Trump v. Rove, Cheney, WSJ, and Others

Our forthcoming book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties.

The state of the GOP is not good.

 

INBOX: A statement from the former president of the United States about Karl Rove: pic.twitter.com/9D7pG0JLj7

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) March 5, 2021

Politico Playbook:

Sources tell Playbook that McCarthy has been trying to persuade Trump not to seek revenge against 10 Republicans who voted to impeach the former president — members who could be critical to McCarthy’s bid to retake the House and become speaker.

Not only has Trump refused to commit, he has publicly repeated his vow to primary those incumbents.

That’s not all. Trump and his new campaign team are also cracking down on the use of the president’s name for fundraising — a huge draw attracting small-dollar donors. Three sources told us that Trump, who made his fortune licensing his name, has felt burned and “abused” by the GOP bandying about his name to haul in money.

His team has conveyed that any Republican or GOP committee seeking to use it needs explicit approval, according to five sources familiar with the situation. One Trump adviser said they’ve been sending out cease-and-desists to faux PACs using Trump’s name to fundraise, among other demands to knock it off.

In his CPAC speech last weekend, Trump reinforced the point by directing all fundraising to his own campaign entities. He told attendees “there’s only one way” to donate to Trump Republicans: through his own Save America PAC.

That move came around the same time that McCarthy’s own reelection campaign took down a website called Trumps-Majority.com, a landing page for donations that appeared to go live around the time McCarthy met with Trump in Florida. McCarthy’s office said the website, which was used in 2020, went up by mistake. The McCarthy and Trump camps denied that its removal had anything to do with Trump’s concern about how his name is being used.

Still, the situation highlights an awkward two-step between the House GOP (particularly McCarthy) and Trump. They need the ex-president to raise gobs of money from and turn out the base. But any cash collected off the Trump name would also be used to protect some of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach him — members like California Rep. DAVID VALADAO, a McCarthy ally who’s in a difficult reelection.

Setting aside Trump’s appetite for revenge against those members, even some House Republicans aren’t even comfortable with McCarthy & Co.’s Trump entreaties. At a private meeting in February, Rep. TOM RICE (R-S.C.), one of the pro-impeachment Republicans, said the conference shouldn’t be using the ex-president at all in its effort to retake the House, according to people in the room.

Caught in the middle is McCarthy, who is notorious for trying to please everybody. McCarthy has made no secret of his belief that the House GOP needs Trump in 2022. But placating a president who doesn’t hear nuance when it comes to his detractors is not going to be easy for “My Kevin.”

SPOTTED: CATALINA LAUF, a pro-Trump Republican primarying Rep. ADAM KINZINGER (R-Ill.) in 2022, at Mar-a-Lago on Thursday evening, in the latest sign that Trump is serious about primarying his House GOP antagonists.

Todd Akin, the 2017 Edition

In Defying the Odds, we discuss congressional elections as well as the presidential race.

On Friday, Trump gave an odd, rambling speech, nominally in support of appointed Senator Luther Strange in the Alabama runoff. Jonathan Martin at NYT:

“If Luther doesn’t win, they’re not going to say we picked up 25 points in a very short period of time, they’re going say, ‘Donald Trump, the president of the United States, was unable to pull his candidate across the line,’” he predicted to 7,500 Alabamians at a rally on Friday night as Mr. Strange looked on.

His blurting out of his political stage directions was a vintage moment of Trumpian indiscretion. But it also had the benefit of being accurate. The contest between Mr. Strange and Roy Moore, a former State Supreme Court justice and evangelical firebrand, is the most significant test yet of the president’s power to sway the party’s conservative base.

...
“If Roy Moore wins, Bannon and all the other of those people will pop out of the woodwork everywhere,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby, the veteran Alabama Republican, referring to the former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon, who has taken a leading role against the preferred candidate of his former boss. 

Moore was removed from the bench for defying a court order to take down the Ten Commandments from the State Supreme Court.  In the past, he supported banning homosexual acts.

It is the sort of message that terrifies Republican elites, who fear he could be a more weaponized version of Todd Akin, the 2012 Missouri Senate candidate who lost after saying women’s bodies could block a pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape.”

“Roy Moore would be the Todd Akin of 2017 and 2018 for every Republican on the ballot,” said Karl Rove, the Republican strategist, who is aligned with the Senate Leadership Fund. “Republicans will be asked, ‘Do you agree homosexuality should be punished by death, do you believe 9/11 was a result of God’s anger?’ He’ll say outrageous things, the media will play it up, and every Republican will be asked, ‘Do you agree with that?’”

...
 “I think they’ll go after that seat,” Mr. Shelby said of the Democrats’ approach should Mr. Moore win on Tuesday. That is less likely if Mr. Strange captures the nomination, he said. “If Luther wins, he’s in.”

The Senate Democratic campaign arm has lined up a pollster to test Mr. Jones’s strengths and Mr. Moore’s vulnerabilities. And Alabama Democrats are openly rooting for the former judge.

 “We want Roy Moore to win that primary,” said Patricia Todd, a Democratic state representative from Birmingham. “He gives us a better shot in the general election.”

The Mooch Memo

Before the abrupt end of his tenure as communications director, Scaramucci wrote a not-bad memo on strategy for the office.

From Buzzfeed:

Communications Plan
July 30, 2017

Priority #1 - Improve the Culture
This is the key—everything is possible with a good culture, nothing is possible without it
a) meet with media members (MSM, conservative media, and new media), where possible, on their home turf to build bridges and foster better working relationships. WH should leave old grudges behind, but never forget.
b) meet with WH and cabinet communication staff to seek constructive input and convey that good ideas are welcomed regardless of the source. This should be an ongoing modus operandi, not an isolated initiative.
c) Implement a series of professionalizing initiatives immediately. For example, no WH communication staffer goes home without returning all calls, emails, and texts. People may not like our answers—but they should always be treated professionally and respectfully (obviously, this starts with the new Director of Communications)
d) Recognize good work in a consistent and formal way. Establish a meritocracy where real contributions to Comms are recognized. Make it clear that horn tooting and denigrating colleagues is unacceptable
e) No more threats about leaking and internal game playing - anyone who takes actions that do not serve the President will be dismissed - period. We will eliminate the bad eggs and send a powerful message to the remaining staff that well-intentioned mistakes are acceptable, but misconduct is not.
f) Upgrade talent incrementally - prioritize culture. New communication staffers must make others better/more effective. We need to be a great team, not a collection of talented individuals with their own agendas.
g) Reach out and collaborate with Cabinet, Congress, the RNC, and surrogates and validators throughout the country. People want to help POTUS succeed, but they need to feel welcomed, appreciated and empowered. Comms, justifiably or not, has a reputation as fiefdom that is difficult to work with. We need to improve the quality and quantity of interactions between Comms and its various constituents.

Priority #2 - Comms is a Customer Service Operation—POTUS is the Number One Customer
-before undertaking new and creative initiatives, Comms must more effectively handle the daily/weekly blocking and tackling of a WH Comms shop
a) Comms needs to be structurally re-organized to serve its various customers
-a group dedicated to serving as a PR department for POTUS and his family members. Comms need to humanize POTUS and burnish his image. For example, POTUS is the best golfer to serve as President. Perhaps, we embrace it with a national online lottery to play a round of golf with him….or a charity auction. POTUS has a funny and irreverent side which was shared with the electorate during the campaign
-a rapid response group dedicated to handling hot issues/crises to insure more effective responses while enabling Comms to stay on point/message and conduct normal operations (i.e. the Clinton White House Lewinsky model).
-a strategy group to work cooperatively with colleagues throughout the WH to develop communication strategies and specific executable plans that are coordinated with Cabinet officials and the Hill for a select group of important issues/initiatives
-Responsibilities need to be clearly defined for certain important roles—managing relationships with the Hill, Cabinet comms, and surrogates/validators. Clear structure will provide better performance and accountability.
b) The media is an important Comms customer
- POTUS can choose to fight with the media, but Comms can not.
-Comms should seek to de-escalate tensions with the media.
-Comms will continue to challenge stories that are unfair/untrue, but also express appreciation for good and fair coverage. Comms can be strong without being combative.
-Comms should establish a constructive “complaint box” for the media to make complaints. Where possible, Comms will seek to make changes that make sense. Regardless, relations with the media will improve if their complaints are welcomed and considered
c) Cabinet members and their staff are customers too.
-Comms sets the message, but cabinet members will better serve POTUS if they are supported and treated like members of POTUS’s team.
-Comms talent throughout the administration has been underutilized. This can be remedied by sharing information freely, soliciting input, treating colleagues professionally, and coordinated empowerment
d) Surrogates/validators are important customers. They need to be serviced, supported, and coordinated better.
e) All Comms actions/decisions need to be evaluated through one and only one prism —does it help POTUS. To this end, I will lead by example and make sure that my overall conduct, tweets, internal and external comments meet this standard

Priority #3 Make the News—We Go First
a) Execution is everything!!! Diagnosing the problems is easy- fixing it will be hard work.
-Comms needs to be run like a news channel with producers, scripts, and narration
-there needs to be clear individual responsibilities, accountability, and a complete dedication to the team/excellence
-Comms needs better players at many positions. We will give existing staff the opportunity to raise their games, but expect to make changes in a considered, no/low drama way
-Comms should not fix things that aren’t broken; but should move quickly (without rushing) to fix things the numerous things that are
-Comms should assess and evaluate all work product and processes. “This is the way it is done” is not an acceptable explanation. Communications tactics and strategies should be evaluated based upon measurable metrics.
-Comms needs to act as a gatekeeper/air traffic controller over all external communications from the small (i.e. email blasts) to the large (i.e. cabinet member appearances on Sunday shows). To do this, Comms must be super responsive. For example, Cabinet members need to be well-informed, well-prepared, and fully supported in a timely manner (i.e. not on the morning of an appearance)
-Comms needs to do a much better job anticipating media follow-up and reaction. If we say X, they will ask Y. We need to be prepared for Y. Most Ys are predictable. It is Comms’ responsibility to be ready with a response and to have surrogates prepared for the inevitable Ys.
b) the refined Roger Ailes theory- we exercise influence over the news cycle because POTUS and the government make news—(i.e. do things on a daily basis that matter). An effective Comms shop will dictate the news of the day on most days.
c) Comms must control who gets on the air/talks to the press….always. We want our people talking to the press. We just want it to be coordinated and effective. Comms should arm and empower our people. Comms is a service operation (not the bad cop)- we want our people to look better/succeed.
d) Comms needs to better explain how POTUS’s actions are helping Americans. For example, deregulation is an abstract concept to most voters. We need to illustrate, with real life examples, how lifting burdensome regulations produces jobs
e) Comms needs to start earlier (chronologically). Tomorrow will be won today. Tomorrow morning is too late.
f) Every Comms message needs to have a nexus to Make America Great Again and jobs
g) Comms needs to equip POTUS with opportunities to make many more positive announcements The ratio of positive to negative is out of balance, and the responsibility to correct this lies with Comms. There are achievements/wins throughout the government that go unpublicized. Comms should help POTUS convey a Reaganesque “happy warrior” image by sourcing and packaging these wins. Comms should study the ratio of “good,” “neutral,” and “negative” communications from POTUS and help move the ratio towards the “good.”
h) Comms should use Kellyanne Conway more. She has consistently been the President’s most effective spokesperson, and she provides a direct link to the President’s historic electoral victory.

Priority #4 - Fill the Content Void
a) to quote Obama Director of Communications,Dan Pfieffer, “there is an insatiable appetite for content” and “traditional news outlets don’t have the resources to produce the amount of content that the internet requires on a 24/7 basis”
-in addition to written word production (i.e. speeches, talking points, and press releases), the WH should vastly increases the amount of visual, video, and graphical images that it produces to communicate our message(s).
-for example, Comms could produce short (3-5 minute) videos with selected visitors to the WH
b) comms need to identify and engage a broader network of surrogates/validators to make TV appearances, write op-eds, etc. The traditional media has a significant (albeit finite) amount of tonnage. Either we fill it, or they will
c) POTUS should regularly provide op-ed pieces to major publications. The op-eds will (almost always) produce the story of the day, and POTUS will be setting the terms of the discussion. Op-eds provide a vehicle for him to articulate his policies and ideas in a well-reasoned, thoughtful and persuasive way. Most Presidents have used op-eds sparingly to maximize effect. But, the media world has changed, and POTUS should write frequent op-eds to advance his agenda (and use adversarial newspapers to his own advantage).
d) People are fascinated by the lives of their Presidents and the operation of the White House. POTUS is the greatest TV star in history. Comms should produce video content that constructively operates as “The President Donald J. Trump” show. Obama scratched the surface of this. POTUS should take it to the next level.
e) Rather than traditional press conferences, POTUS should take questions from real citizens via Facebook live and/or other social media platforms.
f) Comms should consider a range of ideas including a modernized fireside chats where POTUS sits with a Cabinet member (and/or senior government official) to discuss the relevant issues. Perhaps, Sarah or Kellyanne could act as a moderator. These videos should have running times of between 15-20 minutes.
g) text polling should be evaluated as a means to produce engagement. Obviously, the polling topics would need to be carefully considered.
h) find ways to connect POTUS with Presidential history to capture the importance, power, and grandeur of the office. Perhaps, Comms could produce “this day in Presidential history” videos.
-There is an inherent challenge in flooding the zone with content while broadcasting a focused message. However, the audience and mediums for each objective are quite different. For traditional media outlets, Comms needs to do a considerably better job at producing a focused daily message that is reinforced and coordinated throughout the day.

Priority #5 - Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
a) “it’s the economy stupid” should be “it’s the Trump economy.” The media (and the voters) will make POTUS own the economy (which is doing very well) if it goes the other way, so he should own it now. Comms needs to emphasis the economy early and often
b) The message should be that businesses are investing more and creating more jobs because they have confidence. The source of their confidence is the election of a successful businessman to the Presidency. Obama bred uncertainty amongst the business community. Trump breeds confidence. Confidence=more jobs. Would the stock market have galloped from election day to year end 2016 if HRC had won? Of course, not.
c) Comms will coordinate with Commerce, Treasury, State, etc to identify a steady stream of examples of the Trump administration providing support to small and medium size businesses. POTUS can take credit and publicize these wins (big and small) while complimenting the great work of people in various departments/agencies.
d) Every positive piece of economic data needs to echo throughout the Comms eco-system, and Comms needs to find ways to connect positive economic data to real people. The growth in new jobs is life changing for every day Americans. Comms needs to bring a spotlight to these people/stories
e) When the media or Democrats attack POTUS, Comms should pivot to the economy. For example, real Americans do not care about palace intrigue in the White House. POTUS is leading and fostering an economy that makes their lives better. That’s what real people care about.

Scaramucci To-Do List
-meet with General Kelly
-meet with Hope Hicks, Josh Raffel, Michael Anton, and Dina Powell and anyone else who you believe should be a top priority.
-meet with Steve Bannon (I want his insight and help. He presumably has an opinion on how Comms can operate more effectively)
-meet with heads of the various networks and leading journalists (like Maggie Haberman) to build a better relationship and solicit their input on how we can better work together
-meet with Directors of Communications from prior administrations (no need to re-invent the wheel on certain matters, particularly basic blocking and tackling stuff)
-meet with Ryan Lizza (not to litigate the past—to reset for moving forward)
-meet with leading Republicans who, whether for or against POTUS, have valuable insights to impart Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove are at the top of this list
-meet with Speaker Ryan, Leader McConnell and their respective Comms teams

Rove and Noonan on Trump

In Defying the Odds, we explain that the 2016 campaign was a race to the bottom.  Trump is lowering the bottom.


Karl Rove:

Increasingly it appears Mr. Trump lacks the focus or self-discipline to do the basic work required of a president. His chronic impulsiveness is apparently unstoppable and clearly self-defeating. Mr. Trump may have mastered the modes of communication, but not the substance, thereby sabotaging his own agenda.

Peggy Noonan:

The worst part of the testimony is when the president pressed Mr. Comey for his personal loyalty. Presidents don’t lean on FBI chiefs in this way. It is at odds with traditional boundaries, understandings and protocols. It was embarrassing to read. It was the move of a naïf who’s a cynic—I know how the big boys play. Actually it’s not how the big boys play, it’s how someone who learns about government by binge-watching “House of Cards” would play. It was bumptious with the special bumptiousness of those who think themselves savvy.
...
In the end Mr. Comey appears to have done himself little or no harm, but he harmed the president by documenting, again and persuasively, that Mr. Trump does not understand the norms, rules and traditions of his job. As I watched, I wondered how many other appointees, officials and White House staffers are writing themselves memos.

The Night of Crossroads

Two years ago, some on the left and the right criticized Karl Rove for the defeat of Crossroads-backed candidates.  The midterm is different as Michael Beckel, Carrie Levine, and Dave Levinthal write at Slate:

Groups connected to Rove and the Koch brothers were among the biggest winners in Tuesday’s midterm elections. Of the 10 U.S. Senate races where either the Rove-linked nonprofit Crossroads GPS or its sister super PAC, American Crossroads, was active, their favored candidates prevailed in at least six—with the Alaska Senate race still too close to call at this writing and a runoff election coming next month in Louisiana. Similarly, of the nine U.S. Senate races where the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity was active, its favored candidates also prevailed in at least five contests. Only in New Hampshire and Michigan did the Crossroads groups and Americans for Prosperity see defeat.

In the Granite State, incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen kept Republican challenger Scott Brown, who previously represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate, at bay. And in Michigan, Rep. Gary Peters defeated former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land to win an open-seat race. As of press time, incumbent Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, was trailing GOP challenger Dan Sullivan, the state’s former attorney general and natural resources commissioner, by about four percentage points.

Ultimately, the current occupant of the White House decided the 2014 election, said Steven Law, president of American Crossroads. “This election was about President Obama,” Law said in a statement. Levi Russell, a spokesman for Americans for Prosperity, did not respond to requests for comment.

The Sunlight Foundation reports:

Two years ago, when we took the post-mortem of the presidential-year elections, powerhouse conservative spenders like Crossroads GPS, American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had almost nothing to show for the tens of millions of dollars they funneled into that campaign. In 2014, conservatives turned the ship around, drubbing their liberal rivals in a year in which independent groups on both sides dropped unprecedented amounts of money.

The three conservative organizations mentioned above all had success rates under 20 percent two years ago. This year? Each group batted .800 or above. With several races remaining to be decided, the National Republican Senatorial Committee also boasts a 94 percent success rate.

Nicholas Confessore reports at The New York Times:

American Crossroads and its affiliated nonprofit group spent $50 million on political advertising, and at least $20 million more on so-called issue ads, a spokesman said. The groups dominated outside spending in Alaska, where the Crossroads groups put about $7 million into television advertising, and Colorado, fielding close to $14 million, which helped crush Senator Mark Udall, the Democrat who was once favored to win.

All told, Republican outside groups spent about $205 million on television advertising in Senate races, according to a Democrat tracking media purchases, who agreed to share the information on condition of anonymity, while Democratic groups spent $132 million.

For many conservative strategists, this election was a dress rehearsal for the next one. Beginning next year, they face the prospect of a formidable presidential contender in Hillary Rodham Clinton and a Democratic Party that is itself quickly mastering the mechanics of unlimited fund-raising.

“The key to success in most endeavors, including politics, is learning and adaptation,” said Stuart Stevens, who served as a top strategist to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. After Tuesday, Mr. Stevens said, “Republicans have that experience — and it’s an advantage.”

Contributions to American Crossroads

USA Today reports:

Hedge fund founder Paul Singer contributed $1 million last month to American Crossroads, the super PAC tied to Republican strategist Karl Rove.

Singer’s contribution accounted for more than half the $1.7 million the political action committee reported collecting in May. Singer, CEO of Elliott Management Group, donated $250,000 to Crossroads earlier this year.

In all, the super PAC has raised nearly $14 million since Jan. 1, 2013. It ended May with $4.6 million in cash reserves. It is working to elect Republicans to the House and the Senate, where the party needs a net gain of six seats to seize control of the chamber in November.

Michael Beckel writes at the Center for Public Integrity:

Republican super PAC American Crossroads received a cash infusion last month from a mysterious limited liability company that lists its address as the Tempe, Ariz., training facility of the Arizona Cardinals football team, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of campaign finance records filed today.

On May 23, Cholla West LLC contributed $50,000 to American Crossroads, the super PAC co-founded by GOP strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, which, this year, has actively supported Republican candidates such as Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Dan Sullivan of Alaska.

What is Cholla West LLC, and who's behind it? That's not immediately clear.

There is no business registered with that name in Arizona, according to the Arizona Corporation Commission. But other business records show that a "Cholla West LLC" was incorporated in Delaware in October 2013. That filing lists a company that specializes in business incorporation and compliance issues as its registered agent.

The address American Crossroads listed for Cholla West LLC on its new filing with the Federal Election Commission, which shares the address of the Arizona Cardinals football team's training facility, is also listed in business records as the address for other LLCs operated by members of the Bidwill family. The family's patriarch, William V. Bidwill Sr., is the owner and chairman of the Cardinals.

Bidwill's sons William and Michael also both serve as Cardinal executives. All three men have previously contributed to politicians — mostly Republicans — according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Disavowing Donnelly

Seema Mehta reports at The Los Angeles Times:

As Neel Kashkari tapped his personal coffers to put another $1 million into his gubernatorial bid Friday, GOP strategist Karl Rove declared that if Kashkari’s rival ends up as the Republican standard-bearer in California after the June 3 primary, candidates across the nation would be forced to disavow him.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly "is quite prone to sharing the weird recesses and corners of his mind; it could be really problematic for the GOP," Rove told Hugh Hewitt on nationally syndicated radio. Hewitt has endorsed Kashkari.

Donnelly has made controversial statements on immigration and other matters that have drawn condemnation from Republicans. Rove said such statements would dominate the debate with incumbent Gov. Jerry Brown in the fall if Donnelly is elected in June to challenge him.

“If the California Republican Party has as the leading candidate … somebody who has said the outrageous things that he’s said, and prone to the outrageous behavior that he routinely engages in, it will be used to tarnish not only the California Republican Party, but they’ll throw it at everybody on the ballot,” he said.

“And everybody else will, across the country, disavow the guy.”

Tim Donnelly, Karl Rove, and Jim Bowie

At an NFIB meeting in Sacramento, Karl Rove discussed the California gubernatorial race. Carla Marinucci reports at The San Francisco Chronicle:

One source who was at the event told us that Rove said he’s met Neel Kashkari, the former Treasury Department official who is running for governor as a Republican. Although he didn’t deliver a formal endorsement, Rove told the audience “that if the Republicans have to pick someone to lose to Jerry Brown, they’d be stupid not to pick” Kashkari, the source told us.

Then Rove also weighed in on the Tea Party gubernatorial favorite, GOP Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, who was the first runner-up to Brown in a March poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The comments that the other guy has made in the past are going to damage the party with Latinos on Election Day,” Rove said, according to our source.

At The Los Angeles Times, Seema Mehta provides an example:

Comparing illegal immigration to a war that threatened the United States' future, GOP gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly once exhorted citizens to rise and join his fight to stop people from crossing the border, according to audio of a speech he gave in 2006.

"I am a descendant of Jim Bowie, who died at the Alamo," Donnelly, then a leader in the Minuteman border-patrol group, said at a rally in Temecula that year. "It is rumored that he took a dozen Mexican soldiers to their deaths before they finally killed him. How many of you will rise up and take his place on that wall?"

He was speaking to about 200 people at a Save Our Nation event on March 25, 2006, held on the same day 500,000 people rallied in support of immigrant rights in Los Angeles, an event Donnelly noted.

"We are in a war. You may not want to accept it, but the other side has declared war on us," Donnelly said, railing against those marching with Mexican flags.

In the nearly 12-minute address, parts of which are patterned on the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, Donnelly refers to illegal immigration as an insurgency.

"There is a growing insurgency, right here in Los Angeles," he said. "…We need to begin to root out the insurgency in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, just as we are doing in Baghdad, Samarra and Tikrit, 9,000 miles away.

"Right now, in the United States of America, there are 850,000 gang members, two-thirds of whom are illegal aliens," he said.

Jolly Coordination

At Bloomberg Business Week, Julie Bykowicz reports :

In near-daily conference calls during the campaign in Florida’s 13th district, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Karl Rove-led American Crossroads and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity -- among others -- fine-tuned their strategy targeting Democratic candidate Alex Sink.

The Republican collaboration included a synchronized television- and web-ad plan, a battery of anti-Sink mailers and a last-minute recorded voter appeal by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to suffocate support for a third-party candidate who threatened to draw votes from Jolly.

“We’ve worked closely with outside groups in the past, but with Florida-13, we took it to a new level with the depth of our cooperation,” said Carl Forti, political director of American Crossroads, a super-political action committee with ties to Rove, former president George W. Bush’s chief political adviser.

“From strategy to message to timing, everything was integrated and working together,” Forti said. “I would expect to see that again in key races.”

...
In the midterm elections four years ago -- which saw Republicans win the U.S. House of Representatives -- the groups, parties and candidates found ways to maximize the impact of their efforts within the new legal framework. For example, the NRCC in 2010 broke tradition by publicly revealing its ad-buying strategy, which meant the friendly outside groups could fill-in around it or add volume.

Coordination continued in 2012, when Crossroads officials led weekly conferences among the big outside spenders. The special House election in Florida foreshadows the refinement of those earlier efforts. For instance, the sequencing and messaging of the TV ads aimed at helping Jolly was seamless.

Crossroads: Fundraising in 2013, Suit Against FEC

Politico reports:

The trio of conservative groups headed up by GOP consultant Karl Rove pulled in a combined $6.1 million in 2013, according to numbers obtained by POLITICO.

The super PAC American Crossroads took in about $1.6 million in the second half of 2013, while the nonprofit Crossroads GPS raised $1.1 million. The super PAC alone has $2.7 million cash on hand going into 2014.

A third group — the super PAC Conservative Victory Project — did no independent fundraising, aside from a $10,000 transfer from American Crossroads.

It’s a major comedown from the 2012 presidential race, when American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS together raised a whopping $325 million and poured money into competitive Senate races and presidential battleground states.

Typically, donor interest is much lower in non-presidential cycles. The two Crossroads groups raised about $7o million in 2010 — though much of that poured in during the final months of the election.

The Washington Times reports:

Two campaign finance watchdog groups on Friday sued the Federal Election Commission over the panel’s decision to dismiss a complaint against the conservative Crossroads GPS, co-founded by GOP strategist Karl Rove.

The suit grows out of a 2010 FEC complaint filed by Public Citizen against Crossroads for what critics said was a failure to register as a political committee and disclose its donors, despite spending massive amounts on political advertising in the 2010 election cycle.

In a statement released Friday, Public Citizen and the Campaign Legal Center contend that Crossroads GPS fits the legal definition of a political committee — a group that receives or spends more than $1,000 during a calendar year to influence elections and whose major purpose is to support or oppose federal candidates.

The FEC commissioners deadlocked 3-3 along party lines on a vote in December over whether to investigate charges American Crossroads had violated guidelines for a “social welfare” organization by engaging in political activity.

Alternatives to the Crossroads Groups

The New York Times reports on GOP outside groups arising as alternatives to the Crossroads groups.  After the disappointing 2012 results, some in the part developed a skepticism about the Crossroads brand.

Now Crossroads appears to be testing a new approach. The group has so far stayed out of Kentucky, for example, where Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, is facing both a Tea Party challenger in the primary and a strong Democratic opponent. Instead, Mr. McConnell is backed by a new group called Kentuckians for Strong Leadership. Although it is legally separate from Crossroads, most of its cash came from Crossroads donors, Mr. Law sits on its board, and the two organizations share a treasurer.

Crossroads has lobbied to help set up similar groups in races where its brand may be less appealing to voters or donors, according to two Republicans with knowledge of the conversations. But Mr. Rove has grown so controversial among some conservatives, the Republicans said, that candidates worry that donors will not contribute to a super PAC if it is connected to Crossroads.

In West Virginia, Mr. Law warned supporters of Representative Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican who is a top prospect to win a Senate seat next year, that if they formed their own super PAC, Ms. Capito would not be able to count on significant support from Crossroads, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

But some new super PACs are choosing to work instead with a broader array of ad buyers and consultants. In private meetings with potential donors and clients, their strategists criticize Crossroads for what they call a “cookie-cutter” approach to advertisements and messaging.

Many of the upstarts are being organized by former aides and longtime supporters of the Republican candidates, who argue that they will be the best stewards of their former bosses’ political interests.

Crossroads and Big Checks

Byron Tau writes at Politico:

Three massive checks helped fuel Karl Rove’s $300 million dollar campaign against President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats.

Crossroads GPS, the nonprofit affiliate of the super PAC American Crossroads, reported receiving three eight-figure contributions —of $22.5 million, $18 million and, $10 million, during 2012, according to tax documents released Monday

The nonprofit group reported receiving $179.7 million and spending $188.9 million in 2012. The super PAC, meanwhile raised and spent $117 million in 2011 and 2012.

The names of all three mega-donors to Crossroads GPS were redacted. Tax law allows Crossroads GPS and other similar nonprofits to keep their donors secret. The group voluntarily released a redacted list of all donation amounts over $5,000 with donor names removed.

Crossroads GPS had 53 contributions of $1 million or more to the organization in 2012, with 291 donors giving more than $5,000. The group reported that 1,545 donors gave during the 2012 calendar year.

The nonprofit spent nearly $190 million during the calendar year, including $74.5 million on advocacy, $35 million in grants to other nonprofits and $74.2 million on direct political activities.

It also spread the wealth to other nonprofits — including $26.4 million to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform group. GPS gave $2 million to the nonprofit Americans for Job Security and about $2.2 million to the Center for Individual Freedom — both 501c nonprofit groups allowed to keep their donors secret.

Crossroads GPS Obamacare Parody

National Journal reports:

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies is bringing out the big puns in its fight against Obamacare.

The Karl Rove-backed advocacy organization announced its entry Monday into the Health and Human Services Department's video contest aimed at promoting Obamacare among young Americans, the group key to keeping premiums down in the law's new insurance exchanges. The contest, which opened Aug. 19, is meant to raise awareness of the law and encourage enrollment among young people by using a medium the YouTube generation knows well.

The video, simply titled "Propaganda," satirizes the contest by covering what Crossroads sees as unfavorable aspects of the law—including the individual mandate and possible premium increases—all presented in a faux-cheery, infomercial-style voiceover. "We're in it to win it," said Crossroads GPS President and CEO Steven Law. "There is an ugly side to this law, and we expect the government to communicate those less savory aspects of the law to young people just as they are hyping some of the benefits. We hope every young person will watch this video--and vote for it."

"But You Can Play Bridge"

In After Hope and Change, we talk about outside groups in the 2012 election.

The Atlantic covers a talk in which Karl Rove uses an apt metaphor for non-coordination coordination:

"At Crossroads, we watched for three weeks while they assaulted Bain. And you can't talk to the campaigns directly. You can't coordinate with to them. But you can play bridge. So after about three weeks we said we think this is hurting, so why don't we signal to them."

So Rove's American Crossroads Super PAC went out and ran $9.3 million worth of ads in July 2012 in 14 battleground states fighting back against the Obama campaign attacks, using a Washington Post editorial that said they were overblown.

"We were trying to signal to the Romney campaign, if you want to engage on this, you lead, we'll follow. Now they can't talk to us, but they can talk to the press. And the press immediately would call us up and say, we just talked to the Romney campaign about your ad and they say first of all, the issue's not hurting us and B, in politics, if you're responding, you're losing. Well, a lot of times in politics if you're responding you're winning," Rove continued.
"We decided wrongly that they were right and so we didn't proceed. And we should have."

Here is a web page about the use of signals in bridge: 

RULE 1: DO NOT OVERUSE SIGNALS. PERHAPS ONE SIGNAL PER PARTNERSHIP PER HAND SHOULD BE THE GENERAL RULE
RULE 2: DO NOT OVER-RELY ON SIGNALS. Your partner is NOT ALL KNOWING. Never let a signal interfere with YOUR OWN GOOD ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT. Most bridge players fall in love with signals and they overuse them. DO NOT BE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE. 

Developing an RNC Data Platform

Politico reports on development of RNC's data platform:

Liberty Works was hired to create an open-source voter data platform, meaning outside groups and campaigns would have access to the information for outreach and fundraising and also be able to build on it with their own applications. The RNC describes the goal for the shared data as “iPhone-like.”

Since the RNC announcement on May 1, Liberty Works has gotten off to a shaky start. Top engineers in Silicon Valley who have been looking for ways to help Republican campaigns question Boyce’s vision and say the company’s outreach is underwhelming — as are its salary offers.
...
The big risk for the RNC is that any delay or failure to keep up with the Democrats’ vaunted data operation could hurt their already uphill efforts to win the Senate next year and further cement the GOP’s reputation as behind the times in the digital data world.

Complicating things for Liberty Works is competition from other conservative quarters, including the Koch brothers, whose network has also been in the Valley looking for GOP-friendly tech talent to build on its voter data outfit called Themis, which cost at least $18 million to build in 2010 and 2011.

Karl Rove is informally backing Liberty Works.

“[F]or all of Karl Rove’s fine attributes, he is also largely a direct mail guy who learned at the foot of Lee Atwater and never really learned anything after Atwater passed,” RedState’s Erick Erickson wrote earlier this month. “I’m just not sure, after the 2012 race, that this is a wise investment. Direct mail guys believe the data is the value, and what Team Obama discovered is that the tools to analyze the data are the value.”

Another 501(c)(4)

Politico reports:

Google, Microsoft, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and other digital heavyweights increasingly are borrowing a favorite technique from the world of politics: secret money.

These top tech executives and their companies are embracing stealth, not-for-profit campaigns that can advertise and advance their pet causes — from tax and immigration reform to new online privacy laws — without ever disclosing a single donation.

The groups are known by their tax designation, 501(c)(4), and until recently, they've been the domain of entrenched players such as Karl Rove and the Koch brothers. But interest on Capitol Hill in regulating the burgeoning tech sector has convinced Silicon Valley's power brokers they too must adopt a form of political advocacy that once would have been anathema to the Washington-wary industry.

The most prominent new example is FWD.us, the Zuckerberg-helmed collection of tech luminaries pumping millions of dollars into local television markets with ads promoting immigration reform to oil drilling. It joins a list of groups — from a Microsoft-backed immigration effort, to a Google-supported privacy campaign — that are also playing the D.C. secret-money game.

If anything, the evolution highlights something of an irony: Even as Zuckerberg and other tech titans proselytize openness, many have closed off any public access to the full extent of their influence operations.

"Just like we've seen the tech world get slowly into lobbying … now we're seeing them get deeper into the Washington game," said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

GOP Data Wars

Politico reports on data competition among GOP and conservative groups:

Rove earlier this month spoke with major donors in New York about a voter data project that he has estimated could cost between $15 million and $20 million. He has been working with San Francisco-based private-equity investor Dick Boyce, who is fronting a political data concept called Liberty Works, sources tell POLITICO.

The public relationship between Rove and Boyce has been complicated, according to several sources familiar with the project. Rove has openly embraced Boyce’s work, touting it at an invitation-only conference that drew some of the GOP’s biggest names to a swanky Georgia resort in March. But Boyce has established distance from Rove, indicating to prospective donors that he’s not simply a front for the latest project from the Rove-conceived Crossroads groups, which sponsored one of Rove’s New York meetings this month.

Likewise, Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio, called Liberty Works a “stand-alone” effort.

Meanwhile, POLITICO has learned that a voter database outfit called Themis, established by the political network associated with David and Charles Koch, has been working with an established private political data company called i360. The partnership seems to give Koch World, which until recently had mostly focused on conservative issue advocacy, new reach into Republican Party politics.

On its website, i360 boasts of maintaining a constantly updated database of over 187 million active voters and over 211 million consumers that “provides hundreds of data points on every American adult that is currently or potentially politically active.”

RNC, Data, Digital

The Wall Street Journal reports that Karl Rove is helping a group of Silicon Valley investors with a project ot create a digital platform for targeting contributors and voters.

The Silicon Valley venture, led by former Bain & Co. executive and private-equity investor Richard Boyce, with Sun Microsystems co-founder Scott McNealy serving as an adviser, is part of a core team working with the RNC to develop a central digital campaign tool that all Republican candidates and organizations can use in future elections.
...

The Rove-supported venture hasn't been distilled into a legal entity, and participants say its mission is still being refined. But one executive involved said the intent is to create an interactive platform with multiple applications to digest the GOP's trove of data on voters, so that campaigns can better identify, persuade and motivate supporters.

The digital effort dovetails with the RNC's own quest to create a better repository of voter data and a set of tools that Republican candidates and vendors can use as they build their own campaigns around the country. People involved in the discussions say that the Silicon Valley group could end up being the organization that creates and manages the repository and related digital tools. What role the RNC would play remains undetermined. PACs and other outside groups may be able to raise more money for such an effort than is the RNC, because of changes in campaign-finance practices.

"We are working within the party to create a big toolbox that can compete in the midterms and be used by all," said Mr. Boyce, who was a significant fundraiser for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign last year.

According to the RNC report:

Another consistent theme that emerged from our conversations related to mechanics is the immediate need for the RNC and Republicans to foster what has been referred to as an "environment of intellectual curiosity" and a "culture of data and learning," and the RNC must lead this effort. We need to be much more purposeful and expansive in our use of research and more sophisticated in how we employ data across all campaign and Party functions. No longer can campaign activities be compartmentalized or "siloed" in a way that makes sharing resources and knowledge less efficient.

P

Rove Explains the Conservative Victory Project

At a NCPA luncheon in Dallas yesterday, Karl Rove spoke about the Conservative Victory Project.  The Dallas Morning News reports:

“We’ve given away at least five seats in the last two election cycles, maybe more, because of poor candidates,” Rove said. “Our donors said ‘we’re happy to write big checks, but we’re sick and tired of writing checks for campaign that can’t win.’”

But critics, including leaders of the anti-tax group Club for Growth, contend that Rove and the new group represent the Republican establishment’s effort to push out conservative, tea party candidates.

Rove, disagreed, saying American Crossroads had a strong record of funding tea party candidates and other conservatives.

“It’s not a question of ideology,” Rove said. “The quality of candidates matters.”
Rove mentioned missed opportunities last year to win Senate seats because of Republicans Todd Atkin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana as examples of why the Conservative Victory Project was needed. They both were sunk after making bizarre comments about women. Rove also cited Christine O’Donnell, the 2010 Senate nominee in Delaware, as a losing candidate that should have been vetted by Republican leaders.

“My posterior was shredded a little bit by donors wondering why we are writing checks for people who then turn around a run such lousy campaigns.”

Rove and American Crossroads were symbols of the awful year Republicans had nationally.
“Yeah, I’m personally responsible for it all, I tell you,” he joked as NCPA President and CEO John Goodman tossed him questions.

Conservative Victory Project and Donor Reassurance

Why did the Conservative Victory Project announce that it would try to prevent the nomination of Akin-style candidates?  Though some conservatives are angry, Michelle Cottle notes at the Daily Beast, the announcement does address widespread concern that party groups need to learn the lessons of 2012.

Rove’s donors were no exception to this trend, meaning he needed to do something to unruffle their feathers. Fast. “This is all about the donors,” says another veteran strategist. And what better way to make a statement to donors than to formulate a brand-new strategy and splash it across the front page of the paper of record? Message: lessons learned. Course correction set. “This is a follow-the-shiny-ball strategy,” the strategist argues. “It’s smart to get donors focused on the future, focused on a new mission right away as opposed to waiting.”

As for the backlash among purists, some political watchers assume this too is all part of the larger plan. How better to reassure anxious donors that their distaste for Akin-like candidates is shared than to poke a stick in the eye of the party’s anti-establishment forces—and, for good measure, to do so in the newspaper that symbolizes all that hard-core conservatives despise? Rove isn’t an idiot, Republicans point out. He may have simply calculated that it was worth the short-term beating in order to show his donors some love, and thus live to fight another day.