Why are Karl Rove and the Neocons Endorsing Barack Obama?
18 December 2007 5:19 pm by Taylor Marsh
Remember when Karl Rove made his media blitz after leaving the Bush White House? Remember Rove’s advice to Obama in the Financial Times?
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. … ..… .. 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.… .. 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… ..
Karl Rove’s advice came on December 2nd.
It was followed by his aide, Peter Wehner’s column, Riding
the Obama Wave, on December 14th.
… .. Beyond that is Clinton Fatigue, which exists even among some Democrats.
It is the sense people have that they don’t want to return to the psychodrama
of the Clinton years, the turbulence of their personal lives, and the Clinton
“war room” mentality. The ease with which they seek out and destroy
political opponents and those whom they believe stand in the way of their
ambitions – whether they are women Bill Clinton has had affairs with or independent
counsels or other candidates – is wearying (to say nothing of deeply troubling
and Nixonian).Sidney Blumenthal and his conspiracy brand of politics and Paul Begala and
his scorched-earth rhetoric seem so yesterday.The support for Obama, on the other hand, is more spontaneous, genuine, and
intense. His call to turn the page on the politics of the past has resonance,
in part because he seems to fit the message so well. Obama comes across as
likeable, civil, grounded, and not reflexively partisan (even though he might
well be). He has undeniable star power. And if he wins early, the pieces are
in place for him to keep winning. … ..
Now today, we have David Brooks writing a column that is so glowing it had
me scratching my head, as I simultaneously checked my gag reflex. That’s
when it’s always good to have a friend with whom to chat. It didn’t take long
before my own questions crystallized into a THIS ISN’T ALL BY ACCIDENT moment.
From Brooks:
If Clinton were running against Obama for Senate, it would be easy to choose
between them.But they are running for president, and the presidency requires a different
set of qualities. Presidents are buffeted by sycophancy, criticism and betrayal.
They must improvise amid a thousand fluid crises. They’re isolated and
also exposed, puffed up on the outside and hollowed out within. With the presidency,
character and self-knowledge matter more than even experience. There are reasons
to think that, among Democrats, Obama is better prepared for this madness.
… ..… .. But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does
not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of
this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain
of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to
Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force,
that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing
instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each
individual. … ..
I smell a smoke filled room.
December has been quite a month for Republicans and Barack, with Karl Rove, his aide Peter
Wehner, and now David Brooks, all in a swoon over Obama; either giving advice
to the Democratic personality candidate, or singing his praises while ticking
off how horrible Hillary Clinton would be for Democrats. Isn’t it nice that
Rove and the neocons are all so concerned… about us.
Now consider Obama’s policy positions, or lack thereof, which I’ve been covering for months, with
SusanUnPC
over at Larry Johnson’s NoQuarter focusing on one red meat wingnut issue that
will certainly make the wingnuts greatest hits if Obama is our candidate. The issue
is “live birth abortion,” on which Barack Obama voted “present” (video link added)
when in the Illinois Senate. Why will this matter? SusanUnPC:
Like most Americans and the Democratic presidential candidates, I am pro-choice
although I believe the first defense against unwanted pregnancy, and STDs,
is prevention. … ..There is a compelling moral exception: A fetus born alive during
an abortion becomes an infant, and shouldn’t be left for hours or days
to die without medical care, a practice in some U.S. hospitals.Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama differ markedly in their voting records
on the live birth of an aborted infant. As an Illinois state senator, Obama
“joined several other Democrats in voting ‘present’ in 2001
and ‘no’ the next year,” reports A.P./CBS News in “Obama
Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics — Eight Years As State Senator Were
Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control.” [UPDATE:
An expert on the voting history e-mailed me to tell me that Obama's
proper vote would have been no, rather than present, because the Illinois
bill didn't provide for an exception to save the life of a mother.]During the same two years, as a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton joined the
98-0 vote in the U.S. Senate on a 2001 amendment to the Patients Bill of Rights
that protected “infants who are born alive.” In 2002, a House
bill that protected infants born alive was passed by unanimous consent in
the U.S. Senate — with Sen. Clinton joining the “Yeas” —
and was signed into law.If you think what Karl Rove did to John McCain in South Carolina’s
2000 primary was brutal, just imagine what the GOP will do with Obama’s
“present” and “no” votes on “live birth abortion.”
… ..
Read the rest of SusanUnPC’s
post, because there is a lot more in it than what I’ve excerpted above.
Barack Obama stands far outside any Democratic general election candidate, because
in the case of a live infant born from an abortion, instead of coming to this
helpless infant’s defense, Mr. Obama voted “present.” Via SusanUnPC:
With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn’t
have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can
frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are
sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and
gun control votes. …
Yeah, Obama’s handgun ban will be a delicious treat for the wingnuts.
This scurrilous comment by Ann Coulter is just a teaser.
No wonder Karl Rove is giving Obama advice; his aide is running down Clinton;
with David Brooks drooling over the possibility of such a personality as
Obama becoming the Democratic nominee.
And now Barack Obama and his attack lines are the opening act in a virulently
anti Hillary film by David Bossie. He’s just one of the gang hell bent on taking her out, if for very different reasons.
Meanwhile, in Republican back rooms everywhere, the wolves see a lamb coming to slaughter and they’re licking their
chops.
