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 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 and be in a position to:
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;
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.
Note how Shaw believes we are the reason we got hit on 9/11. If we just didn't launch wars, then the terrorists wouldn't hate us.
Not only is Shaw's argument offensive, but he fails to explain how his liberal policies will save more lives than another 9/11 style terrorist attack will kill. In fact, liberal policies usually make Americans a lot more miserable. Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House effectively rebuts Shaw's assertions.
John Hawkins has some questions:
Here's a question: How many Democrats were thinking exactly the same way that Shaw was before they voted against the Patriot Act?
How many Democrats were thinking exactly the same way that Shaw was before they demanded that we close Gitmo and soften up our interrogation techniques?
How many liberals in the mainstream media that think exactly like Shaw are letting it color the way they report on the war on terrorism and Iraq?
How many Democrats in Washington that think exactly like Shaw view the whole war on terrorism through this lens?
My guess is quite a few, even if they're not as willing as Shaw to publicly say what they think.