My Fearless Political Predictions For 2014

Karl Rove early in President George W. Bush’s Administration had a lot of Conservative Republican admirers including myself. He earned the political nickname of The Architect (Most Conservatives now believe Rove is the Architect for losing Congress after Bush) for getting Bush past a close election over Climate loon Al Gore and in essentially exposing then Senator John Kerry as a Hanoi Jane kind-of-guy probably clandestinely involved in inventing a new smear term of Swiftboating (HERE, HERE and HERE).

Karl Rove after informing us that the most of his 2013 came to pass, he then proceeds to deliver predictions for 2014. Loving him, hating him or indifferent about Rove; he has a few predictions that I hope he is correct about. Namely, the GOP wins the Senate and the House is still a GOP majority. But there is one prediction that absolutely has no politics involved of which I wholly indorse.

I am an NFL football fan. Particularly I am a Seattle Seahawk fan and have been since the first year of their franchise existence. I grew up in Washington State and lived a 100 miles away in Eastern Washington but I went to every game during my season ticket holding days of those first few years. I was a rabid fan even those early years were losing years. I suspect that is why Seahawk fans are so loud today. Seahawk fans are not fair weather fans. The Rove prediction is a Super Bowl victory for the 2013 season played on the first Sunday in February 2014.

Now that I have established what I like about Rove’s predictions here are his predictions for 2014.

JRH 12/26/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*****************************

My Fearless Political Predictions For 2014

The penalty for ignoring ObamaCare's individual mandate will be lifted.

By Karl Rove

December 26, 2013

Rove.com

It's time to see how well I did with my predictions for 2013 and to offer a set of 2014 forecasts.

I got 10 predictions for this year right. President Obama's job approval rating did drop—from 53% at year's start to 40% this week. There was a new administration scandal, the most significant being the IRS targeting of conservative groups. And ObamaCare's implementation was indeed "ragged and ugly" and "a continuing political advantage to Republicans" as forecast.

There was no grand budget bargain with entitlement reform. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez did die. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie won handily and the Virginia gubernatorial race was closer (2.6%) than many experts predicted. House Judiciary Committee Republicans are working on immigration reform while the comprehensive Senate bill backed by Mr. Obama is stalled. Hillary Clinton is now the front-runner in 2016 polls while the Obama girls got a new puppy.

Four predictions were wrong: unemployment hit 7% instead of 8%; Syria's Bashar Assad remains in power; Fidel Castro is still alive and President and Mrs. George W. Bush got a granddaughter, not a grandson. In one instance, the results were half-right. The debt ceiling was raised, but Mr. Obama wasn't forced to make spending cuts in return.

So what does my crystal ball say for 2014? Mr. Obama's Gallup disapproval rating will end higher than this week's 53%. Republicans will keep the House with a modest pickup of 4-6 seats. The GOP will most likely end up with 50 or 51 Senate seats (in the former case, keeping Vice President Joe Biden fully occupied for two years presiding over the chamber). Control of the Senate may not be decided until December's Louisiana runoff. Propelled by union contributions, Democrats will outspend Republicans overall in House and Senate races.

Republicans will lose a net of one or two of their 30 governorships. They'll add to their numbers in statewide offices and state legislatures and see more Latino, Asian-American, African-American and women Republicans elected up and down the ballot.

Every Republican senator and virtually every representative challenged in a primary as insufficiently conservative will win. In reaction to ObamaCare, GOP political divisions are giving way to unity. Tens of millions more Americans will lose their coverage and find that new ObamaCare plans have higher premiums, larger deductibles and fewer doctors. Enrollment numbers will be smaller than projected and budget outlays will be higher. The White House will blame insurers and Republicans for the law's continuing failures.

At year's end, Kathleen Sebelius will still be HHS Secretary. Support for ObamaCare will drop below 30%, causing congressional Democrats to clamber for major changes and delays. The administration will resist most such ideas, except lifting the individual mandate penalty for 2014.

It won't be all sweetness and light for the GOP, however. Republicans will debate joining rebellious Democrats in gutting and delaying elements of ObamaCare or leaving it alone.

The White House will be even more hard-edged and partisan— and not just because of John Podesta's addition as counselor. Mr. Obama will do what he does when in trouble: attack. Expect more liberals to blame criticism of his actions on racism. The president's willingness to ignore or unilaterally alter provisions of laws on the statute books—otherwise known as lawlessness—will be challenged by a growing number of successful lawsuits.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan will increase his already considerable influence in the House, taking the lead on GOP antipoverty efforts and presenting the most serious comprehensive health-care plan congressional Republicans have offered.

Overseas, the Syrian civil war will be to Mr. Obama what Rwandan genocide was to the Clinton administration: a moral stain. Despite more American concessions, the Iranian nuclear deal will collapse as that country refuses to curtail its uranium enrichment. The administration will resign itself to a nuclear Iran and shift to "containment," further eroding U.S. credibility with Middle East allies. The new Afghan government will sign a Status of Forces Agreement, keeping Mr. Obama from squandering progress there as he did victory in Iraq by failing to get such an agreement (though Baghdad wanted one). North Korea's Kim Jong Un will test another nuclear device.

Outside of politics: "Duck Dynasty" will set another cable viewership record. Miley Cyrus will fade as a cultural phenomenon. Sandra Bullock will win an Oscar for "Gravity." Peyton Manning will win a fifth MVP award and the Seattle Seahawks their first Lombardi Trophy. (Blog Editor: Bold Emphasis Mine)

Instead of writing New Year's resolutions, send me your 2014 predictions, in care of The Wall Street Journal. Happy prognosticating!

_____________________________

A version of this article appeared December 26, 2013, in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline My Fearless Political Predictions For 2014 and online at WSJ.com.

Karl Rove Bio

Conservatives can Unite Thanks to Karl Rove

John R. Houk

© February 7, 2013

I have a tendency to view Foreign Policy through the filter of Neoconservatism which in essence the promotion of American Exceptionalism, promoting alliances with democratic principled nations that view the USA favorably and make the effort to transform Third World nations to instill Liberty and representative democracy. The lesson learned about instilling Liberty and representative democracy in Muslim dominated nations is that the Western version is impossible. In lands dominated by millennia of Islamic indoctrination any Liberty and representative democracy will only work through the filter Islamic Sharia Law. Sharia is inimical to American Liberty at the very least.

I tend to view American Domestic Policy through the filter of American Conservatism which is Less Government, Lower taxes and a Free Market Economy.

I am definitely not a purist in either Neoconservatism or Conservatism because on minor issues I kind of do a mix and match depending on the effect an ideology affects American Exceptionalism and the promotion of Christian Morality in America. And so I have thoughts that tend to irk both Neocons and Conservatives.

The Neocon in me has often found favor with Karl Rove the architect of President GW Bush’s two election victories over acutely Leftist candidates in former VP Al Gore and current Secretary of State John Kerry. That made Rove a hero in my book. THE TIMES THEY A CHANGED.

Karl Rove has begun to filter his Neoconservatism through a love of Establishment Republicans and a hatred of true Conservatives in Tea Party candidates. This is unacceptable and punitive to true Conservatism.

Karl Rove is making my case that Conservatives MUST abandon the Republican Party and unify under a different political party that attracts voters supportive of true Conservative Principles and able to educate American voters that more apolitical in voting but are duped by Dem Party Leftist propaganda.

The key to unifying Conservatives is the Tea Party Movement. Currently the Tea Party is awesome on grassroots and deficient on moving voters on a national scale. Now how can Conservatives utilize the genius of Tea Party grassroots organization to find a unified national movement?

This is how: Unite Conservative leadership that is already recognizable on a national scale. Take that national leadership to form a political party with the various local Tea Party organizations gather to form a national caucus and/or a national political party convention to establish a political platform and develop candidates with a singular Conservative agenda to win the hearts of American voters tossing both Establishment Republicans and Leftist Dems to the political dung heap of nausea.

Maybe we Conservatives can thank Karl Rove for giving us an excellent reason to form our political party that has nothing to do with the GOP.

The inspiration for these thoughts is a recent column by Joseph Farah condemning Karl Rove who intends to target GOP Conservatives that are out of step with Establishment Republicans.

JRH 2/7/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

*****************************

Karl Rove steps up war on conservatives

Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals how failed 'architect' is targeting tea-party Republicans

By Joseph Farah

February 6, 2013

WND

What lesson did Karl Rove learn from losing virtually every race in which his super-pacs supported a primary candidate as well as losing virtually every race in which they supported Republicans opposing Democrats in the November election – from Mitt Romney on down?

Apparently, his conclusion is these super-rich political action committees he runs must double-down against conservative and tea-party Republicans in the 2014 mid-term elections and other future votes.

In other words, Rove is planning to wage a scorched-earth policy against any candidates seeking office other than establishment, middle-of-the-road Republicans.

That’s according to a report in Rove’s newspaper of choice – the New York Times. And this is one New York Times report that actually seems to be credible.

This is why I have called upon Rove to be dumped by conservative and Republican donors. Not only does his strategy represent proven failure to elect Republicans, it presents more obstacles for conservative and tea-party candidates to win – which is exactly his point.

One thing should be clear by now: The establishment, country-club Republicans, formerly referred to in an earlier day as “Rockefeller Republicans” and more often today as RINOs (Republicans in name only), have not only lost their hammerlock grip on the GOP, but on their ability to win elections. Period.

Meanwhile, Rove has built his political consulting career building war chests worth hundreds of millions of dollars – much of that money coming from wealthy donors who don’t share Rove’s politically suicidal bent nor his liberal ideological rigidness.

Among the groups Rove commands is one ironically called the “Conservative Victory Fund,” which, of course, misleads many conservative donors into believing they are helping conservatives with their contributions. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are helping to defeat them.

For instance, one of the most dependable conservatives in the House – a thorn in the side of House Speaker John Boehner, who has betrayed the tea-party movement that placed him in power – is Steve King of Iowa. Guess who one of the first targets of Rove’s money-machine politics is said to be. That’s right. Steve King.

Steve King is illustrative of the kind of principled conservative Republicans should be enthusiastically backing. Not only does he win, but he gives the Washington establishment fits – both accommodating Republican leadership and the extremists in the Democratic Party.

Clearly, Rove would prefer to see a Democrat take King’s seat than for him to remain in office. He made the same decision about Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin in his race against Barack Obama cheerleader Claire McCaskill in 2012.

Another one of Rove’s heavily endowed super-pacs is American Crossroads. Here’s what the president of that organization had to say about Rove’s internecine war strategy.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said 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.”

The first test of the groups’ efforts to influence primary races could come in Iowa, according to the Time, where Republicans have a chance to win a Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Tom Harkin, a seat that hasn’t been open since 1974.

“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

In response, King said: “This is a decision for Iowans to make and should not be guided by some political staffers in Washington,” King said in an interview, pointing out that he won his congressional race last year even though Barack Obama easily defeated Mitt Romney in Iowa. “The last election, they said I couldn’t win that, either, and the entire machine was against me.”

Rove’s intentionally misnamed “Conservative Victory Fund” says it will be intensely vetting prospective contenders for congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too conservative to win general elections.

How will Rove’s highly paid political mercenaries conduct their war of attrition against conservatives? They will spend more Republican donor money in primaries against other Republicans they find distasteful and too conservative. That, of course, dries up money that could be used to beat Democrats. But that’s not as important to Rove as controlling the tenor of the party itself and preserving himself with the mythical monikers of “kingmaker” and “architect.”

What’s the ultimate solution to this?

It’s two-fold:

§  Conservatives – real conservatives – should not give a dime to any organization run or influenced by Rove.

§  A new super-pac must be created that supports the conservatives and tea-party Republicans with equal or greater sums of money than Rove squandered in 2012.

If Rove wants to understand the real problem the Republican Party faced in 2012 and in the future, all he needs to do is look in the mirror.

_______________________

Conservatives can Unite Thanks to Karl Rove

John R. Houk

© February 7, 2013

______________________

Karl Rove steps up war on conservatives

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.

                                                                                             

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Could the GOP Have a Brokered Convention?

Karl Rove explains the differences between a Brokered Convention and a Contested Convention. You may not agree with how these situations will or will not occur; however the explanations bring clarity to the media hype relating that the Republicans may arrive at their Florida Convention without a clear winner for the GOP nomination.

JRH 2/24/12

********************************

Could the GOP Have a Brokered Convention?

All the feverish talk ignores the delegate math and the election calendar.

By Karl Rove

February 23, 2012

Originally: Wall Street Journal

Rove.com

The volatile Republican presidential contest has provoked feverish talk in the media and the blogosphere about a brokered or contested convention in late August, when 2,286 Republican delegates gather in Tampa, Fla. Here's how those scenarios would unfold.

A brokered convention would see a new candidate—someone other than Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum—enter the remaining primaries or parachute in during the convention (if no existing candidate has secured a majority of delegates). In backroom deals, either based partly on the strength of his late primary performances or only on the discretion of party leaders, he would become the nominee.

A contested convention, on the other hand, would see no dark horse enter but none of the existing candidates arrive in Tampa with a 1,144 majority of delegates. Lots of wheeling and dealing would ensue, and after several ballots a nominee would emerge from the four current candidates.

Is either scenario likely? Let's put it this way: The odds are greater that there's life on Pluto than that the GOP has a brokered convention. And while there's a better chance of a contested convention, it's still highly unlikely.

Consider the calendar and the math. After Super Tuesday on March 6, a new candidate could still file for the Nebraska beauty contest, the Minnesota caucuses, and the primaries in New Mexico, California, Utah, South Dakota, New Jersey and Texas. Those eight contests have 519 delegates at stake: 238 awarded winner-takes-all, 241 split proportionally and 40 unpledged.

If a new candidate gets all the winner-takes-all delegates (unlikely since 222 in California and New Jersey are awarded by congressional district, not statewide), plus half those awarded proportionally, he still would have just 378 delegates of the 1,144 needed for nomination. At least two current candidates are likely to have far more. Why would they step aside for a newcomer?

Meanwhile, a brokered convention needs party bosses, and today there aren't any. In the old days, party chiefs often led delegations of regulars who took orders and depended on patronage. No longer. In some states, winning candidates don't even pick their delegates—party conventions do. This means that while the delegation is committed to support a candidate for a certain number of ballots, many individual delegates remain loyal to other candidates. That makes it more difficult for anyone in a smoke-filled bargaining session to deliver a large number of delegates.

Besides, who is available for the role of savior? All of last year's heartthrobs—including Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie—have again disavowed any interest in running. Why enter the race at the end, facing long odds, rather than at the beginning, with much better ones?

Sarah Palin has said she "would do whatever I could to help" in a brokered convention. But is it realistic to think that millions of Republicans who voted in primaries and caucuses would be happy to have a standard-bearer who had skipped most or all of the primary contests? A brokered convention would split the party and send it into the general election angry and divided. It would be a recipe for disaster.

As for a contested convention: This last happened for the GOP in 1976. Neither President Gerald Ford nor Ronald Reagan had a majority when delegates arrived in Kansas City. The nomination was decided by the unpledged Mississippi delegation swinging in behind Ford. But there are far fewer delegations in 2012 that will arrive in Tampa unpledged.

It's also important to remember that, according to the Republican National Committee, delegates have been officially awarded in just four contests. Missouri's primary was just a beauty contest, and the caucus states have county, congressional-district and state conventions to go through later this spring before their delegations are set, all of which will be affected by what happens in the race between now and then.

There are 48 still to go (including D.C., American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands and Guam). And once a candidate starts winning, they tend to keep winning, especially beginning in April when more states award delegates on a winner-take-all basis.

In a smart analysis, Davidson College Prof. Josh Putnam predicts that it could take until late May for anyone to get a majority, assuming the leading candidate receives only 49% in any contest. But after Super Tuesday, the race is likely to narrow to just two significant candidates, and one of them will probably get more than 50% in most of the remaining contests.

The Republican nominee will almost certainly come from the existing field. Though media questions and debates have dinged them all up, whoever emerges is likely to be stronger for having gone through this grueling process. And deserving of respect for having thrown his hat in the ring when others didn't.

_______________________________

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, February 22, 2012.

Copyright © 2012 Karl Rove & Co

Karl Rove Called the Anti-Christ

John R. Houk

December 20, 2010

A person going by the pseudonym of Hieronymus Brain sent a link from the blog Blonde Sense. There was no introduction, summary or a comment on the positive or negative side. However there was one very short sentence:

Karl Rove is the Antichrist.

Being the Neocon Christian Right person that I am, the sentence did achieve gaining my attention. Realizing that everyone of the Left hate only one person more (maybe two) more than Karl Rove; that would be President George W. Bush (perhaps the second person is Vice President Cheney).

Since the “Brain” writes that Rove is the “Antichrist,” I presume he is a Leftist still infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) of which Rove would be a particle neurosis of BDS. I was not disappointed that my expectation of the link was another Left Wing twisting facts to fit BDS. If you wish to read up on the BDS link from Blonde Sense, it is here: http://blondesense.blogspot.com/2010/12/when-one-falls-another-must-continue.html.

I normally would cross post links sent to me; however this one is so way off I could not bring myself to do so.

In essence the link is a cross post of an article by James C. Moore co-author of “Bush’s Brain”. The post does have an intro title followed by a couple of sentences that I am certain are meaningful to a Leftist still enveloped in BDS over two years after President Bush left Office:

When one falls, another must continue his quest...

Talk about prognostication...
This is from Buzzflash, 2004. But might just as well have been written last week.

First Buzzflash pumps up James Moore by dumping a load of BDS on President Bush and his effort to join the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War days. Buzzflash condemns Bush’s choice as if it was a wealthy person’s Conservative conspiracy that only the rich and famous avoided combat duty during the days of mandatory military conscription (the Draft). Bush’s joining the Texas National Guard was responsible for the deaths of many poor draftees who did not avoid conscription don’t you knows? Hello Buzzflash! It was Leftists that did their best to undermine American National Interests by painting the anti-Communist war in Vietnam was more about slowing the dominoes of Southeast Asian Communism than upholding an unpopular corrupt South Vietnamese government.

It was Left Wing influenced College Students that managed to get a student deferment without the big bucks of a rich person that called returning veterans fighting for American freedom such things as “baby killers” and “murderers”. You have got to know that those who were able to avoid the draft with some kind of deferment were thought of as geniuses by draftees until combat soured the genius concept. After combat experience I am also certain that the once considered deferment geniuses of the rich and poor were looked upon with a bit of contempt. Unfortunately Leftist twisters of facts utilize BDS to vilify President GW Bush that most Leftists would have envied at the time. How the hypocrisy reigns among the Left. Anyway after Buzzflash does the typical BDS on President GW Bush then it proceeds to James Moore’s delusions.

The cross post title is actually “Karl Rove's Master Plan: A One-Party America”. Moore goes into length how Karl Rove the hated Republicans (probably hated Neocons) had a three step plan to turn America into a ONE Party State. Moore begins by stating that Rove personally put the Swift Boat Vets for Truth together. This is ludicrous! I am certain that the architect of campaigning saw the political value in allowing the Swift Boaters from a distance to disparage the Left Wing hater of the military Senator John Kerry, but a direct link is not credible. Frankly as much as the MSM and the Left vilified the Swift Boaters as liars and doing little to corroborate their then darling John Kerry’s military record that was no doubt polished being a rich boy. Yet when veterans that served with Kerry were vilified in his biography, then the Swift Boaters banded together to give a different perspective.

As you read Moore’s thoughts you will notice how delusional he sounds when all the alleged facts sound remarkably like the Leftist/Marxist/Leninist/Alinsky/Obama plan of transforming (remember “Change”?) America into a powerless appeasement nation that is the blame for all the woes of the World. The Obama agenda to provide International authority over American Constitutional Law in the form of the Left Wing thinking of today’s version of the United Nations. This is the same U.N. that demands American money to support anti-American agendas including sovereignty dilution and evaporation within America’s own borders.

To think that Karl Rove would be able to control the U.S. government to the point of eliminating the Democratic Party to create a Big Business oligarchical dictatorship that totally divests America of anything slanted toward the Left and bring back serfdom in which a rich elite not only governs the Middle Class and lower classes but dominates them. This makes as much sense as if President Barack Hussein Obama is capable of bringing a ONE Party Left Wing Politburo to power in America. I sense my fellow Conservatives probably feel BHO could achieve such a government takeover, but it is ludicrous.

If America mirrors the Roman Empire at all, we are still in the stage of the Roman Republic. When Roman elites began to be power hungry they began to play on the emotions of the people to garner popularity. The people began to form factions supporting various elites. Eventually one popular Roman General not only had the popular support of most of the Roman citizens but had the army to back a Roman take-over. That Roman General was Julius Caesar. Julius used his army to win a civil war and the award of dictator for life. Caesar’s acquired power for purposes ended the last vestiges of the Roman Republic. Julius’ assassination by Republic sympathizers began another civil war which ended in Julius’ nephew Octavius eventually becoming the top dog. Octavius’ victory provided a new Roman title of power which could roughly be translated as Emperor. I predict this is the same rough scenario that will spell the end of the American Republic before any outside force vanquishes our Representative Republic. Decay will be internal.  

There has been only one American President with the kind of popularity to sway the American people to allow a power grab in America. That President was George Washington.

JRH 12/20/10

'A Referendum on This White House'

Here is Karl Rove’s analysis of Republican victories in the recent 2009 elections in the few States that had them.

In a word: Look out Obama and the Dems.

JRH 11/12/09