In the last debate, Sen. Clinton declared that Obama is a flip-flopper, saying among other things that he changed his mind on the PATRIOT act. This is a deeply misleading claim. For more info on Obama’s record here, read this (summary: he did everything you would expect a reasonable opponent of the PATRIOT act to do).
Inconsistency is, of course, fair game in politics (so long as we recognize that reasonable people will change opinions from time to time). But *false *inconsistency based on complicated Senate votes used to prove some sort of character weakness is straight Rove.
Fortunately, in my eyes, it won’t work this time. Anyone that actually cares about the PATRIOT Act knows that Hillary supported and voted it in its original incarnation. It seems to me that reminding the voters of her mistake is unlikely to be a successful strategy.
I’m willing to recognize that I might just be biased here. But I’d appreciate if someone would point out where I’ve gone wrong in my reasoning above. Is this right out of the Rove manual? Will it work?
I personally would save the adjective ‘Rovian’ for things like the push-poll that suggested that McCain’s Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. Misrepresenting an opponent’s position isn’t quite up to that level IMHO. Still reprehensible horseshit, but simply not “worthy” of the Rove label.
Based on what the polls are saying in New Hampshire right now? No. And if it doesn’t work there I don’t know if what she says will matter.
I agree that this isn’t Rovian, whatever that means. (I’ve said many times that I think his genius is seriously overrated.) It’s just run of the mill dishonesty.
Mark Penn, Hillary’s pollster/political adviser, is an old hand at this sort of thing. However, things look bleak for Penn if she loses NH…word is that the Big Dog is out for blood at the way Penn’s been mishandling things…
Note that I’m not saying that the strategy so far has been Rovian. It’s not. But it is dishonest and fairly dirty and vintage Penn.
Clinton is an average politician. She’s willing to distort the truth if it serves her agenda.
Karl Rove is complete scum. He’s not only willing but eager to do anything, no matter how immoral, to advance his political master. If Rove had lived in the Soviet Union in 1936, he would have been helping Stalin make lists for the purges. In Germany in 1940, Rove would have been telling Himmler how he could kill more Jews. In China in 1966, he would have been urging Mao towards the Cultural Revolution. And in Afghanistan in 1999, he would have been helping Mohammed Omar to persecute women.
Fair enough. But when used in the context of Senate votes and in such a misleading way it was very reminiscent of everything the dems complained about in 2004. That was my real gripe. I was just using Rove as shorthand.
I’ve seen waffle breakfasts served by rival candidates to highlight flip-flopping of opponents for years before Rove. Not that Rove didn’t use the tactic (not the actual baking of waffles), but by itself it’s not enough to be Rovian.
Misrepresenting a rival’s stance on a bill that you yourself voted the same way on? Getting there.
Perhaps. But if Rove was in fact responsible for the push polling and the vile innuendo surrounding McCain in the South Carolina primary, then there is no pit of hell deep enough for him. Has there ever been conclusive evidence linking him to the push poll?
I don’t like Karl Rove. Let’s be clear, though, about what is Rovian. He is a tremendously skilled and effective strategist, and he has revised the rules for competition. Those who feel that they are too good to play Karl’s game will lie bleeding beside the road. People vote for the candidates who fight the Rove way.
Attack the other guy’s strength. Find the greatest reason to vote for the opponent, and tear it to shreds, ruthlessly and relentlessly.
Preload the atmosphere with fear, lots of it.
Always paint the opponent as unpatriotic and scary. Don’t give him the chance to define himself. You define him, and keep him on the defensive.
When it’s necessary to shamelessly lie about the opponent, get someone else to do it. Have a wealthy supporter set up a legal organization to smear the other guy with no regard for truth or honor. When your guy is asked about it, he has no connection to them. He’d like them to stop, but he has no communication with them. Technically, it’s true. After the damage is done, call for a clean, honest campaign. Any counter-attacks will look dirty.
That’s the Rovian way. If you want to win, it’s the way. You may notice, I’m speaking in the present tense. Karl Rove is out there working for somebody. He didn’t resign to spend more time with his family. He’s working to elect the next Republican president.
I have to question this. The problem with being Karl Rove is that eventually you get a reputation for being Karl Rove. His freshness date has expired. Any candidate who associated his or herself with Rove now is basically conceding they have no ethics.
His tactics are still around. There are consultants out there who are coming up with the same ideas as Rove did. But they haven’t become known for this yet so they still have plausible deniability.
It isn’t hard to be involved in a campaign and still remain off the books. C’mon, this is Karl Rove we’re talking about. He’s the guy who made e-mails disappear while talking sweet and clear. He’s a master of doing things around the back way, and the enforcers are all on his side. Technically, he knew nothing about the smearboaters, and nobody has pinned him to that.
Actual proof? No. But an assumption of guilt? Tons. If any candidate let Rove anywhere near their campaign, we’d all assume he was doing something evil even if all he did was sharpen pencils and make copies. And the less we could catch him doing anything wrong, the more we’d assume he was doing something big and secretive.