Karl Rove talks to RedState about last night
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I just had a great conversation with Karl Rove about Iowa and the elections. He says a lot of interesting things. Two big bullet points up front, though, were that he says, "My gut tells me its still Hillary," as far as the Democratic nominee and across the board "Don't make a determination about the nominee based on Iowa." He referenced Bob Dole's effort in 1988 to drive the point home.
I spent most of my time talking about the Democrats with him. I asked him about Hillary now being vulnerable and the inevitability quotient. He agreed that she's going to need something new besides inevitability. Rove also said he thought Hillary gave a good, positive speech last night, but the set up was bad. She had Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and Wes Clark on stage -- not exactly a message of change, he pointed out.
We turned to New Hampshire and I asked him about independent voters. A lot of people are now speculating that McCain might be hurt because of independent voters going to the Democratic primary to support Obama. "I'd be scared if I were Hillary and concerned if I were McCain," he said. But he also said people don't need to equate what independents do in the primary with what they do in the general election -- particularly independents in New Hampshire, who really want to be a part of the primary process.
Read on . . .
On the Republican side, we talked about the core issue for Republican voters. It was not quite what I was expecting. To Karl Rove, the issue that will determine who gets the Republican nominee is "fidelity to core principles," or who is the most faithful conservative. He said it will make things a lot easier for the Democrats who have a "binary decision" to make — do they want Hillary or not. On the Republican side, our voters are going through a laundry list of issues to see who is the most consistently conservative guy on a host of issues.
Iraq, according to Rove, will continue to be an issue, though Democrats are probably going to want to talk about it less and less. Nonetheless, Iraq goes straight to security issues and regardless of who the Democratic nominee is and who the Republican nominee is, we're going to have a Republican who supports the PATRIOT Act and the terrorist surveillance program and a Democrat opposed to both. He admitted this means he thinks Ron Paul won't be the nominee. At the end of the day, Rove thinks Americans are still going to go for the nominee they think will keep them safe.
I did ask him about two other issues. First, I asked him what he's up to now that he is out of the White House. He's writing a lot — a book, a column for Newsweek, etc. He's also giving speeches and doing some "political stuff under the radar."
Second, I asked him about the immigration issue and the Republican party. He was very forceful on the issue. He said the GOP must be "very careful about mishandling the issue." It's not enough, according to Karl Rove, for the GOP to be about national security on the issue. Just building the wall won't work and throwing everyone out the country isn't going to happen, he points out rightly. Rove said we know that a "vast number of Americans are in favor of denying drivers licenses for illegal aliens," but they also understand that there are other facets to the issue.
He said the GOP needs to do two things: (1) the party must be practical on the issue and (2) the party must get the facts right. He pointed out that the Bush administration has rounded up and returned 1.3 million illegal aliens arrested at the border. The administration also ended the decades old "catch and release" policy back in July of 2006. Likewise, the administration reduced the time it takes to deport someone from 93 days down to 19 days with a goal of 15 days.
Unless we get our facts right, we're not going to have credibility on this issue.
Rove is definitely engaged and paying attention to the race from the sidelines. He's also an optimist on the GOP's chances. Frankly, its reassuring to me that a guy like Rove is not out of the game, but working under the radar. Liberals should still be worried.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | New Type of Analysis on the Iowa Results — Comments (51) »
Karl Rove talks to RedState about last night 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We have Karl Rove confirmation.
We'll see how McCain does in New Hampshire now that he'll have to rely on nothing but the votes of Republicans. My guess is he won't do very well.
I think non-Republicans can vote in the NH GOP primary, can't they?
But your point is still a good one: sooner or later, the GOP will pick its candidate. And that is why it won't be McCain.
That's the point. A lot of indys who might have voted for McCain will now be voting for Obama. If Hillary had won big in Iowa they might have given up on Obama and voted for McCain. That's the theory at least, as I understand it. A lot of McCain's support came from outside registered Republicans in 2000.
Oh, I get it now. The 'they can't be in 2 places at once' thing.
Yes, that'll help. But in the end, the other party will never be able to pick party x's candidate. Not until open primaries are de rigeur everywhere. And at that point, as I have said elsewhere, 2 parties can play that stupid game. The Dems might end up running Lieberman.
...but they'll be voting in the Democratic Primary for Obama instead of in the GOP primary for McCain.
If both McCain and Obama need, let's say, 60% of the independent vote to win their respective contests and they split it 50/50, they both lose.
I notice the similarites between MA Gov. Patrick's campaign and Obama's, focusing on the message of hope and change. Well,I know some of my neighboring NH citizens paid attention to his platform and they now see how awful Patrick is. Hopefully they will use that knowledge, to make the distinction that running a campaign based on hope and change, and having little experience will lead to no results (i.e. Patrick). Message to Independents is to stick to experience and leadership, not great sounding rhetoric.
Before you get to heaven, you must go through hell, which in my case is the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
He's not perfect, but he is smart. I suspect that he'll get smarter as Bush gets out of office and Karl feels the need to defend less and less of what he was a part of.
I've heard him speak in person a couple times. His brain is unreal.
Don't kid yourselves, guys. KR wasn't just a 'part of it'; he designed it and maintained it, though not always to his own liking, but for for the most part it's as much his legacy as it is W's...from what I could tell, anyway. Karl got out when he could no longer hold things together under a cohesive framework that he preferred, sort of like a parent letting go of their child when they realize they have to let them make their own mistakes and find their own way.
As for the primaries, Karl makes some good points, but he's just being a good team player when he sticks with Hillary as the Dem nominee. For my money it's probably wishful thinking and he probably knows it. I think she's doomed for a host of reasons - not the least of which is that Obama managed to actually DO what so many also-rans tried and failed at: get those independents and new voters and young voters to the polls. The numbers were telling: indies, first-timers, and younguns spiked turnout far beyond expectations and broke HUGE for Obama, with Edwards also picking up a lot of scraps from Richardson, Dodds, and the other non-viables. Hillary isn't gonna get extras beyond her poll #s. Her support is static.
I suppose we'll know more after Saturday's debate and Tuesday's vote, but if the speeches last night are any indication of what's coming, she's toast. Momentum is gonna be the deciding factor for the Dems; pragmatism will be ours, and as such I think McCain is in the best position right now. I think Mitt's done. That was horrible showing for a guy who's spent so much effort and money just to get his foot in the door, and to me constitutes a total rejection by the rank and file. And as much as I still like Fred, he's just not inspiring anyone in significant enough numbers and I really don't think he has it in him to go the distance. I also don't believe the indie vote in NH will necessarily run away to the Dems and gut McCain's support now; if they do, I wouldn't consider it a good thing, whether Mitt wins or not.
Love him or loathe him, Johnny Mac is probably our best chance to take this thing without Hillary, and I think we need to start making contingencies for life without her on the ballot in November. I think Huck will flame out but I also think he'll jump on board with the team when all's said and done.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
I don't know about it being just as much Karl's legacy as W's. Don't let the constant media barrage lead you into believeing that Bush is just an idiot who is being used by evil people (Rove & Cheney). It's still Bush's presidency and he is the one who makes the final decisions. Not a criticism by the way, just a friendly reminder, it happens to me too, it's hard to avoid when the media has been saying it day in and day out for almost 8 years.
My assessment of Rove's importance has zero to do with the media's and everything to do with my own involvement and experience with campaigns and people in this neck of the woods. I do not parrot the 'Bush's Brain' nonsense, or any such claptrap about W being an 'idiot' or being a puppet for 'evil people'.
I just happen to understand how important Rove's management abilities were, both to Bush's campaigns and his work as the POTUS. It's not a knock on Bush to say that he had one of the best strategists and managers in all of politics. In fact it's impossible to be a chief executive without such a right hand. Of course Bush was his own man and made his own decisions, but Karl was there to guide him every step of the way, show him what worked and what didn't, lay out a plan to accomplish his goals, and shape both the letter and spirit of the administration's policies (in Texas and Washington). Being a gov or president is less of a one-man gig than many like to believe - and thank god, because nobody on earth can do what we ask of our leaders without serious help.
To that extent, Karl was part and parcel of the administration and it's legacy (whatever history bequeaths to it). You don't have to be an 'evil genius' to be influential and powerful - (KR would probably wink and say 'No, but it sure helps if they think you are!')
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
Last I heard, McCain was actually doing quite well with GOP voters, and not just with independent voters, so I would not count him out because of the excitement on the Dem side.
Karl Rove is a smart guy, but give me a break about his great and all powerful "brain." He would be far more impressive to me if he 1)had prepared Bush adequately for debates in 2000 and 2004, 2) hadn't spent money on CA in 2000, and 3) hadn't attempted to hide the dui in 2000.
To quote from George Costanza, please excuse me from criticizing the "delicate genius."
I gotta agree with most of what Texas Bob said...Hillary on the ballot was probably our only shot of winning this election cycle. The proof seems to be in how all the pundits (Rush, Hannity, Rove) are trying very hard to ignore HOW Obama won as opposed to the fact that he won and how Iowa is fool's gold. The kind of margin and internals he pulled indeed are foreshadowing of a 'change' election. McCain may be unpalatable to I was a Fred guy until I read Jay Cost this morning...he's almmost of us but he's the only one that might be able to pull enough indys to win in the general. I was a Fredhead until I read Jay Cost this morning. He's pretty certain his candidacy is over. It'll be intersting to see if the Fred-McCain rumors hold any water...
Braden,
If you look back at Jay Cost's blog.. he retracts that statement. So it is pretty obvious that this was more of Jay being "taken" by Politico's hit piece on Thompson rather than Jay's own analysis or inside sources.
Additionally... consider this... if there is a split convention and no one candidate has a majority, Fred could still win in that environment (even without near a plurality going in the convention since his "negatives" are so low compared the other candidates)...so every additional delegate for Fred only helps.
Also, in a split convention, I would trust the judgement of the average Fred delegate over the average of anyone else's delegates. Why? Because a Fred delegate was uncompromising on all areas of conservative principles and is looking for a candidate with a proven track record. So even if Fred doesn't get the nomination "outright", in a split convention, a Fred delegate only helps ensure that we get the best possible candidate. (But, again, I have high hopes that Fred will do quite well in S.C and in February.)
For these reasons, I'm sticking with Fred just about no matter what happens. (If there were another good across-the-board conservative with a long-proven track record, things would be different for me.. that there isn't one... so that makes this decision all the easier!)
"I would trust the judgement of the average Fred delegate over the average of anyone else's delegates. Why? Because a Fred delegate was uncompromising on all areas of conservative principles and is looking for a candidate with a proven track record. So even if Fred doesn't get the nomination "outright", in a split convention, a Fred delegate only helps ensure that we get the best possible candidate. (But, again, I have high hopes that Fred will do quite well in S.C and in February.)"
This quote is pure genius. Agreed!!!
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George S. Patton
A split convention where no candidate goes in with a majority is a huge possibility! And, frankly, just about all the delegates loath ALL the other candidates but their own candidate... with the one exception being that Fred Thompson is the only one well liked (or at least acceptable) to the other candidate's delegates. So, even in a worst case scenario, I think Fred has a great chance in a split convention where no one arrives with a majority of the delegates.
no longer has so much government interference in its use? I need to get a tinfoil hat now...
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up