Skip to comments.
Why some conservatives are backing Obama. Meet the Obamacons.
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| July 6, 2008
| Carolyn Lockhead
Posted on 07/06/2008 9:18:40 PM PDT by FocusNexus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-129 next last
To: antisocial
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.
101
posted on
07/07/2008 7:42:16 AM PDT
by
jveritas
(God Bless President Bush and our brave troops)
To: LonghornFreeper
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.
102
posted on
07/07/2008 7:46:52 AM PDT
by
CottonBall
(The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. (Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854 ))
To: FocusNexus
Conservatives? LOL! More like “leading edge” liberal republicans who consider McCain too conservative.
103
posted on
07/07/2008 7:52:59 AM PDT
by
TADSLOS
(The GOP death march to the gravesite is underway.)
To: jveritas
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.
104
posted on
07/07/2008 7:58:51 AM PDT
by
CottonBall
(The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. (Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854 ))
To: FocusNexus
No Catholic, in their right conscience, can vote for baby-killing Obama. "Thou shalt not kill."
105
posted on
07/07/2008 8:09:28 AM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: FocusNexus
“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
106
posted on
07/07/2008 8:16:11 AM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
To: FocusNexus
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 todays 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.
107
posted on
07/07/2008 8:39:24 AM PDT
by
weegee
(CHANGE? A more truthful slogan would be to proclaim Obama the candidate of FLIP FLOP.)
To: CottonBall
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
108
posted on
07/07/2008 8:54:59 AM PDT
by
jveritas
(God Bless President Bush and our brave troops)
To: jveritas
"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
To: jveritas
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.
110
posted on
07/07/2008 10:12:52 AM PDT
by
Right Cal Gal
(Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
To: FocusNexus
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.
To: All
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.
To: NormsRevenge
If one cant stomach the partys 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.
To: Prokopton
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.
114
posted on
07/07/2008 12:40:56 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(God Bless President Bush and our brave troops)
To: FocusNexus
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
To: jveritas
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?
To: Prokopton
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.
117
posted on
07/07/2008 1:58:10 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(God Bless President Bush and our brave troops)
To: FocusNexus
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.
118
posted on
07/07/2008 2:02:21 PM PDT
by
x
To: 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.
To: 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.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.
120
posted on
07/07/2008 3:49:33 PM PDT
by
Zionist Conspirator
(Vayiftach HaShem 'et-pi ha'aton vato'mer leVil`am meh-`asiti lekha ki hikkitani zeh shalosh regalim?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-129 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson