Karl Rove's Meltdown on Fox After Spending over $100M and Guaranteering a Romney Victory

Laughed so hard when I heard this Rove meltdown was happening because Rove was talking about my home state of Ohio.  Growing up there I knew there was no way that Romney was going to get votes out of Cleveland in big numbers -- that wasn't happening because Cuyahoga County is the most Democrat county in Ohio.  Grew up with the fact that SW and Western Ohio had to go in big numbers for a Republican to win.  With Hamilton County (Cincinnati) already in the Obama camp, there was no way that Ohio was going for Romney.

I have been saying for weeks that Ohio was going for Obama after what I had been picking up especially after Romney's comment that Jeep was going to send all their production to China which included the Toledo plant when he was holding a rally in the Toledo area.  Jeep immediately came out they were adding jobs in Toledo not outsourcing to China.  They did announce that Chysler would be doing production of Jeeps in China to make them cheaper for the Chinese who love Jeeps.  Adding another shift at the Toledo plant is not outsourcing to China but Romney doubled down and even after GM weighed in he continued to say they were outsourcing and ran ads that Jeep was going to China.  Don't think Romney ever apologized for anything.  When the Ohio Governor finally said Jeep is not outsourcing to China, there was no way that Ohio was going to Romney who had a penchant for lying.

Would have bet the house that Ohio with unemployment numbers dropping thanks to the auto bailout that saved jobs in Ohio, that there was no way Romney was going to win Ohio.  It was Obama Country in the normal Democrat areas of the state.  If you base your campaign on hate of your opponent, it is not going to work.  GOP was not energized for Romney at all in Ohio not to mention that Obama had the complete ground game.  Looks like none of that was picked up by Karl Rove with his meltdown demanding Fox News take back their call of Ohio for Obama.

Watch the Karl Rove Meltdown on Fox News and then read the reasons why below:

Karl Rove's Historically Colossal Waste of Money 

By Business Insider
Posted 4:30PM 11/07/12Posted under: Money and Politics
By WALTER HICKEY
Karl Rove is the co-founder and senior advisor to American Crossroads, a multifaceted organization that has raised massive amounts of money in order to get Mitt Romney elected to the presidency.
That did not work out. 

Here's how much American Crossroads spent on Mitt Romney, thanks to the records at the Center for Responsive Politics.

• In 2012, American Crossroads' Super PAC raised $80 million.

• Using money rolled over from a previous cycle, American Crossroads Super PAC spent $100 million this election cycle.

• American Crossroads Super PAC spent more than 84% of that -- $84.6 million to be precise -- in independent expenditures against Barack Obama.

• They also spent $6.5 million bolstering Mitt Romney

• The affiliated 501(c) spent $70 million on the election, much of that in support of Mitt Romney's presidential bid.

• In the end, Rove spent between $90 million and $160 million of other people's money on Mitt Romney. That investment did not pay off.

Some donors spent multi-millions with the belief that Rove and Romney would deliver victory, the highest donor giving $19.5 million. 

All that money might explain why Rove had a televised meltdown when Fox called Ohio -- and thus the election -- for Obama Tuesday night.

How could Rove, Dick Morris, and Rasmussen all be so far off on the election.  The signs were all there Obama was going to win.  Then there was the factor of 'women' who frankly had it with the Neanderthal thinking of the Republican Party when it came to many issues including equal pay which Romney refused to endorse, definition of rape, Supreme Court justices appointed to overturn Roe v Wade, the 47% and the list goes on since a lot of women are teachers who Romney threw under the bus.  Add in students where Romney wanted to drastically cut Pell grants and the student loan program saying ask your parents for money for college, then there are the veterans, senior citizens, civil service, fire, and police not to mention our military and you have a prescription for a loss.

Hard to believe that Rove and this group thought money could buy a general election with such a flawed candidate who lied over and over again.  It worked in the primary so guess they just figured the Democrats were going to lie down and let Romney run over them.  Instead, the Obama campaign took it to Romney early in the summer.  They also had boots on the ground versus the limp GOTV of the Romney camp.  In the end Rove blew millions of dollars to see Romney lose along with the Senate candidates Rove went all in with millions to win the Senate seats.  Mr. guru's plan after Citizens United was a failure as the Democrats after having to defend 21 seats, pick up two seats -- huge win for Democrats and colossal failure for Rove and Republicans because some of those seats were winnable.

Now some are saying the GOP candidates didn't go hard right enough?  Excuse me but that is why they lost the women's and youth vote in big numbers plus minority voters.  Romney's rallies were almost all white while Obama's looked like America.  The Republican hard right, mostly white, mostly male Party is in for trouble in the years ahead if they think going more conservative is the answer.  As I have been saying for years when something bugs me, the GOP can 'shove it' because I will never lift a finger to support them again if they don't come back center right.  There are millions of Republicans who agree and others who actually registered independent who would come back if the GOP went center right.  With going hard right, they won't think of coming back or donating to the Republican Party.

Karl Rove blew this election big time and his dirty tricks finally caught up with him.  How many big donors want their money back?

Is Crossroads the new RNC?

It is hard to fathom that a donor can make a $10M contribution to Crossroads yet they don't have to be revealed.  Rove and the rest of his group attack Democrats but what is the difference?  They have taken fundraising, attack politics, and dishonesty to a new low level in the opinion of a lot of the grassroots Republicans and Democrats.  Looks like we are joined by at least one State Chair from PA but then he saw what these people along with the Romney Super PAC did to former Senator Santorum.

Gillespie has supposedly gone to work for Romney but they want us naive suckers to believe that there is no coordination.  Rove and company set out to make Romney the nominee for the establishment and he got the job done with 'scorched earth' all over the place.  He may be one of the most unethical consultants in either party today yet he is front and center on Fox News which doesn't say a lot about the integrity of Fox News and Roger Ailes.

Now we have two parties that are virtually identical controlled by big money who when they snap their fingers these office holders better jump.  How did this happen?  How did our political system get sold to the highest bidder so they continue to make their money because they control many members of the Congress and now want complete control of the White House with one of their own -- Mitt Romney.  Beginning to think this could be worse then with Obama and I cannot believe I just said that.  We knew Obama was a liberal but we also know that deep down so his Romney no matter how they try to dress him up as conservative.  He is underhanded and devious so who knows what he would be like in the White House.

When you read this, it makes you sick if you have been involved in honest politics over the years but then Rove from the time he was a College Republican has been about dirty tricks and underhanded tactics to get candidates elected or defeat those his handlers didn't like.

Is this what we have to look forward in year's to come because if it is, why do any of us bother to vote or help any candidates except at the local level.  If the members of Congress won't stand up to Rove, Soros and the ilk in Congress to fix this mess, then why bother to have elections?  Just have both parties pick the nominee and tell us who to vote for which is what we are seeing today.

Shame on the establishment of the Republican Party for allowing this to happen because they are so greedy for money and power -- they are no different then the establishment of the Democrats.  Maybe it is time for the grassroots of both parties to join together and get behind candidates who are honest and let the two national parties and their Super PACs try and find votes or are they going to do voter fraud like this primary when the votes are not there?  If anyone thinks I am thoroughly disgusted, then they would be correct.

This is wrong on so many levels.  How do we fix it?  That is the $64,000 question but where there is a will there is a way.   The grassroots of both parties are not going to sit down and shut up while the establishment of both parties attempt to run over us and tell us what to think.  It is not happening.

Outside groups cast outsized shadow over RNC

By MAGGIE HABERMAN |
4/20/12 6:19 PM EDT 

I reported last night that American Crossroads and Crossrads GPS have raised a combined $100 million so far this cycle, a third of the way toward their overall goal, and Ken Vogel and James Hohmann add a bit more context:

Here at the Scottsdale Fairmont Princess Resort, the Republican National Committee is mired in the minutiae of the nominating calendar and convention rules.  

Meanwhile, back at 1401 New York Ave., NW, in a nondescript office suite in downtown Washington, the decisions that could make or break Republicans in 2012 are being made. It’s the headquarters of the Karl Rove-linked Crossroads groups, the center of a network of unlimited-money outsiders.  

Crossroads alone announced Friday it had raised $100 million through the end of last month for its 2012 efforts. And while it’s debatable whether the haul puts Crossroads on pace to raise the jaw-dropping $300 million it hopes to spend during campaign 2012, it definitely puts them on the same plane as the RNC, which had raised $122 million for its 2012 efforts through March. Crossroads has even raised more money this year, pulling in $49 million to the RNC’s $44 million.  

But it’s not just Crossroads’ money that poses a threat to the RNC. While the official GOP navigates bureaucracy and internal tensions, outside groups led by just a handful of seasoned operatives are quickly and quietly coordinating their strategies and ad buys in regular meetings held in Crossroads’ conference room. 

The fundraising ability, influence and efficiency of these groups is raising questions about whether this year isn’t just a fluke, but the new normal — where outsiders are the real power center of conservative politics.  

Some party operatives say they hope not — questioning the outside groups’ secretive style and their commitment to get-out-the-vote activities and other organizing grunt work that’s critical to party politics.   

“The money’s misguided going to these super PACs,” said Pennsylvania Republican Chairman Rob Gleason, who is attending the RNC meeting here. 

“The state parties and the presidential candidates need the money in order to develop voter-turnout models and get the people out,” he said. While he welcomed “these big checks from these big fellas” giving to Crossroads and other outside groups, Gleason added “I don’t know where the hell all that money goes.” 

While Democrats are also trying to outsource some of their political work to unlimited-money outside groups, their donors have been reluctant to support their own version of the Crossroads network.  

On the Republican side, it’s easy to see the advantages. The RNC model is a plodding bureaucracy governed by 168 sometimes-feuding elected members and limited to $30,800-maximum contributions – all of which have to be disclosed. 

The Crossroads model is a low-overhead attack machine helmed by Rove, Carl Forti, Ed Gillespie and a handful of other battle-hardened GOP operatives who are answerable only to the few dozen super-rich donors underwriting the operation with seven- and eight-figure checks – the biggest of which are not disclosed.  

On the one hand, the shift sounds like something the Heritage Foundation would recommend for the federal government – a pure manifestation of the efficiencies that Republicans hold dear. On the other hand, though, it raises red flags for some Republicans, who worry that Crossroads has spawned an extra-party infrastructure that lacks accountability, could siphon off resources from party committees and candidates, and shift the GOP’s focus away from grassroots organizing to an attack-ad-centric strategy.    

At best, Party loyalists say, the RNC, which is legally barred from coordinating with Crossroads and other outside groups,could benefit by ceding the ad wars to them.

Put another way - folks like Rove, Gillespie and Forti have as great and, in some ways, greater sway with a core group of Republicans than the RNC does. Crossroads GPS does not have to disclose its donors, and got a donation of $10 million that went undisclosed - a point its critics highlight as a measure of a lack of transparency. 

The missions are different - the RNC is tasked with working in concert with state parties to coordinate staffing, phones, volunteers and offices in key states. The RNC can also hire people and coordinate with Boston, which the outside groups cannot do. But as the debate rages over how much of a role paid media will play in moving the dial, it's hard to overlook the financial edge of groups that will flood the airwaves.
* This post has been updated
Source:  Politico

Republican Establishment Tries To Tamp Down Tea Party Insurgency in 2012 Senate Races

Welcome to the Rockefeller Establishment Republican Party as ordained by the powers at be:

After the 2010 midterm elections, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) observed, "Candidates matter." Karl Rove, the current don of Republican establishment-oriented outside groups, called O'Donnell's loss in Delaware "a lesson." And former Senate majority leader-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott said, "We did not nominate our strongest candidates."

I agree we had several bad candidates, O'Donnell and Angle come to mind.  Never figured out O'Donnell as no one bothered to look at her background or they would have known she was not the best candidate.  Would say in her case, it was her looks that got her the nomination.  Do I think some are that narrow minded?  Absolutely because there is nothing else that makes sense.  As for Sharron Angle, she ran a better primary then she did a general   but she didn't seem to understand what she was doing in either as she would take time off where no one could get in touch with her.  She won that race because of the number of people in the primary as votes were split.

Is the establishment candidate always going to be the best?  No way!  We showed that in 2004 when the DC establishment headed by Rove tried to keep Senator Coburn from running for Senate by knocking him out in the primary with a very arrogant establishment candidate.  They went so far to cut off his DC fundraising but it didn't work as the Oklahoma Grassroots sent him to the Senate and we just sent him back for six more years.  Pat Toomey and Club for Growth played a huge part in getting Dr. Coburn the money to run his campaign.  That is when The Club concentrated on a few candidates not a lot.

The establishment prized candidate, Richard Lugar, has not lived in Indiana for years and was ruled he cannot vote in Indiana in March.  That hasn't stopped the DC establishment and their establishment Indiana Governor Daniels from pushing Lugar.  I have been part of the Republican grassroots for years, grew up in Ohio, and cannot stand Lugar, but then I detest arrogance and a know it all attitude.   The people supporting Lugar have gone way over the edge IMHO:

In an invitation to a Lugar fundraiser sent out last year, Fox warned donors to support the senator against "a formidable competitor." He warned that if Republicans did not take control of the Senate (and President Barack Obama was reelected), the country would slip into "European-style socialism" in which "a majority of people become dependent on government handouts and where tax cuts become virtually impossible." What Fox did not state was that the "formidable competitor" was a fellow Republican. 

This is right out of the Rove/Romney playbook to make sure the millionaires contribute a lot of cash in order to do 'scorched earth' to take out a fellow Republican.  They just think that people are going to sit back and take it without fighting back.  Do they want Conservatives out of the Republican Party so they came become the Rockefeller East Coast Establishment Party again that Goldwater started the destruction, Reagan helped destroy it more and now the Nixon/Bush 41 with Rove as the 'don' are building it back up.

Who is going to win this battle in 2012 -- the money establishment types or the grassroots Conservatives who always vote and do the work?  Are the establishment going to win the battle and lose the war?  Is there a viable 3rd Party around the corner who will field candidates for Congress?  Not all millionaires and people with money are on the side of the establishment as witnessed in Oklahoma and Texas.

The so-called know-it-all establishment Rockefeller Republicans are making their mistake in going after the Tea Party as the local Tea Party members in a lot of states are longtime members of the Conservative Republican Grassroots.  In States like me, most of us are not members of the Tea Party but the Conservative Republican Grassroots who sent Dr. Coburn to the Senate.  We have the same agenda but we don't have the problem of the liberal states so we didn't have the need to be part of the huge Tea Party movement.   That doesn't mean that Grassroots is not as mad as the Tea Party members because we are.  The National Tea Party leaders are jokes like the Tea Party Express.  The local people at grassroots level who believe in small government and a balanced budget are both in and outside the local Tea Party movement.  This establishment group looks to be telling all of us to sit down and shut up as they know better.  Same thing is happening with Romney as we are supposed to line up like lemmings to follow him off over the cliff even though we don't agree with him even 50% of the time.

Is this 2012 election about the establishment taking back full control under the leadership of one of the most underhanded consultants dating back to when Bush 41 chose him over his opponent in a nasty contested race for the College Republican Chair -- none other then Karl Rove?  He has been praised as being this guru but looking back how did Bush almost lose Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 which would have cost him the election?  There was no margin for error and my question is WHY?  Maybe he is not the guru they claim he is but a consultant who knows how to do 'scorched earth' to take out candidates as we have seen in this primary election and now look to be seeing in the Senate races.

Lugar, moreover, isn't the only incumbent or establishment Republican candidate receiving strong support from big donors through super PACs and political nonprofits. This election cycle the GOP establishment has turned to these new unlimited-money vehicles to help tamp down the Tea Party insurgency that many in the top tiers of the party blamed for the Republicans' failure to take control of the Senate in 2010. 

Read this and ask yourself how far is the Republican Party going to go by tossing the conservatives who make up the Tea Party and the Grassroots overboard because that is exactly what is happening.  Their underhanded tactics against opponents of their favorite establishment candidate is wrong because they will lie, cheat, and steal to win the election as we have seen with Romney.

Was always proud to be a Republican as I knew we didn't cheat with voter fraud, dead people voting, and missing ballot boxes like the Democrats were known for going back to LBJ.  Lived in Texas when the Civil War veterans were still voting in 1994 and was a resident of the county where the local Sheriff was famous for holding off the LBJ goons with him and his sons protecting the ballot boxes with shotguns.  His goons when he ran for Senate were going all through the Hill Country helping deliver ballot boxes for counting, but our Sheriff said no.  I can no longer say that after this RNC Chair, Rove, Ailes, Fox News,and their goons got through with this Republican Primary where we had missing ballot boxes, dead people voting, people voting twice, people being turned away from the caucus' IOTW a typical Democrat run primary like what happened to Hillary in 2008 by the Democrat establishment who wanted Obama.

Both parties have major problems and they reside inside the beltway.  Both parties are basically telling Middle America to sit down, shut up and you will vote how we tell you to vote as the other party is so bad you cannot risk voting for their candidate.  Both sides are as guilty.  Bush could do no right from the left and now Obama can do no right from the right.  How much of the garbage we are getting by the Clear Channel pundits is even true?

This article is a warning shot to the Conservative Republican Grassroots to sit down and shut up as we (the establishment) know best.  It is not going to go over well and frankly I find it disgusting that Trent Lott is now a consultant and part of this group who double crossed Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) on becoming Majority Leader and was always giving into Bill Clinton as he negotiated with out his #2 person Nickles.  Now he is taking lobbyist dollars.  For what?

For every battle the Establishment Rockefeller Republicans win, they are getting closer to losing the war with the Conservative Republican wing.  Will this election signal a beginning to the birth of a new Party like what happened when the Whigs got so arrogant and the Republican Party was formed?   We are slowly becoming a party of a bunch of rich white guys unless you are a more liberal Republican woman and then you can be accepted.  This is not going to last long in the days of the internet.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson who is running for the Libertarian nomination for President has a plan to balance the budget immediately which will sendss establishment members of Congress from both parties up a wall as it doesn't fit their narrative:

So, what does a Gary John­son bud­get look like? Well, like ones when he was Governor—balanced. Plat­form plank num­ber one: 

I want to end deficit spend­ing and cut fed­eral spend­ing by 43%.

Given that the fed­eral gov­ern­ment bor­rows 43% of what it spends, it’s another way of say­ing the Gov­er­nor wants a bal­anced budget. 

When does John­son want to achieve a bal­anced bud­get? He says 2013 

Stay tuned as 2012 is about to get more interesting as the establishment Republicans attempt to take back the Republican Party from the Conservatives.  If they are successful, then look for a new party with 'common sense' to be formed who will listen to the people of the Heartland and elsewhere not the Wall Street and K Street money people who are buying this election.

Senate Races 2012: Republican Establishment Tries To Tamp Down Tea Party Insurgency
Posted: 04/19/2012 2:54 pm Updated: 04/19/2012 4:41 pm   

WASHINGTON -- Six-term Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) seemed all alone in facing an insurgent Tea Party primary challenge from state treasurer Richard Mourdock, who is backed by big money from the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks. In the past few weeks, however, top GOP senators, establishment Republican groups, and big-name donors have stepped in with a mix of ads touting Lugar's long career and blasting Mourdock in an effort to save the embattled incumbent. 

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) endorsed Lugar and announced they would cut ads to support him. Last week, the American Action Network, a conservative group with ties to the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., launched a campaign of negative ads against Mourdock, costing $590,000. Major donors, including former fundraisers for President George W. Bush and McCain, are putting money into pro-Lugar super PACs. 

(snip)

Super PACs and political nonprofits, despite arguments that they have expanded the ability of competitors to challenge incumbents, may actually be doing the opposite. The flow of money released by the 2010 Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions has encouraged independent GOP establishment-oriented groups and donors to get involved in primary contests that had previously been dominated by the more radical Club for Growth and FreedomWorks. 

This has a double benefit: Incumbents and GOP insider choices are receiving financial support, while the party's hands are kept clean, as the national party organs do not have to step in to fight their conservative base. 

In Utah, Sen. Orrin Hatch appears to be successfully fighting back a Tea Party challenge with the help of the American Action Network. In Texas, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has the support of two super PACs, backed with major contributions from the biggest Republican donors, against a challenge from former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who is supported by Tea Party-aligned groups including the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks. 

The effort is even evident at the presidential level where Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee with the help of a super PAC backed by establishment GOP money. Restore Our Future spent more attacking Romney's top two competitors, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, than those two candidates together spent on their entire campaigns through the end of February.

Along with the help of the American Action Network, two super PACs have launched in Indiana to back Lugar. Hoosiers for Jobs, which has already run ads attacking Mourdock, is funded by former Bush bundlers Sam Fox, Roy Pfauch and Frank Islam. 

(snip)

The American Action Network has telegraphed that its efforts to support Lugar stem from a fear that Mourdock would hurt Republican chances of taking back the Senate. "We're investing in this race now because a Mourdock primary victory would only embolden [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid and his liberal allies this November," the group said in a recent release. 

Down in Texas, the two super PACs supporting Lt. Gov. Dewhurst have raised a combined $1 million to beat back the insurgent Cruz. Donors to the Conservative Renewal PAC and the Texas Conservatives Fund include the most giving names in Republican donor circles, like Harold Simmons, Bob Perry and Kenny Troutt. Simmons, the second biggest super PAC donor this election cycle, gave $500,000 to the Conservative Renewal PAC, and Perry, the third biggest super PAC donor, gave $100,000 to the Texas Conservatives Fund.
The mission statement of Conservative Renewal PAC states that Dewhurst is "under fire by special interest groups including well-funded 'Super PAC's' from outside of Texas and he needs us to fight for him." Again, there's no notice that the candidate's main competitor is a Republican. 

While it is unlikely that a GOP candidate, whether the establishment or the Tea Party choice, would lose in either Texas or Utah, Republicans fear having to divert funds from closer races in other states, as they did in 2010. 

In the last electoral cycle, Republican candidates like the fire-breathing Tea Partier Sharron Angle in Nevada, the inept Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Ken Buck in Colorado, and Linda McMahon in Connecticut all lost general election races that many believed could have been won by more seasoned candidates. Investing money in their races sucked party funds away from other close contests, like the nail-biter in Washington won by Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. 

(snip) 

None other than Sen. Lugar explained on CNN's "State of the Union" in December 2011, "They were people who claimed that they wanted somebody who was more of their Tea Party aspect, but in doing so, they killed off the Republican chances for a majority. This is one of the reasons why we have a minority in the Senate right now."
Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that the American Action Network spent $300,000 to support Sen. Dick Lugar in Indiana. The correct amount is $590,000.                              

Excerpt:  Read More at  Huffington Post 

Update: Not Running According to Twitter: Is New Jersey Governor Christie a moderate -- Believes in Gun Control and Global Warming

UPDATE, 8/27/11:  All the hoopla by Fox News for Governor Christie getting in the race including getting people in NJ to say he was running this morning has hit a brick wall according to Fox News Twitter:  #Breaking: Sources close to #ChrisChristie tell @FoxNews that NJ governor has decided, once and for all, not to run for president in #2012

What purpose did all the Christie rumors serve?  Were they done to make Romney look more moderate?  More people told Fox News they knew he was running to the stage you were trying to figure out why as the following details how slim of chance Christie would have to win the nomination.

*****

We decided to look into Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, to see where he stood on the issues since he is the Fox flavor of the week for President.  Conservatives got had once again -- have to hand it to Fox as they are very smooth at selling what they want their viewers to think.   You would think the conservative news sites would be up in arms about the potential for Christie who is moderate on a lot of issues entering the race but it is crickets chirping -- same crickets chirping about how Fox slanted the Orlando debate to make Republicans look bad.

This begs to question how many sites being touted as conservative are an extension of Ailes' Fox News or Rove's Crossroads?

Pretty bad when you have to go to liberal sites to find out the truth -- they are actually willing to tell it like it is.  This comes from the New Republic article, "Chris Christie, Closet Moderate?  Here are some facts:

Nate Silver has an interesting post arguing that Chris Christie managed to become a darling of the conservatives without being as conservative as they think he is. He" supported the assault weapons ban and opposed concealed carry laws." He "stated explicitly that global warming was real and manmade." He "stated [in 2008] that “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime.” He has "“no issue with same-sex couples sharing contractual rights,” i.e., civil unions, though he does oppose abortion rights and same-sex marriage. He's soft on the "ground zero" mosque (which is actually a couple of blocks away). He declined to challenge Obamacare in court. And he actually put out an Obama-friendly ad during his 2009 gubernatorial campaign.

All this really says, Silver points out, is that Christie is about as conservative as you can get away with being when you're governor of New Jersey. This is, after all, a state so liberal that you aren't even allowed to pump your own gas, lest an attendant be put out of work. But that suggests his natural rival isn't Rick Perry; it's Mitt Romney, whose problem is kind of similar. So if your reason for wanting another candidate in the race is you don't like Romney, root for Christie to get in so he and Romney can split the moderate vote and throw the nomination to Perry. But if your reason fro wanting another candidate in the race is you don't like Perry, then you should root against Christie jumping in. Silver's analysis is somewhat more nuanced than my summary here, but that I think is where it takes you.

We decided to take this one step further and go see what Silver had to say on some of the issues:

Gun Control. New Jersey, a mostly suburban state, tends to take a moderate position on gun control, and Mr. Christie has in the past as well. In 2009, Mr. Christie’s campaign rebutted a claim by his Democratic opponent, Jon Corzine, that he stood with the N.R.A. by pointing out that Mr. Christie supported the assault weapons ban and opposed concealed carry laws. A statement on Mr. Christie’s campaign Web site in 2009 said that he supported New Jersey’s existing gun control laws, which are fairly strict.

The Environment and Global Warming. During the 2009 campaign, Mr. Christie sometimes critiqued Governor Corzine’s performance on the environment from the left, and he won the endorsement of the New Jersey Environmental Foundation, the first statewide Republican candidate to do so in 30 years. 

More recently, however, Mr. Christie withdrew New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program. But while so doing, he stated explicitly that global warming was real and manmade and endorsed the views of the consensus of climate scientists.

Immigration. In 2008, Mr. Christie, then a United States attorney, stated that “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime.” The statement drew a harsh critique from CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who called for Mr. Christie’s resignation, and is a good bet to make a reappearance in one of his opponent’s campaign commercials should Mr. Christie enter the race. 

Mr. Christie has received an F from NumbersUSA, an organization that favors greater restrictions on both legal and illegal immigration.

Social Issues. Mr. Christie is an opponent of both abortion rights and same-sex marriage, but his campaign Web site in 2009 stated that he had “no issue with same-sex couples sharing contractual rights,” an apparent reference to New Jersey’s existing civil unions law. 

In 2010, Mr. Christie broke with other prominent Republicans by accusing his party of “overreacting” to the proposed construction of an Islamic mosque and cultural center near the ground zero site, although he also criticized President Obama’s position on the issue.

One noteworthy example is a video that Mr. Christie’s campaign released in the closing days of the 2009 campaign. It featured extended and positively framed clips of Mr. Obama, who was more popular then, and interspersed images of supporters of Mr. Christie and Mr. Obama, implying that Mr. Christie would be in the legacy of Mr. Obama’s mandate for “change.”

Most conservatives were opposed to Obama and his policies long before he took office in January 2009 but in October 2009 after he had been in office almost a year, Christie used this ad for his campaign.  I thought Charlie Crist and hugging Obama was bad in FL but this blows Charlie right out of the water.  This ad made my jaw drop that Christie would even consider running as a Republican.  There is no way after this ad, he would get to first base even with Romney.  Romney is a lot more conservative in many ways than Christie but yet Fox News is now pushing Christie.  In fact I was so put off by this ad that I refused to watch the last 30 seconds.  I am having a hard time believing this campaign ad came from a Republican paid for by Republican donor money.

On fiscal issues Christie is pretty conservative or we think he is -- wouldn't bet on that now either after watching this ad.

This article started out to be more about how Fox News trying to sway the Republican Presidential primary to get their candidate who will make conservatives mad and stay home then Chris Christie.  That said we are appalled at anyone who wants to get him in the race as a Republican with this type of baggage.  First his stance on a lot of issues conservatives will never agree, but his ad did it for me completely.  I could never support someone that far left.  Knew he has been praising Obama from time to time since he became Governor but this ad which I have never seen before takes the prize.  If I didn't know better, I would say it was an ad for the Democrat.

Christie being for gun control and global warming is man made are non-starters out in the south and west.  His comments on the mosque and illegal immigration will also strike a lot of people wrong.  Once this ad gets out, his chances with conservatives are nil.  He is the latest flavor of the week for Fox News and Rove so we will see where this goes.

Will conservative sites wake up on what Fox is doing or are they too deeply involved with Ailes, Fox News, and Rove?  Time will tell!

Title Should Read: Rove is Toxic to Conservative GOP Candidate Rick Perry

Have a few things to say about Mr. Rove and his attacks on Governor Perry.  First of all, the Governor is right on social security and the status quo if maintained will ensure that my children never see a dime from social security they are paying into right now.  It is time there was a shake-up in social security for younger people so they can expect a return on what they have paid into social security.  Shame Rove has his head buried in the sand but since he is backing Romney or shall we say anyone against Perry we are not surprised.

Rove has been out to get Perry since 1998 in the Lt Governor's race but in 2006, he went over the top.  Did he actually prefer a Democrat get elected and then switch parties 1998?  The bad blood with Perry has one wondering if their attacks and getting Bush 41 supporter Rylander to run in 2006 as an independent was to clear the path in case Gov Perry decided to run against Romney for President.

Romney has been running for President since 2006 when his first term ended as Governor of MA -- no job except running for President and counts himself unemployed.   Why would we elect someone who has held no leadership position of any kind while preparing to run for President for almost five years.  He goes into a debate last night with plenty of experience practicing for the debate while Governor Perry goes into the debate after spending this week concentrating on the fires in Texas.  There was no time to practice so what you saw with Governor Perry last night is what you get -- not someone who has been practicing for debates for five years with no other job.

Governor Perry won the debate in a lot of people's eyes because he is a leader not someone who sticks their finger in the wind and changes their stance on issues like Romney did on global warming and other issues.  The moderators of the debate and most of the Republican candidates did their best to attack Perry so it made Perry look like he was being used as a punching bag but he stood his own ground.  That is something none of the other candidates would have been able to do if they came under that type of attack.

The person who is toxic in all of this is Karl Rove who would rather see the Republican Party destroyed rather then see Rick Perry as President as many of us have been seeing especially since 2006.  That pits the Bush 41 establishment Republicans aka as the country club or Rockefeller Republicans against the Republicans who supported Reagan in 1980 not Bush 41.  Why should we settle for a group who is perfectly happy with a weak dollar policy.  There is only one person in the race who can say they have added jobs in their state and that is Gov Perry.  Romney couldn't even add jobs in MA in the early part of the century when he was Governor.

This is stunning to watch Rove go after Perry so heavily now out in public.  We have been hearing rumors for a long time that Rove on behalf of Bush 41 wants either a Romney/Jeb Bush ticket or the GOP to lose in 2012 so Jeb Bush can run in 2016.  Is Rove trying to clear the way for 2016 like he did in 2006 in the Congressional elections making sure the Democrats won so immigration could be passed.  His actions in 2006 when he was supposed to be leading the charge to keep the Congress were just the opposite.  Bush people were in charge of NRCC and NRSC so what does that tell you about 2006?

Time to end the Ivy League Presidents and elect someone who comes from the Heartland not a transplant to the Heartland who understands what people have been going through struggling to keep their heads above water.  Personally would love to see a Perry/Cain ticket to shake up things by two Washington outsiders and see Rove and the rest of that group who are on the attack on the outside looking in because there would be no place for them in a Perry/Cain Administration.

Rove: Perry's Social Security Views Are Toxic
Wednesday, 07 Sep 2011 11:29 AM
By Henry J. Reske

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s description of Social Security as a failed “Ponzi scheme” is toxic, not just in a general election but also in a Republican primary, Karl Rove said today on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Rove said the Perry campaign is going to have to deal with that assertion, which he made in his book, “Fed Up,” and another that described Social Security as one of many New Deal programs that have “never died, and like a bad disease, they have spread.”

“They’re toxic in a general election environment and they are also toxic in a Republican primary,” Rove said on GMA. “And if you say Social Security is a failure and ought to be replaced by a state level program, then people are going to say ‘What do you mean by that?’ and make a judgment based on your answer to it.” 

Rove, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, said it is too early to conclude that Perry is best suited to beat President Barack Obama. Republicans “can blow it,” Rove said, by “having a candidate who could not appeal to the swing voters in this election who are conservative minded independents, Latinos and white working class voters . . . 

The primary has to be a process by which our candidate is strengthened not weakened and emerges from the end of it ready to conduct a general election campaign for the voters who are up for grabs in this election.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Rove: Perry's Social Security Views Are Toxic

IBD Editorial: Romney's Doomed '3rd Rail' Attack on Perry

Is it possible since Romney has Bush 41 and Rove on his side, that he and his supporters think all of the Bush people are going to support Romney?  How else can you explain the Romney people giving Marc Thiessen, a former Bush 43 speech writer, their plan of action?  If so, that was stupid.

Conservative are more galvanized then I have seen them since 1980 in wanting to turn the Country around and want someone who understands what they are going through on a daily basis with this horrible economy.  In 1980 it was high interest rates with inflation.  Now it is lack of jobs, raises, and inflation with groceries and gasoline even if the powers at be in Government won't admit it as they took them out of the inflation criteria.  Go buy groceries and see prices going up almost every week and then tell us there is no inflation.

This is what happens when someone very wealthy runs for office -- they are out of touch with most Americans who work for a living to buy a home, a car, pay utility bills, buy groceries and gas for the car while hoping to have enough left over for cell phones and cable TV.  Vacations were pretty much out of the picture for a lot of people this year with the high cost of gas since taking a family on a trip by air is expensive not to mention the cost hotels and meals.

Romney is getting ready to tear down a 3,000 sq foot home on the beach in La Jolla, CA to build a $12M mansion.  I don't care if he builds a $20M mansion, but trying to tell most of us he understands as he is unemployed himself is a total insult.  With those comments, it became personal for me after what I have seen happen in the last few years.  Want no part of a candidate who builds a $12M mansion and compares himself to someone who is really unemployed.

Is Romney so clueless that he doesn't understand young people are upset that Social Security they have paid into over the years is most likely either not going to be there, or they will receive a small pension if something is not done.  Most young people understand Social Security needs action not just bandaids and words to ensure solvency.  Romney is against raising the cutoff for how long people have to pay into social security which is now $106,000.  Why?  He calls it a tax increase -- most of us call it fair.  If someone makes $105,000 and has to pay social security on his whole income, why doesn't someone making $250,000 a year have to pay social security on his whole income?  

Any way you slice it, Social Security is a ponzi scheme for young workers whether Romney wants to admit the truth or not.  Commentary Magazine has this to say:

Whatever the case, on substance, Perry is quite right. For younger people, Social Security is almost the definition of a Ponzi scheme. It takes money from the current generation in order to pay out money to support (among others) current retirees. Younger workers are led to believe they are putting money away for their retirement when in fact, they’re giving money away to others. There is no “trust fund” and no “lock box” – and because of demographics the younger generation cannot count on anything like the support past generations have received.

Romney attacks on Perry on the 3rd rail are going to backfire like the attacks on the letter that he sent to Hillary Clinton when he was the Texas Ag Commissioner:

In a letter to Clinton, who is now U.S. Secretary of State, Perry wrote: “I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system are most commendable.” 

“I would like to request that the task force give particular consideration to the needs of the nation’s farmers, ranchers, and agriculture workers, and other members of rural communities,” Perry continued, noting his administration’s focus on economic development for rural Texans. 

“Rural populations have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services.”… 

Asked by TheDC about the 1993 letter, Perry’s presidential campaign defended it, saying the full scope of Clinton’s healthcare plan was not yet known when Perry signed it. 

“You need to read the letter,” top Perry political strategist Dave Carney told The Daily Caller. 

“He praised her efforts in trying to tackle the issue and urged her not to overlook rural Americans. The letter was at the onset of her efforts before she proposed anything. No one could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up, in fact not to be outdone until ObamaCare years later.”

Rove has lost it after all those years inside the beltway if he thinks that Romney is going to pick up steam and votes by wanting Social Security to remain the status quo or getting someone to release this letter to Hillary that shows Perry was looking out for the farmers and ranchers.

In fact, with all of Romney's flip flops in recent months he is reminding us of another Massachusetts candidate, John Kerry, who was legendary when it came to flip flopping on the issues.  Romney is rapidly closing in on him.  Not only is Romney sounding like the flip flopper John Kerry but when Romney launched his campaign on April 11, 2011, he stole the slogan of his campaign from Kerry:

Mitt Romney's launched his exploratory committee today with a dynamic new slogan: "Believe in America." 

If that slogan sounds a little familiar, that's because it was the title of John Kerry's cross-country tour in August of 2004, as CNN reported a two-week, 3,500-mile, coast-to-coast trip, dubbed the 'Believe in America' tour, that will take them to 21 states and 40 cities."

Romney and his people cannot even come up with an original slogan using the one for Kerry instead.  Tell me again why he is running for President.

Romney is also sounding more like Bill Clinton by the day with putting his finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing on Global Warming and now Social Security and then doing a flip flop.  Add his 'me too' mentality like now saying he may go into Iowa after dissing their straw poll in order to take on Perry in Iowa is laughable.  He wanted no part of Iowa but now may challenge Perry in Iowa?  Good Luck with that in a farm state like Iowa.  What is he going to do offer Iowans more of an ethanol subsidy and make the rest of the country mad?

The Romney campaign has the look of 2008 when he was put on his heels by McCain and never recovered.  He started grasping at straws then and is now doing the same thing.  He never should have run in 2012 when he couldn't beat McCain in 2008.  Now more people I know are even more galvanized against Romney for saying he was going to support McCain and help him win when he dropped out but he did virtually nothing in the campaign.  It is payback time!

Editorial: Romney's Doomed '3rd Rail' Attack On Perry 

Posted 06:16 PM ET 

Election '12: Mitt Romney reportedly intends to use the "third rail of politics" — touch Social Security and you die — to kill Rick Perry. But the winning strategy next year may be something novel for politicians: the truth. 

For unexplained reasons, Mitt Romney's people in New Hampshire told former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen about their grand strategy to defeat Texas Gov. Rick Perry — and the plan couldn't be more out of sync with the anger currently raging at the Republican grassroots. 

"Romney strategists are quick to note that in his book, 'Fed Up!,' Perry writes that 'By any measure, Social Security is a failure' and calls the program 'something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now' that was created 'at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,'" Thiessen wrote in the Washington Post on Monday. 

The Romneyites promise their man "will use Perry's book to scare seniors in early-primary states with large retiree populations, such as Florida and South Carolina." And, he says, they'll charge that Perry is against the very idea of Social Security and Medicare. 

There is, dare we say, a RINO-sized problem with Romney taking this approach. The former Massachusetts governor is already at a disadvantage as the least conservative, establishment-favored major candidate in what for rank-and-file Republican voters are very anti-establishment times. 

On top of explaining away his "Obomney Care" health reform, plus flip-flops on carbon emission restrictions, the minimum wage, capital gains taxes, abortion and other issues, does Romney really want to be guardian of the big-government status quo on entitlements too? 

Perry rightly has charged that "Deceptive accounting has hoodwinked the American public into thinking that Social Security is a retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not." 

Perry compares it to an "illegal Ponzi scheme."Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast 

He obviously knew such stark language would give ammo to opponents in a presidential run. 

"But by remaining quiet," Perry wrote in his book, "politicians are really saying they think the American people won't understand it if we share the grim details of our financial future ... Is that how we should respect our fellow citizens? By underestimating their intelligence, their desire to retire with greater stability, or their commitment to the next generation?" 

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare now exceed $100 trillion. Perry might just think laying out the frightful facts about entitlements to the American people is the way to the White House. 

Moreover, targeting Perry on Social Security would be yet another Romney flip-flop: In early 2008 he told Glenn Beck he supported "giving people more of their income going in, or their Social Security withdrawal going into, private accounts." 

Can Rick Perry use his high voltage rhetoric to switch that electrified "third rail of politics" to another track? 

Instead of reform-minded politicians being the ones in danger, will those who support spending as usual have to beware the voters?  

IBD: Left And Right Going Nuclear On Rick Perry (Understatement)

Governor Perry will have been in the race two weeks tomorrow and the attacks are petty, over the top, and in many cases the truth stretched to the point of turning into a lie.  Don't know what else to call it when you take what someone says and leave off the ending of sentences to make it fit your agenda like we first saw out of Tancredo followed by Malkin.  Both were rebuked on various websites for their comments.

This isn't like 1980 when President Reagan faced these same attacks from the right and the left.  Today we have the internet to do our own search.  There is one constant though between 1980 and 2012 -- Karl Rove who worked against Reagan for Bush 41 with dirty tricks and articles dropped that were not quite factual.  We are seeing the same thing today except it is out in the open as so many people have figured out what Bush 41 and Rove are up to in supporting Romney by trying to get a host of candidates into the race they think can take out Perry.  So far all of them like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie have told them NO!  Rove and some of the other consultants along with inside the beltway types want Perry defeated at all cost even if it destroys the Republican Party.  They have put their own interest and egos ahead of what is best for the Country.

This morning the Washington Examiner has the headline:  Perry trails Romney versus Obama.  When you read the article the author compares the fact that Perry beats Romney by double digits but in a head to head Romney beats Obama by more than Perry.  Excuse me but Perry has been in the race less than two weeks and Romney since 2004.  Romney lost to McCain in 2008, and now only beats Obama by eight points when Obama's numbers have tanked?  Perry has room to grow as people get to know him better but everyone knows Romney.  Hate to break to the Washington Examiner but Romney has to win a Republican Primary and dissing the forum of Sen DeMint after dissing Iowa does not spell a win in the Republican primary.  Just found it amusing that a writer so desperate to show Romney as the best candidate would compare him to someone who just got in the race.

These paragraphs from Doug MacKinnon  who is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming memoir, "Rolling Pennies In The Dark" sums up his thoughts on Governor Perry which mirror a lot of us who have been supporting him for a long time:

As he tells his story and as he explains his vision, more and more voters are lining up behind him. As that momentum builds, more and more from the left and right try to twist his words, besmirch his reputation and deceive the American people. 

Fortunately for all who still cherish traditional values, the voters are wise to these self-serving attacks on Perry. Most are now willing and anxious to hear the Texas governor out. 

The rest is up to him. 

The only thing that has surprised me with the attacks is how they went nuclear right away.  Fox News was willing to take what Rove had to tell them at face value and were so far out in left field on the Rick Perry and what he done for Texas, the Dallas Fed Governor took the NY Times, Fox News, and other pundits to task telling them he will have a monthly report with the facts.  Hope Rove is really proud of himself because he has the disdain from many people who once admired him for his actions and those of Bush 41 to the point where Jeb Bush had to defend him and his brother on Cavuto and threw Rove under the bus.

Rove is not the only one as you can tell by the articles on The Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News,  the Washington Examiner, and the Wall Street Journal for starters on the right.  MSNBC is going nuts with a Perry candidacy along with the alphabet networks and liberal newspapers.  Didn't take a political person to see through Rove with his comments in Fox interviews plus articles for The Wall Street Journal and what he was feeding various writers and pundits.

This article from MacKinnon at IBD nails their agenda for going after Perry -- on the left they are afraid of another Carter versus Reagan and on the right the consultants fear being shut out of the White House if Perry wins.  Frankly speaking I hope that Rove gets what is due after all of these of under handed tactics he has used against his candidate's opponents like in South Carolina against Senator McCain.  His mantra seems to be if you cannot win in a fair fight then take them out any way you can even if it means lying about the opposing candidate.  Looking forward to seeing Rove lose this battle in the primary!

Will Rove have the nerve to attack Rick Perry against Obama?  Stay tuned for the answer!

Left And Right Going Nuclear On Rick Perry
By DOUGLAS MACKINNON Posted 08/25/2011 07:01 PM ET 

When you hear every single liberal media outlet in the country say, "We will know more about Rick Perry after we vet his 11 years in office," you need to understand that what they vindictively mean is: "President Obama and his followers will be proud of us after we are done with the mother of all smearing campaigns against the conservative governor of Texas." 

Not since Ronald Reagan has a Republican candidate for president evoked such outright fear and loathing from the mainstream media and the far-left. 

They are flat-out petrified of Perry and are desperately trying to kill off his candidacy before it can take hold. Why? 

Simple. As they suspiciously heap praise on the likes of Jon Huntsman and even Mitt Romney, they increasingly worry that Perry has the best chance to defeat their handpicked socialist messiah now occupying the Oval Office. 

With exactly that mission in mind, an editor of a major newspaper told me: "We plan to declare war on Rick Perry and do all in our power to crush him." 

There you have it. No pretense of integrity, professionalism or of unbiased news-gathering. This particular newspaper plans to use its very considerable resources to destroy the Perry campaign before it gains momentum. Period. 

Enemies On The Right 

Beyond the usual suspects in the far-left media, many in the GOP establishment such as Karl Rove, are doing all they can to derail the Perry campaign. Again, why? 

Erick Erickson, in an excellent horse race summation in Red State, nails the answer: 

"So you have these guys ... trying to settle every score they can with Perry and his consultant, Dave Carney. ... Because so much of the consultant class will be shut out of the White House should Rick Perry win, their livelihoods depend on Rick Perry losing either now or in November. 

And frankly, for a few in the GOP consultant class, they'll gladly see Perry lose in November just to ensure they are not shut out of a Republican White House. For all the talk of Perry being an establishment guy, the establishment hates his guts as much as the left does . . ." 

Erickson then punctuates the close of that paragraph with this all powerful truth: "That's one reason the base finds him so endearing." 

Exactly. The majority of the American people know — or will know — the real deal when they see it, and that is what is causing so much of the left and the establishment right to quake right down to their faux-Texas cowboy boots. 

The White House has already launched what has been called an "unprecedented" attack against Perry. 

Obediently joining them in this politics of personal destruction campaign against Perry being the likes of NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and the liberal bottom-feeders at Comedy Central and the cable networks. 

Excerpt:  Read More at IBD

Rove joins the Bush anti-Perry campaign

The last puzzle piece finally has fallen in place -- this is all about getting Jeb on the ticket as the VP and then win or lose he runs in 2016.  No wonder the so-called conservative sites like the Weekly Standard are after Perry, he is not a Bush person and they want Jeb in 2012 as VP so he can be President in 2016.  The only thing we disagree with is that Rove just joined the Bush anti-Perry campaign, he has been on that train for a long time.  In last year's primary he was part of the group trying to take out Perry with Kay Bailey for Bush 41.  Did they suspect that Rick might run and wanted to make sure he didn't.  What a disgusting bunch of power hungry people.

Now Rove has gotten some of the Bush Congressmen on board to have them tell Perry to tone it down.  Why would anyone listen to what members of the House have to say?  Those Congressman will do anything that the Bush family and Karl Rove want and you can take it to the bank.  Three used their names and a 4th didn't saying he thought a lot of his constituents would support Perry.  The fact that Rick is outspoken and says what needs to be said is refreshing instead of the wishy washy people in the House except for people like Eric Cantor, Pete Sessions, Mike Pence Steve King and others who are not beholding to the Bush camp.

What gives Bush 41 and his cabal the idea that another Bush should be President?  Isn't two members of the same family enough?  Guess you could say I am a recovering Bush supporter and feel totally duped by this bunch.

They took out McCain twice -- first in 2000 in SC with the lies orchestrated by Karl Rove and then in 2008 with the TARP that was orchestrated to make McCain look bad and Obama as the leader that Bush and Bernanke could rely on.

Looks the only thing that matters to the Bush Family under Bush 41 is power.  It started with Nixon when a whole group of them were in the Nixon Administration.  When Nixon went down, they had Ford but managed to tank him in the general election waiting for Bush 41 to step forward in 1980 but there was a glitch -- Ronald Wilson Reagan who believed deeply in America and what we could accomplish.  Fortunately, Reagan had Lee Atwater who was better at playing the game than Rove was for Bush 41.  Reagan won and then made the big mistake of putting Bush 41 on the ticket.  Always had the feeling that Reagan was looked down on by Bush 41 for not being from the Ivy League.

Anyone ever wonder why neither Bush would say a word against the person who replaced them even when the Bush 43 people found their offices trashed by Clintonites.  I know I have but this is all about politics to set up another member of the family to be President so you don't want to alienate Clinton so you bring him into the family.  Thought it was strange that Bust 41 visited Obama but not any more.

It is time that conservatives from the grassroots and the local Tea Parties to say enough is enough and get behind the candidate that the Bush family and Karl Rove hates the most:  Rick Perry.  We know for sure that he is not one of their cabal.

Rove joins the Bush anti-Perry campaign

What kind of man wants to be VP anyway? 

Via HotAir by Tina Korbe: “Karl Rove: Christie, Ryan, Palin might still grow the field”:

“We’ve got a good field,” Rove said on Hannity on Aug. 15. "I think we are likely to see several other candidates think seriously about getting in . . . I think Chris Christie and Paul Ryan are gonna look at it again . . . I’m starting to pick up some sort of vibration that these kind of conversations are causing Christie and Ryan to tell the people who are calling them, you know what, I owe it to you, I’ll take a look at it.” 

Dude, I wonder who is calling. Jeb Bush? Former Bush employee Mitch Daniels? Karl Rove?
This is Rove street theater to have Jeb Bush as VP on a Christie or Ryan ticket; to win or lose in 2012 is irrelevant. It will return it to the Bush family via Jeb in 2016. 

As said here months back, Chris Christie is the Bush family’s Barack Obama; the last chance for the family fortune before the millennium finally awakens, as Obama was/is for the Kennedy family. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard blurted it out on TV months back when Christie was the flavor of the month. The ticket should be: “Christie with Jeb Bush as VP.” Got it.
The problem here of course is that Mormon, Mitt Romney, who demands to be heard as a free man in America. As Ann Coulter blurted out some months back, Christie should run because Romney cannot win. 

That is, he cannot win in the heartland because he is a Mormon. Perhaps. But at this moment, Mitt Romney virtually holds the future of the world in his hands. What the Bush proxies want is for Romney not to win in New Hampshire’s primary. Because Christie or whomever the push ahead will then have gone through Iowa with nothing, then a big win for Romney in New Hampshire, then a big win in South Carolina for Perry and onward and upward for Perry/Bachmann in the red states. 

Even the jolly, likable and apparently loyal Bushido Christie would not have a chance. He doesn’t have a chance in South Carolina or Iowa anyway. He would have to win New Hampshire to go forward. 

The only way he could do that is if Mitt Romney, ahead by a large margin in NH right now, dropped out of the race completely before the primary. Mitt’s decision is, do I take one for the team? That is, do I fold in with the Bush plantation or take my chances in America? Anyone who has watched Romney in Massachusetts and anywhere knows one thing: that he is his own man and he is a free man. 

Source:  The Hill

IBD Editorial Weighs in on Rove's Tactics toward Gov Perry

We were not going to post this but then I was reminded by a good friend that yesterday's articles came from The Daily Beast and we needed to show that a conservative site is also going after Rove.  IBD editorial fills that with their article last night.  This time Rove picked the wrong fight and frankly hope he is discredited for good.  It is time to stop the elitist establishment from trying to pick our candidates by using underhanded and unethical tactics to take out who they don't want.

The money quote of this article that Rove, Bush 41, Karen Hughes, and others loyal to Bush 41 behind the attacks on Perry with dirty tricks would be wise to read and then look at themselves in the mirror:

It also shows Rove and his friends in high places aren't putting party and country first.

That one sentence from an IBD Editorial says it all about Rove and the Bush 41 cabal.  They have put themselves ahead of everything as they attempt to play kingmaker once again in the Republican Party.  This time it is not going to work just like it didn't work with Kay Bailey in the Texas Governor's race primary last year.

What are they afraid of with Governor Perry?   Could it be that like President Reagan, that Perry would interrupt the agenda of Big Government types.  From the comments on many message boards, the Bush 41 cabal with Rove out in front trying to tank Perry is not playing well with conservatives. Does this group want four more years of Obama to make more money?  Is this what this is all about or are they concerned that Governor Perry would have a real energy policy for the United States to become self sufficient along with Canada?  That would cut off their good friends in Saudi.

Does Rove have any credibility left except for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal?  Liberals must love him for trying to take out Governor Perry as he launched his campaign.  Why does the Bush Family want Romney elected so bad?

Now going after Paul Ryan using Indiana Governor Daniels and Wisconsin Governor Walker makes no sense.  Paul Ryan has zero executive experience the same thing we went after Obama for not having.  At least Obama had run a statewide race -- Ryan hasn't even done that.  Would Rove be so underhanded to get Ryan to run to hurt Perry's numbers so Romney could win.  You can bet on that one and then he would offer Ryan the VP to get him to drop out.

Ryan is a family man with young children who has said he doesn't want to run but that doesn't stop Rove, Jeb Bush, and others from wanting him in the race.  Why would establishment Republicans want Ryan in the race -- he did support TARP but why else?  They should leave him alone and let him keep doing his job as Budget Chairman.  He is a policy wonk and doing a good job as Chairman -- is this actually more about getting him to step down as Budget Chairman?  I don't trust anything coming out of that bunch today -- not a thing.

Does Walker think that Rove is going to rush into rescue him if there is a recall since Walker did back off on Perry yesterday?  As for Daniels, I know people in Indiana who do not like him and cannot wait for a real conservative, Mike Pence, to become Governor.  Is Rove going to try to take him out as well?  Seems to be his aim to put moderates in office and take out conservatives.

IBD Editorial writers are also onto Karl Rove and his tactics against Perry:

But there is also an obvious resentment against Perry as a non-Ivy League upstart whose Tea Party principles might discredit the big spending of the Bush presidency with which Rove is so well associated. 

All the GOP candidates — Perry most certainly included — have yet to pass through the crucible of extended public scrutiny, but Perry's solid record as a jobs-generating governor could be the winning formula for 2012.  For Rove and other establishment Republicans to try to sabotage him on the heels of his announcement was a dream come true for the liberal-dominated media, who are only too happy to portray the GOP as disunited against Obama.

We thought this question from IBD says it all:

Is Karl Rove, architect of George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004, trying to subvert the candidacy of another Texas, Governor Rick Perry?

Looks like Rove overstepped big time with his attempt to take out Governor Perry and then try to get others in the race to take him out.   This is unbelievably stupid for Rove to pull this crap and shows he puts Bush 41 and his cabal first over what is best for America.

To Governor Perry's credit he has not said a word, but that doesn't mean his supporters are going to sit idly by and allow Rove to try and pull this underhanded dropping of news articles, going on TV saying things that are in a grey area of the truth or generally being an unethical person but then that is nothing new going back to when he ran for College Republican Chair.  History speaks for itself.  This time it is not going to work but at least Rove has shown Republicans what he is all about -- conservatives with experience need not apply.

Perry Vs. Petty: A Fight That Republicans Can Do Without 

Posted 06:07 PM ET, August 18, 2011

Election '12: GOP consultant Karl Rove's provincial squabbles with Texas Gov. Rick Perry have no place in the national discourse. The Republican establishment had best set its eyes on the prize: defeating Obama. 

Perry's entry into the presidential sweepstakes certainly has livened things up, at a time when President Obama's popularity plunges and a shaky economy gets even shakier. One unpleasant surprise, however, is the reaction of some of Perry's fellow Republicans. 

Consider what's been happening in the race for the GOP nod. 

Rep. Michele Bachmann, the winner of last weekend's Iowa straw poll, has exceeded expectations as a hard-fighting, articulate ally of the Tea Party movement, mounting a credible challenge to the party establishment's favored candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Bachmann's rise shows that a lot of Americans don't think a garden variety Republican is what's needed to reverse Obama's radicalism. 

But to say it's tough for a member of the House of Representatives to be elected president is an understatement. It's happened only once in U.S. history, in 1880 after a deadlocked GOP convention took 36 ballots to nominate dark horse James Garfield, the Republicans' minority floor leader. 

Perry enters the scene as a savior of sorts — just as passionate against Obama's expansion of government as Bachmann but with over a decade of executive experience governing one of the nation's largest states. And it's a state whose private-sector job growth is exactly what suffering American workers need nationally. 

So why is it that, practically on cue, odd noises are coming from Republicans such as Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, whom Rove wanted to run for president, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who's been admirably taking on his state's public sector unions (with the help of hundreds of thousands of dollars of TV ads by Rove's Crossroads GPS group)? Daniels and Walker are reportedly pushing Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to run for president, although Walker did laud Perry on Fox News Wednesday. 

We bow to no one in our admiration for Ryan, who has had the guts and smarts to propose detailed solutions to America's spending crisis. But like Bachmann, the 41-year-old House Budget Committee chairman has no executive experience. 

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast 

What is Rove's game? The old Texas political hand and architect of the Bush 2000 and 2004 victories has been going out of his way to undermine Perry. For instance, after Perry said it would be "almost treasonous" for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to print more money, the man who helped place a Texas cowboy in the White House told Fox News this week it made Perry sound like "he's a cowboy from Texas." 

Actually, it's about time someone took on the Fed on the national stage and its years of easy money that poisoned mortgages and wrecked the global economy. 

Last year, with Perry a successful governor for nearly a decade, Rove took the extraordinary step of actively helping Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison try to unseat him. Perry beat Hutchison in the GOP primary handily, 51% to 30%, then easily defeated the Democrat in November, 55% to 42%.

....   

Excerpt:  Read More at IBD Editorial

Karl Rove is no Friend of Rick Perry or Conservatives

Cannot believe I am posting something from The Daily Beast but in this case, he is saying what I have been saying for some time about Rove and Bush 41 attacking Rick Perry and conservatives in general.  In 2006 when Republicans lost the election Rove didn't seem to mind yet he was the one put in charge of keeping the Congress in that election?  Then Bush 43 seemed almost glad the Democrats took over Congress so he could get immigration reform passed.

The attacks on Perry really started getting nasty when they decided to take him out with Kay Bailey in the primary of 2010 which was orchestrated by Rove, Karen Hughes, and Bush 41 with Bush 43 sitting on the sidelines.  Rove even got Romney to endorse Kay Bailey and she has endorsed Romney.  Cong Pete Sessions who runs the NRCC has been a long time supporter of Gov Perry and replaced the Bush person at NRCC.  Hughes and Rove almost cost Bush the 2000 election with hiding the fact of the DUI which came out almost at the last minute and then Hughes inserts herself to go speak for Bush.  That was bad.

Rove's, Crossroads, was started IMHO to help fund Romney's campaign in 2012 after he spent so much of his own money in 2008 on his failed campaign.  Said yesterday on here that I believed that Karl Rove is planting these negative articles against Perry with his buddies in the media.  Now this morning I get this in my email as one of many emails I get every day with updates from both sides.  I am even on the NY Times Breaking News and get other articles so I look at both the right and left for articles.  This one made my jaw drop about Rove and how he is going after Perry only because it says what I have been telling people behind the scenes for a long time after doing the research.  Said during the Texas primary it was Rove and Bush 41 going after Perry to take him out of any chance of running for President.  They failed then and will fail this time.

Today will go one step further to say it is my belief based on what I know that Rove took took out George Allen in 2006 because he 2004 he came to the rescue of Tom Coburn in his race for OK Senator.  Rove and company had shut off all inside the beltway fundraising to Dr. Coburn but George Allen, Dick Cheney, and Club for Growth came to the rescue.  Dr. Coburn was the last person that Rove and Bush wanted in the Senate because he would stand up to some of their economic policies along with their wasting of taxpayer dollars.  Who planted all the negative stories on Allen to defeat him with a Bush 41 person?  My money is on Rove.  In fact, I would bet on it.

Now Rove and Bush people are attempting to get Ryan or Christie in the race but neither are biting.  In fact both should think long and hard about getting involved with Rove as the friend today is the enemy tomorrow if you cross him.

This article says it all and along with others believe it is totally factual when it comes to how desperate Bush 41 and Rove are to keep the status quo of the elites being in charge who come from the Ivy League.  They always considered Reagan a hick as well.

Those negative stories you are seeing in the conservative libertarian media like the Washington Examiner not to mention some of the liberal media come right out of the Rove playbook for Bush 41 who sees Romney threatened along with the elitist threatened by a Rick Perry candidacy.  In fact, Rove is NO friend to conservatives period -- it is about time they got through their heads he favors the elitist of both parties over conservatives and the grassroots movement.  Reading this article had me going -- the truth is finally getting out in the open.  Taken long enough.

What I don't agree with is the outcome.  Perry has been on the opposite side of Rove and Bush 41 for sometime starting with his taking on John Sharp for Lt Governor in 1998 and winning in spite of Rove working against him.  Fortunately he didn't follow his advice and listened to his own people.  Bush 41 and Rove consider Perry a dumb West Texas hick since he has no Ivy League education.  Perry knows how dirty they play and so do his staff and supporters.  IMHO this is a last gasp by the Bush 41 group going back to when Nixon was President.  Check out the links and you find the same people keep appearing in and out of Government as part of the Bush 41 cabal.

Bush 41 tried to undermine President Reagan every step of the way and now the race in 1988 makes more sense since the Reagan loyalists had little to do with that campaign.  Then in 1992, Bush passed the mantel of being a President from the Ivy League to Bill Clinton with Bush running a horrible campaign and then to his son and now Obama -- Yale, Yale, Yale/Harvard, Harvard.  Hillary would have been another Yale grad.

The deal on Libby and outing a CIA agent never smelled quite right and somehow we wondered if it was Rove getting back at Cheney through Libby for Coburn.  Someday the truth will come out.  We know that Dick Cheney may have been in the Bush inner circle but he was always his own person not afraid to say what he thought which many times went against Bush 41.  Only member of the main Bush 41 cabinet that didn't buy into trusting the Russians.

Parts of this article we do not agree with and will add our comments in parenthesis:

Perry’s War With the Bushies
Aug 17, 2011 11:31 PM EDT 

Karl Rove and his operatives appear to have launched a campaign to derail Rick Perry’s 2012 bid, beginning with criticisms that he is 'unpresidential.' Matt Latimer on a decade-old feud over power and money. 

Just because Karl Rove is behind a plot doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t work. That we’re still talking about the former Bush aide at all is a testament to his singular tenacity. (Perry's team and supporters know what he was getting into and how dirty Rove can play the game)

How has he done it? The man helped elect the Pelosi Congress—it was Rove who in 2006 was in charge of holding on to GOP majorities in the House and Senate. He helped elect Barack Obama—insisting that John McCain was the only “electable” Republican in 2008 and bad-mouthing most of the others running. His indispensable support of his boss' overspending and government bailouts even helped create the Tea Party, which has bedeviled Rove and other GOP establishment figures ever since. 

And yet billionaire donors to the Republican Party seem oblivious to the record, handing Rove big, fat checks to fund his activities further. (Reported that a lot of those donors will drop Rove's Crossroads to go to Perry) Perhaps this is because he is charming and witty, has a statistic for every occasion, never stops calling people until he gets what he wants, says all the right things about battling “them liberals,” and wallpapers himself across The Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages and Fox News Channel, where his words are rarely challenged. To his everlasting credit, Rove has truly lived up to his Bush-conferred nickname, “Turdblossom.” He can make any mess he's involved in still smell sweet. 

His brazen and transparent attacks on a leader of his own party, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, may be the greatest test yet of Rove’s remarkable resilience. Some, in fact, are starting to question if we have at last reached “the moment.” Years from now, will we look back at the 2012 primary season as the time when Rove put on his Fonzie jacket, flashed a thumbs-up sign, and then—finally—jumped the shark? 

Yes, at long last, the 2012 race is actually starting to get interesting.

For years, Rove has made it a hobby of sorts to deflate conservatives more popular with the base than he is. Like any good bully, he has tended to focus on easy targets, such as Sarah Palin and Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, piling on them as if he were hoping for a time slot next to Al Sharpton on MSNBC. So far he has (mostly) gotten away with this. 

Now he and his henchmen are undertaking their most serious gamble. Rick Perry managed to shine in Texas without Rove's permission, and now threatens to become the current Republican frontrunner without Rove’s blessing. This, Rove has decreed, must be stopped, even if his party is destroyed in the process. 

The origins of the Rove grudge against Perry really matter only to a handful of people. Suffice it to say it stems from some decade-old feud over power and money. And Rove has lassoed the entire Bush family in on it. The former presidents Bush have made it a great point not to comment on the actions of their successors—Clinton and Obama, respectively. They think there is a nobility to staying out of the fray and not making things more difficult for the next commander in chief. 

Yet the Bushes have shown no compunction about doing just that to a fellow Republican and fellow Texan (though Perry is the only one of them actually born in the state). 

While in the White House, Bush 2 and his aides regularly scoffed at Perry for reasons that were never fully clear, making fun of his syntax and intellectual prowess without any sense of irony. In 2010 the Bush family, along with Rove and Karen Hughes, undertook an unprecedented effort to kick him out of the governor’s chair, handing a crowbar to Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom they judged more "electable." Perry walloped her in the GOP primary, then went on to win a historic third term in the general election by a double-digit margin. So much for electability.

A Perry victory would end whatever chokehold the Bushes still have on the GOP establishment. (My bold and red)

But Rove is nothing if not persistent. Now he and his operatives seem to have something close to a war room against Perry, scrutinizing his every statement in an attempt to cut his young candidacy short. After Rove called Perry “unpresidential,” former Bush press secretary Tony “Ralph Malph” Fratto joined in—calling Perry, you guessed it, “unpresidential.” This was followed in quick succession by similar sentiments from a former Rove aide, Pete “Potsie” Wehner. Meanwhile, two “unnamed” Bush aides (wonder who they could be?) issued the following warning to The New York Times: “If you’re really trying to be the nominee and want to go the distance, you just don’t want the former president of the United States and his people working against you.” (Then again, that’s what the Bushes told Kay Bailey Hutchison.) 

Whatever the rationale, this is truly a bizarre thing for the Bushies to do. Openly attacking a legitimate Republican contender used to be considered bad form, especially in the noblesse oblige world of Greenwich and Kennebunkport from which the Bushes actually hail. And it may finally sever the already tenuous link between the Bush era and the conservative base of the GOP. 

The Bushes are usually more cautious than this, which means they must feel they have no other choice. A Perry victory would end whatever chokehold the Bushes still have on the GOP establishment. It would cut off many donors to Rove, Inc. Worse yet, Karl Rove and his compatriots simply cannot fathom the idea of having to sit on Fox News for four years defending the policies of the man who dared to cross them. 

Perry’s response to all this has been clever and obvious: total silence. He has nothing to gain by stoking an intraparty war. And he need not worry about a bunch of operatives who took the last presidency they managed to a 13 percent approval rating. The former governor may also remember what happened to the Fonz after he jumped that shark. Though the show lingered on for a few more years, it was never quite the same. 

Source:  Matt Latimer

Our money is on Perry and his advisers -- Rove hasn't been looked at like the guru except by the Wall Street Journal and Fox News for sometime.  Now even some big donors are waking up that Rove is about maintaining the status quo with the elitist and would destroy the Republican Party if needed to in order to get his way.  Grassroots conservatives whether they are part of the Tea Party or not are not going to allow that to happen and you can take to the bank.  Our big donors from oil and gas have been encouraging Perry to get in the race.  Veterans for Perry PAC has sprung up because they know Rick Perry is a true veteran who flew C-130's on missions around the globe and has been a huge supporter of theirs as Texas Governor.

There are many of us who supported Bush 43 who are disappointed in what we are seeing out of Rove and the Bush Family against Rick Perry starting with the 2010 Texas Governor's primary.  We stand firmly with Governor Perry and if this puts an end to the Bush 41/Rove trying to run the Republican Party and pick our candidates, that will be an extra added benefit.