Posted on 11/04/2004 7:13:08 PM PST by RabbitMan
Of course, we could have done it a lot earlier on election night but for "Boy Genius" Karl Rove. It's absurd that the election was as close as it was. If Rove is "the architect" – as Bush called him in his acceptance speech – then he is the architect of high TV ratings, not a Republican victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
* see post 180...maybe you can grasp this simple explanation.
I get what Ann is saying. I think W is a lot more "center" than most people think. I don't think he wanted to run on what appeared to be too right. Now, since the people have spoken, he can feel free to embrace his more conservative side.
Typical.
Your elitist, unmitigated contempt for the conservative principles Bush espoused shows.
Dream on.
Like it or not, moral issues carried the day for Bush.
Bush won the largest popular vote in history with a 3.5 million margin. Simply by getting a majority of the country to vote for him – the left's most hated politician since Richard Nixon – Bush did something Bill Clinton never did. Bush maintained or increased his vote in every state but Vermont.
Republicans picked up seats in the House and Senate, and continue to dominate state governorships. Also making history of a sort, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle lost his election, marking the first time in half a century a Senate leader has been defeated.
Seventy percent to 80 percent of Americans oppose gay
marriage and partial-birth abortion.
Far from appealing exclusively to a narrow Republican base, opposition to gay marriage is strongest among the Democratic base: blacks, Hispanics, blue-collar workers and the elderly.
There were marriage amendments on the ballot in Michigan and Ohio. Bush won Ohio narrowly and lost Michigan by only 2 points.
Bush pressed his conservative moral principles as a vote-getting strategy, and not the neocon agenda.
How different the vote total might that have been if Bush hadn't been hamstrung by the neocons.
BTW, I have yet to see a neocon at a pro-life rally.
"But Rove concluded Bush should stay mum on gay marriage and partial-birth abortion"
I was wondering why Bush never spoke often and strongly against these two issues.
Practically everyone in the country is against partial-birth abortions and gay "marriages."
Ann is right. That was bad advice from Rove. On the strength of Bush's stand on these two issues alone, he would have gotten at least 60% of the popular vote, if not more.
I don't like Rove, I've never liked Rove. I disapprove of just about every position he's foisted on us. His secret of success? John Kerry. If the Dims had had a decent candidate, Rove wouldn't have been successful at all.
Like it or not folks, Ann is right. We squeaked by on this one solely because Christians turned out in record numbers and Karl Rove had precious little to do with it.
I agree. It's the massive drive by the Christian Right that saved the bacon, not Karl Rove. It was saved in spite of him.
"Amazingly, it was the Democrats – the ones who support gay marriage – who used the gay issue for political advantage, most famously when Kerry gay-baited Mary Cheney during the third debate."
As I said above, if Ann thinks that this issue was used to Kerry's advantage, I'm utterly stunned at her ineptness.
She says he "used" the issue for political advantage, not that he succeeded at it. Clearly Kerry's point was to attempt to make the Pubbies look "soft" on gay issues; not to gain support for himself, but to hopefully weaken support for Bush. However, most Christians are not the bigots the Left has convinced themselves that they are. But it was the "values" issue that Bush had over him that Kerry was trying to frame as, well, maybe not quite so different than his. (This is not my opinion alone, but that of the majority of FReepers that saw it for what it was, and discussed it here at great length.)
Miss Coulter also writes:
Seventy percent to 80 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage and partial-birth abortion. Far from appealing exclusively to a narrow Republican base, opposition to gay marriage is strongest among the Democratic base: blacks, Hispanics, blue-collar workers and the elderly. There were marriage amendments on the ballot in Michigan and Ohio. Bush won Ohio narrowly and lost Michigan by only 2 points. How different might that have been if Bush hadn't run from the issue.
This column was particularly poorly written. Spinning it doesn't help.
The column was perhaps hastily written, but still, in my opinion, was well done. I gave credit earlier to Rove, on this thread, for what I felt was an exemplary GOTV effort. But yes, it could have been far more successful (not that it makes, ultimately, much difference) had he dumped his "moderate" stance. That's not what put feet on the street.
As an evangelical Christian and Second Amendment advocate, I have been aware for a while of Rove's disdain for those values, and thus I feel fully within my rights to return the sentiment. Besides, none of it matters. Perhaps Coulter's felt this way for a while, and realized that Rove's job is done now anyway. I have little desire to see who he might arm-twist us into running next -- unless he too has clearly seen the writing on the wall.
Listen closely:
No disrespect here but, "Yes, papa..."
You don't attack political strategists like Rove, the very guy who helped us win the election! I don't give a damn how many bestsellers Coulter has...she's violating Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment. Her ego is a problem!!!
Oh, puh-lease. The election's over. And Rove, who had the ear to the ground, could have made it an easier win, a rout, simply by following the clear signs he (and not we) was privy to. That's all she's saying.
Rove has fought against or ignored "traditional values" before in the name of political expediency. It wasn't needed here and yet he did it anyway. He needed to be called on it. What Coulter's got is occasionally called, uh, "brass", but not ego.
Maybe. Personally, I think Rove is over-rated and I think Ed Gillespie doesn't get enough love, but what's the point of attacking Rove now? The election is over and if Rove is inept, he's better inept then McAulliffe.
But people do strange things to impress their lovers and so long as we are engaging in idle speculation as to what might be in Anne's mind, mine is as good as anybody else's.
Coulter kinder, classier?
shrug, it's your opinion. Ann? Is that you Coulter?
And expose himself for engineering the placement of the issue on the ballot in the states that needed to get out the right votes?
You obviously didn't pick up on my referring to Kerry's and the RATs contention that Bush did have a secret deal with the Saudis to lower prices before the election to get him reelected.
Ann is RIGHT on, especially with her past paragraph.
Republicans win elections by running as Republicans, not as Democrats.
Rove was the guy who threatened Tancredo over complaints about our hemorrhaging borders, guided Bush on the Asssault Rifle Ban, and this campaign SHOULD have been far less of a cliff hanger.
Bush has done a great job, he's a great President, and he could have swept the Country.
And Rudy Giuliani or any of his RINO clones are NOT the response to Hillery Clinton in 2008.
Coulter kinder, classier?
shrug, it's your opinion. Ann? Is that you Coulter?
Hey, SpongeBob is cool!
Oh, and your opinions really deserve a bigger font. :D
Hey, SpongeBob is cool!
Yes, thanks. Some of us old guys just can't squint that much any more. :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.