corrente

As W's political fortunes go down the toilet, I've been thinking about what these guys will do in desperation about October or so.

I really do think the current plan is to argue, especially if we have some horrific terrorist attack between now and the election, that if you vote for Kerry-Edwards, that's like voting for the terrorists! That's like what those awful appeasers in Spain did, can't you see?

I don't know if W and the boys will actually roll this argument out if they're not forced to do so by being twenty points behind in the polls. However, I'm apparently not the only one who thinks this argument is in the works. Ellis Henican at Newsday essentially makes the same argument today.

As Henican puts it:

With each new pointless warning, with each new breathless plea, those around George W. Bush are trying to link the terrorists with the Democrats.

Al-Qaida wants to "influence the American election," we are told. The terrorists hope to "pull another Spain," where the ruling party was voted out after the Madrid subway was bombed.

The implication isn't accidental, and it gets real ugly real fast: A vote for John Kerry, we are supposed to conclude, is a vote for Osama bin Laden.

That's exactly the plan you see.

The interesting thing is that some of the folks who've seen the evidence, like New York police commissioner Ray Kelly, are already calling bullshit on this:

Then, without being impolite to anyone in Washington, the New York police commissioner scoffed at the notion that al-Qaida has a candidate for U.S. president.

"No," Kelly said plainly, "the information is not that they are trying to influence the election in a certain way."

But I would suspect the morons in the media (that means you Bill Hemmer) won't stop and ask this rather obvious question: what evidence do you have for your assertion or are you just talking out of your, um, rear end?