PDA

View Full Version : Obama drawing conservatives' interest



Phoenix Blue
June 10th, 2008, 01:35 PM
From a piece written by Bruce Bartlett for The New Republic magazine:


Conservatives of almost all ideological flavors (even, gasp, some supply-siders) have been drawn to Obama--out of a genuine affection and a belief that he may actually better embody movement ideals than McCain. ...

... 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.
More here: The Rise of the Obamacons (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=46a816dc-f843-41ec-9fe4-fbeac17bcfca)

PaganLibrarian
June 10th, 2008, 02:09 PM
Sorry. Don't buy it...

Valnorran
June 10th, 2008, 03:06 PM
Sounds like just another flavor of RINOs.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
June 10th, 2008, 03:18 PM
Sorry. Don't buy it...

Me neither.

Sounds like Hitler propaganda to me.

PaganLibrarian
June 10th, 2008, 03:19 PM
It's not even RINOs. The article is speaking of Libertarians. I guess Libertarians are now pro-tax, anti-business, and anti-gun...

I know a lot of conservatives who are disgusted with the fact that the Republican party has become the second coming of the Democrat party, but that doesn't translate into votes for Obama. I suspect it will translate into a third party, who is conservative, replacing the Republican party.

PaganLibrarian
June 10th, 2008, 03:21 PM
Sounds like Hitler propaganda to me.

Sounds like serious wishful thinking by someone desperate to have Obama win.

Phoenix Blue
June 10th, 2008, 03:52 PM
Now that the Republican fanbois have spoken, do any actual conservatives care to address the points in the article?

BlackLili
June 10th, 2008, 04:00 PM
Now that the Republican fanbois have spoken, do any actual conservatives care to address the points in the article?
I was raised a staunch Libertarian (is there any other kind?) and my old man isn't buying Obama's rhetoric. He admits there could be some good ideas there, but the tendency to veer towards big government is still there, and still makes it a deal-breaker for him.

For me? I don't necessarily consider myself a conservative or a liberal - but I believe in a small government, few governmental controls placed on the private lives of citizens, the strengthening of the dollar, fewer global policing actions on the part of our military, and the responsibility of the individual.

I'm still voting for Obama because he's a Columbia man. Roar lion, roar!

Edited to include a note on the article: As for this article itself, I don't find it at all surprising that people are giving up on their traditional political affiliations and are finding themselves drawn towards a new, fresh candidate who promises many things the American public would like to see. As for calling them Obamacons, I think it's a tad premature. Let him win the election first, and serve a term, and see what the man is like in action. Then give him followers and anoint him as a savior if they will - but the proof should be in the pudding.

PaganLibrarian
June 10th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Now that the Republican fanbois have spoken, do any actual conservatives care to address the points in the article?

Preferably without making personal attacks on the people who have already posted?

I'm an actual conservative and I addressed it. The article is bogus.

Philosophia
June 10th, 2008, 07:44 PM
Preferably without making personal attacks on the people who have already posted?

If there is a personal attack, please report it.


I'm an actual conservative and I addressed it. The article is bogus.

No, you didn't.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
June 10th, 2008, 09:07 PM
If there is a personal attack, please report it.



No, you didn't.

Obviously PaganLibrarian did:


It's not even RINOs. The article is speaking of Libertarians. I guess Libertarians are now pro-tax, anti-business, and anti-gun...

I know a lot of conservatives who are disgusted with the fact that the Republican party has become the second coming of the Democrat party, but that doesn't translate into votes for Obama. I suspect it will translate into a third party, who is conservative, replacing the Republican party.

YOU just didn't like the response.:smileroll

Philosophia
June 10th, 2008, 09:15 PM
Obviously PaganLibrarian did:

YOU just didn't like the response.:smileroll

No, he didn't. That wasn't a response to the article or the points presented in it. Its not about me liking the response or any other reason you assume.

PaganLibrarian
June 10th, 2008, 11:36 PM
Let's see Phoenix_Blue called those of us who responded "Republican fanbois" (even those of us who aren't actually Republicans) and said we weren't actual conservatives. Those are personal attacks. I didn't feel the need to report it, but I will if you insist. As far as the rest of it, I didn't feel the need to respond point by point, since I would just be saying it's a load of tripe over and over.

Like it or not, sometimes the only reasonable response to something is to say it's garbage and move on.

Now, do I need to report someone for name-calling?

Sequoia
June 10th, 2008, 11:52 PM
Let's see Phoenix_Blue called those of us who responded "Republican fanbois" (even those of us who aren't actually Republicans) and said we weren't actual conservatives. Those are personal attacks. I didn't feel the need to report it, but I will if you insist. As far as the rest of it, I didn't feel the need to respond point by point, since I would just be saying it's a load of tripe over and over.

Like it or not, sometimes the only reasonable response to something is to say it's garbage and move on.

Now, do I need to report someone for name-calling?

Wow. You couldn't address the article directly, so you choose instead to cry foul when PB asks for some actual opinions.

Defensive much?

Philosophia
June 10th, 2008, 11:58 PM
Let's see Phoenix_Blue called those of us who responded "Republican fanbois" (even those of us who aren't actually Republicans) and said we weren't actual conservatives. Those are personal attacks. I didn't feel the need to report it, but I will if you insist. As far as the rest of it, I didn't feel the need to respond point by point, since I would just be saying it's a load of tripe over and over.

Like it or not, sometimes the only reasonable response to something is to say it's garbage and move on.

Now, do I need to report someone for name-calling?

Yes, you do. Instead of saying that it was a personal attack, why not let an admin decide and not accuse another of doing so? If you think that a reasonable response was to call something garbage without elaborating on it, then thats your prerogative. I don't think you addressed any actual points and I stand by that claim.

Sequoia
June 11th, 2008, 12:10 AM
yes, You Do. Instead Of Saying That It Was A Personal Attack, Why Not Let An Admin Decide And Not Accuse Another Of Doing So? If You Think That A Reasonable Response Was To Call Something Garbage Without Elaborating On It, Then Thats Your Prerogative. I Don't Think You Addressed Any Actual Points And I Stand By That Claim.

Qft

PaganLibrarian
June 11th, 2008, 12:15 AM
You couldn't address the article directly, so you choose instead to cry foul when PB asks for some actual opinions.

I gave my opinion. I don't believe the conclusions the person who wrote the article drew. He apparently took the opinions of less than a dozen media people as solid evidence that conservatives are going to vote for Obama. IMO, that makes the article garbage. That was my opinion, and I stated it. Others agreed.

Phoenix_Blue responded by calling us Republican fanbois, and asked for "real" conservatives to respond. That ticked me off. I am a conservative, mostly. I gave my opinion. Someone tries to portray a shift in conservatives thinking based on a small number of media types. I think he's got his head firmly planted in cloud-cuckoo land.

For all of you who are accusing me of not giving an actual opinion, is that good enough? I can't see any way to make my actual opinion any more clear.

Are you all happy now. Can we move on without the need to insult people, or challenge their political beliefs just because they didn't agree with the premise of the article that was posted?

Philosophia
June 11th, 2008, 12:39 AM
I gave my opinion. I don't believe the conclusions the person who wrote the article drew. He apparently took the opinions of less than a dozen media people as solid evidence that conservatives are going to vote for Obama. IMO, that makes the article garbage. That was my opinion, and I stated it. Others agreed.

Is that the only reason you believe the article is garbage? I honestly don't think it makes the article garbage. What about his opinions? Or the statements being made?


Phoenix_Blue responded by calling us Republican fanbois, and asked for "real" conservatives to respond. That ticked me off. I am a conservative, mostly. I gave my opinion. Someone tries to portray a shift in conservatives thinking based on a small number of media types. I think he's got his head firmly planted in cloud-cuckoo land.

Should I be pissed off every single time somebody states some crap about liberals and what we supposedly all believe in?


For all of you who are accusing me of not giving an actual opinion, is that good enough? I can't see any way to make my actual opinion any more clear.

No, its not. Saying "its garbage" means nothing unless something backs it up.


Are you all happy now? Can we move on without the need to insult people, or challenge their political beliefs just because they didn't agree with the premise of the article that was posted?

Don't get defensive. Challenge political beliefs is what many of the articles within PP are aimed to do. Are we to cry foul every time somebody dares to challenge our thoughts?

What about this point?


Take Larry Hunter, who helped put together the economics passages in the Contract with America and served as chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He concedes that Obama is saying the wrong things on taxes but dismisses it as electioneering. Of far greater importance, in Hunter's view, is that Obama has the potential to "scramble the political deck, break up old alliances, and bring odd bedfellows together in a new coalition." And, what's more important, 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."

I have heard many republicans say the exact same thing about the party. Is he wrong?

Sequoia
June 11th, 2008, 12:43 AM
Is that the only reason you believe the article is garbage? I honestly don't think it makes the article garbage. What about his opinions? Or the statements being made?

Careful, now, Philosophia. You're asking for critical thinking. That'll get you beat up in some circles.


Should I be pissed off every single time somebody states some crap about liberals and what we supposedly all believe in?

If you did, I can think of a couple of people who might push your buttons frequently. *cough*


No, its not. Saying "its garbage" means nothing unless something backs it up.

Agreed. You can say, "I don't agree with this, because XYZ," and expect some respect back for it. But declaring something trash, especially when it might possess some merit, is a cop-out.


Don't get defensive. Challenge political beliefs is what many of the articles within PP are aimed to do. Are we to cry foul every time somebody dares to challenge our thoughts?

I cry foul! YOU, my dear Philosophia, make me think all the time. How DARE you cause me to come out of my little box? I'm going to REPORT YUUU 11!!!11.

WokeUpDead
June 11th, 2008, 01:40 AM
It's pretty much common knowledge by now.

Xentor
June 11th, 2008, 07:38 AM
Sounds like Hitler propaganda to me.

Equating just about anything with mr. Hitler and his ideas does not seem like respectful behaviour to those in your community who suffered because of him, nor to those you choose to equate.

Xentor
June 11th, 2008, 07:41 AM
Can we move on without the need to insult people, or challenge their political beliefs just because they didn't agree with the premise of the article that was posted?

Yes, please. Otherwise this thread will be closed, as will future threads devolving in similar antics.

Valnorran
June 11th, 2008, 09:05 AM
Now that the Republican fanbois have spoken, do any actual conservatives care to address the points in the article?
Yeah, since I'm not a Republican and never have been. I am, in fact, Libertarian.

It is impossible to be conservative and support Obama. Ebery single one of his positions on every single issue is the exact opposite of conservative. Saying someone is a conservative Obama supporter is like saying someone is a Satanic Buddhist.

Philosophia
June 11th, 2008, 09:26 AM
It is impossible to be conservative and support Obama. Ebery single one of his positions on every single issue is the exact opposite of conservative. One cannot be a conservative Obama supporter any more than one can be a Satanic Buddhist.

How is every single position he has the exact opposite of conservatism? Even if you disagree with the article, it does raise some good points. This (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece) is an old article but it virtually says the same things as does this column (http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html).

Valnorran
June 11th, 2008, 10:35 AM
How is every single position he has the exact opposite of conservatism? Even if you disagree with the article, it does raise some good points. This (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece) is an old article but it virtually says the same things as does this column (http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html).
Basically, these articles are saying we should vote for Obama to punish the Republicans for Iraq.
In simplest terms, conservatives believe in individual liberty and self-reliance combined with a small government restricted to a few clearly defined duties. Given Obama's desire to increase taxes, expand mandatory government education, government healthcare - thus increasing government's control of individual's lives and expanding its power - it is clear he is anything but conservative. "Conservatives" who support Obama do so from a desire to punish the Republican party, not because they see Obama as a true conservative. McCain isn't particularly conservative, either, but he's closer to it than Obama.

Philosophia
June 11th, 2008, 10:59 AM
Basically, these articles are saying we should vote for Obama to punish the Republicans for Iraq.
In simplest terms, conservatives believe in individual liberty and self-reliance combined with a small government restricted to a few clearly defined duties. Given Obama's desire to increase taxes, expand mandatory government education, government healthcare - thus increasing government's control of individual's lives and expanding its power - it is clear he is anything but conservative.
"Conservatives" who support Obama do so from a desire to punish the Republican party, not because they see Obama as a true conservative. McCain isn't particularly conservative, either, but he's closer to it than Obama.

Not necessarily. A lot of conservatives do believe in what Obama is doing (there's a website (http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage) showing it). Maybe it is to punish the republican party but couldn't that be a good thing? This could be the serious kick in the ass the party needs. BTW, many liberals also believe in individual liberty, self reliance and small governments. I'm a liberal but I'm more traditional than modern.

Valnorran
June 11th, 2008, 11:57 AM
Not necessarily. A lot of conservatives do believe in what Obama is doing (there's a website (http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage) showing it).
But Republican is not a synonym for conservative. The party tries to portray itself as such, but it isn't.

Maybe it is to punish the republican party but couldn't that be a good thing? This could be the serious kick in the ass the party needs.
*shrugs* Maybe. From what I've seen, though, the Republicans seem to have a penchant for squandering their victories, one of several reasons I'm not one of them.

Philosophia
June 11th, 2008, 07:39 PM
But Republican is not a synonym for conservative. The party tries to portray itself as such, but it isn't.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me.


*shrugs* Maybe. From what I've seen, though, the Republicans seem to have a penchant for squandering their victories, one of several reasons I'm not one of them.

I don't know. I think they'll lose either way. In my opinion, they definitely need to do *something* to resurrect their party.

David19
June 12th, 2008, 07:25 PM
Basically, these articles are saying we should vote for Obama to punish the Republicans for Iraq.
In simplest terms, conservatives believe in individual liberty and self-reliance combined with a small government restricted to a few clearly defined duties. Given Obama's desire to increase taxes, expand mandatory government education, government healthcare - thus increasing government's control of individual's lives and expanding its power - it is clear he is anything but conservative. "Conservatives" who support Obama do so from a desire to punish the Republican party, not because they see Obama as a true conservative. McCain isn't particularly conservative, either, but he's closer to it than Obama.


Not necessarily. A lot of conservatives do believe in what Obama is doing (there's a website (http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage) showing it). Maybe it is to punish the republican party but couldn't that be a good thing? This could be the serious kick in the ass the party needs. BTW, many liberals also believe in individual liberty, self reliance and small governments. I'm a liberal but I'm more traditional than modern.

This may be OT, but when I think "Conservative", I think people who don't want society too change that much, or not drastic change, they tend not to support equal rights for people or groups, etc. Like, conservatives, IMO and experience, don't tend to support LGBT rights, 'cause it isn't the "norm" and isn't hetrosexual (this is just an example, and is the one I'm more familar with, for obvious reasons).

When I think Liberal, I think people who are for equal rights for LGBT people, people who are for women's rights, people who support civil rights, etc. When I also think Conservative, I also tend to think religious-right Christian Republican (when it comes to America, here in the UK, I think Conservative/Tory Party, etc). Are these the right definitions, 'cause I've seen people saying being Liberal is a "bad" thing, but I'd have thought equal rights (for example, for LGBT people and other minority groups, etc) are a good thing, and not "bad". I've always heard the Republicans were more Conservative (I think it was banondraig who told me the Democrats were, probably, the more liberal ones when it came to things like equal rights, although I don't know Obama's position, or even Hilary's, etc on that).

BTW, sorry if that was OT.

David19
June 12th, 2008, 07:27 PM
I don't know. I think they'll lose either way. In my opinion, they definitely need to do *something* to resurrect their party.

After Bush, I don't think they can resurrect their party, well, actually, they probably could, but most people would associate Bush with them. Although I've always thought Republican = more conservative, more associated with the Religious Right, etc than more liberal parties like the Democrats, and others.