Obamacon Update: Christopher Hitchens

Noted conservative writer, neocon, and pundit Christopher Hitchens (Conservapedia link) has thrown his hat in the ring with the party of socialist latte-sipping volvo-driving tree-hugging terrorist appeasing commie-hipster libs.

Really, you need only read the title to understand where he's coming from:

"Vote for Obama. McCain lacks the character and temperament to be President. And Palin is simply a disgrace".

The thrust of his endorsement rests on four core arguments that are surprisingly blunt given Hitchen's predilection for nuance.

1) McCain is mean and power-hungry. He has forfeited the contest of ideas.

2) McCain is old and senile as evidenced by his performance in the debates.

3) Sarah Palin lacks the scruples and intellect to hold high office. She is a disqualifier for McCain.

4) Obama is not a great choice, but he is the only viable candidate in this race.

 

Here is the most devastating passage:

The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.

Again, it is worth reading in its entirety. Hitch is one of an ever growing list of prominent conservatives that have acknowledged the unacceptable state of the GOP and chosen to back the democrats this year for good of country (I wonder if old pal Chris Buckley influenced him?).

Ever since our favorite troll posted that nonsense about some PUMA socialite nobody's ever heard of I've been compiling the list of real conservative defections and updating as the names of these patriots roll in.

Just let me know if you want me to add your name, Ken. We're an open party.

< Yeah...this is not good, AT ALL! | Obama Provides Specific Economic Policy Proposals >
 Display:
I don't think Hitchens counts as a conservative.  It is nice that we have the newly-patriated british atheist war-monger vote locked up, though.

by qsoundrich on 10/13/2008 03:22:24 PM EST

but I would call him a conservative, but a conservative in the British way, so not a Republican

by callisto on 10/13/2008 03:29:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hitch is the definition of a neo-con. Read his bio. He is former liberal turned ueber-hawk. He is also one of the biggest proponents of the policies outlined in the Project for a New American Century. Tell me where I've been lead astray, by all means.

by hazmat on 10/13/2008 03:34:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
having looked more into it, yeah he's a neo-con

knew there was a reason I never liked him :) besides his atheism side

by callisto on 10/13/2008 03:55:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe a slug. He makes my skin crawl.

by Verified1 on 10/13/2008 04:21:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hitch would give you the benefit of the doubt in an argument, even after you call him a name like that. Like his policies or not, he's a thoughtful guy. Hey, I find his policy prescriptions as repugnant as anyone on this site. But, as a neocon, this fellow has to be overcoming his sure delight at the prospect of seeing guys like John Bolton (much more deserving of epithets in my opinion) coming to power in order to hold his nose and vote for Obama. You simply have to respect that. It suggests a willingness to put principle and common decency over ideology.

by hazmat on 10/13/2008 05:18:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and I love your ongoing list of defections; I hadn't noticed that before.

I hope Hitchens gets some airtime on TV over this--he can be pretty devastating, exactly like you described.

Here he is getting waterboarded for Vanity Fair. Torture doesn't work.

by desertpear on 10/13/2008 03:35:27 PM EST

I would encourage people to email me any names (and links if possible) of people I missed.

by hazmat on 10/13/2008 03:37:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Apparently, William Kristol ,of the Muthafuckin Weekly Standard, wrote an article VERY critical of the McCain campaign.  A representative of McCain said, paraphrasing, "It appears he has bought into the Obama campaign line".

I repeat, that was Bill "Bush is awesome" Kristol, an Obamabot.

"The eyelid is a joke"

by richardshort2001 on 10/13/2008 11:14:30 PM EST

has a white hot hatred of all things Obama, make no mistake. He's just a little lost and confused now that his strategems are almost exclusively responsible for the demise McCain campaign. Funny that--its strangely reminiscent of his unflinching support of George Bush and the Iraq war and subsequent inability to acknowledge the abject failure of the whole project.

You see, Kristol is running around like a chicken(hawk) with his head cut off, because even he can't deny that McCain is losing. What really galls him--and other wet-blankets like twba--is that McCain is losing to "an empty suit". That's fine with me. We're talking about the guy who once opined that there was a "pop-psychology" in fashion that stipulates that Sunni and Shia won't get along in post-Saddam Iraq. What a fucking choad.

by hazmat on 10/14/2008 12:49:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]

My dad worked on the Dem side in state politics here in Texas, back when the Dems won.

One thing he always made clear to me is that there are different factions within the party.  Depending on how the primaries go, one is in power and the other becomes an opposition party within the party.  These people will support the Dem nominees and elected officials, just not as enthusiastically.  

But on the other hand, they want to take the party away from the other guys.

The fight between Hillary and Obama was one of these interparty fights.  The media and the Clintons tried very hard to paint is a split among voters but it really wasn't.  It was a split among internal powers at the Democratic party.

The conservatives in the GOP lost the primary.  And while they would rather the Republicans win, they also have a eye on taking the party back.  Kristol and his ilk have decided McCain has no chance of winning.  Now their goal is to move the party back to the neocon Bush element.  This sort of thing happens every time a party loses.  These clowns are just starting early this time.

by ProfRich on 10/14/2008 07:20:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]

that these "undecideds" don't see the GOP for what it is.

I would agree with your analysis of the democratic party except that, based on Cenk's analysis it sounds like there is a genuine truce within the democratic party, with the Clinton "A" team surrounding Obama, and backing him up and advising him. Plus the Clintons seem to be genuinely campaigning for him, and people aren't joking about her '012 bid anymore. I think they can all smell the victory, and Barack, being the leader he is has made it clear that the DLC is not on the outs--they're just not in charge. This is a very happy situation indeed. The way things ought to be, in my opinion.

by hazmat on 10/14/2008 02:03:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]

When the party wins, or has a good chance to win, the dissenting side lays off and tries to win the election.  Basically the calculation for the Clintonites in this scenario is like this:

Scenarios from best to worst-

Clinton win > Obama win > GOP win

So they are still trying to get their 2nd best scenario and avoid the worst case.

But I can promise you after the Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Kerr y, those in the party who weren't affiliated with those candidates made hay.  

The thing I learned this weekend is the dissenting faction of the GOP has already called the race for Obama and decided to get a head start in jockeying for party leadership three weeks early.

This is great news for the Dems as it blinds the right to the real reason they have lost two straight elections (people are fed up with their ideas) and makes them think it is just because McCain has run an awful campaign.

This will probably lead them to go even further to the right in 2012.  This is exactly what happened to the Dems from 1968 to 1988.

by ProfRich on 10/14/2008 02:53:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and almost surprising analysis. I'm guessing this is an area you and ken overlap a little?

by hazmat on 10/14/2008 03:17:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
is very illuminating after this exchange.

by hazmat on 10/15/2008 01:26:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: