Time For Conservatives To Kut The Kord From Karl Rove

I want to write this upfront. I think that Republican operative Karl Rove is a great strategist. He is a proven winner that was able to elect one George W. Bush president and in an epic battle get him reelected.
But that was then and now is now.
Thus it is time for us conservatives to cut our cord from Mr. Rove and challenge him on all fronts.
That means there will be a lot of skirmishes. Outright battles. Some wins and some losses. Because it is the fight for the conservative movement within the Republican party.
The fight is on now because Mr. Rove and one Steven J. Law figure that American Crossroads has not done enough to damage the Republican name.
The New York Times is reporting this latest development in the war between the establishment wing of the GOP and the conservative grass-roots.
Now, Mr. Rove and Mr Law are forming another group, the Conservative Victory Project and it is an attempt as they put it to nominate the "most electable conservative" to office.
Where have we heard this before?
Oh yeah, maybe in 2010 when the GOP establishment was lining up in Florida to back one Charlie The Closet Crist for the nomination to run for senate. They were pretty quick to dismiss one Marco Rubio. But Mr. Rubio gained and gained and overtook Mr. Christ and won the Republican nomination outright. And did Mr. Christ go off and throw his support for Mr. Rubio? No, no, no!!! He decided to run as an independent and even with that Mr. Rubio won the race going away.
OK, that is one instance in which Mr. Rove, aka "The Architect", did not do so well.
Are there others?
Well, let us look back at the just concluded presidential death march election courtesy of Drew M. over at Ace Of Spades. Oh, these are the establishment picks for the senate:

Connie Mack (Florida)
Pete Hoekstra (Michigan)
Denny Rehberg (Montana)
Rick Berg (North Dakota)
George Allen (Virginia)
Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin)

And what do they all have in common? Why yes, they all lost their races for the senate. Some life Mr. Mack and Mr. Hoekstra lost by substantial margins.
Yet what does the GOP establishment and the Obamawhore media have in common?
Well, they seem to blame the whole reason the Republicans did not gain control of the senate on only two men.
Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
Yep, had they just kept their yaps shut about rape, why they would have won their races, right? And their wins would have led to a takeover of the senate, right?
Well, four of the six losers above were running against marginal incumbents and they lost. And they did not say stupid things, right?
No, they just pretty much sucked as candidates.
Look, I am not going to say that the Tea Party always backed great candidates. But in all fairness, the Tea Party did not back Mr. Akin in Missouri. The Tea Party backed Sarah Steelman and the establishment John Brunner. And while Mr. Brunner and Mrs. Steelman duked it out, Mr. Akin squeezed out the win.
And Mr. Mourdock, he had been elected statewide in Indiana and was backed by the Tea Party. And maybe he lost on his rape comment.
But come on Rove and company, you backed more candidates that lost than the Tea Party did last time around.
And BTW, lets take a look at some Tea Party successes.
Here are two election cycle successes in the senate thanks to the Tea Party:

Mike Lee (Utah)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
Marco Rubio (Florida)

Oh yeah, it is real smart of the GOP establishment not once but twice to back the establishment candidate in two races in which two Hispanics were in the running and ended up winning big. I already mentioned the Florida Christ-Rubio race. But how about Texas and the establishment backing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz?
See, sometimes races we are told are slam dunks when they are not. And the only way to get those slam dunks in the eyes of the GOP establishment is to run milquetoast candidates rather than people that are principled and can win elections.
You know that we heard this line from the very same people about one Ronald Wilson Reagan. The establishment was angry that he took on the weak incumbent president Gerald R. Ford in 1976. Yet Mr. Reagan was what GOP voters were looking for. A total antidote against the stain that was one Richard M. Nixon. And dang if he did not come a few delegates short of defeating Mr. Ford. And this was after two successful terms as governor of California. And when Mr. Reagan ran in 1980, the rationale for the George H. W. Bush candidacy is that he could win a general election and Mr. Reagan could not. And who was proven wrong?
Really, a candidate is only as good as the party and their voters believe they are. And if there are races and not coronations, then we find out what side is right. And yeah, sometimes some up and comers don't win a general election. But to have candidates chosen by the hidden hand of the likes of Karl Rove, well that has got to end.
And I leave you with this spectacular piece by Jeffrey Lord over at the American Spectator. For Mr. Lord is right. It is a battle between between those that want to get along and go along and not face the real issues of the day. And those of us believe that there are some principles worth fighting for, even if it is against friends.
But, at the end of the day, in our discussion among friends, we must always remember the bigger enemy is not ourselves but the Democrat party and their agenda for America.