Perfectly capturing the epic laziness that often defines conservative commentary, today's Wall Street Journal features not one but two dependable RNC talking point columnist who dutifully ignore Tuesday night's election results, and who push last week's pre-approved analysis about how awful the electoral landscape looks for Democrats.

Check out the headline for Karl Rove:

A Bad Day for the Obama Agenda

And the lede:

Tuesday's election results reflect an anti-Washington, anti-Obama, anti-establishment feeling among voters, but they also reflect the candidates' individual winning messages.

So the fact that a Democrat defeated a Republican in an increasingly GOP, blue collar Pennsylvania district was a bad thing for Obama? And the fact that the RNC's hand-picked GOP candidate in Kentucky lost in his primary bid to a Tea Party interloper was a bad thing for Democrats? Whatever you say Karl. (Even the WSJ's GOP-friendly newsroom doesn't buy that nonsense.)

Meanwhile, check out Barnes:

Anti-Incumbent? Try Anti-Obama

Do I have to even mention that Barnes's explanation about how Dr. Rand Paul's GOP victory in Kentucky somehow reflected “anti-Obama” fever was less than convincing?