It’s very tempting to just ignore Karl Rove and his occasional assessments of the political landscape. After all, as we’ve discussed before, his “genius” has always been wildly exaggerated, particularly when it comes to electoral strategy. On Election Day 2000, it was Rove’s idea to keep his candidate in California in the waning days, instead of campaigning in key battleground states. Bush lost California by a wide margin, and Rove’s strategy practically cost his candidate the election. More recently, Rove’s single recent responsibility was overseeing the Republican Party’s 2006 election strategy — and Dems won back both chambers of Congress in a historic victory.
But Rove’s reputation as the president’s “architect” continues to endure, most notably in conservative circles, so when he offers his take on what’s likely to happen in this year’s presidential campaign , it’s probably worth taking note. At a minimum, if Rove believes it, chances are much of the Republican establishment does to.
Yesterday, Rove told a group of state Republican officials at the RNC’s winter meeting that he sees the path to beating either of the Dems’ top two candidates in November. First up, Hillary Clinton.
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.
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.”
And then, Barack Obama.
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.”
Now, I don’t doubt that Rove would probably keep what he sees as his most damaging attacks close to his chest, but the man the president calls “Turd Blossom” also has a record of being rather candid about election strategies. He’s sometimes reminded me of a football coach who tells the other team what play he’s going to call and then dares them to stop it.
If that’s the case, I have to say, I’m pretty underwhelmed. His case against Clinton includes warmed-over GOP talking points, and an odd attack about secrecy. (It’s ironic that Rove would accuse anyone of trying to hide documents from public scrutiny, and more importantly, the substance of his attack is plainly false.)
As for Obama, Rove’s case is equally weak. The “present” flap is largely nonsense, and accusing Obama of being a “liberal” is about as cliche as conservative attacks get.
Ultimately, I’m left hoping, once again, that Republicans take Rove’s guidance seriously, precisely because his strategy appears ineffective.
Last month, it was Rove imploring Republican presidential candidates to cozy up to Bush and his presidency. This month, it’s Rove arguing that every candidate in the GOP presidential field can beat every Democrat.
If Dems are really lucky, Republicans will continue to take Rove seriously.