Karl Rove, you just can't make his BS up

So now Karl Rove, he who just spent $400 million of conservative money with nothing to show for it, just announced that President Obama won because Obama "suppressed" the vote through negative advertising.

He failed to mention the millions spent on trying to suppress the voting of minorities and the elderly by Republican shenanigans, or the $400 million he spent on negative advertising by his SuperPacs. Nope, the only reason the President Obama won was because the President suppressed the vote.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... ssing-vote

You can't make this stuff up....

Get over yourselves and move on. Just because Obama won the election does not mean you are all that. Get a grip.

CinnamonGirl wrote: Get over yourselves and move on. Just because Obama won the election does not mean you are all that. Get a grip.

Nope, I think I will stick around. And the OP was in regard to the BS by Karl Rove.

Gee, Dog...Can't you just hear the insults, cat-calls and snarking in your ear had Mitt-Flop won? It wouldn't let up for months... Now, all of sudden, it's "Get a grip"?

13 million less people voted than in 2008. Even less than those who voted in 2004. Maybe too many negative ads on both sides?

I read somewhere that people complain about negative ads but then when asked about why they are voting a particular way they cite a fact that brought up in a negative ad -- not realizing the "fact" they mentioned was from a negative ad. So much is spent on them because they work. The only non-negative ad I can clearly remember is Reagan's "It's Morning in America." That's my favorite political ad of all time.

LadyJazzer wrote: Gee, Dog...Can't you just hear the insults, cat-calls and snarking in your ear had Mitt-Flop won? It wouldn't let up for months... Now, all of sudden, it's "Get a grip"?

I realize that it's hard for you to see, denial is so strong, but we don't all post like you do LJ.

Give me a break...

Raees wrote: I read somewhere that people complain about negative ads but then when asked about why they are voting a particular way they cite a fact that brought up in a negative ad -- not realizing the "fact" they mentioned was from a negative ad. So much is spent on them because they work. The only non-negative ad I can clearly remember is Reagan's "It's Morning in America." That's my favorite political ad of all time.

While us political nuts here are too cynical to be affected by these negative ads, I do believe the undecided 10% are. The apolitical people at my work were talking about them in the month before the election. And they did their job.