I used to believe that one of the fundamental differences between liberal and conservative was that conservatives believed in consequences for bad behavior.
Liberals always went on about how their intentions were pure and therefore they should never be held to account when their policies backfired.
The destruction of the black family, the collapse of the American middle class, rising threats around the globe - all can be waved away with a giant "Ooopsie!"
That division is no operative.
It is clear that the professional operatives of Conservatism, Inc. also think that they should get endless do-overs no matter how incompetent they are.
Today's example is discredited foreign policy wonk Max Boot, who was such a great, rock-ribbed conservative that he openly endorsed Hillary for president. Spengler's assessment of his massive blunders is, if anything, understated.
But what I find most interesting is how Boot thinks that his endorsement of Hillary shouldn't impact his request for a patronage job. We've visited this ground before, and it's fascinating to see how supposedly "principled conservatives" are actually frustrated whores who can't find a john.
Even more pathetic is how Boot's reduced to changing "racist! racist!" because, well, that's all he's got. Of course, Boot would be happy to work for a Klansman if it put him a position of political power.
Never Trumpers like to claim that The Donald has a vendetta against him, but he doesn't. It's nothing personal, just business.
They endorsed his opponent and attacked him when he was vulnerable. The opportunity cost of doing that was being barred from working for Trump if he won. It's how the game is played.
Boot and his ilk think the rules should be changed and that they should never have to face the obvious and foreseeable consequences of their decision. Sorry guys, the rules aren't just for the little people.