Rove: Obama Needs to Be Presidential, Rise Above Petty, Childish, Vindictive Politics | On the Record
At least Rove behaves like a grownup, and we know where he stands:
Special Guests | Karl Rove
Thursday, July 01, 2010
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," June 30, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight, there is so much tension, it is absolutely sizzling! The heat is on! Hours from now, President Obama gives a critical speech about illegal immigration. Did President Obama get pushed into this speech? And what should he say?
Karl Rove joins us live. Good evening, Karl. There are two things, Karl, what he should say, I suppose, and what he will say would be the way would you look at it. So taker it away. What -- what should he say, and what do you expect that he will say?
KARL ROVE, FORMER SENIOR BUSH ADVISER, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: Well, look, Greta, let -- let me step back for just a minute. I'm an advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, but this is not the time to do it and not the way to do it. Think about it this way. President Obama, from January to January of last year to this year, did nothing to lay the groundwork for this -- no meetings, no visits, no discussion whatsoever. In fact, a Republican senator who's at the heart of this issue told me that 10 months ago, he raised this issue to President Obama in a White House meeting and said, If you want to get this done, you need to be personally engaged and you need to begin to lay a foundation now. That was the last conversation he had with anybody in the White House.
I talked to leadership aides in both the House and Senate Republican leadership staffs, and they say they've never had a conversation with the president about this, or his people about it. So the administration has not laid the foundation for it. In fact, in January of this year, Greta, the president mentioned this in the State of the Union address. Out of 7,290 words, he devoted 38 to the issue of immigration reform.
In fact, you know, he said nothing else about it until March 19th. Faced with the loss of Representative Luis Gutierrez's vote on health care reform -- and remember, he was scrambling to put it together. They won it by just a handful of votes.
Congressman Gutierrez said, Unless you're committed to immigration reform, I'm not voting for health care reform. So the president came out and said, I want to pass it at the earliest possible opportunity. Apparently, that wasn't good enough because he came back a few days later, and on the 21st said, I want to seek a bipartisan consensus this year.
Then on the 28th of April, after he gets health care reform passed and doesn't need Luis Gutierrez's vote any longer, he says, Well, you know what? I don't think there's any immediate appetite to take up the issue this year. But then he realizes by the 5th of May that this might be a good political issue, that while he can't get the bill passed this year, he can begin to lay the predicate among Latinos that he is their friend and Republicans are their enemy. So on the 5th of May, he says, I want to begin work this year. And then he steps it up, and apparently, tomorrow will say, I want to pass the bill this year.
Now, I got to tell you, this is cynical and it is hypocritical and it's political with an issue that ought to be treated sincerely, honestly and outside of politics as much as possible. I don't think the president's really interested in passing comprehensive immigration reform this year. He just wants a political issue to jazz up Latinos and to get them to vote maybe not for Democrats this fall but for him in 2012.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Karl, our borders are a matter of national security. At least, I think most Americans would agree to that. And in important matters of national security, it's not about picking sides, but it's about leadership. And I think the thing that's very distressing to people in Arizona -- and I've been down there -- is the appearance that President Obama is picking sides.
For instance, he met with activists and Hispanic caucus this week. He hasn't gone down to Arizona at all. He didn't go down to hold a town hall. He's threatening to sue the state of Arizona. He hasn't said, Hey, good idea, Arizona, to talk about illegal immunity. I don't like your statute. But he's actually threatened to sue Arizona, as though Arizona is a very bad state, not that they have a real problem, but that it's a real (SIC) state.
So I'm not so sure that, you know, going into tomorrow -- you know, the right attitude -- this really -- this speech is important. It should be about leadership, not picking sides. And he's giving the wrong appearance leading up to it!
ROVE: It should -- look, this is a difficult, thorny issue. If you're going to bring the country together and get it done, it requires adroit leadership. This is crass Chicago-style politics.
Let's -- let's talk about that Arizona bill for a second. The president said, If you're a Latino, you could be when you go out to get your kids ice cream. Now, the Arizona law is easy to read. It says that you cannot ask anybody about their immigration status, about their citizenship status unless a couple of conditions are met. One is they have been stopped for a legal detention, arrest or stop for another purpose. Second of all, that you have reasonable suspicion that they are here in the United States illegally. And it explicitly says that neither race nor ethnicity may be considered a basis for reasonable suspicion.
This is a very tightly drawn law. It basically gives law enforcement one additional tool. They pull some guy over for driving drunk or driving erratically or they find somebody, you know, trying to jimmy the lock on a convenience store at 3:00 AM in the morning and there is some reasonable suspicion -- the person cannot produce any identification -- they could then inquire about immigration status. But it can't happen unless they're already in the hands of law enforcement for another legitimate purpose.
When the president said that, I called up the border patrol people and said, What is the federal standard? Do you know what the federal standard is for asking somebody about their immigration status? They sent me to a document called "Securing America's Borders at Ports of Entry" that said, quote, "CB (ph) personnel must effectively blend their own operational techniques and interviewing abilities with situational awareness."
Now, how tough a standard is that compared to the Arizona standard? Not tough at all. And yet the president called the Arizona law racist, when his federal -- the federal officials who work for him have a much looser standard that allows them to ask about your citizenship status.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, like you, Karl, I'm in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. I think it's a real problem. I think a lot of people in this country, you know, can -- you know, need some path to citizenship or something, but that we have to first secure our borders so we can at least contain the problem and then make some good, smart decisions.
But President Obama said that he was willing to be a one-term president to make the tough decisions. So you say this is a tough issue. If someone is willing to forget the politics and not try to -- not try to walk through it like a minefield, a political minefield, and truly be a leader on it, it's not such a tough issue anymore. If you're going to make it a political decision, indeed, it is because you got to keep -- try to keep everybody really happy. A leader who's willing to have one term, this isn't a tough decision. Someone who wants to be political, it's a very tough decision!
ROVE: Yes. Well, look, it's -- and look, you don't -- if you want to get it done, you don't force people who have a difficulty voting for it to vote for it in the haste in a few weeks before the election. He's got -- look, he's got Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. We are not going to see a bill passed either the House or the Senate because the Democrats are divided on this.
I'd remind you, Greta, we voted on this in 2007, and Barack Obama, then a senator, said he was a proponent of comprehensive immigration reform, and then he voted to gut the guest worker program, which was the part of the guest worker program favored by some conservatives and most of the business people. He voted against Ted Kennedy, who broke ranks with the labor unions in order to support a guest worker program.
So President Obama has already played politics with this once as a United States senator. If he were serious about this, he would have done a lot more groundwork and a lot more foundation building than he has done on this. He's done zip.
He goes to the State of the Union address and devotes 38 words? Please! That's less than half a minute! Then -- you know, if he were serious about it, he should have started it last year or he ought to begin it next year. He shouldn't try and do this as the Congress is trying to get out of town for the fall elections and doesn't want to cast a tough vote.
I will bet you today that there is not a vote in the House and Senate to pass this bill before the fall election. Neither House will take it up and pass it before the fall election.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, well, then, shame on them, as well, if they're -- because this is a matter of national security. It's a matter of war. Maybe a slow war, but what's going on in Mexico and all the problems, all the human rights violations and all the kind of problems that arise from having illegal immigration -- having immigration totally out of control, it is in some ways a war. And if they all will (SIC) rise above politics and come up with a good, smart, safe decision, then shame on all of them.
ROVE: Yes. Absolutely. And look, I've been out in west Texas recently and talking to a lot of people who are in the border patrol world, some of them being border patrol agents, some of them being families of border patrol members. They're concerned about the level of support that they have from this administration. They're worried about their budgets being trimmed back. They're worried about they're getting less support for the essential programs to secure the borders. And they think the president is playing politics with this issue, and that's dangerous when you got the people who are responsible for executing the policy not believing the people in Washington are necessarily in favor of that policy.
VAN SUSTEREN: Karl, stand by. We have much more with you next.
But first, a special programming note. Tomorrow night, right here at 10: 0 PM Eastern "On the Record," Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will be right here to go "On the Record" about President Obama's immigration speech tomorrow morning. And of course, so do not miss Governor Brewer, 10:00 PM tomorrow night.
And next: Why was President Obama in Wisconsin today? Governing or campaigning? And how do we tell? We're going to ask Karl. He's back with us after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAN SUSTEREN: This is a "FOX News Alert." Hurricane Alex has made landfall. The storm is barreling into northeast Mexico as a category 2 hurricane. The hurricane has powerful winds of more than 100 miles per hour. This is the first named hurricane of the 2010 season. Stay with FOX News for the very latest on this hurricane.
And Karl Rove is back with us. Karl, talking of -- today President Obama was in Wisconsin. And was he governing or campaigning? He was talking about the economy and the deficit. Which was it, and how do we tell?
ROVE: If he's out of Washington, he is automatically campaigning. And if he's in Washington, you know, then it's a close call as to whether he's campaigning or governing. And look, I -- this president is so political and so constantly on the offense and constantly -- rather than heralding what he's doing, he's always looking for a -- at taxpayer expense, an opportunity to tear down his political opposition.
I thought it was unpresidential for him to go after John Boehner in the sort of personal and vindictive and petty and small way that he did. He ought to rise above that. He's the President of the United States. And instead, he's rather -- he looks like a guy who'd rather be Democratic National Committee chairman.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, we have Leader Boehner coming up, but let me just read -- what you mentioned on whether it's politics or not -- I mean, one of the things he said in his speech -- and I have a hard copy of it -- in terms of criticizing others about being politics (SIC), he says, "Now, some of this is just politics. Before I was even inaugurated, the congressional leaders of the other party got together and made a calculation if I failed, they'd win. They figured if they just keep saying no to everything and nothing gets done, they'll get more votes in November . It's no wonder folks are so cynical about politics."
He's saying everybody else is!
ROVE: Yes. Look, the president is covering up for his own mistake. He -- that's a complete revision of where the Congress was when he came into office. He had the good will of the American people, and Republicans were looking for a way to work with him. But remember this. When he sent Geithner and Summers up to Capitol Hill in December of 2008 to say, The president-elect believes we need a stimulus package, and here's what it ought to look like, they didn't meet with Republicans. They met with Democrats only. And they never incorporated anything that Republicans wanted in the bill.
And why should they then expect Republicans to vote for it? Look, you know, we didn't write the No Child Left Behind bill and then say, Democrats, you've got to vote for it. We sat down with Democrats. Same with the tax cuts. We didn't say, You got to vote for it and no matter what. We sat down with Democrats in the Bush administration and negotiated on it and got a quarter of the Democrats in the United States Senate in 2001, after a very contentious election, to vote for the tax cut.
This guy had the good will of the American people and came in and immediately forgot those stirring words that, We're not red states, blue states, but we're United States, and only talked to Pelosi and Reid and rammed things through on a partisan basis. That's the way he's been on every one of his big initiatives, from the stimulus to the budget to energy to the health care bill. It has been, My way or the highway and we're only going to do this with Democrats only. So he's got himself to blame for it.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, it doesn't do us much good as Americans, though, if both sides are fighting it out and doing that, and whether it's the president has himself to blame for it or whether Republicans are guilty for it -- how do we stop this? I mean, you know, who -- who can put the brakes on this? Because, you know, it's interesting to watch, it's interesting cable news chatter, it's sort of fun, especially those of us who love the game of politics. But fundamentally, you know, we have real problems. And that's -- you know, real problems don't get solved with that.
ROVE: Yes
VAN SUSTEREN: How do we sort of turn it around, at least for the short run, so we can fix some things?
ROVE: Yes, it starts with the president, and the president ought to stop this behavior. It's childish. It's, you know, going out there and calling the Republican leader names and making up these strawman arguments and saying, They made a decision that they never would work with me -- no, wait a minute! That's not what they said at all and that's not what happened. You had an opportunity, Mr. President, to lead the country, and you decided not to lead the country!
So the first thing you ought to do is stop this! He ought to become the president. He should stop being the Democratic National Committee chairman. He should give up the campaign mode. I mean, look, he's got to go out and campaign for Democrats. We understand that. But he ought to put the emphasis on what he's for and why he thinks they're better, not go out there and use, you know, taxpayer-funded public speeches in order to trash the political opposition for petty little gain!
He's better than that. I know this man. I worked with him for several years in the White House. He's capable of rising above this. And why he hasn't remains a constant source of -- of -- of, you know -- you know, surprise to me. He's better than this.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, we certainly need some -- we certainly need to stop -- stop this sort of logjam and the finger-pointing and -- because there are some real problems that we need to handle and quickly. Karl, thank you.
ROVE: Thanks, Greta. |
