Call me crazy or obsessed but I just realized something about that passage in Isaiah. I was reading this modern rabbi laugh at the Christian messianic interpretation of Isaiah 8 saying that "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" wasn't a name of the messiah. I guess it was no longer used by Jews but when you apply a common kabalistic method of treating acrostics and mnemonic phrases it is impossible to get around the fact that Maher-Shalal-Hash-baz (the longest or second longest name in the Bible) reveals the name Moses - perhaps even "Moses 2" if you become really inventive with the B.
So when these contemporary Jewish writers try and debunk these messianic interpretations they better watch out. They end up necessarily negating many of the lines of proof they use in other passages.
I guess you could argue that the "shalal of Samaria" is distinguished from that "wealth of Damascus" because Isaiah must have originally been identifying this figure born "to the prophetess" as a specifically Samaritan messiah, one who destroys the kingdom (perhaps first "of Israel" but later in Christian times applied to the Judah).
The acrostic spells out mashak which means "to annoint" and is the root of mashiach, messiah.
Stephan Huller has had a life long interest in religion and spirituality 
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."