The Karl Rove crush

[meegbear]

"If I were them , I'd be scared to death about November's elections."
-- Mark Halperin, director of ABC News' political unit, June 22, 2006

My favorite article from the just-completed campaign season appeared in the October 9 issue of Time, in which Mike Allen and James Carney wrote a detailed piece about why Republicans were not worried about the upcoming elections. "The G.O.P.'s Secret Weapon," read the bold headline. "You think the Republicans are sure to lose big in November? They aren't. Here's why things don't look so bad to them," read the subhead.

The article went on and on about how an "eerie, Zen-like calm" had fallen over GOP operatives who, despite a mountain of public polling data, did not fear big election losses. In fact, they coolly insisted their own prospects were "getting better by the day." Why the tranquility? Lots of reasons, according to Time, including the party's "sophisticated, expensive and largely unnoticed" campaign to identify likely voters. Time also gave the GOP points for playing the expectations game better than Democrats and for having more resources. Time ended on this chipper note: "As long as they (Republicans) end up keeping control of both houses, they still come out the winner on Election Day."

Forget about reading the analysis post-election, with Democrats now busy installing new drapes. The article produced real-time cringes, mostly because of the context, which was virtually void of skepticism. There's nothing wrong with journalists checking in with Republicans and getting their side during the campaign season. But the tone of the Time piece -- the working assumption that Republicans would naturally find a way to outsmart Democrats -- was startling considering the circumstances. Meaning, Bush at the time stood as the most unpopular second-term president in modern history in part because the White House had spent the previous 18 months careening between a series of political debacles (Social Security, Katrina, immigration, port security, Iraq).

In other words, Bush's presidency was in shambles (think Jimmy Carter, circa 1979), yet Time eagerly passed along the transparent spin about how Republican chances were "getting better by the day." Those kinds of simplistic campaign talking points worked wonders with right-wing bloggers and radio talk show hosts who excitedly repeated them as a way to calm their nerves during the campaign homestretch. But Time?

Sure enough, its 1,500-word article did not quote a single Democratic or independent source. It was, in the most literal sense, transparent RNC spin (i.e., "House Republican officials contend that many of their Democratic challengers are so little known that they could be buried in an ad blitz").

<snip>

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200611140003

[grasswire]

1. Mike Allen ought to be demoted

Have you seen him on TV lately? He's really really excitable and his upper lip sweats and he glistens as he grins about Bush and his eyes get real, real big. I think he needs a reassignment, because he's lost any objectivity he might have had.

[Captain Hilts]

2. It was Bush's 2000 strategy to act like he was ahead, even when he wasn't.

These dumbasses don't remember that that was part of his schtick.

THIS is why no one on the campaign was fired/disciplined after the losses in Iowa and NH to McCain. 'Winners' don't do that.

[wilt the stilt]

3. If anyone has seen the current issue of ime

you would think that nothing much has changed in Washington. It is pathetic.