Posted on 07/06/2008 9:18:40 PM PDT by FocusNexus
“Names?” - Patrick1
The article names only two endorsers of Comrade Hussein: Doug Kmiec and David Friedman, each representing a political movement of one.
The article ignores the more probable strategies of libertarians who can’t stomach McCain: vote for Bob Barr or don’t vote.
When I googled “obamacons” I was surprised how many articles turned up.
Roberts: The Obamacons
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/19/roberts-the-obamacons/
“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. At the very least, he is thinking about the opposition. A lot. “You cannot help but look at and realize,” he told me, “that if Senator Obama wins, it’ll be the first time that someone would occupy the White House other than white men of America.”
Great. Pigment over capability, character, ideas and issues.
In same article in my post 62 — JC Watts for Obama?!!!!!!
“Let’s consider former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts’ thoughts on the matter. Watts is one of a number of “Obamacons” - conservatives, including many African-Americans, who are giving the Senator a good, hard look. Obamacons believe he may be the best-equipped to take on poverty and urban policy, issues that are as important to them as low taxes and constructionist judges.”
I would agree with that quote but the author is a nutty as a fruit cake.
“Can someone explain to me why 13% of those who claim to be both fiscally and socially conservative want to vote for Obama?”
‘Cause he’s ‘black.’
“Can someone explain to me why 13% of those who claim to be both fiscally and socially conservative want to vote for Obama?” - FocusNexus
The 13% believe that 1) fiscal deficits require increased tax rates and 2) virtue is achieved by legislation. These premises are wrong, but the 13% correctly reasons that Comrade Hussein shares their premises.
My businessman brother-in-law had voted Republican as far back as I can remember. He voted in the primary for Obama and will vote the same in November. It’s simply an anti-Bush vote for him with no acceptance of the consequences of voting for the guy who will tax the hell out of his business and his big-money income. This is the same guy who is threatening to move his plant and its 150 workers to Indiana and out of Chicago because of taxes and the more liberal Illinois interpretation of the minimum wage.
During the first few days of Katrina, he kept on moaning about why the feds didn’t simply come into New Orleans and take charge. When I explained to him that the feds would have to be “asked” by the state to come in before they could, he didn’t believe me. He thought the feds should just march in and save the day.
You could see the beginnings of “change” in his mindset, even back then. I don’t talk about politics with him anymore.
How can you have a conservative mindset and vote for Obama?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2041009/posts
Thread from yesterday...mentions black Republicans Armstrong Williams, J.C. Watts, as being conflicted as to whether to vote for Obama.
Correction, Moderate REPUBLICANS......NOT Conservatives. But then, they have no clue what a Conservative is.
I agree with you. Any Conservative will despise everything Obama stands for.
You forgot the “Let’s elect anti-Christ and get the Rapture started early” crowd.
I don't know how many times I've had some lefty tell me something to the effect, "So-and-so believes what I believe, and he's a Republican." Someone like David Souter or John Paul Stevens (who were nominated by Republicans). A Republican is NOT as Conservative.
“Pigment over capability” or “Fear over Principles”...What’s the difference? The entire reason that there are so many past Republicans crossing over is because their principles and values have become so watered down, they no longer see the difference.
This is why some of us are holding our ground based on our principles, by refusing to enable it any longer. It has to stop right here, right now.
This part is true, but Ron Paul and Bob Barr are the ones who benefit, not Obama. This reporter's logic is 180 off.
Yes, Neocons are socialist. Bush with a Republican congress lead the biggest expansions of government we've seen in 40 years.
That is pure balderdash.
you have jumped the shark
It all started with Bush 41. He locked up all the oil reserves off shore, who said he wanted to remembered as “The Environmental President”. And he grew government, increased taxes. (”Read my lips; No new taxes”)
The Moderate RINO wing of the GOP took over from that point on.
How so? Have you heard of the medicare prescription drug benefit? The federal government is 58% larger than it was 8 years ago. Facts are facts.
Exactly. But this reporter seems to think that small government types (like myself), for some arcane and unspoken reason, will gravitate to the left.
“Hmmm, Hepatitis C? No thanks, I’ll choose Ebola instead. That’s much better.”
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.