The American Spectator : Karl Rove and the Cotton Conservatives

Print Email

Text Size

Political Hay

Karl Rove and the Cotton Conservatives

By Jeffrey Lord on 2.5.13 @ 6:10AM

Modern Day Whigs and the rise of the Party of Lincoln and Reagan.

(Page 2 of 6)

Problem?

General Taylor, popular as he was with many Whigs, was a slave owner. This was a bridge too far for some Whigs after the Texas controversy and the trickle of dissent that would become a Whig political tsunami a few years later had begun flowing in earnest. A number of incensed anti-slavery Whigs defected to a third party in 1848— the anti-slave Free Soil Party with anti-slavery Democrat, ex-President Martin Van Buren, at its head. Still, Taylor had enough Whig support to carry him over the finish line, becoming the second Whig president.

The victory was short-lived. Taylor died suddenly in 1850, leaving the White House to his Whig Vice President Millard Fillmore. Fillmore — and he would be the last Whig in the White House — signed onto the Compromise of 1850. The Compromise, its initial architect the legendary Whig Senator Henry Clay (who, dying, passed the baton of leadership to Illinois Democrat Stephen A. Douglas) exacerbated the split over slavery among Whigs. The Compromise admitted California to the Union as a “free state” — but used a clever Douglas mechanism known in the day as “popular sovereignty” to get around the slavery issue in other new states. The Compromise also enabled passage of the notorious Fugitive Slave Law, forcing states to assist in capturing and returning runaway slaves.

The Whig divide over slavery was now widening. In 1852, furious that a Whig president had signed on to the Compromise, anti-slavery Whigs defeated Fillmore for re-nomination. The “solution” to the Whig divide was thought to be General Winfield Scott, like Taylor a hero of the Mexican War. Hero or no, the Scott nomination in fact did nothing to repair the rapidly growing breach among Whigs over slavery, and Scott and his remaining Whigs got clobbered in the 1852 election by Franklin Pierce and his pro-slavery Democrats.

Two years later in 1854, the pressure on the Whigs ratcheted up as the demands rose to admit Kansas and Nebraska to the Union. The pro-slavery Douglas cleverly decided to get rid of the prohibition on slavery in these areas written into the Missouri Compromise of 1820. So Douglas played his ploy of “popular sovereignty” once again — trying to turn the issue on the right of Kansans and Nebraskans to decide for themselves whether they wanted to allow slavery in their prospective new states.

Once more — for the last time — the Whigs divided. The Kansas-Nebraska Act became law.

What does this have to do with Karl Rove? Stay with me.

In fact, there were two very precise descriptions of this division between Whigs.

• “Conscience Whigs” — The popular label applied to those Whigs who opposed slavery on constitutional and moral grounds, seeing slavery as a life or death issue for America itself. In terms of the issues of the day, Conscience Whigs specifically opposed the extension of slavery into territories that were applying for statehood. Over time this took in would-be states like Texas, California, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska.

• “Cotton Whigs” — The popular label applied to those Whigs who were not necessarily slavery supporters but were willing to make accommodations with both slavery itself as well as the idea of extending slavery into the territories and new states. The “cotton” in “Cotton Whigs” was symbolic of the fact that slaves were used to pick cotton — and that some Northern Whigs in the cotton textile manufacturing business made money off the backs of slaves in the South.

A leading “Conscience Whig” — Charles Francis Adams, the son and grandson of two presidents — scorned the Cotton Whigs as “thinking more of sheep and cotton than of man….truckling in expediency in everything, for the sake of slaveholding gold.” Briskly remarked a young Charles Sumner, another Conscience Whig (whose defiant anti-Cotton Whig leadership would eventually make him a Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts) of the differences with Cotton Whigs: “Let the lines be drawn. The sooner the better.” Said Sumner: “Thank God! The Constitution of the United States does not recognize men as property,” adding at another point “I am willing to be in a minority in support of our principles.”

Among those appalled at the idea of Whigs siding with the extension of slavery, not to mention slavery itself, was a former Whig Congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln. In Lincoln’s view, the Whig-led Compromise of 1850 was an outright defeat for those who, like himself, opposed slavery. The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was the last straw.

In short order, with Conscience Whigs and Free Soilers and others streaming into a brand new anti-slavery party called the Republicans, Cotton Whigs chose at last to formally join up with pro-slavery Democrats, revealing their true ideological beliefs. At that point the Whig Party simply imploded. It collapsed and died.

To use the now familiar phrase, the Whigs went the way of the Whigs.

Stop here.

Page: < 12 3 4 > Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (223) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Aristocat| 2.5.13 @ 6:23AM

Jeffrey: Your articles are way too long....I think the point you are making is that Rove is an establishment guy who is opposed to the Tea Party.
Rove was a disaster under Bush...the invasion of Iraq, No Child, expansion of Dept. of Education,
Amnesty, Bailouts, etc. etc.
Why would anyone listen to him?

Von Mises Jr| 2.5.13 @ 9:13AM

Aristocat: While you may be correct in other cases, I think that this article was excellent and in fact needs further elucidation.
The Bushes and their dog Rover are in lockstep with the Democrats that is the Party of Slavery. The new slavery or as Hayek called it "The Road to Serfdom" is an elite creating a Dual Class System of elite Ruling Class and Serfs. The mechanism is "Central Planning" and the product is Agenda21.
Bush 41 was a proponent of Agenda21. He is a Statist. Bush 43 demonstrated he was also a statist at heart increasing the Federal Budget from $1.8 to $2.95 trillion in eight years giving us NCLB, Patriot Act, McCain Feingold and Medicare Part D. Rove is their lap dog to interface with the MSM.
If you think Agenda21 is not Serfdom, and then you should do some research by watching Agenda21 YouTube for Dummies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
If you think it is not happening, you should go to the NJ State Website and read the "Development and Redevelopment Plan" that Christie has been trying to pass by Executive Order or look what HUD is doing in Westchester NY or the DOT Plan in NJ.
In a generation or two, your children will not be free if we allow the "Cotton" Bushes and Rover to collaborate with the Democrat Socialist and Sierra Club.

Bob K| 2.5.13 @ 10:42AM

I'm not sure it needs quite this much elucidation although it explains what the Establishment is doing to the party.

It's really very simple.

Rove works for the Bush family and the Bushes are still titular heads of the Republican party. He always worked for them and he always will. It's too late for him to change now if he wants any kind of retirement which will sustain his current life style.

The middle class base of the Republican party is starting to abandon the old Republican establishment. That became very evident in the 2010 mid-term elections where the so called "Tea Party" vote with help from "Reagan democrats" enabled Republicans to take over Congress and win control of a large number of State legislatures and governorships.

In the next 2 years before the 2014 mid-term elections there should be a full assault the old establishment leadership's control of the Republican party and a continuation of this active opposition to it.

Dai Alanye | 2.5.13 @ 12:56PM

When I like what I'm reading, length is no chore.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:23PM

Karl Rove made the Tactical Decision to DO NOTHING, while Democrats attacked GWB relentlessly for EIGHT YEARS.

As far as I'm concerned, he has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

If he says it's Day? It must be Night.

If he says it's Hot? It must be Cold.

If you Republicans ever wanna Win, again?

You'll Dump this Loser, sooner, rather than later.

And, HIRE ME.

A. C. Santore| 2.5.13 @ 1:33PM

First, the length of the article is not the point!

Rove has finally gone off the deep end and needs to be be put out to pasture.

Remember their blocking out of the convention the Paul supporters? Dim. And the so-called Evangelicals? Help me here, who else?

Dislike the Democrats, but for heaven's sake, learn from them. They don't care what anyone's political or social bent is, they court them and include them in their voting base. No power-sharing, just vote-gathering.

Rove wants to sanitize the Republican Party, and end up killing it.

He has become far too elitist for my taste.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 9:30AM

I think the article was maybe a couple pages too long, but on the whole it represented excellent political analysis. One of your best Jeffrey!

Jeff| 2.5.13 @ 6:35AM

Aristocrat...

This one in particular. I agree.

On the other hand, I keep getting tons of e-mail thanking me for writing them this way. I can write 700 words as well as the next guy....but it appears a lot of people like history and thus encourage the detail. The customer, as they say, is never wrong.

Larry E| 2.5.13 @ 7:22AM

Jeff,

Occasionally I too have thought your pieces sometimes too long ... though only for a moment.

Fact is, facts and context are essential to a proper and complete understanding of the issues under discussion. You provide that.

I admire your commitment to such an informative and disciplined approach to opinion writing. It lifts op-eds to another level ... that of research and education.

Bravo sir. Please keep up the good work. Conservatives are relying on the efforts of chaps like you ... especially now.

Jack in Wi| 2.5.13 @ 8:18AM

This one is not only way too long but has many historical inaccuracies. Lincoln was a moderate on slavery. He signed the original 13th amendment just after he was elected. That amendment would have let slavery be forever in the slave states but ban it any new states. He was the father of big government Republicans. He gave us the income tax, printing money endlessly, the draft, and the surpression of civil liberties. Rove and his pal Bush have been a disaster for the party. Rove spent over a hundred million dollars pushing moderates and underminding conservatives. The number of victories was one for his candidates. It is time to bury Rove. The reason the Whigs disappeared was because principled people left the party and started another. It is time to do that again.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 10:34AM

Wasn't Lincoln controlled by Jewish bankers? Or Zionists? How come you didn't mention that, Jack in WI? I believe you're losing your touch.

7-08| 2.5.13 @ 11:02AM

Mr. Crisler,

My deceased father spoke fluent German. That and the fact he was among the “walking wounded” assigned to occupation duty at the end of WWII (too bad to go to Japan, too good to go home). One of his jobs was to usher about the German prisoners –duty stations, mess halls, showers ect. He said, “Them dumb bastards were so indoctrinated that when he moved them place to place it would not be twenty paces and they would all be in step (they were not allowed be in formation or march). He’d laugh and go, “Clump, clump, clump.” This behavior was finally controlled by making them walk backwards everywhere they went.
The cheese head is exactly like that for exactly the same reasons – despite the difficulty of goose stepping backwards.

Jack in Wi| 2.5.13 @ 11:41AM

7-08 Pretty dumb comments. Do more reading. I believe in the universal brotherhood of all men. We are all equal in the sight of God Jew, Muslim, and Christian. We are all God's Children. I follow the Prince of Peace not the god's of war.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 2:16PM

Your letters Jackboot are goosestepping in print. You regularly bash Israel, Jews, Zionists, America's right to defend itself, and then you take refuge in religious platitudes, as if that excused your hateful talk.

Jack in Wi| 2.5.13 @ 11:24AM

Yes he was. The Rothchilds funded the Union when Linclon needed money. Of course the South had Judah P. Benjamin, and the Lehmans. Thanks for reminding me.

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 11:41AM

Damn good thing your not Anti-semite. People might get the wrong impression of you bringing up the jewish people in a deragatory tone every chance you get.

Sheesh.

Jack in Wi| 2.5.13 @ 11:46AM

I didn't bring up your people Chisler did. My comments have been all been right and Chisler can't stand it. They are also right about who funded both sides in the War of Northern Agression. Of course, I am not an anti-semite. I love the Jews as a good Christian should love all his neighbors. I just like historical truth.

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 11:56AM

Unfortunately for you, I am not Jewish, Scotch-Irish and American Indian descent. All three have a long history of smelling bullshit like what you are dishing out. You could fertilize a garden with your breath alone.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 1:11PM

DS
James Webb wrote a good book about the Scotch-Irish, "Born Fighting."

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 2:14PM

I have heard mention of it. Will have to pick it up. Thanks for the reminder.

Jack in Wi| 2.5.13 @ 11:36AM

By the way Chislor, I am glad you are finally convinced, about Lincoln. You can't dispute any of the facts I stated. So you bring up something else.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 12:43PM

In your case Jackboot in WI, I think ad hominem is enough.

Dai Alanye | 2.5.13 @ 12:58PM

One thing must be said: almost everything Jack writes is too long.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 1:03PM

Jack is correct in his assessment of Lincoln and the slaves.

In fact, Lincoln was a proponent of the "American Colonization Society," or "ACS," whose stated aim for emancipated slaves was to repatriate them ALL back to Africa.

And the ACS was NOT unsuccessful. Through their efforts, the west African nation of Liberia was founded with "repatriated" Slaves.

That's why Liberia is the only other country in the world whose capital city is named after a US President. "Monrovia" is named after President James Monroe.

Unfortunately, and eerily similar to "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan," the US Government was not very diligent in keeping track of the progress of this new nation, and Liberia - whose Constitution is identical to the US Constitution - is now just another war-torn hell-hole.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 2:21PM

Repatriation to Africa was the LIBERAL idea of the day (vis-a-vis slavery). Madison, Monroe, and many other anti-slavery people were members of the Colonization society. Lincoln's views were formed when slavery was a present fact, not a thing of the past. He had to deal with the reality of his day, and he believed, like the founders, that repatriation was the best option all around.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:39PM

All true.

But let's be honest; Lincoln was NOT the lover of "free negroes" he's been painted to be.

He wanted them to be free...but he also wanted them to go away. Had he not been assassinated, his legacy might be different.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 6:48PM

That is true enough. Lincoln was not a desegregationist. Hardly anyone was at the time. But remember, slavery was the issue of the day, not segregated schools, or quotas, affirmative action, or modern racism. Lincoln should not be pulled out of his historical context; his views were liberal for his day, but only against what the slavocrats believed, not against modern standards.

Sixgun| 2.6.13 @ 1:10AM

Lincoln was not anti-slavery, but an opportunist, who only issued the Emancipation Proclamation in order to cause disarray behind enemy lines and with the hope that the slaves would revolt and join the Northern aggressors in their mission to crush the South. If Lincoln were such an advocate of freeing the slaves, he would have issued that proclamation the minute he entered his presidency. The fact that he waited until the war forced his hand is clear evidence that he was just as "cotton" as Karl Rove is today. No clear convictions, just political expediency.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 4:43PM

Lincoln's primary goal was to save the Union. He did not believe in federalism, but believed we are "one people" and a strong federal government. The Whigs believed in the federal government spending money on infrastructure such as roads, bridges, etc to develop the country. His views on slavery did change to emancipation.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 6:54PM

He believed that saving the Union was the only way to end slavery in the long run. His original view was to confine slavery to the slaves states and not allow it into the territories. He thought eventually, if confined to the slaves states, slavery would eventually die out.

He signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a war necessity. Since only a Constitutional Amendment could end slavery in the Union states, Lincoln confined the emancipation only to the insurrectionary states.

Yes, he was an "internal improvements" guy, like Clay, and Jefferson (in his earlier days). That is not the same thing as believing in a massive federal government.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 7:48PM

Strong federal government is not the same as a massive federal government. I agree with the rest and said the same weeks ago in another of the repeating Lincoln discussions.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 9:07PM

...at a cost of 600,000 lives.

7-08| 2.5.13 @ 8:25AM

They are not too long. As a matter of fact, this to me is the best of your work to date. There is not a single sentence you could have truncated or left out.

loulou| 2.5.13 @ 11:37AM

I agree. Excellent column.

I think the problem for some people is that the article is divided into multiple pages which makes it more difficult for some people to read.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 8:33AM

Mr Lord
The most apt current version of slavery is abortion.

We do have to reduce the deficit and stop government expansion, but we will not do that by dividing the Rep party and giving away more senate seats to the Dems who will pass more laws to expand government.

Every time the so called prnicipled voters stay home or vote third party we get Jimmy Carter (Dept of Education, Dept of Energy) and Bill Clinton, thanks to Perot.

Obama was helped by the voters who stayed home or voted third party for Goode and Johnson.
Both parties have always been coaliltion parties, we do not have successful single issue parties.

All that is necessary is to run conservatives in the primaries and vote. And screen to avoid idiots like Atkin that give an easy victory to the Dems.

Al Adab| 2.5.13 @ 8:40AM

W:
Compare the conversation here with the issue revealed in the Paul Harvey thread. Which set of values do we want to prevail and which values should government policy encourage?

What we need to do is heed the words which rang so clear in 1960 and the founding of the Conservative Movement, "Lets grow up Conservatives. If we want to take this party back... someday, lets get to work."

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 8:50AM

Al Adab
As usual you are correct. I always enjoyed listening to the Paul Harvey comments on radio. Did not bother watching the half time show.

The best half time show I saw was live in 1969 at Pitt Stadium. Rocky Bleir walked out, I believe with a cane; he had just been dischaged from the Army due to a serious foot injury in Vietnam. He received a long standing ovation.
The second best was Charlie Daniels, also live at 3Rivers Stadium.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 1:07PM

Blaming principled voters for Obama is absurd.

If you want someone to blame, then focus your attention on the GOP. They are the ones who gives us one mush-candidate after another and then wonder why they always lose.

Sorry...not playing anymore. And if they give us another loser in 2016, I'll stay home again.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 1:21PM

The choice was Romney or Obama. In addition to the low information voters, I blame anyone who stayed home or voted third pary. Those are votes that should have gone to Romney but did not and therefore it helped Obama. There is nothing absurd about it, it is simple math and logic. We got Clinton in 92 partly because of the egomaniac Perot taking votes from Bush, and again in 96 taking votes from Dole.

If you do not like the choice then get involved in the primaries..
If you want to stay home again, stay home, but don't complain about the state of the country if you contribute to it by staying home and helping to elect Obama, or Biden or Hillary in 2016.

And Antler Lewis would have been a back up or special teams, at best, on the Steelers.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:43PM

Wrong.

The choice was Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, etc.

The GOP establishment - and Karl Rove - wanted Mitt Romney the day after the 2008 election, and they did everything they could to cement that outcome.

I did get involved in the primaries, but my preferred candidates were already toast by the my state was able to vote.

We got Clinton in '92 because he ran a brilliant campaign that boxed the feckless, RINO Bush '41 into a corner. Bush ran a terrible campaign; how the HELL do you have a 90% approval rating in January of '92 and lose the election in November???

Sorry...but if the GOP gives us mush again in 2016, they'll be seeing my middle finger.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 4:30PM

No, do not agree with your opinion.

The voters in the primaries selected Romney. Who is the all powerful "GOP establishment" that forced voters to not vote for th candidates? When you say the establishment picked Romney, you are saying our voters are stupid and just did what the establishment wanted. That sounds like a Dem argument. Our voters are smarter and voted their choice.

The candidates you mentioned all had problems and baggage and were rejected by voters. I would have voted for any one of them against Obama, unlike others who stayed home or voted third party.

If Karl Rove was that smart, Romney should have hired him to run his campaign. I think Rove would have run a better campaign than Romney's people.

Romney was not my first choice, but he was our elected choice, and I was impressed with his record. He would have made an excellent president. Anyone would be better than Obama.
Bush did run a lousy campaign, as did Dole. They refused to attack Bubba. Bush hurt himself with the tax increase. He thought he could win because of his Gulf War.

You are hurting only yourself and the country by using your middle finger not to vote. Show your middle finger to the Dems and vote for the Rep.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 9:16PM

Wrong again.

You assume - foolishly - that we live in a pure democracy where all it takes is to win the hearts and minds of the voters.

WRONG.

To win in politics nowadays takes big money (Romney and the GOP establishment) and big organizing. It's all about "message" and publicity.

But even if you are right, then the GOP voters DID get what they wanted...and they wanted crap.

I'm not hurting myself at all. I simply won't be a sell-out anymore.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 6:55PM

I agree with your sentiments DR....

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 7:59PM

They may be fine sentiment. But it is poor tactics and strategy to sit out elections or vote third party thus conceding the election to the Democrats.

The elections are always a Dem v. Rep. If you do not vote for one you help the other. If that is what you want to do, do it, but then do not complain when the Dem creates a Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, expands the government, appoints liberal judges, gets us into WWI, Korea, Vietnam, etc. You could have acted to stop or slow it down but chose to sit on the sidelines.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 9:17PM

As I've said a million times before:

3rd parties ONLY fail if you don't support them.

So support them.

Or, pull the lever for the GOP again, and act surprised when you lose...again.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 10:25PM

You are wrong, and you know it.

Your opinions are not backed up by facts, logic, history, or math. Third parties fail because they split the vote. Study the history. It is obvious. In 1912 Teddy R split the Rep vote and Wilson won. Great result with WWI. In 1968 George Wallace split the Dem vote and Nixon won. One for us. In 1992 and 1996 the egomaniac Perot took votes from the Rep. We lost two. In 2000 Ralph Nader took Dem votes in Florida. Another one for us.

Lincoln won in 1860 because the Dems split into two parties with two different tickets. Another one for us.

You are not stupid so you know all this. You are frustrated (I took psych courses) and fed up. But you know at every election there are two imperfect choices, and you are either in the game to affect the outcome or not. Staying home or voting for some third party that has no chance of winning helps only the Dems. Those are facts, not opinions, that you cannot change.

The only practical course is to work for the most conservative candidates and always vote against the Dems. I have always worked and supported the most conservative candidate. Better to fight, vote, and lose than to stay home and helpt the Dems.

Even if you start a third party you still have to recruit candidates and work to elect them, that is exactly what you do now.
You know I am right, but it is your choice.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 11:00PM

I'm NOT wrong.

I'm 100% right.

Just keep doing what you're doing, and come January, 2017...you'll see how right I am.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 11:09PM

Blah-blah-blah...Heard it all before.

You're not on my frequency: I DON'T CARE about the GOP's prospects for winning.

The Republicans are nothing more than a political Party. They don't represent my interests - in fact, as of today, they are declaring war on Conservatives - so I will not play the fool and give them my vote.

I guess you don't mind?

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 11:22PM

I do not want to be on your frequency, whatever that may mean.
You can play the fool and stay home, I will stay in the fight.
Good luck with your third party.

Sixgun| 2.6.13 @ 1:35AM

CJW... or we get another RINO who gives us the EPA, ADA, WTO, No Child Left Behind, prescription drug entitlement, etc., etc. NO THANK YOU. Dr. Right is right.

Sixgun| 2.6.13 @ 1:31AM

Dr. Right... AGREED! no more RINO's for me!

CJW| 2.6.13 @ 7:39AM

Six
The issue in the general election is Dem v. Rep, as in Obama v. Romney, or Obama v. McCain. The issue in a primary may be a rino v. conservative, and I vote conservative. The choice is not Rino v. Stay Home. But you are free to do as you wish.
It appears from your post above that you would not have voted for Lincoln either.

Simon Templar| 2.6.13 @ 1:58PM

Uh, just a reminder, you guys are on the same team...
Read all your comments about third parties, staying home, voting, etc. and it struck me that all of you are correct in one way or another. You may not believe it but you could all be correct in your assessments. First, our founding fathers did not like three party or more systems for some very good reasons. Yes, they are a bad idea when the work that is necessary to build viable ones is not done first before pulling the levers at elections. A political movement of size and strength must be in place or they end up helping your opposition more than yourself or your cause. Unwise. At the same time, they can be very viable in the right circumstances. Not voting, however, is not a wise choice and you have thrown away your right in a Republic and have consented by your silence. When your aim is to stop an opposition that is more destructive than the crappy alternative, it is insane.

Simon Templar| 2.6.13 @ 2:04PM

Progressives have understood this from the beginning and they are doing it now. The objective is not to just win an election, it is to destroy, and if necessary incrementally, your political opposition, not just in elections but in the hearts and minds of the body politic over the long haul. The progressives will take even a Clinton if they can move the scale one more inch in their direction. The idea is to move the ball down the field one yard at a time but always in your direction.

Simon Templar| 2.6.13 @ 2:08PM

They have been working it just as I said for a century and now have scored the touchdown, they got a REAL socialist democrat in the white house, got the electorate to reelect him, and now have someone who openly and flagrantly pushes their agenda. An agenda that would not have been considered two decades ago or taken seriously by anyone back then.

Simon Templar| 2.6.13 @ 2:17PM

Now, it is also true that we and our political party that currently represents or suppose to represent our political philosophy IS at battle with itself and has been for some time. Yes, there is an establishment political class that talks but does not walk the walk and has no intention of doing so.
Yes, they have great power and have dominated the process and made damn sure a person who actually is conservative is not elected both in the primaries and in the general elections. There can be no doubt about this by now. So, what now. Do the millions of base conservative voters and Americans who oppose progressive ideas and share conservative aims and goals have a voice or do they not? Well, they are trying to gain one via the Tea Party movement and forming coalitions at their local levels to influence this political process that essentially has locked them out or used them.

Simon Templar| 2.6.13 @ 2:24PM

Now, this grass roots movement can grow into a very powerful political movement and eventually a party either of its own making or take over the current one. It will make mistakes, have setbacks, and win victories, lose some, and so forth just like the progressive movement and others. It will just like others have to make deals with the current devils running the show, make compromises when inevitable, but never stop pushing. These basic political realities seem not well understood by many conservatives. particularly in these bogs, today who understandably want change now and drastic change now.

Simon Templar| 2.6.13 @ 2:41PM

When I said compromise or make deals I did not mean sell out but act in their interest, that is something for something and never anything else. It will also need to fight the Roves and such who would seek to destroy them or minimize them altogether. This is done without compromise and ferociously. The problem is to many conservatives and republicans want to play footsie with these people and still believe something can be worked out or that they actually are misunderstood conservatives, not good at communication, or should have a place in the so-called big tent. Sorry but that is just not going to work when you have enormously fundamental difference in beliefs on major things, not just minor ones. Minor ones can be worked out and some give and take and agreeable solutions for all can be achieved.

Simon Templar| 2.6.13 @ 3:03PM

Just to give you a little perspective for those short on history.
The radicals sitting in power today were not the majority of the democratic party nor the progressive movement over the past century. They took control in 1968 and pushed the old liberals out and the SDS New left in and they did it slowly, but they nevertheless cracked it open for themselves to enter it that year. They have been pounding and marching on since then one step at a time in every facet of society, not just the election process and conventional politics. Another reality that seems to not be grasped by conservatives.
many of you including Quin are still stuck in some time warp or place of conevtional politics that thinks this is all about picking the conservative messiah and the getting them elected if they say just the right things. Some of us think that is pandering to abortion, gays, immigration, and anything else the Liberals say is a loser issue whether that is true or not and others who say they should stand rock solid with conservative principles, beliefs, and values.

Simon Templar| 2.6.13 @ 3:06PM

The progressives seem to not have this problem. They decide what they think, stand for, and that is it, and they spend most of their time not arguing with each other but kicking the ass of the GOP and creating falsehoods and narratives about conservatives and conservatism.

CJW| 2.6.13 @ 8:33PM

Simon,
Nice job.
You reminded me of Roger Kimaball's "The Long March- How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960's Changed America." The lefties started the "long march" through the universities, media, and other institutions so that they now dominate. For example, Hillary. or Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn. The were terrorists but ended up as professors at Illinois and Chicago, and Ayers is considered an expert in education, and friends with Obama.

CrackerHound| 2.5.13 @ 2:11PM

Your pride overrode your common sense in that case.

What you did DR was hand your vote over to an Obama voter. It was NO DIFFERENT than actually voting for Obama.

Romney was not my choice either but I did manage to vote AGAINST Obama.

If you ever find yourself feeling guilty for Obama being re-elected.....go with it.

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 2:16PM

If I am not mistaken and my memory gone totally out the window. Dr. Right was telling everyone the same thing you mentioned before the election and stated he was voting Romney against his better judgement. I think the election was the last straw for him. I could be wrong, won't be the first/last time.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:44PM

You're not wrong.

But I ended up not voting.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:50PM

RUBBISH.

The GOP establishment handed this election to Obama, just as they handed '08 to Obama, the '06 mid-terms to the Democrats, and the 90's to Bill and Hillary. And if they get there way again, they will nominate Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush in 2016, and we'll all be saying "President Hillary."

Voting for the GOP-establishment candidate IS the proven loser.

Sorry, but you have it exactly backwards.

And NO...I don't feel guilty. I didn't in November, I didn't today, and I won't tomorrow.

McConnell and Boehner are conspiring with Rove to do active damage to the Tea Party, and you think I should just play along???

No, thanks.

The GOP can go to hell.

darcy| 2.5.13 @ 4:20PM

I concur. Such a "nice guy" Boehner kneecaps incoming conservative rookies. There's a special place in hell for traitors, and much as it pains me to state it, the sooner he begins his tour of hell the better.

OTOH, I pray he turns from his wicked ways.

Jack in Wi| 2.5.13 @ 4:38PM

Dr. Right is Right. It isn't the voters, it's the leaders of the party. They are all a bunch of people like Menendez.

Sixgun| 2.6.13 @ 1:27AM

Amen brother... I refuse to vote for anymore RINOs. I am done. If the GOP "cottons" continue to push for elitist candidates who belong to the good 'ol boys club and are really Democrat lites, then I will stay home. If the "conscience" Whigs had not abandoned their party in the 1850's and created the Republican Party, then slavery may have continued for decades more. They did not go along to get along just so they could win elections. They acted on their convictions and abandoned the Whigs with a willingness to lose and be right rather than win and be wrong. We must have that same courage today and abandon the "cotton" Republicans, form a new truly conservative party, and begin to win this country back for our children's sake.

Al Adab| 2.5.13 @ 8:41AM

I for one do appreciate the historical background which reveals much about how we should approach the issues of our own day.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 9:15AM

Mr. Lord, I enjoy your articles be they long or short. Long is sometimes necessary else necessary background information is absent. Keep on doing what you do best: A spokesman for conservatism.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:30PM

I think I'm gonna be sick.

I'm assuming that your Valentines Day Box a Chocolates, for Jeffery, is already in the Mail.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 2:03PM

Your flowers have been ordered to accompany the Teddy Bear.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 4:36PM

I don't know what to say.

I'll be watching the mailbox every day.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 5:29PM

Be sure to hold your breath while waiting.

Bob K| 2.5.13 @ 10:57AM

We shouldn't be wasting time on these details. Rove loves it.

What we should be doing is discussing how we can take control of the party away from him and his masters in the Republican establishment.

They had their pants scared of them in the 2010 mid-term elections and they have been struggling to maintain control ever since.

You want history that applies to the Republican Establishment? How about this quote attributed to Talleyrand about the Bourbon Monarchy of France: "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing."

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:28PM

Obviously, the olde saw that: Brevity is the Soul of Wit, is something that you feel is outdated.

If we can only have 500 Characters?

Then, you guys should be able to say what's on your mind, within the same Parameters.

I'm just sayin.

Sue| 2.6.13 @ 5:03AM

The article was right on target with understanding the politics of party destruction. Lincoln led a Nation to overturn slavery (although he couldn't stop the march to war), and the country-club Republicans have led us to entitlement/socialist programs and $17 T in debt. When the democrat party couldn't convince the citizens to give up their freedom for socialist security, the Republican Party was right there to help hand out the pacifiers and the bibs (for the trough feeding).

Virtue| 2.5.13 @ 7:04AM

"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government." Patrick Henry, 1788.

Appleby| 2.5.13 @ 7:28AM

And yet our own TLP spent the whole last election demanding that everyone support Mitt Romney even if they realized he could not win, swearing that he was Our Only Hope, and no doubt in the next election cycle he will support more Eastern Establishment "moderates" who don't support the Tea Party or the Christian tenets that 2/3 of the Republican Party holds dear, claiming that these Gucci Gulch high rollers are "electable" and once again we will be taken to the cleaners by whoever the next Obama may be...and round we go. Father Knows Best is not The American Way. The American Way is "Get the Hell Out of Our Way." Let's elect an American who knows what being an American really means ... as did Ronald Reagan ... and that won't be buffaloed by the Eastern Establishment who think us folks in Flyover Country just cannot decide what's best for us.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 8:53AM

Tim is right.
You can argue and fight during the primaries but once there is a nominee it is either the Dem or Rep. Staying home or voting third party, which you brag about in not voting for Ford over Carter and Dole over Clinton, helps elect the Carters and Clintons that you constantly complain about.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:44PM

HE WAS THE NOMINEE.

Who the Hell are you gonna Support, other than THE NOMINEE?

He Won the Nomination.

He was NOT my 1st Choice.

I would've Voted for YOU, if you had been the Nominee.

I would've Voted for Romney's Dog, up on the roof of the Car, if he was the Nominee.

You can choose your Friends, but you can't choose your Family. And, if someone has already Won The Nomination?

You can't choose then, either.

Like I said: When you say you're going to a Mensa Meeting? I'm thinking that you're going to a Meeting at the Local Men's Room.

You're just TOO STUPID to know the difference.

HOCKEY SUCKS!

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:52PM

Or, you can exercise you freedom, and NOT vote.

You would think that knuckle-heads like Rove, Law, McConnell, and Boehner would have learned from the 3 million who stayed home on election day.

Instead, they've doubled-down on stupid.

That's probably why you like them.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 4:36PM

That type of freedom got us Jimmy Carter, Bubba, and Obama. Now we complain every day about big government brought about by these. We had a chance to beat them but those exercising their freedom voted third party or stayed home because the Rep candidate was not pure enough.

The Dems did the same in 2000. Ralph Nader got enough votes in Florida to cost Aljazeera Gore the election.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 4:38PM

Don't Vote.

Good Plan.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 4:45PM

Obama agrees it was a good plan.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 9:22PM

Is that the same Obama who wanted to run against Romney all along?

Is that the same Obama who destroyed Romney with a relentless campaign that portrayed Romney as a rich, out-of-touch white guy?

Is that the same Obama who stayed on-message against Romney for 2 years, and made it stick???

'Cuz it sounds to me like the pro-Romney voters are the REAL useful idiots...

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 10:26PM

Yes, the same Obama you helped elect and now complain about.

Sixgun| 2.6.13 @ 1:56AM

TLP... CJW... my fellow patriots, can you please tell me which Republican president elected in the last 120 years has ever shrunk government?

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 7:00PM

The only reason I held my nose and voted for Romney this time around was because of what that moron on the Supreme Court did. I'm with the Doc. Next time around, if the GOP offers up another empty candidate then the GOP can go to hell.

Joellen| 2.5.13 @ 7:42AM

Carl Rove, Chris Christie, John McCain, all examples of why I WONT donate to the RINO party.

Maxwell| 2.5.13 @ 8:24AM

Joellen, you have a second on that, thank you very kindly.

Maxwell| 2.5.13 @ 8:24AM

Joellen, you have a second on that, thank you very kindly.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:46PM

That really was a second.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 9:32AM

Dittos

George S| 2.5.13 @ 9:44AM

Add John Kasich to your list. Ohio just signed on to the Medicare expansion, meaning that ObamaCare dying at the state level will not start with Ohio.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 11:13AM

Kaisch is now a RINO too??? He balanced OH budget with no tax increases. If you want a party that is to the right of John Kasich, youll get no more than 25% of the vote.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:49PM

Gotta agree with Gobbie.

We have to learn to Pick our Battles.

Ohio went for The Muslim.

I have Faith in John Kasich to do what's right for his State.

Obamacare wil collapse under its own weight.

Trust Me.

George S| 2.5.13 @ 2:23PM

What battle do we stock up for if we give away ObamaCare? Refusing to pay Obama's Medicare bills is (was) the most potent weapon the states have (with the SCOTUS blessing) in the fight against the destruction of ObamaCare.

And I suppose Kasich will now be able to continue to balance the state's budget without tax increases once Ohio starts paying for state sponsored health care to one an all? Or will he have to relent to the "political realities" and enact death panels to keep taxes from rising.

Gotta balance that budget. That's what conservatives do after all.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 10:18AM

Add Susana Martinez, Gov of New Mexico, who just signed onto the Medicare fiasco of KingOcare.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 2:04PM

Medicaid

loulou| 2.5.13 @ 11:39AM

Ditto.
And furthermore not only will I not donate to the RINO party I will not VOTE for a RINO.

PCC| 2.5.13 @ 7:42AM

I like the long articles. This is another good one.

Quartermaster| 2.5.13 @ 7:53AM

You really, really, really need to quit invoking Lincoln in pieces such as this. Lincoln refounded the country and gave us the foundation of the mess we now have in the district of corruption. Lincoln was a big government type from start to finish. A Rovian GOP is a Lincolnian GOP. Pubbies need to learn what the man really was and get dishonest Abe utterly out of their systems.

chuck| 2.5.13 @ 8:21AM

Quite right, QM. Lincoln made the federal government the driving governmental forces, replacing the constitutional position of more governance from the state and local authorities.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 9:33AM

Invoking Lincoln was what gave the article historical profundity. Lincoln restored the country to the vision of the founders vis-a-vis the slavocrats. Why don't you anti-Lincoln types join the Democrats?

loulou| 2.5.13 @ 11:41AM

Correct. Lincoln had no respect for the Constitution.

Lincoln is part of the public school propaganda.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 12:42PM

On the contrary, Lincoln had enormous respect for the Constitution, unlike fanatical abolitionists and Southern fire-eaters.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 7:55AM

I don't like Rove very much. Tea Party types however have a very nasty habit of self righteousness and a complete lack of introspection. Let's understand the reality. Rove wouldn't be doing what's he's doing if the Tea Party hadn't nominated incompetent buffoonish candidates who handed easy GOP wins to the democrats. In the last two cycles, the Tea Party has cost the GOP no less than 3 senate seats (IN, CO, NV) with social conservatives costing the GOP MO (Akin wasnt a TP candidate). It is also likely bitter primaries hurt the GOP in WI.

The TP in fact is the result of conservative weakness and proof the movement is dying. Movements become more fanatical when they are losing. When they are close to their end. The TP is a desperate attempt to hold on to constitutional republicanism at a time when the majority of the county appears to have tired of the founder's principals. The majority maybe wrong, but they're in the majority.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 8:01AM

After reading the whole piece, I can see Jeffrey is still stuck in 1980. Btw I predict in 2016 both Ron Johnson and Pat Toomey will likely lose their reelection bids.

Larry E| 2.5.13 @ 8:14AM

Mathematics is not your strong suit I take it ...

How many seats were gained during the last two election cycles precisely because of the Tea Party?

Of the three seats you've offered as proof of Tea Party bumbling, an objective person must ask might they have been won had the GOP offered support rather than ridicule when the media descended on those candidates?

How many seats were cost by Rovian Republicans? Additionally and more to the point, how many seats were cost by the overarching effect of a Romney candidacy?

His scorched earth policy during the primaries drove conservatives away literally by the millions. Not only did he fail miserably to enjoy coattails going into the general, it appears he instead, drained away support by, in effect, suppressing the vote.

And finally, does the irony of your suggestion that the Tea Party is possessed by some sort of "self righteousness" escape you entirely?

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 8:23AM

Which seats were won that would have been lost without the TP? Would Duhurst have lost in TX? I'd prefer Cruz, but Duhurst would have won.

The GOP did support Buck in CO, Murdock in IN and Sharron Angle in NV ( all three made idiotic statements regarding homosexuality, race or anortion). The fact Murdock lost by 5 in a state Romney won by 10 doesn't help your case.

Sixgun| 2.6.13 @ 3:07AM

Excellent retort... I enjoyed it more than the article above...

benny havens| 2.5.13 @ 8:15AM

self righteousness”, “fanatical”

Smaller government, lower taxes and more Liberty. Fanatical?

This is suppose to be a Republic not a democracy. Majority is not suppose to rule, the law is.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 8:39AM

It is fanatical to say as Buck did that homosexuality is a choice. Say it in CO and you lose. It is fanatical to say as Angle did that Hispsnics look Asian in NV. Say it and lose. Murdock and Akin are fanatical on abortion ( Akin wasnt TP), say what they said and lose.

Job| 2.5.13 @ 1:14PM

Agree with this:"The majority maybe wrong, but they're in the majority."

But...don't think we should pidgeon hole the TP as rigidly as we do.

We gotta use to get R's and conservative folks through this grief cycle. We lost because of numbers. What can we do to improve or coalesce more votes for our cause?

or we can keep the whining, anger, denial, and bargaining portions of the grief cycle going see link:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....f_giraffe/

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 1:17PM

Not true.

The following Tea Party-backed candidates are in the US Senate:

Mike Lee
Jerry Moran
Rand Paul
Tim Scott
Ted Cruz
Deb Fisher
Ron Johnson
Pat Toomey

Jim DeMint resigned recently because he can't stand working with the RINOs.

Meanwhile, who has Rove helped win a Senate seat???

...crickets...

Purp| 2.5.13 @ 7:59AM

Thanks for the history lesson, but Reagan=Lincoln is an insult to Lincoln.

Face it, your Republican party is surrendering their principles to whore for votes. It won't work, America is smarter than that, but let 'em try.
Conservatism is teetering on the abyss of abolition.
You might as well bend over when the President says "bend"...
Have a nice day...

Joellen| 2.5.13 @ 8:17AM

AAH once again Perp advocates a sexual violation, and by his own leftist leader.

Perp, who advocates that conservatives "lay back and enjoy the rape".

Purp| 2.5.13 @ 12:41PM

Once again you ignore the facts - your own Republican Congressman said " "lay back and enjoy the rape".
Since you don't pay attention to what your OWN people say explains why you, as a woman, are still Republican.
You are a woman, aren't you Honey?

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:53PM

Yes, Dorothy...Joellen is a woman.

Don't be jealous or bitter...

Joellen| 2.5.13 @ 4:29PM

Thank you Doctor Right - I try not to emasculate Perp, he seems to do it to himself so well.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 8:17AM

While I agree that conservatism is teetering on the edge of extinction, that doesn't mean liberalism works or will work. Americans will have to endure a few generations of failure and stagnation st their own choosing.

As Sen Wayne Morse once said after a 98-2 defeat in 1964. " Being in the minority doesn't prove that you're wrong." Conservatism is in the minority, mostly due to immigration and NEA indoctrination and conservatives losing the culture. But conservatism isn't wrong. It's painfully right.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 8:25AM

Purpiearnie the Village Idiot posted:

1. "Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie was the Lord's way of pressing his thumb on the scale to tilt in the direction of President Obama. It was His punishment of Republicans for their lying and trying to cheat (Voter Suppression) their way to political victory, while espousing faith, freedom and constitutional credentials."

2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.

3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.

4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born. (What does this mean?)

5. purpie, the misogyist, refers to women here as "honey" and "sweetie" and says "enjoy the rape, is that you sweetie."

Purpie represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in conversation

Bob K| 2.5.13 @ 11:07AM

If you knew history you would know that there was never a Conservative movement at all in the USA until after World War II. Prior to that both parties were Progressive in outlook. Historians like John Lukacs have written about this. Far from dying; Conservatism is still undergoing growth pains.

Purp| 2.5.13 @ 12:44PM

Thank you for confirming that the Founders were not Conservatives, since they didn't exist then!

Conservatism is dying of it's own bigotry and hatred.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 1:30PM

Purpiearnie the Village Idiot posted:

2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.

3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.

4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born. (What does this mean?)

5. purpie, the misogyist, refers to women here as "honey" and "sweetie" and says "enjoy the rape, is that you sweetie."

Purpie represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in conversation

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:52PM

You're killing me.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 4:48PM

Tim
I carefully read purpiarnie's well written comments to prepare the appropriate reply.
You probably think I have a program that posts the same replies whenever the names "purp, arnie" appear.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 5:27PM

CJW: Good idea with the program thingy.

benny havens| 2.5.13 @ 8:23AM

Whore for votes? You really shouldn’t talk about your president like that.

Who offered all the goodies, to all of the sub-groups for their votes? It certainly wasn’t the Republicans. You must have been asleep for the past 4 years.

Purp| 2.5.13 @ 12:47PM

Haven't heard Bobby Jindal talk about the "Stupid Party"? He wasn't talking about Democrats.

Have you not heard Marco Rubio talk about immigration?

Chris Christie, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cankersore... the list goes on and on.

They are all whoring for votes.
You can't "whore for votes" if you believe in what you are selling - they don't.
The President does.
It's sad you don't know the difference.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:54PM

The Democrats aren't "the Stupid Party."

They're the "Treason Party." And one day, they'll pay.

The times, they are a changin'...back.

sickofit5| 2.5.13 @ 10:32AM

Don't get it purp, when conservatives surrender their principles they are whores but when they stand by them we are obstructionist. Also, in surrendering their principles and moving toward dem's principles and you identify them as whores, what does that make the dem's that are already there.

Purp| 2.5.13 @ 12:50PM

Surrendering is not compromise... it is complete capitulation. Which is what they are doing.
Obstructionist is "your way or the highway" .. that is the difference.
See, you don't even mention compromise, which is meeting in the middle - you get something, I get something ... Your Boys don't know how to do it anymore, so they either say NO to everything or YES to everything.
They are the Stupid Party as Jindal said.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 1:31PM

Purpiearnie the Village Idiot posted:

2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.

3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.

4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born. (What does this mean?)

5. purpie, the misogyist, refers to women here as "honey" and "sweetie" and says "enjoy the rape, is that you sweetie."

Purpie represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in conversation

Von Mises Jr| 2.5.13 @ 11:17AM

This is a post today from a friend at American Thinker:

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

Trolls infest American Thinker in search of attention the exact same way cockroaches infest kitchens in pursuit of food.

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

I think you can learn a valuable lesson from my friend? We don't have this problem there and that is why I spend more time there than here!

Purp| 2.5.13 @ 12:51PM

Then go away ... and take your old, worn out, ill-conceived theories that NEVER have worked with you.
Read any good books lately? Or your just snarking your way through life?

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 1:37PM

Purpiearnie the Village Idiot posted:

2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.

3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.

4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born. (What does this mean?)

5. purpie, the misogyist, refers to women here as "honey" and "sweetie" and says "enjoy the rape, is that you sweetie."

Purpie represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in conversation

Von Mises Jr| 2.5.13 @ 1:49PM

Hey Perp, this deserves and answers. I am reading "The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche." Do you want to discuss it, Caliban?

What are you reading, “Rules for Radicals” for the sixth time since the first five were confusing?

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:56PM

He's reading The Advocate, hoping to find a Roomate who can set up a Gay Whorehouse in his Apartment, like Barney Frank.

I thought you knew that.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 2:06PM

Violet hasn't gotten past Rule #1 even though he has attempted to decipher it several thousand times.

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 2:19PM

He is waiting for the pop-up version.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 2:16PM

Von
You are assuming he can read, and does read.

Rhoetus| 2.5.13 @ 9:14PM

Rules for Conservatives @
http://www.saveamericanow.us.com

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:55PM

Which "old, worn out, ill-conceived theories" are you speaking of?

Socialism?

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 8:28AM

Can we be honest here? Lord is proposing a throwback to the 50's, and is stuck in his job with Reagan (who wasn't really a fiscal conservative).

Rove's objective is to win elections and is not ideology. Winning elections is not just about what you believe, but balancing belief with hard-nosed demographics and research. Bush could not have won without Hispanics, and so ideology was shunted aside for votes which barely put Bush across the finish line. Rove wanted to win and Lord, and most of you yokels, want to go back to the 50's. Well, you can't go back to the womb as you have evolved, and you can't go back to the 50's.

And let's be clear, for most of you, the issue is NOT fiscal conservatism as the great majority of you are not really fiscal conservatives. You want the government to enact your social beliefs (which costs money), you want to grow the largest military in history (which costs money), and you don't really want to cut Social Security and Medicare with rationing (and kill grandma). Let's face it, the Republican party has turned into a religious organization for social conservatives, and not much more. That's why winning is now virtually limited to red states.

The country is evolving (that's right, you guys don't believe in evolution). Over the longer term, we have moved from being agrarian to being urban which involved anthropological change in societal operating principles. You can't go back to the farm. Rove understands that. You don't.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 8:36AM

You're middle paragraphs are wrong and full of cliches. Conservatives would be happy to have a govt that spends 18% if GDP, not 24%. Few advocate abolishing social security or Medicare and fewer still support an even large military. Your points show how little you understand conservatism. You're understanding is shaped by Hollywood cliches.

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 9:28AM

You make my point -- so called "conservatives" cannot add. You can't get down to 18% GDP spending without significantly cutting back Social Security and Medicare and without huge cuts in the military. I suggest you take a basic course in mathematics and actually study the federal budget instead of using "cliches". Your understanding seems to be shaped by faith, and not truth.

If you think I'm angry at all of the government spending -- I am. I expect spendthrifts with Democrats. However, with the fiscal idiots in the "conservative" movement, there really isn't much difference in what the government actually spends. The difference between the Ryan budget and Obama budget AFTER scoring, is rather minor. With us borrowing 40% of every federal dollar, we need more. Much more. And you guys really don't understand where that needs to come from.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 10:22AM

Fool: We spent 18% of GDP in 1999-2000.

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 10:58AM

Fool: You can't go back. In 1999-2000 you had higher tax rates. So you want a tax increase? In 1999-2000 we didn't have baby boomers retire in increasing numbers. You to learn about structural increases in our budget. In addition, we added a huge amount of debt in both the Bush and Obama years. That creates a very large amount of the federal budget that goes to pay interest on that debt. You can't wish that away.

You're proving my point that you guys just don't understand the federal budget and the problems we face. That's why you social conservatives are as much of the problem here as the Democrats -- perhaps more because you don't believe in truth and analysis.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 11:09AM

Youre a buffoon:
Taxation is not the issue here, spending is. I said spending at 18% of GDP, not taxes at 22% of GDP. Your reading and understand comprehension are quite poor. You could have ZERO taxation and still limit spending to 18% of GDP.

Despite the higher debt, the spending/gdp ratio is also a function of GDP, not just spending. Grow GDP and spending as a % of GDP automatically falls, just hold spending to a slower growth rate(this was actually done from 1993-2000). Thus freeing up more capital for the private sector. It is no coincidence that federal spending fell by 20% in real terms from 1993-2000 and GDP growth averaged 4 to 4.5% in those final three years. There is no justification for govt to be larger than it was proportionally back in 1999-2000.

BTW Im not a social conservative genius. Nothing I Have written suggests I am. Maybe you should quit when youre just a wee bit behind and not embarrass yourself further.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 11:10AM

The main point is I have proven your understanding is conservatism is limited to Daily Show sound bites.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:58PM

The Daley Show?

Don't you mean: The View?

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 10:26AM

There is no reason why Fed Govt should be proportionally larger than it was only 13 yeas ago.

GobBluthe| 2.5.13 @ 8:30AM

It's painful for conservatives to discover some of their ideals have been proven to be mythical.
At the heart of that is the conservative myth that you can place your faith in the wisdom of the voter. You clearly cannot. Not in modern day America. Thus flies in the face of Reagan optimistic conservatism. I predict American conservatives will become less like Reagan and more like UK conservatives. More jaded, suspicious, less trusting of the electorate. A dark not a happy conservatism.

Frank Drackman| 2.5.13 @ 8:48AM

As the resident of a city(OK, suburbs of a city)that was actually burned down by the US Army, forgive me if I'm not a Lincoln fan.
The Emasculation Proclamation didn't free any Slaves, Habeus Corpus was suspended(whatever that means) and he was probably a Homo to boot.
In fact, if the Repubiclowns had their way, I probably wouldn't get to vote, because my Great Great Great Grandpappy, Nathan Bedford Forrest Rosenbaum Drackman fought for the Good Guys.

That bein said, can Karl Rove's Head get any bigger? I thought I saw him floating over the BCS Championship game...

Frank

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.5.13 @ 7:06PM

Atlanta? Don't forget, Confederates practiced area denial, burning and killing anything that the Union troops might be able to use.

N8tivTxn| 2.5.13 @ 9:08AM

Nice article Jeff.

We'll see how many of those six "anti-establishment candidates that succeeded" will shake out as truly anti-establishment, after the new wears off. Honestly, I am not 100% sold on Cruz, no matter how he dazzles us with his lawyerly abilities. A funny side effect has been Cornyn's sudden awakening. Ted is on probation. And that brings up my pet peeve, the percentage of lawyers in our Congress. T.I.C. - can't we just have a percentage quota?

Rove plays well to the Recliner Republicans who spend their days dozing to Fox's silken-haired, doe-eyed, leg-crossers, arousing from their slumber intermittently catching just enough info to truly believe they are up to date on a noble fight for principles of justice and the U.S. constitution.

Frankly I fail to understand how FNC can continue to have Rove on, and keep a straight face... fair & balanced, LOL? Why do we sit by while Rove redefines conservatism into a kinder-gentler form of statism?

It was clear he was declaring war on us when he was doing his post-election analysis, blatantly deflecting blame for a string of miserable losses on WE the People, rather than the GOP establishment elites, who choose and fund these candidates.

I haven't tithed to the GOP in a decade, but, shouldn't we ask ourselves candidly, can we really expect to influence the GOP while withholding our cash? Money talks! We're between a rock and a hard place.

loulou| 2.5.13 @ 11:45AM

Rove had a brief hiatus from Fox after his election night meltdown but then he came back. I turn Fox off when Rove is on. The only thing I like on Fox is Greg Gutfeld.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 1:59PM

I don't watch FOX.

Neither should anyone else.

Trialdog| 2.5.13 @ 9:21AM

If we measure success by results, then Mr. Rove is a failure.
I'm tired of hearing about "the architect."
I'm tired of his opinions.
Now he's going to do the attack work for the democrats. That will free democrats to talk about issues and save campaign cash. Rove should just funnel his cash to the DNC, after taking his cut. They're better at attacking than he is anyway.
Goodbye Iowa. Welcome Senator Braley (if the dems are smart).
Let me ask this. If Rove is so smart, then how is it the party has no "message discipline?" Hell, the democratic party has had message discipline for decades and the "architect" can't even copy that tactic a little. Nope, instead he attacks fellow republicans.
He's like a kid who doesn't get his way and destroys the game.
Go away Karl. Just go away.

rjh| 2.5.13 @ 10:08AM

Thank you , Mr. Lord for an excellent and very enlightening historical article. I believe that for the Republican party to survive it must rid itself of the Roves, Bushes (all of them, past and future), McCains, Christies, and all others of their ilk. What Rove is attempting to do has convinced me that, with regard to party "leadership", there is very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

KennesawJack| 2.5.13 @ 10:30AM

Jeffrey, deeply embedded in our Constitution is the notion of "subsidiarity". This is a very simple concept of governance and one which can be explained to the ill-informed in terms even they could understand. Who wouldn't understand that a LOCAL school board makes better decisions for the children in their city, town, or county than a bureaucrat in D. C.? Who wouldn't understand that a local government is better able to promulgate public safety laws than a nameless bureaucrat in D. C.? We need to preach this, and only this, to win the argument against big government. Instead, we allow the left to catch us up in the net of Social Security and Medicare reform. Rove does the Conservative movement and the Country a disservice with this devisive approach. We CAN win the battle for limited government by picking fights against nameless bureauacracies that impact our children and our communties. We CAN"T win the battle by picking fights against so-called entititlements. Destroy the bureacracy and the reform will follow.

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 11:10AM

Here's the problem... we spend only a couple of percent of the federal budget on buracracies for children and communities. Entitlements account for more than half of the federal budget, defense is another 20% and interest on the debt is about 12% or so. Take away administrative costs for building maintenance, congressional salaries and staffs, the FBI and CIA and State Department, and you have virtually nothing left.

Instead of listening to Fox News for your analysis, you should actually go through the budget numbers for yourself. You cannot even get close to solving our fiscal problems with your social conservative ideological desires. In fact, social conservatism actually makes the federal government larger and more expensive because you want to establish federal laws on things like abortion and gay marriage -- and enforcement of those laws means adding federal staff and budgets.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 11:43AM

Fiscal: What a crock. Conservatives don't want "to establish federal laws on things like abortion and gay marriage" ... we want exactly the opposite; i.e., NO federal laws on things like abortion and gay marriage. These issues belog with the states.

It is the communist/marxist/liberal/progressive/moderate/democrats, like yourself, that want federal laws allowing abortion and gay marriage.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 11:44AM

belong not belog ... can't find belog in the dictionary ... but maybe it should be

Al Adab| 2.5.13 @ 12:07PM

Dat we belog here on dis site make it fer shur a word.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 2:01PM

You need to stop talking to the Horses, and start talking to People, if you wanna get your spelling right.

I'm just sayin.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 2:08PM

The horses think and act better than any of The Village Idiots at TAS. But, you are correct, my horses speak Arabian and I don't.

Al Adab| 2.5.13 @ 12:15PM

Correct Pete:
Activist Conservatism is an oxymoron. Conservatives seek smaller government, not more active roles. That goes to the heart of what The Left fears, (I don't know if Fiscal is that or libertarian) for they judge Conservatives by their own aggressive agenda and think Conservatives would act the same. What needs to go from the budget are the thousands of agencies, extra constitutional in their nature including the Czars, which exist only to pander to special interest groups in exchange for votes. Conservatives treat voters as the individuals they are not as unthinking members of specific racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups. While the latter wins elections, it also betrays the founding theory of American government.

Purp| 2.5.13 @ 12:55PM

So you believe people should be treated differently, depending on where they live in this country?

Isn't that called prejudice and bigotry?

And, it is people that believe in equality for all that support gay marriage and abortion.

George S| 2.5.13 @ 2:01PM

People are "treated differently" by how much money they earn... that's just as prejudiced and bigoted as anything else. It does not matter if you are gay, female, black or Muslim and you work on Wall Street or elsewhere that makes you over 400 g's a year. All of a sudden you are the root of all evil in this world and not worthy of constitutional protection just by the amount you earn.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 2:03PM

He's a Pole Muncher.

Ignore Him.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 3:58PM

I believe in equality of opportunity, NOT equality of outcomes.

Your way is the way to depression, famine, and death. That's proven by history.

Everyone in this country has THE SAME basic opportunities in life. If you screwed yours up it's not our fault. Grow up.

Sixgun| 2.6.13 @ 5:08AM

so do you supporters of equality for all also support beastiality, polygamy, pedophilia? Where do you draw the line of moral behavior Purp?

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 11:45AM

Fiscal
We have not had gay marriage for hundreds of years and do not have any federal staff and budget dealing with gay marriage.

As for abortion, that was regulated by the states before Roe with no federal involvment. We will have more government involvement once gay marriage is legalized because the government will have to specify who and how many can marry.

The budget issues could easily be remedied by getting rid of useless departments such as Energy and Education, both created by Jimmy Carter. That is per se evidence that such departments are useless.
Next the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the White House staffs for First Ladies (over 100), the bloated staffs for the Congress, and numerous others. A simplificatio of the tax code to a flat rate with a national sales tax would eliminate most of IRS, the most intrusive government agency in your personal affairs.

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 1:10PM

You would like to have federal law restricting gay marriage and in your administration, you would want to enforce that. Right? It costs money to do that.

I agree there are lots of federal functions to cut. We are in agreement there. However, the point is that they are an extremely small part of our federal budget -- less than 2% I believe -- and that is sort of like relieving yourself in the ocean to raise the tide....

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 1:45PM

No, you are wrong. You have it backwords.
Each state has and enforces its own marriage laws.Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and there was no federal bureaucracy created as you seem to believe.

Tell us what federal funcitons you want to cut.

Al Adab| 2.5.13 @ 3:13PM

W:
List would include, but not be limited to: Dept of Ed.; Dept of energy; EPA; OHSA; funding of any and all NGOs; elimination of earmark or pork projects in congressional districts; as well as any number (literally hundreds) of advocacy agencies. Does not the journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step?

The House should adopt a balanced budget, cutting whatever it takes to do it, and send the result to the Senate for their (in)action. Then we would all see where the problem lies.

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 11:51AM

You know Fiscal, I have read your post for sometime now. You're the consumate critic, yet I never hear you explain what you think needs to be done to correct our situation.

Care to remedy that?

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 12:09PM

Social Security and Medicare need to be means tested and age needs to be indexed to average lifespan. We need to ration Medicare. Half of all Medicare expense is in the last year of life. If people want to be kept alive longer than a 30 day period, they should get private insurance for the purpose and not expect all of us to pay for it. Defense projects the military doesn't even want need to be cut even if they provide local jobs. It is estimated that 20% of the defense budget is on projects they don't want. Since no one really wants to pass a balanced budget amendment (which I would like), we need to pay for what we spend on the theory that if people actually paid for full federal spending, they'd get upset at how much they are taxed.

I also support a flat tax with a 20K threshold and no deductions for anyone except perhaps for their primary residence. If we could get rid of loopholes, we'd also cut down on the effectiveness of lobbying for corporate welfare. That we we could get rid of special capital gains rates and close the loophole for carried interest. More radical, I would abolish the business income tax and replace it with a consumption tax with some sort of short term pricing restraints. This would make locating companies in the U.S. favorable and be able to tax imports more effectively. The short term pricing restraints during the initial period would try and limit corporate gouging. Lastly, I would like to see term limits.

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 12:45PM

Let the old poor fend for themselves or die.
Consumption (or value added tax) to be manipulated at a later date by Liberals.
Cut no departments or goverment offices.
Import/Export wars.

Well about the only thing I can agree on is.
1.Smart defense spending reductions, not a meat axe.
2. Flat tax.
3. Possible term limits.

I also get the impression that you think yourself a strict fiscal libertarian/conservative who views everyone else who disagrees with him non-conservative. It's all black and white with no gray areas.

Does that sum it up?

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 1:07PM

There is a huge difference between keeping someone alive through artificial means and letting them fend for themselves. In fact, I would probably support increasing Medicare for preventative care. We should not have to pay for everything someone wants.

A consumption tax would certainly not be manipulated as much as the current income tax with deductions, loopholes, cap gains, etc. Both liberals and current Republicans would share equally in any manipulation -- and you know that.
I didn't speak to cutting federal departments, but I'm certainly for cutting departments like Education and Commerce. But we don't spend a whole lot of money there. We already have import/export wars and we are losing to currency manipulation, price supports, and foreign tariffs. I certainly want free trade without tariffs. But the fact is that many of our U.S. corporations take their profits overseas because of the corporate income tax. That means fewer jobs over here and that is a huge problem.

Yes, I'm a libertarian/fiscal conservative. The word "Conservative" has been corrupted over the years and there is really no ideological tie between being fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Conservative can have a couple of meanings -- one to limit change and the other to limit what is done.

And I can't see how a social conservative who supports unlimited Medicare for the aged and wanting federal laws on marriage and abortion to really be conservative in its true form.

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 2:30PM

Now we are getting somewhere.

Except for the slippery definitions of "Keeping someone alive through artificial means", I highly doubt that many fall under that spending.

You mentioned both a flat tax and a consumption tax. Why the double tax? Most libertarians I have heard preach one of the other. You know as well as I that a VAT or consumption tax would be manipulated very quickly.

Never said I was a social conservative but even if I am, I don't recall anyone mentioning unlimited Medicare. The foundation of Marriage provides a stable population and would reduce the need for Daddy goverment.

As for abortion, we will have to agree to disagree. My view is the founders would be against it but would have believed it should be up to the states to set their own guidlines. I happen to agree with them.

Guess my biggest beef with some conservatives like you is, if another conservative doesn't toe the line exactly with your beliefs, you tar them as non conservative. Your focus is narrow and alienates potential allies in our struggle against the left.

George S| 2.5.13 @ 1:55PM

We all know what "needs" to be done. Problem is your must get elected -- and stay elected -- before you can initiate any of your proposals. Not that I am disagreeing, but they cannot be done without the people climbing on board. And since a lot of people will not want those measures, you then have to go Obama on everybody and skirt the constitution to do so (say, executive orders).

The problem is not the problem. The problem does not want to be solved when people paid into Medicare all their lives so others can have it and now they cannot. You'll never get their vote; if their votes were irrelevant the problem would have gone away long ago.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 12:03PM

KJack
You make excellent points, too complicated for fiscal.

If you take the notion of subsidiary to its logical conclusion, the best unit to teach, civilize, and make decisions for children is the family. Of course, the lefties have done their best to destroy the family by substituting the government for the father and provider. Their intentions may have been noble to help poor unmarried women raise children, but the effect is clear to anyone who wants to see.

Anyone who wants to see should spend a day at family court and criminal court. You will see unmarried mothers on welfare with children in government paid day care. There is no father around to teach, help, and act as a father.

In crim court you will see the product of these "families" sentenced to such probation programs as parenting classes, anger management, alcohol and drug counseling, and other similar programs. Another goverrnment trough for the psychobabble industry. These are all things a mother and father should have taught their children.

We should be encouraging stable families instead of promoting what we now have.

Drunken Sailor| 2.5.13 @ 12:54PM

But stable families would mean less goverment meddling, less power and less spending.

You social conservatives never look at the big picture do you ;)

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 1:26PM

CJW -- you obviously didn't grow up in an extremely poor neighborhood if your only reference is criminal court where you see a rather small slice of the problem. If you really want to support families, you should follow the Kemp approach and bring jobs to impoverished neighborhoods. Nothing builds stability like a good, secure job. Most of the reason you have single moms is that the fathers have difficulty finding jobs and thus have the time for other activities. I know that for a fact since I grew up in one of those neighborhoods.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 2:01PM

You are again wrong fiscal. If you would read what I wrote, I am suggesting where anyone can witness the effects of the problem today.. You can witness in other places.

The Kemp approach was to eliminate taxes and regulations in the cities to create zones of empowerment to induce employers to open establish there. Will you go start a business in the inner cities if the gov cuts your taxes and regulations? So you want the gov to pick and choose winners and further regulate the economy.

It would be better if taxes and regs were reduced nationwide so that people could establish a business wherever they choose. That is called freedom.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 2:05PM

THEY DON'T WANT JOBS.

Does that answer your question?

KennesawJack| 2.5.13 @ 1:32PM

Thanks, CJ. Subsidiarity in it's purest form is the finest example of democracy and individual freedom there is. in a civilized society. It's obviously beyond fiscal's ability to understand that. The point I was making was simply that fighting to return governance, to the extent practicable, to the PEOPLE, Conservative's would find themselves on the correct (winning) side with the majority of Americans.

CJW| 2.5.13 @ 4:54PM

KJack
Your point was well made for anyone with an open mind. It is the foundation principle for free people. Maybe it is not complicated enough for some.
Hope all is well with you. We missed your input at the contest.

SUBVET| 2.5.13 @ 10:34AM

Rove..........what's with the chalk board ?

I can still hear.....don't tell my wife though.

Guimo| 2.5.13 @ 10:35AM

Jack in Wi, I do not think that presidents sign constitutional amendments like the 13th. They are self-executing after 3/4 of the states ratify them.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 2:08PM

He's an Idiot.

Ignore him.

Shery| 2.5.13 @ 11:44AM

Great article, Mr. Lord! As usual, very well researched and with your excellent delivery! I will make sure all my friends read this. You show quite accurately why America is losing its soul. We know little to nothing of our history. Thank heavens for God-fearing people among us that still hold strong on the truths set forth in our founding documents, that all men are created equal and our rights come from our Creator. It is the very strong hold on our society the left is trying so hard to overcome. Slavery still is rampant today, with all new parameters being laid...slavery to sex, slavery to hedonism, materialism and abortion. Not to mention the sex slave industry, itself. We still have a great need to hold to those very values that birthed the republican party in 1850.

Anthony| 2.5.13 @ 12:02PM

I think back on the days when the media whores were standing daily outside Rove's garage during the Plamegate debacle. The man has learned nothing about his enemies, other than how to appease them.
In retrospect it's too bad it wasn't Rove who was indicted instead of poor innocent Scooter Libby.
Who knows, Bush might have actually pardoned Rove, unlike his half assed comutation measure for poor Libby.
Who needs Democrats when you have Republicans like Rove and Company?

Job| 2.5.13 @ 12:35PM

That their goal is to simply manage Big Government better than the other guy — while not really opposing Big Government at all.

Very good analogy and editorial. A conservative party defined as the party of small government gives a laser focus to the issue of true conservatism the way none of the other divisive issues can. It is a good core value we should use as a creed:

we believe small government is good government and that the constitution is the law of the land. We believe that salvation comes from liberty and good government as defined above and in that order and no other. We believe that persons are accountable for their actions regardless of their circumstance and the law of the land is the greatest good for the greatest number of us but should be tempered with good judgment and mercy when possible. We believe that the press should stay out of the president making business and that if they can't they should be charged triple taxes for free advertising up to the amount of revenue they would have received for the advertisement and then thrown in the bottomless pit where Obama and Holder are gonna soon reside.

Fiscal| 2.5.13 @ 1:22PM

So you would cut Social Security and Medicare and leave that to the individual, right? That's the biggest part of the budget. And you would certainly get rid of Fox News as they are the ones that really started the political affiliation? The words sound nice by they have no meaning. Conservatives want small government in the things they don't believe in and large government in the things they do. Democrats are the same.

Job| 2.5.13 @ 1:51PM

"So you would cut Social Security and Medicare and leave that to the individual, right?"

hmm where'd you read that in my comment? Quit foamin at the mouth or we're gonna have to put you down.

anyway Things we agree on:

"Fox" is no misnomer.

I agree: "Conservatives want small government in the things they don't believe in and large government in the things they do. Democrats are the same."

Now what I don't agree with you on by your statements above is that 2% of the budget is beaurocracies because it is from these beaurocrats that we get retired beauraocrats which is the entitlements and I'm no genius about this probably an idiot book on the subject would be helpful.

Your point is well taken that Medicaid social security, and military need to be on the table but I think it would be better to let half the baby boomers die of natural causes before we scare the other half into death and voting democrat with these statements because even though I suck at math I can add and 66 million is more than 61 million.

Don't read too much into my statement it was off the cuff.

JD| 2.5.13 @ 3:04PM

The definition of conservative is small government. If someone wants big government in any area, he is not conservative in that area.

Leftists misuse words to mislead people.

Doctor Right| 2.5.13 @ 12:57PM

Rove is working with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on this "initiative"...

Still want to stick with the GOP, Conservatives? And reform them "from within"??

Ain't gonna' happen.

Leave the GOP. Now.

TLP| 2.5.13 @ 2:13PM

Nice Entries, Friday.

Don't be a Stranger.

We can fight, tooth and nail, Monday thru Thursday. But on Friday, we come together and have some Fun.

You actually got a lot of good comments on your Entries, Killing Me.

Go back, and check'em out.

You still Suck.

Just, not at The Contest.

davidh| 2.5.13 @ 4:39PM

Cocaine’s for horses not for men
They say it will kill you, but they don’t say when

The illusion is the choice. Rove’s reaction election night was amazing. His irrelevance is illuminating and sad.

The question I have is who is really pulling the strings on our freedom and way of life. As long as we are discussing the democrat v the republican we are surely lost.
We discuss the evil that America has embraced daily here. We have become an abortion loving, antichristian nation.

Judgment is surly at the door. We reap what we sow.

The first one now will later be last.

Kssturgis62| 2.5.13 @ 1:28PM

Yes I know Rubio was Elected on a Tea Party Wave. His name can now be removed as a Conservative, one of the Tea Party. Rubio has done more to be Republican than tea party. Look at Rubio's vote, and Quite Thinking of him as a Conservative. HE IS NOT. From his Changing Stance on Illegal Immigration, to voting LOCK Step with John McCain, and Standing with Liberals on issues that are against the fiber of the USA, shows that he is not Beholden to this country. More and More are Waking up to who and what Rubio is, and YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND he is a BUSH BOY. He is so ingrained into the Bush Monarchy, and what they stand for. If Jeb Bush Runs in 2016, Marco will be all smiles. He is Jeb's number 1 guy from the Senate when Jeb was Governor. From Marco bashing the tea party to bashing Michelle Bachmann on the Muslim Brotherhood, to taking Illegal Campaign Contributions, to admitting using the Credit Card, to voting every way John McCain and Lyndsey Graham tell him to. Shows you who side he is on.

Thank you f or this Article. It is appreciated, and it puts into perspective who and what the GOP is. Reince Preibus should NEVER have been Re Elected, and I am working hard in Michigan on making changes. But they are Ingrained like ticks. The more we hit the brick Wall, the more I want a Third Party.

Kssturgis62| 2.5.13 @ 1:28PM

RJ| 2.5.13 @ 3:24PM

Great article, Jeff. Thank-you.

Yes, big government versus personal freedom is the dominating issue of our time. We have learned that the Rove approach of providing an alternative government program only serves as a foundation for the growth of government. It is becoming more and more clear that Karl Rove and others don't oppose big government, they simply want to be the masters of it and they didn't accomplish much for all the money they spent in 2012.

Controse| 2.5.13 @ 4:34PM

Bravo, bravo, bravo for writing such an educational and inspiring response to Mr. Roves recent announcement.

Anybody got any ideas on how we weed out the turncoat Conscience Conservatives before all that money and soul is put into electing them? Gov. Nikki Haley in South Carolina endorsing Romney at the very beginning of the primary campaign in her state. Why couldn't she keep her mouth shut? And as of today Gov. Kasich of Ohio committing his own version of the cornhusker kickback. Did he REALLY have to praise Valerie Jarrett while he was announcing his betrayal of those that put him in office?

Let us hope there is no fury like a Tea Party electorate scorned.

Petronius| 2.5.13 @ 4:40PM

The Democrats and the GOP do share one common belief and work in concert to thwart the desires of middle Class Conservatives to live by and for Ourselves without hindrance and involvement from THEM! We are despised expressly for this reason, along with wanting to live in community with those of like mind, to prevent predators, perverts, parasites, and idiots from invading our lives and disrupting our pursuit of pleasure simply to gratify their personal spite. Rove and company know that when people like us accumulate enough wealth to attain such a life style, we quit writing them campaign checks or voting without external motivation. The Government of every country harbors institutional contempt for ordinary citizens. And 99% of it is reserved and aimed at those who live to establish a personal empire which is totally antithetical to statist goals of controlling Us. They admit it every day by reviling and cursing "the 1%". They claim to be the 99%. And We are being held down and strangled by THEM! Both parties abhor the possibility of more people having wealth than not. It's the politicians greatest fear; having to do the bidding of the majority of an informed electorate instead of a clique of plutocrats who pay them to ride herd, stifle individual Liberty, and not allow any upward economic and social mobility. This is why Rove doesn't want the Tea Party and the feeling is mutual. We don't want him, or have to need him and his ilk for anything.

Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 5:21PM

Petronius: Excellent comment!

Petronius| 2.5.13 @ 7:27PM

Yes. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you didn't have to consider what the Government would do To YOU if you have the means to do anything they don't like?

Rhoetus| 2.5.13 @ 9:10PM

What does winning actually mean in Rove-speak? As for Mr. Rove using the label "Conservative" as part of his group's name, he should be sued for fraud as well as slander and libel.
Richard M. Nixon won several elections, do you like the results, I sure don't. I don't like either Bush so the sooner the Tea Party grass roots removes these Big Government slugs from the Republican Party the better OUR the country will be.

batman| 2.6.13 @ 12:49AM

Bush I reportedly said all the "dummies" were with Reagan, so we know how the Rove crowd views outsiders. Did such a great job at the Bush WH that we got the Obama nightmare. Pathetic.

RJ| 2.6.13 @ 1:49AM

Right on, Batman - George W's legacy is Obama, who couldn't have been elected without W's damage to the Republican party and his growth of government. W is the GOP version of LBJ.

Cats1cowboy| 2.6.13 @ 4:28AM

The question is, "Do you want to be a Constitutional Republic as designed with the federal government limited by enumerated powers, or, Do you want a bloated bureaucratic nightmare where no amount of money is sufficient to sustain the leviathan appetite of the politicians in power"?

David Shoup| 2.6.13 @ 6:25AM

Karl Rove is clueless. There is a qualitative difference between President Reagan (Ronaldus Magnus) and the Bushes. Reagan understood the times and what America needed to do. The Bushes, especially 41, had no vision and did not understand the need to quit feeding the wealth consuming monster known as the Federal Government. Karl Rove fails to understand if the true Conservatives surrender their principles and move to the "middle", then there is no reason for the Republican Party in the first place. America accumulated $16 TRILLION of debt by following the ideas of the Left and of Republican Establishment pinheads, like Karl Rove.

cali| 2.6.13 @ 9:24AM

Rove has one more job to do for the Bushes: get Jeb elected in 2016; it was no accident having barry for 8 yrs. Rove, together with Donna Brazile assured Obama's win with the understanding that they would help getting Jeb in the White House in 2016; remember Jeb's visit with obama in the White House last year together with his father? No accident as well as it was no accident Rove totally underminding Sarah Palin as well as B Bush's insult against Sarah.

DenverJay| 2.6.13 @ 5:28PM

So to recap, the Republican Establishment nominates Romney, a liberal RHINO, who enacted the prototype of Obamacare, which should have been the major point of disagreement in the presidential election. Then the Republicans lost the presidential election by a landslide, and instead of admitting that they nominated a candidate who was too liberal, the GOP bosses start screaming that it was the Tea Party types who lost them the election, and that the answer is to become LESS conservative!
LOL, the GOP is on the way to becoming the WHIG party of the 21 century. The GOP is dead, long live the Libertarian Party!

Steve851| 2.6.13 @ 8:25PM

Best not to take advice from someone who was the architect of the debacles of 2006 and 2008.

Let's rumble| 2.7.13 @ 8:59PM

Rove exemplifies the problem with the Rino party. Rove is an Azzzzzz. I for one am glad he came out of the closet and tried this bonehead move. Carl is at war with the base.

LindaKaye| 2.8.13 @ 11:55AM

I am in total agreement with this. There is a swelling feeling in the grassroots that all the old bald-headed RINOs must go. I am an "old gal" myself, but I recognize that there are precious few older politicians who are true conservatives. There was Jim DeMint, but who else? Maybe a couple or three others. The RINO day has come and gone. There is a growing desire in the grassroots to get back to the Constitution and to do hand-to-hand combat (figuratively speaking) with the Democrats. None of the old RINOs are willing to do that. They gotta go. Please, RINOs, just retire. Save us the trouble of having to kick you out.

J Baustian| 2.9.13 @ 1:43AM

It is unfortunate that Jeffrey Lord didn't spend a bit more time and effort in reviewing the history of American politics in the 1840s and 1850s. The Whigs were never a real political party, a party with a principled platform; it was merely another name for the "anti-Jacksonians".

So it is not particularly relevant to compare the Whigs of 1850 with the Republicans of 2012.

It also seems to me that Karl Rove and his associates are mainly interested in winning elections, and do not care about the philosophies of the candidates so long as they win. Too many of his critics seem content to nominate ideologically pure candidates who lose and who keep the party in the minority.

Somewhere, we must find a happy medium -- keeping the Arlen Specters and Charlie Crists out of the party or at least out of high public office, while at the same time ensuring that the best candidates can win the primaries and the general elections.

IzeHavitt| 2.9.13 @ 9:59PM

Sorry, Jack. Romans 10:9 is what makes someone a child of God. Oh, yes, He absolutely wants more!!! But that's why Jesus Christ is described as The Way.

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|100 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|118 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|59 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|104 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|61 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?