Delusional Spin

From Karl Rove of course:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/...l?id=110010465

Quote:

As for the Democrats, "They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate" by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Holding the White House for a third term is always difficult given the pent-up desire for change, he says, but "I think we've got a very good chance to do so."

...

A big debate among Republicans these days is who bears more blame for 2006--Messrs. Bush and Rove, or the behavior of the GOP Congress. Mr. Rove has no doubt. "The sense of entitlement was there" among Republicans, he says, "and people smelled it." Yet even with a unified Democratic Party and the war, he argues, it was "a really close election." The GOP lost the Senate by its 3,562 vote margin of defeat in Montana, and in the House the combined margin in the 15 seats that cost control was 85,000 votes.

...

What about that new GOP William McKinley-style majority he hoped to build--isn't that now in tatters, as the country tilts leftward on security, economics and the culture? Again, Mr. Rove disagrees. He says young people are if anything more pro-life and free-market than older Americans, and that, despite the difficulties in Iraq, the country doesn't want to be defeated there or in the fight against Islamic terror.

Absolutely incredible.

Hillary Clinton is most definitely a flawed candidate, and doesn't represent a very drastic change compared to the rest of her field, but Rove fails to mention how tremendously flawed the field of Republican candidates are. Each candidate only represents a marginal change from Bush doctrine, with Huckabee being the more compassionate change, and longshot Ron Paul being the only significant one.

Republicans polled for the "none of the above" option precisely because they are so unsatisfied with what the GOP has to offer for the presidency. Why? Because none of them are winners.

It's also easy to see the 2006 race as a close call when you don't pay attention to Democratic incumbents. American voters naturally favor incumbencies, and in the cases where Democrats were seeking re-election, the results swung increasingly in their favor, despite the small margins for the seats lost by Republicans.

Rove might've also been right about young people being more pro-life (I doubt it) and free-market back in 2004 before the Bush Regime fucked up the program. Now Bill Richardson represents the free market more than the GOP.

This kind of thinking is precisely why the GOP is going to lose this next election. While it's true that conservatives never lived up to the promises of the 1992 revolution, they consistently fail to acknowlege exactly how unpopular the Iraq war has become, and precisely how much all of the Bush presidency and the Republican congress's bullshit have made all elements of the conservative coalition (save the neo-cons) sick of the GOP.

Young people are polled as being more pro-war than pro-republican, and that's because the Democratic Party isn't actually an anti-war party, but none of this is factored into delusional spin.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Ah, so THAT'S what that smell was....

I'm pro-choice, so that's at least one "young person" who differs from Rove's hypothesis.

I agree completely, though, about how conservatives refuse to publicly admit that maaaaybe the war isn't going quite as well as they had originally hoped--or that it's failing miserably. Either one wold be a nice surprise.

If there's anything that this article confirms, however, it is just how great it is to know that Rove is leaving. =)

I like your brain. Keep posting stuff.

There's nowhere I can't reach.