« Massachusetts city quits drug laundering | Main | Making It Up »

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 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.

Also, check out Ace, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller, LGF, Blue Crab Boulevard, Down with Mirrors, and Say Anything.

Comments (1)

The only points I agree wit... (Below threshold)

The only points I agree with him are the cleaner air standards and mass transit. Having a mass transit system that works I must say IS nice. Traveling around in new york city compared with Los Angeles can't compare (granted the topography of the cities are different, having a commuter train would ease things up QUITE a bit).

Otherwise...I wonder what he is thinking? "Universal health care"...basically a socialized medicinal system doesn't quite work. It barely works in the countries that use it (I know an ex-pat from Great Britain who emigrated to the US, and I got my info from her), and for the Canadian system, visit http://www.unitednorthamerica.org, they give a pretty decent rundown of why the healthcare system in Canada isn't exactly the greatest.

The people who commit those "crimes" he talks about aren't even working. For those people to stop commiting crimes either they need more welfare money (out of the question), or should be put behind bars where they can commit crimes on each other.

Overturning Roe vs Wade in todays climate is out of the question too. The decision forcing states to not pass laws banning abortions is more or less here to stay (I am personally against it, but politically don't give a rats butt)

Gun Control? Hell, you enact gun control (stricter) legislation you make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase one, meanwhile the criminals, terrorists, and wackaloons have no trouble getting them from their "sources" (which for some reason don't seem to abide by US laws)






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy