Posted on 02/21/2008 4:39:21 AM PST by OnRiver
John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people." Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue. Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
DOW JONES REPRINTS
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit: www.djreprints.com.
• See a sample reprint in PDF format. • Order a reprint of this article now.
Obama's New Vulnerability By KARL ROVE February 21, 2008; Page A17
In campaigns, there are sometimes moments when candidates shift ground, causing the race to change dramatically. Tuesday night was one of those moments.
Hammered for the 10th contest in a row, Hillary Clinton toughened her attacks on Barack Obama, saying he was unready to be commander in chief and unable to back his inspiring words with a record of action and leadership.
John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."
Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.
Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.
Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.
Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.
Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.
Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.
The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.
These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama's credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.
Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left.
In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.
The road to the presidency just got steeper for Barack Obama, and all because he pivoted on Tuesday night.
Good article. Thanks for posting it. These are my big concerns.
—Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama’s declaration he won’t be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama’s laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.—
A certain Miss Iceman just tossed that argument out the window.
—Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama’s lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama’s statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration — and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate.—
Unlike the charmless, cold-blooded Hillary (and the daft,cranky McCain), Obama radiates charisma, the kind of charisma that often makes people forget they actually oppose him on some issues. That goes a long way. I think Rove (AKA the architecht of 2006) is whistling past the graveyard.
Hmm, pretty good. Ok, score one for McCain's speechwriter.
McCain and Hill came in too late with too little on this. Obama has already got sheeple swooning for him and that's not going to change.
What do you mean “big concerns”? Concerns over what?
The general election will play out on a very different field.
Great editorial, but I’m not sure I agree with Rove about the ease of fighting someone with a far-left agenda. Most of the American people are dependents of the welfare state in one way or another.
End of story
Nice post, but please, someone should tell the author, who has obviously given this a great deal of thought that the average “American” voter is no where near sophisticated enough to grasp any of this. They vote on the basis of knee jerk emotional reactionism, not on the basis of intellectually sound analysis. Frankly, the whole process has broken down and has become an international embarrasment because the parties no longer function as they should. The candidates aren’t properly vetted by their respective party organizations before being allowed to run, thus, as the election season draws on the candidates are vetted in public and found to be ethically, morally, and intellectually challenged. And all before a throng of drooling, mindless enthusiasts. The only sound fix to this is to shorten the campaign season to 60 days and to pass laws holding the Parties and their operatives financially responsible for properly vetting and promoting a candidate for office. As things stand now, there’s no accountability in the system and to say that ultimate accountability is in the hands of the voters is somewhat like suggesting that the Chimps in a bus carreening off a cliff are responsible for the accident.
Obama has already got sheeple swooning for him and that’s not going to change.
That’s his base. The electorate won’t even start paying attention for months. Plenty of time to deconstruct his record. I also believe Hillary will do most of that for us. She’s not going to lay down and quit.
I think you've hit on an extremely uncomfortable reality especially for conservatives who promote self-reliance and personal responsibility. We have two political parties that exist only to pass out candy. And then we have conservatives shouting - "no soup for you". And we're surprised that nobody wants to listen?
The GOP is the “angry daddy” to the Dems’ “frigid mommy”.
A foriegn policy experience point: back in 1992, at least Bill Clinton could say he had called out the Akansas National Guard to quell a prison riot. MommaObama can’t even claim that!
No thanks. I think less Gov't is the answer - not more Gov't.
Karl Rove - still magnificent!
And opposing candidates have been given practically gift-wrapped strategies, lets see where they go with these.
Excellent article.
If he had he been the architect of 2006 the left would not have highjacked the agenda.
McCain, never popular with conservatives, must first answer several questions himself: Allegations of a close relationship with a lobbyist and questions about a $ 4 million loan violating FEC rules. The NYT is going ahead with its reports about an affair even though the lobbyist and McCain say, 'Nothing ever happened.'
“fridged Mommy”??? I think not!
The Dems are “Mommy” only if “Mommy” is a drunken junkie slut who kills babies and molests children, while making them stay home from school to work the streets for her beer and drug money..and every once in a while brings home a dozen picked over doughnuts for them to eat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.