Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Introducing Stav Blackmane, Candidate for President

[Nuking Politics conducted an interview with long-shot dark-horse Republican presidential
candidate, Stav Blackmane. This interview took place just prior to the start of the Republican
primary, and is the first in a planned series of interviews and expected speeches we will
transcribe. We do not know how long Mr. Blackman's candidacy will last, but find many of his
positions compelling.

An interview with Stav Blackmane, conservative dark horse candidate for President of the United States.

1. Why do you think you're the best candidate to take the Republican nomination? You're up against Romney, a former Governor, businessman, and the political favorite, and then some political regulars.

Let’s define our terms. No, scratch that – that’d take too long… I’m all about evidence, honesty, taking a hard look at brutal truths, etc., so I’m going to answer both your question about being the best candidate/nominee, and your un-asked ultimate end position of who would be the best President.

I’m going to say something that would give my “message handlers”, if I had any, endless nightmares. I can’t claim to be the best candidate, given any normal accepted definition of the term. I’m starting way behind the line, with almost no name recognition outside of eclectic conservative circles. But I can say with confidence that I would be the better President.

All successful Presidents have shared a number of traits, regardless of which party they belonged to. In fact, it is a long list, but the relevant ones are those which will catch the public’s attention, and which will sustain them through their term or terms in office. They’re charismatic, they command a room or a crowd with equal ease, they’re stoic, they have a marked inability to panic. All the successful Presidents have been headstrong bulldogs. Unfortunately, some of the unsuccessful ones have been as well, but it is a trait you can’t overlook. The successful ones are not, however, headstrong to the point of foolishly discarding their advisors’ advice. Governor Romney and I share those traits. He would be a good President. I would be a better one because I am innately more conservative. And I mean that both in the “Traditionalist” sense, although I’ll admit to having a strong techno-geek streak, and in the “Individualist” sense.

Romney has more business experience than I do, largely as a factor of age. I hope he doesn’t hold my youth against me, as I am only now barely knocking on the door of being 50. But I can counter, negate, nullify that advantage by means of the obvious tactic of having men like Romney – and I’d be honored to have the man himself, if circumstances play out to my advantage – as part of my trusted inner circle of advisors. I will co-opt the knowledge and experience of my advisors – it should be obvious that’s what they’re for.

2. What is your real opinion of Obama?

I believe him to be a sad, abandoned boy now trapped by time in manhood; who was deceived by those who claimed to love him: who had hatred of this country, of our society and our values, fed to him with his mother’s milk, except actually without the mother’s milk part: whose rage is now full-grown. I don’t think he is either stupid or incompetent – I think he’s malignant, and that the non-natural disasters that have befallen our country have not been the result of his policies’ failures, but rather of their successes. This is not “conspiracy talk” by the way; I’ll remind you of his “energy prices will necessarily skyrocket” quote as a perfect example. He’s a bitter narcissistic far-left radical, playing out his mommy and daddy issues on a stage writ large, who has been quite successful at achieving many of his goals.

3. Obama claims that you don't care about the poor, or the old, or the disadvantaged, or minorities. What do you say to that?

(Checks the time) This is not going to be a short answer, but I’ll try to keep it under “book length”.

What do I say to that? I say that he’s not very original. What Republican hasn’t been accused of such (except in locations and for position in which Republicans run unopposed)? It is tired old tripe, redistributionist rotting garbage, and doesn’t even rise to the level of Orwellian “Newspeak”. It is “Antispeak”. Not only is it a lie, it is based on anti-truth. The “Truth” is, and I’m speaking from any authoritarian viewpoint, is that anything you want more of, you subsidize. Likewise, anything you want less of, you penalize. The relevant point here being that the Left needs the poor, the old, the “disadvantaged”, and minorities to be dependable voting blocks. So they’re bought. The Left are nothing if not masters at using public funds – yours and my tax dollars – to purchase dependent voting blocks. 

Now you might think I’m being unfair here… because paying the old doesn’t keep them old, just like paying minorities doesn’t force them to continue being minorities. But it DOES keep them dependent. Likewise, strangely enough paying the poor, for nothing more than being poor, doesn’t make them “not poor”. It doesn’t enrich them; it keeps them dependent. As for the “disadvantaged”; that term is a flexibly definable grey void useful for any purpose the Left needs. If you really want to accuse me of not caring for the disadvantaged, define which ones and I’ll dispute the label, or call you a liar and successfully rebut your accusation.

The Right in general, and myself in particular, care about the poor. Authoritative statistics on charitable giving are ample evidence of that; you can look them up yourself. But more importantly, far more importantly, is what could be mischaracterized as our selfish motive. We don’t want the poor to remain poor. Why? I mean “Why, aside from loving people in general and wanting the best for everybody?” I’ll tell you why: We “selfishly” want people to succeed in life, to do far better than just being hopelessly poor and dependent on government handouts, because A) productive people don’t suck tax dollars out of our wallets, and in fact help share the burden, and B) productive people VOTE for us, because they ARE US. The poor are paid just enough to capture their vote and keep them poor. The productive vote for people like themselves – i.e. other productive people.

I often hear that “children are our treasure”. Not really. Don’t get me wrong – I treasure children, certainly, especially my own, but in the political sense that matters, children are not our treasure. Children are our future. The ELDERLY are our treasure. They are our storehouses of knowledge and wisdom; they’re the living definition of “experience”. While our government has made a compulsory and unsustainable “social compact” that I will do all in my power to end, I will not break faith with our elderly who have ordered their retirement – their very lives – according to rules they had no choice in obeying. We’re in a financial quagmire. In fact that’s a ridiculous understatement, but since an accurate rendering of our country’s financial status would take a trillion obscene terms to describe, let’s leave it at “quagmire” for now. Someone is going to – unfairly and unjustly, but out of necessity – take it in the shorts for the rest of the country. Now that can either by “everybody”, which would doom the elderly who would have no means of coping, or “just the elderly”, which would be pointless, stupid, and homicidal, or “everyone but the elderly”, which makes perfect sense to me.

Regarding minorities, let’s be honest and admit that while many Liberals may mean “this or that” minority, depending on their pet causes or the subject at hand, since we’re talking about Obama’s accusation specifically, we’re talking about blacks. And yes, I will use the term “blacks” because there’s nothing racist with that term, just like there’s nothing racist in referring to “whites”. He might as well have accused me – as has been said of other Republican presidents in the past – of not caring about black people. I’ll address this two ways.

First; I consider it indisputable that nothing – NOTHING – has harmed Black America more than our welfare system; mostly but not exclusively for abrogating the role of the father within black families. If you want to be angry – and by “you” I mean anybody; you don’t have to be black to feel this way – if you want to be angry at someone or something for the downtroddeness of minorities, be angry – be full of rage – at those who purposefully and systematically transformed a huge section of our population not into slaves, but into prisoners. Prisoners of the welfare system, where they sugar-coat their shackles with base payments and lies, deceiving those on welfare that they’re helpless and can’t survive without that government check. Their politicians say “Just keep voting for me, and I’ll keep the gravy train a’comin’”, but it isn’t gravy their divvying out a drop at a time – it’s poison. While Mom, and decreasingly Dad, and increasingly Grandparents, are kept prisoners of welfare, their children – sons lacking fathers to guide them and show them what it means to be an upright and responsible man, daughters denied the adoration, treasuring, and guidance from their fathers that is so crucial to every woman’s natural and healthy development, suffer, and more and more become literal prisoners indeed.

I want nothing to do with that system. I want our citizens to have nothing to do with that system, regardless of their color or heritage.

Second; Do I care about black people? Well yeah, and to any black person listening I would say that – God’s honest truth – I care about you because you’re “people”, not because you’re black. I don’t give a damn what color anyone is. I may be curious about someone’s ethnicity, but only because people fascinate and interest me, and knowing about THEIR ethnicity can help complete the picture. But my interest is in THEM, not in their ethnicity itself. I may be fascinated by the detail, but at the same time the details are incidental. You may be half Antarctian and half ethnic-Martian, and while – believe me – I’d find that absolutely fascinating, it would have no impact at all – one way or the other – on how I felt about you as a person.

I think I’ve beaten this horse into the ground. Let’s move on.

4. What do you plan to do about taxes?

Overall my general answer is “Slash them”. If you could be more specific as to which taxes you’re asking about, I can give you more specific answers. But in the meantime, if you can think of a tax, there is a high probability that I want to cut it deeply. In fact, you know how our government has on occasion inflicted “punitive taxation” on this or that? Well I think it is high time we inflicted a little punitive anti-taxation upon our government. So while there are many sound economic reasons for cutting taxes, I have to admit that for me there’s some spite mixed in as well. And to be perfectly clear, that’s not spite towards our citizenry –gosh we’ve had more than enough of that – but rather, it is on their behalf.

5. What do you plan to do about spending?

“Slash” is such a tame, nonviolent word, compared to what I plan to do with spending. If the Left wants to accuse me of being a radical, let it be for this: I want to do radical chainsaw surgery to our spending. Many, many branches of government will cease to exist. Useless and in my opinion far-worse-than-useless departments and agencies will be terminated with extreme prejudice. Sacred cows will be sacrificed on the altar of fiscal responsibility. Many personal oxen will be gored.

6. What, in your opinion, is really the role of government?

I’m going to assume you simply mean “federal government”, because my answer would be different if we were talking about State or smaller governments, and say that it is well defined in our Constitution, which I won’t (and frankly can’t) recite verbatim here. But in a nutshell, it is to protect our country from foreign aggression, negotiate with foreign governments on matters of national security, establish courts and fairly mete out justice, prevent the States from levying tariffs on each other – and before you ask, YES, “Wickard v. Filburn” was wrongly decided, en excelsis. 

That sort of thing. There’s more, but just not a whole lot more.

7. Simply answer yes or you believe the United States is the best country in the world?

YES. I assume you mean “best overall”, and let me reiterate “Yes, and by a wide margin. So wide there’s really nobody in second place. I think the ‘next-best’ country in all honesty would have to enter the ranks somewhere down near 5th, even though that makes no real sense. It is an emotional issue - they’re hard to rank numerically.” But if you’re asking “best at – this or that” then you’d have to name the this or that. For example, tragically, shamefully, annoyingly, we are temporarily no longer best at manned space travel. I’m determined to make that temporary situation truly short term in nature.

8. Again, a simple yes or no, should government be a safety net for people?

I’m going to have to break the form on this one, because that’s not a simple yes or no answer, not even for a self-described hard-core conservative like myself. I have to ask, “Which people”? I’m a native of Texas, not Sparta. I believe in self-reliance both as a principle and as a practice, but I don’t believe in, for example, abandoning our crippled to die on the mountainside. There is going to be some form of social compact. 

We conservatives would like that to be as small as humanely possible, but we won’t abandon the “humane” part of that, and in fact despite what you hear otherwise and relentlessly in the media, we are far better than those on the Left at providing, encouraging, fostering, and requiring humane treatment be shown to those who simply cannot provide or care for themselves. Even in the healthiest, most independently-minded society, there are always going to be wards of the state, most often through no fault of their own. Talk about disadvantaged! I didn’t make this up, obviously, but “safety-net, yes, hammock – no.” 

Now let’s talk about whether or not there should be a safety net for people who are NOT wards of the state; those who can actually provide for themselves the bare necessities for survival. They may be down on their luck, they may not be at fault, they may be TOTALLY at fault, they may be the victims of a profound injustice, whatever. We’re talking about providing some sort of taxpayer-funded dole that will be just enough to survive in trying circumstances long enough to get their lives together.

Generally, under those circumstances, my answer is “No”. 

For more reasons than I can easily list here.

Other than by getting the hell out of your way – which will be in some form a stated business goal of my administration – the government is not here to make your life easier. Oh, if we can may your life easier by ceasing to be some sort of obstacle, then we should certainly do that, but not by handing you money forcibly extracted from someone else.

Life is tough. Get a helmet. Life is unfair. Get tougher and plan to have alternate plans. If you’re one of those victims of a profound injustice you should certainly have the means and the right to sue for restitution, but we all know that’s often not possible. Truly tragic and sad and undeserved, yes. Does that equate with a justifiable burden on the public coffers? No.
But we’re Americans. Never assume you have no options left. If you think that a “safety net” is you’re only hope, you only believe that because you’ve been lied to all your life about it. Guess what… At some point in your life – and for most of us this is a multi-occasion sort of thing – you’re going to be a burden to someone. 

Doesn’t matter if you’re young or old; if you’ve been born at all then you’ve been a burden to someone, and will be again one day. So make sure you have around you those who would happily welcome the burden, who love you and wouldn’t begrudge you such care. I obviously mean families, but I don’t mean JUST families. I mean friends too and don’t forget – we’re Americans – I also mean neighbors. If you don’t know of any neighbors who have come to the aid of another neighbor in need, then you either live in a bad neighborhood, aren’t really a good neighbor yourself, or live in such a remote area that you basically don’t have neighbors. 

Move if you have to and you think it important enough, but MOST of us know that although it would be a radical departure from the normal walk of life, in a crisis we wouldn’t hesitate to turn to our neighbors for help, or would happily be the good neighbor providing such aid. In fact, that’s kind of a ramification of the “Golden Rule”. If you live your life in such a loving, caring manner that the people who know you – and even possibly some who don’t – would be happy or even honored to care for you in your darkest hour, what need have you of the government’s blundering intrusive hand? And here’s a clue: If you live your life so that no one wants to help you, or even rejoices in your pain, don’t be deceived - you’ve got far bigger problems than whether or not a publicly-funded safety net exists.

9. What do you propose to do about Iran, or nations like them?

I’m trying to remember if Iran officially declared war on us during or after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, because if they did then we basically ignored it, and if they didn’t, well, they’ve certainly been acting since then like they did. Whatever. My policy will be to treat our enemies like they’re enemies. While this is not necessarily a prescription for endless war, I won’t hesitate to rebuke our enemies in whatever manner I see as best fit to achieve our goals, up to and including turning their entire reality into an endless terrifying nightmare from which there is no hope of escape outside of utter capitulation. If you’re familiar with these two examples, consider my position as being essentially George Bush’s “we’ll respond in a time and manner of our choosing”, heavily seasoned with Frank J. Flemming’s “Nuke the Moon” foreign policy recommendations.

10. If you could have five minutes with Obama, what would you tell him?

Unless it is as part of my transition team’s efforts, I would probably pass on the opportunity. I seriously doubt I could change his views on anything and there would be too great a danger my words or actions might not reflect well upon me, too great a chance my fallible human nature might eclipse the command I’m under to show grace and love to all. And flying tackles by Secret Servicemen hurt. Believe me, I have a history here. Who hasn’t said things in anger that were hypocritically contrary to their own beliefs? I certainly have. And I’d rather avoid the temptation and opportunity to do so again. 

True story: I once walked past former President Bill Clinton, passing within ten feet of him, on the Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro. I never even noticed him because I was extremely preoccupied. I’m very comfortable with the idea that God saved me from causing an embarrassing international incident, not to mention potentially facing complicated and protracted legal repercussions. 

Best to just let those five minutes slide.


  1. you should have warned me to go to the bathroom first.

    1. Presumably something relating to hysterical laughter and an over-full bladder... ?

  2. *applause*!!! We need this guy to run for office!!

  3. 11. What, with all the beating and goring, do you have against our 4-legged farm friends?

  4. Bob, I hope the answer is something like "hot steal and spices".