American Vision News | Advancing the Faith. Protecting Liberty.

Steve Deace writes for TownHall.com:

Much has been said and written regarding Karl Rove and the Republican Party establishment’s latest plan to go harder after conservatives than they ever would Democrats. And I’ve had much to say about it myself.

But I’ve yet to see anyone question the premise of the phony argument Rove is hiding behind to justify his crusade to purge the GOP of anybody that won’t grovel at the feet of the ruling class. . . .

Rove claims he’s out to find “electable” candidates. Well, who isn’t? . . .

“Electability” is a ruling class fallacy, both on the right and the left. It’s essentially the political equivalent to Jim Crow laws, aimed at stifling the potential for upward mobility of those in the grassroots who would challenge the ruling class’ status quo. . . .

Rove and his cronies are like modern day “old money” blue-bloods, condescendingly peering down their noses at the emerging “new money” entrepreneurs who weren’t born into the aristocracy as they were. That’s why they go after us [true conservatives] harder than they go after them [liberals]. We are a threat to their power base in a way they [liberals] aren’t, because we actually want to topple a spoils system both sides of the ruling class are profiteering from.

The only argument Rove and his Boss Tweed-wannabes have with the Left is who the check with the people’s money gets written out to. They don’t see this as a clash of worldviews with the very survival of the Constitutional Republic at stake. They see this merely as a battle of dueling self-interests.

Thus, to allow Rove and those supporting his efforts by funding them or providing a platform for them to determine who is and who isn’t “electable” isn’t just dangerous, it’s also as foolish as allowing the liberal media to do it. In fact, you’ll notice that Rove and his cabal often draw the same conclusions about “electability” as the liberal media.

That’s not a coincidence.

Both sides have a mutual interest in not challenging the status quo. . . .