<< CLEVER GALS ~ MAIN ~ ONE-FIFTH OF A QUAGMIRE >>
THINKING REVISED
Huffington Post political theorist Russell Shaw looks for an up side to future terrorist attacks on the US:
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 ...
If an attack occured, the Republican vote would likely go up, not down. At which point conspiracy theorists would blame Karl Rove, as they did after that Osama video aired a few days before the 2004 election.
I start from the premise that there is 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.
Talk about doth protesting too mucheth.
If an attack of major scale were to occur on U.S. soil, one thing is sure. Prime lending rates would go down hard, so as to keep the world-economy chugging along, and consumers consuming.
All the while, Bush would be blamed for allowing the attack so as to benefit his Wall-Street cronies.
These guys write themselves.
Oh, yes. I want to vote for the people whose first thought is to calculate how the mass murder of their fellow Americans will translate into votes. The very first thought I would have after another attack would be that Bush didn’t keep me safe. I certainly wouldn’t be thinking about the campaigns to end surveillance and other programs. I wouldn’t think that part of the problem has been the aiding and abetting of the enemy by those who stand up and scream obscenities and wring their hands about America while ignoring the daily barbarities on the other side. And I certainly wouldn’t think about how the universities, the media, the so-called fringe Democrats have gone to bed with the enemy, supplied them with talking points, beaten the crap out of the morale of the people, slandered our military, and stood head and shoulders with the likes of France and the UN, putting ideological interests, and concerns about prestige, before the interests of America. And one more thing I won’t think about—I won’t think about voting for any individual who has stood in the way of my country’s efforts to fight this war in any way, shape or form, be they Republican, Democrat, or any other flavor of political animal.
What a perfect jackass.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.
And if an attack keeps on not occurring and not occurring, you think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “‘Bush has kept us safe’ is a fallacy” thinking would realize….
Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 08 26 at 07:50 AM • permalinkTim:
You’re being way too kind to this Shaw idiot (which isn’t like you at all).
Reading the piece it’s clear that Shaw isn’t ‘looking for an upside’ in the event of a terrorist attack. Rather, after making the socially necessary disclaimer “I hope we don’t get hit again, BUT. . . .” Shaw gleefully fanastizes about how such an attack would providently enable Democrats to take the House and Senate, paving the way for the Dems to enact their Domestic agenda.
Personally, I hope Russell Shaw’s tiny genitalia don’t get savaged by a pack of ferrets on crack, BUT. . . .
And if after that terrorist attack and the Congress (and White House in 2008?) going Democrat, there’s another attack on the DNC’s watch after negotiating with terrorists and cut-and-run, do you think that anyone will ever vote Dem again? Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 08 26 at 09:34 AM • permalinkIf an attack occured, the Republican vote would likely go up, not down.
I don’t think you can be absolutely sure about this fact. It would be quite simple to spin any attack as evidence that the current administration’s approach isn’t working.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 08 26 at 09:57 AM • permalink#4.
Saltydog, you put it well. These people are really hoping for a disaster, an American defeat somewhere, or attack on US soil, so they can say it was all Bush’s fault.
They have gone beyond political partisanship to abetting their national enemies as far as I am concerned.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 08 26 at 10:18 AM • permalink#9
The statement: If an attack occured, the Republican vote would likely go up, not down is not a fact, it is a conmjecture.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 08 26 at 10:20 AM • permalinkRussell Shaw is as much as cold blooded and self centered bastard as James Wolcott is. The two as so close in their desires to see Americans die for their (i.e., Shaw and Wolcott) personal views as to be clones.
Or would that be “drones”? It doesn’t matter—the end result is the same.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 26 at 10:38 AM • permalinkIf 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 ...—Russell Shaw
Is that a plan? How about this for an alternative plan. How about the Democratic Party and the left for that matter come up with a plan that will “keep us safe”? I realize this is a revolutionary idea here, to form a backbone and a pair of balls and start defending what’s dear and important. But maybe, just maybe, that’s what the American public is needing.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 08 26 at 11:30 AM • permalinkSome people are so far beneath contempt there is no reaching them.
Just so, Rebecca. Shaw, Wolcott, Kerry, Sheehan, Murtha, etc…..the list is seemingly endless. Why bother? They love the hole that they’ve dug for themselves.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 26 at 11:53 AM • permalinkI am pretty unshockable, but when i think the left have hit bottom i read this, i am reconciled to the fact that the left have no limits to their depravity or blood lust, the only difference between them and the terrorists is that they practice what they preach, Hitler called such disgusting oppotunists vultures too cowardly to catch there own carrion.
So, this son of a bitch is saying he hopes that thousands, maybe even a million Americans, minding their own business and going about their daily routines, are murdered in a huge act of terrorism so that a small percentage of the remaining Americans will vote for whatever lackwits the Dems put up for office?
Dear Jesus, what a base and evil man this is.
“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.”
I don’t want the government to keep me safe (at all costs). I want them to:
1.) Destroy the terrorist groups on our list of Internationalist Terrorist Organizations.
2.) Destroy the state sponsors of terrorism on our list of State Sponsors of International Terrorist organizations.
3.) Kill as many terrorists and their supporters as is humanly possible.
We’re at war, and “keeping us safe” isn’t priority one. Priority one is destroying the enemy.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 08 26 at 01:01 PM • permalinkShaw has an answer for critics of his I Hope And Pray We Don’t Get Hit Again BUT piece: Of Course I Am Against Terrorism-But Terrorism Takes Many Forms. Some of the many forms terrorism takes:
The sight of two uniformed service members approaching your home, and the knowledge that your worst fears after not hearing from your son for two weeks are about to come horribly true;
The “please help us” screams from the victims of Hurricane Katrina- their plight unaddressed by an incompetent FEMA headed by an appointee of the same administration that is keeping us safe from terrorism;
The fourth call you have received this morning from the bill collector, who cares not that you have been put out of work by the greed of a multinational corporation who shipped your job overseas last year (and thanks in most part to the GOP, no longer have bankruptcy as an easily available option).
The developers in suits who have just pulled up to your trailer park, and meeting with the owner about selling out- an action that will render you and your uninsured wife who has been laden with arthritis (whoops, I said “been laden” as in “Bin Laden”-must make me a terrorist) wife and two kids nowhere to go;
The need to wait two hours for three buses to take you to work because the price-gougers in the oil markets have made it too expensive to put gas in your car until you get paid again in two weeks;
The baby your niece will be forced to have after being impregnated by her no-good, meth-addled ex boyfriend because the only doctor who performed abortions within 200 miles has decided he doesn’t want to be terrorized by the “pro-lifers” anymore;
The moans from your cancer-ridden aunt in your upstairs guest bedroom- moans that the government won’t let you palliate with medical marijuana or even mercifully cease should she be at peace with her God about that option;
The letter from your health insurer, advising you about a hike in your policy (caused by unregulated prices on hospital care and pharmaceuticals) that may force you to decide between insurance and food;
The unreturned call from the Realtor after she finds out that you wish to buy your house with your same-sex partner;
It gets worse:
And sometimes, it is not only we humans who are victims of terrorism. The polar bear marooned on the ice floe due to global warming, the tiger who futilely scampers away from high-powered rifle fire at the game ranch owned by rich Republican contributors- well, they are victims of terrorism too.
Wait till he hears about their shrinking gonads. So if Russell would wish for whatever it takes to put his ilk in power, he, like all liberals, has only the best of intentions:
I wish for a nation free of the fear of terrorism- not only the kind that visited our shores nearly five years ago to this day, but for a nation where the indignities of social, economic and environmental injustice strike terror in so many hearts and minds.
Now, don’t you feel ashamed for even thinking of criticizing Russell?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 08 26 at 01:08 PM • permalink“The need to wait two hours for three buses to take you to work because the price-gougers in the oil markets have made it too expensive to put gas in your car until you get paid again in two weeks.”
So, quit your job at McDonalds and get a real job, you whiner.
“Now, don’t you feel ashamed for even thinking of criticizing Russell?”
Not really.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 08 26 at 01:17 PM • permalink#20
Quite so, David. This is often lost in partisanship. We ARE at war and personal safety IS less important than victory.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 08 26 at 01:55 PM • permalinkOkay, I’m convinced. A couple thousand Americans murdered in an Islamist atrocity is indeed a small price to pay avoid polar bear inconvenience, ensure prompt replies from estate agents and allow Shaw’s neice to engage in consequenceless unprotected sex with meth-heads?
I’m sure the grieving families will feel much better knowing that their loved ones died in order to ensure that American trailer parks will be sacrosanct.
Whenever I read or hear Democratic/leftist talking points, all I keep thinking is “Waaah! Waaah! Mommy! Mommy!” Is it possible for these people to articulate a position that is not informed by and conveyed through emotionalism? What stunted so many people at the “feel” stage, rather than the “logic” stage?
#21
Kyda, how could you read such stuff? Did you wear protective clothing? Uuugh. I want to vomit. This is beyond moral relativism, this is an insult to humanity. The poor spoiled little brat, how tough a life it is when you have to wait for a bus.
Meanwhuile, innocent people are dying in Iraq at the hands of psycopathic pigs.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 08 26 at 02:03 PM • permalinkCussing Alert:
#21 Kyda waded through crap so I could get entirely furious with Shaw and think, “You motherfucking cocksucking son of a cunt-licking bitch, not to mention probably a commie.”Waiting 3 hours for the bus? An unreturned call from the Realtor (who hasn’t read any of those little anti-discrimination law things) because you’re gay? And you’re too stupid to hie yourself to the nearest jr. high to score some pot for your stricken aunt?
This worthless scumeating pigdog ought to be horsewhipped, tarred and feathered, and then E.A. Poe and Mark Twain should be contacted via spirit medium to mock him.
Hmmm… we have a Congressional election coming up… maybe we should do an experiment: spread a rumor in a nice blue state that terrorists are threatening to attack the polling places and see who turns out to vote…
purely a hypothetical, of course.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 08 26 at 03:22 PM • permalink#28, Ushie -
Excellent. That was almost worthy of R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket.
Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 08 26 at 03:35 PM • permalinkAwww… scampering tigers, how cuuuuuute…!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 08 26 at 04:35 PM • permalinkSick and vile beyond belief, wishing death on your fellow citizens so your party can garner a few votes is the most appaling fascist cynicism, and he and his kind have the nerve to lecture others on morality!!.
If there realy was a God the little bastard should have nothing but a pair of smoking shoes.
#20 Spot on. This post-modern, UN sponsored notion of “War is Heck” will bring doom upon us all.
Clausewitz’ “total war”—i.e., war free from any political constraints—is the only way the GWOT will be won. Won as Mark Steyn said on his Limbaugh stint: “unambiguously won…with a clear, lasting victory.”
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 08 26 at 07:21 PM • permalinkDo these people ever think about anyone but themselves and their own power and influence? I thought we RWDBs were supposed to be the selfish, greedy, rapacious, heartless robber baron bastards of Marx’s wettest dreams, yet everything I read from his adherents leads me to a different conclusion.
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 08 26 at 08:44 PM • permalink#20, I’ll add my amen to the chorus. I don’t think the general public understands just what Just War Theory is, but people are beginning to understand that it doesn’t translate into fighting for victory over the enemy.
I remember Cheney scoffing over someone’s plea for a sensitive war. This is exactly the war we’ve been fighting, though.
Saltydog
I think Mr Cheney was not correct: we need to fight this war with great sensitivity. If the other side believes that one’s highest honour is to die serving his god, then we are being insensitive in not facilitating the attainment of that honour. After all, “your job is not to die for your country; your job is to make the other bastard die for his.” Sensitivity.Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 08 26 at 10:37 PM • permalinkIf Shaw had a skerrick of decency in his bones, this comment to his second post should at least embarrass him:
My fiancee was murdered in Bali, and you equate her death with impolite realtors, sluts who engage in unprotected sex with meth-heads, stranded polar bears, the cost of a tank of gas and trailer park development?
You are a repulsive moral gargoyle Shaw. A loathsome little reptile. Slither back into the excrement filled sewer from which you emerged. The sight of you turns the stomach of civilised people.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
According to Shaw’s thesis, what will the people who already vote Democrat do?
I mean, you can only bury your head so deep.