Karl Rove forms circular firing squad
PoliticalWire.com reports:
Despite a terrible showing on Election Day, Karl Rove believes that American Crossroads and its more secretive issue-advocacy arm, Crossroads GPS — which allows donors to remain anonymous — are here to stay, the Washington Post reports.
“Rove is pondering new missions for Crossroads to address weaknesses laid bare by the GOP’s back-to-back failures to win the White House and the fact that the party fell short when expected to win back the Senate.”
“Where until now it battled only in general elections and against Democrats, Crossroads is considering whether to start picking sides in Republican primaries. The idea would be to boost the candidate it deems most electable and avoid nominating the kind of flawed and extreme ones who cost the party what should otherwise have been easy Senate wins in Florida, Missouri and Indiana.”
* * * *
Does this mean that Karl is going to take on the tea party? I have two words of advice for him: “David Dewhurst.” If anyone was the “most electable” candidate in a race, it was Dewhurst. Rove can’t change the basic dynamic of his party, which is that the energy in today’s GOP lies with the extremists. The Republican party that elected George W. Bush president twice no longer exists. The establishment doesn’t control the Republican party. Rove should take a long look at the video of himself demanding that Fox News reverse its call that Obama won Ohio and contemplate whether his time as a political genius has passed.
Barack says:
Keep up the good work, Karl!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Reminds me of Micheal Sullivan in Texas. See this post.
http://texasconservativepolitics.blogspot.com/
Reply »
Dave says:
Didn’t Crossroads back the ‘more-electable’ Romney in the primary?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 9:12 am
It would be a mistake to think that any of the GOPer wannabes in the primary was more electable. Jonathan Gurwitz’s San Antonio Express-News op-ed accurately describes both the genesis of the Tea Party and the GOP’s larger problem if it wants to win outside the Confederacy.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Huntsman might have been, but that’s a side issue. I’m just pointing at Rove’s attempt to change the subject. To say that they are NOW considering getting involved in the primaries to pick electable candidates is an attempt to reinvent their own history.
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 10:26 am
Anonymous@9:12
I beg to differ with you – Jon Huntsman could have beaten President Obama!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Huntsman couldn’t draw 10% in his own Party, and therefore by definition could not beat Obama.
Anon Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 11:29 am
You have to be kidding me.
Gatorade Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Shameless self-promotion, eh, Gurwitz?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I don’t remember him “demanding” that the network reverse its call. He simply challenged the call as potentially premature, hardly surprising given his experience in 2000. Frankly, I’m amazed at the extent to which the media–and Burka has obviously signed on to this narrative–has attempted to sensationalize this episode as evidence of Rove’s looming irrelevance. A lot of strategists called this one wrong. Rove remains one of the smartest analysts in politics today and will play an important role in guiding the GOP’s comeback. You’ve made a lot…a lot…of bad calls in this election as well, Burka…”Perry will be the GOP nominee” anyone? Has your time as a credible journalist passed?
Reply »
Anon Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Oh, please. Rove was pathetic. Whether or not his role with the far right has been diminished…time will tell. It was a real news story for a number of reasons: Roves misleading politics, his visibility, his refusal to admit he was wrong. Grist for media mill. Rightly so. As a partisan you just dont want it to be news.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 7:52 am
I agree with Anonymous. Burka has certainly missed his share of political predictions over the last few years, and yet we keep reading his blog. Rove isn’t going anywhere.
Reply »
guest says:
I don’t remember him “demanding” that the network reverse its call. He simply challenged the call as potentially premature, hardly surprising given his experience in 2000. Frankly, I’m amazed at the extent to which the media–and Burka has obviously signed on to this narrative–has attempted to sensationalize this episode as evidence of Rove’s looming irrelevance. A lot of strategists called this one wrong. Rove remains one of the smartest analysts in politics today and will play an important role in guiding the GOP’s comeback. You’ve made a lot…a lot…of bad calls in this election as well, Burka…”Perry will be the GOP nominee” anyone? Has your time as a credible journalist passed?
Reply »
Kirk Pitman Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 9:18 am
I actually turned to Fox News when Ohio was announced. I wanted to see how they would try to skew the results. I was sure tickled with Karl. He didn’t rant and rave and I agree that he response was sure over blown but he did make a royal ass of himself. Fox’s data folks were interviewed ON AIR and said that, in spite of Karl, they were 99.9995 % sure that Ohio carried Obama.
Reply »
Kirk Pitman says:
Its seems to me that the GOP did pick out who they wanted in the elections. They were all candidates that fed on the rabid rantings of the extreme right. NO IMMIGRATION, NO WELFARE, NO INFRASTRUCTURE BUILDING, NO NEW REVENUES, NO SOCIAL SECURITY, NO EDUCATION, NO GD HOMOSEXUALS, NO FUNDING FOR BELOW POVERTY WOMEN’S HEALTH, NO Thomas Jefferson to be taught in Texas schools, AND GOD HELP YOU IF YOU TALK TO A DEMOCRAT, NO NO NO….. The only state where that seemed to hold a stand was in Texas. An EXTREMIST conservative, BORN IN CANADA, was elected to represent Texas. (Dollar to a donut he will change his tune to be re-elected) OH, and it’s OK for John Cornyn to fly his jet.
So how does Mr. Rove go about this? This next election cycle will say a lot as to how far Mr. Rove can tell Texans how to vote. I love the TeaParty folks. They truly are the Dems best friends. It is a basic physics principle that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. True in politics.
You know if you read the Bible it talks about how Satan runs havoc over the poor and the weak. All in the name of God. Im just glad I don’t have the TeaParty issued bible that has all of those verses deleted. They are on sale at Dr. Jefferies website. His edition says that Obama is the next Anti-christ.
God sets the boundaries of the Nations and places Kings on their thrones.
Sometimes you just have to ask What would Sam Rayburn do? Or Coke Stevenson? Back then I am sure they would have just popped them in the nose to bring some reason back.
Reply »
Andy Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 10:35 am
Kirk Pitman, you need to re-read your Bible.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Why bother. It should have nothing to do with American politics. And voters are reflecting this more and more.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Especially that part about “render under too…”
Reply »
Kirk Pitman Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
I will leave you with this and will check my source. Prov: 29:7 The righteous considers the cause of the poor, but the Wicked does not understand such knowledge.
Reply »
Bell of the ball says:
I am astounded that the Republicans simply don’t want to accept the obvious message of this election which is that voters other than angry old white men (“You kids get off my lawn!”) aren’t buying what the GOP is selling. From Karen Hughes who thinks the message isn’t the problem, it’s the communication of the message to those who have said Romney wasn’t conservative enough and those who think the problem is with the messengers, ie, “we need more hispanics to deliver our conservative message.” The lesson here for the GOP is that the problem IS the message, not the vehicle, not the messagners, and not those who are receiving the message. Women and minorities simply don’t embrace the message. Time for a new message.
Reply »
Kirk Pitman Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 9:48 am
You are right. Evil Triumphs when Good Men just stand by and watch. Mr. Stadler was one of those good men and he went into the trenches knowing good and well he had an up hill fight. Cruz spent like 47 million? From mostly outside of the state spending.
Says a lot about us as a state when a Canadian, who doesn’t understand Texas culture, can beat an honest to by God Texan, who spoke reason.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 11:16 am
Cruz benefitted because of the ongoing redistricting problems that Texas has having with the U.S. Justice Department, which pushed the primary from March back to May.
Once the primary was pushed to May and a two month runoff campaign, Cruz got the mojo juice he needed and Dewhurst imploded.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Right on.
Reply »
Vernon says:
Closely related to this issue, will be how the GOP reacts to SCOTUS reviewing the VRA in light of the recent election. There are so many variables to ponder with such grave consequences. It promises to be great political theater.
How will the GOP react to their first – and possibly their biggest and most public – test of engaging cultural minorities?
I’d say that if the GOP truly wants to compete for the future, supporting the VRA is their best opportunity for extending the olive branch to Latinos; and in the process, laying the groundwork for the next election cycle or two.
I think to do anything less would ignore the lesson from 2012.
Reply »
centexliberal says:
I cannot understand how Republicans can look at their candidates and say their message is best. L If their platform was logical, reasonable, democratic, equitable, and principled, then they would have leaders who shared those values. When you can’t find anyone better than Perry, Romney, and Cruz to carry your flag, you are on the wrong side.
Reply »
Susan says:
In my opinion, the Tea Party is in firm control of the Texas Republican Party. I have long thought the GOP was playing with fire when it assumed the Tea Party members would drop their radical conservatism and quietly become straight-party Republican supporters.
Most of the Tea Party members I know call themselves conservatives, not Republicans. They have no real loyalty to the GOP; they are issue-driven and their goal is vote out anyone who doesn’t completely support their agenda.
Nationally, the GOP finds itself between the proverbial rock and hard place. Does it continue to veer right into extremism and lose the moderate-right independents, or does it take a step back from Ayn Rand libertarianism and risk a schism? It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Susan, so Perry and Co., embraced the Tea Party to get reelected in 2010.
But what will 2016 bring forward after Obama leaves the WH very hated and unpopular because you know 8 years of Dems in the WH is going to wear thin on Americans.
Reply »
Joe Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 11:35 am
JBB? Did you change your name? Or do we have another clown on the blog?
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Joe, I’ve been on this blog since 2006.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
why would I change my name? Gov Perry will be Gov-for-life and I’ll be JBB
Susan Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
The GOP embraced the Tea Party nationwide, but assumed the Tea Party would automatically support the Republican Party. However, the goal of the Tea Party was not to elect more Republicans–the goal was to elect candidates who supported the Tea Party agenda. If that meant running people against establishment Republican incumbents in the primaries, that’s what the Tea Party did. In some parts of the US, Tea Party-backed Republicans won their primaries, but were too far to the right to pull off general election wins.
Regardless of what the voter attitude may be in 2016, there are some moderate to moderate-right independents who are disturbed by the stridency of the Tea Party message of “no compromise.” When the national electorate is so evenly divided, even a small shift in a demographic group can swing the election.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
It could be twelve years of Democrats if Hillary runs and wins in 2016.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
the tea party will assume control of the republican party just as the liberals now control the democrat party 2016 should be a battle royal.
Reply »
Arne Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Good lord, you should go work for Fox News. An original though or statement please JBB. Just one. Once. Most of us know you are a troll and baiter but once, please, for an old sick moderate say something relevant?
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
I don’t see Perry being governor by 2018, he’s likely retiring in 2014 because he’s damaged goods.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
I don’t think Perry will retire in 2014, unless Abbott runs against him. He can’t give up the lavish lifestyle he enjoys as governor.
paulburka Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
In 2008 I was driving in Harlingen and I heard Rush Limbaugh say, on the radio, that he would never vote for John McCain, that he [Rush] was a conservative first and a Republican second. That is the viewpoint that is killing the Republican party.
Reply »
guest Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
any yet, mccain won the primary, which undercuts the mainstream media impression that Limbaugh is the “leader” of the GOP and that GOP primary voters march in lockstep with Limbaugh’s preferences.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 9:54 am
While Rush may not be the leader per se, he and his ilk certainly have a way of setting the tone, tempo and agenda for the party.
Yet, Rush is still treated like a leader. The real elected leaders take great pains to avoid disagreeing with him unless they absolutely have to.
SZ in SA says:
The country is moving on and the GOP is standing in the dust wondering where everyone is going. Bell of the Ball is correct: Fewer and fewer people want what the GOP is selling – the product needs to change. It’s called progress.
Reply »
Palmer says:
Paul.
The energy in both parties comes from the extremists!
Don’t count Karl our just yet. He is really smart guy — he just has not had much to work with lately.
I saw no melt down on FNC, I saw a guy sticking to his beliefs, his calculus was just wrong.
If the GOP will follow a lower taxes, less spending, less government formula and stay away from the social issues of abortion, gay rights,
et cetera — they have a much better message than the DEMS to attract Independents like me.
It is time for a serious “come to Jesus” with ultra right wingers in the Party. The “tent” is not big enough for those folks and the sane people too.
The GOP can be conservative without being nutty. Otherwise, the country is in some deep, brown, apple sauce.
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
“I did not leave the Republican Party, it left me”, holds true today more than ever before. Personally, I can’t handle the hate and fear being preached by the Tea Party crew.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
vs the hate and class warfare being spewed by liberals. Its about time someone stood up to you racists.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Someone did..>The voters last Tuesday.
Anon Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Idiot. Fool.
Reply »
FLPD says:
The Republican strategy was to convince voters that U.S. elections were being stolen by fraudulent voters. They passed Voter ID laws; put up frightening billboards; reduced the number of early voting days, locations and hours; and trained “poll watchers” to discourage voting. Even McCain’s former campaign official Steve Schmidt said the Republican charges of voter impersonation “fraud” were a scam. To me, the mandate from this election is to fix the damn voting problems. U.S. voters should never have to stand in line 6 or more hours and risk their jobs or anything else to vote in this nation.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I am not even going to address whether or not Rove taking on the Tea Part is stupid. I got hung up, Paul, when I read that you think Dewhurst was the “perfect” candidate.
I am certainly no TP’er, and I voiced my preference for Dew over Cruz loudly here…but our Lt. Gov is certainly not the perfect choice for “mainstream” Repubs and conservative Indie’s.
I want someone who is a leader, not a follower; I want someone with fresh ideas, not a new coat of paint; I want someone who can energize; not put me to sleep.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
I never thought Dewhurst was the “perfect” candidate. I just prefer mainstream candidates over extremist candidates, regardless of party. I don’t care for extremist Democrats or extremist Republicans.
Reply »
centexliberal Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 10:53 am
There are many people like that, John Johnson. but none of them are going to embrace the ignorance and manipulation the GOP is selling. The GOP will get better leaders when they get a better policy. It is that simple.
Reply »
Big Enos says:
The GOP needs to listen to Karen Hughes:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83632.html
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
The same Karen Hughes who backed a LOSER in the 2010 GOP primary for TX Governor in KBH, who lost by 21 points.
Reply »
Tom says:
What is most interesting is that Karl Rove and everyone else in the GOP had access to the same polling data everyone else had, and chose to demonize the Nate Silver’s instead of accept the science behind the numbers.
Seems to be a habit in the GOP. If you don’t like the science, go into denial.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
You would think they had internal pollsters to give them better insight than the cheap pop polls in the media. If they hired high dollar professional pollsters that were as clueless as the Rasmussens of the world, you really have to wonder about their judgement.
Reply »
José Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Very true, and it goes far beyond the matter of polls. It should call into question their ideological beliefs on economics, science, history, religion, society, and so forth.
The problem with the GOP today can be illustrated by Mr. Rush Limbaugh, a poorly educated man who wallows in his ignorance and secludes himself in a studio where he whispers lies to a desirous public for hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no accountability for the man who hides behind a “kill mike” switch that protects him from inconvenient questions.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Karl has a good point – read this and we wonder why Republicans are having a hard time winning elections.
http://tfninsider.org/2012/11/07/anti-straus-activist-blames-minorities-and-maggots-for-obama-victory-and-calls-for-texas-to-secede/
Reply »
anon-p says:
Wasn’t Reagan called an extremist in 1976?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Perhaps he was, but he had been governor of California for eight years and the state hadn’t fallen into the ocean.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
I’d also like to point out that in his 1981 inaugural address, he included the now-famous quote, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem.”
In 1983, on the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, as a sitting president, he penned the article, “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation” condemning abortion. In 1984, he instituted the Mexico City policy. Early in his first administration, he escalated the war on drugs.
There has been an unending stream of commentary since the election that those positions are indefensible by Republicans and an electoral loser.
It is true that a Reagan of today wouldn’t be selected by Republicans of today. But I submit that it is probably because he would be considered too extreme and rightward, not too moderate.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Burka, Reagan also defeated an unpopular two-term incumbent Democratic governor in Pat Brown by a landslide margin in 1966 and barely won re-election in 1970 winning by 7 points over the CA Assembly Speaker.
Reply »
Oh, I almost forgot. . . says:
I don’t disagree with the point of your post, but the example you use of Dewhurst’s outcome in the US Senate race ignores one crucial fact: Cruz would have never won had the election been held on the actual primary date. Everyone keeps forgetting the turnout was unique because of this simple circumstance caused by the redistricting lawsuits.
–I have never ignored this fact.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
the more the democrats delayed the election the more the tea party got their back up. Dems elected US Senator Ted Cruz.
Reply »
Leslie Knope Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Kind of ironic huh? The reason Dewhurst was in a July primary (the reason he lost) was because of the Redistricting mess HE created. Everything comes full circle, it always will.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:47 am
I’m afraid the redistricting mess was a byproduct of the dem supported Straus, and the dems proclivity to legislate from the bench, because they’re unelectable.
Reply »
ErnestTBass says:
Karl fell into the same old tactic that Perry uses. Tell the same lies over and over again until you believe them yourself. The difference is, in a national election, the TRUTH comes out in the form of VOTES. Not like in Texas where as long as you have an R in front of your name, you win (in National races). The Repubs better tell the teabaggers to form their own party, because I don’t see the nation moving to the wacky right as fast as Texas has. And, if Obama has even a decent four years upcoming, the Repubs will be in REAL trouble in the House.
Reply »
City Slicker says:
I have voted in my last R primary and declare my independence from all of the Peggy Venable types. Let them all eat each other.
Will vote against them as well in general elections!
Reply »
Dave Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
And the GOP primary electorate loses another non-extremist.
Somewhere down the road, the GOP primary extremists will select a candidate that is too far out there for the Texas general electorate, but that won’t be for awhile. Voting for the most moderate R in the Spring and the D in the Fall might be a better plan.
Reply »
No Le Hace says:
Ive known Karl since the old Clements days. He is very smart, knows his business. I think he got so wrapped up in this election that he lost his historical compass. When you sit with all the Fox folks you hear the same thing over and over. Like the old guy who comes home from a day of golf and says “Don’t worry Margaret the boys at the club say Dewey is in for sure”. Karl will be back and he will still be a force in R politics, as we use to say he’s agot a great Rolodex.
Reply »
Alan says:
Political strategists never face consequences for crafting bad strategy. The fact that Dave Carney still gets people to put him on their payroll is evidence enough of that.
Karl Rove took a bunch of movement conservatives for a ride, both the bigwigs who gave him millions to play with and the rank-and-file writing their $50 checks. And he was aided and abetted by the snake oil salesman on Fox News and in the conservative blogosphere who can even convince people not to believe hard numbers (Nate Silver). Karl, Erick Erickson, Rush Limbaugh, all of them should be thanking their lucky stars Obama is still president – it keeps the visceral hatred of millions of gullible white men alive and keeps their cash flowing into the conservative-industrial complex.
If you’re a conservative and you’re crying because Obama got re-elected, save your tears. You should be crying because Karl Rove took you for a ride and laughed all the way to the bank with your money. Obama’s Solyndra loan pales in comparison to the abysmally bad investment conservatives made in defeating him.
Reply »
WURSPH says:
I would feel a lot better about the nation’s future if Karl would stay in the middle of the circle of that firing squad. Of course, being Republicans they will proably miss the target, just like they did last Tuesday.
Reply »
WURSPH says:
Did you see that the spokesman for Karl’s SuperPac (which turned out not to be so super) says the reason the GOP lost was because it had “weak candidates”. I wonder where he thinks those weak candidates come from–by spaceship from Pluto? They came right out the Republican primary elections which tells us something about both the Republican Party and its voters.
Reply »
WURSPH says:
One last shorty”
Did you see that the Austin American-Statesman has picked a former executive at USA Today as its new publisher? You know, that outfit for whom the Pulitzer Prize committee had to create a new award category—The Best Investigative Paragraph of the Year—in order to allow USA Today to qualify to enter any of its stories in the contest.
Guess this means even less bulk in the news coverage by the ASS.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
WURSPH…your mention of a newspaper is bring out a “Woe is me”.
Being an old fart, I liked to hold my morning newspaper in my hand. My Fort Worth Star Telegram was important to me. I was once a Community Columnist for them.
When I suggested they put a rock in the bag to keep it from blowing into my neighbor’s yard, I guess it hacked them off. They started delivering it after I had been up for two hours. I cancelled my subscription Sunday.
I should have done it sooner. Their good Austin investigative political reporters have been gone for several years. Harral and Labbe are gone from heading up the editorial staff. The remaining group, with a few exceptions, are lazy and garner their quotes, all too often, from people from like Mikey Sullian and the Fainter guy who tells them that electricity deregulation is working when we are paying more per kWh than people in OK or LA, and after our PUC has just given the two big electricity producers in the state a license to rape and pillage.
WFAA and Dallas Morning News seem to still put in the work up here. Not sure how long it will last n
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
I more than share your unhappiness at the state of newspapers today.
While talking about the AA-S, have you noticed how the paper now tends to have its reporters over-write feature stories and drastically underwrite daily news items? The story on the fracking boom in Sunday’s edition is a perfect example, as were the many, many, many stories on victims of the Labor Day 2011 fires. (It seems like the paper has done a story on each and every one of the victims of those fires).
These kind of multi-page stories are a definite refutation of one of the oldest rules of daily newspapers—i.e. —“keep it short”. Of course, that rule was used when the goal was to include as much news as possible in each day’s often-limited space or “news hole”. Its abandonment appear to reflect the paper’s best effort to adapt to the fact that having to work with a much smaller staff of reporters and editors than in the past, it is no longer possible to have more than a few stories in each day’s paper.
The smaller staffs is also appears to lay behind the policy of covering most daily news items in one or two paragraphs under a brief headline and what is known as a “kicker” (a smaller headline above the main headline) informing the reader of the political subdivision to which the story relates. Limiting the sizes of these accounts makes it possible for one writer to produce many more items during the day. (I have heard stories about the Austin police chief or a city official getting outraged phone calls or e-mails from readers of the paper who did not catch the kicker and think what is reported involves Austin.)
Those of us who still love newspapers regret this trend because the result is less news being provided to their readers; however, it probably is the price we have to pay for the continued existence of a printed daily newspaper.
I realize how old I am when I remember that when I was a child (long, long, long ago in the Land of Oz) my family took three daily newspapers—The Houston Post in the morning and the Houston Chronicle and the then Freeport (now Brazosport) Facts in the evening plus the weekly Lake Jackson News. We also subscribed to at least one, if not two, weekly news magazines—Time and/or Newsweek. When I was in college I had the Chicago Tribune dropped at my dorm room door every morning and after I had read it, traded it for the copy of the South Bend Tribune my next-door neighbor received. I also tried to watch the evening news, usually CBS—especially during the Uncle Walter days—several times a week.
Today I still get the Austin American-Statesman. In fact, I have subscribed to a daily paper all my life. I also get a few magazines (such as the Smithsonian, and Down East from Maine—as a reminder of when we went there) and the Texas Gardner but the only “news” or “opinion” magazine I receive is The New Republic—and I only started getting it again this month after many years of not subscribing to it either. I dropped Time and the recently deceased Newsweek years ago and have an off-and-on relationship with Texas Monthly (currently off). Similarly, I do not think I have watched the evening news more than two times per month for several years and I almost never watch the local “if it bleeds, it leads” TV news. (My better-off brother, a doctor, still gets the Houston Chronicle, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal daily plus a bunch of magazines…I would too, if I had the finances.)
How the media world has changed….and NOT FOR THE BETTER.
Reply »
WS says:
You’re missing two points Paul:
A. Rove was simply saying that he thought the election was still in doubt. It’s easy to laugh at him, but I remember laughing at him in 2000 when he was saying the same thing in Florida. Based on his experience you’d figure he’d be more likely to say something like that. In the end it is irrelevant.
B. I say this as a Republican who voted for Sadler, but Cruz was plenty electable in a heavily Republican state with almost uniform straight ticket voting patterns. He ran essentially even with Romney. Dewhurst, for as much as the Tea Party thinks he’s a RINO, has essentially been pandering to the far right for ten years. It’s not certain he would have made a stronger general election candidate.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Karl was trying to get the Fox analysts to change their call. The election was not in doubt at that time. Obama had already won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a bunch of other states. The importance of Ohio was that it would put Obama over the top, and it did.
Reply »
jpt51 says:
Karl needs to retire to Hunt Tx & take what visitors (who want to hear his spiel)to Cryders lg go fishing. He has zero credibility!
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
I love Crider’s!
Reply »
Bill says:
Poor little Turd Blossom.
Reply »
FredCDobbs says:
The fact is that one party is sane right now and the other is not. Americans chose the sane party.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
November 12th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Fred…roughly half of them voted with you. I take it you think you are neck nuzzling with the sane half.
Reply »
Truman Sparks says:
Rove will just turn his sights on trying to take over Texas again before launching another national campaign.
Reply »
rw says:
I am sick and tired of the word ‘extremist’. It means nothing. It’s a word liberals use more than anyone else. It’s just another way to avoid debate and discussion about principles – which is what the political process is supposed to do.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Force a rape victim to carry the rapist’s impregnation of the woman to term. Then give the rapist visitation rights as the father. Extremist.
Why do you thing women voted for Democrats and against the Republicans? It wasn’t just because Romney wasn’t sure about equal pay for equal work or The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. The Republicans simply shot themselves in the foot with some candidates that were unelectable in the general election.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
no an extremist is someone who is ok with a baby being removed from its mother at 8.5 mos and left in a closet to die.
Reply »
@RW Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 9:38 am
You’re tired of the word “extremist??” really?? Try the words liberal, or “moderate,” I am so sick and tired of “moderate” being a derogatory term in this state.
Reply »
Big Enos says:
I would gladly welcome Karl Rove in to a leadership post in Texas if it meant we were able to get rid of Rick Perry, etc.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Enos, Rove tried that in 2010 by backing KBH and it BACKFIRED.
Reply »
Garner's Bucket says:
Leave the primary in March and there’d be a Senator Dewhurst.
Reply »
Yep Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Garner’s Bucket is spot on.
Reply »
WURSPH says:
Some of you will be interested in a fairly good article in today’s electronic edition of Politico (see web address below)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html
The article discusses the concern some informed (sic) Republicans have about the way the GOP has spun itself into an intellectual cocoon that makes it more and more unable to see the world as it is—and makes many of its members unable to understand what happened last Tuesday.
The article points out that today most Republicans get their news, analysis, and information about the world and politics in general from a limited, self-repreating source that presents only the positions and ideas most of them already agree with. (Rush Lumbach or Fox News (Sic, Sic, Sic anyone). And how this is making it more difficult for the GOP to win elections and/or sell its ideas (even their few good ones).
Of course, this is not a development limited solely to Republicans. Some Democrats I know suffer from the same intellectual isolation and some few may even think that MSNBC is the source of all truth and wisdom in the world.
Reply »
Gen. Sam Houston says:
I watched every second of Rove’s election night appearance on Fox. Contrary to what Burka says, he did not attempt to get Fox to change the call. He criticized it as premature, given other networks’ embarassment in past years at making similar calls that had to be reversed. He also criticized the call as bad policy, since in his view neither the state nor the election was completely settled. These are eminently defensible positions. Fox took them seriously and examined the call, with the aid of Michael Barone — perhaps the one person in the world who could match Karl on precinct-to-precinct knowledge. It was great television for political junkies.
Interesting to see the jackals come out after the GOP loses a close one and try to deride a lion. Rove’s efforts kept the game closer than it would have been. The denigrators want to proclaim the demise of Rove, but he’s far smarter and more effective than they will ever dream of being. That’s why deep-pocket conservatives have trusted him with their money, and will continue to do so.
This election was heavily influenced, perhaps decided, by a tail wind at the end that favored Obama. Had the wind gone the other way — had the administration not been successful in suppressing Benghazi, layoffs, Iranian drone attacks, etc. — we might have seen a different result. Obama won by trashing his opponent. He advanced no plan for the future. He won, but he doesn’t have a mandate for anything.
For the GOP, little has changed except (as Karl identifies) we need candidates who aren’t stupid. The two “rape” comments hurt Romney, since they seemed to confirm that GOP is out of touch with women…prior to those comments, nobody was paying any attention to the alleged “war on women.” Democrats spent $1.5 million to help Akin in his primary, to get the weakest GOP choice elected; Rove is merely saying these sabotage efforts need to be countered. Getting the best candidates is not a “circular firing squad,” as Burka states, but merely a matter of smart and effective politics.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 8:21 am
I didn’t watch every second of it. But I did watch the woman who interviewed the people who made the call at Fox and they told her that their call that Obama had won Ohio had a 9999.5% (or thereabouts) likelihood of certainty.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 8:40 am
George W. Bush claimed a mandate along with political capital so why can’t Obama?
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 9:34 am
Well stated, Sam. I agree.
Furthermore, Rove didn’t pick the poor candidates. Didn’t our Sen. Cornyn have more to do with this aspect?
I believe the problem now lies with finding good people to run. Who in their right mind would want to go through the process? What we see is certainly not the best this country has to offer.
There are skeletons in most everyone’s closet that are not criminal offenses, but things that would be embarrasing to individuals and their families. I think that is what kept Colin Powell from running.
I’m know that I have forgotten and suppressed plenty about my past that I’m sure others have not forgotten. In fact, I know I have…they are creeping back into my noggin’ as I type this.
Rove will survive. He is good at what he does. He got it wrong this time, but don’t count him out.
Reply »
@ Sam Houston Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 9:48 am
“Fox took them seriously and examined the call, with the aid of Michael Barone — perhaps the one person in the world who could match Karl on precinct-to-precinct knowledge. It was great television for political junkies.”
This, so much this right here. I don’t agree with Burka, as much as I want to see Rove make a fool of himself, I don’t think he was actually trying to get them to reverse the call, he just wanted Fox news to admit it was a bit premature. Rove v. Barone and reading between Barone’s lines was my take away from election night.
Reply »
Gen. Sam Houston says:
Mr. Franks is right. Bush claimed a mandate following a similarly close election in 2004. He promptly set about to reform social security — and got nowhere. I suspect Obama will suffer a similar experience unless he sheds his liberal partisanship post-election and starts dealing with Republicans. It’s a divided country, and we badly need leadership.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Yeah, but here’s the problem–presidents who have mandates don’t need to talk about them.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
General,
Every time I hear a Republican vent about how the President needs to show leadership, it is about how he needs to move his positions and be willing to compromise. Abandon tax increases for the wealthy. Adopt the Republican’s economic plan. I have yet to hear Speaker Boehner say that tax increases were on the table (just the old rabbit out of the hat to eliminate loopholes as yet to be defined). If you were serious about everyone showing leadership, then everyone must say that everything is on the table. Not just bitching about the other side not transforming themselves into what you wish. Both sides must come to the table with open hands and open minds. Both sides. You included. Are you willing to put tax increase on the table? If not, relax, and get ready to go over that cliff.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 10:55 am
You should read what Bill Moyers says about the “Fiscal Cliff.”
http://billmoyers.com/content/why-washingtons-fiscal-cliff-is-a-myth/
Reply »
Big Enos Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
You mean alleged journalist Bill Moyers? He has refused to talk to Caro for years and is a bumbling farce.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
May be Moyers respects the confidentiality of the conversations he had with LBJ and LBJ with him….There are a few gentlemen with honor left…but not many.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
every time I hear a democrat call the president an amateur I wonder how an amateur managed to pull such a massive on hoax on democrats.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
I don’t think Rove was trying to convince Fox to change its prognostication or to even hold back on making a call. Rather, I think he was trying to convince himself that the numbers staring back at him were lies.
After all, he’d just spent hundreds of millions of dollars to no effect, which seems impossible in theory and I bet it seemed impossible to him at that moment. Throw in the pressure of a national audience, and it’s no wonder he crumbled into a state of babbling denial.
Isn’t it ironic that the most cold-hearted, amoral political strategist in the business suffered through a humbling human moment right there on the TV? It almost made me feel sorry for him. Almost.
Reply »
Calculatin Coke says:
Coke Stevenson would have spent less, eliminated tax loopholes, maintained racial disharmony and not much more.
Sam Rayburn would have invested in infrastructure, fought for progressive taxation and promoted racial harmony.
Reply »
Big Enos Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
I see you have bought in to the Burka/LBJ worship theory on Coke Stevenson.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:05 am
Where does anyone get the idea that I “worship” Coke Stevenson? He was a lousy governor who was nicknamed “Calculatin’ Coke” because he spent his time figuring out what positions to take. I wrote a short piece in Newsweek back in 1990 or so about how bad a governor Coke Stevenson was.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Congressional Republicans concerned about being primaried by the Tea Party and Grover Norquist wing of the party who are thinking about using their US House majority to block any tax increases and going over the fiscal cliff might want to think about how the Texas Senate under the 2/3 rule blocked much needed workers comp reform 25 years ago for fear of the trial lawyers.
In the long run that didn’t work out so well for the Democrats or the trial lawyers. Obstinate use of the 2/3 rule provoked a political backlash that echoes to this day in Texas.
The national Democrats, in the current climate, might have the means and more importantly the will (something often missing with the Democrats) to do something similar if the national Republicans refuse to yield somewhat on the tax issue.
We need to bring into line the government we want and the government we’re willing to pay for. Most Americans think that means spending cuts and revenue increases
Reply »
Big Enos says:
Paul, did you see that Perry and Dewhurst announced today that Texas is going to lead the fight in requiring drug testing for unemployment and welfare? Still think he was better than Cruz?
Reply »
Tom says:
Before we re-write history on Karl Rove, let’s remember not only did he completely miss the Presidential race, he misjudged most of the races he got involved in:
“American Crossroads spent heavily, not just on Romney, but on attack ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates in eight states — thanks to mega contributions from conservative donors like metals magnate Harold Simmons ($19.5 million), Texas homebuilder Bob Perry ($7.5 million) and Omni hotel chief Robert Rowling ($5 million.)
The super donors didn’t get much for their money. Six of the eight GOP Senate candidates that American Crossroads spent money to try to elect – Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, George Allen in Virginia, Josh Mandel in Ohio, Richard Mourdock in Indiana, Denny Rehberg in Montana and Todd Akin in Missouri – lost their races, along with Romney. The group did, on the other hand, help to elect Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Dean Heller in Nevada.”
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Look what he had to work with. Darrel Royal could not have put together a winning team with that line up…nor Bud Wilkinson…nor Tom Landry…nor Vince Lombardi. Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.
Reply »
José Reply:
November 13th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
And yet he convinced a few gazillionaires to keep ponying up tons of bucks when objective reality said it was a lost cause, and he convinced himself to the absolute end that his side was winning big. That is the failure of Karl Rove. It wasn’t that he couldn’t coax 110% out of a team of misfits. It was that he was delusional. The whiny excuses say that he is still rassling with the truth.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Distinguished Gentleman, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) is still pursuing changes to the AZ Constitution into getting her to seek a 2nd full four-year term in 2014 (even though she’s prevented from doing so despite winning one full term in 2010).
She took over in 2009 after Janet Napolitano (D) resigned to serve in the Obama administration as Homeland Security Chief.
If Brewer gets her way (she already has gotten away with crazy stuff, hence the SB1070 Law to get elected in her own right), the people of Arizona will have to stomach her as governor for nearly 10 years until 2018.
Reply »
texun says:
I wouldn’t rush to count Rove out, though he might find it difficult to raise funds in large lumps in the future.
In any event, he will have a tough job in presidential elections.
If you take a look at the full page of demographic data in Sunday’s NYT, they seem to indicate clearly that any Republican who appealed to enough of the identifiable core would find it difficult to get 50% of the nationwide vote. And that’s before one considers the ideological cleaveage that Romney had to straddle.
It’s obviously not a new discovery–that the politics of nomination are significantly different than the politics of election–but we had another strong confirmation of the commonplace observation this year in the presidential election.
Reply »
Rove, Rove, Rove Your Boat says:
Regardless of the Ohio pushback on Fox’s election night broadcast, what is really embarrassing is Rove’s daily excuses for why he was wrong–Obama demonized Romney, Obama suppressed voters, Sally ruined everything, Romney was recorded saying something he didn’t want people to hear (47%), We had bad candidates.
Karl, when you point a finger at others, there are four pointing back at you. (Or since you’ve pointed five fingers, 20 middle fingers are pointed back at you.)
Rove made his national reputation not off of advertising and polling, but off of divisive strategy. (Need voter turnout in key states? Anti-gay marriage amendments.) And those strategies were one trick ponies that sacrificed the long-term cultivation of voters for a one time win.
Rove hasn’t been right since 2004 and even then, he needed smarter guys like Dowd doing the math.
Reply »
Pat says:
Burka, you been feeling ok? Seems like you’re leaving a lot of good material to the kiddie pool recently, e.g., sensible v. outrageous statements by Texas officials on the 2012 election (and more recently, its demographics), and now Rick Perry’s proposal for drug-testing welfare recipients.
Reply »
WURSPH says:
George Will said something perceptive about the current Republican Party and its so-called leaders back when Rush L. was so viciously attacking the Georgetown law student. Referring to the candidates in the GOP Primary, Will, said, “They all want to bomb Iran but are afraid of standing up to Rush Limbaugh.” I guess it is always easy to be courageous when someone else will be doing the fighting for you.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
There is no room in the US for two liberal parties, if you closet liberals hiding in the republican party want to come out of the closet I’m sure the democrat party will embrace you.
Reply »
Tom Barry Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:06 am
We don’t have two liberal parties. We don’t have one liberal party. We have one moderate party and one that let the radical right ruin its reputation.
Reply »
Uncle Karl Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:18 am
Tom, JBB is dumber that old socks, and you nailed it. One thing the Democrats have proven there JBB: there is room for folks of all stripes to join them, and they are.
Reply »
donuthin says:
What about 90,000 Texans signing a petition to secede? When you think the goobers have reached their limit in crazy, they take it to another level.
Reply »
Anon says:
Anyone who signed that petition is a traitor, fool and in general and idiot.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
We actually can’t secede. Texas also now receives more from the federal government than it sends in and we are a minority /majority state. On Karl Rove, after his minor cable meltdown, is now likely headed to the bank, (I’m speaking figuratively only, I have no idea where Karl is) to make a big withdrawal for his vacation before the next campaign.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
No one wants to secede, the people signing the petition are just sending a message to liberals.
There is a liberal party and there is a conservative party. Some are in denial and some are just uninformed. Proving once again you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make em drink.
If you are a panty waist hiding in the republican party, you can either continue hiding or you can come out of the closet.
Reply »
Tom says:
JBB, can we do a credibility check on your recent election projections so we have some way to evaluate your critical thinking capability.
Reply »
Tom says:
And as for the idea that the GOP needs to purify itself of “panty-waist” republicans, take a hint from today’s New York Times:
“The G.O.P. has effectively been captured and dominated by its right-right wing — as opposed to its right wing or its center-right wing. When a party faces the spectacle of all its presidential candidates pledging in a primary debate that they would not accept a deal of $1 in taxes for $10 in budget cuts, and rejecting any candidate who acknowledges that scientists might have something to say about the climate, and when a party purges upstanding, problem-solving conservatives like Bob Bennett of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Bob Inglis of South Carolina, it has a big problem.”
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
the NY Times? Now there a bastion of conservatism.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Truth hurts.
Reply »
treehugger says:
Regarding the secession petition: how do we know those signing it are from Texas?
Reply »
Bell of the ball Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Touche, treehugger.
Reply »
ghostofann says:
As long as the GOP is held hostage to the likes of Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, it will continue to lose presidential elections.
Just like the Democrats, who were held hostage to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Gloria, Steinem kept losing presidential elections between 1968 and 1988 (Carter was a post-Watergate fluke).
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
The GOP will regain the White House back in 2016, bet on it folks and the Senate will likely go Republican in 2014 because it’ll be anti-Obama sentiment rising in the midterms.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Not if y’all keep up with the crazy talk.
Reply »
jerry only Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Cause you have such an amazing track record on predictions…..
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Kind of hard to do Blue Dogs if the economy is humming around 2015. Biden, Clinton, or Mark Warner will serve out his third term.
Pelosi would have been speaker if it weren’t for clever redistricting in PA, OH, TX, IN, VA, NC.
The Dems will get the six year itch, but if the economy picks up and congress has some accomplishment they won’t lose too many seats.
Reply »
Calculatin Coke says:
Obama was worried throughout 2012 about the enthusiasm of the base….AKA turnout.
A reasonable takeaway from the ’12 Prez election is that some Republicans who voted in the GWB election did not vote in the McCain or Romney election. Why? It was not lack of resources. Was it Romney was a Mormon? Was it Romney was considered socially moderate or liberal or unreliable? Was it Ron Paul voters?
This was a darned close election. Rs should look at what policies will increase their turnout in swing states.
Reply »
José Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Some folks see a presidential election just as the ballot is structured, which is that you must vote FOR a candidate. While Bush II got a good number of anti-Gore and anti-Kerry votes, there were also a great many people who actually were pro-Bush. Do you know anyone who truly was a fervent Romney fan? Or for that matter, anyone who was a big admirer of the 2008 version of John McCain? I don’t. If Romney had his druthers, he would have been listed as “Mitt Not Obama”. Maybe voters just got tired of being against things and never being for things.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 1st, 2012 at 12:32 am
Republicans miscalculated the enthusiasm issue. They thought Republicans would be more motivated because they hated Obama so much. As it happened, the Democrats were more motivated. Why? Because the Republicans scared them to death because they were such extremists on the social issues.
Reply »
anon says:
What’s up with George P. Bush?
First, there’s some serious brand fatigue with the George Bush thing — do we really need another one?
Second — and most important — why? It’s so obvious that this kid has no interest in anything but holding office for holding office’s sake. And he can’t even get out of his daddy’s shadow, Jeb putting out fundraising appeals for him before he’s even declared for a specific office. Just looks bad.
Grow up, make some money, pay some dues, gain some wisdom. Then come back if you want to seek public office. We deal in merit here in Texas, not familial privilege.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
The hoopleheads in Texas will vote for him anyway just to spite the rest of the country. You know that, anon.
Reply »
Truman Sparks says:
Hey Paul, have you thought about a drug test as a requirement to post here? Seems like the thing to do these days.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Sounds like a good idea to me!
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
It looks like George P. Bush will run for Land Commissioner in 2014 after all.
Reply »
Ken says:
I thought Karl was spot on in challenging Fox News for calling the Ohio election so early. Even though the result turned out to be a correct call, that Fox called it so early was the issue. Why not let the results speak for themselves rather than rush to be the first to call an election?
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Burka, can you put up new articles on Burkablog ?
Or did they fire you from TX Monthly because of your bashing of Perry ?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 1st, 2012 at 12:28 am
Someone, apparently not Blue Dogs, may have noticed that this is a holiday weekend.
Reply »