Skip to content

@MJosephSheppard → Conservatives To “Bear The Unbearable” And Vote For Hillary?

29 April 2015 @ 21:02

MJSheppard-Logo-001cx

The quote “bear the unbearable” is from Emperor Hirohito’s address to the Japanese people telling them that all was lost and the country would have to surrender after the devastation of the atomic bombs.

For conservatives to actually pull the lever for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would take the mental equivalent of a similar an act done in apparent hopeless despair, to “think the unthinkable.” But, are there any possible circumstances where conservatives would actually vote for someone who is utterly an anathema to them? Well, actually there is, and it is not as far-fetched as it seems at first (probably cursory and derisory) glance.

For each announcement by Republican contenders that the are running for president there is a cascade of “not another RINO thanks” to put it mildly.

As the prospective candidates plant their standard, their views on common core, immigration, their association with big donors and the GOP establishment and other issues in the hearts of conservatives are weighed in the balance and, on one or the other (or all) they are found wanting.

Noted conservative blogger Bob Belvedere ran a column at his The Camp Of The Saints site after Senator Rubio announced his candidacy and it was not flattering to say the least. Just so nobody misunderstands the tenor of Belvedere’s feelings the article was entitled: Conclusive Proof Obtained: @MarcoRubio Is Just Another Hack.

Belvedere takes issue with Rubio’s reported stance on immigration (there appears to be some degree of confusion between the English and Spanish language versions) which is seen as supporting President Obama’s mechanism by “other means.” He concludes:

The mask has been torn off another wolf in Common Sense clothing. Marco Rubio must be thrown into the elephant graveyard with all of the other faux fighters for freedom and liberty.

Rubio doesn’t have this rejection, from what is actually a quite moderate conservative voice, to himself. Previously announced candidate Senator Paul was similarly excoriated some time ago: Conclusive Proof Obtained: @SenRandPaul Is Just Another Hack.

It would be otiose for me to pick and choose similarly unhappy conservative voices examining Jeb Bush’s record on nearly all matters, and Governor Walker’s on immigration, there are legion all over the conservative blogosphere and radio.

As for the probable candidates to come, Fiorina, Huckabee, Senator Graham, Governor Christie, the jury is not out-it is well in, and the verdicts to come from conservative quarters will not be pretty.

Are there any prospective candidates whose positions do not automatically raise the hackles of conservatives? It would be fair to state that Governor Jindal, Senator Cruz and Doctor Carson would get a fair hearing, although the three times bitten not shy “we are not going to be fooled again, be lapdogs for the GOP Establishments choice” conservatives mean business.

Even Senator Cruz, a Palin endorsed candidate for senator, gets a Belvedere warning:

We’re in a situation where we really cannot afford to place much trust in any political figures, as we have had to learn again today.We’re on our own.



NOTE TO TED CRUZ: We’re watching you very closely too, Bub.

Only former Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin, whose conservative positions are known, admired, unwavering and unchanged, could be seen as a genuine conservative choice. But she is not running at present-if she does, then of course there is an entirely different situation which can be addressed at that point.

The obvious question arises from this situation; what if the candidates viewed as being more or less genuine conservatives fall away during the primary campaigns and Jeb Bush or Christie or any of the rejected “RINO” candidates get the nomination (or-horrors as a ticket)?

Here the dilemma for conservatives gets really challenging. Vote, nose held, once again for the “RINO” as a Clinton presidency is too hard to contemplate even if it means, once again, voting against cherished principles. Or, for some, once again staying home on election day or voting third party, which of course makes Clinton’s task that much easier.

There is another option which can actually have a better outcome for conservatives than either not voting or voting for the GOP’s Establishment candidate. That is the one that fits the time honored method of voting for the “opposite of what you want as you then have a better chance of getting what you want” A variation of the “Only Nixon could have gone to China rule.”

If, with the help of a massive conservative turnout in 2016 the Establishment Republican wins a solid majority, and has a GOP controlled House and possibly Senate then, with the claim of “mandate” he can flip-flop on immigration and all the other base issues pandered to during the campaign. This concept is hardly a cynical one, anyone who has lived through a number of elections has seen this acted out, on the left and the right, over and over again.

But what if Hillary is elected with the help of the, in this case absolutely cynical and possibly absolutely pragmatic, votes of conservatives who of course also vote solidly Republican down-ticket?

The result would most likely be a neutered presidency with a more or less free hand in foreign affairs, where Hillary has been a hawk and, no matter the campaign pivot to the left, would likely be one after being elected. The possibility of a President Clinton getting leftist immigration legislation through a hostile, solidly conservative GOP Congress would be minimal.

Social issues like same-sex marriage will be decided in the courts and there is nothing, outside of a Constitutional Convention, that Republicans can do about it. On the other hand abortion issues are being decided in the various States by Republican legislatures, and that process will continue with a President Hillary Clinton also not being able to do anything about it, if she were so inclined, which is doubtful.

It may be the choice facing conservatives in 2016 will be between enabling a RINO to bring in legislation they are vehemently against, or electing a Democrat who will be unable to do so. It may be the strongest nose-holding effort ever but one, if emotion is taken out of the picture, that is the most practical with a further reward of yet another conservative Republican landslide in the 2018 mid-terms.

Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste.  Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. neilmdunn permalink
    29 April 2015 @ 21:52 21:52

    So where are you going to find a “solidly conservative GOP Congress”? Still, it might be nice to have a democrat as president standing close if the economic, immigration, etc. SHTF.

    • Anonymous permalink
      29 April 2015 @ 22:26 22:26

      I think that if Hillary wins you will see the most conservative, hunkering down congress ever-esp after the 2018 mid-terms. MJS

  2. Adobe_Walls permalink
    30 April 2015 @ 02:43 02:43

    Insisting on keeping an eye on Cruz or whomever is our duty. The failure to perform that duty and due diligence is directly responsible for enabling the Republican’s Caligula period starting about 98 or 2000. Ruthless Hardass (https://thecampofthesaints.org/2014/03/04/re-redesigning-the-system-part-1-of-4/) isn’t running for president. Therefore whoever does win the nomination and the election is almost certainly too little too late to save this Republic. Romney wouldn’t have been the worst president ever, hell he might have been better than GW, but he wouldn’t have been better enough or different enough than Obama to make a difference. We can’t afford to elect a fiscal and national security conservative who believes liberal immigration policies are the humane thing to do. Every conservative and restorationist knows that the path we are on leads only to serfdom and darkness. The smart ones know elections and politics will not change that trajectory. This is the foundational basis for the Let It Burn adherents. The fact of the matter is that probably doesn’t matter whether Cruz or Rubio or Walker beats Hillary. It definitely doesn’t matter in a contest between JEB or Hillary. No matter which party prevails in the near or medium term the best we can hope for is a truly ”frank exchange of views”.

    In 2012 Robert Stacy McCain wrote;
    “Conservatives warned that the re-election of Obama would have disastrous and irreparable consequences. In the wake of what happened, it ill behooves us to say now that the future offers anything but a descent into squalor and despair. If our arguments before Election Day were correct, we can scarcely enhance our credibility after Election Day by pretending that we can prevent what we previously said would be inevitable. The re-election of Obama heralds the advent of the post-American era.”

    This could just as easily have been written in 88 when Bush was nominated instead of a conservative, or in 92 or 96 when no conservatives were seriously considered.

Trackbacks

  1. Geraldo in Dust-Up – Nose in Tact | Regular Right Guy

Leave a Reply [Go on...I double-dog dare you]

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: