Replies

Now let's consider this for a minute. Your comments suggest that Rove is nothing but some lucky bum who happened to be in the right place at the right time. That is the same flawed logic employed by the liberal/left unintelligentsia to try and 'prove' that Ronald Reagan wasn't responsible for the West winning the Cold War
The problem with what you're saying is that just because the argument is similar doesn't make my argument invalid. If one was to believe what you are saying here, then they'd have to believe that there is no such thing as "being in the right place at the right time" because sometimes, that argument is used in an incorrect way. What you're saying here makes absolutely no sense and is a poor choice of argument.

To the contrary, the fact that I have cited an example (Reagan in this case) does not necessarily mean that (as you said) 'there is no such thing as "being in the right place at the right time", in the cases of Reagan (and Rove, the object of your disdain), it was NOT a case of 'being in the right place at the right time', it was a case of two distinct individuals correctly perceiving the changing directions of history, understanding the dynamics, and riding the wave. As fervent as your assertions may be that my 'argument makes no sense', it makes all the sense in the world, and if you wish to point out 'poor choices' in this widdle tit for tat we're having here, it was (*ahem*) a "poor choice" for you to begin by stating that 'Karl Rove is not the genius he's made out to be', and while that may be your opinion, it is unsubstantiated opinion. Rove's results speak for themselves.

Rove didn't change his beliefs to adapt to that 'move to the right' you speak of. And nobody has suggested that the political winds shifted all because of Karl Rove. That assertion is just a straw man you constructed. Why, we can only speculate.
Are you paying attention? Every pundit, whether on the right or on the left, claims this rightward shift of the electorate, in the form of the increasing majorities in the Senate, House, and Governorships, and the re-election of President Bush, is a result of the blueprints of the "architect" Karl Rove.

EVERY pundit you say? Care to elaborate on that?

I submit to you my illustrious college Freeper, that Karl Rove IS a freakin' genius, because it takes a genius to successfully direct and manage political operations and campaigns that result in your boss (meaning the President in this case) being not only re-elected, but increasing his strength across the board, Senate, House, Governorships, etc. Now one can look at the failure of the '92 Bush-I campaign and point to any number of reasons why GHWB didn't win that second term, but a prime reason which is seldom spoken of is the fact that in that crucial '92 election, a political genius that had guided the Bush/Quayle campaign to it's '88 win died way too soon, in March '91 from cancer.
Once again, I believe this to be a mischaracterization of basic history. GHWB ran in '88 against a Kerry-type figure, who had little chance to win over the American public. The loss in '92 has to do with breaking his no new taxes pledge and the fact he ran against one of the most slimy, and frankly effective, politicians of all time.

Just out of curiosity my new FRiend, how old were you in '92?

I was there, and I remember it like yesterday, and I might add, that I had already cast votes for Richard Nixon (twice), Gerald Ford (once while holding my nose), Reagan (twice) and Bush-I (once, '88).

I suggest you re-examine that '88 contest, because Dukakis had a fair shot at winning the presidency, and he failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which was (brace yourself pal) the godawful campaign advice of noneother than Bob Schrum (yes THAT Bob Schrum) himself.

On the other hand, if your mind is already made up about all this, say the word and I won't continue to confuse you with the facts.