What the Heck… Karl Rove Warns Republicans to Stop Attacking Obamacare?

By nearly every metric, Democrats are finding that Obamacare is a millstone around their necks for the upcoming 2014 midterm elections. Yet so-called Republican Karl Rove is telling the GOP to stop attacking Obamacare? What is he thinking?

Yet, even as Rove says Republicans shouldn’t Attack Obamacare, elections statistician Larry Sabato Says Obamacare is killing Democrats. What is Karl Rove thinking by telling Republicans not to attack Obamacare very hard while Larry Sabato is saying the Dems are extremely vulnerable on Obamacare?

Rove made his comments in a new Wall Street Journal piece.

“The only thing that could rescue Democrats is for Republican candidates to appear as advocates for the pre-ObamaCare status quo. Hopefully, there’s not much of a chance of that.”

On the other hand, Larry Sabato said this:

“The problem that is, when you are on the offense, using your time in the public arena, to discuss a subject that people have more or less already made up their minds about and don’t like it, you’re wasting your time in the arena,” he said.

Sabato also pointed out the minority of the public that does favor Obamacare is not very enthusiastic about it, a possible recipe for disaster in midterm elections.

“But the majority who oppose Obamacare are much more charged up, and they’re the people who tend to turn up in a low turnout midterm election.”

Is Rove trying to say the GOP should work to keep Obamacare and just tinker on the edges of it thereby taking a great issue away from GOP candidates?

Why would he be saying this when it is clear that Obamacre is a major stumbling block for Democrats going into this election?

Maybe we are seeing that Karl Rove is a lover of big government after all?

Democrats Honor Vote Fraud Criminal in Cincinnati
Fox Business Continues to Grow--'Risk & Reward With Dierdre Bolton' Launches March 31
  • Hank_M

    Obamacare is the one policy (for lack of a better term) that the democrats own 100%. There’s no blaming repubs for this one.

    Obamacare shows, without a doubt, that Obama and the democrats are liars,
    incompetent, and completely out of touch with main stream americans.
    It shows how little the dems understand fiscal responsibility.

    It shows their disdain for the average working american.

    Obamacare by itself is a demonstration of everything that is wrong with the modern democrat party – how it was passed, how the details have been hidden,

    how political the whole process has been, how they’ll flagrantly lie to further their agenda, the key part of Obamacare – more control over everyones lives.

    So sure, let’s not talk about that.

  • Shootist

    The RINOs and corporate Republicans are looking forward to years of “managing” Obamacare. Using it to complain about government overreach, on the one hand, and buying money with it (from big medicine, big pharma) on the other

    Republicans and democrats are flip sides of the same coin.

    Re-elect no one (And heap much scorn upon Carl Rove).

  • Par4Course

    Karl Rove has been an articulate and consistent critic of ObamaCare. This article is just another attempt to divide the Republicans and conservatives – exaggerate any real or imagined differences among conservatives and “establishment” Republicans. Mr. Rove is no oracle but he is extremely knowledgeable about politics, campaigns and what works to win elections.

    • catherineinpvb

      And his last win; and per references here; BIG win; was. . .

    • RightBeingRight

      Oh sure he is. The freak gives us RINOs McCain and Romney with NO chance to win in the last two elections. Real knowledgeable!!!

      • Par4Course

        I could be wrong but it’s my recollection that Republican primary voters chose McCain and Romney – I don’t recall Karl Rove backing either of these candidates (let alone being singularly responsible for their selection) during the primaries. I agree that Rove’s organization backed many losing Republican candidates in 2012 – but I doubt that these candidates lost because of Rove’s support.

        • RightBeingRight

          Karl Rove is part of the established political machine that IS the Republican Party. They decide which candidates they will throw their weight (and Republican donations) behind. He is vocally AGAINST any tea party members who are doing a fantastic job of upsetting the established Republican Apple Cart.

          I don’t think there is anybody silly enough to think one person, in this case Karl Rove, that hand picks a man and inserts him one way or the other as the party nominee, although it seems there is at least one person who thinks some people believe that! lol. Give me a break!

          • Par4Course

            It’s nice to know you think that Karl Rove and the “established political machine” “IS” the Republican Party. Is there any room in the party for the millions of voters who chose McCain and Romney as the nominees in 2008 and 2012 and then voted for them in November – or only those who stayed home because the nominees weren’t conservative enough? How about the millions of voters that supported G.W. Bush, who turned out to be more compassionate than conservative, in 2000 and 2004? The Tea Party is party of the Republican Party, but so are Karl Rove and the so-called “established political machine.” The only way Republicans will win elections is to be inclusive not elitist and exclusive.

          • RightBeingRight

            you said “… The only way Republicans will win elections is to be inclusive not elitist and exclusive”
            tell me…how has that worked out for ya the last two elections? lol

            First McCain in 08 (who beat Romney by the way)
            Then when McCain lost to Obama, they took the guy who lost to McCain and put him up against Obama. Makes a whole lot of sense doesn’t it.

            It is buttwipes like McCain who talk down the new Republicans like Ryan, Paul, Cruz and others. Don’t talk to me about elitists and exclusive. That dog don’t have teeth!

            If we don’t get somebody who is the polar opposite of Hillary to run, not some washed up “The Usual Suspects” RINO, we will have 8 more years of the crap we’ve been having the past 5 1/2 years.

            At this rate do you think America can survive it?

          • Par4Course

            Who is this “they?” McCain, though a weak candidate, won the primaries, as did Mitt Romney. The “establishment Republicans” may have preferred these guys, but they still had to get votes to win the general election. In Romney’s case, 4 million voters who had voted for McCain chose to stay home – I suspect they were folks who didn’t think Romney was conservative enough. He was from Massachusetts and would not have won if he took the same stances as Rick Perry – but he was no Barack Obama, a barely-in-the-closet socialist and weak-willled international “leader.” I don’t know if the US can survive 4 or 8 yeas of Hillary or her ilk, which is why I’m not going to help the Dems keep the While House by staying home if my particular favorite doesn’t get nominated.

          • RightBeingRight

            Who in the heck do you think “they” are? Does somebody just say, “Hey, nobody knows me but I’m going to run for President!”? Noooooooooo! The party leaders of both the Democrats and the Republicans DECIDE who they want to run as well as their political platforms, or list of goals on policies such as taxes and health care. Karl Rove is one of these leaders. He and/or the rest of the established Republican Party have given us “leaders” who have lost or nearly lost every race for the President since George H.W. Bush. You want that to continue? No matter WHAT your grievance is against those who decide to stay home you are NOT going to change their mind by complaining about it. The ONLY thing that is going to get these liberal socialist morons out of the White House is new leadership at the Political Party Leadership level AND a candidate who upholds strict traditionally conservative values. Karl Rove is a problem. He and his give us impotent people to vote for. People stay home. “Bish” about it and they are going to stay home anyways.

          • RightBeingRight

            The End

  • Hopefully Rove meant to say the GOP, while talking about ObamaKare’s many faults, could be doing more to talk up alternative conservative policies … such as more open insurance competition (including crossing the state line fiefdoms of the state insurance commissioners), tort reform to reduce defensive medicine practices, reform of the FDA bureaucracy to reduce drug costs, measures to replace the system of employer tax advantages with individual tax advantages … e.g. incentives for individuals to to join insurance sponsored by voluntary associations (trade and professional associations, AAA, USAA, churches, the list is potentially boundless), 401K style medical savings accounts belonging to the employees.

    The pre-obamacare status quo ante is DOA. The obamacare status quo sucks. Somebody needs to be articulating a new way, and fast.

    • The pre-Obamacare status quo was better than the present situation. More people were insured, and could afford policies they liked.

      • True. But medical costs were still rising out of control. Obamacare just made a bad situation worse. If we on the Right have no new ideas to offer for replacing Obamacare, then the inevitable new ideas will come from the Left and it will get worse still. Is that what you want?

        • jim_m

          Socialism and nationalization of industry are not exactly new ideas, it’s just that the American public is too ill educated to know that (Bruce is a good example of that lack of education).

          • Well, by “new” I mean freshly introduced to the hot debate of the moment. You are right that a massive case of idiocracy among the public (exacerbated in today’s arena by left wing media bias) requires us to point out the obvious again and again.

        • VirginiaConservative

          This, from Joseph G Figliola, would go a long way to reducing those increases and/or rolling the costs back “…open insurance competition (including crossing the state line fiefdoms
          of the state insurance commissioners), tort reform to reduce defensive
          medicine practices, reform of the FDA bureaucracy to reduce drug costs…..”

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            Your first two links are about the same study, which was done by a bunch of lawyers. Big shock that the lawyers found no impact. Who is hurt most by tort reform? The freaking crooked lawyers writing the paper!

            The WaPo article is better. However they also stated:

            , another study showed that tort reform, which might lead to a 10 percent reduction in malpractice premiums (not small), which might translate into a health-care spending reduction of 0.1 percent.

            In the referenced article it says that the resulting reduction in malpractice insurance premiums would be 10 percent 0.120 to 0.134 percent. The reduction in malpractice costs is not insignificant. The fact remains that it is still only a portion of total health care spending. The article does not seem to address the savings in actual procedures and tests not performed and does not appear to make a claim on those issues. But if you think that it is inconsequential to be saving over $300 M per year on that issue alone, then you are welcome to pony up that cash yourself. I’m sure you can come up with $3B every decade.

            That article also states that the savings are statistically significant, although they may be less than originally expected. I would argue that it will take some time for practice to change and that these savings will continue to grow over time.

          • Brucehenry

            I defer to your superior expertise in this field. Perhaps I should have said tort reform doesn’t help as much as many conservatives claim it will.

            EDIT: I do think limiting malpractice awards to $250K is unrealistic. If a doctor’s negligence or malfeasance causes paralysis or brain damage to a child, for example, the cost of caring for that victim could exceed that amount in a couple of years.

          • jim_m

            That would be a fair statement. It still saves money and also it removes a serious obstacle to people entering into specialties that are very needed but often carry a higher risk for bogus lawsuits.

            One thing that is neglected is the cost to society of unlimited lawsuits which reduce the access to qualified physicians. In Illinois it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a good ObGyn and that is primarily due to malpractice costs. My ex’s Ob left the state for that very reason.

          • jim_m

            I believe the Texas law limited awards for emotional distress etc to $750k. However, the awards for actual damages are not limited at all so if you lose your ability to work or require further or ongoing treatment those costs are still recoverable in full.

            If you read something claiming that all awards were limited to that number then you were being lied to.

          • Brucehenry

            That figure is often cited in NC.

          • jim_m

            Check to make sure that it does not include direct damages. I doubt that they could sustain a law that made it illegal for you to collect on the full amount of damages. The problem is that emotional distress and pain & suffering have been used to grossly inflate damage awards and these nebulous concepts cannot be directly monetized. But I would wager that awards for lost wages, medical costs, etc are still available far in excess of any cap.

          • jim_m

            The authors also stated the limitations of their analysis which were that they did not include data from large hospital systems ( the place where one might expect to see the biggest impact) and in other self-insured situations and that they use average malpractice rates instead of individual rates a fact which would tend to reduce the size of any difference.

            Given those limitations I would characterize their study as identifying the lower boundary of any savings.

          • jim_m

            Finally, the authors state in their final paragraph that tort reform should still be pursued as it does deliver a statistically significant cost savings and that these costs are unnecessary and should therefore be eliminated from the system. That last part is not found in the WaPo story because it runs counter to their narrative.

          • VirginiaConservative

            Nice Cherry Picking. We know 0bamacare is a disaster so why don’t you pick from some of the other suggestions, e.g. buying insurance across state lines, and tell me how that won’t work too. Arschloch!

            Subject: Re: New comment posted on What the Heck… Karl Rove Warns Republicans to Stop Attacking Obamacare?

          • goodwater

            The [email protected]!! it hasn’t. Come on down to Texas.

        • goodwater

          And why have medical costs sky rocketed out of control. One simple answer The Federal Reserve (1913) and Keynesian economics.- the monetary system that creates inflation. Ask your grandmother or great grandmother what they used to pay for a pound of coffee – 83¢ as compared t today $8.00 and it’s not even a pound. Oh! try buying a 16 oz box of Kellogs cereal, you can’t – as the boxes have been downsized to 12 oz. but the price. When my son was born (1962) the hospital bill was $325 try to have a kid today at that delivery price.

  • jim_m

    You can oppose obamacare without advocating going back to the status quo. In fact, I think that this provides the opportunity to discuss why measures like tort reform would reduce healthcare costs, why making health insurance available pretax to everyone would make it more affordable, etc.

    The point of opposing obamacare is to say, “We’ve tried it your way and it’s a failure, now STFU and let us do something that will work“. obamacare doesn’t even solve the problems they promised it would solve. No quarter should be given on this issue.

    Rove is just another beltway republican that wants the status quo so they can bleed money out of the people while claiming that it isn’t their fault.

    • stan25

      Lawyers don’t want tort reform. That is why they pushed ObamaCare so hard. Reforming the tort laws takes money out their pockets. How do you think Peter Angelenos came up with the cash to buy the Baltimore Orioles. The judges are part of this sleaze and make sure they get a cut from the judgments.

  • RogerQ

    We need to repeal Obamacare as soon as possible. Once these communistic programs, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., get established and people get used to them and like them, we can’t get rid of them, no matter how much they are in violation of the constitution and what the founders envisaged for America.

    And what was wrong with the best healthcare system in the world that we had before Obamacare was imposed on us? We need to return to that free-enterprise, capitalist system in healthcare and all other sectors of the American economy we had before Obamacare.

    • Brucehenry

      yeah it was a fucking paradise

      EDIT: After reading your comment profile I have to apologize for my snark. You sir, are a master of it. Understated and just authentic enough to fool a guy into thinking you mean it.

    • jim_m

      Unlike the other programs you note, which are predominantly safety nets for people who have no other recourse, obamacare forces everyone to participate and eliminates cheap products that people liked from the market and replaces them with unaffordable, bloated plans that they don’t want, don’t like and often where they cannot continue the lifesaving therapies they were already receiving.

      obamacare is a complete cluster and the only people who still support it are fascists who don’t give a rat’s ass about the people who are suffering because of it. Virtually none of the claimed 47 million uninsured are going to benefit from obamacare. the vast majority of people who have signed up were people who already had insurance and who now have to pay more for a lesser plan (yeah, lesser. It may cover a lot of stuff that people don’t need but it is ultimately causing them more problems).

      And yeah, we had a pretty good system before the government started screwing with it. And when it comes to outcomes we ranked at the top globally. You can bitch and moan about your fascist ideas of “fairness” but the bottom line is that people came here from around the world to get the world’s best medical care. Over 99% of men diagnosed with Prostate cancer survive in the US compared to 77.5% in Europe. Yeah, our system sucked because it actually treated people and it didn’t fit with your fascist views on fairness and income redistribution. EVERYONE could get treated despite your bullshit lies and they got better treatment and better outcomes than those places you hold up as models.

      There were ways to fix coverage gaps in our system that would have cost far less and would have been far more successful but they were rejected because non-governmental solutions lack the opportunity for graft and corruption.

      • jim_m

        Fact of the matter is that anyone arguing that we need obamacare is arguing that they would rather that people die unnecessarily in the name of making it cheaper for those who survive.

        Oh, and before we get the BS argument that our life expectancies are less the Europe, take a look at this article that shows that Standardized life expectancy (adjusting for accidental death and other non-health related events like murder) is higher in the US than elsewhere.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster. They were boasting yesterday of having 5m people sign-up – of course that number is bogus because they can’t compute how many people have actually paid for their insurance.
    Last thing I read said upwards 5m people had their policies cancelled because of OCare. Thus, we probably have less people with insurance now than when OCare started.
    Yet we have this monstrous boondoggle, ostensibly, for the sake of the 45m people who have no coverage – who are apparently not signing up. Health care premiums have gone up under OCare – and are expected to skyrocket.
    On the other hand, having people who want to buy insurance but can’t get it because of a pre-existing condition is not right. Yet, having people who insist on waiting to buy insurance until after they’ve been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness/injury is as economically feasible as allowing someone to wait to buy car insurance until after they’ve caused a horrific accident.
    So, what is the alternative? That is what Rs should be talking about – quickly and succinctly.

    • jim_m

      Exactly. Rove has bought into the false left wing narrative that to reject obamacare is to demand that we do nothing at all. Few, if any, are suggesting that. Only the ignorant or the dishonest claim otherwise.

    • catherineinpvb

      Can they really not ‘compute’ or is it a case of ‘Ask – but we will not tell’. . .

  • LiberalNightmare

    A lot of the old school republicans would rather lose to democrats than win with the tea party.

    Sucks to be them.

    • Korruptor

      Which suggests they are fundamentally no different from their Democrat counterparts.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    This is one of those “Internet moments,” where a Republican says something and then the true conservatives of the Internet misintepret it so completely it become abject farce. Read that quote again. Rove obviously is not saying that Republicans should stop attacking Obamcare. Rove is saying that Republicans should continue attacking Obamcare but then to follow up by explaining what they’re for in terms of healthcare, not merely what they’re against. It’s not a sound strategy, granted, and keep in mind Rove is the same tool who turned what should have been a 5-point win into a 500-vote win and then followed that up by turning what should have been a 40-state wipeout into a one-state, 120,000-vote win), but in fairness let’s not Rather the guy.

  • Paul Hooson

    Karl Rove lost his magic as a political guru long ago. His 2012 election night meltdown on FOX was nearly laughable. Rove no longer comprehends political reality, but now just his own wishful thinking. – A good analyst sees the political world the way it really is. For example Obama’s sparring with Putin is raising his own ratings, making him appear tough. And, as well, Putin is soaring at home as well, appearing to stand up to Obama. Nothing like a foreign policy event to move bad polling numbers.

    • jim_m

      Putin is not standing up to obama. obama’s threats are impotent in the extreme. If Putin is improving in the polls it is because he is showing a strong Russia and he is fomenting nationalism as evidenced in his Hitleresque claim that ethnic minorities were being oppressed in Crimea.

      I obama improving in the polls? I suppose that there really isn’t that much further he could sink. His actions have only emphasized his impotence and incompetence in foreign affairs. Like with Syria this has made him look weak and stupid.

      Expect further actions to be taken by Russia and other nations since they all know that the US will not stand up to any other nation’s aggression nor will it stand up for any ally.

      • catherineinpvb

        iMore inclined to think that the people polled; think Obama took ‘Crimea’. . .and Putin with it.

    • stan25

      Obama’s poll numbers are tanking even further, because of the Putin fiasco. I would not be surprised to see his numbers down the high 20s before summer. That would have to be from an honest poll, not one of those that cook the numbers in Obummer’s favor.

      • Paul Hooson

        Gallup has Obama currently at 45% positive to 49% negative, which are better numbers than he’s seen in recent weeks when negative Obamacare and government shutdown numbers hurt his ratings even more. Those aren’t great numbers. But, they’re better than they were recently.

    • catherineinpvb

      Clearly a ‘Common Core’ polling. . .

      • Paul Hooson

        Obama’s poll number do show some voter deterioration. He was the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 to win more than 50% of the vote twice. How much this impacts Hillary Clinton in 2016 is anyone’s guess at this point.

  • robin Grace

    Your reading comprehension skills are off on this one. He did not say that. I read it, you read it wrong. And It would be helpful if you didn’t assume I am a Pro Rove fan. I have a personal pet peeve and this is one of them. Reading Comprehension skills matter.

  • Spanky9

    Karl Rove is a parasite of the Political Industrial Complex. His value system has never represented those of the “grassroots,” who he tries to misdirect and exploit. Whatever this man says, do to opposite.

  • Rick20033

    “Maybe we are seeing that Karl Rove is a lover of big government after all?”
    I hope that is sarcasm. Does ANYONE not know that Karl Rove is the enemy of conservatism?

  • Hotdogger71

    Rove’s interest are not Conservative interests. If his last torch bearer for the party didn’t have Romneycare hanging around his neck, Obama would have been extremely vulnerable.
    Obamacare hits people in their wallets and will continue to do so. Dems are rightly scared of it. I swear that Rove and establishment Republicans are channeling the French with their surrender attitude.

  • NorthFloridaWriter

    Of course Rove loves Big Government, just like the entire Republican Establishment. They have no respect for the average American and are not going to do anything to make government smaller; they are beholden to their lobbyists and corporate cronies who are pushing for amnesty. The large number of conservatives in the House have been silenced by their leadership which they must rise up and replace. Unless they and American voters make some major changes in how we are governed, starting with this year’s election, America will become toast. Go Tea Party, go. Wrench freedom from the jaws of tyranny now.

  • BC

    Any doubts that Rove does live big government? He gets rich of it

  • Richard291

    How about we just send Karl Rove out to the pastor and let him live off the land and just leave US THE HECK ALONE!!!!!!!

  • catherineinpvb

    Is it Rove too; who advises Obama on foreign policy – on how to handle Putin and other world challenges? Or is Rove; just of ‘same mind’. . .

    Have just realized as of late, what Repub Leadership has in common with Obama ‘leadership’. Have only to realize how in sync is our Repub Leadership with Obama’s conditioned responses to crisis and threat. The Repub ’empty-suit’ messaging per lines-in-sand drawn; ‘gauntlets thrown’. . .warnings; and more ‘stay tuned’ warnings. And always the ‘fear of offending’. . . All to say; the Repub ‘non’-Leadership strategy of Leading from behind; the public show of ‘turning the other cheek’ is so ‘Obama-like’. . .when dealing with Obama threat.

    It is this habitual weakness contrasted against Obama’s War on America; that engenders from their Republican Constituency; the same disdain loathing/ridicule, that Obama has been earning on ‘National and World Stage’; since his first Executive decision as President.

    We can see how such leadership has enhanced Obama’s negative image. Worse; and more critically; what it has done to not only America’s image; but our ‘place in the world’ and by turn; our security in the world. A threat shared, of course; by all world citizens, who depend on our strength; and who are now in in ‘cross-hairs’ without it. Obama’s weakness; his either deliberate or ill-advised interpreting of ‘strength’; has left America’s future in jeopardy – and that includes, both Obama’s version of our future; and the Republican’s contrary vision, for a better one.

    Next two Elections, will tell us if our Repub Party has a leg to stand on; or if, by their interpretation of what is Lion-Heart versus their idealizing Faint-Heart – per the ‘Rovean’ (and Obama) miscalculation – the Repub Party will even need one.

    ( Goes w/o saying the above does not apply to Repub Leadership nemesis. ..per ‘Tea Party’; and their response to it. Albeit, for Establishment Repubs; this is not a strength in action; but more; it is an ‘easy’; eat your own, ‘protective’ MO.)

    • Brucehenry

      OMG please get a guide to punctuation, syntax, and when to properly use italics, parentheses, and semicolons for God’s sake.

      • jim_m


      • catherineinpvb

        Sorry; talk with my hands. ..and am trying to control the translations to paper when not in a hurry. Clearly; not successfully and need to go slow. That said; why give this pain to yourself. Plenty more comments to read and to correct, for that matter. . .)

        • jim_m

          I don’t mean to be a grammar Nazi (and Bruce and I rarely, if ever, agree) but you would be better off if you just removed the semicolon key from your keyboard and threw it away. I don’t think you have used it correctly once. 🙂

  • Why would he be saying this when it is clear that Obamacre is a major stumbling block for Democrats going into this election?

    Because attacking Obamacare is a winning issue for Tea Party candidates, not Rove’s preferred Establicans. Rove would rather the GOP lose altogether, forever, than see Tea Party Republicans win.

  • What_a_wonderful_world

    Hopefully comments such as these are a false flag, a feint to let the opposition not have pre-prepared ad campaigns in place and they spend their money on other campaign issues, then you hammer away later when election season comes. Don’t give talking points to opposition in spring, start campaign attacks in summer when their money has already been spent buying up ad time/space in advance. However, such an idea only applies to traditional ad buying not to internet media.

    Most people agree that populace does not pay much attention to campaigns until later in year.

    We can always hope there is a genuine reason for these comments.

  • tevans9129

    Is Rove actually an operative for the Democrats?

  • UnapologeticConservative

    The Rovians are liberal-globalists, not conservatives. In the end they are working for the same team as Pres. Jarrett, George Soros, and the Democratic Party. Rovians want consumerism above all else: insurance and medical care are just ways for mega-corporations to make more money, i.e., a good thing in their eyes.

  • amdatme

    Carl Rove is a Demoncrap and a Socialist, plain and simple. His job is to confuse and to divide the Conservatives. Conservatives need to reject this POS Demoncrap… and to OUT him at every opportunity. Thanks to people like Rove, we have Obama for 2 terms. You can add Rove to the list of names, like Obama, Puke-losy and Reid, that have caused all of the misery that has come upon this country.

  • Patriot41

    When you have half of the working age adults out of work and living off of the government for their very existence, then medical coverage by the government becomes an important part of one’s life.

    The democrats have known this all along and are merciless, when it comes to creating new financial victims with each law they pass. Their theme used to be, a chicken in every pot, now it is free medical care through socialized medicine.

    Add to their plan, another amnesty for twenty or so million illegals already in this country and you have a majority vote, off the backs of the poor and jobless.

    Rove is a bean counter and I believe that is what he is trying to point out. Had the GOP leaders taken the time to show the citizens what the democrats have been up to or even provided a decent alternative to the unaffordable, Affordable Care Act, there would be little discussion about fighting over which choice was better.

    I often agree with Sabato’s political analysis, but in this case I do believe he is a bit off base about the anger of the jobless. Once the unemployment benefits were extended along with other government benefits, many of those who have been without work, prefer to collect the benefits which are often greater then what they can get paid, on the jobs available. Add to this the fact, that those living off the government’s generosity, do not have to pay taxes. As Pelosi would say, you have more time to play.

  • David Brown

    Why is anyone listening to Karl Rove anyway, he hasn’t been right about any issue or candidate since 2004?

  • Cardinale

    The author writes: “Maybe we are seeing that Karl Rove is a lover of big government after all?”
    Really? Maybe? If the author hasn’t seen for a long, long, long time that Rove is nothing but a big government lover, then the author is too blind to be writing about politics. What a moronic statement! Rove leads the charge of establishment Republicans to embrace progressive, leftist ideas. Big government could be his middle name. Mr. Huston, try writing about travel, entertainment, children’s stories, or anything other than politics if you’re going to be this blind.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Screw off, jerk.

  • Truth Matters

    Karl Rove is an elitist RHINO scumbag. Imagine telling a fighter who is winning in the ring, to throw in the towel. Imagine telling anybody who is winning an argument to stop using the points in that argument which clearly demonstrate the folly of the opponents point of view and in this case, very bad law. Imagine a runner who is 50 feet ahead of all the other runners, being told to slow down and allow the slower runners to catch up and take the lead. Karl Rove, you need to disappear from the Republican party.

  • ackwired

    Rove is just a realist. Repeal of Obamacare would probably tank a struggling health care system at this point. Continuing to harp on it without offering an alternative solution will lose more votes than it will bring to the Republicans.

  • jimini9

    Rove is a feckless loser; a thorn in the side of reform-minded, grass roots activists. I’ve missed about 100 Fox News shows because of him. If I know he will be appearing, I rush out of the kitchen to my couch and remote out of Fox News. If its pre-announced that Rove will appear with Cavuto or Susteren, I switch to TCM or even HGTV. Let’s start a club, hoping to draw about 30 million Fox’ers. We can call it “The Drovers” or somethin’.

  • Cliff Dickerson

    Karl “The Bed Wetter” has no cred. Why does Fox give this hobbit the time of day?

  • Lorilu

    I’m beginning to understand Bush’s nickname for Rove: “Turd Blossom.”

  • Judi Sanders

    Dr. Benjamin Carson has many reports given him to create a workable healthcare program written by doctors, not politicos. He mentioned it on Fox News yesterday.

  • WallaWally

    Go To out of order blog d.o.t. c.o.m.

  • John C

    Karl the Commie is trying to sink the Republican party. He is pro Obama Care because he didn’t come out against it and didn’t come up with the strategy to use it against the Democrats. He is the new David Gergen.

  • spawn44

    Next he’ll be saying to get on board Amnesty. Karl, the conservatives should put the petal to the metal and not let up.

  • @ManeCoon51

    Karl Rove cares nothing about winning elections unless of course he gets his guy Jeb Bush in the White House. He’s big government and as long as he can make millions, win or lose, he doesn’t care. When are people going to wise up to this shister? Just because he gets on Fox News with his “whiteboard” doesn’t mean squat! He hates conservatives and will work against them all day long.

  • RightBeingRight

    F U Karl Rove…you give us McCain then you give us Romney now you want to give us Jeb Bush? You’re a friggin Democrat for crying out loud. GET RID OF OBAMACARE and just shut the heck up you moron

  • ForMotionCreatv

    Carson and Rove sitting in a tree


    one will ‘fix’ it, the other will bundle it

    next thing you know… Jeb is presumptive nominee.

    stupid party. wise up people. Rove is pulling one over on Conservatives here.