The mask is finally off these people. They are supporting Hillary Clinton because they are big-government globalists who have been bought by the same foreign interests that have been funneling money to the Clinton Foundation for years.
These republicans who are talking about supporting Hillary are NeoCons. Hillary is a Liberal Interventionists. Liberal Interventionists and NeoCons are natural allies on foreign policy. Both NeoCons and Liberal Interventionists are Idealists in that they subscribe to an idealist foreign policy based on nation building and humanitarianism. But, NeoCons are unilateralists and Liberal Interventionists are multilateralists.
In the GOP there are 3 foreign policy groups: NeoCons, Realists, and Isolationists.
In the dem party there are Liberal Interventionists, Realists, and antiwar pacifists.
NeoCon Republicans and Liberal Interventionist democrats are natural allies
Republican Realists and democrat Realists are natural allies
Republican Isolationists and Antiwar dems are natural allies.
There are also a large number of Realists who are not aligned with either political party: they are/were careerists in the State dept, Defense Dept, the military, CIA, NSA, etc. For example: SecDef Ashton Carter is a Realist and a careerist(defense dept), he has never been aligned with either political party. Another good example is retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering(state dept).
Isolationist republicans and Antiwar democrats don't have much influence on foreign policy so Realists(republicans, democrats, careerists), NeoCons(republicans), Liberal Interventionists(democrats) determine foreign policy.
A republican prez's foriegn policy team is always made up of NeoCons and Realists. A dem prez's foreign policy team is always made up of Liberal Interventionists and Realists. Under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush the Realists were the most influential. Under Bill Clinton the Liberal Interventionists were the most influential. Under George Bush the NeoCons called the shots. Under Obama the Realists have been most influential.
The NeoCons supported Rubio and Scott Walker and weren't thrilled over Jeb Bush (because he named the prominent Realist, James Baker, as an advisor), but definitely have opposed Trump, Cruz, and Rand Paul(Realists).
Libya is a good case study. When events began to unfold there, the NeoCon republicans immediately began agitating to unilaterally intervene there. But the Realists, led by then SecDef Bob Gates, were opposed. Eventually, the 3 liberal interventionists, Power, Rice, and Hillary, worked up a multilateral coalition on Libya, and Obama finally agreed to intervene. He also hired Victoria Nuland, a NeoCon who had worked for Dick Cheney, and Nuland became best known for the Benghazi talking points memo. Later she would be appointed to oversee the Ukraine conflict and the senate republicans confirmed her without one question about Benghazi. Victoria Nuland's husband, NeoCon Robert Kagan, who also worked in the Bush administration, was one of the first NeoCons to publically state that he was supporting Hillary.
After Obama agreed to intervene in Libya, the NeoCon republicans praised him, even calling him a "Born Again NeoCon". But they also criticized him saying he should have gone in immediately when they told him to. They also criticized Obama for going in multilaterally, which is "leading from behind". Some of the hardcore NeoCons like John Bolton criticized Obama saying he didn't go far enough and should have put boots on the ground in Libya.
After Obama agreed to intervene in Libya, two prominent Realists(Henry Kissinger and James Baker) published an editorial in WaPo in which they warned that Libya was a mistake that would probably blow up in our face, which it did(Benghazi).
“that’s about the last reason that makes any sense. Every single thing she’s done in terms of foreign policy has been a disaster.”
Disaster for America? Yes, of course.
But the “Republicans for Hillary” have other priorities.