Note Well:
This blog is intended for rational audiences. Its contents are the personal opinions of its author. If you quote from this blog, which you
may do with attribution, please assume personal accountability for any consequences of mischaracterizing these expressed intentions.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

My Modest Proposal

Image via Theo
Related source » Is Iran The Key to Obama's Reelection​?: 'via Blog this'
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]

“Now, in light of these statements recently made by Defense Secretary Panetta, I am adding e) a successful US-led operation would virtually guarantee Obama’s reelection.”
— Dan Friedman, 20 December 2011 (

The single most ominous scenario that is gaining on Western civilization is a nuclear-armed Iran. Hence, I am persuaded to declare that if President Obama launches a preemptive strike, coordinated with the IAF, against Iran's capacity to acquire nuclear weapons, I will vote to reelect him for a second term. I hasten to add that I would not vote for this arguably worst President in American history under any other circumstances; I would sooner vote for a yellow dog and then sit in traffic, naked, eating glass.

In the event that Obama does launch such a strike, I believe he would gain a sufficient swing in support from people like myself to guarantee his reelection. In that case we would have to rely on a Republican House to minimize the collateral damage from his lame-duck administration.

If you doubt my sincerity in this instance, then, as god is my witness, I give my word of honor that I would keep my end of this proposed bargain. And, needless to say, my word, as well as that of millions of others, is far more reliable than the word of our dear leader.

Post 1,742 My Modest Proposal


  1. Secular Apostate12/23/2011 2:50 PM

    He would certainly get my vote for President. And maybe even for the 4th Best President Evah.

    A nuke in the hands of demented, Islamoterrorist Persians simply does not compute. It's a geopolitical singularity. It cannot be.

    1. BTW, who are your top 3 choices? And whom would Obama displace as #4, in the event?

  2. Secular Apostate12/29/2011 6:54 AM

    I've concluded that the Lesser of N Evils Problem is NP-complete, and given N=6 (excluding Ron Paul) it's not computable in my lifetime.

    One by one, in order of preference:

    (#6) Bachmann - Pretty, fairly articulate, nice nails, Oral Roberts University graduate and all that implies.
    (#5) Santorum - Intelligent, articulate, can work with Congress. Reasonable foreign policy. His social policy is a perfect example of why devout Roman Catholics can serve as valuable voices for the Nation's conscience but should stay out of politics.
    (#4) Perry - My early pick. Seems to have good instincts, but inarticulate. Would be fun to get drunk with. Obama would wipe the floor with Perry in a debate. We've already had one Texan that couldn't defend his policies.
    (#3) Huntsman - In my opinion, the smartest guy in the pack. Good executive skills, great foreign policy experience, but I have major doubts about his isolationist tendencies.
    (#2)Romney - A technocrat's technocrat. Could serve effectively in the EU (and that is not a compliment). Voted for him in the TN primary last time, after Fred Thompson dropped out.
    (#1) Gingrich - Gingrich makes my teeth hurt. I despise the man. Has potential to be a a master politician or a major moron. Would probably wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. May be a Goldilocks sociopath (just sociopathic enough to be an effective President, but not too sociopathic).

    I think the nominee is going to be either Gingrich or Romney, neither of which I particularly like. In a runoff between those two today, I would probably vote for Gingrich, as much as I dislike him (then go stick my hand in a running garbage disposal).

    The only close call between any candidate (excluding Ron Paul) and Obama would be Bachmann. I'd have to think hard about that matchup. If I thought the Senate was going to go Republican, I might vote for Obama. I like Bachmann a lot, personally (and her hotness certainly doesn't hurt). But politically, she's just too dogmatic for a libertarian-leaning conservative like me.

    In my personal opinion, Ron Paul should be confined to the either the Gibbering Ward of the Bates Motel or Congress. Fits in socially in either place.

    1. Interesting commentary, mon ami. I especially like your take on Ron Paul; he is, IMHO, a lunatic of weight.

      But I was really asking a simpler question, namely: If Obama were to authorize a strike against Iran, you stated that you might rank him 4th best President, ever. So I am curious which 4 former Presidents you currently rank best.

  3. secular apostate1/03/2012 6:10 AM

    Ahhh. I like that question. My top three are Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. After that, things get a bit more fuzzy.

    Jackson was so good he spawned the term "Jacksonian Democrat", implying strict constructionist legal views, laissez-faire economics,and policy focus on the situation of the average wage earner rather than Wall St or the entitlement class.

    I like FDR's belated commitment to defeat of the Axis, but I abhor his economic policies.

    Reagan gets a lot of love and certainly deserves an aircraft carrier and an airport for his confrontation with the Soviet Union.

    Harry Truman is somewhere close to #4 for his brass 'nads.

    Dwight Eisenhower gets the Lifetime Achievement for pre- and post-White House unadorned, pure competency.

    My #4 vote? Jackson or Eisenhower.

    1. I like your choices. Mine are similar:

      #1-2: Washington-Lincoln or Lincoln-Washington

      #3-4: Jefferson-Truman or Truman-Jefferson