To be fair, when turd blossom was at the top of his game quality wasn't an issue. He did get dubya elected twice.

It’s hard to elect candidates when you are up against President Santa Claus...

"Let me be clear [scans the room with eyes], I will give you phones, houses and food stamps, if you vote for me. Plus, even though I am personally against gay marriage, I WILL pander to that statistically-insignificant group to get their vote, so I look nice."

@2: thanks for that. I'll keep it mind next time I'm being lectured by conservative fuckwads over my contempt for roughly half the electorate.

@1 & @2: Oh, please. Dubya was a likeable git who did what he was told when running for election the first time. Any gaffes made him seem folksy. Thereafter, (mostly) he did what the Shadow Government of Cheney and Rove told him to do. And no one could have gotten stiff, stupid-mouth Mittens elected, obviously, or Rove would have been able to pull it off with all that money.

Are you sure you're not craving a ham sandwich?

@2,

Compared to Governor Santa Claus who promised to balance the budget by cutting taxes?

Mr. Rove blamed the "lousy campaigns" run by the candidates. And, of course, as a PAC, he was forbidden from helping out on those campaigns and had to remain independent of them.

But wasn't he essentially running independent campaigns for each of them? Were those campaigns (his) also lousy?

@2 As opposed to the Grinch? Old 1% Ebeneezer austerity?
"I love to fire people..." at Christmastime?
The fact is the Republicans that Rove got elected then left a country in significantly worse shape then when they found it. And you can say a lot of things about Obama, but food stamps were here long before he came along. And for good reason.

@ 1, don't forget that Bush had instant name recognition that wasn't earned in any way, and that Gore ran a horrible run-away-from-Clinton campaign, and that Nader siphoned off votes, AND that the Supreme Court intervened and gave the election to Bush. Turd Blossom might have remained anonymous if it weren't for all that.

Ham Rove rump roast? http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert…

@2 Yes, my free phone has been amazing. I was totally bribed into not voting Republican.

@10, thats what low information voters do, get bribed...Sucka!

@8 Yeah, being Governor of Texas was not earned at all [rolleyes]. Kinda like Hillary huh?

Rove and the GOP's other bright lights are busy blaming their party's losses on everything but their policy positions. "It wasn't our failed policies, it was our messaging! Plus, our candidates weren't charismatic enough. Plus, the sun was in my eyes."

As long as they continue to dig in their heels on their increasingly unpopular platform, it's good news for Democrats.

@ 11, given that he would never have been governor of Texas without his name, yes. That was completely unearned as well.

Too bad for you that Hillary's name is, well, Hillary. Not Bill.

@12 Oh, there is one enemy that could blow it for Dems; complacency. The left forgets that EVERY election is crucial to keep us moving in the progressive direction. The right always votes. Especially in midterms.

Shredded Turd Blossom? Yech!!!!!

@2 the Lifeline program (phone subsidy) program was begun under that former Union Leader Socialist Ronald Reagan in 1984.

There is no government program that gives away houses. I assume you are idiotically referring to VA loans begun in 1944, to help members of the largest Socialist institution in the United States, the US Military, to purchase houses.

Or perhaps Fannie Mae established in 1938 which began issuing mortgage backed securities under former Union Leader and Socialist Ronald Reagan in 1981.

As for Food Stamps the ground work for that was laid in 1959 and the pilot program started in 1961. Obama was born in what year? Oh wait 1961 well ya got me there the infant Obama clearly started the Food Stamp give away.

As for Gay marriage? That is a completely conservative idea, who needs the government in their bedroom, and why would you weaken the family by denying people the right to marry?