Skip to comments.Republicans warn against 2016 strategy that goes overboard on attacking Clintons' political past
Posted on 02/16/2014 12:31:34 PM PST by jimbo123
Former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove on Sunday cautioned Republicans against a 2016 presidential election strategy that focuses too much on the political history of potential Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Rove told Fox News Sunday he was uncertain whether revisiting Clinton and husband Bill Clintons years in the White House would help Republicans win the presidency.
It may, said Rove, now a Fox News contributor. But the trouble for Republicans is its easier to say what youre against than what you are for.
Republicans have tried to knock down a Clinton candidacy essentially since she resigned from her post in February 2013 as secretary of state.
And the campaign appears to have increased in recent weeks with the publication of historical, academic documents portraying her as ruthless and Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul questioning whether former President Clinton should be allowed to return to the White House, considering his behavior with intern Monica Lewinsky.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yeah, that strategy worked great for McCain and Romney.
"A picture is worth ten thousand words.."
So, the failed spineless strategy that helped the Dems in the last election will win the next one?
Of course he is right. You can’t win by actually ATTACKING your opponent. (SARCASM)
Yet every casual observer will tell you that both McCain and Romney lost because they failed to attack Obama on anything whatsoever, essentially giving him a free ride with the low/no information voters who decide such contests.
Follow the looser Rove. Sounds like a great strategy!
One need simply repeat the facts of Dem governance. If that’s an attack, so be it.
Game, set and match for Dems. Nice guys finish dead last.
The distinction that Rove is making . . . oh, just forget it. No point in talking sense, this is a Rove thread.
We shouldn’t attack the opponents.
WE SHOULD SLAUGHTER THEM!
Well, Hillary ran in 2008 based on “35 years of experience”, which included her time as first lady.
I can remember her making some speeches in which she indicated “we” did this and “we” did that. Meaning her and Bill together during the Clinton administration. She was making the case that she was a co-president, or high level adivser, or some other big wig in the White House.
And we saw Bill out there a lot in ‘08, campaigning for her and talking about his time as president, etc.
So based on all that, I think it’s entirely appropriate to talk about Bill Clinton and his entire record, if Hillary runs again. She stakes a lot of her political reputation and acumen based on her being married to Clinton and having had important roles in his administration. It’s all fair game, in my opinion.
We need jokes that make fun of the Beast.
Getting so tired of changing GOP diapers... bunch of crybabies...
The problem with McCain and Romney is that they spent a lot of time attacking other GOPers and completely destroying them and blotting out their positions (since virtually any candidate was more conservative than either McCain or Romney). They did not only a slash and burn, but a salt-the-earth campaign against their GOP opponents, something that destroyed the field for other candidates for any office.
But when it came down to the general election, neither one of them actually attacked the Dem candidate, and in fact, they virtually groveled before him.
So Rove is completely off-base on this one. There were no “vicious” GOP attacks on the opposition party in either campaign.
As I recall, Mitt Romney went up in the polls when he went after Obama on Benghazi in the first debate. After that, he pulled his punches and proceeded to lose no doubt following advice like Rove’s.
1) Clintons own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:
``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people - Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993
``We cant be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans that we forget about reality. -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful by Debbie Howlett
When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare However, now theres a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say theres too much freedom. When personal freedoms being abused, you have to move to limit it. Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995
2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:
It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese Peoples Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clintons decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.
The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities. Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to Americas security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.
3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:
On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that days grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese chemical weapons factory, and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.
Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clintons action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, Im not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
Clintons pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinskys grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they werent a total loss.
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddams weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clintons chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure, he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.
Whether or not one buys Clintons assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harms way for purely political reasons.
4) Clintons reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:
Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was only about sex. But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising Americas real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
And dont even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.
WAR IN KOSOVO
During Bill Clintons 1999 NATO-led war in Kosovo which according to some estimates cost as much as $75 billion we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, killed almost 3,000 civilians, and shredded the civilian infrastructure (including every bridge across the Danube.)
We devastated the environment, bombed the Chinese embassy, came very close to engaging in armed combat against Russian forces, and in general, pursued a horrific and inhumane strategy to rain misery on the civilian population of Belgrade in order to pressure Milosevic into surrendering.
Why did we do all that? The US did not even have an arguable interest in the Balkans, and no one ever tried to claim that Serbia represented any kind of threat to our nation or our interests.
But for months the Clinton administration had told us that Milosevic was waging a vicious genocide against Albanian Muslims, and needed to be stopped. The New York Times called it a humanitarian war. In March 1999 the same month that the bombing started Clintons State Department publicly suggested that as many as 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Milosevics regime. In May of that year, as the bombing campaign was drawing to a close, Secretary of Defense William Cohen lowered that estimate 100,000.
Five years after the bombing, after all the forensic investigations had been completed, the prosecutors at Milosevics War Crimes trial in the Hague were barely been able to document a questionable figure of perhaps 5,000 bodies and body parts. During the war, the American people were told that Kosovo was full of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered Albanian Muslims. But none were ever found.
BILL CLINTON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
During the election cycle of 1992, George H.W. Bush lost his job after Bill Clinton hammered him relentlessly for having caused the worst economy of the last 50 years.
In fact, as CNNs Brooke Jackson has reported: Three days before Christmas 1992, the National Bureau of Economic Research finally issued its official proclamation that the recession had ended 21 months earlier. What became the longest boom in U.S. history actually began nearly two years before Clinton took office. See (See http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/jackson.recession.primer.otsc/).
By the same token, Clinton is generally perceived as having a stellar economic record during his own presidency, in spite of the fact that the economy was already starting to decline during the last year of his term after the stock market crashed in March 2000.
According to a report by MSNBC: The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP the countrys total output of goods and services shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3676690/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/gdp-figures-revised-downward/.
Bingo! Rove is fine with attacking conservatives and TEA Party members. Just stay away from attacking the communists. They are thin-skinned and their feelings are very easily hurt. What an idiot.
When you look up “loser” in the dictionary, you find Karl Rove’s picture next to it. With the track record this guy has, why would anybody in their right mind listen to him?
Hey! I know! Take a cue from McCain, and say “My friends, you have nothing to fear from a Hillary Clinton Presidency!”
In fact, the history of veto overrides shows that Congress had used this power as relatively recently as Bushes 41 & 43, and also with Clinton.
Not only should we attack her, and Bill Clinton’s past (in an intelligent manner),
WE SHOULD MAKE HER EAT HER COMPLICIT SUPPORT OF OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS’/HIS EVIL POLICIES, AND ABUSES OF POWER, COVERUPS, AND SCANDALS!
The party needs to begin revisiting all of the Clinton problems now. 2016 will be too late. The Clinton’s spent the past four years completely rewriting their legacy away from scandal ridden and as a time of great liberal success. It was in no way that. The 2012 election was basically a false campaign narrated by Bill Clinton. Comparing Obama and his terms when there is little in comparison to draw. Clinton veered right after two years to survive.... Signing off on republican idea one after another. Obama went hard left. Our inept party let them get away with it. September 2012 was most frustrating because our side did not respond to the narrative of the dem convention. If you look at exit polling it completely regurgitated what Clinton said at the convention.
Here is a joke that came to us via FReeper, Beave Meister:
Bill use to jog around the DC in the morning whenever he could. He use to run with Secret Service agents. One day while he was jogging he sees this middle aged hooker standing on the corner. She yells to the President and points to herself, Hey Bill, fifty bucks. Bill laughs then winks at the Secret Service agents and yells back, five bucks. The next day, Bill jogs the same route with the Secret Service agents. He sees the same hooker standing on the corner. She yells to the President again, Hey Bill, fifty bucks. Bill yells back, five bucks and he and the agents all have a good laugh.
This goes on for a couple of weeks, the hooker, Hey Bill, fifty bucks and Bill, Five bucks. Then one morning Bills wife Hillary says she wants to go jogging with him. Bill say Sure and out they go. As they approach the corner where the hooker stands, Bill whispers to one of the agents, I hope that hooker doesnt say anything. Sure enough the hooker is standing on the corner and she just stares at Bill, Hillary and the agents as they all go jogging by.
Then the hooker yells out, See what you get for five bucks.
We need more jokes!
Hillary should be strongly attacked on:
Hillarycare. It was far more invasive, egregious and destructive than Obabmacare.
Benghazi. Her quote that she couldn’t believe they would attack us after we liberated them shows her ignorance of human nature and international politics. Her refusal to offer increased security and to respond to calls for help is criminal.
Benghazi cover up.
Rose Law Firm Records. Magically appeared in the parlor at the White House.
The strategy of not attacking your opponents where they are weak....Typical Karl Rove....
Also attack her for declining to assist Pastor Saheed in Iran.
The same FOOL’S tactics... and it will BRING the SAME results.. NOTHING.
Maybe not attack, but you sure need to remind voters of what she’s like. They should pound the stuffing out of her over Benghazi.
It isn’t difficult for GOPe candidates to say what they are for. They have to observe Democrats, and pretend to be for the same things, with fewer taxes and a little more moderation. Stay away from hard choices, and compromise everything to appeal to everyone, especially people who are only going to vote for Democrats, like 70 percent of the Hispanic illegals they are trying to help become Democrats.
Is strange that telling the truth about someone is an attack.
|Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000||Receipts & Pledges to-date: $49,732|
|Woo hoo!! And we're now over 58%!! Go, FReepers!! Thank you all very much!! We can do this.|
“I’m not a loser, because I surrendered BEFORE the fight.” ~ Karl Rove Palpatine
How to spot a RINO...
He is the one that says we shouldn’t press hard against Dem opponents.
Don’t talk about the deaths, felonies, bribery, shady deals, shady associates, payoffs, questionable birth history... the list goes on.
Enough with advisors and politicians that don’t hit back as hard as the socialists hit.
Not hitting hard is a losing strategy!
Curiously enough, the Left, the Right and the Middle would all like Karl Rove to just go away and shut up.
There are millions of younger voters who may not remember the troubled Clinton years and millions of others who need to be reminded of the Clinton era of scandal, lax national security, and bad economy.
Karl Rove - the Forrest Gump of the Republican Party.
Tokyo Rove is a putz.
I don't understand why anyone still listens to him. Or if they do listen, why they don't use what they've learned and do exactly the opposite.
I got an idea for a campaign slogan for Hillary.
“A U-Turn back to the 20th century!”
Zer0: "Hillary, that was a pretty nasty fall in the State Department garage. Do we have to send you off to detox from the booze?"
The Beast: "Don't talk to me about my drinking! I'll have you exposed for your drug use! I'll haul you out of the closet for your sexual activities! Don't you dare push me!"
Zer0: "Remember Benghazi? You told me to get some sleep and you would handle it. I have a file a mile long on you. And, Oh Yes. You do have a lesbian streak in you, Hillary dear. I suggest you step down from Secretary of State and take a rest. You'll need it if you plan on running for President!"
Whether that’ll be a problem or not depends on who comes out of the primaries, doesn’t it? They actually could nominate Liz The Human Talking-Point Memo. Which brings up an entirely different record to attack.
Eyes likes your thinkin’ A10.
..yeah right,....in 2008 it was don’t mention Odungo’s middle name..so what happens he takes the Oath BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA...
They know Hilda is vulnerable, her past is just as bad as the little boy king’s, same tactic.
every time they say, “republican war on women”, we should say, “lifetime enabler of a serial sex offender”.