Finally a republican tells it like it is!

This argument has been known and understood by anyone with half a brain for awhile. It is so completely asinine that no republican with half a brain (yes there are a few) has ever been willing to baldly state it. Until now. Chris Matthews goaded Orin Hatch into putting it out in all its dark glory today on Hardball. I don't have the transcript, but the argument, such as it is, goes like this:

If we aren't attacked by terrorists before election day, that's evidence of Bush's skill in fighting the war on terrorism, and hence he ought to be re-elected.

If we are attacked by terrorists before election day, then Bush can't be blamed, because they have to be right every time, and the terrorists only have to be right once, and besides, the terrorists want Kerry to be elected anyway. Therefore, in this case also, Bush ought to be re-elected.

Hence, Bush ought to be re-elected.

I'm not going to bother with critical anaylsis of this idiotic argument. If you're in need of such analysis, (a) read Drum, Atrios, Kos, and Josh Marshall, and (b) you're probably to stupid for such an analysis to be helpful anyway.

What I am taken with, however, is how blithely Hatch was willing to explicitly state this argument. Matthews lead him into it for sure, but pundits ask leading questions all the time - it's pretty rare for guests to fall for them. Which makes me conclude that Hatch didn't fall for it, properly speaking, but rather it was decided somewhere within the republican brain trust that the long term dumbing-down-of-America plan had finally achieved its climax, and such arguments could now be stated publically.

The pied piper was on Hardball this afternoon (PST) - it remains to be seen whether or not the rats will follow.