Terror. Terror! TERROR!!
Franken is cleverly implying that American's fears are groundless or irrational, the products of cheap psychological tricks rather than a real concern. On the contrary, the jihad is real, and millions of Muslims would like to kill us in the process of establishing a worldwide Caliphate and restoring/inaugurating God's reign on earth. Their project of world conquest cannot succeed, but it can kill a hell of a lot of people on its way to failure.
That's why the Democrats can't win an election since 9/11 despite a mediocre President who in many ways has remained mediocre. Too much of the Democratic base doesn't believe that the jihadist threat is real. Democratic activists hearts really aren't in the War on Terror. It's not the sort of thing they got into politics for.
The analogy to the 2004 election would be a choice between a heart surgeon who was known to not be at or near the top of his field and a pure faith healer who says that you aren't sick, you only think you're sick.
Franken is cleverly implying that American's fears are groundless or irrational, the products of cheap psychological tricks rather than a real concern. On the contrary, the jihad is real, and millions of Muslims would like to kill us in the process of establishing a worldwide Caliphate and restoring/inaugurating God's reign on earth. Their project of world conquest cannot succeed, but it can kill a hell of a lot of people on its way to failure.
That's why the Democrats can't win an election since 9/11 despite a mediocre President who in many ways has remained mediocre. Too much of the Democratic base doesn't believe that the jihadist threat is real. Democratic activists hearts really aren't in the War on Terror. It's not the sort of thing they got into politics for.
The analogy to the 2004 election would be a choice between a heart surgeon who was known to not be at or near the top of his field and a pure faith healer who says that you aren't sick, you only think you're sick.
2 Comments:
I'm uncertain why you see a level of subtlety to Franken's writings. I don't think he understands the word "subtle".
Franken makes it very clear that the Bush's plan was two-fold : (1) They are gonna come after us, and (2) only George W. Bush... the guy that has no real military experience, can protect you (despite the fact that his opponent was not only an actual soldier, but a damned good one). Step (1) implies there were pretty much no other issues that mattered, which is untrue. Step (2) was also pretty untrue - W. did a great job of invading a country that didn't attack us, but has yet to find the guy who did.
Hopefully people will have realized from the debacle in Iraq that invading others is not equal to protecting yourself, which is what the Democratic interests ARE about.
I'm sorry... I just re-read something.
"The analogy to the 2004 election would be a choice between a heart surgeon who was known to not be at or near the top of his field and a pure faith healer who says that you aren't sick, you only think you're sick."
Are you high? That is the only explanation. Bush went from a near total approval rating post-9/11 to under 40%. NOONE believed he was doing well in Iraq. Kerry (again... let's note... Purple Heart War Veteran) says the big problem with Iraq was the we went in stupidly without a plan to get out... an idea that first came from George H. W. Bush.
The "Democratic base" managed to defend us against multiple terrorist attacks through excellent intelligence. "He caught them at the border" (the argument used against Clinton's capturing of the Millenium Bombs) means that... drumroll... he was good enough to catch them BEFORE they could get close enough to do damage. The Republican plan? MISSLES FROM SPACE.
Crack kills, John... leave that stuff alone. :)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home