Saturday, August 26, 2006


...not for the reasons all of America's most self-righteous right-wing bloggers (is that redundant?) think he is.

At the Huffington Post, Shaw writes that, although "Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much" (emphasis his), there's a possibility of unintended consequences if an attack occurs:

What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

...If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" [Bush supporters] 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;...

Et cetera, et cetera.

Shaw is an idiot because he thinks "he's kept us safe" Bush supporters would react to another 9/11 by abandoning Bush. You mean, just the way they did after the first 9/11? Give me a break. If there were another attack, the switch from "he's kept us safe" to "he's just the man we need in dangerous times" will be like the switch from "two legs bad" to "two legs better" in Animal Farm -- only it will be instantaneous.

Shaw is an idiot because Shaw doesn't have the slightest idea how Daddy-craving American voters think.


Righties will want to know my answer to Shaw's question, so here it is: No, I absolutely would not want a terrorist attack if I knew it would sink the GOP. I lived through 9/11 in Manhattan. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, ever, for any reason.

No comments: