I receive emails from people who read the articles here at Freedom Outpost. For the most part they are encouraging and I’m thankful for that. By the way, if you don’t get a response, it isn’t because I don’t want to, it’s because I’m pressed for time. Often though, I do attempt to respond. However, there are times when I think some people don’t get it. Recently, I received an email in which a very kind lady wrote exhorting me not to “shoot within the tent,” meaning “don’t attack the views of others in the Republican party. Well, the following article will demonstrate why I do that when it is necessary. Our enemy not only lies in the Democrat Party, but many of them reside in the GOP as well and they must be rooted out by us. For example, Karl Rove is the latest to be very clear about attacking the Tea Party.
According to the New York Times,
The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.
“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”
The Conservative Victory Project, which is backed by Karl Rove and his allies who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too flawed to win general elections.
Now American Crossroads is Karl Rove’s super PAC. They say they want the “most conservative candidate who can win” and yet they demonstrate what they do to such conservatives; they shoot them down.
Take for instance men like Todd Akin or Richard E. Mourdock. Friends those guys made statements that they didn’t need to apologize for and yet the Republican party abandoned them. They even “shot inside the tent” at these conservatives, including the presidential nominee, Mr. Gaffe himself, Mitt Romney, who didn’t really know where he stood on issues from one moment to the next. Romney was anything but a conservative and his record in Massachusetts demonstrates that. But the GOP didn’t want conservatives, they wanted someone a bit more liberal, though the term they use is “moderate.”
The Conservative Victory Project is aimed at taking out conservative voices in the GOP. For instance, take Congressman Steve King (R-IA) who is evaluating a Senate run, but has not decided yet.
“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”
And yet the people of his state elected him to Congress Mr. Law six times! I don’t think that is a problem. In fact, King responded to Law’s comments in similar fashion.
“This is a decision for Iowans to make and should not be guided by some political staffers in Washington,” Mr. King said in an interview, pointing out that he won his Congressional race last year even though President Obama easily defeated Mitt Romney in Iowa. “The last election, they said I couldn’t win that, either, and the entire machine was against me.”
Rove and his establishment associates may find their plan backfiring on them should they decide to bring on the attacks of Tea Party favorites.
While Grover Norquist, who leads Americans for Tax Reform, believes that disciplining candidates is a good thing, he also said it was incorrect to suggest that candidates backed by Tea Party groups were the only ones to lose and pointed to establishment candidates in North Dakota and Montana who lost. I’ll also include the establishment Romney as well. Yes, I understand that there were shenanigans that took place and personally I believe the White House was won by cheating, but if the vote had not been close, no cheating would have helped.
Ben Shapiro helps to put things in perspective. He writes, “Law claims he’s acting under the rubric of William F. Buckley, supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. But Law is no judge of that. Neither is Rove. Their advice led to the epic Romney defeat, in which conservatives were told to vote for Romney in the primary since he was the only candidate who could win.”
“In truth, conservatism wins elections so long as the messenger doesn’t implode,” he continued. “Rove’s view, however, is that conservatism takes a back seat to the best quasi-conservative messenger.”
Shapiro then summarizes exactly what I sense, “But victory for conservatives isn’t Rove’s goal. He’s a political insider par excellence, and he’s playing for his political life in the aftermath of 2012. If that means declaring war on the Tea Party, so be it.”
Frankly, I side with Mark Levin when he asks, ““Who the hell died and made Karl Rove queen for the day? And his sidekick Steven Law, with their disastrous records? … Well, we — the tens of millions of us, Mr. Law — know what we tell you? Screw off.”
UPDATE: Rove appeared on Hannity to respond to the Times article, but the thing to keep in mind in all of this is that Rove and American Crossroads apparently leaked their plans to the Times, and yet he wasn’t aware that it would be portrayed as biased? One has to wonder about Rove’s judgment then, right?
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.