Karl Rove creates new PAC to defeat Rubio, Lee, Paul and Cruz in primary races

[Constitutional Paulicy]

http://www.unitedliberty.org/files/images/kibbe.jpg

Karl Rove wishes Rubio, Lee, Paul and Cruz weren’t senators
Tue, 02/05/2013 - 10:02am | by Jason Pye


News broke over the weekend that Karl Rove was launching a new PAC aimed at helping establishment Republicans defeat conservatives in primary races. As I explained yesterday, this move is tantamount to declaring war on grassroots fiscal conservatives.

Based on the formation of this new PAC, the absurdly named “Conservative Victory Project,” Rove obviously wishes that Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio hadn’t have won their primary battles, in which they were pitted against more establishment candidates.

more here..... http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/12602-karl-rove-wishes-rubio-lee-paul-and-cruz-werent-senators

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_u2Gx12LczsY/TJTxBa2iITI/AAAAAAAAAjU/Q89r5E38-LM/s1600/Tokyo_Rove.jpg

[sailingaway]

He spent $300 million with zero winners in 2012. Ron had 8 of 12 of his endorsements win.

I think Rove must be the kiss of death.

[alucard13mmfmj]

"creates new PAC to defeat Rubio, Lee, Paul and Cruz in primary races "

wtf? since when did rubio fit with the lee, paul and even cruz crowd?

[Cody1]

"creates new PAC to defeat Rubio, Lee, Paul and Cruz in primary races "

wtf? since when did rubio fit with the lee, paul and even cruz crowd?

Do you even have to ask that question?

[Anti-Neocon]

"creates new PAC to defeat Rubio, Lee, Paul and Cruz in primary races "

wtf? since when did rubio fit with the lee, paul and even cruz crowd?
On the "tea party" vs "establishment" paradigm for that particular primary, Rubio was on the "tea party" side.

The author could've also mentioned Angle, O'Donnell, and Mourdock who just helped Democrats get in power. Paul and Lee to some degree are the only Senators that even remotely represent liberty.

[CaptLouAlbano]

"creates new PAC to defeat Rubio, Lee, Paul and Cruz in primary races "

wtf? since when did rubio fit with the lee, paul and even cruz crowd?

Rubio has a lifetime Freedomworks score of 91% and a JBS score of 81% A Rove-type candidate would be somewhere in the 70's and 60's respectively.

[dinosaur]

"creates new PAC to defeat Rubio, Lee, Paul and Cruz in primary races "

wtf? since when did rubio fit with the lee, paul and even cruz crowd?

Any time I see the words Karl Rove I get suspicous. It is good publicity for Rubio. It gives him the appearance of credibility by association. I'm guessing that Rubio won't really be hit with anything bad, and it is a handy excuse to fund the loyal RINOs.

[KingNothing]

He spent $300 million with zero winners in 2012. Ron had 8 of 12 of his endorsements win.

I think Rove must be the kiss of death.

Turd Blossom is a total scumbag.

[Cowlesy]

On the "tea party" vs "establishment" paradigm for that particular primary, Rubio was on the "tea party" side.

The author could've also mentioned Angle, O'Donnell, and Mourdock who just helped Democrats get in power. Paul and Lee to some degree are the only Senators that even remotely represent liberty.

Rubio was meeting with Kristol, the Kagans and all the actual neoconservatives during his primary. There's nothing grassroots about him. Prior to joining the Senate, he was a member of the Florida House of Reps. The guy is through-and-through establishment. He gives foreign policy speeches at Brookings, CFR now about an interventionist and aggressive foreign policy "for democracy!". I am convinced his vote against sending tanks/planes to Syria was only made because there was no serious threat of the vote failing. It was an easy way for him to pad his contention that he's not a neo-con on foreign policy. Guy is just like a NYC social-climber, except he's in DC. Rub elbows with the right people, shake the right hands, movin' on up.

EDIT: In respect to the primary, I guess it's fair to look at him as anti-establishment, but when the establishment is Charlie Crist, it's not saying much.

[CaptLouAlbano]

In all honesty, without scandal or massive unpopularity I cannot recall many instances where sitting Senators were defeated in their primary race. Rove is barking up the wrong tree here statistically and historically.

[Valli6]

Despite the facts, Rubio was portrayed by the media as "tea party" since it was beneficial to him at the time of the election. The real tea party candidate was the much more coherent Alex Snitcker, who would've made mincemeat of Rubio if the establishment's media hadn't excluded him from the debates - even though he had been polling higher than the others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5sFkMXYlFE

Rubio is thoroughly establishment, and Cruz will likely be a big disappointment considering his ties to the Bushs - Cruz is listed as a founder of Jeb's son's maverickpac. https://xxx.maverickpac.com/candidate-support/
Cruz met his wife while working as an advisor to Bush during his 2000 campaign. "Cruz's wife is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker" (wikipedia)

Anything Rove does will be to benefit these two.

[dinosaur]

Rubio was meeting with Kristol, the Kagans and all the actual neoconservatives during his primary. There's nothing grassroots about him. Prior to joining the Senate, he was a member of the Florida House of Reps. The guy is through-and-through establishment. He gives foreign policy speeches at Brookings, CFR now about an interventionist and aggressive foreign policy "for democracy!". I am convinced his vote against sending tanks/planes to Syria was only made because there was no serious threat of the vote failing. It was an easy way for him to pad his contention that he's not a neo-con on foreign policy. Guy is just like a NYC social-climber, except he's in DC. Rub elbows with the right people, shake the right hands, movin' on up.


EDIT: In respect to the primary, I guess it's fair to look at him as anti-establishment, but when the establishment is Charlie Crist, it's not saying much.

Don't forget Ceasar Conda, Dick Cheney's domestic advisor. Conda was sent to Florida to help groom Rubio for the Senate. Marco Rubio appointed Conda as his chief of staff. Conda used his contacts to help move the Florida primary up for Romney. Don't tell me that Conda and Rove aren't allies.

Conda spent most of his professional career in the 1980s and 1990s as a senior staffer in the U.S. Senate, including Administrative Assistant and Legislative Director to former Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), where he led a Senate staff that assisted Abraham in authoring 22 pieces of legislation signed into law -- an unprecedented accomplishment for a freshman Senator. He was also Minority Staff Director of the Senate Small Business Committee and Legislative Assistant to former Senator Robert Kasten (R-WI). Additionally, Conda was a policy advisor to the 1996 Dole-Kemp Presidential Campaign and Senior Economic Policy Advisor to the 2008 Mitt Romney for President Campaign.http://www.rubio.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=330634

[erowe1]

Why in the world would Rubio be included in that list?

I think the author is speculating based on thinking he's something he's not.

[supermario21]

It wasn't hard to be anti-establishment when you were running against Charlie Crist. It's all about the optics of the race.

[erowe1]

It wasn't hard to be anti-establishment when you were running against Charlie Crist. It's all about the optics of the race.

Rubio may have been the kind of outsider opponent Rove would have gone against back then. But now as an incumbent, I'd be shocked if Rove would want to primary him. If anything, he's one of the people whose seates Rove wants to protect from a challenge.

[thoughtomator]

Sounds to me that he's trying to supply Rubio some street cred by including him among his betters.

[angelatc]

Rubio isn't one of us, but after watching Cruz at the Hagel confirmations, I have no interest in furthering his career either.

I think Justin Rainmondo wrote a better piece, but I can't find it so I'll have to settle for a link to Salon: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/meet_ted_cruz_attack_dog/

[mosquitobite]

In all honesty, without scandal or massive unpopularity I cannot recall many instances where sitting Senators were defeated in their primary race. Rove is barking up the wrong tree here statistically and historically.

Lugar was popular here in Indiana....

with the democrats

[FSP-Rebel]

First off, Mourdock went down because the LP candidate siphoned around ~5% of the vote or so, the dem didn't have 50% or more. And, this new pac that he's setting up is basically to attempt to hedge off any future nominees coming from the Tea Party or liberty movement not wasting resources on those that are safe republican seats already. Lee is untouchable because he's popular in state and because the state convention delegates pick the nominee. Rand is safe from a primary as is Roob and Cruz.

I was happy to see Levin spend a half hour the other night on his program to call Rove and gang out on their attempt to cut off the grassroots as a voting block. He gave this as much or more exposure than the article making its rounds on the net.

[sailingaway]

"creates new PAC to defeat Rubio, Lee, Paul and Cruz in primary races "

wtf? since when did rubio fit with the lee, paul and even cruz crowd?

They are pretending he is tea party and are marketing him as such.

[CaptLouAlbano]

They are pretending he is tea party and are marketing him as such.

Oddly enough though, Rubio has a better voting record than Jerry Moran who is a member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus. I don't care much for Rubio, but based on his votes I can see how Rove would lump him in with the others.

[sailingaway]

I can't but he is more fiscally conservative than say, McCain.

[mosquitobite]

First off, Mourdock went down because the LP candidate siphoned around ~5% of the vote or so, the dem didn't have 50% or more.

I live in Indiana and this is patently false.

You are assuming that EVERY SINGLE VOTE for the libertarian would have gone to Mourdock. Plenty would have just not voted in that race.

[acptulsa]

I can't but he is more fiscally conservative than say, McCain.

A De Soto is less outsized than a Packard, too. Ain't saying much...

[erowe1]

I can't but he is more fiscally conservative than say, McCain.

I'm not sure about that. Didn't McCain vote against Medicare D and No Child Left Behind. It's not at all clear to me that Rubio would have.

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure about that. Didn't McCain vote against Medicare D and No Child Left Behind. It's not at all clear to me that Rubio would have.

You are right that he is a work in progress, but I think he is voting on some 'obviously going to lose' edgy bills (like against the fiscal cliff deal) to be the establishment mole. I don't love him, obviously.

[mosquitobite]

Here's a guide - if the media call them a tea partier but don't bash them at every opportunity they get - they're not really a tea partier. ;) The TPTB just want the sheep to BELIEVE they are.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I can't but he is more fiscally conservative than say, McCain.

True. Freedomworks is a good indicator or the fiscal issues. In 2012, Paul, Lee and DeMint scored 100%. Rubio was in at 85%. It was two votes (Rand's budget and Lee's budget) that bumped him down. Only Vitter, Crapo, Risch and Johnson scored higher than Rubio (other than the three at 100%).

[FSP-Rebel]

I live in Indiana and this is patently false.

You are assuming that EVERY SINGLE VOTE for the libertarian would have gone to Mourdock. Plenty would have just not voted in that race.
Maybe you're right but since the LP was created as a venue for disgruntled conservatives to show opposition to establishment republicans, and granted the dynamic has shifted undoubtedly since then, I'd think that since Mourdock was of the non-establishment variety (endorsed by Rand iirc) that the libs would've voted for him to not give the dems another seat in the Senate. If I was in Indiana and had the option of Lugar or voting LP, I vote LP. Give me a conservative of the non-estab brand and I take it in a republican state.

[mosquitobite]

Maybe you're right but since the LP was created as a venue for disgruntled conservatives to show opposition to establishment republicans, and granted the dynamic has shifted undoubtedly since then, I'd think that since Mourdock was of the non-establishment variety (endorsed by Rand iirc) that the libs would've voted for him to not give the dems another seat in the Senate. If I was in Indiana and had the option of Lugar or voting LP, I vote LP. Give me a conservative of the non-estab brand and I take it in a republican state.

With all due respect, as a member of the RLC and a delegate that went to the state convention - your assumptions are false.

And you should watch the debates. All three candidates were on the record as pro-life, including Donnelly. Plenty of liberals could have decided it was maybe better to vote for the L.

Mourdock shot his own foot - I was in the audience of the debate that it happened. No one in the audience took it out of context so it wasn't a big deal. It wasn't until the next morning that I realized what the media had done to him overnight. Just like that.

The day of the election I stood next to a Lugar republican out in front of the polls. She admitted she did not vote in that race.

I had a tough decision for that race because I equally liked Mourdock and Horning. I know Horning on a more personal level than Mourdock and I believe him [Andrew] to be a wonderful man. I voted for Mourdock BECAUSE of his debate gaffe and I knew it was going to affect the race. I think many others did the same.

[FSP-Rebel]

With all due respect, as a member of the RLC and a delegate that went to the state convention - your assumptions are false.
h/t for being a delegate at state. As an RLC person myself along with virtually all of our C4L related delegates, we'd do exactly what you did in terms of supporting the non-establishment republican yet would go LP on a rino. I get the fact that the man had a gaffe and that likely contributed to his defeat but the LP featuring a candidate in this particular instance offered an option outside of this particular republican candidate. I suppose some liberals could have voted LP based on this but I doubt it. I, too, have been aware of and have been favorable of Horning for a long time back when I was an LP member, I just think he (as a respected LP member) should've had the party set this one out. It's not false to think that the LP can uproot a republicans' chances in a general. In fact, it happened to Kerry in his special election in my district and undermined Amash in his. So, while I suppose I can't pin the entire defeat on the LP, they were a culprit here.

[erowe1]

I can understand supporting Mourdock, especially as a way of supporting Rand. But he was never an anti-establishment Republican until 2011 when he decided to run against Lugar, and even then, I didn't see much from him that struck me as anti-establishment. I voted for him in the primary, and I'm glad Lugar is gone. But I wouldn't have expected Mourdock to be any better in the Senate than any average Republican there.

[supermario21]

I don't know. Mourdock was Indiana's Cuccinelli. He sued the Federal government over the bailout.

[erowe1]

I don't know. Mourdock was Indiana's Cuccinelli. He sued the Federal government over the bailout.

I believe the party establishment, at least in-state, were right there with him on that. IIRC, there were some state-specific factors about why that suit was advantageous for Indiana. Mourdock was a Republican in good standing with a long career behind him. I don't think the party ever saw him as a trouble-maker until he saw his opportunity to challenge Lugar. I think he endorsed Dan Coats in the 2010 Senate race. I could be wrong about that.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I can understand supporting Mourdock, especially as a way of supporting Rand. But he was never an anti-establishment Republican until 2011 when he decided to run against Lugar, and even then, I didn't see much from him that struck me as anti-establishment. I voted for him in the primary, and I'm glad Lugar is gone. But I wouldn't have expected Mourdock to be any better in the Senate than any average Republican there.

A safe, establishment Republican never would have blown the race over rape.

How does one mess up such a no-brainer? Mourdock and Akin blew two slam dunk races.

[anaconda]

The more successful we get, the weirder and weirder it gets.

[supermario21]

Akin was the establishment. Sarah Palin screwed Brunner over in that race when she endorsed Sarah Steelman. She made the race about Steelman and Brunner and that allowed Akin to win the race with his 35%...

Heck, Sarah Palin was almost as bad as Rove. She went into NH's contentious primary and endorsed Ayotte over Ovide Lamontagne. Instead of Rand Paul gaining an ally, John McCain got one...

[erowe1]

A safe, establishment Republican never would have blown the race over rape.

How does one mess up such a no-brainer? Mourdock and Akin blew two slam dunk races.

I don't think that cost him the race. I don't even really think it was a blunder.

[J_White]

lumping Rubio with Paul is in itself a trick - making people think he is actually a conservative