E46Fanatics

E46Fanatics (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/index.php)
-   Political Talk (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Karl Rove’s new ‘Conservative Victory Project’ earns conservative ire (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=969371)

phrozen06 02-04-2013 04:48 PM

Karl Rove’s new ‘Conservative Victory Project’ earns conservative ire
 
Quote:

Posted by Rachel Weiner on February 4, 2013 at 9:36 am

Karl Rove. (AP/Matt York)

The news that former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove is launching an effort to keep less-electable conservative Republicans from winning primaries has stirred up anger on the right.

The Conservative Victory Project, first reported on by the New York Times, is a direct response to the 2012 elections, when the National Republican Senatorial Committee stayed out of primaries and saw conservative candidates such as

Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lose winnable races.
“The Conservative Defeat Project is yet another example of the Republican establishment’s hostility toward its conservative base,” said Matt Hoskins of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a PAC launched by (but no longer affiliated with) former senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

“I dare say any candidate who gets this group’s support should be targeted for destruction by the conservative movement,” wrote RedState’s Erick Erickson.

“These fake conservatives need to go away before they do more damage,” said L.Brent Bozell, founder of the conservative Media Research Center.
Erickson also noted that the establishment did not have a great track record in 2012 either. American Crossroads, the super PAC behind the new project, supported no winning candidates in last year’s election, according to a Sunlight Foundation analysis. Only 1.29 percent of the group’s money went to opposing candidates who lost.

“They are welcome to support the likes of Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst. We will continue to proudly support the likes of Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz,” said Barney Keller, spokesman for the anti-tax, conservative-backing Club for Growth.

Rove has been considering picking sides in Republican primaries since November, seeing the 2012 election as a $300 million learning experience.
“We’ve got to carefully examine, as we did after 2010, an after-action report looking at everything with fresh eyes and questioning and figuring out what worked and what didn’t work,” he said at the time.

Republicans already fear conservative candidates will hurt them in 2014 races. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is considering a bid for the seat of retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D). According to the Times, the polarizing social conservative would be one of the group’s first targets. In West Virginia, conservatives may mount a primary challenger against Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, the party’s preferred candidate for the seat of retiring Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D).
Many Fault Lines between republicans these days.

Iceman00 02-04-2013 05:52 PM

I love the in fighting.

Rhumb 02-04-2013 08:24 PM

GOP directing their ire and fire at each other in a circular firing squad, how interesting. Well, having their fangs sunk into each other's haunches will keep them out of everyone else's.

Also interesting watching Rove trying to brush off that squandering of $100s of millions of GOP political donations towards a net result of nought. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for if the GOP's plutocrat patrons understand anything, it's money and I can't imagine they suffer that squandering of their largess gladly.

I suspect this internecine infighting will preoccupy them for quite some time yet, which should be doubly disconcerting for order and hierarchy Republicans who apparently have much soul searching left to be done.

phrozen06 02-04-2013 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhumb (Post 15129845)
GOP directing their ire and fire at each other in a circular firing squad, how interesting. Well, having their fangs sunk into each other's haunches will keep them out of everyone else's.

Also interesting watching Rove trying to brush off that squandering of $100s of millions of GOP political donations towards a net result of nought. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for if the GOP's plutocrat patrons understand is money and I can't imagine they suffer that squandering of their largess gladly.

I suspect this internecine infighting will preoccupy them for quite some time yet, which should be doubly disconcerting for order and hierarchy Republicans who apparently have much soul searching left to be done.

couldn't agree more.

2000_328CI 02-04-2013 10:32 PM

The problem is Rove wants establishment conservatives that do NOT fall in line with the average true conservative in this nation.

The party needs an "everyday American who wants to get our nation back to its fundamental principles of hard work, individual sovereignty, and limited government".

The only way for a republican to win IS to piss off those abusing the welfare state.. Romney's 48% comment was used against him.. He should have embraced it, called out the welfare trap in this nation, and sold a campaign on individualism.. Instead he, like Rove, played appeasement with the very crowds which will NEVER support him or the party.

Rove needs to go.

Lair 02-05-2013 12:40 AM

Now we know what Mark Levin thinks.

rover220 02-05-2013 04:50 AM

^ Or Ja Rule

casino is no lie 02-05-2013 07:50 AM

No link to source. OP is becoming Chasist.

Rhumb 02-05-2013 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 15130237)
The problem is Rove wants establishment conservatives that do NOT fall in line with the average true conservative in this nation.

Perhaps that reflects part of the GOP's problem, that they've constricted the definition of conservatism so narrowly and have become so didactic about who fits that now narrow definition that anybody who stray from that orthodoxy is branded a RINO heretic. In fact there are, or were, a wide range of often quite different strands of conservatism, whether economic, social, political, libertarian, religious, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 15130237)
The party needs an "everyday American who wants to get our nation back to its fundamental principles of hard work, individual sovereignty, and limited government".

Well, it seems that your "everyday American," as reflected in the 2012 elections and a wide range of polling data, is become increasingly disenchanted with the GOP narrowing and hardening brand of conservatism and its constricting base is growing older and dying off. Perhaps the GOP ought to open their eyes a bit wider, reassess just who this "average American" (given there is such a thing) is and adopt its policies and ideals to his/her wants, needs and desires.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 15130237)
The only way for a republican to win IS to piss off those abusing the welfare state. Romney's 48% comment was used against him. He should have embraced it, called out the welfare trap in this nation, and sold a campaign on individualism. Instead he, like Rove, played appeasement with the very crowds which will NEVER support him or the party.

Rove needs to go.

I would disagree with an election strategy of denigrating, insulting and pissing off half the electorate by spouting off mean spirited, self-serving and narcissistic slanders that are but crude and dated caricatures. His 48% statement should have been used against him because it did not reflect accurately the hopes, dreams, aspirations and hard work of half of his fellow Americans he was insulting but also was not accurate factually and was simply mean spirited, condescending and punitive rather than inspirational, caring and supportive.

Oh, yes, I do agree regarding Rove, he should have gone years ago.

2000_328CI 02-05-2013 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhumb (Post 15131108)
Perhaps that reflects part of the GOP's problem, that they've constricted the definition of conservatism so narrowly and have become so didactic about who fits that now narrow definition that anybody who stray from that orthodoxy is branded a RINO heretic. In fact there are, or were, a wide range of often quite different strands of conservatism, whether economic, social, political, libertarian, religious, etc.

Partially agree. The real problem is that the Republicans have tried to build a base on religion rather than policy. You can't win an election via pro-life and anti-gay messages. You need to focus on the economy.. and that ALONE. Republicans should shift to a position of "do whatever you want in your own home, but take responsibility for yourself, your bills, your children, and your actions". THAT should be the message. An end of the welfare hammock, a focus on individual sovereignty, and a government that lets you do what you wish behind closed doors.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhumb (Post 15131108)
Well, it seems that your "everyday American," as reflected in the 2012 elections and a wide range of polling data, is become increasingly disenchanted with the GOP narrowing and hardening brand of conservatism and its constricting base is growing older and dying off. Perhaps the GOP ought to open their eyes a bit wider, reassess just who this "average American" (given there is such a thing) is and adopt its policies and ideals to his/her wants, needs and desires.

Simply put, minorities voted in far too large of numbers to view the "average american" as a white, religious, male. That is who Romney campaigned for, that is who he won, but even THAT group can't win the white house. That said, if Democrats continue demonizing all financial success and pander to those looking for handouts, it's not the end of the republican party.. it's the end of this great nation.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhumb (Post 15131108)
I would disagree with an election strategy of denigrating, insulting and pissing off half the electorate by spouting off mean spirited, self-serving and narcissistic slanders that are but crude and dated caricatures. His 48% statement should have been used against him because it did not reflect accurately the hopes, dreams, aspirations and hard work of half of his fellow Americans he was insulting but also was not accurate factually and was simply mean spirited, condescending and punitive rather than inspirational, caring and supportive.

Oh, yes, I do agree regarding Rove, he should have gone years ago.

The notion here isn't to demonize and belittle.. but to stand with conviction in the conservative beliefs. Obama stands up and proudly announces that he wants to increase handouts to the poor, increase taxes on the rich, and blast wall street for their evils... Romney (or anyone else) needs to stand with an equal level of conviction for their own beliefs. They can't cower at the notion of closed borders in hopes of pandering to mexican-latinos in this nation. They can't cower at the notion of taking away handouts from the poor out of fear that he won't win their vote. People win elections because they BELIEVE in their fundamental principles. Romney failed to do this (for many reasons.. one being he never campaigned on principles)...

evolved 02-05-2013 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 15130237)
The problem is Rove wants establishment conservatives that do NOT fall in line with the average true conservative in this nation.

The party needs an "everyday American who wants to get our nation back to its fundamental principles of hard work, individual sovereignty, and limited government".

The only way for a republican to win IS to piss off those abusing the welfare state.. Romney's 48% comment was used against him.. He should have embraced it, called out the welfare trap in this nation, and sold a campaign on individualism.. Instead he, like Rove, played appeasement with the very crowds which will NEVER support him or the party.

Rove needs to go.


The 47% comment has been broken down so many times, I still fail to understand how anyone can embrace it.

However, just for the fun of it, you're saying that Romney should have embraced criticizing the following people who are part of the 47%:

-Active duty military who are overseas
-Social Security recipients
- Low income families of 4 or more that earn between $26K and $46K (not on welfare)
-About 4000 households who earn north of $1,000,000 per year.

Over 80% of those in the "47%" either have jobs and do not earn enough to pay income taxes or are retired.

These people are not doing anything morally wrong.....they are utilizing the tax system to their advantage just like the people who earn $50,000,000 per year and pay an extraordinarily low rate.

2000_328CI 02-05-2013 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolved (Post 15131195)
The 47% comment has been broken down so many times, I still fail to understand how anyone can embrace it.

However, just for the fun of it, you're saying that Romney should have embraced criticizing the following people who are part of the 47%:

-Active duty military who are overseas
-Social Security recipients
- Low income families of 4 or more that earn between $26K and $46K (not on welfare)
-About 4000 households who earn north of $1,000,000 per year.

Over 80% of those in the "47%" either have jobs and do not earn enough to pay income taxes or are retired.

These people are not doing anything morally wrong.....they are utilizing the tax system to their advantage just like the people who earn $50,000,000 per year and pay an extraordinarily low rate.

I'm not agreeing with embracing his specific comment... but rather, the INTENTION behind it. Romney wasn't focusing on the groups you just pointed out. They were included in the math but not the message... Romney was pointing to those that would prefer to let society take care of them then to fend for their own meal. THAT is the message the republicans need to get behind. AND, it needs to attack those who abuse the system, accuse them of being lazy, and make it acceptable to call those individuals out on their sloth.

It has become non-PC to attack those on welfare, food stamps, and other assistance... 40 years ago, that wasn't the case. Those unemployed were stained by that reality and towns were small enough that it was typically known if you were not contributing towards society. We have gotten away from that and now people taunt about abusing the system. It's a crock.

We need to fix the MENTALITY.

Rhumb 02-05-2013 10:17 AM

I would agree, the 47% ideology merely panders to those harboring a dated, ugly and divisive caricature of just who those 47% are. It's the crude, simplistic and self-aggrandizing Ayn Randian "makers and takers" ethos that needs to be purged from the GOP ideology.

Most Americans simply don't view government programs or assistance as mere "handouts" to the indolent and lazy as is the pernicious GOP portrayal, but rather, as vital and important elements of a stable, advanced and sophisticated modern society - a temporary hand up in times of need rather than a permanent hand out, to borrow that phrase.

This predominant GOP ideology is simply out of step and deaf to the ideals of most Americans, in addition to being dismissive and condescending to them, implying that their just a bunch of lazy moochers subsisting off the hard work of some more noble upper maker class. Talk about purveying elitism and class divisions, this "makers and takers" ethos is the very embodiment of elitism and classism. That the GOP still so readily clings and resorts to such hoary, outdated and cartoonish caricatures reveals a fundamental underlying intellectual rot.

Do note, too, that these government "handouts" hardly go solely to the lazy poor but also, in large part, to the middle and upper "makers" classes too, even if those "handouts" are more subtly crafted and disbursed than simple, obvious government checks.

Much of the vastly bloated defense budget is but an elaborate government feed trough for the well-connected and well-heeled that exists a red, white and blue veil of a strong defense and national security.

Farm subsidies are yet another vast trough of government largess going primarily to Big Ag rather than mom and pop farmers (and under this rigid banner of self-sufficiency, sovereignty and reliance should even mom and pop get a penny from the gubmint?).

The Byzantine tax system and code itself is riddled with perks, loopholes and an infinity of complex, sophisticated and mostly inaccessible benefits that favor those of a certain financial station. That multimillionaire Romney, through whatever legal if nefarious means, pays less in support of our society than his gardeners is a travesty.

NFRs2000nyc 02-05-2013 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolved (Post 15131195)
The 47% comment has been broken down so many times, I still fail to understand how anyone can embrace it.

However, just for the fun of it, you're saying that Romney should have embraced criticizing the following people who are part of the 47%:

-Active duty military who are overseas
-Social Security recipients
- Low income families of 4 or more that earn between $26K and $46K (not on welfare)
-About 4000 households who earn north of $1,000,000 per year.

Over 80% of those in the "47%" either have jobs and do not earn enough to pay income taxes or are retired.

These people are not doing anything morally wrong.....they are utilizing the tax system to their advantage just like the people who earn $50,000,000 per year and pay an extraordinarily low rate.

Could have been EASILY spun and you know it. Over 100MM people collect welfare. There are about 320MM people in the US, so ALREADY, that's 30%. Add up a heap of other programs, and you can stretch it to almost 40%. I could have been played, and played well.

evolved 02-05-2013 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc (Post 15131337)
Could have been EASILY spun and you know it. Over 100MM people collect welfare. There are about 320MM people in the US, so ALREADY, that's 30%. Add up a heap of other programs, and you can stretch it to almost 40%. I could have been played, and played well.

Show me the 100,000,000 number.

NFRs2000nyc 02-05-2013 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolved (Post 15131344)
Show me the 100,000,000 number.


http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/20...get-welfare-2/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/...-9.preview.png

NFRs2000nyc 02-05-2013 10:33 AM

Again, remember, I didn't say it is a "fact" (although it is pretty solid that half the country is dependent on the government for survival.) I said it could have been SPUN very easily, and very well. If Axelrod was on Romney's side, he would have milked this to the bone, and done it well.

Rhumb 02-05-2013 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 15131268)
I'm not agreeing with embracing his specific comment... but rather, the INTENTION behind it. Romney wasn't focusing on the groups you just pointed out. They were included in the math but not the message... Romney was pointing to those that would prefer to let society take care of them then to fend for their own meal. THAT is the message the republicans need to get behind. AND, it needs to attack those who abuse the system, accuse them of being lazy, and make it acceptable to call those individuals out on their sloth.

It has become non-PC to attack those on welfare, food stamps, and other assistance... 40 years ago, that wasn't the case. Those unemployed were stained by that reality and towns were small enough that it was typically known if you were not contributing towards society. We have gotten away from that and now people taunt about abusing the system. It's a crock.

We need to fix the MENTALITY.

Perhaps that IS the problem with the GOP: that very message itself and the intentions behind it.

That 47% number did necessarily include the retired, disabled, veterans, active service members, children and so many other fellow Americans -- you couldn't reach 47% without all of them. So, if the math of the 47% statement is so wrong, that the actual numbers of truly and chronically lazy, shiftless and indolent are far, far smaller (as they are), then what to make of the predominance of this GOP ideology and intentions?

This tired trope reflects a mindset and ideology from 50 years ago when various forms of welfare and government social programs WERE vast, bloated and corrosive to individuals and our society. However, welfare, food stamps, and other assistance programs WERE attacked and thoroughly revised, reformed or done away with altogether. The Republicans, with a lot of agreeing Dems, won this argument and implemented the policy fixes to correct this problem that did exist.

The Republican's won this issue long ago and need to quit fighting a battle and enemy that no longer exists. The Welfare Queen for Life was dethroned decades ago. Resorting to and relying on these long-gone stereotypes and caricatures only reveals an intellectual disconnect, lassitude and fatigue on the part of the GOP and TP.

NFRs2000nyc 02-05-2013 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhumb (Post 15131368)
Perhaps that IS the problem with the GOP: that very message itself and the intentions behind it.

That 47% number did necessarily include the retired, disabled, veterans, active service members, children and so many other fellow Americans -- you couldn't reach 47% without all of them. So, if the math of the 47% statement is so wrong, that the actual numbers of truly and chronically lazy, shiftless and indolent are far, far smaller (as they are), then what to make of the predominance of this GOP ideology and intentions?

This tired trope reflects a mindset and ideology from 50 years ago when various forms of welfare and government social programs WERE vast, bloated and corrosive to individuals and our society. However, welfare, food stamps, and other assistance programs WERE attacked and thoroughly revised, reformed or done away with altogether. The Republicans, with a lot of agreeing Dems, won this argument and implemented the policy fixes to correct this problem that did exist.

The Republican's won this issue long ago and need to quit fighting a battle and enemy that no longer exists. The Welfare Queen for Life was dethroned decades ago. Resorting to and relying on these long-gone stereotypes and caricatures only reveals an intellectual disconnect, lassitude and fatigue on the part of the GOP and TP.

100MM+ people on means tested entitlements and you think the "queen was dethroned?" Cmon man.

evolved 02-05-2013 10:40 AM

:rofl:

That chart is so skewed it's ridiculous. Let's take this example.....if you are on disability and you have a wife, 4 kids, an elderly parent and a disabled brother living with you that graph will count 8 people as "being on welfare".

Go look at sites like the US Department of Commerce, or the US Department of Health & Human Services. Here's a nice summary for you:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use