Republicans for Hillary

As you know, I keep struggling with the terminology used to describe those Republicans who keep wanting to strike out at and pull down the man who quite obviously is going to be their party’s nominee, whatever they say or do.

"Conservative" is wholly inadequate for various reasons previously cited, and I’ll add another one here: No "conservative" would do something so reckless and destructive to his own cause. If a "conservative" would do that, the word means nothing at all. Actual conservatives are putting out releases such as this one, which I received this morning (the headline, in case you’re too lazy to click on the link, is "Reaganauts for McCain").

So let’s try this one on: "Republicans for Hillary." This fits in various ways:

  • Only those who want a Democrat to win the election would keep driving a wedge into their own party.
  • Only those who want a Democrat to win the election would do anything to try to delay or prevent the nomination of the only candidate with the independent appeal that is absolutely necessary for them to either Democratic nominee.
  • While Barack Obama could compete with John McCain among those same independents (and folks, we swing voters are the ones who decide elections), Sen. Clinton is far less likely to be able to do so. She alienates such voters. Therefor, if she is the nominee, she would love it if these alleged "conservatives" managed to pull off a miracle for Mitt Romney. But since that isn’t going to happen now, she depends on them to weaken McCain as much as they can — something they seem eager to do.
  • These folks are the natural GOP counterparts to the kind of Democrats who support Sen. Clinton — those who relish polarization and pointless partisan bickering, and put them above all things, certainly above the good of the nation.

Of course, if I get my way on the Democratic side, Sen. Clinton won’t be the nominee. But I don’t think "Republicans for Obama" fits these people; I don’t think they’d be as comfortable backing someone so post-partisan as he. It’s McCain’s very cross-party appeal that they hate about him; it seems unlikely they’d like it any better in Obama.

So "Republicans for Hillary" it is.

34 thoughts on “Republicans for Hillary

  1. H.M. Murdock

    So-called “conservatives” lambasted Huckabee and declared him a “liberal.”
    Now, the same so-called “conservatives” whine and cry that Huckabee is splitting the “conservative” vote with Richy Rich, preventing Richy from beating Juan McCain.
    The “conservatives” use the term to fit whatever definition best suits their purposes at any given time–much like the Bush Administration uses “terror.”

  2. Lee Muller

    What makes the GOP rulers think the voters are supposed to hold their noses and vote against the sorry Democrats?
    If you want to be viable in the marketplace, you have to offer something different and superior to your competiton – not just say, “It won’t make you quite as sick as Hillary gruel.”
    George Bush betrayed the 2nd Amendment with his 1987 executive order bans, and he lost 2,000,000 votes that stayed home.
    Bob Dole wouldn’t stand up against all the gun banners in 1996, the voters saw a coward, and stayed home.
    McCain is really an UnParty candidate. He doesn’t give a damn about the GOP, the Constitution, or America – just himself. He has lied his way into office and runs smear campaigns, just like the Clintons. A lot of patriotic Americans with principles will not vote for McCain.

  3. Brad Warthen

    H.M., maybe some people use “conservative” the way some feminists use “sexist.” Sometimes it’s “sexist” to acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between men and women, and sometimes its “sexist” to FAIL to acknowledge important differences. The critical factor seems to be which position is most advantageous to the given feminist at the given moment.

  4. dave faust

    H.M., you are an “OTP” (one trick pony). Apparently your hatred for conservatives is so virulent that you can’t come up with anything new or original to write ~ what you said above is almost exactly what you said ten minutes ago in the McCain string. Do you have any actual thoughts or ideas about anything other than how much you hate roughly half of the population of this country?
    Anyway Brad, if a person really and truly sees no substantive difference between what will happen in this country under a Clinton/BHO administration or under a McCain administration, can it be too surprising that he wouldn’t be all fired up about voting? I caught the last few minutes of Glenn Becks’ interview of Dr. James Dobson this morning. Dr. Dobson said he intended to sit out in November if McCain becomes the elephant candidate. To be honest, I might also. And it’s not only about my differences with him on his policies. It’s just as much about what I see are his sneaky, arrogant, explosive and smarmy character traits. I don’t like him personally. I don’t trust him for a second, Viet Nam notwithstanding (I don’t see heroic miltary service or ex-POW status as qualifiers for the presidency).
    And I am very honestly considering not voting for a president for the first time since the early seventies. If either party’s candidate essentially represents a wholesale abandonment of the things I believe in, why bother? David

  5. dave faust

    They both stink to high heaven Anthony, and McCain is no better than either.
    As Karen said elsewhere on this blog, a vote this fall will be undertaken holding ones’ nose, and will be cast for either the lesser of two evils or the brighter of two nitwits. (Gosh I wish I had said that!) David

  6. Hillary Ready For REAL Change

    Obama is WAY off when he says “We have to decide on change or more of the same” Hillary Clinton is one of the good ones, not “one of the same” or part of “the past” that is just ludicrous. Bill Clinton radically changed what Bush Sr did to ruin America. We should be proud of Bill’s work as a Democrat and the Clinton’s rewarded for that, not lumped in with Bush’s failure of “politics as usual” or “the past” characterizing the Clintons this way is disrespectful to all they did for our country, the Democratic party and just an outright LIE. The Clinton’s I remember did the exact OPPOSITE of everything the Bush’s have done. There are some serious changes needing to be made in Washington and SOME new blood can help to make that change no doubt, but you don’t just expel every one of them, you will end up with more the same mess. You keep the good ones and Hillary is one of the best. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water and expect everything to be fixed, VERY unwise. Eliminating the good ones and their experience will not solve a thing or bring the kind of real change we need.

  7. dave faust

    Brad, Rush just commented during his show that Lindsey Gramnesty appeared as a dutiful, sycophantic lap-poodle beside John McCain during a photo-op last night.
    Rushs’ comment reminded me of a reason I may just go ahead and cast a vote for president this fall. I have made a solemn vow to myself that I will go to the polls this November and vote against Graham. No matter what that means. If it means voting for a republican challenger, fine. If it means voting for a democrat challenger, so be it. If it means writing in Mickey Mouse, I’ll do that.
    And, since I’ll be at the polling place anyway, I may ~MAY~ cast a vote for a presidential candidate. Still not sure it matters which. David

  8. Richard L. Wolfe

    David, Lee with no conservative on the ballot the next president will be a disaster. So please at least go to the polls and vote for a down ballot candidate who is conservative. I’m already searching for a Graham replacement. Don’t let the bad news get you down. Sometimes people have to swallow a lot of nasty medicine before they get well. Otherwise keep your powder dry.

  9. zac campbell

    I don’t know if i could ever vote for McCain or should i say McAmnesty or Mc-limit free speech, or Mc-let’s cap Co2 emissions. McCain may have won the primaries but that is only because the conservative base was split between Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Why if Huckabee had left the race already Mitt Romney would have won the south!

  10. Lee Muller

    The reason to vote in November is to replace leftists and big-spending progressive conservatives (Huckabees) with more Congressmen and Senators who vote like Jim DeMint and Ron Paul.
    It is vital that a Hillary/Obama/McCain be neutralized, to minimize the damage they do until 2012.

  11. dave faust

    Lee, there IS that.
    If we cede the Whitehouse to Clinton or BHO in November, we certainly need to do everything possible to get a conservative legislature. Fortunately the democrat-led legislature in the last 2 years has helped our cause with record low approval ratings and a do-nothing record that boggles the imagination. Any plan to get a strongly conservative house and senate this fall must of course take into account that Lindsey Gramnesty won’t be returning. David

  12. dave faust

    Speaking of reasons that conservatives may be beginning to support Clinton, here is a quote:
    “If Hillary is elected president, we’ll have a four year disaster, with republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by republicans zooming back into power as we did in 1980, 1994 and 2000. (I also predict more oval office incidents with female interns). If McCain is elected president, we’ll have a four year disaster, with republicans in congress co-opted by ‘our’ president, followed by 30 years of democrat rule. There’s your choice America.”
    Ann Coulter said this. Faint-of-heart liberals and politically correct metro-sexuals may hate her and therefore immediately discount anything she says, but I think she has it just about right. And no matter WHO said it ~ if it’s true, can you not see the logic in not supporting McCain? David

  13. bud

    Dave, one good thing the “do nothing” congress has accomplished over the last year is they’ve limited the damage caused by our incompetent president. They’ve prevented an invasion of Iran, prevented any further erosion of civil liberties and ended any talk of gutting social security. They did fail to force an end to the quagmire in Iraq which greatly disappoints me but at least he hasn’t been able to start any new wars.
    Dave uses a classic talk-radio tactic to brand liberals as close-minded. He says that BECAUSE liberals hate Ann Coulter we automatically dismiss anything she says. That’s exactly backwards. We liberals hate Ann Coulter BECAUSE of the hateful things shes says. To say that I dismiss anything Ann Coulter has to say is an accurate statement. She never actually says anything of value, only spouting hate speech assaults on anyone who might disagree with her brand of conservatism. Why should I take someone seriously when they insult me. How would like someone to say you enjoy the death of their spouse? Be honest now, if I say you enjoyed the death of your wife would you ever take anything Isay seriously. Of course you wouldn’t.
    I don’t hate Charles Krauthamer or Bill Krisol even though I almost never agree with a word they say but I can at least respect their arguments. Ann Coulter offers nothing to the conservative cause because she offers nothing in the way of civil discourse. In fact I don’t think she really cares about conservative issues. I think she simply wants to make money by being as outrageous as she can possibly be. What Ann Coulter does is really using gullible right-wingers to fill her pocketbook with money. Why conservatives find her brand of hate speech inspiring is beyond my ability to comprehend.

  14. dave faust

    I got tactics? Not bad for a guy from Gaston.
    Bud, you are the koolaid drinker. Don’t attempt to defend this congress. It cannot be done, and you look really silly. I am actually very glad that Pelosi and Reed have been ineffective and unsuccessful, but they deserve no credit whatsoever. President Bush has been just about anything but a conservative on nearly every issue but the war on terror. If we’d had a real conservative leader in the Whitehouse, the boobs in the majority in the house and senate would have been steamrolled. David

  15. dave faust

    Bud, you know people like YOU are the ones I am amazed at. You pule, pi$$ and moan about Ann Coulter and her brand of “hate speech” (c’mon! your fake indignation is really unbecoming).
    All this when YOUR candidates and ideas absolutely DEPEND on hit men and hate mongers like James Carville, Chris Mathews, Bob Shrum, Sidney Blumenthal, Terry McAuliff and even Bill Clinton himself. There are dozens and dozens of others, who will say and do anything that fits the moment if they see an advantage in it. These scumbags and lowlifes will stop at nothing when it comes to eliminating and destroying opponents, gladly spewing hate and vitriol whenever necessary. Neither does demeaning an entire segment of the population make them blanch, if need be. Witness the shameless and literally stunning injection of race into the South Carolina primary last week by none other than the serial molester himself. Even liberal pundits had to admit and remark on it. I suppose that kind of hate is fine with you if it advances your cause. Whatever that is. Sorry Bud, your fake tears don’t fly. I sometimes wish that our guys were as nasty as yours are, but I shudder, and realize I don’t want to be like you. David

  16. bud

    Just to set the record straight here I didn’t bring up Ann Coulter, that was Gene. When Brad compared her to the common sense Paul Krugman it was time to set the record straight. Not one of the defenders of Coulter seems to find it offensive that she accussed several women of enjoying the deaths of their husbands, IN WRITING! That, not Coulter’s hateful books, is what scares me.

  17. bud

    Here’s a synopsis of the man Brad considers an equal to Ann Coulter:
    Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He is also an author and a columnist for The New York Times, writing a twice-weekly op-ed for the newspaper since 2000.
    Krugman is well known in academia for his work in trade theory, which provides a model in which firms and countries produce and trade because of economies of scale and for his textbook explanations of currency crises and New Trade Theory. He was a critic of the “New Economy” of the late 1990s. Krugman also criticized the fixed exchange rates of the island Asia nations and Thailand before the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, and of investors such as Long-Term Capital Management that relied on the fixed rates just before the 1998 Russian financial crisis. Krugman is generally considered a neo-Keynesian, with his views outlined in his books such as Peddling Prosperity. His International Economics: Theory and Policy (currently in its seventh edition) is a standard textbook on international economics without calculus. In 1991 he was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal by the American Economic Association.
    Krugman is an ardent critic of the George W. Bush administration and its foreign and domestic policy. Unlike many economic pundits, he is also regarded as an important scholarly contributor by his peers. He has written over 200 scholarly papers and 20 books—some academic, and some written for the layperson.
    He is obviously well qualified to comment on economic matters and he does so in a respectful, fact-driven way. He was actually a critic of some of the Clinton administration policies that led to the bubble of the late 90s. And today, he aims much of his criticism at the Democratic congress.
    Brad, I challenge you to read some of his writings and then show me where he qualifies as a partisan hack in the same way as A. Coulter. If you’re honest you’ll have to concede that the two are simply not the same.

  18. Phillip

    Bud, when historians look back at this 1990s early 2000’s period in history, they’ll find it very interesting that much of liberalism found its voice via humor: Stewart, Colbert, Maher; while the predominant right-wing emotion was anger–even with George Bush in the White House for 8 years!—expressed via the medium of talk radio by Rush, and in various media by Coulter and the like.
    And right-wingers, don’t give me Dennis Miller as a counter-example of a conservative humorist…he’s about as funny as a case of the flu. Doesn’t he know that humor works better positioned against power, not ON BEHALF of power? He must imagine himself as a court jester on behalf of the prevailing executive attitude a la “Hey, king, how about those poor people without health insurance, huh? What a riot! What losers, ha ha!”

  19. bud

    Brad, take note of this. This was a close and important vote and your guy was a no show. Excerpt From the USA Today concerning the economic stimulus package:
    The vote left the $205 billion Senate stimulus bill in limbo and capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying over the measure. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.

  20. dave faust

    Right bud, I brought her up.
    No setting the record straight necessary, as I didn’t forget. Read what I said: I brought her up NOT because I’m a cheerleader for Ann Coulter, but because the subject of this whole string is about why republicans may be warming towards Clinton and I thought Coulter made a good point about that one singular thing.
    Then here comes bud, true to liberal form, completely missing a small point I was trying to make on THE TOPIC and stepping off into some sort of opaque, frenzied liberal rant about hate speech (of which people on his side are completely guilty and beyond the pale).
    I still think Coulter made a good point about this, and I am open minded enough that I can consider the wisdom of her point apart from whatever else I may think about her. Apparently you can’t do that bud. And your attempt to skewer others for a tactic your side has wholly mastered and employs regularly is just wrong. David

  21. Lee Muller

    The problem I have with Paul Krugman’s newspaper opinion columns is that he doesn’t make arguments. He expects to just make broad assertions because of his credentials.
    He is not some guru who was ever out front on any economic subject. Any economics student knows that the fixed and phony exchange rates of Red China are not good in the long run, for them or their trading partners. Economists were making the same criticism of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s.
    Krugman needs to step up to the challenge of addressing the serious details of issues on which he wants to offer opinion, and be considered an expert.

  22. bud

    “If Hillary is elected president, we’ll have a four year disaster, with republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by republicans zooming back into power as we did in 1980, 1994 and 2000. (I also predict more oval office incidents with female interns). If McCain is elected president, we’ll have a four year disaster, with republicans in congress co-opted by ‘our’ president, followed by 30 years of democrat rule. There’s your choice America.”
    -Ann Coulter
    Dave, this may not be Ann Coulter hate speech in the classic sense but it really is just unsupported speculation. She gives no evidence that a Hillary Clinton will be a “four year disaster”. I could just as easily say: “If we elect Hillary Clinton we’ll have 4 years of peace and prosperity”. That statement on it’s own means nothing. Yet even in this rather benign (for her) remark Coulter just can’t resist a bit of attack-dog rhetoric with the intern comment. Seriously Dave, this comment adds nothing to the debate. It’s very uncivil, provides no facts to back up the claims and should be ignored for the hackery that it is.

  23. slugger

    Nothing that anyone says or does from here on out (unless we have a candidate for a third party step up with all the right ideas to bring this country back to greatness} is going to change the outcome of the presidential election.
    As the saying goes “there is not a dime’s worth of difference” in the top 3 that presently hold the majority of states and delegates.
    The sad part of all this back and forth about who would make the worse president is that the bottom line is that it is dividing this country in a way that I do not remember in my lifetime.
    Divide and conquer. Is there “no man left standing” in the USA that could save us before it is too late. It takes guts not greed to make a country great.
    All this blogging is not going to make it so. We cannot even save our country by casting a vote.
    Get get out the apples and pencils and find which street corner to place your stand because folks it looks like that time is coming back.
    God forgive us because we do not know what we do.

  24. Lee Muller

    Anyone who thinks Hillary would not be a disaster just needs to walk down one of her agenda items, like socialized medicine, and look at the details. It is expensive, destroys what is left of the free market, burns the bridges, and reduces quality of care to everyone.
    Every other piece of her agenda is like that. She is rigidly bound to the same socialist agenda she had in the 1960s. She doesn’t know why it won’t work, and doesn’t care. It is all about her ideology and power.

  25. weldon VII

    Bud, thanks for noting how the three players left in the presidential race treated the vote on the stimulus package. That’s relevant. That’s news.
    But if Ann Coulter and Paul Krugman pulled each other’s hair while standing in Times Square and shouted obscenities at each other, assuming Krugman has hair, it would mean just as much as Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton pulling the same stunt in Los Angeles.
    Nada. Zip. Zilch.
    Talking head, meet talking fingers. Say what? I can’t hear you. Say what? Never mind.

  26. dave faust

    Hillary Clinton will be a disaster for this country. She’s already helped her husband to be one, and there is no reason to assume she’ll do any better on her own. Unfortunately for America, Coulter has it right: McCain will be a disaster for the country just as Clinton would be. The wise conservative is now looking well downrange ~ beyond the next presidency. That’s all I’m saying. David

  27. Hako

    Don’t be confused by the facts. The Clinton days were trying times. War, costing trillions and killing thousands, inflation, soaring deficits and fuel costs, rising unemployment, record profits for Big Oil, sub-prime mortgage foreclosure crisis, American stature diminished abroad…..oh wait…. my bad, that happened after Clinton.

  28. Lee Muller

    The Clinton deficits total $1.5 TRILLION for 8 years.
    Clinton gave us 3 recessions.
    Clinton left us with terrorist running loose all over the world.

  29. Lee Muller

    Should we donate directly, or launder it through a Buddhist Temple? How much do you have to donate to buy a night in the Lincoln Bedroom?

Comments are closed.