Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Karl Rove: The Authentic Chair of the DNC

0

Debbie Wasserman SchultzFalse premises are like cockroaches, ugly with the potential to do harm, and difficult to get rid of. One of the biggest and ugliest false-premise-pests is the faux conservative, Karl Rove. It also does no favors to authentic Conservatives that Rove’s latest creation is called the “Conservative Victory Project” (CVP). Under scrutiny, CVP appears to be a CINO (Conservative in Name Only) group.

Is Rove really interested in conservative victory or could it be that “The Architect” is engineering such a cunning victory for Democrats that DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, may find herself out of a job?

The New York Times quoted Rove staffer, Steven Law: “Our approach will be to institutionalize the Buckley rule: Support the most conservative candidate who can win.”However, it was Karl Rove who once supported Charlie Crist in the Florida Senate race, until it was clear that Crist could not defeat Marco Rubio. Crist went on to endorse Barack Obama for reelection in 2012, and eventually joined the Democrat party.

Falling short of a conservative victory again, Rove also backed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004. Specter also went on to join the Democrat party, upon his defeat. If it had been up to Karl Rove, there would be no Ted Cruz, as Rove and his American Crossroads organization favored Lt. Governor David Dewhurst over Cruz.

In fact, if it had been up to Karl Rove, there would have been no Ronald Reagan. Rove worked for George H.W. Bush against Reagan during the 1980 primary, calling Reagan “unelectable.” Bush went onto lose his re-election bid.

It was Karl Rove who took public shots at every GOP candidate in the 2012 presidential race, calling them the “nutty fringe”—all except Mitt Romney. Rove’s volley against the GOP field even prompted leftists at Media Matters to refer to him as “the voice of reason.”

When his chosen candidate, “Moderate Milquetoast Mitt”, ended up going down in defeat, Karl Rove’s credibility took a severe hit; so much so that during election night coverage, FOX’s Megyn Kelly asked Rove: “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?”

Karl Rove’s formation of CVP just a few months after the 2012 election can only be seen as an attempt to repair the damage done to his own image.

If Rove believes that winning elections comes down to a numbers game, he’s already succeeded in alienating a segment of voters that many see as key to a GOP victory—The Tea Party.

Before going further, it’s time to stomp out a few more false premises. “The” Tea Party does not exist as an entity in the same way that the AARP or AFL-CIO do. TEA stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” It has nothing to do with the “social issues,” so to make abortion or gay marriage about the TEA Party would be inaccurate, except where taxes are actually involved, like with Obamacare. The Teaparty is a movement made up of everyday Americans who oppose high taxes and government waste. Not all teaparty members are Republican, so to insult TEA Party activists, is to insult average citizens.

However, many of the GOP candidates that Rove lampooned were supported by Tea Partiers, and many of them stayed home rather than vote for Mitt Romney.

Rove’s new venture even reignited the feud between he and Sarah Palin, and prompted her to take a swipe at him in her speech at CPAC 2013. Regardless of the sentiment toward Palin, if Rove is all about the numbers, angering the substantial number of Palin faithful isn’t a smart move, but just to be completely fair to old Karl, let’s see how his “conservative” credentials measure up to some of the current issues in the news cycle.

U.S. Intervention in Syria: In February 2012, Karl Rove joined 55 other “conservatives” in writing an open letter to President Obama calling for the U.S. to provide direct aid to the Syrian opposition. In fact, Rove contends that the U.S. should have gotten involved 2 years ago. In spite of the fact that we don’t know who we’re arming or what the endgame is, and the precedent that was set in Egypt was (and continues to be) an absolute disaster, Rove seems to think that foreign policy without direct U.S. involvement is a failed foreign policy. Oh, and then there’s the matter of our $17 trillion dollar debt, but that’s an element of consideration towards which Karl Rove easily turns a blind eye.

NSA Spying Scandal: Karl Rove has stated that he is not bothered by the National Security Agency data mining the records of cell phone companies. In fact, he contends that the NSA is less intrusive than local law enforcement. Besides, Rove has to support data mining because he has recently announced his intention to data mine for votes, saying, “In the Republican case, they take up to 450 pieces of household-level information about you… that describes your view of the world, what’s important to you and how do you think about things, what will motivate you.” At a time when conservatives, and others across the political spectrum are increasingly concerned about the loss of privacy, is Karl Rove? Not so much.

Immigration Reform: Karl Rove is also a big supporter of the current immigration bill that was recently passed in the US Senate. Rove, like so many other big government types in the GOP, believes that the Republican party will cease to exist without the Latino vote, but how do they intend to attract a demographic that typically gravitates to the Democrats? Does it strike any of those on the Republican side as odd that Charles RangelNancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer feign concern for the future of the GOP if immigration reform fails? So, what’s the endgame? The Rove strategy seems to be to cull conservatives from the Republican herd and replace them with immigrant votes. The result would be two big government parties that are the mirror image of one another.

It was Rove who was the architect of “compassionate conservatism” as a political strategy for George W. Bush in 2000, which is code for “big government, Republican-style”. The term is another false premise that assumes that conservatism is cruel. To the contrary, there is nothing more cruel than institutionalizing dependency. The misnomer is responsible for such government expanding programs as “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare Part D.

It is clear that the conservative brand has value to Rove (probably as a fundraising tool) or he would not be using it to define his organization. However, it is a brand that belongs to, and must be protected by those of us who believe in strict adherence to the Constitution, limited government, personal responsibility, economic solvency, and border integrity.

Statism exists on both sides of the aisle. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others like them, have no interest in promoting the conservative philosophy, because they don’t accept any principle that usurps their power and returns power to the “common man.”

As for Rove he’s become the architect of a glass ceiling between the statist elites and the American people. He’s also been doing such a masterful job of getting Democrats elected by splitting the Republican vote. Indeed, he’s been so effective at it that he may need to change his name to Karl Wasserman Schultz.

It is time for conservatives to reject false premises, (regardless of the source), and stamp out pests like Karl Rove and his cronies during the 2014 primary process. It is time to send a message to the establishment elites, that conservatism will not be strong-armed off the political stage. It is time to either get on board, or get out of the way.

This post was written Christy Waters over at Conservative Report Online.  Thanks Christy for sharing your work with us and allowing us to share it with out readers!

Send this to a friend