The enigma of Giuliani supporters who now warn against a pro-choice VP
M. Jose writes:
Do you find it rather ridiculous that Sean Hannity and other conservatives who previously were really happy at the prospect of a Giuliani presidency are now warning McCain of how bad it would be to pick a pro-choice VP? They are right, of course, about the VP, but did they just wake up now?
LA replies:
Someone was just making that point to me yesterday. I replied that we can’t speak generally about “conservatives supporting Rudy.” We need to identify individual conservatives who were both pro-Rudy then, and are warning McCain against a pro-choice VP now.
I gather from what you’re saying that Hannity fits that description. A few more names added to the list would be helpful. If we could get “then and now” quotes from these people, that would be even better.
And then the analysis, which I haven’t figured out yet. What’s going on with these people? If they were pro-Rudy a year ago, why would they now have a problem with a pro-choice VP?
I mean, I understand some reversals, such as Rush Limbaugh’s. He was genuinely furious at and opposed to McCain, but once his attention turned to the general election, and his normal opposition to the Democrats kicked in, he inevitably started supporting McCain. His dramatic switch makes him look very unserious and undependable, but at least it’s understandable.
What I don’t understand is the motivations of pro-Rudy conservatives who are now anti a pro-choice VP.
A female reader (the same one who’s been posting a lot in recent days) replies:
Agreed about Rudy and conservatives. It’s not clear if those upset about Lieberman were actually Rudy supporters. NR had a couple of people who opposed him, like Ponnuru.
But isn’t it humiliating for the conservatives to have to be begging for a pro life veep? Even if McCain eventually chooses one, this whole tense period of waiting for the selection and fearing it might be Lieberman or Ridge, and writing earnest paragraphs trying to dissuade McCain from those choices, all of this indicates how weak and marginalized conservatism already is within the party. Look at Giuliani’s high-handed response to the abortion and veep issue as reported at The Corner.
It would seem to me that the Republican party is not, as far as I can tell…a one issue party, and that would be just one issue among many that would have to be evaluated…I know John McCain. I know his seriously seriousness, his love of country…He will choose the best person, and if that person happens to be, among other things, pro-choice, the party will support that.
We’re a long way from the time when opposition to abortion was a non-negotiable plank in the GOP platform and conservatives were considered the base that had to be respected.
August 22
Alex K. writes:
A reader wrote to you:
“But isn’t it humiliating for the conservatives to have to be begging for a pro life veep? … indicates how weak and marginalized conservatism already is within the party. Look at Giuliani’s high-handed response … “
Absolutely true, and so important. It is outrageous that these movement conservative buffoons are acting like they are in a battle for the party’s soul and that they win if McCain gives them a pro-lifer and they lose if he doesn’t. The mere desire of Bush to appoint Gonzalez or Miers demonstrated him to a be an enemy of conservatism, regardless of who actually ended up on the Court. Yet the movement cons act like Alito was a victory for conservatism and even a big point to Bush’s credit. Likewise, the Republican Party is already in enemy hands by virtue of what its nominee wants to do, regardless of whether politics makes him do otherwise. Maybe real conservatives can capture the party someday, and maybe they can’t. But that battle is not being fought right now—right now they are on the outs and that can’t be changed during this election. Yet the movement cons are so pathetic they think they are fighting that battle now, and will support McCain with renewed joy if he gives them their pro-lifer.
(Of course, if they were really conservatives they’d already know that they lost the party long ago, because of its leadership’s position on immigration. But since they are not real conservatives, they do not see immigration as fundamental, and so they didn’t see it that way. But they should at least realize McCain’s contempt for them now, because abortion is a much more well-known and more long standing issue that the party has been at least nominally unified on.)
Last thing: Rudy said it’s not “a one issue party.” This ignores that McCain, in addition to Ridge, wants Lieberman. This ignores every other way Lieberman is liberal, which is … in every other way.
LA replies:
Very well said:
“It is outrageous that these movement conservative buffoons are acting like they are in a battle for the party’s soul and that they win if McCain gives them a pro-lifer and they lose if he doesn’t…. Likewise, the Republican Party is already in enemy hands by virtue of what its nominee wants to do, regardless of whether politics makes him do otherwise.”
The reality is that the battle is over, conservatism has lost (at least for now), but the official conservatives refuse to be honest about that because then their game would be up. So they construct these “dramas” around purely secondary issues. “The fate of the party and the survival of conservatism depend on whether McCain rejects Lieberman.” But, even then, they can’t maintain the act, because they keep turning around and admitting that they will support McCain even if he names Lieberman.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Send