Thanks to OP, and especially to Mr. Freeman, for the sunshine of this clarification. Karl, here´s a big old red work hanky. You´ll need it.
Ramona (the Pest)

Karl Rove is a "professional Republican." His job is to get Republicans elected, regardless of what they believe. If Obama suddenly ran as a Republican, then Karl Rove would support him all the way.

As a libertarian, I have no use for that. Libertarians and conservatives vote based on our beliefs, and we shouldn´t be ashamed for that or goaded into supporting someone opposed to our beliefs.

Sorry, #2. Rove is not a professional Republican. He is a professional defender of the status quo (also known as a RINO). His party is the party of the permanent minority, so long as those who have been elected in the past (Graham, McCain, Collins) continue to be elected in the future.
Rove has only one ideology: he wants to be paid. A lot.
He does not care about the Constitution, the Deficit, or any of that stuff. He wants to guard the door to make sure nobody comes in to rock the boat.
The individuals he supports are so dull that they lose. No individual with an edginess stands a chance. So Goldwater was out. Palin was out. Cain was out. They were all dangerous; they would threaten the hegemonies of lobbyists and bureaucrats which run the country.
But Rove got paid, and has his shiny new oxymoron group.
Don´t believe him.
He is a back stabber.
And a policy wonk.

Thanks indeed, Mr. Freeman and OP. This is a must read - especially for those who weren´t around and politically aware in 1964. Those who do not learn history, etc.

The Goldwater vs Rockefeller struggle illustrated in the article is still happening today. The GOP Establsihment apologists, like their Democrat cousins, try to make their case by inaccurately citing "heroes" of the other side. Whether it´s Rove citing Buckley or a liberal citing Reagan: the red flags should go up. Even Rove citing Reagan: the Establishment did all they could to block the greatest POTUS of the 20th Century.

"Electable" versus "viable": what´s in a word?

Everything.

Definitely a Must Read... as is this thread... especially for our unenlightened LDotters...

And Bravo #3, well done!
Especially "his shiny new oxymoron group"!

One correction, though... Rove is a Lying Snake.

FTA: "Bill Buckley was careful with words. If he had opted on that June day for the words “rightwardmost electable candidate,” we would all have recognized it as a victory for Team Rockefeller. And life might look very different today. We all understand that it is Karl Rove’s mission to promote the Republican party. It was the mission of Bill Buckley to promote the conservative cause. There should be no confusion between the two."

An excellent piece, and I would add a well-deserved rebuke to the GOP hall monitors here who almost daily insist ad nauseam on the “rightwardmost electable candidate” as the magic formula for the GOP to win elections, whilst blaming conservatives for Mitt Romney´s loss (yes, I voted for him).

Dittos, as always, to Miss Ramona.

Thank you for finding and posting this. It´s very interesting that Mr. Buckley ran as a conservative third party candidate against a republican. I guess he didn´t know that he wasn´t supposed to put principles before party. Strange, I always thought he was a very smart man.

I too nominate for must read. Having a national party is a convenience. Having principles is essential. When the latest Progressive idea passes, moving the nation toward communism, it doesn´t matter whether the votes came from Democrats or RINOs. I am still amazed that we don´t have Cap and Trade, only because Harry Reid changed the vote order on Lindsey Graham. How many horrendous bills have passed because Reid stroked a RINO´s ego?