by Damozel | Why is the GOP listening to a man who master-minded the GOP's failed campaign strategies for 2006 and--more importantly---master-minded the Bush Administration's failed policies? It's a puzzle.
"Maybe it's because his name is so short and memorable," suggested my colleague, D Cupples. She couldn't think of another reason deserving the name. But hey, his plans worked once before, when everyone was fed up with the Clintons. Why shouldn't it work again, now that everyone is fed up with Bush?
Well, we'll see. Here's what's happening:
Karl Rove provided state Republican officials Wednesday with his strategy for winning the 2008 presidential election, suggesting the party hammer the top Democrats on taxes, immigration, national security and a lack of experience.
Speaking to a group of state GOP executive directors from around the country at the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) winter meeting, Rove said Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) are beatable. (The Hill)
So his bold and innovative strategy consists in having Republicans hammer Democrats for the things they always hammer them for plus---presumably depending on who gets the nomination---"lack of experience."
I think people who use the phrase "lack of experience" should be forced to complete the sentence: i.e., "lack of experience in doing precisely what, as compared with (the GOP nominee's) how many years' worth of superior experience in doing precisely that?" the Dems should respond.
After all, does being governor of a state really prepare you better for being president than being in the Senate for however long? It's hard to compare apples and oranges. The Democrats can easily undermine this argument by pointing this out.
I imagine the Dems can come up with some rather caustic rejoinders on the issues of immigration and taxes if they really rack their brains. Better yet, perhaps they'll reframe the "taxes" issue in rather more concrete terms, starting with the cost of the war and the cost of health care for children of families who aren't covered under S-CHIP. If the Democrats would only match numbers with numbers, I'm pretty sure they'd come out ahead. Never mind the waffly promises of GOP contenders; just point out (in dollars and cents) how much GOP policies implemented by Rove's protege have already cost every taxpayer.
As for immigration, didn't Rove's protege Bush push for so-called immigration "shamnesty" and take a beating for it in the opinion polls? But it's true that the Republican candidates are clearly willing to be much nastier to illegal immigrants now that the Main Streeters have grown fed up with the fall-out from the Wall Streeters' need for cheap maid service, cheap farm workers, cheap gardeners, etc. Mitt Romney has totally stopped using illegal immigrants to care for his lawn.
Seems to me that the GOP has only one ace up its sleeve and Rove didn't mention it: guns. Why didn't he mention guns? Or John Edwards? He has clearly written off John Edwards, as has my mother, the Southern Lady. "Get over it; he isn't going to get the nomination," she said to me yesterday.
Rove's take on Hillary? Same old, same old.
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 Clinton wants to repeal all of Bush’s tax cuts, and that she can be targeted for opposing “troop funding” by highlighting her votes against supplemental spending bills to pay for the Iraq war.(The Hill)
The funniest bit is Rove's claim that Hillary and Bill Clinton, having declined to release certain records from their time in the White House, have something to hide. Yes, whereas those thousands upon thousands of emails that the Bush Administration mislaid were just a hiccup.
His strategy for Obama is different:
“He got elected three years ago, and he [has] spent almost the entire time running for president,” Rove said.
Rove said Obama often voted “present” instead of “yes” or “no” during his time in the Illinois Senate.
And as Obama’s critics were prepared to do during his Senate race in 2004, Rove said the party could go after Obama for voting “present” and “no” on state legislation that would have stopped a process whereby an infant is left to die after being born alive during a botched abortion procedure.
Rove said that nonpartisan ratings show Obama is more liberal than Clinton, which he said is "pretty hard to do.” (The Hill)
That's it: just use the L word and everyone will skitter like cockroaches in the direction of the Republican candidate.
Finally, he has some fresh, new thoughts on how the GOP candidate should position himself:
Rove also offered advice to whoever ultimately wins the GOP nomination.
He said the candidate had to first “create a sustaining narrative about [himself].” Then he said the candidate should “immediately engage” on the “kitchen table issues,” like healthcare, education, jobs and the economy.(The Hill)
Oooh, I hope they do; we all need a laugh.
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.(The Hill)
Yes, after the way the Bush Administration looked after its issues, I'm sure voters will be eager to hear about the Brave New World the GOP has in store for them.
And lastly, Rove said 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.”(The Hill)
This is one thing they might have going for them, provided that they can (1) convince Americans that the surge is in fact working; and (2) convince them that they care enough to go on letting the government use precious tax dollars to fund it.
The DNC doesn't seem too bothered about any of it.
DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton said, “Is this the same Karl Rove that came to Washington with dreams of building a permanent Republican majority? Americans want to get out of Iraq, they want healthcare, and they want a president to get the economy back on track. The last thing they want is a third Bush term.” (The Hill)
The Southern Lady blames Rove and Rumsfeld for leading Bush ("a stubborn jackass") astray, though for some reason Cheney gets a pass. She's never voted for anyone for president who wasn't a Republican, and if there's one thing that could solidify her support for Hillary, it's finding out that Karl Rove is strategizing on the GOP candidates' behalf. So perhaps DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton has it right....
RELATED POSTINGS
Is Rove Re-Writing History? Ex-White House Staffers Think So
Why Should We Care if Rove is Strategizing?
Rove & Rose
"I think people who use the phrase "lack of experience" should be forced to complete the sentence. I.e., "Lack of experience in doing precisely what, as compared with (the GOP nominee's) how many years' worth of superior experience in doing precisely that?""
That shit's classic...
Posted by: Gregory T | January 17, 2008 at 05:04 PM