Nice headline, dontcha think?
Yet, that was only the beginning of the vulgarity from a literary sense, for Maher went on a predictably vitriol-filled screed stating that the only reason Sen. John McCain – or any Republican presidential candidate for that matter – supports the Iraq war is to appeal to Kool-Aid-drinking conservatives.
I kid you not (emphasis added throughout):
John McCain's not an idiot. I'm sure he knows that it's not safe in Baghdad, but he has to pretend that it's safe in Baghdad because that's what the GOP base wants to hear.
Hmmm. You mean, Bill, that it’s impossible McCain actually witnessed a decrease in violence in the streets in Baghdad during his most recent visit as compared to the previous one?
Furthermore, even though his position on this war has hurt him drastically in the polls, he must be hiding his real feelings about the incursion all because you disagree with it?
Or, does it just seem so unlikely to you that any politician could actually hold core beliefs that they are willing to stick to regardless of how unpopular said views are at the moment?
Regardless of the answers, Maher sadly continued:
[M]ost Republicans are still gung-ho about the war. In fact, two-thirds of likely GOP primary voters support what Bush is doing in Iraq. They support the surge. They've swallowed so much Kool-Aid that any change in their diet would kill them.
What this means is, every GOP candidate has to say the war is going great, whether they believe it or not, at least until the primaries are over. Giuliani's very rah-rah about the war, Romney doesn't like to talk about it, but then he has his own religious jihad to worry about. But none of them will be able to say anything other than "the surge is working," or "if we leave now things will get really bad" because the base won't stand for it.
Irrespective of the politics, Bill, isn’t it actually possible that since McCain has been a supporter of this incursion since day one, he’s not willing to concede defeat regardless of what the polls are currently saying about America’s support? And, maybe more obvious, as McCain and Giuliani are both Republicans, if 2/3 of such indeed are still supporting the war, wouldn’t it actually be less likely that they didn’t?
Or does that just make too much sense for you to consider?
Once again, regardless of the answers, we see an interesting tactic that is becoming all too common in the media today: Republican elected officials and candidates who disagree with liberal beliefs are either stupid or they're lying to appeal to their obviously stupid supporters.
How disgraceful.
