Counter intuitive thinking

By now, everyone know3s all about spin, and how two sides of a political debate try to make the facts bend into good news for them. It's rare that the media acknolwedges more than two sides, and any more, there only a nodding agreement that there is a second side as the facts are spun as they are being given. You would think, however, that there isn't really a good way to make the disasterous poll numbers being racked up by Bush (down to 31% approval in some polls) .

Well, you'd be wrong. Right-wing talk radio host and isufferably smarmy bastard Hugh Hewitt thi9nk that this is great news for the Republicans. Hewitt is one of the few far right talk radio hosts who hasn't abandoned the GOP and Bush with the all purpose "I'm a Libertarian" defense that is cropping up among hosts who don't want their raqtings sliding like Bush's. In his "essay" , he tosses out points without backing them up:

There are undeniable signs of GOP renewal, in Senate races in Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Washington State, Montana and Missouri --and perhaps next week in Florida-- as well as great candidates for governor in Blackwell in Ohio and Swann in Pennsyvlania.

A pretty strong point to make. Yet, where is the evidence? He doesn't give it. He links to another opinion piece that echoes what he is say? Why? Dunno...but usually when someone doesn't site sources, it means they don't have any.

Bill Kristol has argued that 9/11 may have changed American politics far more than we know, and I suspect the president's poll numbers --to the extent they are accurate-- reflect not dismay with the war, but dismay with the Administration's occasional appearance of placing priority on other than the war.

Oh, so the polls aren't accurate? They were "accurate" for you when Bush was in the high numbers, but now that his numbers are low, they aren't. I think it's pretty disingenuous to only agree with polls when they agree with you.

Suddenly, the debate is back where it ought to be, on the war, judges, taxes, spending and also border security. The 12 words have begun 15:
Win the war.
Confirm the judges.
Cut the taxes.
Control the spending.
Secure the border.
Democrats stand for the opposite of each proposition.

Win the war? Bush said that it's for the next guy to deal with.

Confirm the Judges? I haven't heard much of anything about that.

Cut the taxes...be nice if they cut them for people who made less than $250K a year.

Control the spending? The Republicans have raised spending to record levels and taken the budget surplus Clinton's budget plan created and turned it into the biggest deficits in history.

Secure the border? Nice rhetoric, but the bills keep falling apart because the Xenopobic Republicans are fighting with the cheap labor Republicans.

The rest of the article is back patting about how well the right is doing. The level of denial is pretty thick, and it shows me that the football team metaphor is hard at work here. These people don't believe in an underlying philosophy, they just hate the other guy and think that their team is the best, no matter what their team does. Bush has been more "liberal" when it comes to fiscal matters, imperial when it comes to matters of State, and ineffectual on the world stage. And if that's what these people want...well then, I guess they are getting it.