Allah:
Via the Free Beacon, it’s a fair question. Even some reporters from outside conservative media ended up wondering yesterday why Clinton rhetorical stink bomb didn’t send more people running for cover.
I'm a little surprised that Clinton comparing GOP candidates to "terrorists" today isn't getting more attention.
— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) August 27, 2015
@MeghanMcCain still amazed people aren't making a bigger deal out of it
— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) August 28, 2015
The simplest explanation is undoubtedly the correct one: When you’re a Democrat and a woman who also happens to represent the best chance of abortion warriors to control the White House for four more years, you simply can’t be too nasty to social conservatives on matters of “choice.” She could run ads photoshopping Marco Rubio into one of those ISIS death-porn videos and the most you’d get out of the wider media is, “Some might consider that offensive.” Interestingly, though, even in conservative media, this hasn’t registered as a truly major story. Our own post on it yesterday drew far fewer comments than the average post on Trump does. Why is that? I think we may have we reached a point where this sort of reeking sleaze is so par for the course in Democratic “war on women” rhetoric that even Republicans don’t get too exercised about it. It’s just something Democrats say, like how every Republican policy, foreign and domestic, can best be understood as part of an unspoken racist plot. It’s a pretty sweet deal to be able to casually compare your opponents to ISIS and have virtually no one, many of those same opponents included, bat an eye.
If we’re going to insist on making terrorist comparisons, though, Kevin Williamson has a question: Isn’t the outfit that’s actually beheading people a better analog to ISIS?