Why some conservatives are backing Obama. Meet the Obamacons.

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | July 6, 2008 | Carolyn Lockhead

[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.

[jveritas]

No BS at all. The libertarians are 4% of the voters and most of them vote for the libertarian candidate in every election so only less than 50% of libertarians, i.e. less than 2% of the total voters, will vote to either Obama or McCain. In other words it is all insignificant in the total picture and McCain does not need the unappeasable Purists to win. In fact he should totally ignore them and further aggravate them just for fun.

[CottonBall]

Staying home does nothing, it sends no message, it only helps Obama

I'll give this the same response as I do when someone says that not voting for McCain is the same thing as voting for Obama: both are only true if you operate under the premise that my vote can be taken for granted by the RNC. This is the same arrogance (I'm not calling you arrogant-the party that takes conservatives for granted is) that led to the meltdown in 2006 and will create even a larger democrat majority in Congress in 2008. And perhaps even win them the presidency.

Taking conservatives' votes for granted, while offering us increasingly liberal candidates with each election cycle, is not smart politics. At some point, more and more will opt out of supporting them. We already have financially.

[TADSLOS]

Conservatives? LOL! More like “leading edge” liberal republicans who consider McCain too conservative.

[CottonBall]

unappeasable Purists

This is reminiscent of 2006. Anyone who had principles and did not support the RINOs were called names. Such mature behavior!

And I expect the end result will be similar. The loss of seats in 2006 was nothing compared to this coming November. No matter who wins, McCain or Obama, with an overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress - lots and lot sof liberal legislation will be passed. McAmnesty will be more than happy to sign it and in many cases, even promote it, just as he'd done in the past. Enjoy your loss of freedoms and higher taxes and tens of millions of new uneducated, entitlement-grabbing citizens. This is what you are advocating when you think you are being in the 'cool group' with your little highschool insults.

[Salvation]

No Catholic, in their right conscience, can vote for baby-killing Obama. "Thou shalt not kill."

[tobyhill]

“Susan Eisenhower”, give me a break!

***She has also been appointed to the National Academy of Sciences’ standing Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) where she is now serving a fourth term.***

http://www.saveamericastreasures.org/eisenhower.htm

[weegee]

“Conservative talk radio host Armstrong Williams has never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. In fact, he says he has never even thought about the opposition. But this year - as Williams told me on today’s American Morning - things might be different.

Listening to Laura Ingraham this morning (and she's been doing some tv thing on Fox News now), she mentioned this whole "Obamacon" myth, how it is the same 4 names being dredged up and how Armstrong Williams told her at a commerical break that he would be voting for McCain. His comment was that Obama was running an "interesting" campaign. He has neither endorsed nor will be voting for Obama.

[jveritas]

The Purists are the masters of name calling. They spend most of their time calling people names and in your post you called those who disagree with the "Purists" RINOs. It was not the insignificant "Purists" not voting that led to democrat control of Congress it was that more independents voted for democrats than Republicans in 2006. The independents that you "Purists" call middle of the road mushy people, but since you "Purists" do not know how to count these "Independents" are the largest voting block and they constitute almost 40% of the total vote.

The independents cannot stand the "Purists" whether they are on the right or on the left

[Prokopton]

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

"And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Barry Goldwater

[Right Cal Gal]

Is anyone even still reading that paper?
I’m thinking the 1,000,000 votes Nobama gets in the Bay Area from Blacks and Libs is not going to make up for the number of Reagan Democrats and Hispanics and that are going to vote for McCain.

I’ll still predict that Nobama doesn’t win California.

[Biblebelter]

Calling McCain a "nationalist,"

If this were only TRUE! Nationalists do NOT make nice with groups such as La Raza, or spend the Fourth of July in Mexico with the ruling elites who support him for his stand on amnesty.

[imintrouble]

I wondered when the race for the highest office in the land would be reduced to pigmentation rather than intellect and commitment and obligation to serve.

Can you hear the backlash if we were to vote McCain because he is White???

This whole topic is so very beneath the people here - I know it is necessary that we read and be knowledgable as to the other side(s) of the issue but this is pure ROT.

How junk like this gets printed is the reason people like 180degreeBarack get nominated in the first place.

Most of the public these days think it’s some kind of Bowl Game.

[af_vet_rr]

If one can’t stomach the party’s candidate, then pass that race up and vote on the rest of the ballot races.

The proper solution. One should also make it clear to any national GOP fundraisers that they will not be donating to the GOP until the GOP decides to go back to the right.

[jveritas]

The "Purists" are not defending liberty on most issues but they are looking to satisfy their own extreme ideologies. They are bunch of extremists on both the right and the left and the American system was founded so extremists will not have a say in the governance of the nation.

Purists =Bitter losers.

[Uncle Hal]

I am getting tired of the liberal media distorting the news to favor the Democrats. Carolyn Lockhead, who wrote this story, is one of the biggest abusers. It is impossible to get an unbiased political story out of the MSM

[Prokopton]

American system was founded so extremists will not have a say in the governance of the nation.

On the contrary, by your definition, the United States was founded by "extremists". They gave up everything and went to war for their ideals. How much more a "purist" or "extremist" can you get?

[jveritas]

No they were not extremist. The Foundings fathers and the first American generation rebelled against Tyranny and wanted to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is not extreme ideology those are unalienable rights for each human being.

The success of the American Revolution and the American System is that the extremists and the Purists did not take over as it happened in the French revolution for example. There were no "Robespierres" among the the Founding fathers who thought that they are more pure than the others and began chopping the heads of their opponents using the guillotine. Thank God that the Founding Fathers were not Purists or else we would not have had the United States of America as we know it which is the greatest nation in history of mankind.

You want to be a Purist pelase feel free to be like this but in America you as a Purist is a bitter loser and you will always remain as such. You cannot win, ever.

[x]

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.

The word "Obamican" -- Republican for Obama -- showed up in February, and it looks like it's morphed through "Obamacan" to "Obamacon" (after the model of neocon and paleocon) once somebody showed up claiming to be a conservative for Obama.

I don't think there's very much in this. This is a small group of people and other conservatives who are tempted will find out that Obama isn't any sort of conservative.

It's more the Republicans and conservatives who aren't going to bother to vote that McCain has to worry about, since it's easier not to vote at all than to convince oneself that Obama is worth supporting.

[originalbuckeye]

Don't know. I went to read up on him and the website said he was basically an anarchist-atheist. He was listed in some prominent articles as an Obamacon.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Don't know. I went to read up on him and the website said he was basically an anarchist-atheist. He was listed in some prominent articles as an Obamacon.

My question was purely rhetorical. "Anarchists" are supposed to be against the State. I am unaware that Obama has promised to do away with the State or even make it any smaller.

Of course, most our our "anarchists" don't seem to know what "anarchism" means.