Lifelong Conservative Activist is Backing Barack Obama

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I saw Dr. Lawrence Hunter on TV tonight in an interview. He says there are many conservatives like him who support Obama, but they are hesitant to come out and say so publicly. There are some who will vote for Obama, and others who, even though they support him, may not be able to find a way to vote Democratic after all their years as Conservatives.

I found that I agree with him on several of his opinions.

It was an interesting interview. Here is the Op Ed that was the subject of the interview. It's an interesting read.

Op Ed



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.
...
John McCain would continue the Bush administration's commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.
...
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.
...
If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.




posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
We all have heard of the term "neocon" which means a former liberal turned conservative. Even though people that normally use that term have no idea what it means, and always misuse it.

Dr. Hunter could very well be one of the first to earn the new monikor of "neolib". I wonder if that term could catch on?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You will see more and more of this, as the Obama mandate becomes clear.

The entire world is ready for a change of leadership, and they are looking to us to provide that.

God Bless the USA!

GOBAMA 08!!!!!



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I thought his comparison of Venial and Mortal Sins was appropriate. Venial sins were bad social programs or taxes... which can be reversed if they do not work out. Mortal sins were the lies that lead us into Iraq, the war itself, and the eroding of our Constitution which can not be undone if we do not stop them now. He felt he would much rather put up with liberal programs and issues, then be a part of a political party that is destroying this nation.

Excellent interview, and Thank goodness for Keith Olberman that brought it to us.

www.msnbc.msn.com...








[edit on 19-7-2008 by yankeerose]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You will see more and more of this, as the Obama mandate becomes clear.

The entire world is ready for a change of leadership, and they are looking to us to provide that.

God Bless the USA!

GOBAMA 08!!!!!


Personally, I don't care what the world is ready for. They don't tell me how to vote.
And the Obama mandate is perfectly clear. He says we will do this, this, and this in every issue. Then he says that the day he goes in office, he will bring in all his top dogs to see what he will actually do. So basically, whats he says now doesn't matter.

I'm sure some conservatives will turn to Obama but there will also be disillusioned Obama people who turn to McCain also.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Nice find BH!


Whats most hilarious about things like this is that the neocons always..... always come out and say "well...that guy is not a true conservative"


Its funny.

They support "said republican" until the guy (or woman) says "ya know....this democrat actually makes sense" and then BOOM - immediately becomes an outcast.


So that really makes it hard to define what conservatism really is. John McCain was elected by conservatives to be the republican candidate for POTUS, and every time he speaks in favor of Obama or another democrat, he's blasted by "conservatives" for not being a conservative.


If he's not a conservative, why did you nominate him for POTUS?


I really think this post gives us yet another reason to say:

"neocons, you really should think about waking up. Maybe your selfish actions and thoughts in government really arent all they are cracked up to be. Maybe its time to rethink conservatism"

I mean...if life long conservatives would back a "bleeding heart liberal" like Barack Obama.....i believe that says something.



Of course - if Rush Limbaugh were to suddenly support Barack Obama, i believe that the fabric that holds the conservative base together would be sporting some fresh new stretch marks, but ultimately, he'd be "outcasted" too.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



To say McCain was nominated by conservatives is utterly ridiculous.

I'm sure you heard of "Operation Chaos?" Well that was a direct result of liberals and moderates electing John McCain. They wanna screw with our election process, well we will screw with theirs. I know alot of conservatives and McCain was never even in the top three.

I can see a conservative voting for Obama out of protest, I wouldn't blame them if they did. It took Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan.

Andrew...you are one of them people who loves to use the term "neocon." Do you just use the term out of political bigotry, or do you actually know what it means yet remain determined to use it in an improper way? Or you just don't have a clue, and use it because others do?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   


We all have heard of the term "neocon" which means a former liberal turned conservative. Even though people that normally use that term have no idea what it means, and always misuse it.


Not really. Although you're correct in saying that the neoconservative movement originally identified with some liberal ideas more than conservative, it's creation was a reaction to what Leo Strauss and his followers perceived as a failure of liberal societal values to produce a worthwhile nation.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I know a number of conservatives--some on these boards--who have a lot of good thngs to say about Obama. I don't know if all of them will be able to bring themselves to actually go in the voting booth and vote Democratic, but I'm not surprised that "real conservatives" are recognizing his value. Some of his views are consistent with Republican philosophies.

It's interesting that many liberals were upset when Obama praised Ronald Reagan as being a man of ideas. I think Obama has always reached out to conservatives, and that he embraces good ideas no matter which side of the fence they come from.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
To say McCain was nominated by conservatives is utterly ridiculous.


Can I use that in my signature?
(j/k)

It never ceases to amaze me the things that the liberals get blamed for!
It's their fault that McCain is the Republican nominee, huh? That's a riot!!


Well that was a direct result of liberals and moderates electing John McCain.


Where can I read about this? And I don't mean someone's paranoid opinion, I mean really. I can't find anywhere that says Operation Chaos was in response to something liberals were doing... It sounds like it was just a slimy idea Rush had. Not surprisingly.

Operation Chaos



So for people who haven’t heard of it, Operation Chaos was the idea that Rush Limbaugh proposed on his radio show that ground could be made for the conservatives by cause disruption in the Democrat’s primary process.

Essentially, it was his call to republicans to go out and ensure that there would be 2 candidates fighting over the democrat nomination for as long as possible, by having these folks go out and vote in the democrat primaries for whichever candidate seemed to be lacking in momentum at the time…be it Hillary or Barrack.


Rush Limbaugh hates Obama and is scared to death he will win. Limbaugh should be in jail. Sounds like election fraud to me.




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Oh like the drive-by media is really going to report on Democrats voting for McCain in the primaries. That wouldn't fit into thier agenda.

You can't tell me in early primary states in the liberal Northeast, thinking that Hillary had it locked up, that some Democrats and Independents didn't vote for McCain to get a weak GOP candidate. Momentum is very important in the primaries and McCain got it early and held on.

Rush did not think of Operation Chaos by himself he learned it from the Democrats. It's very natural for a party who has a nominee locked up to vote for a weak candidate on the other side. Look at McCain in 2000, the same thing happened.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



To say McCain was nominated by conservatives is utterly ridiculous.
Since its up to the REPUBLICAN party to choose their own candidate, then yes, republicans chose John McCain.


I'm sure you heard of "Operation Chaos?" Well that was a direct result of liberals and moderates electing John McCain. They wanna screw with our election process, well we will screw with theirs. I know alot of conservatives and McCain was never even in the top three.

Wow. Operation Chaos had nothing to do with John McCain. Operation Chaos was a ploy by Rush Limbaugh to get Hillary Clinton added support against Obama. He told republicans "vote for clinton, mccain stands a better chance of beating her" because the republican party already chose mccain.....i figured that you, of all people, would know this.



I can see a conservative voting for Obama out of protest, I wouldn't blame them if they did. It took Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan.

Andrew...you are one of them people who loves to use the term "neocon." Do you just use the term out of political bigotry, or do you actually know what it means yet remain determined to use it in an improper way? Or you just don't have a clue, and use it because others do?


Thanks for the compliment. I dont know why neocon offends you. I know full well what it means, and its no different than terms like 'drive-by media' and 'bleeding heart liberal" or "lunatic left" or such terms.

The term exists to ruffle feathers.

In your case, it succeeded. Congrats.


Republicans nominated John McCain. If they allowed for too much "outside" influence, then that is the fault of the republican party, and nobody else.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Wow. Operation Chaos had nothing to do with John McCain. Operation Chaos was a ploy by Rush Limbaugh to get Hillary Clinton added support against Obama. He told republicans "vote for clinton, mccain stands a better chance of beating her" because the republican party already chose mccain.....i figured that you, of all people, would know this.


Wrong again Andrew. It had nothing to do with electing Hillary.

Rush used Operation Chaos to cause chaos in the Democrat Party. The longer Hillary stayed in the race the more damage it would do to the Democrat Party. Obviously it worked, because there are alot of Hillary fans that will not vote for Obama, and may even vote for McCain out of protest.

Operation Chaos is a direct retaliation brought forth by Democrats helping McCain get the Republican nomination. There is no way John McCain should be leading the Republican party, and he wouldn't be without the help of Democrats wanting to run against the weakest candidate possible.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by RRconservative]

[edit on 19-7-2008 by RRconservative]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


So you're saying operation chaos has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh?

Because you're saying it was created to


Operation Chaos is a direct retaliation brought forth by Democrats helping McCain get the Republican nomination.



Like i said: If the democrats had any influence on republicans choosing McCain for their nomination, then that is the republicans fault. I think its hilarious that you refuse to accept it.


Oh, and, it had nothing to do with hillary getting elected, you are correct. But why even mention this? Because i never said anything about its intentions being hillary getting elected, it was to get hillary nominated, because mccain would more easily beat hillary than obama.


Operation Chaos: Prime Directives:
part 1



The Republican Party and Senator McCain had made it clear, had made it plain they were not going to be critical of Barack Obama. At the time Obama was sailing to what appeared to be a surefire victory. Operation Chaos was formed for the express purpose of keeping the Democrat primary system alive as long as possible, and who better to bloody up Obama politically than the Clintons? He has to be bloodied up; he has to be taken off that game of messiah that he was on. This has worked.


Source



So.....why vote for Hillary again?

Change of heart?

hardly.....



"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."


Found in This article entitled

Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP





So. Yeah. It had everything to do with screwing over McCain... :shk:




As i said.

John McCain was elected BY the republican party. If outsiders were able to influence the election process, thats the fault of the republican party, and nobody else's.

I know its a big lump to try and swallow, but thats your only choice, unless you choose to choke.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Rush Limbaugh hates Obama and is scared to death he will win. Limbaugh should be in jail. Sounds like election fraud to me.



What a load of crap. You want to take away his First Amendment rights because he says what is his right to say as an American.

Typical liberals. Just like Pelosi wanting to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


First amendment rights are applicable only until law has been broken.

Which is why some hate groups get in trouble when their rhetoric spurs physical violence.

Limbaugh used his station to advocate violations of voting law

He did break the law. The only way to prosecute him is to PROVE that the voters intended to vote democrat instead of republican in a vicious manner.

Since you can't prove voter intention, you can't prove limbaugh broke the law.

Thats because there's been loopholes instilled into these laws which deny enforcement the option of common sense.

We know OJ killed those two people. But he's still a free man.

Limbaugh Broke the Law to get his way in an election.

Not the first time a right winger has done such though


[edit on 7/20/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Reply to Andrew:

No law was broken. Republicans candidates go after Democrat voters all the time, just as Democrats go after Republican voters.

What law prevents someone from changing party affilliation?

Do we want a law that prevents someone from registering with a certain party and can never change their mind?

Do we really need the "thought police" to interpret a voters intentions?

Even Obama himself was encouraging Repubicans to vote for him. Did he break the law?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
First amendment rights are applicable only until law has been broken.

Limbaugh used his station to advocate violations of voting law

He did break the law. The only way to prosecute him is to PROVE that the voters intended to vote democrat instead of republican in a vicious manner.

Since you can't prove voter intention, you can't prove limbaugh broke the law.

Thats because there's been loopholes instilled into these laws which deny enforcement the option of common sense.


Not the first time a right winger has done such though


[edit on 7/20/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]


I wish the liberals would have taken Rush to court so that he could have squashed them like the insects they are.

"Allegiance laws" are un-American. No state has a right to make you swear allegiance to any political party before allowing you to vote. Such tactics smack of Nazi Germany.

End of story. Period with a dot.

Ohio's law is unconstitutional and would not survive a court challenge.

Not the first time left-wingers have tried it, though.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 




Okay, take that approach if it helps you sleep better at night.

The fact still remains, you are blaming democrats for John McCain.

The republican party nominated him, and a lot of people (like the guy BH shows us in the OP) support Obama.

So, like it or not, its a republican problem.

This may very well turn out to be a repeat of 2004....only reversed.

The only competitor the democrats could come up with for an already weak and ignorant president (bush) was John Kerry.

....He..was...the...best.

And now, 4 years later, the republicans bring their own embarrassment in John McCain to the foreground.


I find it hilarious that when democrats are attacking John McCain, republicans stand up for him as this noble man, worthy of praise and admiration.

But when democrats are saying nothing, they can set back and watch republicans do their dirty work and attack mccain for them.

Keep it up neocons


So far, you're the best players on the democratic team.


[edit on 7/20/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
No state has a right to make you swear allegiance to any political party before allowing you to vote.


Many do. I cannot vote in the primary because I am not registered as party member. I refuse to swear allegiance to a party, so I have to skip the primary. You may not like it, but it IS within the law and MANY states do it that way.

Period.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join