Karl Rove Attacks Mitt Romney With His White Board

Karl Rove discusses Mitt Romney's vulnerabilities


Karl Rove, Mitt Romney's biggest fanboy, admits that Mitt faces a challenging climb to the GOP nomination. But as usual, he ends his discussion on a positive note:

"Mitt's starting to slip in the polls, but he might be able to hang on to front-runner status if he gets some personality coaching and a spinal transplant."



*Parody alert*


Update (via The Other McCain):
When the insiders try to dictate our political choices, by anointing some candidates and dismissing others as “not up to the task,” it is directly analogous to economic planners attempting to substitute their own preferences for the free choices of consumers in the marketplace. And just as economic planning destroys the essential vitality of the free market, so too do these interventions by the political elite destroy the essential vitality of the grassroots.
The central-planning model of politics — which dominated the GOP when Karl Rove was at the White House and Ken Mehlman ran the RNC — is deeply implicated in the Republican “brand damage” problem that led to landslide victories for Democrats in 2006-08. It was only with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009-10 that the conservative movement recaptured the momentum it lost during the Bush/Rove/Mehlman era.

14 comments:

  1. I tire of Karl Rove. He has outlived his usefulness. He is a puppet-master, a cheerleader for the Big GOP establishment elites, and quite frankly, he is getting sloppy.

    No one is listening, Mr. Rove. Your strawmen arguments fall on deaf ears. Please just admit it: Herman Cain scares the beejeezus outta you, and honestly, we can all smell your fear.

    There's a new Sheriff in town, Mr. Rove, come to challenge your stranglehold on "conservatism". His name is Mr. Herman Cain, your next American President.

    Your biggest weakness is that for you and yours it is all about beating the Democrat/Socialist Party for the glory of the GOP, leaving the American people out in the cold as nothing more than a war casualty.

    Mr. Rove, with all respect, please feel free to kiss my a$$. The age of politics is over. The age of Conservative Thought is upon us.
    (rant off)

    Long Live the Republic, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, forgot to add:

    RINO? Seriously? You would question if Mr. Cain is a RINO? You? (Hello kettle, this is pot...you're black.)

    Return to your RINO territorial pissings and stop stinking the place up, Mr. Rove. Mr. Cain is a RINO like I am a menstruating heart liberal who wants free Healthcare and abortion for 12-year old girls.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A Romney nomination may very well signal the end of the Republican party. Win or lose in the general election, it's probably the end. All the best candidates only use it for ballot access now-a-days anyway. I'm not hoping for it, but I won't mourn it's passing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. " A Romney nomination may very well signal the end of the Republican party. Win or lose in the general election, it's probably the end."

    Yeah. That's not stupid at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ecc102.. I don't care much for Rove either. But isn't he talking about "Romney"?
    The writing on the white board looks "Photoshopped"!
    Click here for original

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nick, you said... "I don't WANT my president to have grandiose schemes. I want a unified Congress and President to slowly roll back government largesse while managing to keep their jobs. This is harder than any of you think it is. More than half the nation sucks at the government teat."

    Boy Nick you are spot on with that! Of course getting a unified Congress will be difficult methinks given the truth of last sentence of your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The backlash is on. 2012 will be a watershed year. I've said before, the real danger is what this filthy little maggot in chief is going to do between now and then. Total destruction is what he seeks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Nick

    To borrow from uncle Karl, this is the kind of crack political thinking that told us that Arlen Specter was the only rational choice, ultimately delivering Obama his 60th vote. It also gave us John McCain in '08.

    It's odd that when the establishment-friendly candidates blow up in our faces, we never count that as a failure.

    If you really "want a ... President to slowly roll back government largesse", Mitt Romney is not the man for the job. He leads from behind. His record as governor makes that clear. He grew government in Massachusetts and sent the bill to Washington.

    None of the candidates are perfect, but Mitt's clearly not the one to provide the kind of leadership we need now.

    I haven't bought into the notion that Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can beat Barack Obama. I'm not sure where that came from anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "His record as governor makes that clear. He grew government in Massachusetts and sent the bill to Washington."

    The ridiculous standard once again. 5/6th of the legislature in Massachusetts were democrats while Mitt Romney was governor. Are you able to comprehend the math on that? No such thing a veto in such an environment.

    And by the way: With all due respect, the rap that Mitt Romney had much to do with the health care law in Massachusetts is a goddam lie. The only involvement he had was in trying to scale it back some before it's inevitable passage by an almost universally democrat legislature.

    It sickens me to see people who call themselves libertarians puke democrat talking points on cue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "It's odd that when the establishment-friendly candidates blow up in our faces, we never count that as a failure."

    Establishment friendly? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Just how do you expect anyone other than an "establishment-friendly" member of a party to win their nomination? You do realize a political party IS an establishment, don't you?

    Ugghh.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "5/6th of the legislature in Massachusetts were democrats while Mitt Romney was governor. Are you able to comprehend the math on that? No such thing a veto in such an environment."

    Romney is proud of Romney Care. He thinks it was a great accomplishment. He doesn't go around saying that it was a bad bill conceived by a bunch of stupid democrats, improved slightly by his modest influence.

    With all due respect, the rap that Mitt Romney had much to do with the health care law in Massachusetts is a goddam lie.

    If that's a "goddam lie", it's a "goddam lie" that Romney has been spreading around. Romney takes a lot of credit for that legislation. If I were Romney, I'd try to distance myself from RomneyCare, but apparently there are too many of Romney's fingerprints on it for him to even try that.

    "You do realize a political party IS an establishment, don't you?"

    The GOP is a rotten establishment. Especially at the top. Some of us would like to see a nominee who hasn't been handpicked and groomed by the same brilliant power players who are responsible for the disasters of '06 and '08.

    I know it's always going to be tempting to go with the guy who has the deepest pockets and the strongest ties with all the slick strategists, but if the GOP doesn't chart a new course in 2012, the long term consequences will be gravely disappointing.

    The turbulent influence of grassroots conservatives wasn't very pretty in 2010, but the results were a heck of a lot better than in '06 and '08. Maybe we should apply the lessons learned from those elections.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Romney is proud of Romney Care. He thinks it was a great accomplishment."

    Dude! I get that you don't like Romney, but holy crap! You expect him to campaign against himself for your sake? He didn't write it. He went along with it because the people who elected him wanted it. You want an executive who does the opposite of what the majority of his constituents want? You have that now.

    Like much?

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Chuck

    When you're headed over a cliff, tapping the brakes isn't enough. Mitt's a cautious brake tapper. Maybe that's good enough at the state level in some states, but it's not good enough at the federal level... not now.

    I don't hate Romney. I actually like him and I probably would have voted for him in '08 if McCain hadn't already essentially clinched the nomination by the time the primaries got to my state. I might even have been tempted to vote for him this time around if he had admitted some of the failures of his "accomplishments" in Massachusetts with some specificity.

    But having Obama in the White House has changed everything. We don't have the luxury of pandering to the middle. We need a leader who can take it to the voters and essentially say "this is what the polls say, but we can't do that, and here's why."

    I'm sure the people of Massachusetts thought they wanted something like RomneyCare or something even worse, but what they really wanted is affordable health care with more easily accessible health insurance. There's a lot of ways to accomplish that without implementing draconian state mandates, increasing taxes, increasing costs, creating shortages and sucking even harder from the federal teat.

    But Romney decided to give in to the prevailing winds and grow government in Massachusetts while sending the bill to taxpayers all over the country. That's not leadership. And 4-8 years of that won't help this country the way it really needs to be helped, and it won't help the GOP recover from the cynical era of Rove.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.