Home > Perspective
The Power of Rove, a/k/a Hillary's Downfall
Celine Dion sings a hit song named, "The Power of Love." However, Matt Drudge and others sing a different tune: "The Power of Rove." This week’s hot lead story is a new book by Bill Sammon, named Strategery. In that book, both Karl Rove and our beloved President are interviewed. They both share their thoughts on the 2008 Presidential election: Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination in 2008, but will lose in the general election. This is, admittedly, the general wisdom of the masses. But, should we say "Well Duh!" and discount this? I think not. Karl Rove is, by far, the most brilliant political strategist in the last 50 years. If Rove speaks, do the E.F. Hutton thing and listen.
"Karl Rove and others are explaining why. Why they think that Hillary Clinton is a primary winner but a general election loser."
Conservativity has been saying this very thing for over a year. Karl Rove and others are explaining why. Why they think that Hillary Clinton is a primary winner but a general election loser. There is a brilliant editorial in the Tampa Bay Observer that summarizes things well. Here’s an excerpt, speaking directly to Sen. Clinton:
"You are the most polarizing figure in the Democratic Party, and your negatives among likely voters are prohibitively high. Many people simply don’t trust you. You may share your husband’s name, but what people liked about him is not transferable to you."
Democrats see skewed polls that state that the country tilts 50%-43% to the Democrats and think that they’ll take the Congress this year and the White House in 2008. They think that their persistent attacks have finally worked. They are deluding themelves. If one would re-poll to likely voters, the poll swings about 10.5 points the other way, giving the GOP a 3-4 point advantage. The poll itself is a manufactured attack on the GOP, designed to deflate their base. They think that Hillary is a shoe-in. The opposite is true.
"Polls already show that Hillary has a 51% ’will never vote for’ rating. That gives her a maximum potential vote of 49%."
Karl Rove said of Mrs. Clinton: “She is the dominant player on their side of the slate. Anybody who thinks that she’s not going to be the candidate is kidding themselves.” But that does not mean that the "philosophically very liberal" Hillary can appeal to the entire country. Polls already show that Hillary has a 51% "will never vote for" rating. That gives her a maximum potential vote of 49%. To the Democrats, the only way to win is to "move to the center," meaning "hide my extreme liberalism until I’m elected." The people don’t fall for that anymore. They took the Congress away from the Dems in 1994, mostly because of Hillary’s attempt to impose socialized medicine upon the people. She wanted to make it a crime for a person to choose his own doctor and that was the people’s last straw. How can she moderate from that debacle? She cannot.
Back to the Tampa Bay Observer:
"Even yellow dog Florida Democrats express profound reservations about your presidential ambitions. They worry that you cannot attract moderate and independent voters and that your presence will hurt the election chances of other Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.
"They fear, Hillary, that you would doom Democrats to impotence for decades. Republicans might relish that prospect, but on reflection, they would acknowledge the importance of a strong two-party political system. Should the Democratic Party be crippled, the Republican Party is likely to become complacent, uninspired and unaccountable."
I heartily agree with both paragraphs cited above, and both of them recall previous statements I have made that support this position. I don’t want the Republicans to have no real opposition for decades. The intellectual irrelevance of conservatives after Hoover, until Reagan, bred the complacency that drove the Democrats into the irrelevance that they presently face. And I agree that Hillary Clinton could push the Democrats into that precipice. But she is not the only force pushing it there.
The Democrats still think that they’re entitled to rule. What they don’t realize is that, in the United States, politicians were originally intended to serve. What’s more, the Democratic base is becoming more and more extremely left. Animal Rights activists want to force you to wear cloth shoes and belts and stop eating any form of meat. Environmental activists want you to drive the kind of car that they tell you to, and to use energy how they want you to, and they want to hobble our industry with things like the Kyoto protocol, while they are willing to let the third world run amok with pollution. Teachers’ unions want your kids to go to government schools and learn what they want you to learn, with no real opportunity to choose an alternative. Anti-war activists want you to be unable to join the ROTC on our college campuses. Welfare activists want you to give your money to the government so it can determine how your charity is doled out. Social Security troglodytes want you to pay into a system that is failing, and to have no choice in its structure. Like all liberals, they know how to live your life better than you do.
Hillary Clinton cannot win without that base. Yet, the base is now so shrill and acerbic that it cannot find a way to compromise on anything. The Observer seems to think that Hillary can take that base for granted, and move to the Center. I am unsure. Al Gore is going to run, and will take the base with his extreme environmentalism and anti-war stance. If he loses the nomination, there will be a strong move to run Al as a third-party candidate, and he’s just the guy to do so. In the same way that Perot split the GOP base in 1992, Gore would split the Democrat base, leading to a GOP landslide. Karl Rove sees this.
And our President speaks highly of the person who he would like to see as his successor, although she says she is not interested. “She’s a remarkable woman,” he said. “But, again, I think you’ve got to take her for her word.” Of course he refers to our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. I still think that she needs to run. She would win the nomination and the office. For eight years. And, under her service, we would see great things come to pass. A President Rice would be a watershed leader on the order of Lincoln and Reagan.
"Hillary Clinton could lose to an actual elephant in 2008."
But if Dr. Rice fails to run, that does not leave us bereft of Presidential contenders. Sen. George Allen of Virginia is an excellent man. Dr Bill Frist would be a winner. But frankly, I want to see the Rice-Allen 2008 ticket sweep 45 states. Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton could lose to an actual elephant in 2008. Karl Rove is right.