August 27, 2006
Russell Shaw - Is This Guy For Real?
Confused? Can't figure out if Russell Shaw is as his photograph on the Puffington Host, or a Pig, or a Death's Head? Well, after his latest, join the club, many others can't figure it out either. Because you see, Russell Shaw is a liar, a conman or perhaps evil in disguse as a member of the "reality based community" (or what ever the far left calls themselves these days). You decide:
That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:This is a type of calculus that Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time- a combination of what-if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.
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 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;
This guy, despite his claims to the contrary, wonders if another terrorist attack wouldn't sicken enough Americans so that they would vote democratic and thus bring about all kinds of "goodies" that the Democrats want.
I can't figure it out, is he for real, a pig or a death's head? What say YOU?
Posted by GM Roper at August 27, 2006 10:11 AM | TrackBackHe's a psychopath who is willing-nay, eager-- to use people's deaths to advance his political agenda. This is the "compassionate" left at its best.
Posted by Dr. Sanity at August 27, 2006 11:01 AM
Is he worth even talking about? Who is he? Do people actually listen to him?
Sorry, too many questions. Anyone who would create a line of reasoning suggesting that a terror attack might save the lives of women who seek abortions is definately whacked.
Posted by Oyster at August 27, 2006 11:54 AM
I think any number of people over the years have engaged in the thinking "this one waste of innocent lives would set in motion a chain of events that would change everything for the better."
It is, in fact, the usual justification of tyrants and madmen.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at August 27, 2006 03:22 PM
I can't add anything more to the responses above. As far as your choices, GM, where does beneath contempt fit in?
Posted by civil truth at August 27, 2006 09:14 PM
This huffpo commenter, and those that agree with him, deserves nothing but scorn and should be shunned by all Americans.
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at August 28, 2006 01:31 AM
That is truly amazing... just another example of the left drifting past "extreme" into "obscene."
Posted by Chucko at August 28, 2006 12:12 PM
The comment section is getting funnier. Only one person, "Browall" made any sense. He even got accused by another "progressyve" of being a neo-con plant.
One person said, "...I'll be amazed if this politically incorrect post of yours isn't trotted out by Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly etc." and lo and behold - Rush made fun of him about ten minutes ago!
Posted by Oyster at August 28, 2006 01:04 PM
Typical psycho left, thinking that if there isn't a terrorist attack, then there should be one to hurt Bush.
But, it may not, and you can bet your last dollar on this, if there was a terrorist attack, a great percentage of the left would claim that Bush was behind it to have America rally behind him. They're like the global warming people--we're right if we're right and we're right if we're wrong.
Posted by Woody at August 28, 2006 03:44 PM
*Sigh* Why are you putting this guy up as some kind of poster child for the left? I'm as liberal as they come and had never heard of this guy until I read about him here. I don't read the Huffington Post and don't believe the bloggers/writers there represent the majority of liberals in America today.
Posted by e. nonee moose at August 28, 2006 03:59 PM
I don't read the Huffington Post and don't believe the bloggers/writers there represent the majority of liberals in America today. ---e.nonee moose
Maybe not. But the 'militants' don't supposedly represent the majority of the ROP either. As events are demonstrating that factoid is essentially irrelevant.
A faction does not have to in the 'majority' to exercise effective control over the direction and tone of any given structure. It just has to be motivated enough, and the silent majority has to do but one thing.
Remain Silent.
Thus far your comment to the contrary, "liberals" are quiet as church-mice in combating the 'excesses' of the progressive wing of the movement.
It's almost as if they might in fact agree or something or at the very least not care overly. It is therefore more than fair that GM is "putting this guy up as some kind of poster child for the left". He thinks he is, many of us think he is, and 'liberals' who supposedly don't think he is, don't seem to want to call him out for his sociopathology.
Silence does in fact very often = consent.
Posted by dougf at August 28, 2006 06:02 PM
E. Nonee Moose, you will notice that I pegged this S.O.B. as a member of the FAR left, and, like Dougf said, if the remainder of the left doesn't shout this Arse down, then they are tacitly supporting him.
Remember when the Democrats demanded we censure Trent Lott? Hell, I censured the sob before the left and/or democrats were calling for it... but he didn't deserve all the invective the Dems heaped on his coiffured head... ;-)
Posted by GM at August 28, 2006 07:23 PM
Moose, besides, you are my kind of liberal entirely reasonable most of the time, and the times you aren't, well, let's just say you got out of bed on the wrong side that day. ;-)
Posted by GM at August 28, 2006 07:27 PM
I dunno... it's just a common tactic that I've seen on both sides of the blogosphere. Pick somebody who said/wrote something ridiculous one day and use them to smear the other side regardless of how connected they are or aren't. You guys are doing it with this dude, my guys do it with Ann Coulter. It's not accomplishing much either way.
Posted by e. nonee moose at August 29, 2006 05:45 AM
e.n.m.
I have some sympathy with the picture you paint, but there's an important piece you've left out. It is true that political rhetoric will always distribute along a Bell Curve, but that doesn't mean that truth does as well.
(Hey, I really like that idea. I'm going to keep that and work on it a bit...)
Back to you, then. Also, what we all usually leave out is that it's hard to tell from the middle of the national discussion what things are "accomplishing much" and which aren't. We're all guessing on that one.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at August 29, 2006 06:14 PM
