Karl Rove has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today purporting to identify "new vulnerabilities" in the Obama campaign. This thinly-veiled attack piece picks up on the same thing that many Kossacks have noted: Obama integrated a large part of the John Edwards platform into his Tuesday-night victory speech in Houston.
But will any of Rove's attacks stick? Not likely.
Rove starts by arguing that Obama has opened himself to criticism from Clinton by being so bold as to fill his Houston speech with solid Democratic policy goals. Then he moves on to how McCain should react:
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.
This is clearly a logical fallacy. We know - we have always known - that Obama's personal beliefs coincide with those of the Democratic left. He is a liberal senator from a safe Democratic state. He may not adequately represent the progressive movement from the viewpoints of some Kossacks, but he is about as close as we can get among national political figures, and among politicians who disaffected Republicans find palatable.
For an example of why this argument rings so hollow, let's look at how it can be applied to education policy, which Rove mentions later in his article. Rove conflates "doing the bidding" of teachers with simply agreeing with them on substantive issues, regardless of lobbying money. Does Rove really believe Americans won't see the difference come November? And Rove can't for one second think that lines like "testing... is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning" are going to work for McCain in the fall. We all know easier ways for parents to know if their children are learning. Like talking to them, or helping them with their homework.
Bewilderingly, Rove attacks Obama for appealing to the AFL-CIO as well. The economy is in the toilet. We know this and Rove knows this. Yet Rove claims that Obama is "doing the bidding" of labor unions "when they oppose trade deals". Is the current economic situation really one in which American voters are gung-ho for free trade? I know that I'm not big on the concept, and I formed that opinion without any influence from lobbyists. Is this really an issue on which Rove's "left wing of the Democratic Party" is "out of touch with the American people"?
Rove hasn't been able to reconcile himself with the state of the nation, and it's painfully clear how far behind the curve he is. Let's look at how he closes his piece:
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.
Last I checked, Obama said there would be no federal lobbyists in his White House, left, right, or center. Sorry, Karl. Looks like you're out a job.