• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Conservatives Only: Do You SUpport the Conservative Victory Project?

Do you support the Conservative Victory Project


  • Total voters
    11

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,364
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Conservative Victory Project is an effort by Karl Rove to, essentially, support more moderate republican candidates over more far right candidates(my wording). There is a ton of information on the group, and I as a democrat am probably the wrong one to try and explain what exactly it does. A quick google search will give you all the information you could want. Many republicans, notable Gingrich, are very opposed to this effort. I am curious as to whether the conservative posters here are in favor of this groups goals, or opposed, and why.

I ask that only conservatives vote in the poll please, though of course comments are welcome from every one.
 
It sounds like something Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or some other ditzy Democrat would come up with - an attempt to group-think how people should act - let's leave the games and constituency targetting to the liberals and let conservatives simply get back to being conservative and proposing conservative policies, explaining their value, and convincing the electorate that they are good and that you are competent and honest enough to implement them.
 
It sounds like something Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or some other ditzy Democrat would come up with - an attempt to group-think how people should act - let's leave the games and constituency targetting to the liberals and let conservatives simply get back to being conservative and proposing conservative policies, explaining their value, and convincing the electorate that they are good and that you are competent and honest enough to implement them.

Even if that means not getting elected?
 
Even if that means not getting elected?

Let the Democrats be the party of deceit - they are far superior at it anyway. The Republicans, or conservatives in general, should attempt to encourage the more intelligent parts of the electorate to become involved, since it's in their best interest to do so.

The other piece of advice I'd give Republicans/conservatives is that they become more like Canadian conservatives, like myself - we are fiscally conservative and socially liberal - keep the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom - by that, I mean that they should concentrate on those issues that are primary to the reasons government exists - concentrate on managing the business of the nation competently and honestly, and get the hell out of all the social/religious divisive nonsense and anyone who won't, pitch them to the curb and find others who will.
 
Let the Democrats be the party of deceit - they are far superior at it anyway. The Republicans, or conservatives in general, should attempt to encourage the more intelligent parts of the electorate to become involved, since it's in their best interest to do so.

The other piece of advice I'd give Republicans/conservatives is that they become more like Canadian conservatives, like myself - we are fiscally conservative and socially liberal - keep the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom - by that, I mean that they should concentrate on those issues that are primary to the reasons government exists - concentrate on managing the business of the nation competently and honestly, and get the hell out of all the social/religious divisive nonsense and anyone who won't, pitch them to the curb and find others who will.

Where is the deceit in running and supporting moderate republicans?
 
The Conservative Victory Project is an effort by Karl Rove to, essentially, support more moderate republican candidates over more far right candidates(my wording). There is a ton of information on the group, and I as a democrat am probably the wrong one to try and explain what exactly it does. A quick google search will give you all the information you could want. Many republicans, notable Gingrich, are very opposed to this effort. I am curious as to whether the conservative posters here are in favor of this groups goals, or opposed, and why.

I ask that only conservatives vote in the poll please, though of course comments are welcome from every one.

I am against it because I don't consider Rove to be particularly conservative.
I also think that RINOs are not what is needed in the country.
Compromise on finances ,meaning lets spend more won't work anymore. IMO
 
Where is the deceit in running and supporting moderate republicans?

The deceit is in telling the electorate what they think they want to hear or that they can have benefits without consequences to their country's health or to their own personal wealth. Tell me your definition of "moderate" and I'll bet you're pointing out someone willing to compromise principles for votes. Instead of supporting "moderate" Republicans, Rove would be better advised to seek out and support "principled" Republicans.
 
From what I can tell based on the limited amount of DETAILED information their objectives are:
Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”

To me this has always been their objective. IMO, this recent ‘project’ is merely a rebranding of their original purpose in an effort to not lose their donors. Ultimately Todd Akin was a very popular candidate who was ahead in the polls until his gaff. Howard Dean did the same thing in ’04 although his ‘gaff’ was much less controversial. The AC project will not prevent similar actions in the future. Considering this I am unsure if this will have any effect on the elections as ultimately our choices are limited to those who dare run and AC cannot ‘vet’ them all away.
 
I would need to look into the group.

If it's looking to try and help moderate candidates in states where a "far right" candidate has literally no realistic chance of even finishing in a respectable position, let alone winning, then I can understand and somewhat support that.

If it's looking to try and help moderate candidates in states where a "far right" (your words) candidate has a fair to good chance of winning, but the "moderate" has a better chance, then I would oppose it.

I'd rather have some of my views represented then a gaurantee that none of my views would be represented....

but I'd rather gamble on a realistic shot at having most of my views represented, over a good shot of having just some of them.

From looking into some of Rove's statements in the past...my issue with him is that often it seemed (if memory serves) he would push for "moderates" (which is generally big government republicans in Rove speak) in situations where a more conservative candidate could still realistically win.
 
The Conservative Victory Project is an effort by Karl Rove to, essentially, support more moderate republican candidates over more far right candidates(my wording). There is a ton of information on the group, and I as a democrat am probably the wrong one to try and explain what exactly it does. A quick google search will give you all the information you could want. Many republicans, notable Gingrich, are very opposed to this effort. I am curious as to whether the conservative posters here are in favor of this groups goals, or opposed, and why.

I ask that only conservatives vote in the poll please, though of course comments are welcome from every one.

I often think of myself as conservative although the social end of conservatism isn't my cup of tea.

The Tea Party is almost entirely about fiscal matters -- small government, lower taxes, lower spending. But a number of social conservatives have piggy backed in with the Tea Party. So we have these guys getting moderates all upset by proposing restrictions on abortion and the like. They are, in fact, unelectable for the most part. And it's embarrassing when they do manage to get elected because they crap all over the party with their social agenda. The Tea Party people who do manage to get elected do not emphasize the social issues. You don't see Cruz or Rubio proposing bills to restrict abortion and end affirmative action.

So, in other words, Rove is right. Republicans would do better with candidates that didn't spew nonsense about rape and abortion. These guys ought to be vetted by the party to weed out that sort of person.

Gingrich appears to be all upset over the idea that a "machine" would be involved in picking candidates. I would say to him that the strategy we have currently isn't doing the job.
 
The deceit is in telling the electorate what they think they want to hear or that they can have benefits without consequences to their country's health or to their own personal wealth. Tell me your definition of "moderate" and I'll bet you're pointing out someone willing to compromise principles for votes. Instead of supporting "moderate" Republicans, Rove would be better advised to seek out and support "principled" Republicans.

I am not defining moderate since that is the job in this case of republicans.
 
The Conservative Victory Project is an effort by Karl Rove to, essentially, support more moderate republican candidates over more far right candidates(my wording). There is a ton of information on the group, and I as a democrat am probably the wrong one to try and explain what exactly it does. A quick google search will give you all the information you could want. Many republicans, notable Gingrich, are very opposed to this effort. I am curious as to whether the conservative posters here are in favor of this groups goals, or opposed, and why.

I ask that only conservatives vote in the poll please, though of course comments are welcome from every one.

Rove is an ass, and this is just a ploy. What we need is to get actual conservatives to step up to the challenge, not these mewling cabbages and whores who wear a red tie to work.
 
Redress, this past election I worked for the campaign of one our state senators. I supported the guy and put way more time and effort than I really had available into the effort to get him reelected because he was(and is), above all else a man who stands on solid conservative grounds. His take on most issues is that it's not the states business to get involved in most issues. The state has basic commitments to public safety, maintaining an infrastructure in which the economy can thrive and providing a mechanism by which disputes can be resolved equitably. Beyond that the states responsibilities are few and should only be entertained at levels which keep the level of control at the individual level.

Karl Rove is not that kind of politician. Karl Rove is the kind of guy who figures that as long as the candidate has an (R) next to his name and does what the party leadership thinks is best we will all be better off. In that regard he is no different than the Democrats and their Progressive base. Many of the "Social Conservatives" also jumped on that train because they too tend to see the party as the mechanism by which they can use the state to enforce their will.

Personally, I see things differently. I don't want the state to be in a position to dictate policy based on ideology. I want the state to exist ONLY so that I continue to have the liberty to entertain my own ideology and fairly reap the benefits of doing so.
 
I often think of myself as conservative although the social end of conservatism isn't my cup of tea.

The Tea Party is almost entirely about fiscal matters -- small government, lower taxes, lower spending. But a number of social conservatives have piggy backed in with the Tea Party. So we have these guys getting moderates all upset by proposing restrictions on abortion and the like. They are, in fact, unelectable for the most part. And it's embarrassing when they do manage to get elected because they crap all over the party with their social agenda. The Tea Party people who do manage to get elected do not emphasize the social issues. You don't see Cruz or Rubio proposing bills to restrict abortion and end affirmative action.

So, in other words, Rove is right. Republicans would do better with candidates that didn't spew nonsense about rape and abortion. These guys ought to be vetted by the party to weed out that sort of person.

Gingrich appears to be all upset over the idea that a "machine" would be involved in picking candidates. I would say to him that the strategy we have currently isn't doing the job.

Actually, in 2010, when "the machine" was taken out of the picture, the Republicans did FAR better at the polls than they ever have before. What happened after that was that "the machine" started to freak out because they saw that many of the candidates who got elected were willing to stand against the party when their principles guided them toward decisions which were less reliant on government and more reliant on the individual.

The ONLY way we are going to dig ourselves out of this mess is to allow the will and determination (along with the inevitable pain and suffering) of millions of Americans to freely exercise their God given gifts of inventiveness, determination and willpower.
 
What will be interesting to see is if Karl Rove, who's been bashed for years by many on the left will suddenly be deemed to be credible.
 
First it's contradictory, moderate republicans are not conservatives. Second the idea that a group can bully out more conservative choices will ensure that the Republican party is finished. Moderate republicans don't get elected, Romney, McCain, dole, all moderate losers. Bush, Reagan were not moderate.

I never would support a concept that would limit choice.
 
Rove is about winning elections without a principled platform. That's just not me.
 
What will be interesting to see is if Karl Rove, who's been bashed for years by many on the left will suddenly be deemed to be credible.

He want more liberal candidates to win elections, so he will be hailed as an open-minded genius.
 
What will be interesting to see is if Karl Rove, who's been bashed for years by many on the left will suddenly be deemed to be credible.

Rove's downfall is the Left's wildest fantasy come true. Although, Rove was such an artful dodger that at this point it is kind of bitter sweet to see his demise at the hands of his own party instead of a Grand Jury. Oh well, it wasn't for the lack of trying.

RightBashesKarlRove_MaddowScreenshot_020513.jpg


Looks like the tail is wagging the dog now.
 
Rove's downfall is the Left's wildest fantasy come true. Although, Rove was such an artful dodger that at this point it is kind of bitter sweet to see his demise at the hands of his own party instead of a Grand Jury. Oh well, it wasn't for the lack of trying.

RightBashesKarlRove_MaddowScreenshot_020513.jpg


Looks like the tail is wagging the dog now.

It is so satisfying see that the republican party's seemingy best option is to polish a turd.
 
The Conservative Victory Project is an effort by Karl Rove to, essentially, support more moderate republican candidates over more far right candidates(my wording). There is a ton of information on the group, and I as a democrat am probably the wrong one to try and explain what exactly it does. A quick google search will give you all the information you could want. Many republicans, notable Gingrich, are very opposed to this effort. I am curious as to whether the conservative posters here are in favor of this groups goals, or opposed, and why.

I ask that only conservatives vote in the poll please, though of course comments are welcome from every one.

The Buckley (pbuh) Rule is "Support The Most Conservative Candidate Who Can Win".

We have a real issue currently within the broad "conservative" movement between people who think you can cut out the second qualifier, and people who think that you have to cut out the first. Rove is no better than those who primary a Republican when their replacement can't win if his goal is simply to replace tea-party-esque candidates with more moderate ones on the argument that "moderate = victory". Republicans would be cursing Senator Christ rather than following Senator Rubio had that logic been applied.
 
What will be interesting to see is if Karl Rove, who's been bashed for years by many on the left will suddenly be deemed to be credible.


I smell a Strange New Respect award coming on....
 
Where is the deceit in running and supporting moderate republicans?

At some point you do have to ask yourself what benefit a man if he gains the entire world but loses his soul. Better perhaps to fail, but fail while daring greatly.
 
Rove's downfall is the Left's wildest fantasy come true. Although, Rove was such an artful dodger that at this point it is kind of bitter sweet to see his demise at the hands of his own party instead of a Grand Jury. Oh well, it wasn't for the lack of trying.

RightBashesKarlRove_MaddowScreenshot_020513.jpg


Looks like the tail is wagging the dog now.

Where do you get this silly ****? This is why no one takes you seriously. A grand jury, the man was a ****ing advisor......do you understand what that means? You people with your Rove-on-the-brain.
 
The Buckley (pbuh) Rule is "Support The Most Conservative Candidate Who Can Win".

Yep. Granted, there's disagreement on "who can win" at times. But that's my general view point. Naturally there's also disagreement at times on whose "most conservative". But in general, that's my mindset on it. I can accept a more "moderate" candidate in an area where it looks like that's the only realistic shot of getting a victory.
 
Back
Top Bottom