Rove: war opposition ‘may pose a threat’ to Dems

I wouldn’t want to alarm anyone, but it appears that Karl Rove isn’t an especially honest person. Yes, this may come as a surprise to, well, maybe somebody out there, but his latest Wall Street Journal column helps drive the point home.

For example, the man the president affectionately called “Turd Blossom,” devoted much of his column to insisting that Democrats oppose retroactive immunity for telecoms that cooperated with Bush’s illegal warrantless-search program because Dems are looking out for “personal injury lawyers,” who are the party’s “financial benefactors.” (The argument first came up a month ago, and it was ridiculous then, too.)

Even more importantly, Rove argued at length that Democrats are out of touch with public opinion when it comes to the war in Iraq.

One out of five is not a majority. Democrats should keep that simple fact of political life in mind as they pursue the White House.

For a party whose presidential candidates pledge they’ll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office — without regard to conditions on the ground or the consequences to America’s security — a late February Gallup Poll was bad news. The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.

Only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn “on a timetable as soon as possible.” And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better. […]

Just a year ago it was almost universally accepted that Iraq would wreck the GOP chances in November. Now the issue may pose a threat to the Democratic efforts to gain power. For while the American people are acknowledging the positive impact of the surge, Democratic leaders are not.

So, to summarize, Karl Rove — the alleged strategic genius of the Republican Party — believes the Dems’ withdrawal plans are unpopular with the public, while the Bush administration policy is gaining favor.

It’s a pretty silly argument for a top former White House aide to make in print, but as long as Rove is pushing the line, and Rove is going to be a major media player, we might as well go to the trouble of highlighting how wrong he is.

The Rove argument is pretty straightforward: Dems support withdrawal; the public in general does not. Dems think the war will help the party in the elections, but it’s more likely to hurt. Got it.

The problem is equally straightforward: Rove has engaged in some poll cherry-picking, overlooking the overwhelming data that contradicts his odd worldview. Consider some of the most recent numbers that Rove prefers to pretend doesn’t exist.

* CBS News: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?” 65% disapprove, 30% approve

* CNN: “If you had to choose, would you rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, or would you rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office?” 61% remove, 33% keep the same number

* Washington Post/ABC News: “Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?” 48% Democrats, 34% Republicans

Now, I will gladly concede that popular opinion with regards to the war is complicated. For example, we’ve seen, in a variety of instances, polls showing Americans wanting a withdrawal within a year. Twelve months later, they once again say they want withdrawal within a year. It makes reading the tea leaves a little tricky.

But for Rove to argue that Dems are at odds with the public (and, implicitly, that Republicans are in line with popular opinion) is just foolish. We can debate the severity of the White House’s fiasco and what might happen if we began implementing a sensible policy for a change, but to argue insist that Democratic proposals are out of step with voters simply isn’t supported by reality. In fact, it’s far more likely that the opposite is true — Dems’ poll numbers began falling last year when voters thought the majority party wasn’t doing enough to challenge Bush on the war.

Maybe it’s just people are sick of war without end, without any strategic purpose outside of steal Iraq’s oil and pretty soon without money if the lending bomb continues to explode up and down the financial community and dries up the life blood of war.

We’re talking about the same guy who fervently believed that the 2006 Repubs would hold Congress.

But what is sad about this is that some half wit bankrupt election consultant will use to attempt to push the Dems into some triangulation plan to suck up to the pro war folks while playing up to the anti-war folks. Yeah, that works.

  • oh karl, don’t throw us into that briar patch! the hugely popular war will devastate us!

  • Let them continue to make fools of themselves. They’re going to be meeting in a public toilet (with room left over, even with “wide stances”) come the day after elections.

    Rove can continue to “do the math” and prove himself to be the moron he’s been since he first popped out of the drunken whore who spawned him.

  • This is merely further illustration of how a Republican finds a “fact” and where they find it:

    1. Unfasten belt and unzip fly.

    2. Drop pants

    3. Bend over.

    4. Reach down between legs and withdraw “fact”.

    5. Hold it up and wave it around (to “air it out”) and announce a new “fact.”

  • The media is about to let the neocons do it to us again.

    Check out Greenwald’s latest must-read:

    …The vast bulk of the country believes they were deliberately deceived about the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. And a principal reason why we ended up in Iraq is because the Bush administration was permitted to spew all sorts of falsehoods about the Iraqi threat while the media uncritically passed along those falsehoods, depicting Bush officials as Serious, honorable national security protectors whose word could be trusted and whose knowledge was beyond questioning.

    And now — by their own admission — they’re doing exactly the same thing with McCain. These Iran/Al Qaeda episodes occurred when McCain was traveling around the Middle East with his closest ally, warmonger Joe Lieberman — who has already explicitly advocated an American military attack on Iran — and it involved McCain’s repeatedly making patently false assertions in order to tie Iran to Al Qaeda and to exaggerate wildly the Iranian threat, exactly the sort of deceit that misled large majorities of Americans into believing that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks…

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/24/mccain/index.html

  • Which candidates “pledge they’ll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office”? Think I’ll vote for ’em’, whomever.

  • “Rove: war opposition ‘may pose a threat’ to Dems”

    I think the way to interpret this is that the Dem position on Iraq, to responsbily start a withdrawal of troops, is a threat in so far as Rove and Co can spin it into another doomsday scenario.

    So what he is really saying is: we are definitely going to use this (i.e., withdrawal) by spinning it as a doomsday scenario against the Dems in the next election.

    Therefore, according to Rove, the Dems are at risk unless the Dems adopt the GOP position on an indefinite presence in Iarq.

  • “Now, I will gladly concede that popular opinion with regards to the war is complicated. For example, we’ve seen, in a variety of instances, polls showing Americans wanting a withdrawal within a year. Twelve months later, they once again say they want withdrawal within a year.”

    What’s confusing about this? They wanted withdrawal within a year, they (obviously) didn’t get it, so a year later they say “Yes, we still want withdrawal within a year.” If you’re wondering why, the second time around, they don’t seem they want withdrawal tomorrow, assuming that was presented as an option in the poll, I suppose even most opponents of the war favor some kind of phased withdrawal that would permit the Iraqi government the opportunity (if not the reality) for a smooth transition of security and peacekeeping duties.

  • Karl was easier to take when he was more careful with his words while he was afraid of being indicted. Now, once again, he knows his lies won’t hurt him, just get him gigs with WSJ and Fox.

  • The growing anti-war sentiment in the USA will pose a grave threat. A grave threat to the traitors Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Rove. Threats of investigations, triats, convictions and then being shipped to The Hague for trial for war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  • Don’t look now, but Bush’s poodle is rolling out the Iran war drum:

    The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday’s bombardment of Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone.
    Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

    He said Iran was adding what he described as “lethal accelerants” to a very combustible mix…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311565.stm

  • The big lie based on distorted facts then singing it to the choir…Rove hasn’t changed much. He’s always been wrong …on everything. The new WSJ’s embarrassament still belongs in prison.

  • Context, Context, Context…

    Keep in mind that the Corporate News Media, in their role as stenographers for the Rethugs, invariably discuss ‘withdrawal from Iraq’ in the light of the worst possible scenarios and ‘staying in Iraq’ in the best possible scenarios.

    The Surge is a success, as long as you keep your eyes closed. After all, the surge is a success – so says the ‘conventional wisdom’. It would be unpatriotic to bring up the reasons put forth by Bush for the surge.

    Victory is possible, as long as you don’t ask what defines victory. This is why McCain will campaign for victory in Iraq & the Corporate News Media will not ask what victory is.

    Rethugs get to make the definitions. The Corporate News Media gets to amplify them. The ‘voices of wisdom’ provided by the CNM are the same voices of wisdom that brought us the ‘conventional wisdom’ that Iraq had WMD & that Sadaam was involved in 9/11.

    It will be the same ‘conventional wisdom’ of the Corporate News Media that will help sell war against Iran. When the bloviators start their marketing of war against Iran, the CNM will perform their patriotic duties and pay homage to the wisdom of the Bush administration.

  • RacerX, @11,

    Sounds to me like it’s *Petraeus*, who’s adding “lethal accelerants to a very combustible mix”. I think he has but one thought in his rock-like (literal translation of his surname) head — follow the Bush’s directive towards the petro-dollars…

  • The “alleged strategic genius” managed the extraordinarily well funded reelection campaign of a sitting president who flooded the country with $2 trillion in federal borrowing, and was aided by 1% fed rates from his friend at the Fed, and still won by only 3 points nationally, a 60,000 vote swing in Ohio away from losing outright. Along the way he gave his party a “branding problem” that, let’s hope, continues to haunt it for decades. Lord knows he’s doing everything in his power to reenforce the image.

  • kkkarl’s job is to create the lies and memes and then the MSM “echo chamber” will “catapult the propaganda” becuase it was in the WSJ – therefore, has to be “newsworthy.”

    The honesty does not matter because the pundits will treat it as fact regardless of what the American public believes.

    These lies then become the memes that are used to justify the stolen elections in 2008 – of course the media will never talk about the integrity of the vote – they will just babble on and on about the lies that they created and spread to provide a justification stolen election.

    They know they are lying and we know they are lying, but the real problem is they will tell us this is why mclame wins the election.

  • Hey Tom Cleaver, about comment #3 – Why do you want to insult drunken whores? I’ve known a number of them, and most have been very nice, and fun too! I am sure that they are mostly nicer than the Babs that popped out the future Commander Codpiece.

  • Turdblossom must be off his meds if he thinks that the Republican Party has a winner with the occupation of Iraq.

  • Yep, Rove is delusional — unless he knows something we don’t. Like what? Oh, maybe another terrorist attack is on the way, this time to be blamed on Iran. Shrub/Cheney will waste no time in deploying (possibly nuclear) bombers to Tehran and gosh darn it, don’tcha know it just won’t be a good time to hold an election. Or, if they decide to let it proceed, it’ll be a landslide for Daddy War Hero McCain. And their ko-konspirator Karl will be proved right after all.

  • Rove understands how the media really works. He keeps repeating this stuff, they “report” it as though it were true. And they show their true beliefs by not asking Rove the obvious questions, like “Mr. Rove how can you make this claim when all the polls show the opposite of what you’re saying?”

    Repetition, coupled with a press corps that really agrees with him (no, they’re not lazy. They are faithfully playing their role and earning paychecks from people who love Rove and the GOP), are a powerful combination that may yet steal victory from the Democrats.

  • Comments are closed.