The Obamacons Who Worry McCain

Washington Post ^ | 6/26/08 | Robert Novak

[MartinaMisc]

What is an "Obamacon?" The phrase surfaced in January to describe British conservatives entranced by Barack Obama. On March 13 the American Spectator broadened the term to cover all "conservative supporters" of the Democratic presidential candidate. Their ranks, though growing, feature few famous people. But looming on the horizon are two big potential Obamacons: Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel.

Neither Powell, first-term secretary of state for George W. Bush, nor Hagel, retiring after two terms as a U.S. senator from Nebraska, has endorsed Obama. Hagel probably never will. Powell probably will enter Obama's camp at a time of his own choosing. The best bet is that neither of the two, both of whom supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004, will back John McCain in 2008.

Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today's Republican Party. The danger for McCain is that desire for a therapeutic electoral bloodbath could get out of control.

That danger was highlighted in a June New Republic article on "The rise of the Obamacons" by supply-side economist Bruce Bartlett, who was a middle-level official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He expressed "disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country" -- echoing his scathing 2006 book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." While Bartlett says "I'm not ready to join the other side," his anti-Bush furor characterizes the Obamacons.

[SuziQ]

A society that was told even by the administration that took it to war, go ahead live as if nothing has changed.

Don't know where you heard THAT. The President told us that we needed to be vigilant, but also that we should live our lives in spite of any terrorists who want to hurt us. He didn't want us cowering in our homes in fear, because that's not necessary.

He knew that having our military in Iraq would attract the Jihadists there, and that's exactly what happened, but he also told us that many of the victories against terrorists who wanted to strike us here, again, would not be publicized, so we'd likely not know about them for years, if at all.

[Kakaze]

Don't know where you heard THAT

It wasn't a quote it was though the message.

[Dubya] he also told us that many of the victories against terrorists who wanted to strike us here, again, would not be publicized, so we'd likely not know about them for years, if at all.

I don't have a problem with this strategy either...I think all too often we tell too much, but that doesn't mean the enemy within should not be engaged and he has failed to engage congress and the liberals.

I have a feeling you and I will disagree but I would have and still would like to see the war prosecuted more like a war rather than a series of police actions.

I believe Iraq is the Germany of the 21st century, in that strategically we need that position. for all that I have "bashed" Dubya and praised him, I can confidently say this....By February 1, 2009 we will all wish he was still president.