A couple of days ago, Hillary Clinton was in Concord, New Hampshire and said the following:
“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world.”
The natural instinct of the Republican of course is to zero in on the fact that Hillary is virtually admitting that a populace frightened by terrorist attacks will feel safer with a Republican rather than a Democrat at the helm. This is very tempting, mostly because it’s true — and whenever I hear Hillary telling the truth, I can do nothing but wonder what’s up.
Hillary was apparently willing to give up the aforementioned truthful and revealing tidbit in order to get to what I’m guessing was the reason she said that in the first place: to imply that Republicans would be happy if there was another terrorist attack — or even somehow might allow an attack to win an election.
The Rodham approach to terrorism is not unlike the global warming alarmists approach to the level of salt in sea water: If it goes up, it’s caused by global warming — and if it goes down, it’s caused by global warming.
If there’s another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Hillary’s implication will be that it was either due to Bush incompetence, or, worse yet, it was allowed to happen so as to put another Republican in office.
If there’s not another terrorist attack on U.S. soil before the ’08 election, Hillary’s implication will be that the threat was wildly over-stated by Bush and the Republicans in order to scare people into voting Republican while allowing them the means to violate our rights via wiretaps, etc.
The common denominator of all of the above Hillary scenarios is that, in order to perpetuate, they require most voters to be brain-dead.
If it’s common knowledge that Bush mishandled post 9/11 America, what kind of idiot would vote Republican because there was another attack? According to Hillary, plenty.
If an attack was allowed to happen, what moron would vote for the party that allowed it to happen? Lots, sayeth Queen Carpetbagger.
If the threat was over-stated for political purposes, what dope would vote for that party again so as to perpetuate this abuse of power? A whole lot of them, says Rodham-Clinton.
Here’s the conundrum though: to believe all of Hillary’s implications requires a certain — I’ll try to put it politely — lack of intellectual ability to deal in logic and reality. The types of statements outlined above make it obvious that these are the people whose votes Hillary is wooing, while at the same time claiming that these voters are the reason Republicans would welcome another terrorist attack. Stand back as the house of cards tumbles.
Hillary already has the brain-dead bloc shored up, so I really can’t figure out why she’s wasting her time with all these silly games anyway.
The sad truth is that Hillary Clinton and her ilk adore unknowing voters — and not because these voters wet themselves in fear and instinctively vote Republican whenever a car backfires. The fact that the Hillarys of the world want to be in charge of our kids’ schools should give us a Maalox moment of pause. Those who expect our children to get a good education from people who feed on the votes of the ill-informed have unfortunately already themselves been victimized.
If you do the math, you can see why Hillary shouldn’t be in charge. And if you can’t do the math, Hillary just might have earned another voter — terrorist attack or not.