Karl Rove's advice to Obama

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
What do you think of the advice? What would your advice to Obama be?


Memo to Obama: win Iowa or lose the race
TO: Senator Barack Obama
FROM: Karl Rove
SUBJECT: How to Beat Hillary
December 2

Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway: Iowa is your chance to best her. If you do not do it there, odds are you never will anywhere. You are way behind her in most national polls. The only way to change that is to beat her in Iowa so people around America take another look at you. You did a smart thing organising effectively in the early primary states. But you can take advantage of that only if you win Iowa and keep her from building an overwhelming sense of invincibility and inevitability.

The good news is you have again got “the buzz”. Polls are looking better for you in Iowa and the other early states. Your press is improving, with your performance at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner a big help. Hillary Clinton has made unforced errors. But she is still the frontrunner and there are several things you need to do quickly to win.

First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.

Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise.

Take the exchange in the Philadelphia debate about Bill and Hillary keeping documents hidden about her role as first lady in his White House. She was evasive. You spoke next. You would have won a big victory if you had turned to her and said: “Senator, with all due respect, you and your husband could release those documents right now if you wanted to. Your failure to do so raises questions among a lot of Americans about what you’re hiding and those questions would hurt our party if you were our nominee.” But your response was weak as dirty dishwater. Do not let other great opportunities pass by.

Second, focus on the fact that many Democrats have real doubts about Hillary. They worry she cannot win, will be a drag on the ticket and that if she got to the White House it would be a disaster. You know better than most what they are worried about; they have told you their fears. It is why you have done so well raising money from Bill’s backers and gaining support from Clinton administration officials. Talk about those doubts. Put them in a bigger context than just the two of you. Remind primary voters that these shortcomings will hurt Democratic chances.

Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you – and she does.

Fourth, when you disagree with her be clear about what you believe. You cannot afford more garbled responses like the one you gave in Las Vegas on drivers’ licences for illegal aliens. Answer yes or no. Do not give voters evidence you are as calculating as her.

Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one and Democratic voters know you were against the war and represent the idea of something fresh. But they do not know who you really are, what you want to do and where you want to take the country. Taking her down a few notches is step one; telling people who you are is the next. Both are necessary.

Sixth, find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on. The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation. Democrats do not like her sense of entitlement. She is not owed the nomination. It does not belong to her simply because her name is Clinton. So blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humour and a smile and it will sting even more.

Hillary comes across as cold, distant and conspiracy-minded, more like Richard Nixon than her sunny, charming husband. During the Clinton presidency she oversaw a disaster (the effort to sell Hillarycare) and argued hard against welfare reform, one of the promises on which he had campaigned. She is a hard-nosed competitor with a tough and seasoned staff.

But her record is weak, her personality off-putting and her support thin. If she wins the nomination it will be because her rivals – namely you – were weak when you confronted her and could not look her in the eye when you did. She is beatable but you have to raise your game. Iowa is your great chance for a breakthrough. Win it convincingly and you can build on it in the contests that follow. Lose it and victory becomes much more difficult.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html
 

nyyyyce

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The only time I want to hear anything from Rove is when hie is in court, under oath, discussing his role in this war, Valerie Plame and other crimes against America. However, a few of his points here are valid. Damn....
 

sharkbait28

Unionize & Prepare For Automation
International Member
The only time I want to hear anything from Rove is when hie is in court, under oath, discussing his role in this war, Valerie Plame and other crimes against America. However, a few of his points here are valid. Damn....

haha.....I agree man. Rove is a shrewd tactician and it shows in his advice, who knows what kind of Machivellian scheming is behind this freely offered assist but Obama would do well to heed some of these points.
 

nyyyyce

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
haha.....I agree man. Rove is a shrewd tactician and it shows in his advice, who knows what kind of Machivellian scheming is behind this freely offered assist but Obama would do well to heed some of these points.
true. he and the neo-con cabal have no good intention for this country, let alone the Democratic presidential contenders. i think he did this to get under the skin of hillary. Oprah, the new polls, Kyl-Liberman have been tearing her up lately. i think he wanted to pour salt on the wounds. he sucks.
 

bellsbreaker

Member Superior
BGOL Investor
haha.....I agree man. Rove is a shrewd tactician and it shows in his advice, who knows what kind of Machivellian scheming is behind this freely offered assist but Obama would do well to heed some of these points.

those points are announced to paint obama in a box. if he does anything remotely similar to what is advised shows hes weak and easily minipulated. if he doesnt shows hes cowardly and destined to failure...

shrewd in deed... yet obviously the last gasp of a desperate party.
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
those points are announced to paint obama in a box. if he does anything remotely similar to what is advised shows hes weak and easily minipulated. if he doesnt shows hes cowardly and destined to failure...

shrewd in deed... yet obviously the last gasp of a desperate party.
I don't know... Have you heard much about this? I've been busy but I haven't heard anything... I don't think anybody would think to bring up Rove's name re: Obama and if someone did I really doubt they could get much from it.


I live in Las Vegas and got to see Obama yesterday, first time I've ever gotten to see a presidential candidate in person. I wish I'd asked a question but I couldn't think of a good one for him. (It was a student group, so three of the five or six questions were variations of the same college education fund question, about Obama's plan for a $4,000 education credit w/ community service req'd.)
 

Miss Lead Luv

Potential Star
BGOL Investor
I don't know... Have you heard much about this? I've been busy but I haven't heard anything... I don't think anybody would think to bring up Rove's name re: Obama and if someone did I really doubt they could get much from it.


I live in Las Vegas and got to see Obama yesterday, first time I've ever gotten to see a presidential candidate in person. I wish I'd asked a question but I couldn't think of a good one for him. (It was a student group, so three of the five or six questions were variations of the same college education fund question, about Obama's plan for a $4,000 education credit w/ community service req'd.)

Awww boooo you should have thought of it in advance...what an opportunity lost!!!
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
Awww boooo you should have thought of it in advance...what an opportunity lost!!!
There was no advance! I was at school working my ass off on a report and he had people all over the campus advertising that he'd be at the library across the street. I actually told the first couple people who asked that I wasn't going. Finals week ain't exactly the best time... It was definitely worthwhile, but I'm not trying to fuck myself over to see a guy I can see on TV all the time anyway.

But yeah, I didn't know there'd be an event at all until maybe two hours before.

I agree it was a lost opportunity but I'm sure I'll have comparable chances in the future...
 

sharkbait28

Unionize & Prepare For Automation
International Member
those points are announced to paint obama in a box. if he does anything remotely similar to what is advised shows hes weak and easily minipulated. if he doesnt shows hes cowardly and destined to failure...

shrewd in deed... yet obviously the last gasp of a desperate party.

Yeah, no doubt....this could all be part of some dastardly scheme of Rove's...but some of that advice was literally spot on...and touched on key areas Obama will have to address sooner or later.

To be honest, there's no real way Rove could paint him into a corner with this as Obama will have to get tougher with Hilary no matter what as the primaries draw nearer.

Peace
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
I agree it was a lost opportunity but I'm sure I'll have comparable chances in the future...

Prior to this, the most prominent figure I'd ever seen was Ralph Nader, I'm thinking this was in 2005. He came to do a talk and a book signing on campus and I went to hear what he had to say. I like Nader and it was a good talk, but he said what I thought were some wild things on foreign policy. I was prepared for this, had a notebook and pen, and wrote down his exact words. I had a good question about a hypothetical Nader administration but I just didn't get the chance to ask.

The Obama rally was of a totally different nature. Once I ended up there, there was really nothing new said-- he emphasized how "I was just like you" not to long ago, etc, and it was fun for me to watch the way he connected with the crowd, but I had nothing going in, it's really my nature to ask negative questions and I didn't feel that was the occasion, and he gave me no material. So, while I wish I had known about it the night before... It was what it was.

I'm going to keep an eye out for possibilities in the future, I honestly look forward to nailing someone with a question.
 

Miss Lead Luv

Potential Star
BGOL Investor
There was no advance! I was at school working my ass off on a report and he had people all over the campus advertising that he'd be at the library across the street. I actually told the first couple people who asked that I wasn't going. Finals week ain't exactly the best time... It was definitely worthwhile, but I'm not trying to fuck myself over to see a guy I can see on TV all the time anyway.

But yeah, I didn't know there'd be an event at all until maybe two hours before.

I agree it was a lost opportunity but I'm sure I'll have comparable chances in the future...

Don't feel too bad...I'm sure all his answers are pre-generated for him anyways :lol:
 

conspiracy Bro

Rising Star
Registered
while the points on getting tougher are valid he cannot come across as hostile if winning the primary splits the party the republicans win the real prize.

also i like what he is doing so far he doesnt need to run on negativity nor brag both techniques have yet to work for the last two democratic presidential candidates. Also Oprah is americas Mammy so her saying he is the one is a pretty big deal. and hillary's air of entitlement is not getting past anyone so she is shooting herself in the foot with that. Lastly in politics u never want to take a stand unless u have the power to back it. commiting to any issue will just isolate some possible voter bloc who is against whatever he just promoted.

plus anything rove says is bullshit these are probably the last thing he needs to do. Rove is just trying to avoid prosecution or moving to dubai which will be the only options a lot of the Bush regime will have after 2008 if a democrat wins the white house.
 

nyyyyce

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
while the points on getting tougher are valid he cannot come across as hostile if winning the primary splits the party the republicans win the real prize.

also i like what he is doing so far he doesnt need to run on negativity nor brag both techniques have yet to work for the last two democratic presidential candidates. Also Oprah is americas Mammy so her saying he is the one is a pretty big deal. and hillary's air of entitlement is not getting past anyone so she is shooting herself in the foot with that. Lastly in politics u never want to take a stand unless u have the power to back it. commiting to any issue will just isolate some possible voter bloc who is against whatever he just promoted.

plus anything rove says is bullshit these are probably the last thing he needs to do. Rove is just trying to avoid prosecution or moving to dubai which will be the only options a lot of the Bush regime will have after 2008 if a democrat wins the white house.
Bro,

Rove is not worried about the Dem's in 08 at all. They could not get the e-mails from him during the Alberto Gonzales mess, he was not fired for his role in the Plame outing, he has yet to be taken to task for his hand in the planning for the Iraq debacle, no one gave him significant grief over his boy, in NM, becoming a US Attorney. He does not give a flying F*** what they do at all. The Dem's threw impeachment off the table to "win" in 08, the let the new AG pass through, there is still NO special hearings on the faulty intel that got us into Iraq. Please... Rove will smear feces in Pelosi's face and dare her to call the cops (dramatic and graphic, but it is the only thing I could encapsulate how strong I feel about his confidence). He is a "made" man. He don't care.
 

conspiracy Bro

Rising Star
Registered
Bro,

Rove is not worried about the Dem's in 08 at all. They could not get the e-mails from him during the Alberto Gonzales mess, he was not fired for his role in the Plame outing, he has yet to be taken to task for his hand in the planning for the Iraq debacle, no one gave him significant grief over his boy, in NM, becoming a US Attorney. He does not give a flying F*** what they do at all. The Dem's threw impeachment off the table to "win" in 08, the let the new AG pass through, there is still NO special hearings on the faulty intel that got us into Iraq. Please... Rove will smear feces in Pelosi's face and dare her to call the cops (dramatic and graphic, but it is the only thing I could encapsulate how strong I feel about his confidence). He is a "made" man. He don't care.

you might be right but even then there is no way that this was written with a good intentions. its fucking turd blossom rove
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
Bro,

Rove is not worried about the Dem's in 08 at all. They could not get the e-mails from him during the Alberto Gonzales mess, he was not fired for his role in the Plame outing, he has yet to be taken to task for his hand in the planning for the Iraq debacle, no one gave him significant grief over his boy, in NM, becoming a US Attorney. He does not give a flying F*** what they do at all. The Dem's threw impeachment off the table to "win" in 08, the let the new AG pass through, there is still NO special hearings on the faulty intel that got us into Iraq. Please... Rove will smear feces in Pelosi's face and dare her to call the cops (dramatic and graphic, but it is the only thing I could encapsulate how strong I feel about his confidence). He is a "made" man. He don't care.

you might be right but even then there is no way that this was written with a good intentions. its fucking turd blossom rove


Of course he doesn't care and doesn't have good intentions for them...

He's still a highly regarded political mind and Obama is seeking the office that he's basically credited with putting the current occupant into... So it's worth looking at his thoughts... This obviously might not be the full extent of them but it's no trap; if anything, it's just meant to stroke Rove's ego and keep his reputation alive... There's still validity to the points made re: Obama overtaking Clinton, as anybody who saw the debate last month in Vegas would know..
 

nyyyyce

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
you might be right but even then there is no way that this was written with a good intentions. its fucking turd blossom rove
intentions aside, there were some good points. to your point, it is Karl FN Rove so you never trust a scorpion.

as far as Rove trembling at all about the Dem's power - trust me - there is no maybe to it. What state are you in when you care less than less? Whatever that is...Karl cares that much.
 

bellsbreaker

Member Superior
BGOL Investor
letme be clear and remember you heard it here first:

obama does not need to and wil not attack hillary to win. he will win by running on the platform of change. shewill attack him hard as the primaries near and she loose more ground.
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
I followed a link on CNN's political ticker to this story... It was titled "Karl Rove gets tough on 'lazy' Obama"... It's getting worse and worse, from Bill Clinton calling him a kid, Chuck Schumer accusing him of "shucking and jiving," and in this article Rove actually says, in criticizing Obama for saying "You're likeable enough, Hillary": His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.

That's the most flagrently stereotypical comment I've heard so far in the campaign. To me, it's worse than the "lazy" comment CNN picked up. How do you go take "You're likeable enough" and associate it with pick-up basketball???

Why Hillary Won
By KARL ROVE
January 10, 2008; Page A15

What would Shakespeare's Jack Cade say after the New Hampshire Democratic primary? Maybe the demagogue in "Henry VI" would call for the pollsters to be killed first, not the lawyers.


The opinion researchers find themselves in a difficult place after most predicted a big Obama sweep. It's not their fault. The dirty secret is it is hard to accurately poll a primary. The unpredictability of who will turn out and what the mix of voters will be makes polling a primary election like reading chicken entrails -- ugly, smelly and not very enlightening. Our media culture endows polls -- especially exit polls -- with scientific precision they simply don't have.

But more interesting than dissecting the pollsters is dissecting the election returns, precinct by precinct. Sen. Hillary Clinton won working-class neighborhoods and less-affluent rural areas. Sen. Barack Obama won the college towns and the gentrified neighborhoods of more affluent communities. Put another way, Mrs. Clinton won the beer drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd. And there are more beer drinkers than wine swillers in the Democratic Party.

Mrs. Clinton won a narrow victory in New Hampshire for four reasons. First, her campaign made a smart decision at its start to target women Democrats, especially single women. It has been made part of the warp and woof of her campaign everywhere. This focus didn't pay off in Iowa, but it did in New Hampshire.

Second, she had two powerful personal moments. The first came in the ABC debate on Saturday, when WMUR TV's Scott Spradling asked why voters were "hesitating on the likeability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more." Mrs. Clinton's self-deprecating response -- "Well, that hurts my feelings" -- was followed by a playful "But I'll try to go on."

You couldn't help but smile. It reminded Democrats what they occasionally like about her. Then Mr. Obama followed with a needless and dismissive, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

Her remarks helped wash away the memory of her angry replies to attacks at the debate's start. His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.

The other personal moment came on Monday, when a woman in Portsmouth asked her "how do you do it?" Mrs. Clinton's emotional reply was powerful and warm. Voters rarely see her in such a spontaneous moment. It was humanizing and appealing. And unlike her often contrived and calculated attempts to appear down-to-earth, this was real.

Third, the Clintons began -- at first not very artfully -- to raise questions about the fitness for the Oval Office of a first-term senator with no real accomplishments or experience.

Former President Bill Clinton hit a nerve by drawing attention to Mr. Obama's conflicting statements on Iraq. There's more -- and more powerful -- material available. Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting "present" on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.

For someone who talks about a new, positive style of politics and pledges to be true to his word, Mr. Obama too often practices the old style of politics, saying one thing and doing another. He won't escape criticism on all this easily. But the messenger and the message need to be better before the Clintons can get all this across. Hitting Mr. Obama on his elementary school essays won't cut it.

The fourth and biggest reason why Mrs. Clinton won two nights ago is that, while Mr. Obama can draw on the deep doubts of many Democrats about Mrs. Clinton, he can't close out the argument. Mr. Obama is an inspiring figure playing a historical role, but that's not enough to push aside the former First Lady and senator from New York. She's an historic figure, too. When it comes to making the case against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama comes across as a vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson. His rhetoric, while eloquent and moving at times, has been too often light as air.

Mr. Obama began to find his voice at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, when he took four deliberate swipes at the Clintons. He called for Democrats to tackle problems "that had festered long before" President Bush, "problems that we've talked about year after year after year after year."

He dismissed the Clinton style of campaigning and governing, saying "Triangulating and poll-driven positions . . . just won't do." He attacked Mrs. Clinton on Iraq, torture and her opposition to direct presidential talks with Syria and Iran. Then he rejected a new Clinton era by saying, "I don't want to spend the next year or the next four years re-fighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s." It deftly, if often indirectly, played on the deep concerns of Democrats who look at the Clinton era as a time of decline for their party and unfulfilled potential for their cause.

But rather than sharpen and build on this message of contrast and change, Mr. Obama chose soaring rhetoric and inspirational rallies. While his speeches galvanized true believers at his events, his words were neither filling nor sustaining for New Hampshire Democrats concerned about the Clintons and looking for a substantive alternative.

And Mr. Obama, in his own way, is often as calculating as Mrs. Clinton. For example, he was the only candidate, Democratic or Republican, to use a teleprompter to deliver his Iowa and New Hampshire election-night speeches. It gave his speeches a quality and clarity that other candidates, speaking from notes or the heart, failed to achieve. But what he gained in polish, he lost in connection.

The Democratic candidates left New Hampshire not liking each other. Mrs. Clinton, in particular, lets her feelings show. In her victory speech, as she listed her competitors, she put Mr. Obama at the tail end, behind Dennis Kucinich. Ouch!

Now the Democratic contest will go on through at least "Super Tuesday" -- Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton is likely to win the Democratic beauty contest in Michigan on Jan. 15. But with no delegates at stake, it will have little impact.

Despite Sen. Harry Reid's son serving as her Nevada chairman, she's likely to lose that state's caucuses on Jan. 19. Then comes South Carolina on Jan. 26, where half the Democratic voters are likely to be African-American and Mr. Obama the probable victor. That means Florida on the 29th looms very large. The outcome of the contest in the Sunshine State is likely to have a disproportionate impact on the 23 contests on Super Tuesday.

With so many states voting on Super Tuesday, no candidate will have enough money, time or energy to cover all the contests. Burning in a single television ad in every Super Tuesday state will cost nearly $16 million.

Instead, candidates will pick states where they have a better chance to win and, by doing so, lock down more delegates. They will spend their time in cities with local TV and print coverage that reaches the biggest number of targeted voters possible. And they will spend their limited dollars on TV stations that deliver the largest number of likely supporters at the least cost. Memphis, for example, may be a smart buy, with its stations reaching western Tennessee and eastern Arkansas, both Feb. 5 states. Fargo, which reaches North Dakota and Minnesota, may be another effective buy.

At the end of Super Tuesday, it won't be just who won the most states, but who has the most delegates. In both parties, party elders and voters in later contests across the country will want to start consolidating behind a candidate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992615845679531.html
 

Profit

Rising Star
Registered
Rove is dead on with that first article. ALL of the candidates are jacking his style now. They are wearing that "change" mantra into the ground. It's really making the word cheap. He's best to go into more detail about his positions and exactly what change he represents.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
NH exposed the Clintons for what they are and they will pay for it dearly. I think a lot of Black people are beginning to see the Clintons believe they own us or we owe them. Bill showed his true colors when he basically called Obama a phony, slick talking hustler who thinks he can talk his way into the white house.
 

kesq

Rising Star
Platinum Member
That first article was prescient. It my have been stuff that was obvious to a political professional, but it was right nonetheless.

I don't think that rove is always right , but when he is, he is.
My favorite point was:

[Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand.]

Not always appropriate, but in this context, I think so. I often tell clients that the hardest thing about trials is knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Seems that campaigning is similar.
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered


2 months later; what do you think ???


I think the headline-- "Win Iowa or Lose the Race"-- was accurate. Not just for the reasons Rove listed, but also because, looking back at the debacle that was the South Carolina primary, I think the win in 95% white Iowa was huge in making it possible to fend off the Clinton strategy of painting Obama as a "black candidate" and the constant media discussion of race.

Rove doesn't discuss race at all but it would have been a lot easier to marginalize Obama without his Iowa victory. (It would have also been harder to imagine him winning, which means his support wouldn't be as ardent and zealous and some people who were on the fence would've never come off.) Of course, you can never say for sure how things would've gone-- if Hillary won Iowa, she wouldn't have cried in New Hampshire.

His reasoning wasn't totally solid. His first piece of advice was "Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job." I think we saw that scrapping with the Clintons means mudslinging and how overwhelmingly negative the reaction to that was.

I think Bellsbreaker was more prescient when he pointed out the contradiction between Obama's platform of change (which includes the tone of politics) and getting down in the dogfights we expect and that Rove says we want. It's often true and Rove got a president elected with that mentality, but the frustration with Washington is so widespread and deep that what some call Obama's platitudes and generalities (I'm a supporter, but I'm getting tired of the 'Yes we can' type speech myself) look amazingly superior to the status quo, which is where Rove's advice and logic come from. Rove's logic was short-sighted in terms of this campaign and Obama would not look as strong today if he followed it.
 

sportecus

Star
Registered
People, put your disdained love for K. Rove aside for a moment and you’ll realize that this dude is a master strategist and what he’s blowing out of his mouth is legit and truthful. Do you absolutely think Bush won two elections and were able to get away with corruption and crookedness in D.C. for the past 8 years because of his brilliance and intelligence? SHIT!! His whole presidency was mastermind and played out by K. Rove. That said everything in his letter – dated before the Iowa Caucus – has come to fruition. Like him or not, the man is on his Ps & Qs when it comes to winning a campaign. He reminds me of Michael Clayton; a good attorney who helped dirty and crooked corporations from going under. Lastly I will leave with this. K. Rove is now different from Billary. These mother fuckers will stoop to nothing in achieving their goals. At no means necessary!!!
 

ronmch20

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Hmm, I wonder what we would think of this "advice" if it came from anyone other than Karl Rove? :hmm:
 

kesq

Rising Star
Platinum Member
That first article was prescient. It my have been stuff that was obvious to a political professional, but it was right nonetheless.

I don't think that rove is always right , but when he is, he is.
My favorite point was:

[Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand.]

Not always appropriate, but in this context, I think so. I often tell clients that the hardest thing about trials is knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Seems that campaigning is similar.


Case in point:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rweVOO-fhug&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rweVOO-fhug&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
 

Zero

Star
Registered
Hmm, I wonder what we would think of this "advice" if it came from anyone other than Karl Rove? :hmm:

I have a crackhead cousin that will lull you to sleep with all of his kind and wise words, then he'll break in your house, load YOUR car with all of YOUR stuff and sell ALL of it for $500 worth of crack. It worked on his grandmother, mother, aunts and uncles the first FEW times, but eventually, they got wise to him.

Lets call him Karl for the sake of this argument.
 

ronmch20

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I have a crackhead cousin that will lull you to sleep with all of his kind and wise words, then he'll break in your house, load YOUR car with all of YOUR stuff and sell ALL of it for $500 worth of crack. It worked on his grandmother, mother, aunts and uncles the first FEW times, but eventually, they got wise to him.

Lets call him Karl for the sake of this argument.
We all know Rove is a duplicitous snake, but in this case he makes some salient points. The fact that these winning strategy tips were coming from him I kept trying to find a reason to disagree with them. But the messenger aside, the message seems to make sense, at least in my opinion. :hmm:
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Karl Rove Advice to Obama Part II

<font size="5"><center>
Obama's New Vulnerability</font size></center>



ED-AH118_rove_20080220181333.jpg



The Wall Street Journal
By KARL ROVE
February 21, 2008; Page A17

In campaigns, there are sometimes moments when candidates shift ground, causing the race to change dramatically. Tuesday night was one of those moments.

Hammered for the 10th contest in a row, Hillary Clinton toughened her attacks on Barack Obama, saying he was unready to be commander in chief and unable to back his inspiring words with a record of action and leadership.

John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."

Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.

Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.


Obama Has Pivoted - Away from the Center - Making him Vulnerable

Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.

Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.

The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.

These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama's credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left.

In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.

The road to the presidency just got steeper for Barack Obama, and all because he pivoted on Tuesday night.

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120355939956381797.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
 

nyyyyce

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Karl Rove Advice to Obama Part II

I am sorry. This was an emotional gut reaction. I am just tired of everyone who has F'ed this country royally not being imprisoned, making a profit and still having some type of influence on the minds of people. He may be a brilliant tactician, but he is a deceiver, manipulative and a criminal IMO.
 
Top