True-Blue Obama: The lament of a conservative who really, really wanted to like him.

Politico ^ | January 6, 2016 | Matt Latimer

[C19fan]

In the evening hours of January 3, 2008, Barack Obama arrived at a vast exhibition hall in downtown Des Moines to claim a pundit-confounding, odds-defying victory in Iowa’s Democratic Party caucus. I may have been working in George W. Bush’s White House at the time, but I was cheering, too. In part, this was a selfish act. Like many on the right, I wanted Obama to make things more difficult for Hillary Clinton, and at the time, I still foolishly assumed she would eventually clinch her party’s nomination. But there was also something stirring about an African-American man winning big in such a snow-white state. Obama stood as a symbol that all things were possible. That governing could be different. That our country could be different.

[C19fan]

Another RINO sucker who fell for Obama. Of course, the loser worked for the Bush the Younger administration.

[Yosemitest]

What's the difference between Matt Latimer and any of the OTHER DemocRATS who pretend to be Republicans?

George Will is a DemocRAT who got SO OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with all those "CRAZIES" .
Now for a deeper understanding of just WHO George Will IS:

The word "neocons" is ONLY used by LIBERALS, trying to insult Conservatives.
The is no such thing as a "NEW" Conservative.
Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.

But read this"
Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons - - - Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014

Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"
and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"
meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way -
formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.
Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,
but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.



Jack Kerwick elaborates.

Read this:
Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post - "Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals" - by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND that
America is, at bottom, a "center-left nation,"
for while "30 percent" of self-described "liberals" are consistent in endorsing "liberal" policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only "15 percent" of "conservatives."
And another "30 percent" of "conservatives" actually advance "liberal" positions.

In short, Americans may TALK the talk of "conservatism," but they WALK the walk of "liberalism."
That is, they favor Big Government.

Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are "liberals."
It doesn't require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate "liberals," and "liberals" ALONE, with such virtues as "consistency" and such lofty ideals as "a cleaner environment" and "a stronger safety net" is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that
"conservatives" see the media as PROMOTING "conservatism,"
the verdict regarding their "liberalism" is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.

There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides', Ellis', and Stimson's ideological PREJUDICES:
They equate the term "liberalism" with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat "liberalism" synonymously with its modern, "Welfare-Statist" incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, "liberalism" referred to
a vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if "liberalism" is now "an ugly word,"
it is because the very same socialists who made "socialism" an ugly word hijacked "liberalism" when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for "socialism."

In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, he’d have to admit that "liberals" are secretly socialists.

Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion that
most "conservatives" are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is that
the vast majority of contemporary "conservatives"; are neoconservatives.

Now, "neoconservatism" is a term that hasn't the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an "anti-Semitic" SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
"Conservatism" is a more marketable label.

Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called "Godfather" of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting both
that neoconservatism exists
and that "conservative" "can be misleading" when used to describe it.

Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term "neoconservatism."

Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are "not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state" -
even if they reject the "vast and energetic bureaucracies" created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE "social security, unemployment insurance," and "some kind of family assistance plan," among other measures.
But what's most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us that
neoconservatives SUPPORT "some form of national health insurance."

In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know that
neoconservatism has always championed Big Government
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is "exceptional" in being, as Kristol puts it, "a creedal nation,"
the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an "ideology" of equality, of "natural rights."
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.

And it is by way of a potentially boundless military - i.e. Big Government - that this "ideological patriotism" is to be executed.

Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most "conservatives" are secretly neoconservatives.

So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL "neoconservatives", are really nothing more than the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .

[Awgie]

Did the dude not listen and understand who Obama was. It was there for everyone. 20 years in a radical commie fake Christian church. Memoirs written by Bill Ayers. Wife who was never proud of America.

These GOPe folks are such dopes!

[Don Corleone]

something stirring about an African-American man winning

African most likely.....American...jury still out on that one. JMHO!

[a fool in paradise]

Anyone with eyes could see where Obama was coming from, based on his own acknowledged history seeking out Marxist professors and attending Jeremiah Wright’s hate rallies for 20 years.

It’s like those who never believed Bill Clinton had ever lied about anything up until he admitted he’d lied about sex with Monica .

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Any “conservative” who didn’t understand Obama in 2008 or even 2007 for that matter was not informed. There was a mountain of evidence that he was a hard core Socialist. A look at his pubic voting record alone would have told anyone that. When I hear about conservatives who wanted to like Obama or who thought he was something different, it just adds to my list of stupid conservatives who I will no longer listen to or trust.

[Ouderkirk]

I am glad we got Onambla instead of Hillary. Onambla is a piker in the corruption department, and an even bigger fool policy wise.

It runs shivers down my spine to think of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Can you imagine what the last 7 years COULD have looked like? Yes, they were/are bad but a Hillary administration would have been much worse. She hates America more that Onambla does, and the level of deceit and corruption would be mind blowing. With a democRAT run house and senate, she no doubt would have outlawed guns, created single payer healthcare, and by this time declared herself president for life. We would be over-run with muslims, and have a $30 trillion debt.

Think about what could have been with a younger (60, not 70), more aggressive Hillary.

[miss marmelstein]

Amazing how so many “conservatives” ignored the call of Reverend Wright. I still thank Sean Hannity for playing that audio - while I was in the kitchen starting dinner. I remember it as if it was yesterday.

[MarchonDC09122009]

Yup, longtime adage could never prove truer:

Republicans are stupid
Democrats are evil

RE: “These GOPe folks are such dopes!”

Where is Reagan like clarity and leadership when we need it most?
Why are things so rudderless?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Tribal voters are fools.

[Mr Rogers]

“These GOPe folks are such dopes!”

In 2009, Donald Trump was very complimentary to both Obama and Hillary.

[treetopsandroofs]

“It’s like those who never believed Bill Clinton had ever lied about anything up until he admitted he’d lied about sex with Monica”

and then said, “All politicians lie, especially about sex, you evil Republican!”

[Resolute Conservative]

When you get your news/facts from TMZ and the View it is hard not to be a eunuch, not just misguided.

[LRoggy]

Anyone check to see if he and David Brooks share the same address??

[Iron Munro]

Anyone who got taken in by Obama:

1 - Wasn’t paying attention

2 - Wanted to be suckered

3 - Is loose minded enough to fill in the blanks of ‘Hope n’ Change’ with his/her own fantasies

4 - Is just plain stupid

[MarchonDC09122009]

One think for sure, if Hillary had been president these past seven years, there’d be even more dead bodies around compared to Obola.
Breitbart, Hastings RIP.

Hillary as president - Unthinkable.

RE: “It runs shivers down my spine to think of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Can you imagine what the last 7 years COULD have looked like?”

[gibsosa]

He’s conservative like I am Lady Di....

[dadfly]

not a rino. this leftist bushite latimer defines the archetype supporter of the gop wing of the uniparty.

he’s a cino, a conservative in name only.

[ilgipper]

I was impressed with Obama’s 2004 speech. Not suckered to support him politically, but thought it was a nice delivery. I did not take him seriously or put any real thought into him until he won Iowa in 2008 I thought he was the typically Howard Dean token leftie, and that Clinton would end up beating him soundly. Once I listened to his speeches and learned a little bit, I knew with 100% certainty he was a radical Marxist doctrinaire. It was easy to spot all his rhetorical techniques to mast radicalism in nice-sounding platitudes. Anyone who didn’t see it by March of 2008 should be considered a dunce.

[Tzfat]

Actually, the correlation is to Trump supporters.

Obama was an outsider who promised to shake up Washington and replace the old guard with smart and successful people. Many who voted for him said, “Finally something new - he will get Washington working the way it should. I don’t care if he is liberal.”

Trump is an outsider who promises to shake up Washington and replace the old guard with smart and successful people. Many who plan to vote for him say, “Finally something new - he will get Washington working the way it should. I don’t care if he isn’t conservative.”

Trump supporters are like Obama voters, and like many Obama voters, may eventually regret their descent into stupidity.