I do find it strange that some of those blasting McCain from the “Right” are also diehard supporters of a President who:
(a) is as far to the left (hard to be further) than McCain on immigration, and was the intellectual (sorry) father of the very amnesty ideas McCain gets blasted for;
(b) spends so much, not only on the War but on other crap, that he can hardly be called a fiscal conservative;
(c) loves Big Government (hey, let’s have someone in W.D.C. hand out the number 2 pencils everytime a kid takes a test somewhere in America);
(d) did nothing to groom a viable successor (once the idiot talk of perpetuating the ‘dynasty’ with Jeb began to die down). Seriously, even if Cheney were not a divisive force, and even if he were playing a useful role (doubtful), why not ask him, in 2004, to become, who knows, Sec. Def., and pick a young, up-and-coming GOP figure as VP candidate and possible 2008 nominee?
(e) by entrusting GOP policy to alleged evil genius, but actually not-that-bright, Texas political hacks (Rove, Hughes), and outsourcing foreign policy to the neo-cons, with awful results, superintended the loss of Presidential prestige, reigned during a period when the GOP lost both houses of Congress, created beaucoup Democratic momentum and “mandate for change,” left no workable party apparatus, and otherwise made it highly unattractive for a smart young GOP Gov. or Senator to want to taint himself with a loss in an uphill battle; and
(f) is essentially on the same page as McCain, in their (mistaken, I believe) position that “going to war blindly” equates with “conservatism” (I thought that was the old pacifist caricature of the conservatives, but now I find it is GOP doctrine).
So while I don’t like McCain much (ultimately it’s the sense I get that McCain is about McCain), I am hard-pressed to see how “Bush loyalists” can criticize and abhor him, while bolstering their own guy who had so much to do with dismantling conservatism – except in terms of the personal grudge matches that arise from their past political battles, about which I can’t get too excited.
You honestly can’t think of anything in the last, oh, say, seven years, that has been detrimental to the health of the Republican party? No party leader that has made himself wildly unpopular with the electorate? Nothing of that sort comes to mind?
The argument that the Republicans are the conservative party and therefore should always nominate hard core conservatives is false. The Republicans only turned into the conservative party a few decades ago. The Republican party has no fixed values, it is merely an organization that exists for the purpose of electing candidates. If lots of candidates win by running as conservatives, then the Republican party will be the conservative party. But when conservative candidates don’t win any more, the Republican party won’t be the conservative party any more.
If conservatives stop winning elections, what do you think is going to happen?
I am not an everyday listener but I spend a large portion of my life driving around so I do listen off and on. You get one major thing wrong. I have heard most of the major conservative talk show hosts blast Bush on many if not all of the points you make. The opposition for Harriet Myers came first from conservative radio. Not because she wasn’t “right” enough, because she was an unqualified political hack. They blasted Bush on immigration, on spending, and many other things. I heard Sean Hannity specifically say that he likes McCain personally. He has been on the show many times. Hannity has specific problems with his record. I suspect that if McCain keeps mouthing the right words and also gains the nomination that the pundits will get behind him. Won’t keep him from being criticized when he strays from the Reaganite ideal.
CNN says Romney is suspending his campaign. That oughtta cause Limbaugh/Hannity to pop a few blood vessels.
Not really. I listened to about a half hour of Rush yesterday. After Superduper Tuesday this isn’t a surprise. You would have to be completely naive to not see it coming.
Tangent on the Straight Talker: McCain recently returned to Washington and then did not show up for the vote on the stimulus package.
Not very straight for a Straight Talker.
He’s a Straight Talker, not a Straight Voter.
Nor was it a surprise that McCain was gaining momentum this past week, but Rush sounded pretty desperate on Tuesday. What’s his tone and position now?
Hannity and Limbaugh have long since demonstrated that they can simply go right ahead on, they will claim with a straight face that of course! they support McCain, had a few minor criticisms, for the good of the party, and all…
Hannity is totally a beaut on this kinda shit. Like way back, somebody claimed to have found a ginormous stash of the dreaded WMD, thermonuclear anthrax bombs, and shit. Hannity jumped right on it that same night, demanding that various Dem’s commit seppuku, or at least come on Hannity and His Bitch and suck on his warty, festering knob by way of abject apology…
Next morning, news comes out its a pile of rusty old ammo from twenty years ago, its WMD if the Geico Gecko is Godzilla. Tuned in to hear what Shiny Sean would say.
Nothing. Not one word. It never happened, poof! gone.
Which album?
You make a good point – I don’t listen to any of those guys on the radio much at this point as, well, I’m working and think there is a point of diminishing returns in talk talk talking issues to death. The “Bush loyalists” I was talking about (who do hate McCain) were the “Support The Troops” rank and file and (even more so) party hacks/operatives who are still very reluctant to suggest that the Admin they’ve supported/worked for has f’d up in a way that not only hurts America, but poisons the well for any true conservative successor (not that McCain fits such a billing, but perhaps that’s the whole point). McCain, Romney, GWB – all establishmentarians who used the party system as a means to bringing their clique into power. If the GOP were serious about reinvigorating itself, introducing new blood, they’d not have labored so mightily and unitedly to marginalize Ron Paul (unelectable though he probably was, though that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, they should have at least listened to his ideas, some of which had true popular/populist support).
Lieberman is a power top, so it’s not as bad as it could be.
If only any of them were a Straight Doper . . .
Do I wish I know what that meant, or am I glad I don’t?
You’re glad you don’t.
mispost
This is true to a point.
I, for one, am not a Republican, but a conservative. Because most candidates that adhear the most closely with my own philosophies tend to be Republicans, that’s how I usually vote. But I am not loyal to the party but to the movement.
If you re-read my earlier posts you will see I fear the destruction of the conservative movement, not the party. The movement right now is limited to the Republican Party, and there are no other parties which currently win elections for me and others like me to turn to. This is why we need to keep the movement alive within this particular party, and one way to do so is to NOT give pols like John McCain victory. The party loses, but the movement and philosophies survive.
Your comment about conservatives no longer winning elections is probably based on the 2006 elections. This was, mostly, a single issue election (and a big issue at that) the war. According to President Clinton the elections of 1994 had one major issue (gun control). Parties (and more importantly movements) survive such defeats, but only if there is regrouping and forwardness within the movement and cause. John McCain is a big step backwards! Luckily he will not become President and the Republican party will have 4 years to lick it’s wounds and get it’s head back out of it’s ass and get back to the ones who have brought it to the big dance the last 25+ years. The conservatives.
Back to the OP question -
[tongue in cheek?]
Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, make their ratings and money railing against. That what they sell, that’s their product. Therefore, they must have a target to rail against. Hillary is obviously the number one choice. They all (Ann Coulter included) think she might just win, and this is good for their business - railing!
Now, for the last 7 years, with the man in they had in the oval office, they haven’t had as much of a target. You can’t make quite the impact agreeing with him all day. The congressional elections in 2006 gave them a a bit of a target, that helped - some.
So, here comes McCain. As has been amply demonstrated, they never really loved him like they do Bush, in spite of his conservative credentials. So, given the choice do they “get behind” him, like a good little Republican? (Geez, they’ve been doing that for the last 7 years.) OR do the make him a target of their railing?
Hmmmmmmm…decisions decisions. If he wins (hey, it coul’ happen) they are set. They’ve already laid the tracks for at least 4 more years of railing against!
[/tongue in cheek?]
So they’re all, not juct Coulter, hoping for a Clinton win. All their old material suddenly becomes fresh again.
McCain has shown a willingness to tell them to go get stuffed, when he thought it appropriate. That’s been an extreme rarity among recent Pub pols, and of course it must be punished.
I never listen to Hannity and it’s been a while since I’ve heard more than a couple of minutes of Rush. Seems to me though that Rush has not been the Bush cheerleader you think he is for quite some time.
As for alternate radio Blah Blah guys, don’t even think of going the Bush supporter route, or any other candidate for that matter, with Savage.