John,
I’m disappointed in your failure to engage on some of my questions, especially your unwillingness to be tricked into telling the world what the Post is doing about acquiring and “truth squadding” questionable (as in “false”) campaign material that will reach voters in these final days. I know you joked about it, but the reality is that there is not one news organization in America doing a good enough job on that, and that is too bad.
As for unagi: It is the solid nectar of the lucky.
As for Mike “Bram” Abramowitz’s Post piece about Karl Rove, I can say this. Mike and I are childhood friends; Mike has read our book The Way to Win; and Mike is not dumb. So, I think it is pretty clear that he gets our Rove thesis—the emphasis, for those who want to understand the world, should be on “genius” and not “evil” (as in “Rove is an evil genius”). As for whether Mike ripped us off or not, I prefer the word “homage.”
Democrats, Republicans, and the Jacob Weisbergs of the world can pick nits all they want with Rove—that Bush isn’t the most successful president ever, that Rove can’t walk on water, that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and that they both have made plenty of political and policy mistakes. All of that is true. The reality is, though, that Bush and Rove, as a team, have never lost to Democrats, and their wins in 2002 and 2004 defied the odds in many ways.
If Democrats win a big victory next Tuesday, it will be interesting to hear Rove’s explanation. But for goodness’ sake, as Abramowitz was smart enough to demonstrate, people who live in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and Manhattan should understand that in much of red America, Rove is beloved and respected, and they should ask themselves why that is.
Go edit the paper.
Warmly I remain,
Mark
