August 03, 2007
What good are nukes if you can't blow up a few shrines with 'em?
I know this shouldn't bother me. It's just random shit pouring out of the gaping maw of a doomed-to-failure presidential candidate. But when Tom Tancredo goes around saying that we should bomb Mecca and other Muslim holy sites, it makes me wonder at the state of things where a candidate thinks this is a good way to earn votes.
I suppose that he thinks that since we're at war with all Muslims, "they" wouldn't dream of attacking us if we threatened their holiest sites. I know it doesn't get my blood boiling to think of someone blowing up my school or church or house because of something a nutjob Presbyterian did. And, hey, we might be able to stop any crimes committed by Catholics if we threaten to nuke the Vatican!
You know it's bad when this Administration's State Department representative says:
"It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion," a clearly agitated Casey told reporters, shaking his head in disgust.
I know! Maybe Tancredo has invented a machine that converts assholery directly into votes. I hope so. Because it's too scary to believe that people actually elected this douchebag to represent them in the United States Congress.
How did this guy somehow escape being named to a position of authority by Dubbya?
Sheesh...
The answer to both your final question and Ric's is simple: Tancredo is virulently nativist/anti-immigrant, and therefore gets the nativist vote, and turns off the Bush Administration's attempts to court the Hispanic vote.
That, and he's Republican from south-suburban Denver, and a Republican would have to be caught on tape raping dead puppies to get folks to vote Democrat. I know -- alas, I live there.
Thank you, comment spammers. Thank you to hell.
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Movable Type 2.661
Web hosting provided by the real groovy folks at Hosting Matters.