Rove's Ruse Revealed.... [and UPDATED X2]

dr. elsewhere here

[UPDATES at end of post]

The past few posts have attracted quite the discussion about all things elective. Be sure to scroll down and check them out, especially the excellent comments.

But I just had to share. This is absolutely priceless.

Rawstory has posted an exchange between an election reporter and Karl Rove on NPR yesterday that has got me pretty darn cranked. Here it is, and I'll bet the bird dog each and every reader gets the point (dr. e's emphases):

After midterm election interviewer Robert Siegel stated that "many might consider you on the optimistic end of realism" regarding Republican hopes to retain both Houses in November, Rove suggested that the NPR host was biased.

"Not that you would be exhibiting a bias or anything like that," Rove said. "You're just making a comment."

"I'm looking at all the same polls that you're looking at every day," Seigel responded

"No you're not!" Rove exclaimed.

Rove said that he was reviewing 68 polls a week, and that "unlike the general public, I'm allowed to see the polls on the individual races," as opposed to public polls reported in the media.

"You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally, but that do not impact the outcome," Rove said.

Rove claimed that the polls "add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House."

"You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math," Rove said. "I'm entitled to 'the' math."

"The" math??? "THE" math???!!!
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)


So actually what we have here is Rove Revealed, his arrogance and delusion as much as his ruse. Karl has apparently convinced himself that the American pundits and the American public are only watching the general polls, polls that come out in Newsweek and Time every couple of weeks measuring the pulse of the nation at large, polls that say Bush's approval hasn't lifted out of the 30s in a year and a half, and that say a solid majority think Iraq was a mistake and is a disaster and we should get the hell out. Those consistently dreadful polls, for the Republicans anyway. Karl thinks those are the only polls we're watching.

Does he honestly believe that the general public is not allowed to see all those individual polls on all those individual races?? Does he honestly believe he and only perhaps a select (and selectED, winkwink nudgenudge) few of the chosen media analysts are actually viewing the results of all those dozens that come out every week? Does he really so casually dismiss the trends of the general public as irrelevant in this election, and - dare I say it? - in the American election process? Is this guy really that obtuse?

If you read the rest of the interview transcript, I think you'll draw the same conclusion I did: Yup, he really really is, at least that obtuse. (Like we didn't already know that.)

Just one to tempt you (like you needed tempting). The interviewer, Robert Siegel, asks him what values he has been encouraging the volunteers to share with voters, and this is what Rove says:

Well, for example, look, one -- the war on terror. Do you support in a time of war reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the terrorist surveillance program? There's a vote in the House; 88 percent of the Democrats in the House voted against giving additional authority to a program to listen in on suspected al Qaeda figures calling or trying to contact people inside the United States. The vote on the CIA interrogation bill -- where, again, over 80 percent of the Democrats in the House and Senate voted against a program of the CIA interrogating high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11.

There it is, folks. He's convinced the WOT is going to win this one for the Gipper AGAIN!!

And, at least as interesting, take note of what he does with this general "terror" issue, in answer to a question about values. Karl lists each of the heinous bills pushed through this godforsaken rubberstamp 109th that were, at least in large part, clearly constructed to double-bind Democrats in times of election! All those bills that double-dared Democrats to put their asses in indefensible slings, slings that Republicans could thrust into every Democratic election bubble, along with the arrows of outrageous misfortune.

Except that Rove's disclosure here suggests pretty boldly that he should consider trying a new, "real" calculator. "The" math he claims to be relying on seems to come right out of that "truthiness" realm he has constructed somewhere outside the reality-based community. So why should we be surprised? I suppose because this appears to be such a bold revelation of contradiction and self-delusion that, in times past, they've been much better at keeping behind the curtain. But then, when you really think about it, this is all too consistent with Drudge's revealing blamefest of those "young beasts" who tempted Foley, Coulter's screed against the Jersey girls, Limbaugh's savaging of Michael J. Fox, Allen's macaca moment, now all the racist ads and of course the daily scandals, and on and on. Not only do they appear to be imploding, but - and this is key - it is no longer taboo to point it out, to exclaim that not only does this Emperor wannabe have no clothes, but he also has a puny li'l weewee.

Democrats may be blamed for being unherdable cats when it comes to cohesive policy, but they've been a good bit more consistent when it comes to principle, whereas the Republicans - precisely because they summarily ditched principle back somewhere around Nixon - can no longer hold anything together, what with all their slime showing.

I have to say, first, that this is a clear indication that the "Architect" is way off his game, or we're witnessing exposure of the fact that he is a one-trick Fartblossoming pony. The latter is by far the more logical conclusion, given the abundance of the evidence.

And second, I also have to say that this is neither surprising nor disturbing. In fact, this little interview may be more revealing than anything we've seen from Rove the Rogue, ever.

UPDATE 1: The first comment below, from Dr. Stern, asks the obvious question about Rove's smug knowledge of, um, special, hidden factors that might, um, influence the outcome of the upcoming elections. And within minutes of reading the comment, I found this excellent analysis of the situation from the perspective of states and contests most vulnerable to, um, manipulation. In addition to listing Greg Palast's voter suppression strategies, this thorough and edifying piece breaks down the current statistical likelihood of Democrats winning the House (99% likelihood) and Senate (74% likelihood).

WARNING: "The" REAL math statistics are included in this article (not likely Karl's). Don't be daunted, as it is quite readable, and not that hard to understand. And just for the record, I'm fairly savvy with stats, and the reasoning behind these analyses is quite sound. And also for the record, the basic math that supports this analysis, and supports the logic of exit polls and global warming and the lack of logic behind balancing the budget while cutting taxes, it's fundamentally all the same. 1 + 1 will always equal 2. The likelihood of getting heads when you flip a coin will always be 50%. The likelihood that all, or even enough of the predicted Democratic victories turn Republican on the 7th? Astronomical.

UPDATE 2: Then there is this "startling" revelation by a WH staffer about Rove's role in Iraq policy; talk about revealing!