Posted on 07/06/2008 9:18:40 PM PDT by FocusNexus
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Right, sure they are.
Names?
Can someone be a conservative and a socialist or Marxist?
Who is he, this one they call obamacon?
Is his name sissy-hotpants?
These stupid jet-set bastards would not know a conservative if I bit ‘em in the ass — and I (we) will.
Your not a conservative if you would back or vote for Obama. It is as simple as that. You can stay home or vote third party if you like. But voting for the democrat that has isn’t something a real conservative would do.
Oh please, spare us this nonsense...
Every election year, the MSM print out stories that so-called “conservatives” have “renounced’ their GOP affiliation and have registered Dumbocrat...
Same old, same old liberal fluff piece.
But I actually know some Dumocrats here in Hollywood who WILL vote for McCain, and that story will never see the daylight.
Oh, what BS. The SF Chron is smoking those funny cigarettes again.
Just more gutless wonders. Just like the cowardly conservatives, libertarians and Republicans who peed all over themselves and voted for Clinton in ‘92 and ‘96.
Gotta hand it to the libtards. They sure have an overactive imagination!
And all you have to do is read some posts here, posters promoting the idea that there is no difference between Obama and McCain and Obama is actually good for conservatives, IOW they are promoting Obama, while telling us how conservatives they are. Republicans aren't good enough for them, but a Marxist, terrorist sympathizer hypocrite is...
10 percent of registered Republicans expected to switch sides..
—
sounds like the mushy moderates would be the likely suspects here....
Any Independent Conservative that did that should be pummeled with nerf balls until they repent.
If one can’t stomach the party’s candidate, then pass that race up and vote on the rest of the ballot races.
In other words, the Jews.
I'm sorry, but anybody who claims they are a conservative and voting for Obama is a flat out liar. That's like William Buckley supporting Mao.
"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."
Idiots.
I think Obamacon doesn’t mean Obama-conservative (i.e. conservative who supports Obama), it’s stands for Obama-CON, as in being conned by Obama.
A disgruntled ex-WH employee and some no-names. This is substantive journalism ?
".. Lochhead holds a B.A. from UC Berkeley and a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University..."
Yikes! Bolshevik Central Branches I and II!
"..has fallen precipitously since the heyday of the dot-com boom from 1997 to 2001. The Chronicle's circulation dropped by 16.6% between 2004 and 2005 to 400,906;[6] in 2006, daily circulation dropped to 373,805.[7].."
The San Francisco Chronicle sucks so bad even liberals are avoiding it.
No. We really do have political invertebrates on our side of the fence who want to tell their grandchildren that they voted for the first black president - even if he was a communist.
So lets take names and never forget.
This is really just smoke and mirrors. The last comment of the article pretty much reveals all.
“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.”
Powel is not a Conservative, never was and never will be.
The title is whacked out. It presupposes that a Republican is a Conservative. Go no farther than Juan McCain to shoot that one down.
I know a number of Conservatives who will not be voting for Juan, but I don’t know any who will be switching to vote for Obamarama.
I do know Democrats who will be voting for McCain. So much for the lopsided ‘Conservative’ crossover votes. IMO, it’s going to be Clinton Democrats who break ranks to swoon over McCain.
Obama even scares the crap out of them.
There will be a few Repubs who go for Obama. There won’t be any conservatives, certainly no ideological types.
There will be a fair number of Dems who jump over and vote McCain. There is a certain percentage of Dems who always vote Republican, and I suspect that percentage will be bigger this time.
What Obama will do is hang onto a higher percentage of Green/Nader voters than will the average Dem candidate. But not enough to overcome the Dems jumping ship to McCain.
Overall, after you balance out all the fence-jumpers, the net gain is to the Repubs. But you won’t read a thing about it, if you read the press rags you’ll think Repubs and evangelicals are all lining up to vote for Obama. Sure they are.
What a bunch of bull. How can you be a hardline socialist and a “conservative” at the same time?
This smacks of propaganda. There is always an organization like “Democrats for X GOP candidate” or “Republicans for Y Democratic candidate” in each Presidential election cycle. And there might be a grand total of 100 people in the organization in question, but by gosh it’s a “trend” and “newsworthy” for the lamestream media.
Do you know any? I sure don’t. Obama even scares the union member democrats in my family. They won’t vote for him.
There was also a recent poll, showing that libertarians overwhelimngly support Obama.
Here it is:
Libertarians Favor Obama and Other Looks at Election 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2041168/posts
“Libertarian voters ... favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. “
Suggest going from the link above to the actual Rasmussen report article, which has a lot more detail.
Doug Kmeic is NOT a conservative. He has whined about "income inequalities", "climate change" and Israeli "excessive force". Those are not conservative positions, in addition to Kmeic's betrayal of the unborn by giving cover to the most radical pro-abortion candidate in history.
I don't know why I didn't think of that. Obama is from Chicago, and Hayek taught in Chicago!
Obama and Hayek in the same time zone, quite possibly in the same phone book!!
OK, thats enough for me. I'm taking the Obama plunge.
If an Obama supporter can call himself a “Conservative”, then the word has completely lost all meaning.
From Rassmussen report:
“The largest group, representing 24% of the nation’s voters, are both fiscally and socially conservative. ...McCain leads Obama 82% to 13% among these voters. “
Can someone explain to me why 13% of those who claim to be both fiscally and socially conservative want to vote for Obama?
“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.”
Peggy Noonan got it right months ago when she referred to both Bush presidents as “wastrels.” They got to the Oval Office because of years of hard work and party building done by others, then both Bushes just frittered away all that had been built up by people other than them. Wastrels!
GHWB rode in on Reagan’s coattails, then proceeded to trash what had been accomplished before him, and then he lost after one term.
W. has been riding the patriotism and support that accrued to him after 9/11, even as he abandoned ever fiscally conservative notion that existed in the party, plus he and Rove, following their pander to Hispanics strategy, set off an unnecessary and very damaging internal fight over amnesty, insulting half or more of Republican voters along the way.
After the 2004 election, Republicans were in perhaps their strongest position ever, and in less than two years it all evaporated and Congress was lost. W. and Rove bear a big part of the blame for the nosedive in party fortunes since 2004.
This is the reality. No matter what the screamers say, conservatives who do not support McCain do not support Obama.
Keep dreamin’ San Francisco Chronicle....
I saw it, but for Libertarians to prefer a hard-line statist totalitarian big government type over McCain (despite McCain’s shortcomings), calls into question their own actual ideological preferences.
The article actualy distinguishes between ObamaCANS (Republicans for Obama) and ObamaCONS (conservatives for Obama).
It states that it started with Obamacans, but now it spread to Obamacons.
Fools !
Armstrong Williams and a few other black conservatives are tempted to vote for Obama, but I supect there will be very few Republicans who end up voting for him. He’s just too far to the left.
But quite a few might not vote for anyone for president, or might take the third party route.
“The largest group, representing 24% of the nation’s voters, are both fiscally and socially conservative. ...McCain leads Obama 82% to 13% among these voters. “
Can someone explain to me why 13% of those who claim to be both fiscally and socially conservative want to vote for Obama?
Apparently, 13% of this 24% are illiterate or incapable of rational thought. That moron percentage is considerably higher in most of the other groupsa Rasmussen describes.
I have seen numerous news reports of "Colin Powell expected to endorse Obama..."
News flash...Colin Powell isn't a conservative!
Again? It never stops. They just sprinkle more and more crack on it.
Would those be Friscocons?
I don’t know any personally - yet. But the people quoted in the article are enough to convince me that there are more out there. Milton Friedman’s son, FGS!
OMG, I’m out of Kool Aid, can someone show me where I can get a refill, help puleeeze!
Do they still publish the Chronicle?
I thought it went the way of the Berkeley Barb...
Only in Soviet Russia...but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, these days.
This guy really cracks me up though. If he thinks being in favor of fighting for our country is not being conservative, then he is wrong about conservatism. Since when has conservatism meant isolationism?
"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."
Conservatives for Obama?
Satanists for Christ?
Nazi’s for Hitler?
Flying pigs more likely.
That moonbat is a paleo. Paleos are so far off the right side of the spectrum, they’ve crossed the international dateline to the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.