February 14, 2013

“Trump: Rove gave us Obama”

Yes.  But there’s more.  He’s the “architect” of the loss of Congress.  And he continues the gallant struggle to sink conservative candidates — who are unelectable you see, and demonstrably so, particularly once the GOP establishment withdraws its support, or fails to provide campaign money, or in some cases actually disseminates oppo research against them  — so that he and his SuperPac can determine Republican nominees, the voters evidently not being up the task.  And by voters, we’re talking about The People.  Who to the Beltway insiders are nothing more than the teeming masses with their unhelpful and unnuanced and naive ideas of how politics should work, and about how they wish to be governed, who really should just shut up, get out of the way, and let the pros from Dover handle everything for them.

Although it’d still be nice if they’d donate.  Otherwise its 4 more years of the Democrats!  And that makes you complicit in their continued rule.

Why do you hate America, Hobbits?

Of course, maybe I’m being too hard on good ol’ Konservative Karl.  I mean, I’m sure his effort to brand his new brainchild the “Conservative Victory Project” — which has as its aim the marginalizing of actual conservatives so that pretend conservatives (what we used to call “moderates” or “RINOs”) can adopt the “conservative” designation, thereby assuring us that the GOP establishment is all about electing conservatives — is a good faith effort to get the GOP back to first principles.

And just because we’ve seen Rove repeatedly sabotage conservative candidates — or attempt to (he’s often as bad at sabotaging as he is at selecting candidates who resonate with the electorate) — doesn’t mean we should “rush to judgment” on his new Conservative Victory Project.

Because who are we to believe our own eyes and ears, or rely on experience and history to make our determinations?  What’s conservative about that?


Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:46am

Comments (23)

  1. I began to despise Rove when I was a soldier during the Iraq war. He allowed the “Bush lied, people died” BS meme to gain traction without fighting back against it at all. This inspired the hell out of Al Queda and put more of my friends’ lives at risk.

    If Rove were such a PR mastermind, then why were Bush’s approval ratings in the toilet even before the economic crisis hit? Why does he deserve credit for barely beating John Kerry?

    If he were moderate but able to reach voters, I could deal with him, but he’s a squish AND pathetic at outreach. I was employed by a state GOP in 2006 so I have insider knowledge on how asinine his strategies were.

    Rove epitomizes the problem more than anyone.

  2. Rubio seems wibbly-wobbly, and not in a cool, timey-wimey way.

    I don’t know if They are successfully co-opting him or if he’s pulling a Juan Carlos I: pretending to be the next dictator until Franco is good and dead, then declaring a constitutional monarchy and successfully suppressing the attempted coup by the old guard.

  3. Rove tells a lot of stories that aren’t necessarily true.

    He gave us one term GHWB and before that one term Ford. Although, with the latter, I don’t know if divine intervention would have helped.

    The point being, he’s no sooper jeenyus.

  4. I’m wondering if the ongoing folding of the previously-conservative (and teaparty-backed) republican governors where Obamacare is concerned, are in some part due to Rovian machinations…

  5. Pingback: Karl Rove Has Become the Face and Hands of the Gentry GOP | Johny Walker Armed

  6. My plan is to use Karl and his Konservatif Viktori Pak as a counter indacator. If they’re for a candidate, I’m opposed to the same candidate.

  7. We really need to get going on that whole third party thing.

  8. The Whigification of the GOP proceeds at full speed.

  9. Darth is right Lee. So the way I see it, the third party thing will take care of itself. The GOP will see to that.

  10. As Henninger wrote a few weeks ago (albeit about Obama), dissent.

  11. We really need to get going on that whole third party thing.

    I’d be happy just to have a second party.

  12. Rove is of a type, alright, but it’s worth considering what type exactly that is. In some respects at least, Rove’s as much of the type as a Carville, or an Axelrod, or a Mike Murphy: a professional political consultant. This whole breed, it may happen, is bad for politics in general, and not primarily for one partisan side or the other, on account of the disjunction of ends which they seek as professionals over-against the proper ends of politics as such.

    The trouble is, who hires them? So the solution to ridding politics of this corruption of its ends would have to be bringing the politicians (who are or ought to be partisans in the main, and not professionals) to understand that their own aims are harmed by the presence of the self-professed experts. Then the question is how?

  13. @sdfrr: It will be very difficult. Part of why I think the GOP will go the way of the Whigs is its insiderism. You could be the guy who came up with the GEICO gecko, but the GOP won’t hire you to market unless you’re part of their crowd.

    It’s bad when Dems major in poli sci, intern in their state capitols or Washington, and form a clique because they believe in forming an elite. Conservative philosophy doesn’t, so for them to do the same is utter poison.

    The arrogance of the state party heads on their way to getting trounced in 2006 was absolutely astounding. Those of us on the ground who tried to tell them their strategy wasn’t working were denigrated in the harshest of terms. After the election, they kept their jobs, we lost ours.

    The GOP is full of people who’ve never really lived outside the real-world bubble, and their arrogance reflects that. It doesn’t matter how great your ideas are, if you’re not an “expert” you’ll be dismissed.

  14. There does appear a chink in that behavior as described though Martel, insofar as expertise can be readily exposed (as Jeff is doing in this post) when it doesn’t measure up in success. So it ought not to be too difficult to persuade (persuasion is still possible, isn’t it?) the politicians that serious competition be taken seriously, which is only to say that failure is rewarded with dismissal rather than approbation. But better yet, that the politician’s own instincts as politician may in fact prove the stronger path to success, which bonus, strokes the giant egos already present to hand in the candidates.

  15. So the way I see it, the third party thing will take care of itself.

    I don’t think so, it’s going to take organization and funding to compete with the big boys, if we’re talking about abandoning the GOP instead of taking it over. There needs to be a clear banner to rally around (I still like the “Constitution Party”), and the means to do the rallying.

  16. To quote a hero of mine, Harvey Mansfield, on this subject (if loosely this subject) “The best way to win is to deserve to win. Have you thought of that?”

    So restoring a serious meaning to ‘elite’, removing the mere credentialism with which the term has been infected to its loss, is to assert excellence, and in order to assert it, to demonstrate it.

  17. While Rove is not helping I think it is wrong to imagine that he’s solely, or even primarily responsible for giving us Obama. If Rove had disappeared 8 years ago, we’d still have Obama right now.

    Solving the Rove problem is only an element of any solution, not the solution.

  18. I think he’s more emblematic, Charles.

  19. Heh (lifted from Ricochet just for the gag).

  20. Shades of the 21-month “rush to war”, Batman!

  21. Here’s the question I have: Does anybody ever notice that there’s something funny (in both senses of the word) in the idea that appears to be universal among both the media and the Republican Brain Trust that, well, of course, Marco Rubio should be one to negotiate amnesty and a path to citizenship because, if he plays his cards right, he could someday ride these lawbreakers-turned-voters to the White House!

    I’m not talking about how extremely unlikely that outcome is, I’m talking about how ethically tainted is the Brain Trust’s best case scenario of

    Rubio elects a new people –> The new people elects Rubio President

    Or is the concept of “conflict of interest” just some old white man’s quibble that we have no use for in the vibrant new United States of Diversity?