Russell Shaw has made a lot of people angry with this post at HuffPo about his desire for another 9/11, which he believes would show the American people that George Bush can’t protect them and thus cause a Democratic stampede at the polls in November that would bring the left to power.
First of all, I should amend the above statement slightly to reflect the fact that Shaw has made a lot of conservatives angry. The netnuts either agree with him or have yet to catch up to the blogswarm. Their reaction should be interesting. My guess is they will condemn his premise while agreeing with his version of America under Democratic rule.
And that is where Shaw’s real stupidity shows itself. I can’t believe he is actually serious about the premise of this article:
What if another terror attack just before this fall’s elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has “kept us safe,” and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.
If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “Bush has kept us safe” thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.
If 5% of the “he’s kept us safe” revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate…”
We all know that being provocative in the blogosphere is the quickest way to fame. Shaw used so many qualifiers and caveats in his post fantasizing about rivers of blood flowing in American streets that the poor dear nearly tied himself into intellectual and moral knots. It proves that rather than really wishing for an attack, he wanted the widest possible audience for his vision of mass death leading to an electoral landslide. Shaw simply posits this outrageous premise to highlight what America would look like with the Democrats in charge.
In Shaw’s Utopia, the thousands of deaths in another 9/11 attack would be offset by many times that number “saved” by Democratic policies. In short, Shaw is intimating the jaw dropping idiocy that Republican policies kill people already and that if it takes a terrorist attack that kills thousands more in order to remove the Republican blight, so be it.
One might wonder about the gentleman’s sanity except this is standard fare for the left when it comes to critiquing conservative governance. It isn’t enough that Republican policies might be wrong, or misguided but rather they are unhealthy and are formulated with the idea of deliberately killing people.
Here’s an example of Shaw’s Utopia righting all wrongs with liberals riding to the rescue on a white horse:
Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;
It should be noted that getting rid of Roe V Wade would not end abortion in the United States. States would be free to pass their own laws regarding the right of a women to an abortion. This, of course, is how the issue of abortion should have been settled in the first place – through the democratic expression of voters not the diktats of a judge. In fact, prior to Roe, most states had relaxed their abortion laws and were moving toward the kind of legalization favored by the majority of Americans – abortions permitted in the first trimester with exceptions for the life and health of the mother and in cases of rape or incest.
The problem for abortion advocates is that instead of only having to deal with one entity – the US Supreme Court – to get their way, now they would have to deal with 50 state legislatures and all that messy democracy stuff. This is hugely expensive not to mention fraught with the danger that people might not agree with you and pass an abortion statute that reflects their own thinking on the matter rather than the thinking of their betters.
The world with the Democrats in charge gets even better:
Be in a position to elevate the party’s chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;
Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;
More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;
Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;
Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;
Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;
Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers’ lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts.
Would universal health care really save “hundreds of thousands” of American lives? I guess one of the advantages of blogging at Huffpo is that you can throw out any old sh*t about any subject and not have to prove it to anyone.
How about funding stem cell research that would save “millions of lives?” Doesn’t Mr. Shaw know that adult stem cell research is more than adequately funded and that the debate over whether embryonic stem cells would cure anybody of anything is hardly conclusive either way? Again, no need to prove anything. He’s blogging at HuffPo.
Would gun control save thousands of people a year? Cities with the strictest gun control seem to have the highest rates of homicide. But Shaw doesn’t have to prove anything. He’s blogging at HuffPo.
It appears that Mr. Shaw doesn’t have to prove either his critique of conservative governance or that his prescriptions would actually address any shortcomings. After all, he’s blogging at HuffPo.
Be that as it may, this fake controversy generated by Shaw is extremely helpful in exposing the left’s curious detachment from reality regarding the War on Terror. I guess as long as it happens to someone else, as long as someone else is incinerated or drops out of the sky in an airplane that has been blow to kingdom come, the war is only a domestic political battleground and not a life and death struggle with fanatical jihadists.
10:11 am
HuffPo Blogger Russell Shaw Doesn’t Want Another Terrorist Attack
But if a terrorist attack means the Democrats can gain control of congress, bring it on, he says. And take a look at his argument: If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least…
10:29 am
Ah, mr. shaw, another mooron from moonat hell.
10:41 am
‘Progressively’ More Crazy
Have the so called self styled ‘progressives’ completely lost it? The only ‘progress’ they have made is one of falling into further psychotic ‘Michael Moore clone’ abyss: Russel Shaw of The Huffington Post wishes for another terrorist attack on t…
1:18 pm
The Shaw article reads like a parody.
1:24 pm
[...] PUNDIT VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM ZERO POINT BLOG THE MAN WHO DOESN’T KNOW WHEN TO SHUT UP THIS WAY TO UTOPIA US OUT OF THE UN! (YOU’RE KIDDING, RIGHT?) THE RICK MORAN SHOW WITHSPECIAL GUEST DOUG HANSON DEMS ON TERRORISM: DON’T WORRY…BE HAPPY FRANCE PONIES UP: BOLSTERS UNIFIL THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN: DOUBLE TROUBLE EDITION WAS ANYTHING TRUE? CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: THE CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE GOP: SLOUCHING TOWARD THE WILDERNESS? THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE GOOSING THE NANNY STATE IN CHICAGO STILL MISSING: FOX REPORTERS AND COMMON DECENCY THE WORLD, POST AUGUST 22ND THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE THE LIEBERMAN INQUISITION THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT AN UNSCHOLARLY, NON-LAWYERLY OPINION ON THE NSA DECISION LEBANESE DEMOCRATS LASH OUT AT SYRIA THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE SOME MOUSE DROPPINGS WITH YOUR LATTE, SIR? YOU WIN SOME, YOU LOSE SOME…YOU DIE SOME THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE “24″ (65) ABLE DANGER (10) Bird Flu (5) Blogging (94) Books (7) CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS (68) CHICAGO BEARS (9) CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE (25) Cindy Sheehan (12) Election ‘06 (1) Ethics (73) General (295) Government (53) History (65) IMMIGRATION REFORM (11) Iran (29) IRAQI RECONCILIATION (1) KATRINA (26) Katrina Timeline (4) Marvin Moonbat (14) Media (99) Middle East (55) Moonbats (53) NET NEUTRALITY (2) Open House (1) Politics (234) Science (17) Space (13) Supreme Court (23) The Rick Moran Show (32) UNITED NATIONS (7) War on Terror (169) WATCHER’S COUNCIL (53) WHITE SOX (2) Wide Awakes Radio (8) WORLD CUP (8) WORLD POLITICS (45) WORLD SERIES (14) Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN [...]
2:41 pm
Russell Shaw Doesn’t Want Another Terrorist Attack, But…
If a terrorist attack means the Democrats can gain control of Congress, bring it on, he says. And take a look at his argument: If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a…
2:56 pm
“We all know that being provocative in the blogosphere is the quickest way to fame.” – Rick Moran
You think? And perhaps the source of the name of this blog, Right-wing Nut House. Get some attention does it?
I was conservative long before I was cast as ‘liberal’. What drove me out was the precursor to the right-wing blogosphere, conservative populism. A great example is right-wing sophist Rush Limbaugh. He made millions so now he’s got a zillion imitators.
Their rhetoric is filled with angst, hyperbole, data mining, stereotype, hypocrisy, sanctimony, and, most of all, extreme arrogance.
I read Shaws’ original comments causing your red-faced outburst. Essentially, he’s hoping for a Democratic takeover of Congress and the White House. Most liberals are. So what? He seems to think a catalyst – maybe the only catalyst in his mind – is another 9/11. He bends over backwards hoping one doesn’t occur. Note my explanation here doesn’t mean I agree with him.
Rationality left conservatives about the time I moved on – actually was kicked out, no room in the big tent.
Your post – I should say posts because I’m going beyond the one I’m replying to – remind me of all the right-wing hate that’s been shoved in my face the last few years just for disagreeing.
Conservatism has fallen off a cliff. Ironically, the emotionalism that I, as a conservative, criticized liberals for has infected conservatives in spades. But it’s in the form of superficial – phony really – uber-nationalism. I used to complain of liberal political correctness but now a different version has taking over conservatives.
Mention anything conservatives don’t like and it’s the politics of personal destruction. You’re defiling the war-time president. You’re pro-al Qaeda. You’re in league with terrorism. You hate democracy. You hate America. Or you’re simply “nuts” as you call Mr. Shaw. I’ve heard it all. Gross intolerance. Right-wing political correctness.
Enjoy your angst. I guess to some is looks like moral superiority.
3:36 pm
Re: sknabt
I noticed a trend lately in comment sections of lefties claiming to be former conservatives. I guess they think this makes their opinion more legitimate. Nice try, but adults do not revert to being children.
5:28 pm
TUD:
Pay no attention to the foul mouthed lout, although I loved your comeback! The dolt doesn’t have a clue how idiotic he sounds nor does he have the faintest clue as to what a conservative is.
I could care less about his ideology because he apparently only has one tiny thought running through his tiny brain – hate.
9:36 pm
Excellent fisk, Rick. I found it interesting and noteworthy that the very first of Shaw’s liberal utopian ideals – the leader of the laundry list of ‘desireable’ outcomes – was blocking a Supreme Court nomination and preserving Roe. Fascinating mindset, no?
12:14 pm
Blogrolling 2006-08-26
Items of interest from my blogroll.
...