This is a review of an interview conducted by Jim Geraghty. The interviewee was Steven J Law, the President of Conservative Victory Project, Karl Rove’s Super PAC. Here is a link to the whole interview- http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340133/long-arm-law-interview?pg=1
Conservative Victory Project- a Tea Party Attack PAC?
Conservative Victory Project President interviewed by National Review-
Paul Collier- A review
Steven J Law, the President of Karl Rove’s Tea Party Attack Super PAC, ‘Conservative Victory’, was interviewed by Jim Geraghty of National Review. The interview was not hard hitting and read like an Obama interview on 60 minutes. Geraghty failed to address the recent meltdown by ACP spokeman, Jonathan Collegio, who attacked Bret Bozell, calling him a hater, and laughed at conservative leaders who demanded Steven Law and Karl Rove fire him for his outright hostility against respected conservative leaders.
Geraghty seems to be doing the job of a paid ‘consultant’ or reputation manager, giving Law legitimacy and an opportunity to gloss over the true anti Tea-Party, anti-conservative nature of the progressive-lite front group that is the Conservative Victory Project and all other PACS and leaders who march to the drum of would-be kingmaker Karl Rove.
The article starts off immediately revealing Geraghty’s either ineptness as a journalist or secret agenda to legitimize Law and this faux conservative and actual Tea Party Attack Pac:
Jim Geraghty: You guys have stirred up quite a reaction since the New York Times article Sunday. So, think of this as a second shot: What do you want to tell the conservative grass roots about the Conservative Victory Project, and is there anything that’s gotten misconstrued since that piece appeared?
Steven Law: I actually didn’t think the New York Times piece was that far off. I think it ended up being misinterpreted following the initial reporting.
This is how the NY Times Reporter, Jeff Zeleny, identified the Conservative Victory Project:
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.
The group, the Conservative Victory Project, 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.
Now I ask you, where is the follow up question to this- like-
(Imagined Geraghty)- if the NY Times essentially got it right, then the Conservative Victory Project is a PAC created to prevent the ‘far right’ element of the GOP from having a candidate emerge in the GOP primaries. Is that a fair assessment? And if so, how was that misreported afterwards?
Law reveals that the true nature of the PAC is to prevent non-political class candidates from emerging as general election nominees for the GOP (Gooder Old Progressives):
“One of the things that has concerned us is that our candidates have lagged significantly behind in being able to support their own campaigns financially.”
Who can support their campaign financially? Well, it would be the members of the political class who have built up a network of wealthy donors and political elites ready to throw their money to prop up ‘one of their own’. Geraghty once again failed to follow up for some clarity on this seemingly inflammatory answer.
Here Garaghty asks a question about Steve King:
Geraghty: I noticed the only candidate mentioned much in the New York Times article was Iowa Republican congressman Steve King, who’s being discussed as a potential Senate candidate.
Law: What I commented on, in regards to the Senate race in Iowa, was only to raise the example of past statements and how they can potentially be a liability for someone. We haven’t ruled anybody in or out for the Iowa Senate race, and we haven’t even determined if we would be involved in that primary.
Once again, Geraghty offered no follow up. He let Law escape an attempt to lessen the stinging impact of what was ACTUALLY said in the NY Times article:
Representative Steve King, a six-term Iowa Republican, could be among the earliest targets of the Conservative Victory Project. He said he had not decided whether he would run for the Senate, but the leaders of the project in Washington are not waiting to try to steer him away from the race.
The group’s plans, which were outlined for the first time last week in an interview with Mr. Law, call for hard-edge campaign tactics, including television advertising, against candidates whom party leaders see as unelectable and a drag on the efforts to win the Senate. Mr. Law cited Iowa as an example and said Republicans could no longer be squeamish about intervening in primary fights.
The follow-up questioning would be-
(Imagined Geraghty) – According to the NY Times article, King would be considered a primary target by your super PAC. Why are you now backing off what Zeleny stated in his article, that King would be a target? Is it true that you cited Iowa as a primary example of the work your super PAC would do? Is King not conservative enough or is he, in fact, TOO conservative, TOO ‘right-wing’?
I think if I was interviewing this man, I would have started off with these questions:
Do you fear the ‘right wing’ of the GOP? Is the Tea Party part of this right wing? What defines a right winger?
But as I was not the interviewer, and assuming, if I was the interviewer, I wasn’t completely inept, or I wasn’t either part of the political class protecting one of my own, or simply on the take (directly or indirectly), these questions were not asked by a man who was representing the publication of the late, great William F Buckley started.
The irony is not lost here given the dust-up around the spokesman for the Tea Party Attack Pac, Jonathan Collegio. It is chilling, not interesting, chilling that this representative of William F Buckley’s Publication was dead silent on the controversy that is setting the conservative blog world on fire around this paradigm of hate, Jonathan Collegio. Could it be that a pre-interview agreement was made between National Review and Law to not ask any questions about the Collegio Affair?
Here is a capsule of the ‘Collegio Affair’ so you understand what I am talking about:
A group of conservatives on Wednesday called on American Crossroads to fire its spokesman, Jonathan Collegio, for calling conservative commentator Brent Bozell a “hater.”
Collegio went on WMAL in Washington, D.C. Wednesday morning and said Bozell is a “hater” for opposing American Crossroads’ new offshoot, the Conservative Victory Project, a super PAC aiming to back disciplined Republican candidates to win back a majority in the Senate.
“Bozell is a hater, and he also, like, has a long, sordid history, like, hating Karl Rove, too. So he has, like, a weird personal axe to grind,” Collegio said.
In a letter, a number of conservative activists — including Mark Levin and Tony Perkins — called on American Crossroads president and CEO Steven Law to fire Collegio.
“We, the free men and women of this great nation, affirm everyone’s natural right to speak their mind, but we cannot and will not abide the unjust, personal broadside your aide Jonathan Collegio leveled against a man whose family has dedicated itself to advancing the cause of liberty for over half a century,” they wrote in a letter.
The letter added that Bozell is a “legacy” in the conservative movement. “He has devoted his life to the cause of American conservatism as did his father, Brent Bozell II, who wrote ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ for Barry Goldwater. Maybe you’ve heard of Brent’s uncle, Bill Buckley, whose words you misquote and twist as the basis for your organization enough to falsely suggest you know something about him. You may have heard of his other uncle, Jim Buckley, a former U.S. Senator, or Brent’s mother, Patricia Buckley Bozell—both important figures and writers in our conservative movement.”
I intentionally used a progressive news blog to highlight the glee the Left is experiencing over this erupting civil war, a war Rove made clear, a war, it seems, the publication of William F Buckley (whose conservative values would also be deemed ‘right wing’ by this Tea Party Attack PAC) is going to join up with Rove and his political class protectionists to fight.
(For an excellent read on the whole Collegio affair from a conservative perspective, go here- http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/07/conservative-fury-at-rove-erup/print )
Here is what Law says about some controversial candidates who serve as an example of who this Tea Party Attack PAC would have targeted-
…other candidates, such as Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, and Ken Buck, manifested a habit of saying very impolitic things long before they ended up popping off with something that immediately ended their campaign.
Mourdock was a credible candidate who had already run a successful state-wide campaign. After he made his comments, though not artfully stated, the GOP elites simply withdrew their support of Mourdock and even joined in the attack against him. What Akin said was beyond the pale, but what Mourdock said was not. The surrender monkeys of the GOP simply refused to back Mourdock.
While Geraghty offered some follow up regarding Mourdock, pointing out that Mourdock did win a state-wide general election already, and that before that guffaw he was a ‘credible’ candidate, he did not challenge Law on the assumption of why Mourdock lost, the GOP elites abandoned him.
This same cause and effect assumption is made by Law regarding the 2010 Delaware Election:
There’s a general feeling that candidates who were nominated in Indiana and Missouri this time basically lost races that should have been won. There’s also a feeling that candidates who were nominated in Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada in 2010 also blew opportunities for us.
Regarding Delaware, Karl Rove attacked Christine O’Donnell during and AFTER the GOP Primary. He demeaned her and dismissed her. He pulled his strings to make sure the GOP itself refused to give her even basic support. He attempted to bribe the Tea Party to not support her during the GOP Primary. Her primary opponent, and Rove-like progressive-lite, Mike Castle, refused to even endorse her in the general election against Chris Coons.
O’Donnell did not lose this election so much because she wasn’t the best performing, competent candidate (have you seen the ineptness and droll presence of her patrician opponent, Chris Coons?), but because Rove and the GOP elites not only refused to support her, they regularly aided Chris Coons by attacking and demeaning O’Donnell almost daily.
Geraghty, once again, failed to follow up on this erroneous point by the President of the Tea Party Attack Pack, Steven J Law.
It is unconscionable that William F Buckley’s publication would endeavor so aggressively to legitimize and attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of this conservative-hating organ ironically called “Conservative Victory Project”. It is a violation of basic journalistic integrity that the interviewer, Jim Geraghty, would fail on any major point to hold Law up to the scrutiny he should have been held up to, that Geraghty didn’t even ask Law ONE QUESTION about the Collegio affair.
Instead, Geraghty created a puff piece for the purpose of legitimizing and holding the water of ‘one of their own’. He played the part of any of the reporters from 60 minutes interviewing Barack Obama, played here by Steven J Law, the Karl Rove proxy.