TDS: Terror Attack + Election = GOP

In light of McCain's chief strategist Charlie Black's breathtakingly asinine remark about another terrorist attack prior to the '08 election (I'll get to that in a minute), John Stewart took aim at the GOP's tried-and-true election strategy last night. And, Action!...

"Why is it that a terror attack helps Republicans? Well, it's quite simple. A terror attack, when added to an election, equals Republican. Why is that? Let"s show our work. First we have to solve for "R." Now, if you add 7 1/2 years of Republican administration, times the five years we've been at war, which has divided the nation, add in the government's incompetent response to the domestic disaster of Katrina, minus the equity in your home that's disappeared, plus the price of oil squared, over the boon that the Iraq War has been to terrorist recruiting, times torture, minus the resources we could have been using in Afghanistan, plus the resources we could have been using to catch bin Laden, carry the Cheney and...

Daaaaamn! I su-huuucked at Math in high school (and college) and this equation totally makes sense.

And Stewart isn't totally off his rocker, either, considering Black's, comments in a recent interview with Fortune that a terrorist attack would be a "big advantage" for McCain. To read the entire interview, click Here. An excerpt:

On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

Just curious, but if saying something patently absurd like that isn't a fire-able offense, then what is?

McCain's response to Black's comments:

Wow, he "strenuously disagrees." Well blow me down, Popeye.

Is it me, or are Republican politicians okay with just saying whatever comes to their minds, then later backtracking by saying, "I don't know the context?" McCain is big on using the word "context," when he knows full well in this instance in what "context" the remark was made. Presumably, the two were in the same room when the interview with Fortune took place. That is, unless you believe that John McCain and Charlie Black were interviewed in separate rooms. And I don't believe that for a second.

This is simply another McCain lie that he'll presumably get away with, as usual. I strenuously think the man is full of it. No, check that, he's lying, plain and simple.

So much for running a positive campaign. Then again, who honestly believed that cock and bull in the first place?

Crooks & Liars has more on Charlie Black's disgusting track record, a record I would think that McCain wouldn't want the American public to examine about his chief strategist a mere 131 days before the election.