Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After digging through some past articles where I once read, way way back in the primaries, that several conservatives noted Obama's stance seemed rather, well, conservative. In fact, I recalled a statement (I don't remember where) in which Andrew Bacevich claimed that out of the choices at the end of the primary season, Obama appeared to be the most conservative person running. (and note, Obama is NO conservative) I found the article and it also gave some interesting insight into the current topic of where conservatism is and where it is heading in America.
Before you scoff at the notions of some man I suspect most of you have never even heard of let alone listened to, let me give you a quick note on the guy.
A West Point graduate, tour in Vietnam, tour in Iraq during the Gulf War, He holds a Ph.D. in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University, and taught at West Point and Johns Hopkins University prior to joining the faculty at Boston University in 1998. Not to mention he has addressed Congress on more than one occasion and is well respected by both parties. No slouch by any standard if you ask me.
Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives—and the state of the conservative movement—they could do worse
Depends upon your baseline, if you are comparing it to an analysis of Bush's lack of adherence to conservative principles and McCain as generally an extension of Bush, then I guess you can make the argument. However, if you compare Obama's proposals to a baseline of "is this liberal or conservative", I think the case is far more difficult.
I still view the election as a repudiation of Bush, and little more than that.
Depends upon your baseline, if you are comparing it to an analysis of Bush's lack of adherence to conservative principles and McCain as generally an extension of Bush, then I guess you can make the argument. However, if you compare Obama's proposals to a baseline of "is this liberal or conservative", I think the case is far more difficult.
I still view the election as a repudiation of Bush, and little more than that.
And this is a good deal of what the article discussed. I'm sure that I am not the only one who noted that the two issues Obama focused on were fiscal responsibility and our foreign policy (notably Iraq and Afghanistan) which are traditionally areas were liberals have gotten trounced. He took it to the contemporary Republican Party and won.
As I said in a another post and based on nothing more than a hunch, that a year from now, moderate Republicans will be more happier than big L coastal liberals with Obama. I am going to hold Obama to the line in his speech where he said, "To those who's vote I did not get, I will still be your President". We shall see.
If history renders a negative verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war. The “freedom agenda” will command as much authority as the domino theory. Advocates of “World War IV” will be treated with the derision they deserve. The claim that open-ended “global war” offers the proper antidote to Islamic radicalism will become subject to long overdue reconsideration.
Depending on the security agreement, history may render a positive view. However, that view should be tempered not only with the lives lost, but the money and capital spent. Hopefully, this debacle, and whatever Afghanistan becomes as we're able to move troops there to fight an ever increasing resurgence of the Taliban, will remind us that it's not always wise to poke our noses in the business of other countries. We didn't learn that from Vietnam. I have little hope that we'll discover that suddenly based on Iraq.
Pardon, but I have to chuckle at the statement: come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois Bacevich got that one dead on the money.
Interestingly enough, the US is now considering opening up negotiations with the Taliban to reconsider their role in Afghanistan's government. King of makes you scratch your head and check your wallet while saying... ok so why did we go there then.
Pardon, but I have to chuckle at the statement: come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois Bacevich got that one dead on the money.
Interestingly enough, the US is now considering opening up negotiations with the Taliban to reconsider their role in Afghanistan's government. King of makes you scratch your head and check your wallet while saying... ok so why did we go there then.
Those that bothered to vote may have voted for him. NC had 1.5 million fewer voters than in 2004. Guess who they were? The social conservatives. They didn't like McCain and wouldn't vote for a Democrat. Now how much our straight party voting played into that, I don't know. Here you still have to vote for President even on a straight party ballot. But the turnout was lower. And it seems to favor the Democrats.
The Taliban is tired of the Al-Qaeda fighters too. They're "awakening" shall we say.
And this is a good deal of what the article discussed. I'm sure that I am not the only one who noted that the two issues Obama focused on were fiscal responsibility and our foreign policy (notably Iraq and Afghanistan) which are traditionally areas were liberals have gotten trounced. He took it to the contemporary Republican Party and won.
As I said in a another post and based on nothing more than a hunch, that a year from now, moderate Republicans will be more happier than big L coastal liberals with Obama. I am going to hold Obama to the line in his speech where he said, "To those who's vote I did not get, I will still be your President". We shall see.
Yes, my comment was based upon reading the article (I can "speed read" some types of articles). Obama is going to disappoint a lot of folks, but I suspect he will be more inclined to support the "coastal liberal" sentiments than you may think. I believe that one significant difference we may have in how we view Obama is that I suspect he really isn't much of a leader with strong philosophical bearings (say, in contrast to someone like Paul or Kucinich), rather I think he is a "consensus builder" who will generally be building a larger group around the ideas and concepts of Nancy Pelosi.
Pardon, but I have to chuckle at the statement: come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois Bacevich got that one dead on the money.
Interestingly enough, the US is now considering opening up negotiations with the Taliban to reconsider their role in Afghanistan's government. Kind of makes you scratch your head and check your wallet while saying... ok so why did we go there then.
Principled conservative DID endorse Obama by the time election day rolled around.
Did you see ROVE today? He said that Obama ran a CENTER-RIGHT CONSERVATIVE campaign. Translation: The charge that Obama is a "socialist" was untrue from the start. No kidding. I wasn't fooled. Sadly, millions were.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
