Architectural design with something to be desired
Arguably Karl Rove’s claim to fame revolves around weak wins by George W. Bush against vulnerable opponents, particularly 2004. But was Rove “The Architect” of our 2008 loss to Barack Obama? He was not in charge of the McCain campaign to be sure but he was a senior adviser to Bush. The two years leading up to the 2008 election were crucial to defending Republican interests. The entire Obama / Democrat campaign was based on bashing Bush. The entire demeanor from Bush was to be above it all. To act as if the attacks did not affect those who supported Bush was not merely short sighted, it was dereliction of duty.
Rove’s memoir suggests that long before there was a 2008 Republican nominee there was no timely advice from him for an aggressive return fire posture from the Bush camp with the resources and bully-pulpit they could apply, at least for the sake of helping to prevent the onslaught against Republicans. None that took effect anyway. There was no campaign mode to protect against Democrats seething about Bush administration policies.
But now Rove is an advocate for aggressive attacks against Republicans in primaries when he could have made an epic difference by defending conservative values in 2006- 2008. He stayed with the Bush program — a dark time undermining conservative and Republican interests in general.
Incredibly Karl Rove has set about to protect conservatism from conservatives he feels are a detriment . . . conservatives like Steve King who voted by and large for Bush policies are to be vilified for their poor judgement? Tea Party favorite Steve King is no doctrinaire conservative with his support of ethanol and wind energy subsidies and no doubt, from our perspective, other objectionable programs. Essentially no more doctrinaire than Governor Branstad, Iowa’s longest serving governor. But the likes of Steve King and, by extension, the likes of Republicans who support him, are to be vilified by Mr. Unity, Mr Conservative Party Builder — Karl Rove?
Sorry Karl but we question the judgement of someone with an announced purpose of aggressively working against the Tea Party influence, the lightning force of 2010,and its favorite sons and daughters, with all their occasional flaws, supposedly in the interest of defending conservatism. Why, because you went along with a non-nonchalant approach to conservatism from your boss. He exhibited defective conservatism. Where were you? Bush was most responsible even if beleaguered, but that begs the question of why you did not see the political problems and set about defending conservatism, even the Bush brand, from the outside if need be.
Still others share our concern if not our reasoning: Newt Gingrich in an interview with Human Events had this to say regarding Rove the consultant ,aka “architect:”
Republicans need to drop the consultant-centric model and go back to a system in which candidates have to think and consultants are adviser and implementers but understand that the elected official is the one who has to represent the voters and make the key decisions . . .
While Rove would like to argue his “national nomination machine” will protect Republicans from candidates like those who failed in Missouri and Indiana, that isn’t the bigger story . .
Republicans lost winnable senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. So in seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure. Our problems are deeper and more complex than candidates . . .
Handing millions to Washington based consultants to destroy the candidates they dislike and nominate the candidates they do like is an invitation to cronyism, favoritism and corruption.
Politco reports on other sources analyzing the fallout from Rove’s announced political venture:
“He’s got a donor backlash and he’s got an activists backlash,” said one prominent Republican donor. Several people who cut big checks to Crossroads feel burned, this person said, adding some believe Rove is letting his group off too easy with his insistence that the problem last year was bad candidates . . .
“This idea that he’s the curator” of the Republican party has taken a beating, said the donor. Further, the donor said — echoing sentiments made by others — the Times story about the Conservative Victory Project made both Crossroads and Rove a focus, as opposed to the process of picking candidates. And it set CVP up in direct opposition to another major conservative outside group, Club for Growth, that has been able to tout electoral successes . . .
Chris Chocola, head of the Club for Growth, was magnanimous about Rove, saying that despite the “repackaging” of Crossroads and “asking the wrong questions and identifying the wrong problem,” Rove has “ done a lot of good things and he’s a smart guy.” However, Chocola added, “He’s taken a wrong turn here.”
Karl Rove’s and his Conservative Victory Project receives so much attention here because our primary purpose is “helping Republicans keep true to a conservative agenda.” We do not think his announced approach is an appropriate way to protect conservatism. Adequate dynamics are present to keep credible authentic conservative candidates competitive and focused without the slash and burn primaries approach Rove and company have practically promised. The Republican Party needs demonstrations by the candidates of conservative acumen, not the imposed distortions that Rove can be predicted to engage in.
With Rove’s organization we suspect they will deem anything more than advocating a modicum of fiscal restraint by a challenger too radical and condemned as doctrinaire, out of touch and a losing approach. And we have seen no signs that Rove’s activity will not be primarily focused, in spite of denials, on anything other than protecting incumbents, however liberal they are. That would not be authentic service to conservatism, or keeping the Republican Party intact.
Because we believe Rove’s announced approach is emblematic of what we see as business as usual politics, and protective of candidates hostile to important conservative values, we will continue to monitor and comment on his organization’s activities. You can review our commentaries regarding Rove on a new posting category we have established for that purpose. See all of our related commentary in the Rove Pages at right.
Don’t despair! The “Architect” has ridden to the rescue of the GOP in the current Sequestration battle. He not only confirmed how disastrous the “huge cuts” (like $45 billion this year; compare to the $60 billion everyone rushed to provide for “Sandy victims” without a serious thought to getting the money from far less pressing federal programs, and, the $85 billion per month, the Fed is printing) would be, but has proposed a really “novel” solution…a “CONTINUING RESOLUTION”!!!!! Gosh, why didn’t Harry Reid think of that? Oh wait! He did, over and over, to avoid presenting a budget.
And conservatives should let good ol’ Karl pick the GOP candidates? Yeah, right.