As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: Karl Rove

Rove: Yes, Republicans Have a Chance to Keep the House

President Trump, as you well know, needs Republicans to keep the House in order to keep from being impeached. Like, the House sits in January and impeaches by February. Not just that, but with a Democratic House, he will remain under constant investigation by Democrats and the press long after Mueller wraps up his probe.

Assuming Mueller wraps up his probe.

Contradicting the media narrative that Republicans basically lost in the Ohio special election even though THEY WON the Ohio special election, Karl Rove writes today in the Wall Street Journal that the victory held some positive portents for the GOP.

Republicans won because Mr. Balderson was a good candidate and because his rival, Democrat Danny O’Connor, ended up embracing Nancy Pelosi. But the victory was also a GOP team effort. President Trump carried the district by 11 points and held a rally there last weekend; Trump critic John Kasich, who represented the district in Congress before becoming governor, endorsed Mr. Balderson; the Paul Ryan-associated Congressional Leadership Fund spent $3.3 million; and the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party mounted a massive get-out-the-vote effort.

While Republicans can’t mount this gigantic an effort in every race this fall, neither can Democrats, who were left claiming a moral victory for coming very close to taking an open Republican seat. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Rove acknowledges a tough road for the GOP, but then writes:

The good news for Republicans is that in 36 of these 50 most vulnerable GOP districts, Republican incumbents are seeking re-election, most with strong district ties and name identification and more cash on hand than their Democratic opponents. Incumbency doesn’t matter in special elections, but it will loom large in the fall.

The bottom line: While Republicans will certainly lose House seats in November, they have a fighting chance to keep their majority. They must re-elect almost all of their 36 incumbents whose districts are R+7 or less, put special effort into the eight open seats rated toss-ups or lean Republican and whose PVI is even or tilts Republican, and go hard after the handful of open Democratic seats that lean Republican.

Here is Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire noting the media’s biased coverage of the Ohio race. Did winning mean nothing for Republicans? Kinda, sorta fake newsy, you know?

Ex-Bush Aide: Rove Raising Issue of Hillary’s Health

Republican strategist Nicole Wallace, who as communications director worked closely with Karl Rove in the Bush White House, said today that Rove was intentionally planting seeds to make Hillary’s health as an issue in the 2016 campaign by bringing up the blood clot she suffered in December 2012.

Karl did not raise the issue by accident. I worked with and for Karl for a long time. This was a deliberate strategy on his part to raise her health as an issue and, I think in his view, a legitimate line of questioning ahead of the next campaign. What’s interesting to me, and doesn’t seem to be in line with Karl, is that he had some of the facts wrong. She wasn’t in the hospital for 30 days.

Listen, this sounded pretty off the wall to me, but I worked for John McCain. His health was a question and issue every day of the campaign.

According to the New York Post, Rove told a conference:

Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.

Rove today asserted, “I didn’t say she had brain damage” but added that her health “will be an issue in the 2016 race whether she likes it or not.”

Clinton will be 69 years old on Inauguration Day 2016.

Video || Nice Rove-Plouffe Smackdown

Thought you might want to see this nasty little spat between the two premier political operators of the last 20 years, Democrat David Plouffe and Republican Karl Rove. Both elected and then reelected presidents, Plouffe of course handling the Obama portfolio while Rove batted for Bush.

The tussle is over the IRS targeting of conservatives. “This was not a political pursuit,” says Plouffe.

“Baloney,” retorts Rove. Nice to see an Obama flacker called on his spin in less-than-impolite and unambiguous terms.

Rove: Romney 285, Obama 253

Political strategist Karl Rove, who is working to elect Gov. Mitt Romney through his SuperPac American Crossroads, gives Romney a narrow win in the Electoral College, 285-253.

His prediction actually resembles the one I put out Monday. We both give Romney Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Ohio.

But I also forecast Romney wins in Nevada, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Of these three states, Roves writes:

While I put them in Mr. Obama’s column, I still believe NV, WI, and PA are in play and very winnable for Mr. Romney.  If crowds at his recent stops in these states are any indication of his supporters’ enthusiasm, Mr. Romney will likely be able to claim victory in these states as well.

One note of caution with Rove. He is one of the most knowledgeable political observers in the country and helped elect George W. Bush twice. But I still remember, when covering the White House in 2006, that Rove was boisterously certain that Republicans would retain the House. Instead, Democrats swept back into control.

Nevertheless, as a veteran of two presidential campaigns who knows every county in the nation, and as something of a genius – he’ll probably admit this if pressed just a little bit – okay, maybe if not even pressed at all – Rove’s predictions should not be taken lightly.

Rove: It’s Worse for Obama than it Looks

Karl Rove has penned an interesting piece today on why President Obama’s chances may look worse than the polls suggest. If its true, surely the Obama campaign people know it.

Rove describes a number of statistics that suggest that if Obama and Romney are close in the polls, Romney wins. He finds:

  • Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats;
  • The small minority of Republicans who backed Obama in 2008 have gotten over the novelty and are likely to return to the fold;
  • The majority of independents who supported Obama is likely to erode or turn into a majority for Romney;
  • Seniors, who backed John McCain, will go in even bigger numbers for Romney;
  • Segments who were wild for Obama, like the Hispanics, young people, and even blacks, are less likely to appear at their polling stations in 2012.

Romney will still have to offer something to inspire people, according to Rove, which is the point I was making below about Obama’s failed opportunity before the NAACP Wednesday.

Still, Romney isn’t home free. To win 270 Electoral College votes, he will have to keep Republicans energized, increase his support among independents, seniors and the middle class, and make inroads among Hispanics and young voters. To do that, he will need to do much more than just criticize Mr. Obama’s many failures.

The closer Nov. 6 gets, the more pressure there will be on the GOP challenger to offer a principled, practical, detailed governing vision.

If Romney’s campaign plays it safe, they may squander the numerous chances he has been given to find pathways to win.

Gibbs: Attacks on the Chamber Will Continue

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today asserted that suggestions by President Obama that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using foreign money to fund political attack ads will continue, despite the conclusion by an independent website that there is no evidence this is happening.

Gibbs spoke this morning at the the off-camera White House gaggle.

The president will continue to make this argument . . . We don’t know where this money comes from.”

Gibbs said it “doesn’t bother me at all” that Politifact has come down against Obama. The website labeled the claim a “half-truth” and noted the Chamber had denied it.

“At least we’re giving you half the truth, Gibbs said.

Well, he didn’t say that, but he might as well have. Gibbs also mocked Karl Rove, who has also been in the White House cross hairs, and who has decided to take the bait by responding and giving Obama & Crew yet more grist for their attacks.

Rove said Obama has a Nixon-style enemies list. Gibbs today impishly held up a blank piece of paper, saying it was indeed Obama’s enemies list, and demanded to see the donors list to Rove’s political group, American Crossroads.

But White House Dossier believes Rove may be correct, since he had his own lengthy enemies list while in the White House and presumably knows what they look like.

Malkin: How Rove Helped Set the Table for Obama

Interesting post here by Michelle Malkin slamming and sending up Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson’s defense of his political daddy, Karl Rove, who of course is in hot water with the tea party for opposing Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware Senate GOP primary. Rove, Gerson instructs, is an “adult,” while people like the Tea Partiers and Malkin, whom he names, are children.

Malkin puts together a list of Bush and Rove’s conservative apostasies, many presumably inspired by political needs identified by Gerson’s daddy. From her post:

Oh, yes, Mr. Gerson. Yes, please school us more about Rove’s storied accomplishments. We will sit quietly with our hands folded at our desks while you regale us with tales of Master Rove’s “actual” post-election “achievements.”

You know, like the disastrous Medicare prescription drug entitlement expansion that created an unfunded liability of $9.4 trillion over the next 75 years, No Child Left Behind federal education expansion, steel tariffs, ag subsidies, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and the Bush-Kennedy-McCain illegal alien amnesty attempt.

I would add to this list the “ownership society” that was Bush’s own contribution to Democratic efforts to put people in houses they couldn’t afford and bring about the Great Recession.

In a priceless phrase, she accuses Bush of “pre-socializing the economy for Barack Obama.”

Rove and Gerson were big boosters of the childish term “Compassionate Conservatism,” an attempt to provide Bush with his own sort of Clintonish “Third Way,” “New Democrat” philosophy.

It really caught on  – for example, the huge and expanding House Compassionate Conservative Caucus that you find today in Congress.

Yes, that’s a joke.

The term had to come as a shock to at least some conservatives who thought their philosophy was already compassionate and perhaps weren’t keenly aware until Rove, Gerson and Bush told them that moderate  Republicans also thought they were a bunch of jerks, which is what’s implied by the phrase.

But conservatives took the insult it because Master Rove wanted it and they wanted power. And they got it – along with the pre-socializing of the economy.