The folks at Daily Kos respond to Roger Ailes’ assertion that “The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda. And that’s what’s coming.” Here, for example, Kagro X–the name alone embodies careful consideration and depth of thought–employs those powers of illuminating explication that have made Kosland the number-one e-stop for left-wing true believers:
You said it, Roger, not me. But only because you beat me to it. Of course, I was still thinking over my own formulation. First, I thought it should say, “The candidates that can’t stand Fox, can’t stand Al Qaeda.” Which has the virtue of being true, of course. But your phrasing works, too, to a limited extent. Mine’s better, though, because it captures the reason Democratic candidates want nothing to do with FOX — i.e., we don’t negotiate with terrorists.
I understand. Negotiation is tough. Work up to it. I do like, al Qaeda, I can’t stand you! as a starting point. Maybe after one or two unconditional surrenders we’ll let you do a conditional one. Request nicer burqas for single moms or something. Some wouldn’t trust you with this responsibility. They call you weak. But when I scroll down this thread and read the words of a Kos commentor who agrees with a comrade that Roger Ailes is Zawahiri incarnate, but disagrees–dissent is patriotic!–that O’Reilly is bin Laden (“Murdoch is bin Laden”), I say to myself, “Well, at least they understand what’s at stake and who the enemy is.”
When we elect liberals who hate al Qaeda as much as they hate Fox News, there will be more preemptive wars and shock-and-awe bombings than George W. Bush could ever dream of.