Andrew Sullivan notes that Rush Limbaugh is standing with Sarah Palin even as several GOP leaders start moving the other way, but Sullivan is flabbergasted that Rush says: "I'd vote for Elmer Fudd if the Republicans nominated him, if Obama's the Democrat."
I think three responses are in order:
1. Well, of course! Sullivan forgets that Elmer Fudd is a millionaire, and owns a mansion and a yacht.
2. Rush is disingenuous; the "if Obama's the Democrat" portion of this is silly. Rush would vote Fudd against any conceivable Democrat.
3. But taking Rush at his word -- that he'd only vote Fudd because Obama is (in his view) a really awful Democrat -- Rush is, in my view, wrong. Rush Limbaugh should vote for Elmer Fudd, regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Fudd would appoint a cabinet that Rush would like. He'd have a White House staff filled with experienced Republicans, most of whom Rush would like. He would, as the GOP nominee, pledge to reverse many of Barack Obama's executive orders (including, say, on abortion) on his first day in office -- and he'd fulfill that pledge.
(OK, maybe he wouldn't get to it on Day One, what with the whole controversy over whether it was Duck Season or Wabbit Season. But Day Two, certainly).
Fudd would sign bills produced by a GOP Congress; he'd veto bills produced by a Democratic Congress. His Supreme Court appointments and lower court appointments would come with the Federalist Society stamp of approval. (And if he tried to go off on his own by appointing his personal lawyer, or perhaps this guy, then Senate Republicans would quickly shoot him down and get him back on track).
Of course, the logic holds in the other direction too; most Democrats should vote for the Democratic version of Elmer Fudd regardless of who the Republicans nominate. The point, of course, is that party is usually far more important than person when it comes to the presidency, and therefore the wise vote should vote the party, not the person. Yes, there are a handful of people out there who have strongly held but sufficiently eclectic views -- Sullivan is one of them -- who might have logical reasons to move back and forth depending on specific candidates. And sure, there's always the chance that having a bumbling incompetent in the White House would lead to all sorts of disasters (resist the urge to include blind links to Iraq and Katrina...or perhaps Iran, 1979), but that's the risk you have to take in politics. For the most part, the time to worry about that is in the nomination process -- and if you really care about politics and public affairs, that's when you should get yourself involved.