Republicans create own 'Frankenstein monsters'
It wasn't all that long ago that Republicans were looking to Arnold Schwarzenegger as a pumped-up version of Ronald Reagan, who but for the unfortunate fact of his Austrian birth, might have ridden the coattails of a Republican revival in California to an eventual victory in the White House. They spurned a man with genuine conservative credentials and spent much effort convincing Republicans in California and around the country that Arnold was a conservative at heart, his connections to Hollywood and the Kennedy clan notwithstanding.
And, in fairness, Gov. Schwarzenegger demonstrated that he does have some genuinely conservative inclinations. But a man's personal inclinations and his ability to stand by them in public are two entirely different things, especially when that public is hostile. It didn't take long for Arnold to capitulate to the girly men, of course, surprising no one except perhaps Hugh Hewitt, whose Panglossian approach to life must be envied.
For life is at its most entertaining, after all, if every day brings a new surprise with the sunrise.
It is a pity that there is no pithy aphorism that assigns shame to those who are fooled neither once, nor twice, but every single time. It does not take a keen observer that the California recall election is serving as a bellwether for the 2008 Republican nomination, as three non-conservatives are fraudulently being pushed on the conservative base of the party on the basis of their supposed electability.
To his credit, Rush Limbaugh appears to be ready to sit this election out. His recent criticism of his friend, Gov. Schwarzenegger is not necessarily linked to his announced lack of enthusiasm for the anointed bunch, but it's hard to believe a man of Rush's intelligence does not see the obvious parallels between Schwarzenegger's governance and the probable result of a Giuliani, McCain or Romney administration. And yet, I doubt Rush will have the fortitude to maintain that stance once the Lizard Queen wins the Democratic nomination and the familiar, frantic chants about ''the most important election ever'' begin again.
All of this, of course, is academic. There will be no Giuliani, McCain or Romney administration. Giuliani is many things, first and foremost he is a class one jerk. A jerk can win in New York City, where the natives pride themselves on their unpleasantries, but he can't win a national election, especially not against a woman who isn't afraid to switch gears at will and play the ''don't hit a girl'' card just before slamming the dagger into the jugular vein. No one actually likes McCain except the press, least of all Republicans, and liberal Massachusetts ex-governors don't win presidential elections when they run as Democrats, let alone Republicans.
If I were a conventional commentator, this is the part where I would begin to make the case for how my guy was the answer, and that only by supporting him would the Republican Party be able to unite despite its differences and forge ahead to victory in November. But the truth is, no one can. Eight disastrous years of George W. Bush in the White House have depressed and divided Republicans; his lasting political legacy will likely be surprisingly similar to Jimmy Carter's. Bush barely won re-election as an incumbent president when the Iraq War was going well, I am beginning to suspect that Hillary's electoral totals may have more in common with Ronald Reagan's landslide than her husband's plurality.
This is the cost of political pragmatism: a landscape barren of credible candidates, a discouraged base and the expectation of defeat. The counterintuitive truth for conservatives is that principle is the ultimate pragmatism. No sports team has ever won a game by committing to move the ball in the direction of the goal that it is defending. Conservatives cannot win moderates to their cause by becoming moderate, they can only win them over by demonstrating confidence in the superiority of their ideas, principles and ideals.