Hot Air » Blog Archive » Quote of the day

Quote of the day

posted at 11:27 pm on April 23, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

“Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their too-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

You magnificent bastard!!!

Yakko77 on April 23, 2008 at 11:36 PM

Great article.

nailinmyeye on April 23, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Rove for Pres. 2020

elraphbo on April 23, 2008 at 11:37 PM

That’s a fair assessment. He cannot be identified with a single specific cause.

freevillage on April 23, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Well, McCain first called Obama out on this.

The best argument against Obama’s claim that he can bring people together is his complete lack of any achievement in doing so, while McCain bears the battle scars of doing that often.

BryanS on April 23, 2008 at 11:42 PM

The best argument against Obama’s claim that he can bring people together is his complete lack of any achievement in doing so, while McCain bears the battle scars of doing that often.

Very true.

freevillage on April 23, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Obama, self-serving without a cause.

Chakra Hammer on April 23, 2008 at 11:48 PM

RYMB

WisCon on April 23, 2008 at 11:48 PM

nor a clue.

Chakra Hammer on April 23, 2008 at 11:49 PM

Empty Suit meets the Architect.
Nice article! I bet Obama wishes rove were on his team about now.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on April 23, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Mr. Obama’s call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship.

Yep.

SouthernGent on April 23, 2008 at 11:52 PM

If Barack Obama did not want to or even try to get anything done in his previous positions, why should we believe him when he says he will get things done as POTUS?

I have learned one thing in my 44 years on this earth and it is that 44 year old people do not change dramatically.

Past performance is the best indicator of future performance and Barry is going to wake up everyday in the White House, yell out “Present” and then go into the Rose Garden for a smoke.

EJDolbow on April 23, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Bipartisanship is code for Conservative capitulation.

Maquis on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Whoo hoo! This smoking article would have been enough to have Koskids running around trying to beg, steal or buy all the WSJ’s from the vendors and vending machines. But Rove as the author? That’s so rich it would be declared illegal in NYC.

smellthecoffee on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Bipartisanship is code for Conservative capitulation.

Maquis on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Usually.

doubleplusundead on April 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Obama does not appear to have any sense of humor.

About himself or anything else.

Always a dangerous sign.

The merely “sardonic” (or sarcastic) sense, as Rove mentions, is more a disguised form of (smiling) attack, or schadefreude [joy at damage], not true (which includes self-deprecating) humor.

Obama walks into a tavern with his pastor and says to the barkeep:

“Got anything with bitters?”

profitsbeard on April 24, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Bipartisanship is code for Conservative capitulation.
Maquis on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Please. That’s an over generalization. I mean, bipartisanship with democrats that always works out in their favor? That’s only true in 99.9% of the time.

wise_man on April 24, 2008 at 12:07 AM

The Democratic Party has two weakened candidates. Mrs. Clinton started as a deeply flawed candidate: the palpable and unpleasant sense of entitlement, the absence of a clear and optimistic message, the grating personality impatient to be done with the little people and overly eager for a return to power, real power, the phoniness and the exaggerations. These problems have not diminished over the long months of the contest. They have grown. She started out with the highest negatives of any major candidate in an open race for the presidency and things have only gotten worse.

And what of the reborn Adlai Stevenson?

But something happened along the way. Voters saw in the Philadelphia debate the responses of a vitamin-deficient Stevenson act-a-like. And in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary, they saw him alternate between whining about his treatment by Mrs. Clinton and the press, and attacking Sen. John McCain by exaggerating and twisting his words. No one likes a whiner, and his old-style attacks undermine his appeals for postpartisanship.

It will never be the same again. The emperor’s halo popped, then he lost his magic, his clothes, and his balls. Gone. He might be the nominee, but he won’t be the president, not this time around.

Entelechy on April 24, 2008 at 12:07 AM

His inspiring rhetoric is a potent tool for energizing college students and previously uninvolved African-American voters. But his appeals are based on two aspirational pledges he is increasingly less credible in making.

That paragraph makes the case for the Democratic nominee. Preying on the ignorant - that’s pretty much the platform. Racial tensions might change the words, but it’s the same old tune.

emailnuevo on April 24, 2008 at 12:09 AM

It’s a quagmire.

RBMN on April 24, 2008 at 12:12 AM

Great quote. Rove can write.

I also like this. I bet he really enjoyed putting this sentence into the mix.

Mr. Obama will argue he wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan and didn’t campaign in Florida. But don’t Democrats want to count all the votes in all the contests? After all, Mr. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot; it isn’t something he was forced to do. And while he didn’t campaign in Florida, neither did she.

Rove could probably barely hold back from saying
Selected Not Elected!

INC on April 24, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Karl is the man, he has quickly become the best political analyst on Fox and is O’Reillys #1 commentator thankfully pushing Dick Morris down the ladder. Roves’ take on yesterdays Penn. primary results left Bill without spin and in total agreement with his points.

dmann on April 24, 2008 at 12:18 AM

Karl, Karl, Karl………

A couple of months ago everyone (except those magnificent bastards here at HotAir), opined about him leaving President Bush’s Administration, and that “Chaos” was in the air (that’s for you RushBaby)……….

Never has there been a more astute political mind and strategist in recent history……..

And now he is free to speak/write his mind on Fox News and other venues, and the Dem’s can’t shut him up or vilify him, because once you listen and hear his intelligence, the only retort is a left wing insult, proving his point.

Karl Rove, you Magnificent Bastard…………. INDEED!!!!

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:21 AM

Mr. Obama’s call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship.
Yep.

SouthernGent on April 23, 2008 at 11:52 PM

I’d like to see both Obama and Clinton explain why they voted against the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. It used to be you only voted against a judicial nominee if you thought they weren’t qualified or competent. Now, however, a handful of senators vote against a nominee if they think that judge/justice will rule differently than how they want, so they politicize the vote and attempt to politicize the judiciary…and they want to be considered postpartisan? Yeah, right!

Red Pill on April 24, 2008 at 12:40 AM

You magnificent bastard!!!

I don’t think so.

Bush and Rove had it all in 2002, The White House, Senate, House of Representatives, State Governors and State Legislatures.

Under Bush and Rove, the White House is all that’s still in Republican hands and they leave the Republican Party deeply split over their decision to stand against their fellow Republicans and side with the Mexican Government and their illegal aliens.

This November Republicans will be lucky to keep the White House. If they do, it will only be because the hyper sensitized Democrat feminists and the hyper sensitized Democrat racists have fought each other to a mutual TKO.

Only if I were a Democrat would I be congratulating Bush & Rove, they’ve been a disaster for Republicans.

RJL on April 24, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Excellent piece from Karl Rove.

And for Obama,words do mean things!

Karl Rove is a on Fox and Friends quite regularly
in the early morning!

canopfor on April 24, 2008 at 12:49 AM

Under Bush and Rove, the White House is all that’s still in Republican hands and they leave the Republican Party deeply split over their decision to stand against their fellow Republicans and side with the Mexican Government and their illegal aliens.

RJL on April 24, 2008 at 12:46 AM

I don’t know if you can pin that on Rove. W, yes, absolutely, but who was it that waited until AFTER the election to let Rumsfeld resign? Who insisted on amnesty? Who insisted on spending money like a crack whore? (well, i guess the spending money wasn’t just Bush, it was the entire R party…)

If you can blame this on Rove, that would surprise me. Do you have any links or knowledge, or is it guilt by association? (I’m not being a smart alec…I’m actually hoping you don’t burst my Karl Rove bubble…I love that guy and I want to keep the love alive, but only if it’s well-founded…) So anyway, let me know your thoughts on why Rove is responsible for what the decider did.

JustTruth101 on April 24, 2008 at 1:21 AM

Only if I were a Democrat would I be congratulating Bush & Rove, they’ve been a disaster for Republicans.

RJL on April 24, 2008 at 12:46 AM

True RJL, but a disaster for the RINO’s in the Republican party I think is the bigger picture.

Also true, President Bush should not have signed off on all the spending bills the RINO’s in Congress handed him over the past seven years, and holding off until his last year in office to give an Executive Order to build “The Fence” didn’t help, nor has his inaction for an Executive Order to start drilling for our own oil…..

Try to keep an open mind about Karl Rove, think of an “end run”, something that the Dems don’t even see coming……

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 1:25 AM

Rove was asked by O’ Reilly what the main cause was for Obama’s defeat in PA. He went right to the answer: his comments at that SF limousine Liberals private party.

It probably has been a good thing for Rove to be in the outside looking in at this point in time.

newton on April 24, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Hey AP and Ed, I got big juicy slice of red meat for you:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/24/1294/05610/123/502285

SoulGlo on April 24, 2008 at 1:54 AM

The Puppet Master pulling whose strings,….. speaks

Kini on April 24, 2008 at 2:28 AM

Great photo! I wonder if Obama could assemble a collection of his most thoughtful sayings and speeches and print them in a small book that we could all carry and quote from….

mmmmmm….but what color for the little ________ book?

Any ideas?

moxie_neanderthal on April 24, 2008 at 2:59 AM

Rove is no dummy…. BHO ain’t ready to rumble.

T J Green on April 24, 2008 at 3:42 AM

Who nominated Obama to speak at the 2003/2004 Democratic Convention?

davod on April 24, 2008 at 5:21 AM

Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new.

KARL ROVE

Say something new? Like what?

I’ll Change the Change?

He already called for change, he IS change. What else can he say?

I’ll change the change and change myself into another version of change?

Or maybe change itself is not change until you change it?

Maybe his new campaign slogan should be”

“Change, I got some more of it”

Oh and by the way Rove baby, thank you for advising Hussein.

I think you should work for him, you’d make the odd couple and maybe you can milk his cows.

Indy Conservative on April 24, 2008 at 6:38 AM

Talking about “Change,” any answer from Hussein’s lovers to my question earlier in the other topic?

Something came to my mind long time ago and I was waiting to see if any “smart” voter would ask Hussein about it.

Hussein labeled himself and his campaign as “the agent of change.”

Now, can you explain to me, baby Hussein why do you have more or close to a 100 of former Hillary and Bill Clinton’s advisers and their high-ranking administration staff on your campaign as YOUR advisers?

What change is that if your advisers are Hillary’s and Bill’s?

Barack Hussein Obama, you are a liar.

You are using whatever you can say and do to be the first Black president.

Admit it.

Your cheerleaders don’t see the TRUTH now. But nothing that is wrong ever stay in hiding.

You are going to pay the price sooner or later.

Indy Conservative on April 23, 2008 at 6:12 PM

Indy Conservative on April 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM

Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?

I this question was asked 15 months ago right here at Hot Air.

Zorro on April 24, 2008 at 6:50 AM

Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?

I think this question was asked 15 months ago right here at Hot Air.

better.

Zorro on April 24, 2008 at 6:51 AM

Obama does not appear to have any sense of humor.

About himself or anything else.

Always a dangerous sign.

profitsbeard on April 24, 2008 at 12:06 AM

That’s a really astute observation. His idea of humor is slyly flipping Hillary the bird in front of his supporters while whining about how he’s being treated.

TheBigOldDog on April 24, 2008 at 7:32 AM

The reborn Adlai Stevenson

Nice

Dudley Smith on April 24, 2008 at 7:36 AM

Rove was good, Roosevelt said it better:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

I posted this in another thread, but it is just applies to Obama…he has been on the sidelines.
He is the man who jumps into the ring after the knockout and taunts the man on the mat…

right2bright on April 24, 2008 at 8:12 AM

Bush and Rove had it all in 2002, The White House, Senate, House of Representatives, State Governors and State Legislatures.

Under Bush and Rove, the White House is all that’s still in Republican hands and they leave the Republican Party deeply split over their decision to stand against their fellow Republicans and side with the Mexican Government and their illegal aliens.

This November Republicans will be lucky to keep the White House. If they do, it will only be because the hyper sensitized Democrat feminists and the hyper sensitized Democrat racists have fought each other to a mutual TKO.

Only if I were a Democrat would I be congratulating Bush & Rove, they’ve been a disaster for Republicans.

RJL on April 24, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Running campaigns is different from running a government. Rove is great at the former but his boss wasn’t terribly good at the latter. Bush has done better since the losses in 2006. It’s a real shame he didn’t find his veto pen before then, when he would have been laying the smackdown on a GOP congress that was completely out of control.

Of course if he had done that, all the GOP congressional folks who supported him instead of McCain because they knew Bush was “nicer” and more “reasonable” about government spending would have been really POd.

funky chicken on April 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM

BAM!!! That’s gonna leave a mark.

PappaMac on April 24, 2008 at 10:10 AM

“I just tell the truth on ‘em and they think it’s hell.”
– Some Democrat

mojo on April 24, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Obama thinks he should be president because of his great ideas of how to run the country. But the country is full of people who have ideas on that subject. Just ask any college student if you want ideas, and their’s are about as good as Obama’s. (Which isn’t saying much.) What the country needs for President is someone who can get their ideas implemented, and Obama has zero experience or ability in that area. He has no executive experience, nor has he taken on any leadership roles in state or federal legislatures. He’d fit right in as a college professor, but as President, forget it.

Socratease on April 24, 2008 at 12:25 PM

If you can blame this on Rove, that would surprise me. Do you have any links or knowledge, or is it guilt by association?

I have no inside knowledge of the Bush administration, I’m simply pointing out where Bush and Rove have taken Republicans.

It’s possible that Rove was giving Bush good advise all along and Bush was ignoring him, but I’ve never heard of any differences or friction between the two, quite the contrary, they seem to be best buddies and agree on pretty much everything.

In fun, I’ll turn your statement and question around: If you can *credit* this on Rove, that would surprise me. Do you have any links or knowledge, or is it *success* by association?

Until he left on Aug 31, 2007 Rove was Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser. Both are very high positions in any Presidential administration. Fairly or unfairly, persons at that level get the credit and/or blame, deserved or not.

RJL on April 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM

You must be logged in to post a comment.