Rove lays out strategy on how to beat Clinton, Obama...

[Bumblebee]

By Sam Youngman
Posted: o1/16/08

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.”

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/rove-previews-strategies-against-clinton-obama-2008-01-16.html

[The Hawk]

In the current state of gloom-and-doom Republican affairs, I admire Rove's go-get-'em optimism. He seems to enjoy the current challenge facing the GOP.

Of all the points Rove mentioned, I think the strongest is the War on Terror. Democrats suck in this category and this will be their downfall. If the GOP emphasizes the success of the surge in Iraq and maintain that the Democrats are unfit to keep America safe from another terrorist attack, the Dem candidate will crumble.

[PonsAsinorum]

Of all the points Rove mentioned, I think the strongest is the War on Terror. Democrats suck in this category and this will be their downfall. If the GOP emphasizes the success of the surge in Iraq and maintain that the Democrats are unfit to keep America safe from another terrorist attack, the Dem candidate will crumble.

That's what doomed the Republicans in '06. The scare tactics worked in '02 and '04, but at this point it's only useful for preaching to the choir. And that doesn't win general elections.

[The Hawk]

That's what doomed the Republicans in '06. The scare tactics worked in '02 and '04, but at this point it's only useful for preaching to the choir. And that doesn't win general elections.

I'd have to disagree. For anything, the "scare tactics" work better in a general election than in a midterm election.

It's not scare tactics, its about who the American people feel is better defending our nation from the terrorists threat. If the GOP is able to force that as the sole issue of the campaign, then we'll win.

[PonsAsinorum]

I'd have to disagree. For anything, the "scare tactics" work better in a general election than in a midterm election.

It's not scare tactics, its about who the American people feel is better defending our nation from the terrorists threat. If the GOP is able to force that as the sole issue of the campaign, then we'll win.

Considering the war on terror is an open-ended war, they are scare tactics. The Republicans are basically saying, "Vote for us or else you won't be safe." That sounds like a scare tactic to me.

[The Hawk]

Considering the war on terror is an open-ended war, they are scare tactics. The Republicans are basically saying, "Vote for us or else you won't be safe." That sounds like a scare tactic to me.

Quite frankly, thats the truth. The Democrat's plan on the War on Terror and Iraq is simply dangerous.

[PonsAsinorum]

Quite frankly, thats the truth. The Democrat's plan on the War on Terror and Iraq is simply dangerous.

Since most of the country disagrees with you regarding the Republican approach, the GOP is going to have a hard time winning in November with that approach. People generally don't like being told they're wrong and that they need to listen to the right way to do things. That's a turn off and will not win over many in the middle.

[ric]

Quite frankly, thats the truth. The Democrat's plan on the War on Terror and Iraq is simply dangerous.

It is true. Dems are perceived as weak and ineffectual in the WoT...and I also wonder if people realise just how pivotal this election really is. How important it is to our collective national future

Hell, we have a guy in the Rep Party that has a bunch crazed anti-war moonbats who support him because their liberal counterparts don't have an anti-war stance

[Bumblebee]

The white flag waving Dems are going to be quite humiliated and look even more foolish, if come next September we are in an even better position on the WoT. They have painted themselves in a corner.

[The Hawk]

Since most of the country disagrees with you regarding the Republican approach, the GOP is going to have a hard time winning in November with that approach. People generally don't like being told they're wrong and that they need to listen to the right way to do things. That's a turn off and will not win over many in the middle.

Who's telling the people that they're wrong? What it is doing is informing the people about the facts. That we are winning in Iraq and we winning the War on Terror. Polls have even shown that the general public feels that Republicans are more capable of defending the country than Democrats are. All the strategy needs to be is emphasizing those facts.

[The Hawk]

The white flag waving Dems are going to be quite humiliated and look even more foolish, if come next September we are in an even better position on the WoT. They have painted themselves in a corner.

What disturbs me about the Democrats is that they're hoping we fail in the war. Instead of offering suggestions on how to succeed, all they want to do is emphasize mistakes and hope for failure for their own political gain. Quite frankly, I find that sickening and a betrayal to the American people.

[ric]

The US should not be afraid to defend ourselves because world opinion might go against us. Take for instance, the Iranian speedboat provocation. That crap really pissed me off to no end. Those speed boats should have been blown out of the water.

Those acts of agression cannot go unattended, as it can easly result in the US becoming the 'paper tiger' of the world and we will not command any respect

[scarymary]

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.”

This is the statement that catches my eye and interest. How could you possibly talk about fiscal responsibility and introduce new spending programs in the same breath? This is absurd, but the "dumb masses" (as Neal Boortz likes to refer to them) will go along with anything the government tells them they are going to give them for free.

[scarymary]

I sure wish Karl Rove was the campaign manager of one of the Republican candidates. He truly was "the architect".

[PonsAsinorum]

Who's telling the people that they're wrong? What it is doing is informing the people about the facts. That we are winning in Iraq and we winning the War on Terror. Polls have even shown that the general public feels that Republicans are more capable of defending the country than Democrats are. All the strategy needs to be is emphasizing those facts.

Most of the country opposes the Iraq war. They don't believe we should be over there. If the Republican candidates focus on it as the main issue, it will have the effect of telling most of the country that they are wrong and need to listen to the smrat Republicans.

[san clemente]

I don't think that scare tactics will work with this election. I agree that the public feels that a lot of progress was made in Iraq since the serge began. I wouldn't translate that however to mean that the public suddenly believes that they are satisfied with the way we went into Iraq in the first place or that we went there at all. The Bush administration made some blunders starting with the infamous "mission accomplished" statement roughly three weeks in. Talk about the dems not funding the troops is often brought up as though Rumsfeld never famously said "We all can't have evrything we want" in response to the millitary saying they needed more armored protection. How long did it take for Bush to finally add all of those troops? If the republicans were to bring up the recent success in Iraq, the dems would surely bring up these issues and I believe that the results would be quite different than 2004.

[The Hawk]

Most of the country opposes the Iraq war. They don't believe we should be over there. If the Republican candidates focus on it as the main issue, it will have the effect of telling most of the country that they are wrong and need to listen to the smrat Republicans.

True, most of the nation opposes the war, but what the nation really oppose is failure. When we first entered Iraq and we easily threw over Baghdad, all of America was for the war. When things began to tough thats when the wheels fell off the bandwagon. By emphasizing the success being made in Iraq, the nation will be convinced again that progress is being made and will support the war. In this instance, it is beneficial to the Republicans.

[PonsAsinorum]

True, most of the nation opposes the war, but what the nation really oppose is failure. When we first entered Iraq and we easily threw over Baghdad, all of America was for the war. When things began to tough thats when the wheels fell off the bandwagon. By emphasizing the success being made in Iraq, the nation will be convinced again that progress is being made and will support the war. In this instance, it is beneficial to the Republicans.

People aren't opposed to the war because it's tough to win or that it's failing. They're opposed to the ideology behind the war, namely that if we take down 'bad' governments and replace them with 'good' governments, i.e. do a little nation building, we can defeat terrorism. But the population isn't interested in nation building no matter how many pretty bows and ribbons are put on it.

Being successful at doing something people don't want won't win votes.

[The Hawk]

People aren't opposed to the war because it's tough to win or that it's failing. They're opposed to the ideology behind the war, namely that if we take down 'bad' governments and replace them with 'good' governments, i.e. do a little nation building, we can defeat terrorism. But the population isn't interested in nation building no matter how many pretty bows and ribbons are put on it.

Being successful at doing something people don't want won't win votes.

Once again I'd have to disagree because the people supported the war when we initially went in. Why we went in hasn't changed. It prospects of the war has. Americans want success. Its as simple as that. Iraq was looking bleak so people stopped supporting it. Once they see the successes being made now I have no doubt that they will come to support the effort in Iraq again.

[PonsAsinorum]

Once again I'd have to disagree because the people supported the war when we initially went in. Why we went in hasn't changed. It prospects of the war has. Americans want success. Its as simple as that. Iraq was looking bleak so people stopped supporting it. Once they see the successes being made now I have no doubt that they will come to support the effort in Iraq again.

Five years ago, people were still caught up in the emotions of 9/11. There was a trumped up case that Saddam was this close to being an imminent threat to us. We gobbled it up because we were afraid of another 9/11 or worse. It was only after the fact, when cooler heads prevailed, that we realized the evidence that led to the invasion of Iraq was insufficient at best. We felt duped, and keeping Iraq at the forefront will only continue to foster the resentment many people feel over that.

[ric]

Very easy to sit here, in the safety assured by the might of the US military, and constantly question efforts to carry the war to the enemy overseas and how convenient it is to leave out the UN. The complete failure of the United Nations to live up to it's own charter and mission in this case, eh? If the UN were worth a damn, they, and not the US, would have been engaging Iraq

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

The Republicans are basically saying, "Vote for us or else you won't be safe." That sounds like a scare tactic to me.

So what do you call the Democrat tactic of "This country is less safe now than it was before 9/11"? A pep talk?


The Bush administration made some blunders starting with the infamous "mission accomplished" statement roughly three weeks in.

Proof positive that most people have no clue or understand about what happened, instead they swallow b/s fed to them from the MSM.

The mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom was to topple Saddam, and take control of Iraq. All of that was accomplished within the 'three weeks', and the Mission Accomplished was a testament to that fact.

The insugency began some months after that. No one knew for sure that it was comming, and it is a conflict unto itself.

How anyone can consider the "Mission Accomplished" statment as an untruth/blemish to Bush's credibility is beyond me.



Talk about the dems not funding the troops is often brought up as though Rumsfeld never famously said "We all can't have evrything we want" in response to the millitary saying they needed more armored protection.

More ignorance.

1) The US Military has never fought a COIN Urban conflict before.

2)The HMMWV's that were being referred to in this excerpt were developed to be exactly what it's acronym means High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. It wasn't designed as an Armoured Personnel Carrier, and the APC's available to the US Military were not designed to be applied in an Urban Environment. The HMMWV was designed to be light weight and nimble, a replacement for the Jeep, and as I said before, not an APC.

3) The US Military responded in remarkable time with the MRAP Vehicles. It was less than 2 years from the above issue to the deployment of the MRAP vehicles.

I will remind you SC, that any soldier understands that one uses what one has at one's disposal at the time, and if I'm not mistaken, the question that was posed to Rumsfeld was from a reporter that asked a particular soldier to ask it.



How long did it take for Bush to finally add all of those troops? If the republicans were to bring up the recent success in Iraq, the dems would surely bring up these issues and I believe that the results would be quite different than 2004.

Bush, added and reduced troops in accordance with requests given to him by the Commanders in the Field. This is not what you or I want, nor what Congress or the Senate wants. None of the above are involved in the CnC structure of US forces in Iraq. As such, what any of the above entities want/expect/demand of POTUS is irrelevant.

That political detractors of the POTUS use this reasonable management technique as politcal cannon fodder says something. That people buy into the cannon fodder says a whole lot more.


Five years ago, people were still caught up in the emotions of 9/11. There was a trumped up case that Saddam was this close to being an imminent threat to us. We gobbled it up because we were afraid of another 9/11 or worse. It was only after the fact, when cooler heads prevailed, that we realized the evidence that led to the invasion of Iraq was insufficient at best. We felt duped, and keeping Iraq at the forefront will only continue to foster the resentment many people feel over that.

There was nothing trumped up about it. Circumstantial evidence, the same sort of evidence used to convict Scott Peterson of 1st deg Murder, demonstrated that Hussein had

A) WMD's
B) Was continuing to develop WMD's
C) Had links to terror orgs.

The MSM has spun this case so tightly that your average US Citizen that knows more about the lives of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends than they do about whats going on in this world, swallowed it.

That is the only reason the public has turned on the war in Iraq. They did it in 'Nam, and they're doing it again.

The Media lost the war in Vietnam for the US, and they're hell bent on loosing this action in Iraq.

[PonsAsinorum]

So what do you call the Democrat tactic of "This country is less safe now than it was before 9/11"? A pep talk?



Proof positive that most people have no clue or understand about what happened, instead they swallow b/s fed to them from the MSM.

The mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom was to topple Saddam, and take control of Iraq. All of that was accomplished within the 'three weeks', and the Mission Accomplished was a testament to that fact.

The insugency began some months after that. No one knew for sure that it was comming, and it is a conflict unto itself.

How anyone can consider the "Mission Accomplished" statment as an untruth/blemish to Bush's credibility is beyond me.


.

More ignorance.

1) The US Military has never fought a COIN Urban conflict before.

2)The HMMWV's that were being referred to in this excerpt were developed to be exactly what it's acronym means High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. It wasn't designed as an Armoured Personnel Carrier, and the APC's available to the US Military were not designed to be applied in an Urban Environment. The HMMWV was designed to be light weight and nimble, a replacement for the Jeep, and as I said before, not an APC.

3) The US Military responded in remarkable time with the MRAP Vehicles. It was less than 2 years from the above issue to the deployment of the MRAP vehicles.

I will remind you SC, that any soldier understands that one uses what one has at one's disposal at the time, and if I'm not mistaken, the question that was posed to Rumsfeld was from a reporter that asked a particular soldier to ask it.




Bush, added and reduced troops in accordance with requests given to him by the Commanders in the Field. This is not what you or I want, nor what Congress or the Senate wants. None of the above are involved in the CnC structure of US forces in Iraq. As such, what any of the above entities want/expect/demand of POTUS is irrelevant.

That political detractors of the POTUS use this reasonable management technique as politcal cannon fodder says something. That people buy into the cannon fodder says a whole lot more.



There was nothing trumped up about it. Circumstantial evidence, the same sort of evidence used to convict Scott Peterson of 1st deg Murder, demonstrated that Hussein had

A) WMD's
B) Was continuing to develop WMD's
C) Had links to terror orgs.

The MSM has spun this case so tightly that your average US Citizen that knows more about the lives of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends than they do about whats going on in this world, swallowed it.

That is the only reason the public has turned on the war in Iraq. They did it in 'Nam, and they're doing it again.

The Media lost the war in Vietnam for the US, and they're hell bent on loosing this action in Iraq.

You can get as indignant as you please over the perceived ignorance of the American public. Doesn't change the fact that if the Republicans want to win the presidency in 2008, they're going to have to win over all those voters. And that won't happen if they point a righteous finger and trumpet the war on terror.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

You can get as indignant as you please over the perceived ignorance of the American public. Doesn't change the fact that if the Republicans want to win the presidency in 2008, they're going to have to win over all those voters. And that won't happen if they point a righteous finger and trumpet the war on terror.

This is not a percieved ignorance, it's a factual ignorance. Then of course there's the inconvenient fact that there hasn't been an attack like 9/11 at all since Bush has been on the helm.

People like you choose to write it off to coincidence, I believe it to be as a result of the white houses efforts in counter terrorism including the actions in Iraq and A'stan.

And for the record, I'm railing against the ignorance espoused that the reason people in the US are suddenly against the war (although I don't put much value in polls that have 1000 respondents in NYC as the base for their findings) is because the reasons for this action in Iraq and A'stan were lies, that the MSM is not at work to undermine the war effort, and that the average American is keenly aware of what is going on around the world and at home.

[PonsAsinorum]

This is not a percieved ignorance, it's a factual ignorance. Then of course there's the inconvenient fact that there hasn't been an attack like 9/11 at all since Bush has been on the helm.

People like you choose to write it off to coincidence, I believe it to be as a result of the white houses efforts in counter terrorism including the actions in Iraq and A'stan.

And for the record, I'm railing against the ignorance espoused that the reason people in the US are suddenly against the war (although I don't put much value in polls that have 1000 respondents in NYC as the base for their findings) is because the reasons for this action in Iraq and A'stan were lies, that the MSM is not at work to undermine the war effort, and that the average American is keenly aware of what is going on around the world and at home.

Then what's the answer for the Republican Party? They can either stick to their guns and turn off the voters who would help them win, or they can bury their foreign policy in order to attact those voters. Which is more important, embracing the ignorance (thereby keeping the Democrats out of office) or holding fast to principle by telling people that they need the Republicans to continue fighting to protect them?