No More Karl Rove Candidates

photo credit: jd_wmwmKarl Rove has declared war on grass-roots conservatives and tea partiers. Rove, who had the richest super PAC in 2012 (American Crossroads, which reportedly spent $300 million in the 2012 election cycle), has started a new fund called Conservative Victory Project to spend big bucks in the 2014 Republican primaries to defeat Republican candidates not approved by the Establishment.

Rove’s big-money spending last year, which was similarly designed to help only Establishment candidates, especially if they had defeated a real conservative in the primary, was notoriously unsuccessful. Of the 31 races in which Rove aired TV ads, Republicans won only 9, so his donors got little return on their investment.

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.

Meanwhile, Rove was helping Harry Reid to keep control of the Senate by trying to defeat real conservatives nominated by grass-roots Republicans. Rove made nasty and hurtful remarks about conservative candidates he didn’t like.

After Missouri Republicans nominated Todd Akin in the primary, Rove told his super PAC donors that they should all apply pressure to “sink Todd Akin,” and that if Akin were “found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts.” When this malicious comment was reported by Businessweek, Rove tried to pass it off as a joke, but suggesting the murder of a congressman is not funny.

Read more from this story HERE.

Will Ann Romney Run for Massachusetts’ Open Senate Seat?

Photo Credit: AP (File)Massachusetts Republicans are desperately scrambling to find a strong Senate candidate to replace Scott Brown, with some even trying to persuade Mitt Romney’s wife or son to jump into the race to avert another electoral disaster.

The former GOP senator’s decision to stay out of the June 25 special election surprised and angered some Republican leaders, who said it will make it much harder to beat a Democratic opponent without Brown on the ballot.

“I’ve had several people call me and ask about Ann Romney,” Ron Kaufman, a longtime friend and aide to the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 presidential candidate nominee, told the Herald.

Ann Romney’s inspiring battle against multiple sclerosis and her star turn on the GOP convention stage turned her into a popular national figure, especially among women voters in Massachusetts.

“That would be a very interesting thing. I would certainly love her to think about something like that,” said House Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading).

Read more from this story HERE.

RINO Lies and Clever Myths

The best thing about math is that it’s a constant. The numbers are what they are. That’s why I’m a data guy, because as a person that believes in absolute truth I have a tendency to like things cut and dried.

Leading up to the 2012 election several lies and clever myths were postulated by the ruling class know-it-alls and the charlatans who act on their behalf, and you can bet they will continue peddling their wares this year in light of the results. But the beauty of real numbers is they cut through all the horse puckey right to the real truth. To prepare you for the onslaught of misinformation between now and 2016 from both the mainstream media and the Republican Party establishment, I have prepared a handy guide of real information to arm you with the truth.

Lie and clever myth #1: Republicans lose elections because they’re too conservative so independents side with Democrats.

TRUTH: Romney won independent voters in the crucial battleground states of Virginia and Ohio, two of the three states he had to win to win the presidency. In Florida, the other battleground state Romney had to have, he actually did 8 points better among independents than McCain did in 2008. In Colorado, Romney won independents by four points, which was 14 points better than McCain performed there four years ago.

Lie and clever myth #2: Romney lost because of the GOP’s alleged “war on women” so that means Republicans can’t be pro-life anymore.

TRUTH: What the GOP really has is a diversity problem. White voters in every demographic – including women and young voters – voted for Romney. Let me repeat that: a majority of white voters regardless of age and gender voted for Romney. For example, Romney won white women by 14 points. A massive turnout of racial and ethnic minorities – black turnout was equal to 2008 and the Hispanic turnout was a little higher – determined the election and gave Obama the support he needed to win.

Lie and clever myth #3: The Republicans energized their base, but it’s just shrinking so the party has to move left.

TRUTH: Remember the promises of 17 million evangelicals going to the polls that didn’t in 2008? Or perhaps you were sold on that Catholic voter backlash to Obamacare and its threat to religious freedom turning out values voters in a way Romney was incapable? Well, it turns out that neither happened.

The reality is 2.5 million fewer Evangelicals voted in 2012 than 2008. Fewer Catholics voted in 2012 than 2008 as well, despite the presence of two Catholic vice presidential candidates. 6.4 million Evangelicals actually voted for Obama. In the crucial battleground state of Ohio, Obama actually improved his white Evangelical turnout by 8% compared to four years ago. That’s probably because of the automobile bailout, but also pro-choice television ads Romney was running in Ohio that angered some pro-lifers. Romney also ran those pro-choice television ads in Virginia, and CNN’s exit polls found the Evangelical turnout declined by 7% compared to 2008.

Yes, Romney did get the same hefty percentage of Evangelical voters that George W. Bush got in his victorious 2004 campaign, but the turnout wasn’t as large.

Efforts to make Romney’s liberal record on social issues seem palatable in contrast to President Obama’s leftist social policies didn’t pan out, as yet again the social conservative base of the Republican Party proved it doesn’t turn out in full force unless it sees stark differences between the two candidates themselves—regardless of what a candidate’s proxies say. Apparently when Romney told the Chick-fil-a crowd last August you’re “not a part of my campaign” they got the message.

But Christians weren’t the only social conservatives Romney failed to successfully turn out. Get this: Romney even did worse among his fellow Mormons than George W. Bush did in 2004 if you can believe that.


Romney lost the election in the end because his base wasn’t as energized as Obama’s was. All the so-called “skewed” polling that pointed to an Obama turnout of Democrats similar to 2008 turned out to be correct.

If you count the 2.5 million fewer Evangelicals that voted compared to 2008, and the 6.4 million Evangelicals that voted for Obama, a future Republican nominee has almost 9 million potential new voters in 2016 if he actually reaches out to them credibly and consistently.

Adding a majority of those 9 million voters to Romney’s 2012 coalition would make the Republican nominee virtually unbeatable in 2016. But to accomplish that feat he or she will have to make them feel welcome in the party, and assure them that he or she shares their courage of conviction.

These patriots want something to vote for and not just against.

Persistent future attempts to sell them on milquetoast while scaring them into voting against dastardly Democrats may profit those doing the selling, but will likely result in even more of them staying home four years from now—and thus the GOP losing the popular vote for the sixth time in the last seven presidential elections.

The real numbers show patriots are growing increasingly tired of being asked to cast votes they know they won’t be proud of later. Modernization of the Republican Party is one thing, but moderation is another.

The GOP leadership now has a choice: stand for something and win, or stand for nothing and lose. It appears its base won’t move left with it, so if the party moves left it will need a new base.

To learn more about Steve Deace’s nationally-syndicated radio show, visit or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.

Romney Didn’t Want to Run for President, Son Says

AFP – No one wanted to be president less than Mitt Romney, his son said in an interview out Sunday that raises new questions about the candidacy of the losing Republican nominee.

In an interview with the Boston Globe examining what went wrong with the Romney campaign, his eldest son Tagg explains that his father had been a reluctant candidate from the start.

After failing to win the 2008 Republican nomination, Romney told his family he would not run again and had to be persuaded to enter the 2012 White House race by his wife Ann and son Tagg.

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire… to run,” Tagg Romney said. “If he could have found someone else to take his place… he would have been ecstatic to step aside.”

Mitt Romney “is a very private person who loves his family deeply and wants to be with them. He loves his country, but he doesn’t love the attention,” his son said.

Read more from this story HERE.

How is Romney Dealing With the Election Loss?

The man who planned to be president wakes up each morning now without a plan.

Mitt Romney looks out the windows of his beach house here in La Jolla, a moneyed and pristine enclave of San Diego, at noisy construction workers fixing up his next-door neighbor’s home, sending out regular updates on the renovation. He devours news from 2,600 miles away in Washington about the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, shaking his head and wondering what if.

Gone are the minute-by-minute schedules and the swarm of Secret Service agents. There’s no aide to make his peanut-butter-and-honey sandwiches. Romney hangs around the house, sometimes alone, pecking away at his iPad and e-mailing his CEO buddies who have been swooping in and out of La Jolla to visit. He wrote to one who’s having a liver transplant soon: “I’ll change your bedpan, take you back and forth to treatment.”

It’s not what Romney imagined he would be doing as the new year approaches.

Four weeks after losing a presidential election he was convinced he would win, Romney’s rapid retreat into seclusion has been marked by repressed emotions, second-guessing and, perhaps for the first time in the overachiever’s adult life, sustained boredom, according to interviews with more than a dozen of Romney’s closest friends and advisers.

Read more from this story HERE.

Mr. Begich, It’s On! But Will Treadwell Be The Next Romney?

photo credit: usdagov

By now, you have all probably heard that Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell announced on Friday that he is launching an exploratory committee to decide whether he should run for the United States Senate seat now held by former Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. As I read the well-wishes on the Lt. Governor’s facebook page today urging him on, I was left with a couple of nagging questions. Is Treadwell the right man for the job? And more importantly, is he up to it?

To all the Republicans out there who think this is going to be easy, I have a few words of caution.

First, Mark Begich is, without doubt, the most savvy politician in the state. Second, the whole government-media-complex will work tirelessly to make sure their golden boy wins re-election. Third, he will have David Axelrod and the whole ‘Chicago Machine’ at his disposal. And last, but not least, his secret weapon: unlike most politicians, people actually like this guy.

Am I suggesting that the 2014 race for US Senate is already a done deal? Not at all. But I am saying that we shouldn’t run hastily into a marriage that isn’t a good fit, and that will not likely end with an oath.

There are no less than five other potential candidates out there who have yet to make their intentions known, and I have privileged information that suggests there may be a wild-card in the works that could take the whole political establishment by surprise.

As for the Romney analogy, there are a lot of similarities between the psychology of Alaska Republicans, and that of the RNC who wanted nothing more than to beat Barack Obama. The Alaska Republican Party has proudly displayed an ad on its webpage urging the defeat of Mark Begich in 2014 ever since he assumed the seat in the United States Senate once occupied by the late-Senator Ted Stevens.

And so, like the National Republicans, the effort is already underway in Alaska to ‘immaculate the One’ who would defeat Mark Begich. Conventional wisdom is that if we can just unite behind a candidate early in the process, there will magically be unity in Republican ranks. And we will sweep to victory . . . and live happily ever after.

Didn’t we just try this with Romney? Was it just me, or was he running for the nomination for the last four years? And am I the only one who just saw how that worked out?

But the larger view that Party luminaries and political pundits miss is that some of us actually care about policy. We don’t just want to vote against someone. We want to vote for something. We don’t want consensus; we want leadership.

Wasn’t that the lesson of the 2010 US Senate race here? Some of us aren’t content to join the coronation for a candidate that in many respects is very similar to Mark Begich. Like Ronald Reagan before us, we want bold colors, not pale pastels. Aren’t there already too many do-nothing senators in Washington who are inebriated on the wine of their own self-importance, and are happy just to be a part of the club?

Now I’m not suggesting that Mead Treadwell would be a do-nothing senator, though he did support one in 2010. He is an affable guy, a deal-maker, and has big ideas. But it is precisely the fact that he has such big ideas that I find troubling, because they are the wrong ideas.

I am speaking of Mead’s penchant for ideology. Yes, I know ‘he’s a pragmatist not an ideologue.’ However, the doctrine of man-made global warming is nothing if not an ideology. The dogged belief in the inherent benevolence of the United Nations is nothing if not an ideology. And the pragmatism of compromise itself can become the handmaiden of ideology when it becomes an end in itself.

We already have a ‘Republican’ in the United States Senate who only wishes to be named among the ‘cool kids.’ She hasn’t passed a stand-alone bill in her 10 long years in the United States Senate. What we don’t have, and what I don’t wish to have, is one who is effective at getting the wrong things done. So before I’ll be jumping on the bandwagon, I need some answers from Mr. Treadwell.

If elected to the United States Senate, will he continue to push for International Treaties that would strip us of our sovereign Right to self-governance? Will he join the push for carbon taxes, or cap and trade? What would he do right now about the impending ‘fiscal cliff?’ What is his plan to rein in federal spending? Will he vote to allow leftist judges through Senate confirmation like his friend Murkowski? Does he support the President’s ‘tax hikes for the rich?’ What about social conservative issues? The second amendment? Will he vote for amnesty for illegal aliens? Does he favor reforming the tax code? What does he intend to do about the looming insolvency of Medicare and Social Security? Does he support full repeal of Obamacare? Will he support auditing the Fed? . . .

These are the things conservatives want to know. Until we have answers, support should not be offered.

Yeah, Treadwell’s a rich moderate that can appeal to independents. Romney won those voters overwhelmingly. How’d that work out for us?

Yeah, Treadwell is the anointed candidate of the Republican establishment. So was Romney. How’d that work out for us?

Yeah, Treadwell is an experienced businessman and government manager. So was Romney. How’d that work out for us?

Yeah, Treadwell is a decent man who believes in a fair fight. So was Romney. How’d that work out for us?

The bottom line is not that Mead Treadwell is a bad man that you should not support. It is rather that he is a man we still don’t have answers from, and who still hasn’t been vetted.

He may well be the candidate that emerges who will unite the party, and defeat Mark Begich. But we don’t know that yet.

I am a firm believer in the inherent wisdom and goodness of the people to make better choices than the politicos. It is up to us, not the Washington insiders, or the Juneau elites. So let the process work itself out. Get involved. Ask the questions. And for God’s sake, don’t settle for Mitt Romney.

Matt Johnson is a freelance writer, consultant, and political activist who resides in Chugiak, AK

Questions the RINO Party Establishment Won’t Be Asked (and Can’t Answer)

Somehow both the Left and the Republican Party establishment are allowed to each go through life tip-toeing through the raindrops, with each rarely compelled to defend their indefensibles.

That has again been apparent on the Ruling Class news shows following the election, as RINO after RINO and Republicrat after Republicrat strolled in front of the cameras to say that unless Republicans become more like Democrats they just can’t win elections. Of course, all of this propaganda begs several follow-up questions that almost never get asked, which is why I will ask them here.

Questions like:

• John McCain, if it’s true that Republicans need to move left on issues in order to win elections as you have (repeatedly) suggested, then why weren’t you running for re-election last month? Why did you lose in 2008?

• How come Republicans did very well in the 2010 elections and not as well in the 2012 elections? If it’s because we were too conservative, what evidence do you have that the failed campaign Republicans waged in 2012 was to the right of the successful campaign of 2010?

• If elections are all about winning over those supposedly crucial independents, then why didn’t Mitt Romney win the election? He won independents in Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado – all states McCain lost independents to Obama in 2008 – and did six points better with independents in Florida than McCain did in 2008. If you flip all those states to Romney he wins the Electoral College, yet he did what he was supposed to do with independents in those states and still lost them all. How do you explain that?

• If elections are only about the independents, should conservatives then en masse abandon their party affiliation and re-register as independents as a means of actually getting you to care about what they think for a change?

• If it’s true we’re alienating voters because of our stance in defense of marriage, then how do you explain the fact marriage out-performed Romney in every state it was on the ballot? For example, marriage performed 10 points better than Romney did in Maryland, even though it lost as well. Romney did better with evangelical turnout in Minnesota, where there was also a marriage initiative on the ballot, than McCain did four years ago. Instead of abandoning these issues, wouldn’t the smarter, more pragmatic political play be to try and link your candidates to issues more popular than your candidates? For instance, there is legitimate concern about the GOP’s status with minority voters. Yet those same minority voters are also very pro-life and very pro-marriage. If you really want to reach out to those voters, why not start with issues they already agree with you on?

• If we have to completely abandon the sanctity of life to win female voters, then how do you explain that Romney won white women by 14 points and still lost the election?

• If you’re going to abandon the sanctity of life, the defense of marriage, limited taxation, small government, out-of-control spending, and the rule of law, then what exactly makes you a Republican? Why not become a Democrat where the ideas you believe in are more popular?

• The most energized that pro-freedom and pro-liberty voters were this year was during the rally to defend Chick-fil-a prior to the Republican Convention. Did you make sure all those people were registered to vote, and ready to vote Republican for the same reasons they were standing in line for hours to get a chicken sandwich? Did you go out of your way to let that grassroots uprising of everyday Americans know which party stood with them, or did you shun them to curry favor with your ruling class friends?

• If Romney’s problems with the Republican base were just as simple as evangelicals not wanting to vote for a Mormon, then why did fewer Catholics vote in 2012 compared to 2008 despite the presence of Paul Ryan on the ticket? Furthermore, why did Romney do worse with Mormon voters than George W. Bush did in 2004?

• Why did you go scorched earth to shove Romney down our throats in the primary, only to then abandon him several times in the general election? Didn’t you tell all of us Romney was the only candidate running this time that could win?

• This week the Gallup Poll said for the first time since 2000 a majority of the American people don’t believe it’s the government’s role to provide healthcare for everybody. So then instead of funding Obamacare why aren’t you doing everything possible can to stop it?

• Do you have a plan to recover the 7 million white voters who voted in 2008 that didn’t vote in 2012? Do you know who those people are? Do you know why they didn’t vote?

Wouldn’t you love to see someone in the ruling class media ask these people these questions? Is there anyone in the “Republican media” that will ask them these questions when they get the chance?


I mean, it’s not as if the republic is at stake or anything. Besides, it’s two-for-one martinis at the beltway’s newest trendy hangout, and Karl Rove is there laying out his latest master plan to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Gotta roll. Ta-ta.


You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook, or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.

Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.

Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

Read more from this article HERE.

Stuart Stevens was the chief strategist for the Romney presidential campaign.

Pat Caddell: Republican ‘Consultant-Lobbyist-Establishment’ Complex Responsible For Romney Defeat

Speaking at The David Horowitz Freedom Center’s “Restoration Weekend” in Florida on November 16, Pat Caddell indicted what he called the Republican “consultant-lobbyist-establishment” complex for losing a presidential campaign in 2012 President Barack Obama had no business winning.

“No presidential campaign should be run by consultants,” Caddell said. “They should be run by people who are committed to the candidate and not into making big money.”

Caddell, the former Jimmy Carter adviser who consulted on the “Hope and the Change” movie that profiled disaffected Obama 2008 voters who were not going to vote for him in 2012, warned Republicans that the consultant-lobbyist-establishment complex may threaten to take the party into oblivion if not marginalized.

The Romney campaign, Caddell said, was driven be establishment consultants and was a failure of mechanics and message.

“But most of all, it was a failure of imagination,” Caddell said. ““It was the single worst campaign in modern history of a challenger who had a chance to win … and that’s the truth and nothing can take away from that.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Report: Corroboration of Claim That Anonymous Hacked Romney’s Project ORCA (+video)

A nonprofit devoted to election reform says a video released by hacktivist collective Anonymous days prior to the election corroborates claims from a mysterious hacktivist group that it is behind the Election Day failures of the Romney campaign’s Project ORCA.

The left-wing Velvet Revolution, which works to investigate and prove instances of electronic election tampering, offered IT specialists a $1 million reward for proof of instances of electronic election tampering during the 2012 cycle. The Velvet Revolution is particularly suspicious of Republicans.

Following the election, Velvet Revolution says they received a letter from a hacktivist group — referring to itself as “we protectors of democracy” — that claimed it was responsible for the program’s technical failures, and that it had found a system in place to electronically rig the election in three states. The letter did not offer any proof of its allegations.

“Regarding the Protectors letter, we posted the reward asking for info about electronic manipulation of the vote and then right after the election we received ‘The Protector’ letter at our POBox,” said Kevin Reese, an attorney for Velvet Revolution and a board member, in a press statement.

See Anonymous video:

Read more from this story HERE.