Establishment Republican political guru Karl Rove’s plan to make himself “the decider” of which Republican primary candidates are “electable” and which are “unelectable” continues to take a battering from leaders of the conservative movement.
First Lady of the conservative movement Phyllis Schlafly became the latest prominent conservative to oppose Rove’s self-appointment to the role of arbiter of who wins and who loses in GOP primaries by observing in a World Net Daily column that, “Of the 31 races in which Rove aired TV ads, Republicans won only 9, so his donors got little return on their investment… Rove’s Establishment losers included Rick Berg who lost in North Dakota and Denny Rehberg who lost in Montana, even while Romney was carrying both those states. Other Establishment losers were George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Connie Mack in Florida and Heather Wilson in New Mexico.”
Perhaps most importantly, Schlafly also noted that “Rove built his reputation on his role in electing George W. Bush, but President Bush and his phony ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ did almost nothing for conservative goals. Bush tried hard to put the U.S. in an open-borders ‘North American Union’ with Mexico and Canada, and he inflicted our school kids with federal control over education called ‘No Child Left Behind’.”
And that’s really the crux of the matter.
Rove and other establishment Republicans argue that if candidates who are “too conservative” are nominated in Republican primaries, then they will be defeated in the general election -- allowing Democrats to hold the office. Conservatives want to nominate candidates who will not go along and get along with the Democrats, but also who will actually commit to rolling back the welfare state. We want cutting, not merely slowing, the growth of government and candidates who will fight to protect the personal freedom and constitutional rights of Americans from further government interference -- otherwise what's the point in electing them?
Phyllis Schlafly’s argument, with which we wholeheartedly agree, is that these “Establishment candidates should be called 'me-too' Republicans, a label coined to describe two-time presidential loser Tom Dewey who said 'me too' to obnoxious Democratic programs, and to Nelson Rockefeller (who lost three attempts to get the Republican presidential nomination). Me-too can also be applied to recent Establishment losers: Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney.”
Phyllis Schlafly also made the point that, “There are two reasons why Rove and his rich donors don’t like grass-roots Republicans and tea partiers. The Establishment can’t order them how to vote, and the Establishment wants candidates to talk only about economic issues, never about social, moral, or national-security issues.”
To that we would add, there’s also no payoff for Rove, and his establishment Republican donors and allies, in fighting those battles because there’s no government contract, corporate welfare, insider tax break or lobbying deal involved – at the end of the battle, there’s only a better, freer America. And that’s why it is time for the grassroots to take control of the Republican Party away from the elitists and DC insiders, like Karl Rove, who want to choose our candidates, tell them what to say and how to vote.
You can read the entire Phyllis Schlafly column here on WorldNet Daily.