…to the Left after 2008 if the Democrats win the Presidency? The reason I ask this is this comment by Paul Begala (well actually this and others),
BEGALA: Yet, we sit back and allow George W. Bush and our Republican friends to pull out 9-11 like a cheap handgun in a bar fight. Okay? “9-11.” There’s a drought in the Midwest — “9-11.” The deficit’s up — “9-11.” You know?
But I think we need to fight them on that. I think, frankly, they did a piss-poor job of defending us, and their strategy was always, “We’ll fight them over there so we don’t fight them here.” Well, guess what? [Osama] bin Laden didn’t get the memo. He wants to fight us here as well, as we saw in London last week. And so, their theory is: We can’t really do everything to protect our country because we have to cut taxes for the rich.
And so, it — they want to kill us, particularly in this city and New York and some other places. I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit. I had friends on that plane, this is deadly serious to me — they want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted that while they didn’t protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won’t have to pay any money on the money they inherit. You know, that is bullshit national defense, and we should say that. Thanks to Media Matters for the link to the audio.
It seems pretty clear that Paul Begala is referring to Republicans when he is talking about “they want to kill us”. In reading that third paragraph I don’t see how it can be read any other way than Begala thinks Republicans want to kill him, his children and others like him.1 For me, the fourth sentence in the third paragraph. Begala’s they seems to refer to Republicans given that the terrorists cannot lower federal taxes. Lets remove the pronoun “they” in that sentence and replace it with “the terrorists”.
But if the terrorists just kill me and not my children, the terrorists want my children to be comforted that while the terrorists didn’t protect me because the terrorists cut my taxes, my children won’t have to pay any money on the money they inherit.
That doesn’t make any sense…ergo Paul Begala is insane. Now lets replace “they” with “the Republicans”.
But if the Republicans just kill me and not my children, the Republicans want my children to be comforted that while the Republicans didn’t protect me because the Republicans cut my taxes, my children won’t have to pay any money on the money they inherit.
This makes sense, but Paul Begala is still insane.
Now maybe what Begala meant was that the first “they” refers to the terrorists and the second and subsequent “they’s” refer to “the Republicans”, but Begala should come out and clear up this issue. If a Republican had something as nuts as this the Democrats, rightly, would be all over it to either retract it or clear up any confusion with sloppy pronoun use. And no, contrary to what Media Matters claims it is not at all clear from the context that the first “they” refers to the terrorists. Also, given that a good many people are convinced that Bush either new about 9/11 (LIHOP–Let It Happen On Purpose) or masterminded it (Made It Happen On Purpose)–note that there was a forum at Democratic Undergound that was titled LIHOP/MIHOP. Then there was Howard Dean’s floating of the LIHOP view point back during the run up to the 2004 election.
By the same token, I wonder if the Democrats do win will the Republicans become insane? Some of the bizzaro world theories that were floated about Clinton were just amazing (e.g. I vaguely remember one whacko theory about some Clinton conspiracy involving the deaths of some workers at Starbucks or some such–ahh here is the link–I’m tellin ya’ some whacky crazy stuff). Also, if the Republicans do win again will the notion that the Republicans are stealing elections get stronger (my guess is yes it will)?
Update: Further evidence of the Left’s problem with insanity.
When Roberts thanked his family, he mentioned his son, Jack…Roberts’ wife’s face fell. It was like a poker tell. I think we should research Jack.
The reference here is to Jack Roberts, John Roberts (Bush’s SCOTUS nominee). Jack Roberts from appearances is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 years old (plus or minus). Why research him you ask?
He’s probably gay (1.60 / 5)
Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children…
Got that, these people want to research John Roberts’ 5 year old son to see if he is gay to use it against John Roberts. What a classy bunch over there at Kos. Sheesh.
Other OTB Links on this:
Leopold seems to be a bit more generous towards Begala, but I’m going to wait for a clarification…which will probably never happen.
_____
1I grant that perhaps Begala misspoke, but if that is the case he really, really should come out and clear up the issue. Right now, the only way I can read the third paragraph is that Republicans want to kill Democrats/Liberals like Begala.
