Bruce Walker’s Right Wing Rose Colored Glasses


Someone named Bruce Walker (no idea who he is) writing at the badly misnamed American Thinker website has a couple of illogical positions. One is that “leftists” are responsible for keeping the Republicans from nominating a truly conservative presidential candidate; the other is that conservatives should vote in Democratic primaries to force a conservative Democrat as their nominee. But he starts with a little sexism:

The two major political parties’ presidential nomination campaigns will begin before we know it. The Republican nomination seems wide open, but Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton seems headed for a bloodless coronation.

Oh yes, don’t call her by her actual name, call her by her husband’s name. Because she doesn’t have any identity outside of that.

The left is a small fraction of the American electorate. Gallup polls, for example, routinely show that except for one or two states, conservatives outnumber liberals in every state in the land, while at the same time party identification with “Republican” and “Democrat” is just about even.

Yet not only does the leftist minority within the Democrat Party utterly dominate that party, but, as Republicans rage about every four years, the left intrudes its unwelcome presence into the Republican Party presidential nomination as well, which is why the last strong and unapologetic conservative to win the Republican nomination was thirty years ago — when President Reagan was re-nominated by his party in 1984.

When JFK was president, he summed up the Soviet attitude towards the Cold War thus: “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.” We began to win the Cold War when Reagan completely switched the paradigm by articulating our own Cold War strategy: “How about this? We win. You lose.” So why not try to defeat the left within its own political party — or if not defeat the left, at least force it to be on the defensive? In other words, why not promote a conservative Democrat for the Democrat nomination in 2016?…

Now consider this: twenty states have “open” primaries, in which voters from either political party can cast a ballot in the Democrat presidential primary. The vast majority of these states are much more conservative than the rest of America, and conservative Republican crossover voters could give a conservative Democrat an outright majority of the vote in these primaries. Beyond that, every primary and every caucus state must allow those voters who even nominally register as a Democrat to participate in the delegate selection process.

Walker is clearly not the sharpest bulb in the sign. First of all, the notion that Clinton is some sort of radical leftist candidate is utterly laughable. She IS the conservative Democrat and the only challenge she is likely to face in the primary will come from the left, not the right. Which means that if conservative Republicans want to switch over in the 20 states that have open primaries in order to vote for the more conservative Democrat in the race, she’ll be the only one.

Second, his argument is hopelessly inconsistent. If he really believes that “the left” is a “small fraction” of the population, shouldn’t the goal of Republicans be to vote for the Democrat in the primaries who is furthest to the left? And wouldn’t all those conservative Republicans abandoning the Republican primaries for the Democratic ones only make it more likely that all those imaginary liberals who are voting in Republican primaries will be able to control them and force the more liberal candidate on them? Good thinking, Bruce. You’re a brilliant political strategist.

Comments

  1. Mr Ed says

    And wouldn’t all those conservative Republicans abandoning the Republican primaries for the Democratic ones only make it more likely that all those imaginary liberals who are voting in Republican primaries will be able to control them and force the more liberal candidate on them?

    The Republican strategy to prevent this was evident in the last presidential primary, split the vote between half a dozen deluded wack jobs.

  2. John Pieret says

    You’re a brilliant political strategist.

    It fits with the political “strategy” of the wingnut right recently, exemplified by Todd Akin … open mouth, insert foot, look surprised.

  3. zenlike says

    With my European-colored glasses on, when I look at Hilary Clinton I see an American Merkel. Yeah, definitely not left wing. Mean-stream Democrats are more or less equivalent to our ‘liberal’ parties (pro-capitalist and business, more or less progressive on moral issues), eg center-right.

    Those American rightwinger’s heads will probably explode when they realise that what they call left wing is considered center-right in most of the rest of the world (that is, if they ever consider the rest of the world as actually existing besides being a wasteland to be bombed and exploited by the USA).

  4. says

    He’s right. We Conservatives (who outnumber Liberals by a considerable margin), in the party we both form a majority in and are also an outsider minority of, can’t get the Conservative candidate we want in the primaries, which we control, somehow. Clearly this is because of the Leftists, who form a minority of the population (indeed, a minority within their own party that they control somehow). So, to even things up, we Conservatives, with the country on our side, should poison the Democratic party primaries for some reason, forcing them to put forward the most conservative Democrat we’ll hate anyway. And, since America is a Conservative Nation, making their candidate more conservative (and, therefore, more popular) will ease our journey to Total Control somehow.

    Failing that, with stories like this we can just go back to purging the few Moderates in the GOP who remain, because those RINOs must also be keeping us from the Total Control that we don’t have no matter how many of the people we surround ourselves agree with us. We wouldn’t need a Romney or a McCain if we didn’t have to appeal to those RINOs, who also cost us votes by appealing to people who aren’t us.

    Victory gets closer and closer the more people and more people we push away.*

    &nbsp
    * “We lose money on every sale.” “How do you make a profit?” “Volume!”

  5. raven says

    Daily Kos: Georgetown University Professor/Fox News Expert Calls for assassination …
    www .dailykos. com/…/- Fox-News-Expert-Calls-For-Obama-s-Assassination

    17 hours ago – Scheuer apparently believes that Obama’s action/inaction over Benghazi has earned him the death penalty. Hillary Clinton has also invoked …

    OT but not by much.

    Yesterday some right wingnut called for the president’s assassination. Again. They are doing this more and more.

    It was the Fox news “expert” on Benghazi and Georgetown professor, Scheuer.

    FWIW, under Obama 1 embassy was attacked killing 4 people. Under Bush there were 11 embassy attacks including the one in Nairobi that killed over 200.

  6. laurentweppe says

    Walker is clearly not the sharpest bulb in the sign

    He’s actually pretty smart: Making up an ridiculously enormous lie, drumming said lie to keep the tribe tightly-knit and in marching order while your enemies are baited into wasting their time and energy trying to thoroughly demonstrate its falsity is one of the old tried and true tactics when it comes to grab power

  7. raven says

    Making up an ridiculously enormous lie, drumming said lie to keep the tribe tightly-knit and in marching order …

    Goebbel’s Big Lie.

    Can’t say it worked very well for him in the end.

    At the end of the war, Goebbel killed his 6 kids, killed his wife, and then killed himself. No one missed him.

  8. tiredofusernamerules says

    I WISH the Dems put leftist candidates forward. Instead, we end up with center-right “triangulators”.

  9. Nemo says

    People who describe themselves as “conservative” outnumber those who describe themselves as “liberal”, but if you poll people on their actual positions, the opposite is true. A lot of actual liberals just don’t identify with the label, for reasons I dunno.

  10. whheydt says

    Should Clinton win, we’d see a variant on the current situation, which can be neatly summarized by the equivalent to when FDR was in the White House, The people who wouldn’t name him but referred to “THAT man in the White House.”

    Right now, we have the nutcase wing’s real complaint is that there is an African-American as President.

    If/when Clinton wins, the very same heads will be exploding because a woman is President.

    Both modern cases are completely independent of the politics and policies of the individuals.

  11. says

    It’s stuff like this that makes me wonder if there really is something fundamentally wrong with the wingnut brain. When a wingnut spouts blatantly stupid things, people speculate whether the case is a result of stupidity or an intelligent person manipulating stupid people with transparently stupid arguments. In either case, there needs to be a supply of people who’d buy such arguments and sustain them with cheering and repetition. That’s the scary part for me.

  12. colnago80 says

    Oh yes, don’t call her by her actual name, call her by her husband’s name. Because she doesn’t have any identity outside of that.

    Actually, if she were to win, she would have had a lot more experience then her husband had, having been a senator for 8 years, winning 2 elections, and Secretary of State for 4 years.

  13. laurentweppe says

    Goebbel’s Big Lie.
    Can’t say it worked very well for him in the end.

    That’s what happen when a clique of con-men start believing their own hype, fantasize themselve as the New Nobility of Conquerors and decide to challenge both the soviet and american empires at the same time.

    But I was not talking about keeping power: I was talking about grabing it in the first place: not every successful putschist manages to establish long-lived dynasties.

    ***

    A lot of actual liberals just don’t identify with the label, for reasons I dunno.

    As I like to say: the USA is a nation of closeted social-democrats bullied in pretending otherwise by a mob of old-school stalinists

  14. D. C. Sessions says

    raven@5:

    I suppose it’s possible that if the Right keeps banging the drum long enough and hard enough, someone with a functioning brain (not sane, maybe, but functional) will actually assassinate Obama. The Secret Service is good, but their job is only possible because so many would-be assassins are so incompetent.

    Unfortunately for the Right, their constant banging on that drum only works until someone does actually follow through. The political consequences of a successful assassination would not be kind to them.

  15. says

    raven “FWIW, under Obama 1 embassy was attacked killing 4 people. Under Bush there were 11 embassy attacks including the one in Nairobi that killed over 200.”
    Darrell Issa’s forming a committee to figure out how Obama managed to be to blame for those eleven.

  16. raven says

    Darrell Issa’s forming a committee to figure out how Obama managed to be to blame for those eleven.

    Well he is qualified, having been arrested three times and beating the rap twice.

    BTW, I didn’t get it right. The Nairobi and Dar es Salaam attacks were under Clinton. There were 13 embassy attacks under Bush, not counting the attacks on the Iraqi and Kabul embassies. Bush is also ahead in American body counts.

    Of course Reagan was responsible when a truck bomb in Lebanon destroyed a US marine base killing lots.

    Bob Cesca Huffpo:

    The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

    January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

    June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

    October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

    February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

    May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

    July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

    December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

    March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

    September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

    January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

    March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

    July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

    September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

  17. laplanck says

    Oh yes, don’t call her by her actual name, call her by her husband’s name. Because she doesn’t have any identity outside of that.

    On some level, I think that’s true — not because she’s a woman, but because she ultimately owes her political career (even though she’s since forged her own path) to Bill’s success, just like it would probably be accurate to say “George H.W. Bush’s son” or “a member of the Kennedy family” or “Dick Cheney’s daughter” assuming Liz Cheney somehow (heaven forbid) gets elected. We wouldn’t be talking about her as a potential presidential candidate were it not for who she married, just like Dubya never would have been governor or president were it not for his last name.

  18. D. C. Sessions says

    Of course Reagan was responsible when a truck bomb in Lebanon destroyed a US marine base killing lots.

    Those were Jimmy Carter’s doing, just as the ones from 2001 through 2009 were Clinton’s.

  19. says

    Right on! Just imagine if the Republicans voted in the Democratic primaries and helped nominate a candidate who would continue killing innocent people with drones, spy on everybody, not close Guantanamo and give Wall Street everything it wanted and more.
    What would that be like?

  20. says

    she ultimately owes her political career (even though she’s since forged her own path) to Bill’s success

    Quite a few people would suggest the opposite. Bill Clinton’s success owes quite a lot to Hillary’s skill with cookies — saving his.

  21. Michael Heath says

    Oh yes, don’t call her by her actual name, call her by her husband’s name. Because she doesn’t have any identity outside of that.

    laplanck writes:

    On some level, I think that’s true — not because she’s a woman, but because she ultimately owes her political career (even though she’s since forged her own path) to Bill’s success . . .

    This is ludicrous. Like all politicians, Hillary Clinton owes an enormous debt to others. We have no idea whether she could have made it if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton. Perhaps she’d already be president if she hadn’t.

    The fact is, Hillary Clinton was an enormous advantage when it came to advancing Bill Clinton’s political career, both at building support for him and helping him to administrate his duties in both Arkansas and D.C. Ms. Clinton also used her time as first lady wisely to both:
    a) build her own base out of the base Bill and her created and,
    b) learn an enormous amount on how to administrate the duties of office.

    Ms. Clinton was elected Senator of N.Y. She was appointed to be Secretary of State by President Obama. She earned both positions, Bill didn’t appoint her to either, she won both and from my perspective, she was successful at both.

  22. martinc says

    I’m curious about the general strategy Walker suggests: voting in the other side’s primary, whether it be to get a candidate you find easy to beat, or to get a candidate you find amenable. Is it feasible? Also, Ed mentioned “all those conservative Republicans abandoning the Republican primaries for the Democratic ones” … does that mean you can only vote in ONE primary? The idea of “open” primaries seemed to imply you could vote in both.

    I am Australian, so primaries are a furrin’ concept.

Leave a Reply