I’m just curious. Has this passage from the debate last night gotten any attention in conservative circles? It’s Mitt Romney explaining what he’d do to Iran aside from tightening sanctions further:
Secondly, I’d take on diplomatic isolation efforts. I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it. I would also make sure that
their diplomats are treated like the pariahs they are around the world. The same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of South Africa.
Can you imagine the howls from the Drudge/Rush/Fox axis if Obama — or any other Democrat — had said that? Their contempt for legal proceedings at The Hague is pretty well known, and the idea that a president of the United States would make such impotent action a centerpiece of his Iran strategy would elicit withering scorn. National Review would splash it on its cover, the Weekly Standard would write a hysterical editorial, Drudge would bring out his siren, and Rush would spend hours harping on it. “The Hague” would become yet another in a long line of conservative pet rocks, to go along with Fast & Furious and Obama’s removal of the Churchill bust from the White House.
And yet, I didn’t notice any conservatives taking issue with this last night. Am I wrong about that? Or is the hack gap every bit as big as I think it is?
