Posted on 11/15/2006 11:39:25 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Read the full context. He's not repeating their lies, he's pointing them out. (emphasis mine)
Rove argues that there was a bad "environment" for the GOP, one marked by stories of scandal and corruption, intensified by the unpopularity of the Iraq war and President Bush.
yes, we have too many wimpy come backs. Tony Snow was a good move but trent lott is a bad move.
I will not abandon Rove just because he lost, but I will not support a loser mentality.
Fine Mr. Rove, the races were close. Fine Mr. Rove, the MSM is against us. Fine Mr. Rove, even FNC was against us.
They USE the new media!
Get the message out so that the MSM has to cover it.
Be the Elephant in the living room.
Rove didn't blow anything, if anyone was blowing anything it was the media blowing smoke. Too many people believe the dinosaur media is dying. I believe just the opposite.
Rove pointed that out, and too many FReepers have jumped the gun on this whole article.
I'm not saying I disagree with you PKM, quite the contrary. You're an articulate poster, and have served the cause well.
Too many people are just sour over the election results, looking for bad news wherever it hides.
The media has carried the Democrat's water for a long damn time.
The Democrats won on NO AGENDA, and they didn't bother to tell everyone what the agenda was until last Wednesday.
Where did you read that I blamed Rove for Allen's defeat? I never said that, never meant that and never implied that. Can you not read simple English?
It's called bucking up the troops. Coaches do that all the time. President Bush had a 50% chance of being right. It's a virtue of being human. He's neither a god or a deity, and the last time I looked, he wasn't walking on water.
Somewhere, under this huge pile of manure, there just *has* to be a pony!
Allen -and Talent - needed more money at the end. Rove should not have spent a dime on that turncoat Lincoln Chaffee. Allen shot himself in the mouth and that awful Fox commercial did Talent in. A pity because Talent is a good guy. very sad.
Darn you! You caught me just after my first swig of evening brew.
Now its’ all over my keyboard and monitor!
Bush got what he wanted, a liberal congress to accept his "comprehensive immigration BS."
LOL--funniest post evAr!!!!111
That one made my day, so thankya! :D
Thanks for remembering my interest in this matter, My2Cents.
And I see we are all three of us in agreement. The WH did not defend itself at all against the "Bush lies" mantra and the WMD issues and it will forevermore remain a mystery why.
All it's done is embolden the Democrats to say the most outrageous and untrue things which in turn has delighted the jihadists.
I have a feeling we'll never know the answer to this. It's puzzling and maddening. And many days I wondered why I was bothering to defend a man against charges he wasn't himself defending against.
You got that right! Talk about tone-deaf.
The cold hard fact is that the Democrats have a majority in both Houses of Congress.
Another fact is that they always controlled the Senate Now there are more Democrats than Republican members.
I suppose, if one wished, one could say that the Republicans only lost control of the House.
"For example, Rove says many races went down to the wire--there were 35 House contests in which the winner got 51 percent of the vote or less--suggesting that the country is still closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. In the 18 races decided by 8,000 or fewer votes, the GOP won 12 and lost six, Rove says. Rove argues that there was a bad "environment" for the GOP, one marked by stories of scandal and corruption, intensified by the unpopularity of the Iraq war and President Bush.
Rove estimates that 10 House seats were lost to the GOP specifically because of one-time scandals and that those losses weren't due to any flawed strategy on his part. Rove also says the results were not outside the norm in which a president's party generally suffers losses in congressional elections in his sixth year. In addition, Rove tells glum Republicans that the party "saved" eight to 14 GOP candidates because of its vaunted 72-hour plan to get out the GOP vote."
This is all true.
Why the controversy? Maybe because that act of 'saving some GOP' candidates wasnt quite good enough, and it is scary that it could have been worse, and unfortunate that we couldnt do just a *little* bit better to cut House losses to under 20 and keep the senate.
I expected 12-18 losses in the House and -3 in the Senate, and was frankly shocked at how bad we did. We muffed it big-time and there is plenty of blame to share around.
I don't think they know what kind of world their creating!
He**, they don't either!!!!
Dittos. It's exasperating, and, as I think we both know, it's dangerous, considering the kind of world we live in. When we're engaged in the biggest civilizational struggle for survival since the latter days of the Roman Empire, you can't afford to let the other side (which doesn't believe there's anything good about western civilization worth defending) win.
This isn't very comforting. How many of these toss-up districts were considered "safe Republican" 2, or 4, or 6 years ago? It appears that a case can be made that the narrow "Republican majority" in this country has slipped away. I think this can all be turned around within two years, but it's going to take a rejuvenated Republican Party with a new vision and message.
Rove's day has come and gone - Carl, Texas is calling you. It's time to saddle your horse and ride off into the sunset.
I'm feeling much better now, thank you Karl.[sarc/off]
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.