What are the odds that Republican leaders would use the Underbomber incident to suggest constructive changes to the nation's security systems? Mmhmm. And what are the odds that Republican leaders would use the Underbomber incident to illustrate the many, many ways in which Democrats are "soft on terror," which became the new "soft on crime" on or around 9/12/01?
As the GOP seeks a path out of the political abyss in the 2010 elections, its leaders seem to be turning to the issue of terrorism, which worked for them in the 2002 congressional midterms and in President George W. Bush's 2004 reelection.
"They just don't get it," Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, wrote in a fundraising letter for his gubernatorial campaign. "These are the same weak-kneed liberals who have recently tried to bring Guantanamo Bay terrorists right here to Michigan!"
Weak-kneed, not to mention "lily-livered" and "pants-wetting" and "arugula-hugging," am I right? But the best line of the GOP's War on War Rhetoric comes from Rep. Peter King, whose knees are made of fuckin' titanium…
Even when Republicans agree with Obama, they find ways to characterize him as vacillating and indecisive. [...] "It's political schizophrenia," Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.), the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in an interview. "He seems almost awkward when he's talking about terrorism."
I've noticed that, the way President Obama is always stuttering and blushing when the issue of terrorism comes up. Almost makes me miss that last president we had. He was never awkward when he talked about anything.
Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, Pete Hoekstra, Peter King, Republicans, Terrorism