Real conservatives want their party to lose, but only to Hillary!

On Wednesday I listened to Rush Limbaugh devote two segments of his show to bashing primarily two people: Barack Obama and John McCain.

Considering his longstanding antipathy to McCain, and his urging of Republicans to vote for Hillary, and considering that the polls show Obama is easier for McCain to beat, it strikes me that Limbaugh does not want McCain to win. I realize that he does not speak for all Republicans, but there is a fairly sizeable contingent of hard core McCain haters who have long maintained that they Absolutely Will Not Vote for McCain. When I was supporting Fred Thompson, I worried that some in the anti-McCain wing -- especially the angry pledge taker types -- might be cementing themselves into positions they might regret later.

Am I off base (ugh, that word!) in speculating that Obama might be causing them to have serious second thoughts? Because, if you think about it, for those McCain haters who are also Obama haters, sitting it out as they promised they would look less and less attractive.

And what about those who advocated -- who seriously advocated -- voting for Hillary against McCain? Are they going to vote for Obama? Or are they now facing the unpleasant possibility that Obama might be less palatable than McCain?

In addition to this, I think there's an emergent conservative Republican paradox: Obama is making Hillary Clinton downright attractive to conservatives.

This is crazy, and it is something Hillary never could have done. I can remember when she was the She Devil incarnate, and the mere mention of her name would sent any red-meater into a frothing, foam-flecked frenzy. But look at the stages they've gone through. First, they saw McCain -- the epitome of a base-betraying RINO -- actually win. Meanwhile, cheap demagogues like Ann Coulter softened them to vote for Hillary against McCain, and while Rush Limbaugh only urged them to vote for her "strategically," I think this has had a corrupting effect on that group called "the base." It's human instinct to defend what you've done, and by voting for Hillary once, many people will defend that vote.

Add Obama hysteria to the mix, and little wonder the old-fashioned conservative Hillary hatred has almost entirely dissipated. Right now (save a few cranks like me), most of the criticism of Hillary is coming from the Obama left. (This will most likely generate more sympathy for her, and with any luck, red-meat conservatives will start seeing her as a quasi-Lieberman.

There's nothing logical about this, as Hillary has not changed. She remains what she has been all along: a corrupt and venal socialist, and her campaign is a Peronist style end-run around the 22nd Amendment.

So, I worry that the driving force behind some of the current opposition to Obama is stuff is that the anti-McCain "sit it out" Republicans find him wholly, terrifyingly unacceptable. They fear that if Obama is the candidate, it will wreak havoc with their "sit it out" or "vote for Hillary" strategy, so they're in a panic. They would hate to have to swallow their pride and get behind McCain, so they're fighting Obama with everything they've got.

What makes this even crazier is that if Obama is the candidate, all signs point to him being easier for McCain to defeat. Perfect example:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee."
Not only do most polls show Hillary doing better against McCain than Obama, but the McCain campaign (whose job it is to analyze these things) understands clearly that for a variety of reasons, Obama is the easier candidate to beat:
"The conventional wisdom among Republicans is that they would much rather run against Clinton than Obama. But McCain insiders see Obama as more vulnerable to McCain than Clinton in the West, partly because of the Hispanic vote -- in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico."
OK, so assume for the sake of argument that Obama is easier to beat than Hillary.

Wouldn't any reasonable person think that Republicans who want to win in November would be positively jubilant at the prospect of having him as the nominee? Instead, some of them seem terrified of the prospect of Obama being on the ticket.

Why?

What gives?

What could possibly explain such irrationality?

I mean, if we test out this theory by applying it to the other side, let us suppose that through some combination of factors Huckabee instead of McCain were poised to be the Republican nominee, and that all the polls and statistics showed that he was likely to lose in the fall. The Democrats would be delighted, ecstatic, even. The last thing they would do would be to attempt to derail Huckabee before he had clinched the nomination.

This is not to say that the attacks on him wouldn't come later, and quite viciously, but for now, they'd mostly be quiet, holding their breath and keeping their fingers crossed.

Yet counterintuively, the closer Obama gets to the nomination, the more the Republicans freak out.

As to what's going on, the explanation that makes the most sense is that hatred of Obama is being coupled with hatred of McCain -- especially in the minds of those who want McCain to lose, and who believe he will lose.

Once again, I worry that the problem is with this fanatic, hard-core, loser wing of the GOP.

It wasn't enough to lose Congress, and I think they badly want McCain lose this race -- but their outrageous and childish demand is that he must lose it to Hillary, a trusted (and above all, profitable) old enemy.

As far as I've seen, none of the angry Republicans who declared for Hillary have ventured that they'd vote for Obama -- because they wouldn't. I think that if McCain loses to Obama after they sit it out, they'll be unable to live with themselves. So they are having an absolute fit.

This can be called many things, but it's hardly a victory strategy.

Quite the opposite.

Let me be blunt here: I think the GOP loser wing is engaged in treachery to their own party.

The irony is that they'd call me a RINO. And not just for the crime of wanting the Republican Party to win. But for a reason I find astonishing:

For not supporting Hillary Clinton!

I admit I'm very cynical. I've seen a lot of crazy things in politics, and for years I've been predicting that Hillary would be depending on the right wing to win.

But I never thought I'd live to see anything like this.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I hope this post doesn't sound too dark, because I think there might be bright side once all these shenanigans have subsided...

The conventional wisdom used to be that Hillary Clinton was the great uniter of the GOP. The way things are going now, Barack Obama may be (assuming he becomes the candidate) on the verge of doing what Hillary Clinton could not have done -- unite the conservatives behind McCain.

(I don't know how much more irony I can take....)

posted by Eric on 03.28.08 at 12:22 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6368






Comments

I don't think it dark. You are genuinely puzzled by political behavior that doesn't add up to any practical advantage, yet is also emotionally murky. The approach they are taking ultimately does not make sense, and you are sensibly analyzing it. We expect these pointless outbursts of self-defeating behavior from the left, but they crop up on the right as well, and we shouldn't be shocked.

There are sensible elements within this McCain-hating approach, but it adds up to something pointless. The attraction of being a noble martyr on the altar of Pure Conservativism is understandable, but folks usually only toy with it, or perhaps read some paranoid thriller about it. Also, I can understand an anti-McCain stance, as he is a congenital regulator in response to anything he sees going wrong in the country.

But this softening of conservatives toward Hillary does lead me to speculate on psychological rather than rational causes. That is dangerous territory, even for someone like me who makes his living in the field, but I do seriously wonder if there are brain-structure reasons why only a limited number of "enemies" can be held clearly in mind, and what types of threats are regarded as more important in the hierarchy. Does the New Threat have a structural advantage over the Old Threat? Does the Apostate just naturally attract our ire more than the Familiar Enemy? How does their behavior toward our actual enemies affect how we see them?

I may play with this over at my own site, but at the moment I have only speculations.

Assistant Village Idiot   ·  March 28, 2008 03:06 PM

As someone who was never given the opportunity to vote for the 22nd Amendment, and who doesn't support it, I have no problem in making a mockery of it. A third Clinton term 2000-4 would have been an improvement over Bush and definitely over Gore. So, with that out of the way...

Hillary might stand a better chance than Obama, but ANY chance of Obama riding in on horseback with a mandate of Change is too much a chance for me to risk.

Also, Hillary at least has served as a less-leftist and above all a less-defeatist candidate than Obama.

At any rate why should rank-and-file Republicans support their party leadership anymore? It's clear they don't support fiscal conservatives or libertarians. Would you call American agents in the USSR to be "traitors to the Communist Party"? Well, yeah; not that there is anything wrong with that...

You are also a touch too free with the word "hate", Eric. I'll grant that this emotion applies to how I feel toward Kerry and Edwards both, but they're not in the running this year (except in Massachusetts which is, you know, kind of a sucky state anyway). My emotion vis-a-vis Obama is fear. With respect to McCain it is annoyance. I used to hate and fear the Clintons but since 1996 I've just been resigned to them.

David Ross   ·  March 28, 2008 03:25 PM

Keep in mind that while a new Clinton administration would be somewhere between a disaster and a catastrophe for America and the world, it would be GREAT for conservative pundits like Limbaugh and Coulter. The first two Clinton terms made them stars; a Hillary administration would bring back the glory days. It's much more fun to be outside the tent pissing in.

Trimegistus   ·  March 28, 2008 04:40 PM

I've said since long before Obamania that Hillary > McCain > Obama. McCain has too many fascist tendencies (although Obama has more.) Hillary is just as hawkish as McCain, and is at least openly socialist, which will gather some sort of conservative opposition. GWB has shown that a GOP congressman will roll over for a GOP president no matter how outrageous.

Phelps   ·  March 28, 2008 05:10 PM

Hillary is Evita. Obama is Juan.

M. Simon   ·  March 28, 2008 06:15 PM

I think both parties are coming apart at the seams. They no longer represent their rank and file. I believe we will be seeing a realignment of both parties pre or post election.

M. Simon   ·  March 28, 2008 06:20 PM

Eric,

Maybe you need to rethink your strategic vote.

M. Simon   ·  March 28, 2008 06:28 PM

The rules keep changing on what it takes to be doctrinaire. Used to be that you only needed to mindlessly consistent. Now, it's all too difficult to keep up with the twists and turns one must take to be rigid and unyielding.

Rhodium Heart   ·  March 29, 2008 12:33 PM

Eric, supra:

I think that if McCain loses to Obama after they sit it out, they'll be unable to live with themselves.

And I think that if you vote for McCain, you'll spend four years either angrily regretting your vote or else carrying that backstabber's water.

He'd be 73 at the time of his election, making it at least possible if not probable that McCain would serve a single term. Accordingly, he'd be free to ignore the conservatives for whom he is even now openly contemptuous. And he'd be paired with a Democratic Congress. Question: How many times do you think McCain would Viagra-up and have you grab some ankle?

Vote for him if you like. I'll be on the sidelines yelling, "Punk it!"

Paul   ·  March 29, 2008 01:33 PM

Rush is right. keep the pot boiling until the Democrat election, hopefully they will re-enact Chicago '68. Marvelous theater. Vote for McCain and vote for real Republicans for Congress. They will treat him like a Democrat and that will all the country needs.

cubanbob1956   ·  March 29, 2008 02:52 PM

I swore I would never vote for McCain after McCain/Feingold (and sent both a letter saying so).

Seeing my alternatives, I will be voting for McCain this fall. Given the choices of McCain socialism, Hillary communism, or Obama progressive fascism, I'll take McCain socialism with a side of "why can't we do better!".

mrsizer   ·  March 30, 2008 02:41 AM


November 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits