Karl Rove Figures It Out: It Was the Small Donors, Stupid!

Here.

Thanks for writing this! I saw the Malbin report and was furious. Being one of those small donors, living on SS, and donating just over $200, I had to laugh out loud at the notion that I was a fat cat. I have fat cats but don't quite think I qualify. I was really annoyed as well as amused at the Repigs spin! Thanks again.

Al, your articles are wonderful to read and so damn insightful.  I don’t know what I’d do without them.

Obama’s campaign machine monstrosity is a machine that is well lubed, say like, in black gold.  The Clinton’s, James Carville, and the rat turd Rove, the Turd Blossom, never saw it coming.  But, how could they with their fatheads being as big and fat as their egos?

OT  And, speaking of black gold—it looks like Obama isn’t going to punch the oil monsters’ nose with a windfall profits tax.  This is NOT good!

With his caving in for Lieberman and deciding not to repeal the Bush Tax Cut Bill but instead letting it run out in 2011 is both disheartening and discouraging.

With these capitulations, is this a sign of a weak administration emerging?  Or is this the price that the Obama administration (and, indirectly, for that matter, the working class Americans) must pay in order to cultivate a reenergized working class America with a truly bottom-up socioeconomic foundation?

Mike - Before jumping to any conclusions I want to see - now that the price of oil has tumbled dramatically - what amount of dollars would be affected by repealing the oil windfall profits tax break now as opposed to later. It might amount to so little that the political capital expended to steer it through Congress now would be better spent on bigger fish to fry.

al...

i love the way you cut through the bullshit, and always the bullshit that needs to be cut! and then kick it to the side, of course.

what really excites me about this sort of bs is how much it reveals about how these guys think. they still believe in the imperial top-down pyramid structure of seizing power by any means necessary in order to control the outcome.

and they obviously think this thing is all about obama. the reality of this thing is going to show itself during the next round of elections, from local to national, when the organizers come out of the woodwork and begin the task of bringing real representation back to representative democracy.

as harvey milk said: "all men are created equal. they can't erase that!"

while we're talking about this campaign, one thing i do take issue with is the idea of a ground war. obama is clearly well aware of the difference between strategy and tactics (my favorite movement of the presidential debates!). and just as clearly to me, he is not a warrior. he's the captain of the team!

and while the mccain team was working a man on man (or woman on man) strategy, obama went for the zone! on the night of the democratic convention that was my big question: is he going for the man on man or the zone? once i saw that obama wanted the whole court, i knew how it was going to turn.

i personally think that the two biggest factors in o's style that went largely unnoticed by the media were/are the basketball thing, and the growing up in hawaii thing. as a fellow haole from the island of oahu, 3 years older so i never heard of the guy 'til everybody else did (john kerry's masterwork?), i can say that there is something incredibly empowering and fundamentally different about growing up in a society without an ethnic or religious majority. you just drop back out of so many of the petty games that people from much less diverse populations fall into unconsciously. leaving your head, heart, and life open for much more fundamental questions that apply to all of humanity.

enough rambling. thanks for inspiring me all these years!

chas

Know this is early in thread to be OT, but found this so heart warming. Spirit of Yes We Can.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR200812...

At this point, it seems to me Obama has far less to fear from Rove and the Republicans than from governing too cautiously. If he were to pull back on real, structural reforms (not necessarily all over the board, but on health care, the environment, energy independence and the economy), people would become cynical again, and all the work he did to engender hope would crumble.

Fortunately, I think Obama's too smart to fall for all that "center-right" nonsense. Looks to me like he's gearing up for a very aggressive push on some big issues.

Without question, those of us on the left will be disappointed at times -- again and again. He cannot govern effectively as a liberal, just as Bush could not govern effectively as a conservative (though he tried). However, Obama must be a transformative figure. That's what he promised. People voted for change. He cannot drop that mantle.

Thanks for your response. It makes perfectly good sense, and now I see better and understand more clearly after putting on your glasses.  Your filters are truly amazing; that’s why I’m a regular on a daily bases to get analyses and insights—I’m a Giordano junky and I need my daily fix!  And—oh—I’m proud of it!

Correction, the title should have been “An Unseemly Capitulation Cometh?” interrogatively and not as a statement of fact or prejudgment.  Sorry about that, my bad.  I guess my CL got out, but who can blame me or for that matter anyone else when he chose Hillary for SoS.  That one really spun me for an unexpected loop.  In my honest opinion, she may be smart, but she can be very dangerous if you don’t have your reins on her.  But, I guess he’s the man and he’s our executive boss on January 20 and when he can raise over ¾ of a billion dollars and beat the Clinton machine in the primary and the GOP Muslim-terrorist-“off with his head”-“kill him”-lying smear machine in the general, then who can argue with—Da Man?  I mean wasn’t he the guy who put together the GREATEST field/community organization the world has ever known?

Revisiting the windfall profits tax, I should have noted that Obama decided not to pursue that tax issue because the price of oil went down below $80 per barrel.  Then, add your analysis into the mix, and what I get is CL pie in my face.  That’s rich and funny!  All I can do is move on and enjoy the pie.

Thanks for your input.

This article, from talkingpointsmemo, appears to confirm what Al said:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/obama_spokespers...

The ground game! Many small donors! Yes we can!

Keep an eye on Minnesota.  That one might end up in court and we'll all have to be in the gallery watching so that the Senate seat does not get stolen!   

this is the key prescient sentence from your phoneix article

"weans the process from it previous dependence on influence money"

I gave small increments, like $10 $15 at a time - usually at the end of month deadline when their pleas became more urgent, or at other key low or high points during the campaign (NH, race speech, after the TX/OH primary, democratic primary, palin's rnc speech, etc.). My total ended up being in the big leagues according to Rove, i.e., above $200.

But while we don't have the sort of influence the traditional maxed-out donor might have (seat at a dinner where Obama is present, etc.) - we did feel ownership, and perhaps more than a traditional cynical political contributor. When I gave my first ever political contribution in Nov 07 of $50, first I felt like, ok, that was stupid, money down the drain, etc. But then I felt like, I don't want that money to go to waste, I'm going to have to do my part to make sure he wins and ended up volunteering. I bought a t-shirt around the same time and it was the same kind of feeling - like - I'm going to feel pretty dumb having bought this if he ends up dropping out in the beginning of January, so I'm going to have to make sure he doesn't lose.

KD

I could probably use Karl Rove's article to show why we need to LOWER the amount of money an individual can give to a campaign. If Rove think that $200 makes someone a high-roller, then that should be the limit.

I believe I ended up at $1,250 - in dribs and drabs from January to October.  And since I've been caregiving the last few years, my money is not income, but from a rather modest nest egg from selling off my condo.  As I'd never even contributed to a campaign before, Rove can suck it.

Maybe I'm part of that "College Football Playoff" lobby.

Certainly Al pointed out before that the idea was not to get big donations early, but to get lots of people involved.  Give them a sense of investment in the campaign, they'll come back to give more.  In retrospect, I certainly think that applies to me.  Though while the Republicans may need to learn this lesson again in 2012 for it to sink in, I'm not sure the Democrats will recognize that it's less a sea change of power from bundlers to individual donors, and more due to an outstanding candidate who made so many people believe.  Or in my case, believe again.

Speaking of ownership and power to the people and all that - this news impressed me today (I hope it's true): The president-elect is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04web-cooper.html?_r=1

Taking Al's analysis one step further - if "candidate" Obama recognized he needed many many people involved and invested in his election, that goal is achieved now. Presumbably the goal now is to get the United States back on track - and to do that do you need an involved and invested citizenry, but even beyond this, going global, and involving and having global populations interested and invested?  Can you envision this Al, and what in your opinion are the big bold moves that Obama can make to encourage and facilitate this involvement and investment?

KD

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=113b3e75-80b2-4e4b-9524-67240680de9a

Thank you for taking that putz Rove on in such a clear, and witty, way. I hope this post is picked up and flung across the internets. Better yet, dropped into the email box of every Republican official.

I feel like a lot of posters..."ownership" of the campaign. I put up an O poster in my front window EARLY and was kinda shaky about it. I too contributed in dribs and drabs because that's all I had.

But when O went home to visit Toot on the campaign plane, and the Repubs had the nerve to complain that he couldn't "do that", I cyber-yelled: hey, that's MY money he's spending on MY plane and I WANT him to fly home to see MY grandmother!

I felt like one teeny corner of that plane was mine, and the rest belonged to all of the other little donors. I had a lot of support of my opinion in cyberspace.

O said so from the beginning, it wasn't about him, it was about US!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Needs to crawl back into his pillsbury can.

He brings to mind, for me, a doughy sort of person.

I truly hope his poppin off fresh days are over.

His latest sounds pretty stale.

to watch Rove and the Repubs try to fight the Obama narrative, deligitimize his win and continue to try to smear him with cheap shots.

John Kass in the Chicago Trib did a really silly piece on Obama today about the possible commutation of George Ryan's (former IL gov.) sentence and even worked in Rezko's name.

Obama's former competitor Alan Keys has a lawsuit challenging Obama's citizenship.

It just doesn't get any sillier. If this keeps up the GOP will truly implode.

The whole focus on materialistic measures [dollars] is so indicitive of the difference between the two parties and this campaign. While money talked, it was the source of the money. Obama enlisted volunteers to put $ where their mouth and heart is. Almost 3,000,000 gave all they could because he invited participation. ["In total more than 3.95 million Americans contributed to the Obama for America campaign" FEC Report]

Due to age and health challenges, I could not get in the car and respond to calls for on the ground events. I could choose to sacrifice some things and send to the campaign. When I couldn't go to PA or NC, I'd figure what gas and travel would cost and send a contribution. It the end it added up to around $2,000 . Yes, I could have used those $ for other almost essentials. Nothing was more important to me than having this campaign have what was needed to be successful.

Rove is so wrong. It was not about $. It was all about organizing on a personal level. An invitation to join with others to be part of something greater than each of us. I call it an investment in participatory democracy - for me, my adult children, and grandchild. And BTW, I'd never contributed more than $100 before.

this is a pretty cool story about a wealthy Virginia man making sure that less-than-big-fish folks get to view the inaugural parade and celebrate, as well.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/peoples.inaugural/?iref=mpstoryview

I feel like a lot of posters..."ownership" of the campaign. ... O said so from the beginning, it wasn't about him, it was about US!

That was certainly part of the emotional narrative of the campaign's organizing. Will the supposed ownership and "about us" now include actual accountability from him to "us, with actual mechanisms to make that accountability function for real? If not, if his practice is to keep trying to inspire us and get us to tell our stories for inspiriational and motivation purposes, but take in input for decisions primarily from those who already have substantial political or other power, then I suspect that the emotional narrative was what it was all about -- that is, a narrative of ownership rather than a reality of it.

...(obviously still obsessing about the power/accountability issue discussed in the previous thread)....

The very real sentiment that so many of us fat-cat or near-fat-cat Obama donors have some sort of ownership stake in the Obama Presidency comes, as others have said, not from laying out one check but from responding time and time again to calls for "whatever you can give" and then giving that with the full knowledge that this was in the moment or would be cumulatively some form of real personal sacrifice. Add to that the hours phone-banking and canvassing and, yes, most of us here are truly fat-cats in terms of our overall contributions. Even our time is money.

And, yet, even as I want a "piece of the action" in the sense of an Obama Presidency that does what I would want to do or value if I were President, I recall that the very reason I switched my passionate allegiance from Gore to Obama during the pre-primary build-up was because I admired an independent streak in Obama that demonstrated that he was never wholly owned, co-opted, or controlled by any single constituency. This seemed good for democracy. I still think this. Disappointments will come (have already come), but Obama has such a wealth of good will built up that being bold in some areas--achieving some evidence of truly being transformational--will keep the bulk of this coalition/movement together, even as it monitors and cajoles for more, more, and more. (I guess I am also responding to the narrative thread also.)

Thus, I am bemused when a Huffpo headlines blares that Democrats (as in legislators) are disappointed with Obama, and are demanding that he step up to being President before Inauguration. The idea that Frank, Levin, and Dodd want Obama to do more than he already is as PE is rather breath-taking; Obama has no governmental machinery other than his own Chicago-based bully-pulpit--and they know this. To me, they want either "a piece of the action" (for free) if Obama acts, or they want plausible deniability (the "I told you so default position") if he doesn't fix our nation's problems before Jan. 20.  Honestly, given the truly craven performance of Democratic "leaders" including Frank, Levin, and Dodd--all of whom I actually like--this seems like the lamest sort of political jockeying within the power structure. How about some evidence from THIS Congress that IT can actually lead? After dropping the ball so many times and refusing to stand up to Bush, that individual Congressional "leaders" want to stand up to Obama is remarkably disrespectful and ultimately cowardly. (And weren't all three of these bozos HRC boosters in the first place?) Oddly, I look forward to Obama striking his own independent course with relation to his own Democratic Congress--and this does not mean that I think he will actually move to the center or right... Frank, Levin, and Dodd, while being good Dems are hardly fire-breathing progressives across the board. What will be fun to watch is Obama simultaneously putting some of these Congressional tough guys in their places--and maybe, just maybe fostering in them some real cojones. 

but if anyone gets a chance, I recommend watching CNN's Christiane Amanpour's "Scream Bloody Murder", a program about genocide, including Rwanda and the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein.  It will, like most CNN shows, be run many times. (Sadly, but not surprisingly, our goverment's role in the murder-by-stealth of so many Iraqi civilians during sanctions is never mentioned.  But then, Christiane's husband, James Rubin, was the Clinton State Department mouthpiece during that time, so it figures sanctions and the US's role in all of those deaths of children under five and the old and the sick is a forbidden topic.)

You know, Obama has such an opportunity right now - so much political capital, the chance to do such good in the world.  A friend who just came back from a cruise and visit to Europe told me that people - even those who do not speak English - would break out with a huge smile when the name "Obama" was mentioned.  Think of it!

I hope Obama does not blow this chance.  I will be truly heartbroken if he does.  (And very, VERY angry.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122844800734282227.html

Does Rove even bother to compare other campaigns??  Or to acknowledge the historic nature of this campaign in terms of length and intensity?  I'm curious if that math they site includes the entirity of people's giving.  My GE numbers were significantly lower than my primary numbers but all together up over a grand.  But really, isn't the real question the types of donors these represented rather than their total giving?  The real power behind the whole thing was the total number of donors...specifically getting people who had never donated before to give.  Getting new and more different people involved is far more significant than getting the old reliable donors to give.  So now by Rove's reasoning, all those middle class donors who forked over more than $200 or $1000 are fat cats.  Funny...nobody's ever invited me to a big gala before.  Shouldn't I at least feel rich and well connected??

Cheers all!

Wow, Mr. Rove, thanks for the compliment! Now where's the trust fund I keep hearing about? LOL

Si somos americanos, seremos buenos vecinos;
compartiremos el trigo,seremos buenos hermanos -- canción de Rolando Alarcón