« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obamalaise: The Second Term of Barack Obama Begins…

-or, “Why Who We Vote for in the Primary is So Crucial”

The general consensus amongst the cognizati is that the second term of Barack Obama began on August 30th, 2012, when GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney uttered his now-infamous “Nope; He’s my boy!” comment. Only three days after his nomination at the Republican National Convention, and Romney’s campaign was seemingly folding like a cheap tent.

Angst had been building inside the circles of the national media within days of Romney announcing his choice of Congressman Alan West as his Vice Presidential running mate. Much hay was being made about Mr. West’s relative lack of experience in administrative or elected office, and the appearance that Mr. West, a black American, had been chosen simply as a black foil to Barack Obama.

For Romney’s part, he insisted he had chosen Mr. West for his outstanding military credentials, filling in the gaps in his own experience, and also adding a bit of geographical balance to his north-eastern patrician persona, and possibly helping with the GOP odds of taking Florida, to boot.

But, Romney was desperately fighting off accusations of tokenism, especially when he made passing reference to it being his distinct pride to know he had made “the first nomination of a person of African descent to the office of the Vice Presidency”. The pride Mr. Romney felt, evidently, only ran to the color of Alan West’s skin, not the magnificence of his military or congressional service. Romney, in the eyes of the mainstream media, was digging himself a deeper hole with each utterance.

Rumors, fueled by noisy speculation from the left-wing bloggosphere, began building that Romney had pulled a Thomas Eagleton, and was on the verge of withdrawing the nomination of West. When confronted about that possibility at a rally in Temple, Texas on August 30th that he would soon dump West, Romney made the comment, “Nope; He’s my Boy!”

With that simple word –”boy”– Romney came off sounding (and looking) like a southern plantation aristocrat, and, combined with his grotesquely supine groveling in the days following the gaffe, in which he continued to pour gasoline on the conflagration, race became the dominate issue in a campaign that should have been about the dire economic circumstances facing the country.

And so the campaign lumbered on:

October 6th, 2012: Alan West removes himself from the ticket, saying at a mob-scene presser, “It is quite clear, from the motives and actions of the national media, that Governor Romney cannot continue to press his case before the American People for fiscally sound and constitutionally limited government so long as I remain on the ticket with him. Consequently, I am withdrawing my name as his Vice Presidential Running Mate, and have formally requested that a new candidate be found in my stead”.

What Mr. West didn’t acknowledge was a Romney “hot microphone” incident at a townhall meeting in Muskegon, Michigan the day before. Just before appearing on stage, the former Governor was overheard speaking with a member of his advance team, and he said, verbatim, “just look at the crap I have to put up with to calm down the snarling right flank”– meaning, evidently, the choosing of Alan West in the first place.

Now, Alan West was not only a “boy”, but, apparently, “crap”, too. The Romney campaign was suddenly in full melt-down, from which it never recovered.

October 10th, 2012: After a very public rejection of both Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty, Romney chooses Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin as his running mate, and is immediately beset with comparisons to the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate in 2008. The left-wing media, in fact, begins to call Governor Fallin “Sarah Fallin”. Governor Fallin, much to her credit, says with an iron spine: “I hope I can put up with the media colonoscopy with half the grace and humor that Sarah Palin did”.

October 12th, 2012: In one of the few bright spots in the fall campaign for Romney, he has a brilliant exchange with President Obama at the first Debate at Montana State University in Bozeman:

President Obama:“Governor Romney, you know, can talk ad nauseum about what a disaster his Medical Plan was in Massachusetts, and so on, but at one time both he and his own Heritage Foundation called for exactly what I and the congress approved, which is, a single-payer, universal healthcare plan.

Moderator Carl Kastell: Governor Romney, your response?

Mitt Romney:“My response is one of astonishment, frankly. You know, in the, ah, science of psychology, there are a couple of propositions, one called projection, and the other called a Freudian Slip. A Freudian Slip is when someone is speaking off-the-cuff, and reveals something in their talk that they otherwise would not reveal. We just heard this from the President. He said his plan was just like the one that we passed in Massachusetts, that is, a Universal, single-payer healthcare system. Now, I think everyone in this room probably caught this jaw-dropping gaffe, but I can tell by the look on his face that the President is only now aware of it. We passed a healthcare program that provided for mandated insurance coverage, which, as it turns out was a complete mistake. But, and this is the projection part, it wasn’t a single-payer universal system. I think President Obama just revealed that this is what he wished would happen here in the United States, pure and simple. He wants Universal, European-style government controlled healthcare. He just said as much.

Other than this bright and lucid moment, the Romney campaign never found it footing, and, by virtue of Mr. Romney’s own stated position of “not getting down into barroom brawls”, it seemed incapable of effectively countering the relentless attacks on the campaign, the candidate and even his family and religion.

Election Night, November, 2012: Probably the most astonishing thing about the election result was the dispirited nature of the electorate: It was the first time in American history when fewer votes were cast in the Presidential election than in the previous election. Barack Obama, although clearly the winner, garnered 59,600,000 votes to Mitt Romney’s 50,770,000 votes. No doubt, of course, the vote totals (- as well as the fortunes of Mitt Romney) were suppressed by the late-season hurricane Winston that tore through Houston, Texas on election morning, and that was pummeling the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex that evening.

Barack Obama, though, has absolutely no electoral coattails as the United States Senate is swept by Republicans. Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico, North Dakota, West Virginia, Virginia, Florida, Montana, Missouri and Nebraska all elect Republican candidates, and the GOP retains seats in every state they were defending. The US House of Representatives also add two GOP members to its numbers.

November 26, 2012:In celebration of the Islamic New Year of Al Hijrah, Iran detonates the first of four underground nuclear devices in 74 hours through the 28th. Barack Obama, traveling to Sumatra to join some members of his family in a post-election vacation, is unavailable for public comment for nearly seven hours during the day of the 26th, during which time Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu declares openly that this is an act of unprovoked war. No immediate military response, though, is taken against Iran.

November 29th, 2012: Iran, declaring that it must “crush the militarism and the bellicose language of the International Zionists” attacks Iraq at seven locations nearing the Tigris river. At this moment, the United Nations Security Council is not called into session.

November 30th, 2012: American forces still stationed in Iraq are paralyzed by unclear rules of engagement in the early hours. Their role, since late 2010, has been as support and enforcement, not front-line combat readiness. 39 American soldiers die that day in two separate attacks in the central part of the county. In a clear act of provocation, in Bandar Abbas, Iran moves against closing the Straits of Hormuz. American forces still have made no cross-border engagements.

December 1st, 2012: World oil markets are traumatized by word that Iran has closed the Straits. Throughout the day, the barrel price of oil jumps from $93 to $202 in eight hours. Late in the day, the Japanese stock market begins to crash, losing over 40 percent of its value in the next 48 hours. By December 12th, the barrel price for oil reaches $300, and gasoline retail prices in the United States crack the $6 per gallon threshold.

December 14th, 2012: The United Nations Security Council meeting in emergency session since December 7th, remains deadlocked on a resolution because Russia insists on inserting language in the resolution requiring Israel to “exit” all it’s “occupied” lands, in “accordance with UN Resolution 242 of 1968″. Fighting intensifies inside Iraq, and Egypt is seen massing rocket batteries near the Sinai Peninsula.

December 17th, 2012 (Black Tuesday): Pacific Retail Partners (PRP) abruptly shutters all it 289 gasoline retail operations in California, Oregon and Arizona after failing to retain it’s credit line with it’s wholesale gasoline suppliers. In a scene that will be duplicated many times in the month ahead, most major retailers are unable to keep up with the abrupt rise in the price of gasoline stocks as wholesale purchasers increasingly  purchase on the open market, and their credit lines are squeezed. Within weeks, retail customers at major urban centers find that their availability of gasoline at the pump has been crimped (as in the case of South Central Los Angeles) by up to 80%. Also, the American and most European stock exchanges crumble, in the case of the United States, the New York Stock Exchange sheds over 40% of it’s value starting on December 17th.

Also in the twilight hours of December 17th, the American Embassy in Iraq is shelled intensely. Barack Obama issues a statement calling for calm and opens the door to negotiations with the Iranians. Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, Iran’s President since early March, ignores the President’s pleas and sends a simple statement: “Iran no longer negotiates with criminal regimes that seek to destroy our Motherland, and protect the Zionist entity. The mistake of the UN in 1948 will soon be erased from the map.”

December 24th, 2012: The “Christmas Eve Gas Riot” or the “LA Gas Riot” is kindled in East Central Los Angles when a Chevron station in San Bernadino is torched by a rampaging mob angry over the unavailability of gasoline. Such riots quickly spread to Atlanta, Cincinnati and Camden, and other urban centers as gas becomes increasingly scarce.

December 25th, 2012: As Iranian attacks intensify inside Iraq,  Barack Obama authorizes cross-boarder military action against Iran, without consent of the United Nations Security Council. At 12:44 AM Local Time on the 26th, nearly two hours after the incursions, in a sparsely populated and rugged area between Latakia and Hims, Syria, what appears to be a 85-megaton nuclear bomb is detonated, but is apparently a “fizzle”, and the actual yield is much lower. The destruction, however, within the ten-mile blast zone is total, and radiation levels are immense. President Obama resists the advice of his Joint Chiefs, and refuses to raise the alert level of the national Defense Condition. He claims that doing so might incite the Egyptians and other Middle East powers into thinking America had exploded the bomb. In fact, within the hour, the President of Iran takes to the airwaves to insist his country is not to blame for the explosion, but indicates another blast may be forthcoming shortly. Spectography of the footprint of the blast indicates it is not of American or Western origin, but test are inconclusive beyond this point.

Within minutes of the Syrian misfire, Prime Minister Netanyahu authorizes the nuclear bombing of Iran. “We have said repeatedly that there will be no more Holocausts,” says the Israeli Prime Minister, after he announces his decision, ”and we mean what we have said for decades. We have also been saved by the very skin of our teeth, and God has granted us the divine opportunity to extract our reprisal before we are hit. May the  Lord bless this fragile earth at such a critical moment.”

…and this was before the New Year was out…

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • audax

    ….Now, can you look in the other crystal ball, the one with the Rosy Scenario (I know you have it!), and let us see the Palin/Perry/Bachmann (take your pick on who’s who on the ticket) campaign, election and first 100 days? Now that will be an interesting read!

  • funwithknives

    and will go and do same in just a minute. I’m a big fan of historical fiction(Turtledove is a FAVE) but this is some kind of new incentive, I MUST SAY! Food for intense thought and well done. One more reason to get a Large Quorum REAL EARLY, TRUE? When is all said and done will you ever recriminate and wonder what you might have done “in addition”. WELL,… DON’T. Do THAT now and Beat the rush, 14 months and counting!

  • gawken

    Kudos!!

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      …but, the thing is:
      History abhors a vacuum. The things that we see as the possible problems arising in the future, sadly, are things that tend not to. The “Hunt for Red October”, for example, was based entirely on the ability of a bankrupt Soviet Union to stage an entirely new class of nuclear submarines– which, in retrospect, it manifestly was unable to do.

      Right now, the thing that seems the most problematic is the debt ceiling issue. The issues that will cloud the election, though, will only arise in the weeks immediately adjacent to election DAY– which is what I tried to convey here, and the ability of our candidate to navigate the minefield.

      Thanks again…

  • Flagstaff

    It’s one thing to criticize a candidate, quite another to speculate wholesale based on your own criticism.

    Fiction remains fiction. It can say anything it likes, and yours appears to be pretty well done as a work of fiction that makes your point–Romney is a mistake waiting to happen. You also draw a pretty accurate picture of his highness, the President Obama. But I don’t think that was your point.

    Can we not at least wait until these guys make their own mistakes, without inventing some of our own for them out of whole cloth?

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      And, my point was simple and two-fold:

      1) Romney may be a very good man, with good intentions– but clearly the most circumspect toward the liberal/statist enemy (he would, by his own admission “reach across the aisle, like Reagan did with Tip O’Neil”) and thus the most likely to mess up and become ensnarled in the narratives that the leftist/media complex engage. I don’t think this is arguable.

      2) Parables are effective means to engage the mind. And, I will remind many that the Pentagon spends untold hours envisioning scenarios that seem completely outlandish– for who knows what tomorrow may bring?

      Certainly I don’t. But, as it sez above the portals at the National Archives: “The Past is Prologue”…

      • JSobieski

        Parables are an effective way to engage the mind. However, one should not game theory friends in this way. Do we want someone to game theory a Palin resigns scenario? Do we want parables to become the mechanism by which RSers delivery body blows to candidates they don’t like? Are you planning on writing a follow-up to Reagan’s biography this year?

        The Pentagon does not game theory in public and the reasons for that should be quite clear. Many of those same reasons apply here.

        Anybody can game theory someone coming up short, saying the wrong thing, etc. Imagine if spouses game theoried their spouses being unfaithful, coaches game theoried players choking, etc. We can create all sorts of parables about people who write diaries not based on facts for example.

        There is enough to be critical about without just taking license to write fiction about candidates. Why people are so convinved that someone else won’t do it to “their guy” is a bit disappointing.

        Using your nomenclature, its not that the MSM makes stuff up about Palin, they just write in . . . parables. Kind of like the fake Bush National Guard documents that are nonetheless true.

  • JSobieski

    I am no fan of Romney becoming the Republlican Presidential nominee in 2012. In my view, Romney would be McCain 2.0—an absolute disaster.

    That being said, to literally create a fiction like this makes no sense. I hope to God that Romney isn’t the nominee. Romney’s actual words provide more than enough ammunition for conservatives to sound the warning bell. His actual record should be the source cited by skeptics. The fact that one of the future behaviors illustrated by Romney is racial tokenism only makes this insanity even more damaging.

    If people are going to start attacking our own candidates based on make believe future hypotheticals, we are about to enter the worst circular firing squad in US history.

    You don’t think the Romney people won’t be able to make up a scary scenario involving Bachmann? Or that Governor’s Perry and Pawlenty are susceptical to fictitous scenarios in which they are absolute idiots.

    I don’t like Romney any more than you do, but if I diaries based on future predictions of behavior become fair game, we are doing our own side no favors.

    Who do you support, and how would you respond if someone writes a diary about what that person does in the future?

    • aesthete

      For that matter, the counterfactual with Obama is also pretty silly — there is no chance, absolutely none at all, that Iran would attack Iraq with conventional forces. Even if there were, there’s no chance whatsoever that a Pres Obama would not respond. Perhaps it would not be the best response, but there’s no chance that there would be a lack of response. IMO, we should avoid doomsday scenarios when talking about either primary opponents or political opponents in the general. I don’t dislike Obama because he will be completely unresponsive in the case of an attack on the US and its client states (and yes, Iraq is a client state). I dislike him because of actions that he has already undertaken. Ditto for Romney. IMO, this is as baseless as a hypothetical scenario where Pres Palin nukes Iran and Pakistan, and bankrupts the country as a result of not spending time on the spending crisis.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        That assumes that we would have good intel after Mirandizing captured and un-nose-swabbed Iranian combatents! smile

        I would hope that Obama would at least “respond” to a ground invasion of Iraq, but of course I have been perplexed that neither Bush nor Obama have taken military action against Iran for the past 6 years given Iran’s proxies waging war against American armed forces and Iraqis on the ground in Iraq.

        • aesthete

          Obama is CinC, and while I have a generally low opinion of how he’s handled his responsibilities thus far, I highly doubt that political forces in DC, or the American people, would let him get away with anything less than reprisal in the event of an Iranian invasion. At any rate, I find the idea of a full-scale invasion on Iran’s part in the near future to be laughable; if they wouldn’t do it when Iraq was isolated and alone, they certainly won’t do it after the US and the UK have already made its security and stability a priority. There are better odds of Iraq and Iran striking up a friendship of their own volition than there are of Iran invading Iraq at this stage in the game.

          As far as military action against Iran goes, I’d endorse it so long as we don’t stick around to try to “rebuild” Iran or engage in more tiresome “nation building” nonsense.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            ‘thete

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            According to Michael Ledeen at Pajamas Media, Iran just crossed the border into Iraq, set up permanent bases, and attacked the Kurds.

            http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/11/it-seems-iran-has-invaded-iraq/

            CC’s scenario is not that farfetched.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            allow it. And yet, we bomb Libya instead. Madness.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Or, perhaps madness has a rational explanation in Mr. Obama’s mind. If so, it is beyond me. The only apparent connection is that both instances seem to support the radical Muslims and Iran.

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        I don’t think I’ve written that (in my little history-play), that Obama would have “no response” to a Iranian attack against Iraq. I think I was rather clear: His response would be completely political in nature, and most certainly NOT be lightning quick. I think all the evidence is there to support such an allusion:

        –It took him nine months to get back to his Afghan command regarding numerical troop increases. Further, it took him months to give the OK to “get” Bin Laden, after we were fairly certain of his whereabouts. President Obama’s first instincts are clearly for the calculus of the geopolitical, not for the protection of America’s vital interests. He dithered and stalled for time in the nascent Iranian democratic uprising of 18 months ago. I don’t think, empirically speaking, that his overlong political calculations in military matters are arguable.

        My underlying construct here, vis-a-vis the Iran thing, is that I don’t think they would use an atomic weapon as a first-strike device, but rather as a monstrous club to bully a Western World, and swagger about the countryside carrying an enormous stick. And, they would drool at the opportunity to goad the West into providing an excuse to wipe out Israel.

        I’m rather sure, by the way, that most of the wags in 1938, after Germany had finalized it’s non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, would have concluded that there was no way the Third Reich would attack Russia. No way. Gobble up Poland, the Balkans, and so on? Sure– but Hitler would never go after Stalin.

        And, I don’t think I’d be too quick on the draw to insist that President Obama would rush to the aid of an Iranian attack on Iraq, when his whole career has been made undermining our efforts there, and that much of his left flank would be outraged that any more effort was made militarily on their behalf. He’d be in an instantaneous political AND military pickle, I think.

        • Flagstaff

          I think your post-election scenario would make a great screenplay; it already has the beginning written. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it on the big screen someday, as the left monitors these pages. Flesh it out, fictionalize the characters as necessary, develop a prologue, a middle (no holds barred), and an end (one that leaves us alive with a real hopeful future), and you have a copyrightable and marketable product.

          I’m not kidding.

        • aesthete

          Troop increases in Afghanistan were not in serious consideration under the Bush administration at all (and rightly so, IMO): under Obama, the purpose of those troops was essentially to babysit the “civilian surge”, and to tamp down on some areas that we were barely holding on to (politically speaking) as part of an ideological version of COIN forwarded by McCrystal. They were by no means on the same scale as a full-scale conventional attack on our forces under the color of a foreign nation-state’s flag — if ever such a thing were to occur (and it didn’t under Clinton, Reagan or most preceding Presidents), American citizens would be baying for blood, and most every politician would be joining them. Mind you, I imagine that Obama would look more like a neutered puppy than the leader of the free world, and that some ham-handed decisions from his administration would be forthcoming, but I would indeed expect an immediate response, if only because the military bureaucracies have a say in what’s done and would be given wide latitude in such a circumstance.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      I’m not suggesting that Romney WOULD engage in “racial tokenism”; I’m suggesting he would respond the most ham-handedly to leftist ACCUSATIONS of “racial tokenism”. And, since he HAS engaged in environmental tokenism, and healthcare tokenism –and responded in both cases ham-handedly– I think it is perfectly, well, “sane” (to coin a term) to envision him engaging in the manner I lay out.

      Further, I don’t know how to tell you this, but political primaries are the very definition of a political “circular firing squad”, one in which only one person will remain standing.

      I think fictive diaries of the type I’ve written are wholey proper, and I would welcome others that seem well-reasoned and not completely speculative or baseless. In a nod to Neitzche, it won’t kill the combatants, and it will only make them stronger.

      And, as for whom I would support in the primaries, I have been very clear: I support traditional, articulate, full-throated, non-apologetic constitutional Conservatives. And thus, I do NOT support Mr. Romney at this point. I will shout his name from the mountaintops if he becomes the GOP standard-bearer, but I manifestly oppose him now.

      • JSobieski

        during the heat of the presidential primary season. I have no problem in challenging candidates on their records and their public statements.

        However, the use of fiction to take shots–even if we think the fiction is not fanciful—-is a door I would prefer not to open. I wonder how long it will be before a Romney supporter uses similar fiction again someone else? If someone pulls this kind of stunt with Palin instead of Romney, RS will need to expand its server capacity.

        I am all for debate that generates light, but am quite concerned about fights that generate only heat. While I don’t disagree with your assessment of Romney, I am skeptical that use of fictional scenarios is a good idea.

        • funwithknives

          that scenarios of this sort are called WAR GAMES in military parlance, and do have value. Said exercises are used in Theory and in real ,manned actions utilizing men and material. I suppose the point is that we are in a War of a kind and gaming is a part of modern warfare. The ruling class in IRAN makes no secret about their agenda regarding THE MAHDI and the return of same. He doesn’t appear until they jump-start the violence and what will surely follow. Look to The Human Wave Tactics of Iran, in their fight with Iraq, and realize this IS a possibility. To the current rulers,and mullahs, nothing matters but their Goal. Plus, incentive is a driver of behavior and This diary gave me incentive enough to go back and look at IRAN’s publicly declared aims. Not Pretty,by a long shot. THIS One’s For YOU, Jan. Call It “BE PREPARED”.

          • JSobieski

            and this website turns into a heap of rubble, I am sure you will be there to explain why this is all a good thing.

            You totally miss the point of my criticism (which did not involve Iran at all).

            If people on RS start using fiction to favor their candidates over other candidates, this site will become useless in our efforts to stop Obama 2.0. Are you prepared for that?

          • JSobieski

            I am opposed to linking such diaries to fictitious accounts of Republican candidates in diaries that are focused on presidential primary politics (“Why Who We Vote for in the Primary is So Crucial

  • Tbone

    Anyone can make up anything about anyone. While I think Romney is just a little better candidate than Ron Paul, to paint him as an insensitive racist is wrong.

    • JSobieski

      it may be time to jump into a bunker with lots of canned food.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      –in a presidential election one of envisioning the leadership scenarios of those whom we support (-or don’t)? Don’t the candidates themselves spin elaborate yarns about such things? Isn’t history replete with such yarn-spinning? Just go over the Nixon-Kennedy debates if you challenge this assertion. The entire Carter campaign of 1980 was of the Democrat candidate issuing one blood-curdling horror scenario about Ronald Reagan after another.

      I urge you to reread what I wrote: My point was to illustrate how our Republican candidates tend to allow themselves to be painted into a liberal corner, and how they too often allow the Left to set the terms of the campaign, and how important it is to nominate someone that won’t allow this to happen. Now, in addition to Romney going all fetal on Global Warming, and ethanol subsidies, and RomneyCare, we are treated to his playing footsie with the public sector unions. This all doesn’t bode well for illustrating the capability of Mr. Romney to deflect the liberal media framework away from himself, and onto his opponent.

      And finally, are we all so thin-skinned that we paralyze our own thought-ways lest we offend? This, it seems to me, is what has lead so often to the election of Republican squishes and mush-heads. We are far more circumspect and introspective than our opponents, to our own detriment.

      That’s the way I see it, anyhoo. And, yes, anyone can make anything up about anybody; better it come from your own side in the warm-up intramurals, than in the latter crucial innings.

      • JSobieski

        Are you prepared to have someone “envision” your favorite candidate dropping the ball? Choking in a debate? Cheating on a spouse?

        “Envisioning” is what left-wingers do. They tap into what they feel, and act as if those feelings are facts. Not sure how envisioning is different.

        Didn’t someone in the MSM envision that Bachmann would outlaw pornography? They always envision that Republicans want to kill out people, starve the poor, etc.

        I dislike Romney with a passion. I agree with your criticism of him. However, inventing new faults (such as waffling on a VP pick–something Romney has never done) out of thin air is just an invitation for retaliation. RS went through some very heated moments in 2008. I would prefer not to repeat them.

        Do you remember the famous Reagan biography where the writer just made up certain characters and certain scenes?

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          ..as did the loathsome Reagan biography you reference did. I am simply opening some pathways that might at once seem a bit uncomfortable, but certainly not out-of-bounds, in my mind.

          –and, no, I would not be at all opposed to this same sort of tack being deployed against any and all candidates, R’s in especial, if it prepares them for some of the stuff that might be flying in their direction, if only minimally. These candidates are big boys and girls– they can handle it. And, as I’ve said repeatedly, I have no “favorite” in the race thus far, beyond solid, constitutional conservatives. And, if it drives traffic to a place on the ‘net where such things are discussed (rationally, persuasively, thoughtfully), so much the better. Gingrich himself has used this approach in a couple of novels, by-the-by…

          Frankly, there are times when we ought to use some of the tools the leftists use in their attempts to destroy our society. That we have been all-too-gentlemanly at times has been to our detriment, in my view. And, believe me, we all engage in “envisioning” the future, right and left. Thinking, sentient beings do this as a matter of experiential life.

          And, as all the investment commercials admonish: “Past performance is no indicator of future results”.

          • Tbone

            Putting it in the simplest terms.

          • JSobieski

            Lets refrain from using the tools of leftists against Republican presidential candidates.

            It is precisely your willingness to “use some of the tools the leftists use” against GOP candidates that I am against.

            At the end of the primary season, we need the folks on our side to be on good terms with each other. Divide and conquer is a not a good strategy for the primaries.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Heh.

    Wow this diary is bad.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      That’s big, Hung like my ego, in fact.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      Speaking as a (not infrequently) published author, who actually is paid for such things as literary reviews, I welcome criticism. I welcome thoughtful editing (even for style, grammar, and punctuation). Oftentimes, I have been called upon to pan an authors’ hard work, and I try to be thoughtful and persuasive. If one dishes it out, one must be able to take it…

      But, I might suggest that, at whiles, those that offer such critiques might benefit from reviewing their own posts before posting them– even for style, grammar, and punctuation.

      Once again, thank you.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        The burden is on you to persuade with your frankly offensive comments about Mitt Romney.

        You smear a decent family man with the shadow of racism. Shame on you.

        The fact that your science is laughably wrong is just icing.

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          If your primary concern was that I was “smearing” Mitt Romney (-which, as I think I was clear– especially in the comments thread– that I was not casting aspersions on Mr. Romney as a man, but rather on his what I perceive to be his overly circumspect responses as a candidate to the LEFTIST MEDIA), then either your Comment Title, or the comment itself might have made at least some passing reference to this concern. They did not.

          As for my persuasiveness: Clearly, looking at those who have recommended my work here, and those who have commented on it have found it (at least somewhat) persuasive; that alone weakens your follow-on, as I see it .That you did NOT find it persuasive is a matter of opinion, and you are clearly entitled to it; But, I question this, too, given what I view as the stridency of your accusations about me “smearing” and being “racist” and “offensive”. I’ve found that, especially in the electronic blips of the on-line world, the less secure a person is in their argumentation, the more strident their language becomes.

          As for the science: If my memory serves (and, oftentimes, it does not-!), the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the 15-30 megaton yield range. I was merely extrapolating the advances made in bomb design, and accounting for delivery of some type. I am not (clearly) a nuclear scientist, so, whatever. I don’t claim to be. I DO claim to be a guy sitting at my computer doing what I can to get people to ponder the world a tiny bit through my own prism of traditional, constitutional, conservative understanding; and I try to do it utilizing a number of narrative tools. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail.

          I simply wonder if the on-line community helps itself with toss-off and ill-considered (and poorly constructed) comments like “Wow this diary is bad”; especially from those that police it’s contents.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Deflection’s easy. Actually making non-imaginary arguments against a candidate you dislike, well, that takes work.

  • BigRedConservative

    Hiroshima wasn’t even approaching a half of a half of 1 megaton. You’re out by (approx.) 2300x. You’re thinking of 15-30 KILOtons. Might seem like pedantry, but ask one of the unfortunate residents of Hiroshima.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      My malaria must be kicking up again. Thanks for the (thoughtful) reply. It is much appreciated, and it adds to the discussion.

      KILO not MEGA. Jeesh.