[T]hose of us on the right who pay attention to think tanks, blogs, and little magazines have watched Obama compile a coterie drawn from the movement's most stalwart and impressive thinkers. It's a group that will no doubt grow even larger in the coming months.
The largest group of Obamacons hail from the libertarian wing of the movement....
In nearly every quarter of the movement, you can find conservatives irate over the Iraq war--a war they believe transgresses core principles. And it's this frustration with the war--and McCain's pronouncements about victory at any cost--that has led many conservatives into Obama's arms...
[Some conservatives are] impressed by Obama's rhetorical acumen....
But, if you're looking for the least likely pool of Obamacons, it would be the supply-siders....
ADDED: Here's a set of links backing up the quoted Bruce Barrett article.
पोस्ट्स
९६ टिप्पण्या:
Jeez, I thought the Obamacons were like the LOLMcCains...
It's hard to understand principled philosophical conservatives supporting the world's most liberal US Presidential candidate. The Obamacons are sort of like Jews for Jesus.
Being old enough to remember the 1964 election, getting thumped was a painful way to get reorganized and refocused.
So many conservatives sold their souls to support Dubya, it will take some time in the wilderness.
We need to broom out the slobbering dittoheads who dominate the debates these days.
No one should be enthused about Obama, but no one should be enthused about McCain or the GOP either.
--a war they believe transgresses core principles
I wish he had been more specific. Is there a good reason he didn't detail these transgressed principles?
And it's this frustration with the war--
If Obama makes us leave, can we stow our gear somewhere in Iraq so we don't have to lug it all back over again in 4 years? Frustration.
Well for those conservatives who are irate about the war then I guess Obama is your man. Outside of that, I can't think of a single policy issue a conservative can possibly agree with him on. Higher taxes? More federal regulation on business? More transfer of wealth? Hardly something a conservative is going to embrace, assuming of course that individual is conservative.
Libertarians aren't necessarily conservative in the tradtional sense. Most are fiscal conservatives and pretty socially or at least culturally liberal. If libertarians are going for Bambi then they're going to be in for a big shock if he wins.
I don't care how frustrated I am, I will never vote for someone who expresses a desire to disarm me.
So many conservatives sold their souls to support Dubya, it will take some time in the wilderness. We need to broom out the slobbering dittoheads who dominate the debates these days.
Oh please. Slobbering dittoheads? Stop projecting.
Conservative support of Bush has always been faint-hearted. The problem is that BDS from the Left immunized Bush against any legitimate criticism [that, and the fact the the other choice was Kerry].
I can't imagine supporting Obama under any circumstance. He is wrong on every issue! Let's continue to pray that the American voter is smarter than the media thinks!
Most libertarians are just liberals who don't like to pay taxes.
We need to defeat McCain; he's not only a mad bomber he's liberal on so many issues he will cause more damage than Barrack Hussein.
Also, I don't want to listen to 4 more years of conservatives chanting "We must support our commander in chief" as McCain betrays them again and again.
Noemie Emery, via Powerline:
"They tend not to notice that [Obama's] frame of reference is always himself and his feelings, and that his appeals to racial healing, bipartisanship, government reform and sweet reason do not connect to his acts in real life. In the real world, he has voted party line on almost all issues, has managed to befriend and hang out with an amazing collection of people whose lives contradict all these themes, including racists, demagogues, some of the most corrupt practitioners of machine urban politics, and people whose idea of political action once involved planting bombs. These sorts of things may not bother students or shoppers at Whole Foods, but they do bother people who cling to God and their guns out of sheer desperation, and tend to vote in places like, say, Pennsylvania, where Obama lost to Hillary Clinton by ten points."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/208aifia.asp
/heh
"When John Kennedy died, Joseph Alsop wrote that Washington was filled with "male widows," and that he too was one of them. Obama isn't president (yet), but he has more than his share of male concubines, who are starting to embarrass themselves (and their readers) with a slavish devotion that is only too evident."
One more pawn in the "moral authority" game liberals play, like "I've owned guns all my life, but I support a gun ban!" or "I have 49 purple hearts and served in every branch of the armed forces, and I'm all for world peace and social justice!"
They don't exist.
The Obamacons vote good like an Obamacon should.
Come to where the change is—Come to Obamacountry.
There have been a few celebrated cases of conservatives endorsing Obama, like the blogger Andrew Sullivan...
If I had the energy, I'd be irked that the media accepts Sullivan's self-proclaimed conservatism at face value. He's no more conservative than he is Catholic. The fact that he says he's both is irrelevant.
The quotes in this article from the Obamacons sound as if they predate the Rev. Wright controversy. I don't know how anyone who is paying attention can continue to spout nonsense about how transcendent of racial politics Obama is. As noted, his rhetoric is 180 degrees from his behavior and accomplishments (such as they are.)
No matter how much conservatives detest McCain, there is no comparing him to the most liberal Senator currently in office. As for the ennui regarding the Iraq War, I guess they haven't been paying attention to that, either. By November, will anyone really be calling for immediate withdrawal and surrender?
The Obama campaign ought not offer too big a welcome to these “obamacons.”
While they might seem to be of the body, Mr. Obama might find himself betrayed and exposed as a calculating politician.
Pull out its plug, Mr. Spock.
The upcoming election could be a tipping point for the USA.
Will America become like Europe with its high taxes, ginormous safety nets which encourage individual sloth or will we stay on course as THE country where individuals can still choose to work hard and succeed.
The New Republic is not generally the place to look if you want to know what conservatives are thinking. Just as there are some lefty Hillary voters who will vote for McC because they can't forgive Team O!, there are some righty voters who will go with Team O! because they can't stand McC. Some of those (on both sides) are among the scribbling class that Bruce Bennett is writing about.
But the simple truth is that there won't be very many either way. And the only electoral significance is that McC is likely to better on this score (because he really is a maverick and really has bucked his own party on various policy issues) that Team O! (because O really is an orthodox doctrinaire lefty on pretty much everything, and has consistently toed the party line).
Bennett's piece isn't wrong (there are strange bedfellows supporting Team O!) but, in gazing at a few trees, it does seem to lose sight of the forest.
Also, Bruce Bartlett threw George Bush and the Republicans under the bus 2-3 years ago. He is just the type of former Republican the MSM uses to claim Reps are switching sides.
Most libertarians are just liberals who don't like to pay taxes.
Funny. I always thought and have often said libertarians are republicans who smoke dope. Maybe it's both.
Supposed conservatives who support Obama are pretty much like most of the white liberals who support Obama. They don't care what his actual positions are. They don't care about him lacking any and all bona fides. They are swept away by his charisma.
Come to where the change is—Come to Obamacountry.
Change! could likely be a Valley of Glass where the New York skyline once stood. I'm afraid we're going to have to lose a city before the Left wakes up. A Democrat controlled Congress and Presidency may be just what America needs. Of course, they'll pull a Nagin/Blanco when NYC falls.
As a libertarian, I disagree with almost every position Obama takes, and most make my skin crawl. On economic matters in particular, I think he's just ignorant, or a demogogue. Even on Iraq, where I agree with him that we should not have invaded, and/or should have left long ago, I don't trust him to handle national security.
No, for libertarians, or libertarian oriented conservatives, there's no one choice other than to sit out or go third party (ie. same as no choice). McCain is no option, he's Obama light.
Caveat in general: Lotta people self-identify as libertarian, but aren't.
For rcocean, libertarians are not just liberals who don't want to pay taxes. Or, to put it another way, liberals who don't want to pay taxes are not libertarians. The two philosophies are significantly different.
Obamacons would rather talk than fight.
They've come a long way, baby.
It says less about Obama, and everything about McCain and the dismal state of the GOP.
Consider that meanwhile, McCain is moving left...promising to go after evil big business, especially the oil companies, promoting statist solutions to "global warming," meanwhile we know what he's been bad or unreliable on before now (free speech, taxes, immigration, prolife)...all this before the fall campaign, let alone the election!
It seems to me that everything McCain is bad on, Obama is far worse. McCain believes in curtailing free speech in the name of campaign finance reform--so does Obama, and he probably supports hate crime laws too. McCain buys into global warming hype--Obama does too and his solutions are far more radical. McCain will probably compromise with Democrat's in getting laws and judges passed--Obama is a liberal Democrat who has made no effort to compromise with Conservatives AT ALL. McCain is a little too enamored with the idea of national service and sacrifice--Obama is coming up with corporatist stategies that would make Wilson proud.
And then there are the areas where McCain is actually pretty good; abortion, gun rights, national defense, and fiscal responsibility. And Obama, he's terrible at those too.
Any Conservative who votes for Obama over McCain is a dope.
The Obama campaign ought not offer too big a welcome to these “obamacons.”
Yah, you just reminded me that the GOP has had the grace to not crash the Dem convention, even after Kerry plants interrupted theirs. Time for that to Change! too.
By definition no thinking conservative could support Obama. Consider the source (TNR), have a good laugh and move on.
How about a suggestion to the Repubs unhappy about McCain and the Dems unhappy about Obama?
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
My unscientific poll of the blogs leads me to believe that would mean a 48 state sweep by the Libertarians.
Did TNR ever offer up a mea culpa for the Scott Beauchamp lies?
Honest liberals shouldn't even support Obama, never mind conservatives. Some of the senator's associates are turning out to be old fashioned race hustlers, political back scratchers and out and out crooks, with an occasional bomb thrower for good measure. This is change we can believe in? We can agree to disagree on war, crime, taxes, civil liberties and all the rest, but I think there is no room for disagreement on association with crooks and traitors.
There was an interesting post linked on Instapundit the other day concerning the rise of mass messianic movements (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini) in the context of how to avoid a disaster with Ahmadinejad of Iran. America has been resistant to such movements at least in part because a vigorous free press tends to ridicule the obvious villains, and such mockery tends to deflate a movement before it really gets off the ground. Mockery is a form of communication that can be effective with people who might not form opinions from, say, more "nuanced" writing.
I see no such press mockery where Obama is concerned, even of the facially apparent stupidity that comes up from time to time. Obama's candidacy has some of the features of a mass messianic movement, and the press is asleeep at the switch with him, or worse, is abetting the "movement."
If we're going to make a bad choice this fall, let it at least be an informed one.
Think about voting for Sen. Obama....just a silly millimeter longer.
"Conservatives" may not like McCain but he became the republican nominee in large part because they were so busy picking apart the other candidates early on, they thought were contenders and let McCain in the back door. So they need to get over themselves.
Hoping to repeat the lets go down with a Carter so we can come back with a Reagan dream, requires that you have a "Reagan" waiting. Well you did in 1976, how about now?
rcocean said...
Most libertarians are just liberals who don't like to pay taxes.
Ding Ding Ding!!! Winner!!!
The ones I knew best were pot-smoking pro-choice engineers who became politically aware when they were shocked by how little they took home from their first big paycheck.
Obama's candidacy has some of the features of a mass messianic movement
Maybe, but the demonstration outside the Wardman Park showed his adherents are not as crazy diehard as the Hillbots. I would say she leads in the Cult of Personality Contest.
No one should kid themselves that McCain is some sort of Second Amendment supporter by the way. McCain is the RINOest of RINOs.
This is so silly. Obama doesn't have a chance. Perhaps people haven't heard, but Obama went to a BLACK church and he had a SCARY BLACK preacher. And he's a Muslim! And his middle name is HUSSEIN. HUSSEIN!!!!!!
I prefer this quote from the article:
... he views the Republican Party as a "dead, rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend at Bernie's, handcuffed to a corpse." Unless the Republican Party is thoroughly purged of its current leadership, Hunter fears that it "will pollute the political environment to toxic levels and create an epidemic that could damage the country for generations to come."
As Carl from Caddy Shack would say, "I'd keep playing. I don't think the heavy stuff will come down for a while."
Change! could likely be a Valley of Glass where the New York skyline once stood. I'm afraid we're going to have to lose a city before the Left wakes up. A Democrat controlled Congress and Presidency may be just what America needs. Of course, they'll pull a Nagin/Blanco when NYC falls.
Fen. My husband and I were discussing this very point. We NEED to have another disaster to wake up the oblivious left. Not that I WANT another disaster or desire to see innocent people killed, but if we don't get out of this delusion and pipe dream that Obama and the Left are peddling, we are doomed as a Nation. I would prefer it if we could pull our heads out of our nether regions without a lethal wake up call, but it seems we are firmly entrenched in that area.
Chicago is my preference. :-) I'm ready for Armageddon
I also agree that the Republican Party is dead or attempting to commit suicide by driving away the conservative base. IMHO there is no one who is a "conservative" that would vote for Obama. We can barely bring ourselves to consider McCain. However, if McCain were to put a good conservative on the ticket like Palin, I might reconsider and vote this year after all.
As a Child of the 80s, I know of more Decepticons than Obamacons.
...that said, reading the mental gymnastics that some of the people in the article went through to suggest that Obama is the better candidate for a conservative voter was kind-of humorous.
Anyone else remember how GWB said he was going to "Change the tone in Washington?" Can we get the old tone back. By contrast, the only change Obama can believe in is the kind he wants to steal from our pockets.
DR MR BARTLETT, I HOPE YOU ARE WELL AND GOD BLESS. I AM BARACK OBAMA, SON OF IMPORTANT OFFICIAL OF KENYAN GOVERNMENT. THROUGH FAMILY CONTACTS I HAVE COME INTO POSESION OF IMPORTANT SUPPLY-SIDE AND CONSERVATIV VALUES. I NEED YOUR HELP TO ENACT THEM WITH SECRECY FROM LIBERAL PRIMARY VOTERS. IF YOU CAN KINDLY SEND ME ENDORCEMENT WE CAN BEGIN. THANK YOU SINSRELY FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND HELP.
dtl_bigot: but Obama went to a RACIST church and he had a RACIST preacher.
/fixed
Fen just said that BLACK = RACIST.
Guess Fen is the bigot.
Andrew Sullivan isn't a Conservative, he's a Tory.
Which raises the question:
Who are the Obamatorys?
dtl_bigot: Fen just said that BLACK = RACIST
The sad part is that you are not trolling. You really are this stupid.
Who are the Obamacons?
People who don't know what they're talking about. No actual conservative could support Obama. Someone who calls himself conservative and supports Obama is either ignorant about conservatism or ignorant about Obama.
Occasionally someone will say pridefully they're a blue dog Democrat. Knowing full well the meaning of the term I ask, "What does that mean?" Once, a professor I used to hang around with until he said this, "Oh, a blue dog Democrat is a person who has always votes Democrat in every election, whose father always voted Democrat and who would never even consider voting for a Republican ever," getting both the term wrong and the wisdom of holding open one's full range of options. Other times I've had people say to me simply, "I always vote Democrat." It's counter better judgement to pursue the subject further but I inevitably ask, "Why?" That happened six times. Each time I felt a *ping* a voice behind all that saying, "This person is a (political) moron."
You can divide voters out however you wish, according to what groups they belong to, their earnings, their race, age, sex, interests, education levels, whatever. Height, sexual proclivities, religious persuasions, degree of technological acceptance, immeasurable degree of greenness, economic angst, tax bracket, shoe size. Clump them together, break off portions, move portions of portions to the other side of the board then break off another group and move them back again but you'll get close to understanding the dynamics of an election. All these items about who's leaving whom because of what are another way of saying there's a lot more purple out there than originally imagined and the starting point of red vs. blue analysis is fundamentally flawed, an exercise in futility, because human nature, when it comes to voting, defies categorization.
These supposed McCain supporters, conservatives, Republicans, defecting to Obama, are they to be subtracted from the disaffected Clinton supporters we read about earlier? Subtracted from Obama deserters as they learn more about their candidate for their Party? What's the point here? Is it an attempt to understand the dynamics of the shifting tide of public opinion? In the end, you have 193,000,000 potential voters and no idea whatever how many of them are going to actually vote. Then a layer of representative votes between those voters and the final count. In the case of the Democrats another contrived intervening "super" layer between those original votes analyzed here and the final final final, electoral vote. The one that's not popular. Popular, ick, vote. In the end there is but one poll that counts and everything everything that precedes that final poll is for naught.
I'm so happy I could cheer you this morning. Damn. Coffee's gone cold.
Where to begin? There is just so much wrong with the article this blog entry links to.
For openers, it's published in TNR. This outfit so long ago lost any shred of credibility that anything written therein should be viewed with great skepticism.
Second, it's written by Bruce Bartlett. 'Nuff said. Google the guy. He doesn't speak for Conservatives, to put it midly.
Third, by the time you read to the point where you have to scroll you realize that this guy has gone through the internet looking for anecdotal evidence of Conservatives for Obama and has come up with (wait for it) Libertarians. Well, Libertarians are not Conservatives. OK? I mean, Andrew Sullivan? People who want to rant about the Patriot Act?
So, let's just spare ourselves from the agony of trying to find anything coherent in Bartlett's piece. The man hasn't written anything coherent in a decade.
former law student writes: Ding Ding Ding!!! Winner!!!. And then writes a bunch of other stuff I agree with.
Wait. Give me a minute. I'm all verklempt. I need to sit down and sniff some smelling salts.
This can not be happening.
Conservatives--especially those from the libertarian wing--favoring a man who'd increase the tyranny/spending of the central government and impose more taxes on individuals and businesses to pay for it?
Pffft.... What has this fool been smoking? Or drinking.... That koolaid must be deliciously powerful; it seems to cause confusion, eradicate reason and totally blind the imbiber to reality.
Paul Z-
Ha! You made me laugh.
former law student writes: Ding Ding Ding!!! Winner!!!. And then writes a bunch of other stuff I agree with.
Wait. Give me a minute. I'm all verklempt. I need to sit down and sniff some smelling salts.
It could be a sign of the Apocalypse.
There have been a few celebrated cases of conservatives endorsing Obama, like the blogger Andrew Sullivan
Sullivan thinks the Surge is working: "Petraeus deserves the lion's share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped. But Bush and McCain equally merit points for pursuing the surge, even though the metrics pointed to failure. Obama needs to capitalize on these gains, not dismiss them."
/via Belmont Club
I thought they mostly just didn't want to face Hillary in the general. I think that's why William Bennett kept talking up Obama, or why Patrick Buchanan did. I just thought it was strategy. I doubt if any of them really want Obama to win, they just saw him as easier to beat than Hillary. Now that they've gotten Hillary out of the way, they will start knocking Obama to pieces.
Fen:
"Sullivan thinks the Surge is working: "Petraeus deserves the lion's share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped.
Tell Sully "luck" had nothing to do with it.
Conservatives for Obama.
Catholics for abortion.
MADD members for lowering the drinking age.
Islamists for gay rights.
Teachers Unionists for open shop rules.
Vintners for temperance.
Playboy bunnies for abstinence.
Gather all of them together in a single room and what do you have?
A full set of teeth.
came away with the impression that the Illinois senator was an adherent of Edmund Burke
Would a Burkean promise to reverse the rising seas?
Who are the ObamaCONS?
Housebroken pseudo-liberal careerists looking to hitch their horse to the Obama bandwagon like Josh Marshall, Atrios, Kevin Drum, and Yglesias who have legions of nitwit readers incapable of an independent thought of their own, who they know will faithfully regurgitate their nonsense to the next echo chamber.
Most libertarians are just liberals who don't like to pay taxes.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Garage:
Have you always felt this way about Marshall, Atrios et al?
Also - just saw that guy Jim Johnson, who did not work for Obama, just resigned.
Well if you went by the "internets"-you'd think the Libertarians were everywhere!!!
You would have also thought that Fred Thompson would have had more than 3% of a chance in whereever he got that much of the vote.
What elese ...oh ya-let the Obamacons go forth and be jettisoned.
They can't be rationalized with and you'll lose a lot of mojo trying.
Oh ya and finally what Chip said-but to add I loved when in 2000 the Democrats couldn't fathom that Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.
In fact those idiots actually argued to invalidate those votes...
A Blue Dog Democrat use to be like Zell Miller hell it also still might be like Dan Boren Representative from Oklahoma-who said he ain't endorsing Obama come hell or high water because he is the most Liberal member of the Senate-heck I think he said Congress.
Bet ya he's related to David Boren but I'm not sure-I'll have to google that.
Yikes! I actually tried to clean that up..
There are errant 'e's everywhere!
But you know Ann did a typo a few posts back which I hope she doesn't correct because I like it better-
the wide rage of blogs...
Boren is father and son. The son is in Congress; father is prez of university of Oklahoma.
This "most liberal senator" dreck is really laughable. Do you really think Obama is more liberal than Feingold or Frank? Bernie Sanders? And most liberal in Congress? Does the name Kucinich ring any bells?
If you knew how National Journal creates its rankings, you'd know that in 2004 John Kerry was the "most liberal senator," equally laughable. Did you know that in the 2007 list that put Obama at #1, Joe Biden comes in at #3? Gee, I wonder what those two had in common last year.
AJ Lynch-
Thanks.
And good.
I admire David Boren's career.
I think he might teach Foreign Relations or military history there-or use to.
You can also tell that I read Althouse before Instapundit.
Glenn Reynolds has Dan Boren's exact quote.
Ya Trevor I do think that quote is giving Obama too much credit....
"As if" he actually passed bills in the Senate, showed up for important votes, and didn't vote "present" with a high frequency.
So in that regard Dan Boren is being a touch too unfair he's actually taking Obama at his word for what he says he wants to accomplish.
As for Kucinich as a data point that's/he's an outlier I think you have to toss that one away....
"The largest group of Obamacons hail from the libertarian wing of the movement...."
Libertarians aren't conservatives. They often vote with conservatives because they have enemies in common.
Libertarians aren't conservatives. They often vote with conservatives because they have enemies in common.
And, now, perhaps they find they have enemies in common with Obama that trump other issues.
If libertarians are going for Bambi then they're going to be in for a big shock if he wins.
I'm starting to get shocked. Obama voted to override the veto of the evil new Farm Bill. Way to stick it to the American taxpayer while they're hurting, and so much for caring about the poor.
McCain voted against it.
I'm starting to get shocked. Obama voted to override the veto of the evil new Farm Bill. Way to stick it to the American taxpayer while they're hurting, and so much for caring about the poor.
Although I guess since Obama had so much bipartisan company in that, it's not shocking. Instead, I should be pleasantly surprised by McCain's integrity.
The notion is stupid on it's face. Obamacons? I laugh at the at that characterization. If you are an Obamacon, then you aren't a real conservative, period.
Libertarians who vote for Obama will siphon votes away from Bob Barr and Bob Barr has already proclaimed that his candidacy will not siphon off votes from John McCain.
Have you always felt this way about Marshall, Atrios et al?
Mostly, yes. The depth of dishonesty from Atrios was bit surprising though. But Marshall has been peddling his faux-progessive lies for years -
"McCain wants to stay in Iraq for thousands of years! Millions even!".
"Hmmm, Barack's passport was breached approx around the same time of 3 primaries......hmmmm...wonder who did THAT".
"Bill Clinton defined my adulthood....and now look....wonder if he'll come back?"
I always picture Marshall smirking before he hits "send" on a post on his blog - "Hey rubes, get a load of this horseshit!".
Funny. I always thought and have often said libertarians are republicans who smoke dope. Maybe it's both.
I like to think of libertarians as Republicans who actually believe in the principles they espouse. :
Any Conservative who votes for Obama over McCain is a dope.
I disagree.
Sometimes it is better to lose and avoid long-term political destruction than "settle" on a treacherous ruler that may be on paper better in agreeing with 25% of your principles vs. the other sides 0-5% concurrence.
In post-WWII, the French said it would have been better for the French soul and morality and post-War politics if the Vichy Gov't never existed and the Nazis had ruled the whole country directly rather than have NIABNOs (Nazis In All But Name Only) give them cover.
Same with Mccain. His treachery is against Republican principles and his backroom deals betraying his leadership has a long history. He will be better on Iraq and abortion - but Iraq will be even clearer in November and the public will resist Obama surrendering in a war we now at great cost have 99% won. On abortion, McCain might appoint conservative justices, or he might once again betray his Party and revert to the guy who said fellow Arizonian Sandra Day O'Connor was his model of a Great Justice. He favors tax cuts for the rich coupled with huge new goverment programs. Allowing that discredited voodoo that has turned America into a debt-riddled wastrel nation of reckless spenders to persist.
And part of the problem the Republicans have is an intolerant, arrogant Religious Right, scaring off young and female voters by conducting themselves as a Christian Taliban led by foaming at the mouth hick idiots.
Blocking energy exploration, limiting nuclear power until a "politically acceptable waste solution is agreed to, shutting down institutions and right-leaning media outlets, huge new carbon use fees, globalism, immigration?
McCain is right there with Obama.
And having a Republican push things like open Borders, ANWAR as sacred, a "compromise" with Teddy over immigration amnesty, equal time in broadcasting with the MSM excepted because everyone knows they are neutral and objective -and huge new stacks of regulation and added taxes against US industry - MAKES THAT ALL MORE LIKELY TO PASS THAN IF OBAMA IS PRESIDENT.
Because McCain would have the usual brainless "loyal to the Commander in Chief" types dragged along over to the Democratic side with him as the media hails his "bipartisanship".
It might be best for true conservatives to sit this one out - and suck up the damage like they did in 1964 so they have impetous ot reform - rather than pretend their religious intolerance, corporate & K-street whoring to the wealthy, screwing the middle class, driving away younger voters and women is all just fine because Big Bucks Republican donors are still happy with them.
You don't have to vote for Obama. Sit it out.
Remember that the 1964 Election untimately cost the Dems the South and the Midwest. Or remember that the 4 years the radicals and McGovernites had under Jimmy Carter led to 30 years where they had effectively barred themselves from office by their and Carter's performance in those sorry years. And cost the Democrats the patriots and middle class - until Bush and the corporate crony Republican globalist's betrayal of them started driving them back to the Democrats.
This "most liberal senator" dreck is really laughable. Do you really think Obama is more liberal than Feingold or Frank? Bernie Sanders? And most liberal in Congress? Does the name Kucinich ring any bells?
Barney Frank isn't a Senator, and both Feingold and Sanders are better than Obama on gun rights.
Really, though, once you get far enough to the left or right it becomes pointless to argue about relative positioning.
I thought libertarians were republicans who believed in evolution--you know, the type of voter that was disgusted when half the republican candidates for president raised their hand when the moderator asked, "How many of you don't believe in the theory of evolution."
Those are the obamcons.
not being a luddite > worrying about taxes.
What good is it to be a "real conservative" if half your party wants to burn the library of alexandria?
"you know, the type of voter that was disgusted when half the republican candidates for president raised their hand when the moderator asked, "How many of you don't believe in the theory of evolution."
There were 10 candidates in that debate and three, Huckabee, Tancredo, and Brownback, raised their hands. Those three all dropped out of the race. 3 out of 10 is not half.
Palin, Jindal, and Huckabee are all strong favorites by the republican base for VP.
Each believes creationism should be taught along side evolution in school.
I thought libertarians were republicans who believed in evolution
No, there are fundamentalist Christian libertarians too. Christianity is highly compatible with the notion of the government butting the hell out of people's business.
I do concede that it was not half, thanks for fact checking.
I should have said, "virtually half!" and I woulda kept my rhetorical point.
Christianity is compatable with science to I hear, just ask Hypatia.
"Or remember that the 4 years the radicals and McGovernites had under Jimmy Carter led to 30 years where they had effectively barred themselves from office by their and Carter's performance in those sorry years."
But remember that there have been several generations of thoroughly "re-educated" people that have come of voting age since then. Don't count on the sane voters to see the light after 4 years of leftist rule. Soon there won't be any sane voters left.
And keep in mind that a President Obama will probably have a Democratic House and Senate pumping bilge to the White House for his rubber stamp. A lot of damage can happen in 4 years, especially if there's no opposition. What if there's another attack on the US? Do you want Bambi answering that call? The next president might get to nominate two Supreme Court justices, who can't be voted out after 4 years. Does that make you, known lover of the "lawyers in robes", feel comfortable? Yes, McCain might nominate another O'Connor. Obama definitely wouldn't; he'd appoint someone far worse.
Science and Religion aren't opposites. There's no dichotomy between them. They're two different things, in two different realms, and should stay there.
It's the politically religious that keep me from ever contemplating becoming a member of the Republican party. And it's the religiously political that drove me from the Democratic party.
"If following the teaching of Jesus is a good way to live, or philosophy for a whole country even, why add the magic?"
Philosophy isn't religion. And if you read the New Testament, specifically the Gospels of Christ, you'll see that the philosophical was simply a means toward the religious. Christ didn't want followers to admire his philosophy. He wanted them to worship God. The philosophy was a way of winning converts, as well as the "magic".
And the Gospels are not political documents. Christ didn't care who you voted for, or how the State was run. Render unto Cæsar. The theocons forget (or ignore) this.
Since LBJ prematurely left office in shame there have been three Democrat presidential victories. In the same time period there have been seven Republican ones. This isn't an accident.
This "most liberal senator" dreck is really laughable. Do you really think Obama is more liberal than Feingold or Frank? Bernie Sanders? And most liberal in Congress? Does the name Kucinich ring any bells?
Neither Barney Frank nor Dennis Kucinich are members of the United States Senate.
It's hard to understand principled philosophical conservatives supporting the world's most liberal US Presidential candidate. The Obamacons are sort of like Jews for Jesus.
More like “Jews for Jihad.”
Really Ann, I thought TNR'S article on Hare Krishna Necons for Obama was more likely to interest 'barely but bitterly clinging to whatever whoevers' for Obama.
downtownlad: Guess Fen is the bigot.
Dtl, if instead of Obama attending Trinity United for 20 years where the preacher preached and the congregation cheered hatred of whitey, we had McCain attending Westboro Baptist for 20 years where the preacher preached and the congregation cheered hatred of homosexuals, maybe then you'd grasp how repugnant such a presidential candidate really is, but I doubt it.
LarsPorsena said...
Fen: Sullivan thinks the Surge is working: "Petraeus deserves the lion's share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped."
Lars: Tell Sully "luck" had nothing to do with it.
Yah, I noticed that too. When we defeat the jihadists, Sullivan and his ilk will play "the USSR collapsed all on its own" card again.
[...]
Dtl ...maybe then you'd grasp how repugnant such a presidential candidate really is, but I doubt it.
Its helps to remember that, like most Leftists, dtl doesn't really beleive in the things he lectures us about. He'll never grasp the racism and bigotry of Obama's little hate-America hate-whitey madrassa because his ethics are situational. He only takes a stand against hatred when its directed at him.
I have always considered the TNR a bit on the liberal side, and this time around, it seems to have been in the tank for Obama for awhile. So, I don't really give the article much credibility, except as wishful thinking on their part.
For the most part, I agree that Obama is almost the last candidate a libertarian would support. Even when McCain is bad on a subject, Obama comes in significantly worse.
I think part of the reason* why the “Obamacons” have inspired so much derision and mockery is because while they profess to be “conservatives” or “libertarians” – none of them seem to be able to articulate a policy reason for why they prefer an Obama presidency.
Granted many people vote for President based on all sorts of reasons that have little to do with policy but if you are someone who is identified as influential in the area of public policy and someone whose voice in that area carries some weight and you can’t come up with a better reason than “I think Obama stands for a fresh start” then you really cannot expect to be taken seriously.
* The other reason is because some of them such as Andrew Sullivan are neither conservative nor libertarian and because others are people that no one has heard of even though we're supposed to be impressed that their names are added to such as an undistinguished list.
Bruce Hayden said: "For the most part, I agree that Obama is almost the last candidate a libertarian would support."
I'm about as libertarian as they come, and I think that Obama is the lesser of the two evils. That doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time voting for him. The primary reason I think he's the lesser of the two evils is that foreign policy is the area of policy that POTUS has the ability to affect most, "war is the health of the state," and Obama seems less pro-war than McCain. Also, in a formulation I've used before on this blog, if government is going to have a preferential option for any group of people, as it arguably must, I'd rather it be a preferential option for the poor than a preferential option for the rich. Government by its very nature prefers the rich, and has been instrumental in making many of the rich rich in the first place. Obama, or at least his rhetoric, seems to promise a counterbalance to that. But again, I'm not going to waste my time voting for either Coke or Pepsi. Both make my tummy hurt.
Oh, and I forgot to repeat another consideration I've mentioned before: Obama so far seems to have represented family values in his personal life better than has McCain, who promptly divorced the wife that stood by him while he was a POW to shack up with a new rich trophy wife with Mafia connections.
Obama so far seems to have represented family values in his personal life better than has McCain
By taking his children to be indoctrinated by racists every week?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा