The stalwarts of the GOP have had enough of losing: the Conservative Victory Project launches

The Republican Party donors are tired of donating to candidates who lose — namely, Tea Party candidates who, for one reason or another, could not make it through their general elections on to victory. Candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell won vicious primary battles, only to lose races in the general that seemed ripe for Republican plucking. The stalwarts of the party have had enough.

elephants fightingParty discipline is a concept that is foreign to Tea Party conservatives because, by nature, we are fiercely independent and want to do what we believe is right. However, I have personally learned over the years that you have to balance those beliefs with the understanding that, in order to impact policy, you have to win elections.

It doesn’t do conservative candidates any good to run and lose, only to see someone who completely disagrees with our beliefs win because we couldn’t figure out how to run our campaigns properly (or, in some cases, how to just stay out of it altogether). It’s one thing to run a Tea Party candidate who can win; however, it’s quite another to run one in a primary only to see them lose in a general. The latter is counter-productive, and hurts our conservative cause.

According to The New York Times:

The group, the Conservative Victory Project (CVP), is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

In an interview with The New York Times, Steven J. Law, one of the leaders of the CVP, said:

There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected. … We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.

Moving in to 2014, The New York Times reports that CVP will be doing the following:

The Conservative Victory Project, which is backed by Karl Rove and his allies who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too flawed to win general elections.

CVP says that it will be an independent super PAC, and that it will disclose donor information. This is all separate from American Crossroads, even though its leadership is shared among the two organizations.

Law told The New York Times

It is a delicate and sensitive undertaking. … Our approach will be to institutionalize the Buckley rule: Support the most conservative candidate who can win.

It will be interesting in the months ahead to see how CVP makes its decisions while keeping Tea Party, conservative and Republican support for the candidate it chooses to back in each race. Of course, money doesn’t always mean that you can win, but it’s better to have a 99% conservative who can win an election than a 100%, possibly overboard conservative run who loses elections and can never impact public policy.

If CVP truly stays with the mantra of selection the most conservative candidate — by making sure he or she can win — this could be the perfect balance between the moderate Republicans and the Tea Party candidates that the GOP needs to regain control of the Senate.

Sign up for The Brenner Brief newsletterFree subscription; unsubscribe any time. Connect with conservative, alternative media — we are “rendering the mainstream media useless” at!


  1. Not only am I ok with this… but I am stoked! I hear all of the “pure” conservatives moan and complain about 2012. It should be obvious why we lost and if it isn’t by now it is not worth discussing with those people anymore. Let’s organize, unite, and give the donors their monies worth. Or and by the way, attempt to save the country.

  2. I only donate to the Senate Conservative Fund or directly to conservatives. I’m a huge fan and have a great deal of respect for Mark Levin so I trust him on this 100%. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, etc. A liberal Republican is no different than a liberal Democrat. I’m no fan of Karl Rove. I think he’s a problem, frankly. I definitely do not want Jeb Bush as our next presidential candidate but Karl Rove will try and shove him down our throats hoping to put a feather in his own cap.

  3. “A liberal Republican is different than those being targeted by this org.”

    This new group will target TeaParty candidates only! They only want moderates or liberals hiding under the Republican name!

    A liberal Republican is a RINO. RINO’s do not help Republicans.

    Rove is part of the problem; not the solution. He is part of the elite in fear of losing their power.

    How quickly we forget and dismiss that it is due to the TeaParty that Republicans are where they are today. It was the TeaParty that led Republicans to victory in 2010.

    Prior to the TeaParty, the GOP were losing elections also; it’s utter nonsense that it’s conservatives losing elections.

    • If you read the story, please, you’ll see they are supporting conservative candidates. They say they want to back the most conservative candidate who can get elected. So again, NOT “liberal” Republicans.

      However, the story also explains how it doesn’t matter if we support a conservative who cannot get elected — nothing is accomplished if you can’t win the general election.

  4. Can anyone say “independent candidate” or “open primaries”? Ohio needs to stand up and reform our election and campaigns to protect our voters from these PACs and the barrage of crap they spew to help insure more fair and honest elections.

  5. I am sorry I don’t support Karl Rove at all. All he wants is more RINOS who are still for Big Government. He can say all he wants that it’s not affiliated with his Pac and just like I pay no attention to what comes out of Obama’s mouth…I don’t pay any attention to Karl Rove. He was the one who forced Mitt Romney on us. And now it’s the Tea Party and Conservatives fault that they lost?? PLZZZ!

    • This isn’t dealing with the presidential race. It’s dealing with Senate candidates, where the GOP was supposed to win back the Senate, and instead lost a few seats with Tea Party candidates.

  6. Carl Rove and his crowd told us repeatedly that John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only candidates who could win in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Both were moderate Republicans and both lost in spite of Rove’s best efforts. If you want to look at candidates that can’t win, look at the last two presidential elections. The Republican Party will not win until they become more conservative. The phrase “support the most conservative candidate who is electable” is meaningless. Most conservatives prefer moderate Republicans to liberal Democrats. But conservatives prefer conservatives and it’s well past time we had a conservative lead the ticket in the presidential elections – without apology and with force – to proclaim the pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-marriage, pro-Christian, pro-family messages that are central to conservatism.

  7. I think this is awful. Rove was oh, so successful in bringing conservatives to victory in 2012, no? Tell me again how he helped Romney win…

    Anyway, I’m not the only person who views this as a negative.

    • I think it depends on how Rove uses this organization. If it’s used as Malkin describes, it’s a bad thing — definitely. If it’s used in the way Stephen Law describes it in the interview with The New York Times, it may be a helpful way to weed out those who cannot win. Again, a conservative who can get through the general election is what we want, not just someone who can win a primary.

  8. Don’t miss Mark Levin on this subject. He’s going into great depth about this Steven Law and Rove right now on his show. . They’re going after Steve King!!!

  9. Consider the political landscape in 2014. There are far more Democratic seats up than Republican ones, and most of those who are up were elected during a Democratic landslide year (2008.)

    Combine with that the tradition of the President’s party losing Congressional seats in the sixth year of a term (such as Bush did in 2006) and I think more conservative candidates can not only win, but give the GOP Senate control – that is, if Rove and company don’t muck it up.

    If conservatives have a reason to go to the polls, they will. Mitt Romney wasn’t enough reason, but stopping the Obama agenda in 2010 was.

  10. So – if this pertains to the Senate and not presidential elections – which is largely an irrelevant comment – we are to trust those who lose presidential elections to win Senate elections? It’s not the type of race that is important, it is the political philosophy espoused regardless of the type of election. Conservatives won’t vote for moderate candidates. What is the Republican Party going to do about that?

    • And that is exactly why we will have to see how this plays out. If they just select moderates, you’re right! If they truly do select the most electable conservative to support, that could mean we will actually get conservatives thru the general election and in to office — which should be our ultimate goal.


  1. […] The stalwarts of the GOP have had enough of losing: the Conservative Victory Project launches […]

Leave a comment or question. Report abusive, harassing or annoying behavior by clicking on Tips/Contact in the top menu.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: