MyDD :: I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama

I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama

by jsfox, Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM EST

These are not my words , but those of one Larry Hunter, who's creds as a conservative Republican are lengthy, to say the least. Yesterday he wrote a piece for the Daily News outlining his reasons for why he is voting for Obama.

It's an interesting article some of which, especially on Obama's policies and positions I think he is reading wrong, but so be it. The money quote comes in the first three paragraphs.

I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.

This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.

When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

Whether Larry has truly seen the light and left the dark side I couldn't say. The news here - another nail in the Republican Party coffin just got hammered home.

Cross posted at DKos

Tags: Larry Hunter, Barach Obama, Republican, Obamacan (all tags)

Permalink :: 81 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: I'm a lifelong (2.00 / 2)

I saw that. The Obamacans are very real, and every day is yet another affirmation of that fact.

So sorry to those who'd hoped and insisted otherwise.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

Real and temporary.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (2.00 / 1)

And? If we treat 'em right they may stick around.

People like you have made it plain that nothing we say or do will be enough. Nothing.

Why should I try when you've made it plain you hate me and my candidate?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:45:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

I don't want people who think Ronald Reagan was a great president and Bill Clinton wasn't in our party.

For those of you who are young imagine having people who think Bush Jr was a Greater president to Obama.

Your kids will be choosing those people over you one day...

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (2.00 / 3)

That's some great insubstantial partisan attitude you have there. I bet you wonder why more people aren't won over by that winning attitude, too.

I'm glad to see your baseless, pointless predictions are still flowing like a river as well.

By the by, I still remember months ago when you compared Reagan to Hitler simply because Obama had the unmitigated gall to acknowledge that Reagan pulled a lot of crossover votes. Your joke status hasn't changed, I see.

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

Reagan and Bush Jr have all but destroyed this country in regards to debt.

If it wasn't for Bush Sr and Bill Clinton we would all be even more screwed than we are.

I have no patience for Reagan was the bomb folks and I never will.

That people who call themselves democrats are embracing Reagan and Bush Jr is scary to em.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

You could have just typed "I have no patience" and been completely truthful.

You make a huge amount of assumptions about individual people based on what you believe to be the standard truth about their political preferences and then arrogantly claim we shouldn't "admit" them into the Democratic Party. I've never seen anyone so desperate to peg anyone and everyone into an us vs. them scenario. No wonder you thrive off the PUMA nonsense.

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (2.00 / 1)

read your own posts then meditate on the old adage that you get what you give...

by zerosumgame on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HOLD ON A SECOND (2.00 / 1)

You just PRAISED BUSH SR.! Out of the party with you!

by JJE on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (2.00 / 6)

Um. You don't want people who've come to their senses to join us?

You don't want to grow the brand? You just want a mutual circle-jerk where everybody agrees? That's called an echo chamber.

HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO WIN IF YOU ONLY WANT PEOPLE YOU'VE ALWAYS AGREED WITH TO JOIN YOU? Yes, I shouted that. Your post is one of the dumbest things I have read in my entire life.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

dtaylor2 is always concerned about something.

S/he is the quintessential "This is bad news for Democrats" poster.

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

So you are attacking me for saying that Reagan was bad?

How long have you been a democrat?

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

Uh oh John, dtaylor's Democratic Purity test is coming! You're going to get de-admitted from the party!

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (2.00 / 1)

No, I'm "attacking" you for being a concern troll.

The context of your post is irrelevant because the premise is always the same.

This. Is. Bad. For. Democrats.

Reagan was probably one of the worst presidents ever. I grew up in the 80's, I remember his anti-AIDs crusade and Nancy's laughable campaign to have ketchup classified as a vegetable.

That's not the point though. As with EVERY single piece of good news reported on this site, in this case being a diary reporting more evidence of a growing coalition of Obama supporters, you think it's bad. It's terrible.

Your act is old. But I must say it is fun to shoot your posts down.

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just say no (none / 0)

to the bait.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

Now John must repent, curse Reagan ten times over and do a ceremonious re-registration to the Democratic party so that he can still be admitted for exclusive membership.

Your standards for democrats seem a little obsessive compulsive.

by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:44:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

Some of these Obama supporters may be trying form that single system party that I see coming. Well, it seems that whoever on the right or left will work together will do so. This is probably the beginning of such political talk. New World Order? I hope not, but from what I saw it seemed peaceful--it could be our first step towards enlightenment.

by Check077 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 4)

Any suggestion that he was not a formative force in American politics and society is incredibly naive.

As much as I hated Reagan's policies, he created the framework that we live by today. That we are only starting to suffer from societal and economic collapse now is a remarkable testement to the strength of Reagan's policy, if not its enduring nature.

What I find ironic is that some are arguing against any acknowledgement of Reagan's contribution to our culture, but are trying their best to get his ideological grand-nephew elected president.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

Dracomicron,

I know Reagan was powerful. Bush Jr. was powerful too. I just don't think I can have much in common with someone who thinks that Bush Jr or Reagan were great presidents.

I don't think we want to be admitting those people into the democratic party.

Its a different thing if they USED To believe that.

But the anti-McCain because he is too liberal wing of the GOP isn't welcome to me.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 1)

I've never seen a person put so many qualifications on who can join the political party that they themselves belong to. Its almost like you crave excluding people for no reason but your own personal belief system. That's pretty judgmental.

Here's a free clue for you: no one "admits" people into a political party. There's no gatekeeper. There's no one passing judgment on if someone's political ideology is pure enough. I realize this blows apart your personal worldview, so try and absorb it slowly.

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 1)

So why all the hate for PUMA?

They are in our party?

Or are you only inclusive when Reagan types are concerned?

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:32:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 2)

Let me be very clear:

Fuck PUMA.

That is all.

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

Ah so its ok for you to not like PUMA lifelong democrats but not ok for me to not like HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE REAGAN was my hero types????

Such a double standard

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PUMAs aren't "lifelong Democrats" (2.00 / 2)

You know how I know? Because they're not Democrats NOW.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PUMAs aren't "lifelong Democrats" (none / 0)

no they are not they are the anti-PUMAs

You love it when it goes your way so there is clearly no values problems with PUMAs because you love the GOP PUMAs so much.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PUMAs aren't "lifelong Democrats" (none / 0)

Um, he's talking about the PUMAs. Nice try though.

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

Oh noes. You got me all figgered out.

No one said you have to like them. Liking them and thinking its good that Obama has a large coalition of supporters are not mutually inclusive.

As for the PUMAs, they are riddled with racists, are attempting (unsuccessfully) to extort money from Obama's donors, and generally like to pretend that their despicable acts are done "for the good of the Democratic Party".

Which makes you fit right in.

One of these groups can only help us achieve a Democratic victory in November - that group is disaffected Rethugs.

The other group only exists to demonize the Democratic Nominee.

And like I said, Fuck 'em.

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

At what cost?

Is 2008 the last free election in our life times or will there be other elections where the traditional allies that you want out won't be replaced by the good time friends who love Reagan?

That is my point.

real AND temporary.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 1)

PUMAs have apparently made their choice, and that is to not back the Democratic candidate. That's their choice, and its not up to the party as a whole to bend over backwards to appease them - especially considering the trifling numbers. PUMAs are a fringe group, nothing more. If they can't get outside their own self-centered worldview and take a look at the bigger picture, that's their loss, not the Democratic Party's.

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 1)

I'm sorry, I am unable to understand what you're trying to say there. Please elaborate.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then my answer is "It doesn't matter".

If Obama governs how I expect him to, then there will be an even larger coalition of so-called lefties and righties looking to re-elect him in 2012.

And, I imagine, the PUMAs will still be pouting in the corner.

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 2)

The good time friends who love Reagan but are voting for Obama this time around share the Democratic view that the Republican party has become authoritarian, statist, war-mongering, and corrupt. What's amazing about the Republicans this year, actually, are the sheer number who have drawn this conclusion, even though most will still vote for McCain for "Team R vs. Team D" reasons. By my read of polls approx. 1/3 of those who describe themselves as Republicans share these views.

As for the Puma people, they're basically people who want Hillary Clinton to be president very badly. Some love the idea of a woman in the oval office. Others are Clinton loyalists. If Obama had beaten Edwards in a tight primary this year, I don't think most of these voters would have had any problems voting a straight Dem ticket (I'm not talking about the sock puppets, shills, and Republicans who supported Clinton and, when she lost, went home).

If Clinton runs in 2012 or 2016 and gets beaten by an Edwards, Warner, or anyone else, who thinks we wouldn't hear the same talk about the winner being a pied piper? (no matter what the Dems did to reform the primary process, how the vote fell, or what policies the winner supported).

Tell me I'm wrong. Just don't see any real connection here between the politics and policy. This is about identity politics and personality (and, well, what can one say, the situation is what it is, but there's nothing the Dems can really do to appease the hard-core Puma voter but make Hillary Clinton the nominee).

by IncognitoErgoSum on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

There may not be this cycle but Hillary has been in mainstream politics longer and comes from a tradition far more steeped in excellence in terms of results than Obama.

I am not trying to say anything bad about Obama in saying that but I think you will admit that he was not part of anything as successful as Clinton 92-2000 or even Clinton Governor of Ark.

The issue is that Obama stated repeatedly that Hillary's part in Clinton 92-2000 was very limited because she was only the wife and going on tea parties isn't diplomacy etc.

Thats the core reason you have a PUMA problem.

Hillary was more qualified except that is was Woman qualified and that doesn't count.

If Edwards had the same line then there will be a PUMA problem that cycle too.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

Look at you're saying. All you're laying out is an argument that anyone who voted for Obama during the primaries was stupid, sexist, or got duped. And, well, it's understandable why someone who supported Clinton during the heat of the primary season would believe this, but if you take a step back it's kind of silly.

Obama's position all along was that Clinton was certainly qualified to be president. He thought he was a better candidate because his vision was more in tune with the needs of the moment. Some people bought this pitch. Others didn't.

So let me ask. Were there any circumstances where by Obama could have won the primary and gotten the support of these Puma voters? My sense, no. You're on the cusp of arguing that the only acceptable result is one where she wins.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

Turncoats to our party! The big difference here is that they aren't voting for Democrats, but plenty of Republicans are. The PUMA's should know better.

by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

PUMA is pushing their members to vote McCain or don't vote at all. For someone so enthusiastic about a Democratic Purity Test for admission, it seems you're awfully willing to overlook the biggest indicator.

In case that was too much for you to follow: I'll take a well thought out conservative vote over the PUMA bitching any day. At least the conservative in the article is basing his vote on more than his personal vendetta.

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:35:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

Most PUMA types have voted with the party their whole lives except this one election.

Most Reagan was a great man types are voting with us this one time and then maybe again in 4 years but probably not.

In the long run the PUMA types are closer friends to you than the National Review types...

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

Again with the crystal ball gazing to justify your exclusionary worldview. Its amazing the lengths you'll go to to try and convince anyone that the people that hold their vote hostage out of self-entitlement and egotistical grandstanding are really the friends of the party trying to get a Democrat elected. You can't even see that the PUMAs violate every single purity test you're so eager to foist on anyone else that actually thought their vote through.

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

Lies, all lies.

PUMAs are riddled with racists and Rush-limbaugh chaos-types.

The vast majority of them (say, about 15 out of the grand total of 20) were never truly Democrats to begin with.

Dixicrats? Sure. But not true Progressives.

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 1)

"Most PUMA types have voted with the party their whole lives except this one election."

Yes, we should determine what's so different about this one election. Was it that a younger, seemingly less experienced candidate won the primary? No, wait, this has happened lots of times. Bill Clinton himself was one such candidate.

Was it that not all states got their votes counted fully? But wait, lots of primaries end before all states get to vote, and those two states wouldn't have altered the outcome anyway, no matter what weight you gave the results there.

Was it that a black guy with the name of Barack Hussein Obama won? It can't be. Heaven forbid that Harriet Christan types babbling about inadequate black males are affected in their decision to be PUMAs by the candidate's color.

Not all PUMAs are racists, but am pretty sure that all white racists in the Democratic Party have become PUMAs.

by Aris Katsaris2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

The ratio of experience and results in the loser to inexperience and lack of results from the winner has never before been as large as Obama beats Clinton.

Hillary ~30 years 16 as #1 target of GOP and 8 as part of most successful presidential administration in most of our lives.

Obama 1-2 years national political experience +6-8 more at state senate level with a few years doing social work type stuff before that.

Show me 15 to 1 experience gap. I give you all of American presidential history.

Show me 15 to 1.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 1)

vote for Laura

by wrb on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 1)

Hillary supposedly 30 years? Very cute. Please define precisely what sort of experience is eligible for us to include here. Ministerial, senatorial, gubernatorial? For it seems to me that her first actual office was as the New York senator -- starting in 2001.

Obama's own first office was in the Illinois Senate -- starting in 1997.

If you don't define exactly your criteria for eligible experience, your request becomes meaningless. By my own criteria, Obama's experience was longer than Hillary's by 4 years.

by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:02:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

So why all the hate for PUMA

Could it be because you appear to be working against the party?

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (2.00 / 4)

Okay. Let me make this very simple:

PUMA is trying to hand the presidency to the Republicans. The Obamacans are trying to help get the Democrat elected.

I want the Democrat to win. I side with the Obamacans. Moreover, the Obamacans I know personally are about the most rational and reasonable Republicans I know. I say this not because they're voting for Obama but rather because I've known them for ages and they've always been the intellectually honest ones.

Most Republicans (like most Democrats) love this country. Some Republicans are able to admit it when their party has hurt their country. Some of those folks are Obamacans.

I will absolutely side with someone who sides against his party for the betterment of the Constitution and our rights. I will not side with someone who switches parties because their feelings are hurt or because they consider the nomination system to be more important than any one of a hundred life and death issues.

I'll take the Obamacans. Some of them might stick around, but even if they don't we're still better off. I would point out that a lot of people I consider "Republicans" are still considered "Reagan Democrats." Those folks were Democrats then but they stuck around and now they're mostly Republicans.

The Obamacans will probably stay as long as it takes the Republican Party to get serious about our Constitution and our place in the world. Looking at the leadership of the Republican Party the Obamacans may be here for a long time.

The PUMAs, however, are spoilers. They don't believe in anything. They believe in a caricature of Senator Clinton. That's it!

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan was an important president (none / 0)

PUMA members who are going to vote McCain are most assuredly NOT in our party. They can be registered Democrats and not really be a Democrat (this means you, 2000 version of Joe Lieberman). Many Republicans are actually Libertarians who either don't know what that means, have learned Libertarian is a curse word, or are too afraid to vote for anything other than Dem or Rep. That doesn't make them real Republicans.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:22:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was going to say something... (none / 0)

...but you pretty much said it better than I would have.

There's only so much self-sabotage that we can do before we, well, sabotage ourselves. Turning away well-reasoned help on our own terms is insane.

What these Obamacans are amounting to is unconditional disarmament. I accept!

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

I don't think anyone has advocated ignoring low-info voters who are willing to be convinced that ours is the right/better side. High-info voters who love Reagan are either wealthy (and therefore voting self-interest), assholes (and aren't likely to switch sides), or ultra-conservatives who think everyone but them is going to hell. The only ones I really don't want in the party are the ultra-conservatives.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

Oops, I don't really want the assholes either, not that they'd switch. I wouldn't mind the wealthy coming to our side; many already have. For some of them, the environment and/or Iraq are so important that they trump every other issue, even the ones they might agree with Republicans on.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

OUR party?

Jesus, you spend MOST of your time running a 24/7 pity party because Senator Clinton lost, you DEMAND she be on the ticket or you are sitting this one out.

I have YET to see you say one really nice thing about the presumptive nominee of OUR party?

Sorry, I am not sure you really qualify to adminster the purity test for membership to the Democratic party at this point.

On Nov 4th, we elected "the smart guy" and the world celebrated!

by WashStateBlue on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:19:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

well... I was about 10 when Reagan was president
and my parents (and me by extension) thought
he was great. I still think he did some things
right (not many, but...)

Am I allowed in "your party"?

by lolo08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:53:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong (none / 0)

Is this the kind of mantra you guys keep telling yourself to get through each day that your predictions don't come true?

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a good quote, too (2.00 / 8)

Or maybe not. But here's the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.

These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.

by Angry White Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST

Re: This is a good quote, too (2.00 / 3)

Agreed!

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Probably talked to Doug Kmiec (2.00 / 3)

He's not the only Reagan guy who is pro-Obama. Doug Kmiec is as conservative as they come, but he's already endured being denied Catholic communion because of his support for getting change to Washington.

Intellectual conservatives have been horrified at what their Republican party has become. Modern Democrats are far closer to what they wanted when they first came to power; Republicans have become the party of welfare for big business and false pandering to evangelicals, not small government, fiscal responsibility, or even family values.

The more of these guys we can get on our side the better. Beyond that, we can hope that the true ideologues will go Bob Barr.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:37:11 PM EST

Re: Probably talked to Doug Kmiec (2.00 / 3)

These particular intellectual conservatives are also being intellectually honest in their choice. In this case Hunter makes it clear that he disagrees with Obama on many social & economic issues. But he stakes out the line on what he can live with - the comparison to venial and mortal sins is very good. It's clear that we're not winning over these Obamabots by wildly swerving to the right. Rather, it's because on the most critical issues for the nation (and even the world,) Obama is clearly right. (In case wordplay doesn't play well here, I certainly do mean right as in correct, not in an ideological sense.) Kmeic had basically the same take.

A drink whenever Palin makes a Well-argued, Semantically Intact, Logical and Lucid Argument -- or WASILLA for short.

by January 20 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

About Doug Kmiec (none / 0)

What's remarkable about Kmiec is that he's practically a one-issue voter on abortion, but he intellectually came to the understanding that Obama's plan would reduce the number of abortions dramatically (while still allowing them) due to emphasis on education and birth control (sorry George, not even true conservatives buy that birth control is abortion).

I have to wonder if William F. Buckley, who was known to be horrified at the direction the Republican party had taken, would have voted for Obama had he not passed away recently. He firmly believed that the conservative movement had essentially killed itself by not separating itself from Bush's Iraq policy immediately. You couldn't really find a person I disagreed with more than Buckley on fundamental issues, but I think he was on our side at his death.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll take an thought-out conservative vote (2.00 / 7)

...over any PUMA that holds their vote hostage any day.

The venial/mortal sin analogy is remarkably fitting.

by upstate girl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:24:55 PM EST

see this is what confuses me tremendously. (2.00 / 2)

your diary and some others here at mydd keep touting republicans who favour BO. while democrats should take any votes that come their way - how is this partisan? yet at the same time boost BO's progressivism. in my opinion it is this dichotomy that has created disappointment in recent days.

this site and generally people who blog here are progressives who believe in LIBERAL (yes, in caps) ideology - yet consistently we are hearing (and unfortunately seeing some in recent days) conservatives being touted here.

as far as i can tell - the purpose of mydd - to elect progressives and democrats. so why is touting conservatives and republican support (who believe in totally different principles than us) a good thing?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:16:30 PM EST

Re: see this is what confuses me tremendously. (none / 0)

Because we have to be pragmatic about this. If they turn out for Obama he wins, potentially he wins big.

Democrats tend to let the Republicans pouch their votes. Why not turn the tables on them for once.

Only an idiot turns down help if he/she needs it.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: see this is what confuses me tremendously. (2.00 / 2)

Especially when it's help which doesn't require one to sacrifice one's principles or interests at all. What this Republican is saying, essentially, is that the Bush administration has drifted so far in the direction of statism and authoritarianism he'd actually prefer Obama in the White House (not because it might clear the deck for 2012, or send the RNC a message, he finds the Dem policies preferable).

Two comments. Many Dems, I think, have difficulty seeing just how divided the Republican party is right now (because there is this large segment of small-government folk, libertarians, isolationists, etc., who think Bush has been a disaster for the GOP).

Second, this is very different from what is motivating the Puma people (who don't usually hide the fact that they don't support any aspect of McCain's agenda, their hope, clearly, is that if Obama loses Clinton would run again in 2012).

by IncognitoErgoSum on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Basic competence (2.00 / 1)

and adherence to the rule of law. Sounds like that's all these conservatives are interested in, and at this point don't care too much about ideology. So if that's good enough for them, I say we welcome them.

by JJE on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Basic competence (none / 0)

As I said above:

They may stick around.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: see this is what confuses me tremendously. (2.00 / 1)

We're not touting conservative principles, we're drawing inspiration from how many Republicans seem to be agreeing with the Democratic critique that the GOP has become authoritarian, statist, war-mongering, and corrupt.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: see this is what confuses me tremendously. (none / 0)

I love any Republican support we can get. Beliefs are fluid. I know that for a fact. I grew up in a semi-conservative household. My parents are registered Republicans, but they're no Bush fans and I would describe that as decidedly moderate. I grew up feeling the same way, but over a period of a few years I became decidedly liberal.

Any Republican support we get means these people will be hearing more about our beliefs and some, not all, will be swayed. That's worth it to me. We can't shut ourselves off from them. Perhaps they believe in totally different principles than us today - but tomorrow we may agree.

by PSUdan on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: see this is what confuses me tremendously. (2.00 / 1)

I would agree with you in general (or inside the box so to speak) except the fact that this person specifically mentioned that Obama is pretty liberal about a lot. he didn't say i am voting for him because he is like me, he said i am voting for him because his view will move us forward.

by Dog Chains on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: see this is what confuses me tremendously. (2.00 / 1)

Yikes!

CG my purpose in posting was because I thought it was an interesting story. Next because I thought it would show even some very conservative Republican were unhappy with their party and where it had ended up and doing some rethinking.

And frankly I am always happy to see someone of intelligence change there mind and say my party has been wrong and I am voting the other way.

And how is posting some about an R voting for a Democrat not promoting a Democrat?

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

fair enough. (none / 0)

on its own, your diary is newsworthy and relevant. the problem is that some here have been talking up obama's republican support whilst some promoting obama's progressive platform. one cannot be everything to everybody.

if we all continue to paint obama as this one minute and then that another it sets up some up for disappointment and animosity in others.

he is not a blank canvas - that is all i am saying.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm b (2.00 / 3)

Actually no.

I follow the saner conservatives pretty closely and the ones he's catching are ones who share certain progressive values, and who have decided these shared values trump those they share with the right.

These are people who are for small government and fiscal restraint (and see Bush as having been terrible on both but are anti-torture, anti-executive overreach, pro-civil liberties, and pro-civil rights.

The appeal Obama had for such ethical and intellectually honest conservatives as John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, and John Dean is oneof the reasons I though him more electable and possibly capable of breaking down some destructive divisions.

by wrb on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:26:43 PM EST

Re: I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm b (none / 0)

was meant to be a response to canadian gal just above

by wrb on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:27:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush and the Death of the Republican Party (2.00 / 1)

Jeffords, of course, was the first to defect, but there are hundreds of life-long Republicans who are leaving. I know one in New York City who actually went to Republican Conventions and walked out because of the Bush family.

And then there's Pete McClosky in 2006 whose statement about leaving the Republican Party is devastating.

What will happen after an Obama win remains to be seen, but for now the right wing extremists have destroyed the Republican Party.

by mole333 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:54:17 AM EST

Somebody should tell him... (none / 0)

...that there's no tradeoff.

Most real economists (as opposed to the corporate spokesmen on cable) vote Democratic too.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w4q3 63786573275h/

by Bush Bites on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:12:52 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.