Here’s one of the bloggers BCH points out at Ragnarok Now:
“At least 19 die in a suicide blast near Afghanistan’s main US base, as Vice-President Dick Cheney visits.
19 people die yet that son of a b*tch survives. Life just isnt fair.”
Let’s see — profanity? Check. Wishing that a Republican Vice-President had been killed in a terrorist attack? Check. Yep, it’s a liberal blog.
But, here’s the interesting thing to me: Blue Collar Heresy doesn’t have any noble motives for not wanting Cheney to die. In fact, he talks as if he’d be totally content to see Cheney murdered by a terrorist if it wasn’t a political negative for the left:
“This is my last update and in closing I’ve just got to say I’ve noticed a fair number of bloggers expressing regret that Cheney’s fine (see here, here, here, and here for some examples). That’s right, you bloody morons that think Cheney being hurt or killed would be a good thing are obviously the same type of people that can’t see past the first move in a chess match.
Think long term. Think strategic. Think like a propaganda official, because I can guarantee you that if Cheney were hurt or worse killed by terrorists Bush would surge in popularity like he was the freaking second coming of Christ at a Baptist convention. You might derive a visceral pleasure that a man you consider a war criminal “got what he deserved” but he’d have become a martyr for the Warhawking Right™… you really want that?”
What does that tell you? That he’d be wishing Cheney dead on his blog along with his fellow liberal bloggers if he thought it was “strategic,” and that liberals would benefit over the “long term,” politically, from it.
These people make my skin crawl…
PS: For more of these sort of comments, check out the Huffington Post where the liberal murder fantasies continue unabated:
“They missed?? D*mmit. I hope they try again before he leaves.”
Update #1: Someone claiming to be the blogger at BlueCollarHeresy (and I have no reason to think he’s not the real thing), posted this in the comments section:
“Get it right buddy; I said right at the beginning of my post “As much as I may think Cheney’s been nothing but dangerous for America I’m glad to say that he’s fine and, in fact, he left the base within 90 minutes of the blast.”
I might not agree with your politics but don’t for a second think I condone talk about violence against your policy leaders.”
Ok, and so? Why would that change anything? At the end of the post, BCH said again said that Cheney being harmed wasn’t a “good thing,” and said this was his reason for it,
…because I can guarantee you that if Cheney were hurt or worse killed by terrorists Bush would surge in popularity like he was the freaking second coming of Christ at a Baptist convention. You might derive a visceral pleasure that a man you consider a war criminal “got what he deserved” but he’d have become a martyr for the Warhawking Right™… you really want that?”
If your reason for wanting not wanting Cheney, “hurt or worse killed by terrorists,” is because it would make Bush more popular, then it makes perfect sense that you wouldn’t mind seeing him get killed if it didn’t make it tougher on Democrats politically.
There’s nothing here out of context. In fact, the problem is that someone pointed out what the context of your post really was and it makes you look like just another creepy, black hearted, BDS sufferer who’s not really very different from the other liberals who are howling for Cheney’s blood without regard to raw political concerns.