Saturday, May 5, 2012

My Two Cents

Borepatch and Aretae both posted a couple of perceptive looks at the coming election.  I respect both of these guys very much.  Many others have chimed in - and I have as well, though not as directly.   Random Acts of Patriotism - among many others - have used this image (although I think the first place I saw it was Kevin's):
Any old Trekkie will tell you that the Kobayashi Maru is a test given to graduating cadets, to see how they handle the "no-win" situation.  Kirk's claim to fame was that he hacked the computer the night before, thus winning the impossible-to-win test.  The point is, this election is a no-win situation, and we might benefit by trying to brainstorm up a Kirk-like approach to this test.

Borepatch starts with:
Let me start my cheerfully admitting that a second Obama term - unfettered by the need for re-election and likely facing a Congress entirely controlled by the GOP - will be a disaster of faculty lounge inspired radicalism.  It will be EPA killing oil production and the ATF arming the Iranian Mullahs.  He will moot card carrying communists for the Supreme Court, as well as for every open Federal Bench seat.  Nobody can constrain his radicalism now, and it will be much, much worse come January.
I would have made that a "a disaster of Biblical proportion carried out by faculty lounge radicals".  I'll see your EPA and ATF predictions and raise you "Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder", and U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.  I'll throw in the Chicago Mafia, the Muslim Brotherhood, an Iranian attack, and a bunch more.  The problem is not just the Marxism, it's the thugocracy: it's a regulator who feels congress and laws are obsolete, a congress that won't pass a budget, a president that doesn't meet with a cabinet but rules by executive fiat.  But a more fundamental question is: what makes you think we even have four more years?  As Kevin said in this comment
The foundation of your "Let Obama Win" recommendation is "We can still save the Republic!"

I'm not so sanguine.

I think we've passed the point of no return and we're augering in. The only difference we can effect now is "how hard will we hit?"
Can we really stand four years under the NDAA, and the rest (source)?

Aretae suggests that if your aim is to try to straighten out the stupid party, as Borepatch seems to want, simply vote for the Libertarian candidate.  They largely draw their support from conservatives anyway, and perhaps it would be noticed more.  If you simply vote for the Evil party, I don't think the election numbers they see contain that information. 

A longtime friend's wife is an insider with the Stupid Party of Florida, and has been on the Romney bus for months.  He and I were discussing possible bumper stickers for Romney.  The obvious one is "Romney: at least he's not a communist".  I'm kind of fond of another idea I had: "Romney: he just may destroy the country, but it won't be deliberate".

See, we can bitch and moan all we want about Romney, but the fact is he won the nomination by getting more primary voters.  Say what you want about "he was pre-destined", or "it's his turn" or any other put down you want, but he won.  The party chose him.  Yes, he got more money donated to him by the "too big to fail" banks than any other candidate, and, yes, he ran a nasty, negative campaign.  Notice how, as soon as he dropped out, all of the "sexual harassment" charges against Herman Cain dissipated like fog?  Notice how any other candidate talked seriously about the real problems and the real need to cut spending, they were ripped apart by the press - and even my fellow bloggers - for being crazy?  I'm talking specifically about Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, as well as Ron Paul, who talked about the seriously bad times that are coming.  The only person who has gotten away with talking about cutting spending is Paul Ryan, whose plan falls so laughably short of being useful it's pathetic.  That probably means he's not considered a threat.

So what's the answer?  Romney?  Obama?  Gary Johnson (L)?  Frankly, they all make me sick and this really is the no-win situation.  Unless we can pull off a James T. Kirk and figure out a way to win the no-win, we get what we've got.  Seems like the other day I said,
The difference between Romney and Obama is pretty much like the difference between getting run through the abdomen with a machete and left to bleed out, or a double tap through the aorta.  The end result is pretty much going to be the same, it's just a matter of speed.  In a way, your choice of candidate may be determined by whether you're the kind of person who likes to pull the band-aid off all at once, or prolong the pain at lower levels. 


  1. I'm pretty much in agreement with you.
    We're screwed either way, but a bit "less screwed", at least for a while, if Romney wins.
    If the 0bummer wins another term, we're totally screwed, and it's immediate.
    I supported Cain, and I supported Santorum, and they both got destroyed before we even had the promary out here in Kaliforniastan.

  2. I believe there still is a significant difference. Consider the likelihood that Obama will dismantle _all_ of our nuclear weapons in what will be called an attempt at delivering "peace". Of course, being set upon destroying America the way that he is, there will be no insistence upon Russia getting rid of her weapons, too. Or no verification, if they pretend they will do likewise.

    Romney will certainly continue the slow demise of our Republic, but Obama will do his best to put us in a position it will be impossible to recover from. By giving China and Russia most of our secret defensive and offensive technology and destroying our nuclear deterrence capability, by cowering before Russia's threat to use force to prevent our placement of missile defense systems in Europe where they could respond to possible threats from Iranian or Pakistani nuclear weapons (or Russian or Chinese, for that matter), and by finalizing the collapse of our economy, through inflation, shutting down our oil industry, and giving away trillions of our tax dollars - dollars that don't even exist except as additional debt - to our enemies, Obama may put us in a position where we can be subjugated by one or more other countries. Economically, certainly, and perhaps militarily as well.

    Certainly we would be unable to respond to threats to our friends, like Israel, Taiwan, even Britain. If Iran or even China, as a proxy for Iran, decided to shut off the oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, we might have been weakened beyond any ability to protect that flow, or other assets throughout the world. Important bases such as Diego Garcia might have to be shut down, our military evacuated back to CONUS, due to an inability to protect and defend them.

    Bottom line, as bad as Romney would be, as little improvement as he might seem, I think it is far too easy to _underestimate_ just how much damage Obama could do with the gloves off and four years if he continues to "allow" elections after those four years) to wreak havoc.

  3. Romney certainly is no prize, by any measure one wants to apply. Neither was George W. Bush. Nor, by the same criteria, were his father or Bob Dole. Any Republican who won a presidential election since 1984 did so only because his opponent was just so much worse.

    The longer term view, IMHO, is to either restructure or nuke the Republican Party. It'll be faster to restructure it because that allows use of already created infrastructure, although a proper restructuring will be nearly indistinguishable from nuking, so it's a tossup as to which is the better choice. In any event, I'm confident 2012 is the last election cycle for the Republican Party as we know it; whether that's because those of us who care about this country will implement an intervention, or whether by 2016 there won't be a need for two parties, or elections, at this juncture I can't tell.

    The shorter term view, also IMHO, is to attempt to contain the disaster in such a way that we have time to restructure or nuke, and salvage something worth restructuring or nuking for. Should Obama get another term I do not believe there will be a country resembling the United States of America in existence by 2016, and we might well be in the position of fighting another civil war within a very few years after that. He's really that bad, and some of us really won't give up.

    So, as much as I dislike the proposition, I'll select the "non-Obama" this go-round, and do whatever I can around the edges (Congress, Senate, state legislature) to keep the compass pointed in the right direction. But no one in any position within the political structure should believe that I like it, nor should they think I would hesitate for a moment to step over their bodies, politically speaking, to help restore America to her Constitutional roots. The people who got us here, both Republican and Democrats, are the enemies of America, and I consider it my solemn duty to use whatever legal and Constitutional means are at our disposal to usher them from power and prevent them, and anyone like them, from corrupting America politically, fiscally, and socially ever again.

    None of that will be easy, nor will it be quick, which is why we need time to achieve it. Oriental cultures have a saying: "Plant a tree whose shade you will never enjoy." This is a journey we will begin, and successive generations will - hopefully - complete.

  4. THERE'S that positive outlook I've come to expect from you!
    Sadly, you're probably right.
    At least Gary Johnson was just nominated by the Libertarians.
    I'm thinking if I vote my conscience, at least I'll be first picked for the camps...
    See you all there.