Gotta Have Somebody Serve . . .

I read Michael Brendan Dougherty's article on Obama's Right Wing with interest. I would qualify as a member of that category except for the fact that I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 and I doubt I qualify as a conservative anymore.

I came close to voting for Obama in 2008 (I opted for Nader) and I favored his victory. This fall, I plan to vote for the President, which will be my first presidential vote for a Democrat and my first for a major party candidate since Reagan in 1984. I have little doubt that I will regret my vote, assuming that he wins, like I did after voting for Reagan.

The Obamacons Dougherty interviewed cite a variety of reasons for their apostasy but I was disappointed that none of them discussed the state of the broader conservative movement. I can think of many terms to describe the right-wing in the age of Obama, but the ones that spring to mind are "repulsive" and perhaps "insane." This applies to the leadership of the Republican party at the top, down to the creeps who at Weasel Zippers who think that Michelle Obama is some sort of fat cow.

Republicans amply demonstrated that they are terrible at governing between 2001 and 2008, and have attempted to make the country ungovernable in the Obama years. Since Mitt Romney seems to have no fixed beliefs other than that the rich are better than you and I, it's difficult to predict how he will govern.  I suspect that Romney will prattle about abortion, etc. just enough to placate the rubes and will appoint the most conservative judges confirmable; but his primary concern will be the care and feeding of corporations. The only upside of a Romney victory will be that Republicans will stop actively trying to destroy the country.

Stabbed in the Back!

The cultish nature of modern conservatism is obvious. Dan Riehl's response (via Memeorandum) to NRO's call for Willard to release more tax returns is simply example # 1,387,176 or so. For Riehl, National Review's editorial isn't simply a tactical error, but a betrayal:

Next time you opt to stab a GOP candidate in the back, how about having the balls to put your name on it? I don't think that's too much to ask. 

I really, really want to play nice with everyone on our side, but when I see this high minded BS from people who've never even run for anything, it smokes my butt. . .And don't give me this, well, we can disagree BS, either. 

You aren't even on any team you're a got damned cheerleader on the sidelines and right now you look silly in that frilly skirt you're wearing. So STFU if you don't have anything good to say, or just go the hell away. It isn't like anyone would miss most of NRO if it did, frankly. (emphasis added)

Get it NRO?—Mitt is now Leader of the Cause and the Cause must be served.

Now Who's Being Naive?

I don't normally think of Jim Antle or Robert Stacy McCain as being naive, but I can't otherwise understand their praise for Mitt Romney's non-pandering before the NAACP. Antle wrote that, "Romney isn't exactly known for his willingness to communicate unpopular truths. He deserves credit for doing so here."

That's only true if you assume that the people in the room with Romney were his intended audience. I suspect that the NAACP crowd were simply props and Willard was pandering to the Republican base. And seeing some of the reactions; such as the comment from Skippy on Antle's post that "anyone belonging to the NAACP is a racist, or Rush Limbaugh's (via Memeorandum) idiotic ravings, it would appear that his pandering worked.
UPDATE: Antle replies.

It's Not A Lie . . . If You Believe It . . .

The USA Today reports that the President plans to host an Independence Day barbecue for military families. Admittedly, it is not a particularly exciting story, but Glenn Reynolds is telling Instapundit readers that the president plans to celebrate the 4th " with a fundraiser in Paris."
The link goes to a Big Government story with a headline reading "Obama Campaign Celebrates Independence Day . . . With Fundraisers in Paris."(emphasis added) Big Government links to an article in the Hollywood Reporter, that has the real story:

Meanwhile, the Continental branch of the Obama fundraising effort will kick off next week in Paris with an Independence Day reception at the Rosenbloom Collection on the chic Rue du Chevaleret. Organizers Forrest Alogna, Pamela Boulet, Zachary James Miller, Valerie Picard, Joe Smallhoover and Curtis Young will host an early-evening event whose ticket prices range from $250 to $1,500.

I searched several of those names and I don't think they should be confused with the "Obama campaign," but at least the Big Government story doesn't claim the President himself is going to raise money in France on the Fourth of July, of all days. It is tempting to say that Glenn Reynolds is simply lying, but it is more complex than that. Reynolds, it would appear, needs to believe the worst about his enemies; so a story about some Americans in Paris fundraising for the President's reelection on the Fourth is streamlined into a factoid about how Obama is evil. Reynolds—it would seem— has internalized the wisdom of George Costanza:





UPDATE-- Costanza, I mean Reynolds makes a rare clarification: " Let me be clear: It’s the Obama Campaign. Obama himself won’t be in Paris."