Seed Media Group

No Se Nada

Science and (culture, politics, policy, media)

Search this blog

Profile

vranespic.jpg Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the CSTPR. (More in the about.)

email: kevin {/at/} nosenada.org
Comments policy

Recent Posts

required reading


  The Contested Plains
  On Killing
  The Wisdom of Crowds
  The Tipping Point
  On Combat
  The Botany of Desire
  Freakanomics
  Midnight's Children

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

the usual suspects

(listed in semi-random order)


  prometheus (sci. pol.)
  Boulder Coffee
  john fleck (ideas)
  brian schmidt (ideas)
  andrew alden (geology)
  james annan (climate)
  realclimate (climate)
  dan collins (geo-)
  pielke sr. (climate)
  sylvia tognetti (sci. pol.)
  andrew dessler (climate)
  bob park (physics/sci pol)
  chris rowan (geology)
  charles magee (geo-)
  wg/co (geology)
  yami mcmoots (geology)
  sean davis (clouds)
  reason: hit and run (politics)
  point380 climate consulting
  colorado pols (CO politics)
  colo. confidential (CO politics)


Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Saturn's hurricane-like storm | Main | How the Senate landscape shifts for climate change »

For Sale: Karl Rove's SMIP crown. Any buyers?

Category: Bare politics
Posted on: November 13, 2006 12:12 PM, by Kevin Vranes

Karl Rove is clearly delusional and getting more so. His interview to NPR's Robert Siegel on October 24th could have been dismissed as Rove trying to give encouragement to his base and discouragement to NPR's lib listeners. That was the interview in which Rove told Siegel about the upcoming midterms and how the polls were clearly in the R's favor: "...you have your math and I have the math." (That line starts at 3:10 ... take a listen, it's an instant classic. And I'm trying to extract that 10-second sound bite...I'll post it when I do.)

Rove could have played that off as a rallying cry. But then he had to go and follow it up with more tripe to Time magazine. Such tripe that it makes me wonder if he actually believes what he's saying, or is just pushing a calculated lie for political effect. A few months ago I would have been easily convinced it was the latter, but now I'm wondering if it's not the former. The switch comes from a passage in this Time mag story:

Rove chalks up the loss to corruption, incumbent overconfidence and conservative dissatisfaction with spending. He does not read the outcome as exclusively a judgment on either Iraq or Bush.

Karl? I can just picture your limo slowing up at the corner of Benning Rd and 21st NE. You know, right there at G St? The white clapboard house just off Benning? What brand of crack did buy there at the Den, Karl? How many times did you hit before you talked to reporters yesterday?

I'll give him this, though. He's right about something:

"Iraq mattered," Rove says. "But it was more frustration than it was an explicit call for withdrawal."

But it obviously mattered a lot more than you think it did, if you place corruption, "incumbent overconfidence" and dissatisfaction with spending as three things more important than Iraq. Iraq was THE issue, you bonehead. It doesn't mean that the voters want us to cut and run tomorrow, but it was still THE issue.

And then, of course, there's this. Jonah highlights Newsweek's musings on Rove's stunning miscalculation, and it seems to indicate that Rove actually believed he was right - that he had THE math.

Give me that SMIP crown, Karl. You've lost it for good. Now we've just got to figure out who you're going to have to pass it to. Howard Dean? Nuh-uh. Nancy Pelosi? Probably not. Ms. Clinton? Not yet. Time will tell....

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Top Five: Most German

Search All Blogs

Science News From:

Science News from NYTimes.com