New new election thread

[Edie]

I looked pretty carefully and I couldn't find another new election thread. If I missed it, go ahead and merge this one.

 

Anyway, interesting article about some conservative republicans going Obama's way

 

Why some conservatives are backing Obama

 

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

 

Monday, July 7, 2008

 

(07-07) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The "Obamacans" that Sen. Barack Obama used to joke about - Republican apostates who whispered their support for his candidacy - have morphed into a new phenomenon, or syndrome, as detractors like to call it: the Obamacons.

 

These are conservatives who have publicly endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee, dissidents from the brain trust of think tanks, ex-officials and policy magazines that have fueled the Republican Party since the 1960s. Scratch the surface of this elite, and one finds a profound dismay that is far more damaging to the GOP than the usual 10 percent of registered Republicans expected to switch sides during a presidential election.

 

"The untold story of the Bush administration is the deliberate annihilation of the Reaganite, small-government wing of the Republican Party," said Michael Greve, director of the Federalism Project at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "A lot of people are very bitter about it."

 

Many conservatives and their brethren, the free-market, socially liberal libertarians, are deeply skeptical of Obama's rhetorical flirtations with free-market ideas and view his policies as orthodox liberalism. Yet one measure of their rupture with the GOP is their open disregard for Republican nominee John McCain and their now almost-wistful view of a president the Republicans tried to impeach.

 

"When he leaves the room, everybody thinks he just agreed with them," Greve said of Obama. "We don't know if you're really buying a pig in a poke here. It could be the second coming of the Clinton administration. If people have any confidence in that, I think a whole lot of conservatives would vote for him."

 

Such sentiments reflect a collapse of the "big tent" conservative coalition that Republican President Ronald Reagan forged in 1980, uniting free-market, small-government types, Christian evangelicals, cultural traditionalists and anti-communists, now called neoconservatives. The neoconservatives, whose intellectual leaders include New York Times columnist David Brooks and Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol, remain firmly inside the GOP and strongly back McCain, who appeals to their model of "national greatness." So do mainstream conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, which issues regular attacks against Obama's economic plans, and the traditionalist magazine National Review.

 

The left often lumps these factions together, but the Iraq war and President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" that led to an expansion of government have ruptured the coalition. Many conservatives are aghast at the rise in spending and debt under the Bush administration, its expansion of executive power, and what they see as a trampling of civil liberties and a taste for empire.

 

"I do know libertarians who think Obama is the Antichrist, that he's farther left than John Kerry, much farther left than Bill Clinton, and you'd clearly have to be insane to vote for this guy," said David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "But there are libertarians who say, 'Oh yeah? Do you think Obama will increase spending by $1 trillion, because that's what Republicans did over the past two presidential terms. So really, how much worse can he be?' And there are certainly libertarians who think Obama will be better on the war and on foreign policy, on executive power and on surveillance than McCain."

 

Libertarians are tired of Christian evangelicals, who they believe captured the GOP under President Bush. Evangelicals, for their part, are skeptical of McCain, who in 2000 called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." McCain has tried to make amends, promising to stand firm on abortion and same-sex marriage, and appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, but mistrust runs deep.

 

Douglas Kmiec is former chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and now a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University and a devout Catholic. Kmiec endorsed Obama earlier this year, despite his conviction that Obama "believes in a pretty progressive agenda."

 

Kmiec said his support deepened after meeting with Obama and other faith leaders last month, during which the busy candidate spent 2 1/2 in a freewheeling discussion with people who differed with him.

 

"I think he's the right person at the right time to re-establish principles of constitutional governance that have been ill treated by the current administration, and to free us from the tar paper that we know is Iraq," Kmiec said, adding that many Republicans privately agree. "I think he's a man in the market for every good idea he can find, and he doesn't care what label it comes with."

 

David Friedman, the son of late conservative icon and Nobel economist Milton Friedman, has also endorsed Obama. Calling McCain a "nationalist," Friedman, an economist at Santa Clara University, thinks Obama could turn out like the liberals who deregulated New Zealand's economy.

 

"Of the two, Obama is less bad and at least has a chance in some ways of being good," said Friedman. Friedman likes Obama's University of Chicago advisers such as Austan Goolsbee and Cass Sunstein, who he believes are trying to forge a new leftism that incorporates free-market views. "I don't expect to agree in general with them," Friedman said, "but I certainly would be happy if the left became more libertarian, since the right seems to be less libertarian than it used to be."

 

Many see the Iraq war as hostile to conservative values and as a "friend of the state" - something that inherently expands the reach of the government, as Milton Friedman once described war.

 

"People don't understand that there has always been a small but very significant element of conservatives who have been against the war from day one and who, like me, also hate George Bush and think he's the most incompetent president in American history," said Bruce Bartlett, a supply-side economist who coined the term Obamacons. "The few people who are slavishly pro-Republican, live or die, slavishly pro-Bush like the Weekly Standard crowd, have gotten lot more publicity than they deserve."

 

Many conservatives are looking for a Clintonesque "Sister Soulja" or "end welfare as we know it" moment from Obama, a concrete demonstration of a willingness to abandon Democratic dogma.

 

"The Republicans have left the libertarian baby on the doorstep, but Democrats won't open the door," said Boaz. "There are people saying Obama's a University of Chicago Democrat, and you can't spend 10 years at the University of Chicago without having some appreciation for markets. I'd like to believe that. I just don't see the rubber meeting the road."

 

Matt Welch, editor in chief of the libertarian Reason Magazine and author of "McCain, the Myth of a Maverick," thinks Obama's conservative support "comes as much anything else from people being exhausted with the Republican coalition, who are mad at one wing or another, and they just think it's time for them to lose. It's just, 'Look, we're out of ideas, we're exhausted, it's not working, we don't know what our principles are anymore, let's take one for the team and have a black guy be the president for a while.' "

 

Obama is actively trying to switch one prominent Republican to an Obamacan: former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who met with both candidates last month.

 

Obama's conservative fan club

 

'Obamacans' - Sen. Barack Obama's term for Republicans who whisper their support for him.

 

'Obamacons'- leading conservatives of various stripes who have declared their support for the Democrat.

 

 

Here is a sampling of views of conservatives who have either endorsed Obama or are considering endorsing him.

 

 

Andrew Sullivan, conservative blogger for the Atlantic Monthly: "Obama's story confirms what conservatives have always believed about America. He is the black son of an immigrant, raised by a modest single mother and yet despite the obstacles inherent in his background he is approaching the pinnacle of American success. Isn't he the poster boy for what conservatives have always assured us is possible in America?"

 

Armstrong Williams, an African American conservative and talk radio host who is not an Obamacon but said he might become one: "I'm not going to just blindly go to the polls and vote for someone because they're a Republican anymore. I wouldn't have given two cents of thought to this in the past, but fortunately I'm maturing and fortunately for the first time in my life I could vote for a Democrat for president." Williams refuses to base his vote on race, "however the stain of America is race, human slavery and de jure segregation and no one can ignore the fact that since the founding of this country, only white men have occupied the White House."

 

Larry Hunter, supply-side economist who helped write Republicans' 1994 Contract With America: "How can I possibly support a candidate who proposes domestic policies (especially tax and economic policies) that are completely antithetical to everything I believe? ... It is indicative of how much I value individual freedom and how profoundly important I believe foreign policy to be at this juncture of American history that I am enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama for president. It doesn't hurt that McCain himself is only slightly less wrong on economic and tax policy. ... My sentiments on Obama are best captured in the note a conservative friend of mine, Wendell Gunn, wrote Obama when he sent him a campaign contribution: 'My contribution to your campaign is based on hope and change: My hope that you will change your mind on the tax and economic policies you are proposing.' "

 

Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, writing in the American Conservative: "We should take (McCain) at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush's misadventures is irrevocable. ... He is the candidate of the War Party. The election of John McCain would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of liberation."

 

Douglas Kmiec, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan and first Bush administrations: "I'm disappointed that a legacy of great achievement that I think Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush brought to the Republican Party (has ended): in terms of fiscal responsibility and conveying as Reagan did that a free market and personal responsibility and defense of home and local community often redounds to the happiness of the human person. Somehow we've managed in the last eight years to forget all the basics, to violate all of the first principles. We've lost sight of the things that really mattered to us. If I had to give us a report card, I'd have to say, in the way the nuns used to express it, 'not promoted to the following grade.' "

 

Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower: "Deep in America's heart, I believe, is the nagging fear that our best years as a nation are over. We are disliked overseas and feel insecure at home. We watch as our federal budget hemorrhages red ink and our civil liberties are eroded. Crises in energy, health care and education threaten our way of life and our ability to compete internationally. ... My grandfather was pursued by both political parties ... (and) went on to win the presidency with the indispensable help of a 'Democrats for Eisenhower' movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation. It is in this great tradition that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president."

 

David Friedman, economist at Santa Clara University and son of Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman: "Bush was elected on a pro-market, small government platform and proceeded to greatly expand the size of government - and not only in the form of military spending. His view of the legitimate power of the executive branch, including the authority to deliberately violate federal law, I find frightening. Perhaps, if we are lucky, Obama will turn out to be the anti-Bush."

 

Source: Chronicle interviews

 

and subjects' writings.

 

 

E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../MN3T11JI0P.DTL

[Good Old Neon]

While we

[uncool2pillow]

If the Republicans had nominated about anyone running besides McCain, I would've probably followed suit as an Obamacan. I have a lot of respect for the man, but as a conservative, I just can't pull the trigger while McCain is the other option. Thanks for posting that interesting article.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

If the Republicans had nominated about anyone running besides McCain, I would've probably followed suit as an Obamacan. I have a lot of respect for the man, but as a conservative, I just can't pull the trigger while McCain is the other option. Thanks for posting that interesting article.

I suspect there's an untapped percentage of Democrats that have yet to commit to Obama for the same reason.

[IRememberDBoon]

If the Republicans had nominated about anyone running besides McCain, I would've probably followed suit as an Obamacan. I have a lot of respect for the man, but as a conservative, I just can't pull the trigger while McCain is the other option. Thanks for posting that interesting article.

 

 

you dont think republicans are fiscally conservative do you?

[JUDE]

you dont think republicans are fiscally conservative do you?

 

comparatively speaking, yes.

[bjorn_skurj]

comparatively speaking, yes.

Compared to what? Are not Reagan and Bush II the greatest federal spenders of all?

[JUDE]

Compared to what? Are not Reagan and Bush II the greatest federal spenders of all?

 

I don't base my beliefs on just two "Republicans", of course I don't base my beliefs on reality for the most part either.

[uncool2pillow]

I think McCain was one of the few Republicans who didn't go hog wild at the trough of earmarks while they were the majority.

[MattZ]

Jim Webb will not accept a VP invite:

 

"Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President.

"A year and a half ago, the people of Virginia honored me with election to the U.S. Senate. I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen America's national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability. I have worked hard to deliver upon that commitment, and I am convinced that my efforts and talents toward those ends are best served in the Senate.

 

"In this regard, the bipartisan legislative template we were able to put into effect through 18 months of work in order to enact the new, landmark GI Bill will serve as a prototype for my future endeavors in government. This process, wherein we brought 58 Senators from both parties to the table as co-sponsors, along with more than 300 members of the House, gives me renewed confidence that the Congress can indeed work effectively across party lines and address the concerns of our citizens.

 

"At this time I am also renewing my commitment to work hard to make sure that Senator Obama wins both Virginia and the presidency this November. He is a man who speaks eloquently about our national goals and calls for the practical solutions that must be put into place to obtain them. I will proudly campaign for him."

[Beltmann]

Compared to what? Are not Reagan and Bush II the greatest federal spenders of all?

Additionally, I've repeatedly encountered reports that say McCain's proposals, in total, add far more to the federal deficit than Obama's. Might be accurate, might not.

[Guest Jules]

Additionally, I've repeatedly encountered reports that say McCain's proposals, in total, add far more to the federal deficit than Obama's. Might be accurate, might not.

Of course Obama will help the deficit, seeing that he will be taxing the shit out of everything.

[MattZ]

Additionally, I've repeatedly encountered reports that say McCain's proposals, in total, add far more to the federal deficit than Obama's. Might be accurate, might not.

 

Not only that, but McCain says he will balance the budget in his first term. Numbers? Figures? He doesn't have any. He'll get back to us on that.

 

Ongoing war + tax cuts = balanced budget?

[sweetheart-mine]

Not only that, but McCain says he will balance the budget in his first term.

just heard this this afternoon. if mccain is elected and balances the budget in his first term, i will start flying again. that means it's highly highly highly unlikely. it's kind of amazing he'd make such an impossible statement, given his other plans. who could believe he'd be able to fulfill this promise, even if they like him and are voting for him?

[bjorn_skurj]

Even if McCain wins, he will in all likelihood face a Congress even more Democratic than it is now, so my prediction of what he will be able to accomplish in his first term will fall somewhere between "jack shit" and "not too f-ing much."

[MattZ]

This is really just too funny. Clips of McCain from a Town Hall mtg in CO. My favorite is at the 00:32 mark when everyone realizes they are supposed to laugh.

 

[fatheadfred]

I think McCain was one of the few Republicans who didn't go hog wild at the trough of earmarks while they were the majority.

 

Earmarks are a drop in the bucket. The bucket is full of contractual spending while colonizing other countries.

 

This is really just too funny. Clips of McCain from a Town Hall mtg in CO. My favorite is at the 00:32 mark when everyone realizes they are supposed to laugh.

 

 

Yeah, his delivery is awful. Crooks and liars has video of 61 y.o. female librarian being escorted out. Truly shameful. I tried to picture myself, a 30 something male, doing the same thing and would expect that treatment, but her, come on.

[Moe_Syzlak]

So I had a thought and since this is a discussion board, I thought I would see if this thought sparked discussion. Please keep in mind that this is off the top of my head, not well researched and not a "position" I am taking. Merely an opportunity to air said thought and see if it makes sense to others. Anyway...

 

I was thinking about a key GOP issue (or at least marketing slogan): "redistribution of wealth." I don't have current numbers, but this seems to show that states that vote democrat disproportionately pay into the system, while "red states" disproportionately benefit. Looking at the map, I'm guessing it is not welfare recipients with an entitlement mentality in big cities that are receiving the bulk of this benefit. Rather, I speculate that it is things such as corn and oil subsidies that result in these numbers. Again, this is just a wild hair of an idea and I freely admit I have no research to back this up. Take away THAT redistribution of wealth and my guess is GOP voters would be none to happy about it. I know welfare is not close to the biggest component of federal spending, but still...

 

Is this just a wildly myopic view (probably) or is there some miniscule bit of validity to this?

[fatheadfred]

So I had a thought and since this is a discussion board, I thought I would see if this thought sparked discussion. Please keep in mind that this is off the top of my head, not well researched and not a "position" I am taking. Merely an opportunity to air said thought and see if it makes sense to others. Anyway...

 

I was thinking about a key GOP issue (or at least marketing slogan): "redistribution of wealth." I don't have current numbers, but this seems to show that states that vote democrat disproportionately pay into the system, while "red states" disproportionately benefit. Looking at the map, I'm guessing it is not welfare recipients with an entitlement mentality in big cities that are receiving the bulk of this benefit. Rather, I speculate that it is things such as corn and oil subsidies that result in these numbers. Again, this is just a wild hair of an idea and I freely admit I have no research to back this up. Take away THAT redistribution of wealth and my guess is GOP voters would be none to happy about it. I know welfare is not close to the biggest component of federal spending, but still...

 

Is this just a wildly myopic view (probably) or is there some miniscule bit of validity to this?

 

Since there are more poor folk (100g's or less) it makes statistical sense to have a populist slant. However, the GOP prefer to dance the line w/ lobbyists meanwhile pimping the emotional issue(s) that sway an uninformed voting bloc. To the GOP, an educated, informed public is the burr in the saddle. While I can't speak to an increase an education, the peeps are forced to become informed to due personal economic situations.

 

So to your theory, no. They don't want to piss of their meal ticket.

[Tweedling]

Since there are more poor folk (100g's or less) it makes statistical sense to have a populist slant........

 

100gs or less is "poor folk"?

 

To the GOP, an educated, informed public is the burr in the saddle

This type of talk is what turned me off of the democratic party in college.

Maybe if I was smarter I could be a liberal.........nah

[fatheadfred]

100gs or less is "poor folk"?

 

 

This type of talk is what turned me off of the democratic party in college.

Maybe if I was smarter I could be a liberal.........nah

 

On their radar 100g's for a couple is poor. Sorry for the misspeak. So 50 or less per person.

 

I avoid either party as a group. I am not much into group identification. And I'd like to also delineate between informed and educated as there are many college educated people that are uninformed and vice versa.

[sweetheart-mine]

On their radar 100g's for a couple is poor. Sorry for the misspeak. So 50 or less per person.

as a college-educated whatever who was always not interested in climbing any ladders, corporate, social or otherwise, i see this as really something. and i'm not saying i don't believe it, though whose numbers are those, originally? it's very possible, though. there are two working people in my house (actually, only two people, period). in the late '80s, we probably considered ourselves middle class. in the '90s, that pretty much held. since around 2000, we're both aware of slippage. working class seemed more apt for a lot of that time, although in the last couple of years our numbers haven't even connected us to the working class. trying to avoid the poverty category, but if it's only because of the category name, who cares. interesting, though: what passes for poverty today includes people who work and don't have a lot of extra but still can't and wouldn't complain -- i mean, we eat, we like where we live, and so on. we think we're pretty fortunate! but the income isn't even half what is now the poverty line? makes me think there needs to be a new category for longer-term poverty-stricken. i mean, a lot of our friends are used to this too. maybe at this point only the truly poor are the homeless. people who work and eat and live modestly aren't poor just because they're not hotshot consumers who want to buy the very latest thing every ten days. but . . . well. it's just curious.

 

not a fan of categories, in general, but the study of this sort of classification as it has changed in our society is worthwhile in the big picture and probably says a lot about the country's direction.

[Artifice]

You cant use a fixed income number to determine wealth, etc. There is far too much income disparity in the U.S. across the same job functions based on geography.

 

I have two friends who are insurance defense attorneys. One makes about $65k in the midwest, and the other guy makes well over $125k in the NE. They literally do the same work for loosely related firms.

 

Any discussion of wealth, imo, should always be centered on discretionary spending power based on a national index, and more importantly, on retained/accumulated wealth. But back to the discussion...

[Guest Jules]

You cant use a fixed income number to determine wealth, etc. There is far too much income disparity in the U.S. across the same job functions based on geography.

 

I have two friends who are insurance defense attorneys. One makes about $65k in the midwest, and the other guy makes well over $125k in the NE. They literally do the same work for loosely related firms.

 

Any discussion of wealth, imo, should always be centered on discretionary spending power based on a national index, and more importantly, on retained/accumulated wealth. But back to the discussion...

"cost of living"

[fatheadfred]

"cost of living"

 

I couldn't agree more. However, our federal taxes do not consider this...which just made me realize the national sales tax makes sense since your cost of goods are also part of the cost of living index.