ROVE: Clinton/Obama can be beat!

[RMNIXON]

Rove previews strategies against Clinton, Obama By Sam Youngman Posted: 01/16/08 02:55 PM

Karl Rove told a group of state Republican officials Wednesday that while the GOP primaries “are far from over,” each of the candidates can beat the top two Democrats — and the former White House aide then outlined a strategy how.

While Rove, the man President Bush called “the architect,” might have retired from the White House, he is clearly still very much engaged in the day-to-day mechanics of the presidential contests on both sides.

In an address to a group of state GOP executive directors at the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) winter meeting, Rove outlined talking points for ways to defeat leading Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.). The former adviser to the president did not mention former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.).

On Clinton, Rove said the senator talks about fiscal responsibility but has introduced “$800 billion in new spending and the campaign is less than half over.”

Rove said that “the woman” wants to repeal all of Bush’s tax cuts, and that she can be targeted for voting against “troop funding” in the form of her votes against the Iraq war supplementals.

Specifically, Rove hit Clinton for what could have been her worst campaign moment last year, when she had trouble answering a question about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia.

“You know, Sen. Clinton [has] got a problem with giving straight answers in this campaign,” Rove said. “I thought that was an incredible moment. In the course of 15 minutes, I counted her giving about four different answers.”

The Bush confidant also trotted out one of the lines of attack the RNC has already been working feverishly against Clinton, questioning why she and former President Bill Clinton will not release records from their time in the White House. This, according to Rove, “raises legitimate questions about what she’s hiding.”

Rove made it clear that most Republican attacks on Obama would focus on his “accomplishments and experience.”

“He got elected three years ago, and he [has] spent almost the entire time running for president,” Rove said.

Rove added that Obama has only passed one piece of legislation during his time in the U.S. Senate, and during his time in Illinois state Senate, Obama had “an unusual habit” of voting “present” instead of yes or no.

Rove also said that nonpartisan ratings show that Obama is more liberal than Clinton, which he said is “pretty hard to do.”

Time and again, however, Rove returned to the trump card he used in his successfully executed 2002 and 2004 elections, saying that neither Obama nor Clinton is prepared to protect the country from terrorists.

Rove served notice that Obama and Clinton would be targeted over how they vote on any Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation that comes before the Senate this year.

“Do they or do they not want our intelligence officials to be listening in on terrorists’ conversations in the Middle East who may … be plotting to hurt America?” Rove said.

He told the state officials that it would be their responsibility to find “creative and sustaining ways” to “talk about these contrasts.”
Rove also offered advice to whichever Republican candidate wins the GOP nomination.

He said the candidates had to first “create a sustaining narrative about themselves.” Then he said the candidate should “immediately engage” on the “kitchen table issues,” like healthcare, education, jobs and the economy.

Third, Rove said the GOP nominee has to show that he is serious about campaigning “aggressively in places where Republicans don’t usually campaign.” Rove said that includes among black, Latino, Asian and union voters.

“We’re going for everybody,” Rove said.

Lastly, Rove argued that the Republican candidate must show the electorate “that they understand the surge is working.” Rove said the candidate should get firmly behind the war effort, painting the Democratic nominee as “defeatist.”


__________________________________________________ ____________


Free Advice from Karl Rove!

While the Clinton comments are rather obvious I was not so familiar with Senator Obama and his voting record. Perhaps there is a great deal of truth in that we don't know a whole lot about him and voting "present" does not tell much either. I have already heard it said that he will have a hard time being so liberal (more than Clinton says Rove) and yet pretend to be the Uniter that will reach out to the other side and put an end to partisan bickering. If Obama should win out over Clinton I think more personal attention to his record and not just his rhetoric will become a reality. Not that slaying the Dragon Lady will be easy. He can't go after Clinton like a Republican can. But it is possible!

[motivez]

After his special math failed him, I lack confidence in his ability to make predictions so far out

[SoFlaJDM]

because his track record is just stupendous!!!

for me, this just reinforces the idea that they CAN'T be beat

[Wakefield]

Republicans will lose regardless

All anti-war voters will vote democrat

A majority of black people will vote democrat (although I dont know why)

A majority of hispanics will vote democrat due to Republicans stance on illegal-immigrants

White males like Rove are only a minority and the Republicans are only going to hurt themselves by trying to be hard on illegal immigrants. People who are hard-core anti immigrant will vote Republican no matter what so they need to win with Hispanic voters.

Illegal immigration will be the reason Republicans lose.

[Thorgrim]

Illegal immigration will be the reason the GOP loses in 8-12 years, not now

Those 12 year old hispanic americans born in the US who can't vote, but remember their parents cursing the TV/Radio as the GOP Congress labeled that child's parents "felons"...and it's going to be discussed for years, people remember, and they'll remember this election being the tom tancredo election

When they turn 18 it's going to bring a whole new batch of voters with an enternal loathing of the GOP, and young hispanics are the fastest growing voter bloc

And ofcourse, Clinton/Obama CAN be beat, so could Reagan in 84...but it's looking fucking really unlikely!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

After his special math failed him, I lack confidence in his ability to make predictions so far out

To be honest I don't think much of any predictions this far out. Not so much candidates as other events and circumstances that could change this election in the months ahead. I would never suggest Hillery or Obama could not win and we don't really know who it is gonna be "it" out of 4 or 5 Republicans just yet. Everybody will have faults and they will be exploited.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Wakefield

Republicans will lose regardless

All anti-war voters will vote democrat

A majority of black people will vote democrat (although I dont know why)

A majority of hispanics will vote democrat due to Republicans stance on illegal-immigrants

White males like Rove are only a minority and the Republicans are only going to hurt themselves by trying to be hard on illegal immigrants. People who are hard-core anti immigrant will vote Republican no matter what so they need to win with Hispanic voters.

Illegal immigration will be the reason Republicans lose.

I disagree on the anti-war voters voting democrat. I think plenty will vote for McCain, he is the only candidate that is capable of ending this war on the best terms for America.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Illegal immigration will be the reason the GOP loses in 8-12 years, not now

Those 12 year old hispanic americans born in the US who can't vote, but remember their parents cursing the TV/Radio as the GOP Congress labeled that child's parents "felons"...and it's going to be discussed for years, people remember, and they'll remember this election being the tom tancredo election

When they turn 18 it's going to bring a whole new batch of voters with an enternal loathing of the GOP, and young hispanics are the fastest growing voter bloc

And ofcourse, Clinton/Obama CAN be beat, so could Reagan in 84...but it's looking fucking really unlikely!

I agree on the illegal immigration, if McCain doesn't get selected we will end up on the wrong side of this issue.

But as far as saying that Clinton/Obama are anywhere close to Reagan in 84, I have to disagree

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I disagree on the anti-war voters voting democrat. I think plenty will vote for McCain, he is the only candidate that is capable of ending this war on the best terms for America.

He is absolutely no different than any of the other GOP frontrunners in terms of the war and foreign policy. He is as hawkish as it gets.

[garbagemanlb]

Also didn't Rove call a win in the 06 elections for the GOP?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Also didn't Rove call a win in the 06 elections for the GOP?

Yeah he got in a big argument...on I think NPR

Long story short, he started yelling that although all the polls had "their math" he knew "the math" and therefor the GOP was going to hold onto the House and Senate

Boy was he fucking off on the House, infact 1% point in a dozen or so races and it'd have have been 45+ Democratic seats, not the 6+ he predicted (we ended up 31+)

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

He is absolutely no different than any of the other GOP frontrunners in terms of the war and foreign policy. He is as hawkish as it gets.

He was the first senator to call for Rumsfield to resign, he supported the surge. He was against staying the course. He is the one that will end this.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

He was the first senator to call for Rumsfield to resign, he supported the surge. He was against staying the course. He is the one that will end this.

Staying the course = staying in Iraq.

I loved it when Bush said he 'got the message' from the voters after the 06 elections concerning Iraq, and then sent more troops over.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Staying the course = staying in Iraq.

I loved it when Bush said he 'got the message' from the voters after the 06 elections concerning Iraq, and then sent more troops over.

McCain last year bucked public opinion with his full-throated support of President Bush's commitment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq at a time when a solid majority of Americans had turned against the 4-year-old war.

McCain had called for more troops for Iraq as early as 2004, and he was a vociferous critic of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who stepped down after GOP losses in the 2006 congressional elections.

Exit polls found 64 percent of Tuesday's Republican voters still support the conflict -- and Romney, whose criticism of Bush's management of the war has been muted, led McCain among those voters. But among the 34 percent who said they disapproved of the war, McCain had a wide advantage over the GOP field -- even over Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the sole advocate of a U.S. withdrawal in the Republican field.

Exit polls: Women push Clinton to New Hampshire win - CNN.com

[David Octavius]

It wouldn't surprise me if the Democrats lose - they have made fucking up something easy and art form, they would make Picasso blush.

Plus their lack of backbone last year wont go unnoticed in this election - sorry thor but I can't forgive them when they had a mandate to change things, they didn't even try

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

It wouldn't surprise me if the Democrats lose - they have made fucking up something easy and art form, they would make Picasso blush.

Plus their lack of backbone last year wont go unnoticed in this election - sorry thor but I can't forgive them when they had a mandate to change things, they didn't even try

Who is much more likely to fuck up an election, Obama or Hillary?

We all know the answer, which is why NH and the national vote is going towards Hillary

Democrats are getting arrogant when they start going towards Obama, they think this election is SO in the bag that they can nominate whoever they want, a complete unknown except for his recent campaign speeches of hope, and still win

[Thorgrim]

Also, they did try, they tried a lot of things, and got a lot of things done, but the GOP filibustered or veto'ed everything

Lower college tuition rates, higher minimum wage, 9/11 security recommendations, and they got a timeline for iraq, stem cell research and schip all passed in the house, you're crazy if you think it's their job to convince some 90+ Republicans to vote with them when the GOP hates them

You want to what, shutdown the government until the GOP plays nice, first off, they won't, it would fail...they'd rather score political points and watch our country collapse because they know the Dems will suffer at the polls because the masses are not understanding

You have two candidates left for the presidency, one is apparently so hated by Republicans she'll make this a race, the other is so inexperienced and open to personal smears that he is asking to be swiftboated 10x a day and have his campaign fumble and fail

With these two choices, I'm glad the Democrats didn't do anything dramatic because the GOP has basically nothing to run against the Democrats on...they all made these big warnings in Nov 06 that if the Democrats take over, it will be liberal as hell in the US and everything will be damned

Never happened

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Also, they did try, they tried a lot of things, and got a lot of things done, but the GOP filibustered or veto'ed everything

Lower college tuition rates, higher minimum wage, 9/11 security recommendations, and they got a timeline for iraq, stem cell research and schip all passed in the house, you're crazy if you think it's their job to convince some 90+ Republicans to vote with them when the GOP hates them

Their job Thor is to represent the people that got them the power. But politics by its very nature is compromise through the forum of government, so that even if they can't get everything through they could through skill and concession get somethings through like a partial troop withdrawal.

They didnt do that, they took a take it or leave approach that they knew does not work in our system. So what they got shit passed the House - government is not run via the house, it takes all branches - all they did was play the politics game to deflect blame that they knew was going to happen by saying that it was the republicans that killed the bill not them.

Instead of trying to encourage some kind of consensus with the moderate republicans, they expected them to just come over to their side without question,- they killed the bills themselves. They didn't even try in that regard.

It's not all on the big bad republicans, the democrats set us up for failure by not dong what you are supposed to do in a Republican government (by that I mean the type of government not the party)

You want to what, shutdown the government until the GOP plays nice, first off, they won't, it would fail...they'd rather score political points and watch our country collapse because they know the Dems will suffer at the polls because the masses are not understanding

No I don't want the shut down of government and who is to say that would be the option? False choice

You have two candidates left for the presidency, one is apparently so hated by Republicans she'll make this a race, the other is so inexperienced and open to personal smears that he is asking to be swiftboated 10x a day and have his campaign fumble and fail

With these two choices, I'm glad the Democrats didn't do anything dramatic because the GOP has basically nothing to run against the Democrats on...they all made these big warnings in Nov 06 that if the Democrats take over, it will be liberal as hell in the US and everything will be damned

Never happened

2004 election much? A poll showed George W Bush would lose to an unnamed democrat - didn't happen, he won over an old school democrat (like Hillary). So all that conjecture is just conjecture, they laughed when an actor from California ran for the Presidency and now all the Republicans ride Regan's jock

[Thorgrim]

Please, tell me what compromises the Democrats could have been made, that the 90+ Republicans in the House and 18+ Republicans in the Senate would have agreed on...that would have been doing what they promised to do in the 06 elections?