stupid Party richly deserves the place on the scrap heap of history toward which it is racing so rapidly."
.
No comments:
Post a Comment