Questions for debate:

If you call yourself a conservative, a Republican, a Libertarian, or even a moderate, is there any way you vote for Obama?

Is there any way in the general election you'd throw away your vote on Paul, if he runs as a Libertarian, or on Nader, or some other unelectable third party candidate?

Justify you answers.

No. His Domestic Policy is a DailyKOS wetdream and I don't want any part of that. His foreign policy is a capitulating, weaken America to be "fair" nightmare. If that's change I'm not interested.

I am already throwing away my vote - I live in New York. I am writing myself in - and I am serious.

If you call yourself a conservative, a Republican, a Libertarian, or even a moderate, is there any way you vote for Obama?

Given his stance on the issues, my answer is a resounding no.

He is running an ad in Ohio now that says he's gonna cut the military budget and "slow down" the development of new weapon systems to balance the budget.

His health care plan scares me. His promises to give everyone in America whatever they want is so liberal it isn't even funny.

Obama is the most liberal Senator in Washington. Despite his recent "bipartisan" talking points, he has not crossed the aisle on any significant issue. He wants higher taxes, more regulation, and more class warfare.

I can't vote for someone who is so liberal.

I can't answer this directly quick, since I'm not a conservative, but Sleeper, who describes himself as a conservative Republican and has taken consistently consevative positions on the board for years, has already come out for Obama.


Are you shocked?

No. On the surface, Obama seems like a candidate that would take us away from the partisanship that so infests Washington these days.

But when you look at the issues and what Obama is proposing to do, I don't think many Conservatives would vote for Obama. I can see them sitting out the election because they aren't crazy about McCain, but I don't see a thoughtful voter pullling the lever for the big O.

By the way, DaytonRocker has also said he was leaning Obama, but has changed his mind (I think).

Issues are king.

This is also my understanding, but DR describes himself as a moderate, not a conservative and some in the Republican Party see McCain as a moderate.

What is objectionable about this? I'd rather we spend money on human intelligence including cultural and language training if we don't successfully recruit enough people from Arab countries. Speaking of welfare:


"They" as in Lockheed. They as in Lockheed getting the Air Force brass behind a new, expensive bomber manned by pilots in the age of unmaned bombers with the lure of job security for themselves and future Air Force Academy cadets.

For more welfare check out today's Washington Times. An anonymous defense industry executive said of Obama: "We've got some trepidation. There is no track record. He's an unknown quantity and that scares us a little bit."

That's the closest I've seen a defense employee admitting a financial stake in the presidential election.


Military spending was $626 billion last year. No state comes close to the amount we spend. What's wrong with cutting the budget for our military industrial complex? Is it "un-American"?

I have you safely down in the "not Conservative" bloc. Of course you have a different view of the importance of maintaining our military supremacy. That is perfectly fine but I think for most Conservatives (not all) this is an important factor.

What does military supremacy mean to a conservative? What does military supremacy yield, and at what cost here and abroad?

At what point will we—can we—overcome Clinton's defense deficit?

Perhaps more importantly, does being conservative mean you don't have to critically think when it comes to the defense budget? This isn't a Republican debate, Amlord. It's weak that you ignored everything after "people from Arab countries".


By factor do you mean psychological boost?

Lost my post...

Anyway, I'm confused about what your position here is, Lesly. You mention the Clinton defense deficit and then seem to be questioning whether or not we can cut the defense budget. This isn't about Iraq, this is about general defense spending.

As far as conservatives go, the defense budget is an important issue. This year's deficit is projected at $415 billion. This year's defense budget is $515 billion plus $70 billion for the WoT.. Anyone who thinks that Obama can slash the defense budget by 60-80% to balance the budget needs to look a little more closely.

It isn't just conservatives that have an interest in keeping the defense budget high. Many lawmakers in Washington are tied to the defense sector and use it as a source of jobs, both military and defense contractors. I know that you know this.

Most likely, Obama will try to move to the center after securing the Democratic nomination. Perhaps not though. I feel that McCain is a weak campaigner but even he will not hesitate to use a promise to slash the defense budget against Obama. And that will stir the defense hawks on the right.

What is wrong with that is that it shows an incredible lack of understanding on Obama's part about the military development process. You don't just "slow down and save money". It just simply doesn't work that way. If he wants to cut programs, then fine, let him state he wants to cut this or that and bring that into the debate. Saying he's going to "slow down" is either naive or dishonest.

Aquilla

If you call yourself a conservative, a Republican, a Libertarian, or even a moderate, is there any way you vote for Obama?

Is there any way in the general election you'd throw away your vote on Paul, if he runs as a Libertarian, or on Nader, or some other unelectable third party candidate?

These seem like non-sensical questions. Of course you can, especially if you are a moderate or a Libertarian. Or could I say, especially if you are an informed voter who puts some critical thought into the issues and weighs the pro's and con's; Not simply someone who sees R=good, D=bad. Neither candidate stands for reducing the size and scope of government. Government and it's accompanying intrusion will continue to grow no matter if a Democrat or a Republican resides in the White House. With that ever enlarging scope, more of the money that YOU earned will continue to fill government coffers. McCain would spend more of those dollars imposing American presence around the world, Obama would spend more of those dollars at home.
I'm no fan of the current system of taxation, but given the choice, I would rather that money be spent on our citizens. That's one reason alone that a conservative might pull the lever for Obama. Another reason might be that the modern usage of the label 'conservsative' has been perverted far beyond it's formerly accepted definition. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is now so minimal that one or two issues can sway the voter. I foresee a very real decline in the ranks of the Republican party because of that.

And the term 'throwing your vote away' is also a misnomer. If you vote for McCain, you are throwing your vote away, because the odds that your vote will have any measurable effect on the outcome is nil. Same with a vote for Obama. The 'throwing your vote away' line is simply a reflexive rebuttal in place of reasoned argument. And if that argument resides on the premise that 'we simply don't want the other guy to win', then you're also admitting that there is no compelling reason to vote for your guy.

So yes, as long as the Libertarian Party continues to represent my views better than the Republican Party, I will continue to support it in the hopes that other like minded conservatives will join me. If you hold your nose when you vote, why bother?

Amlord:



Here's the thing I can't for the life of me comprehend about the GOP unwillingness to pare down the budget of the united states military.

Barack has a plan to increase the size of the US military by 65,000 army recruits and 27,000 marines. Military experts lagrely agreed that we came into Iraq with too little manpower -- "you go to war with the army you have," was Rumsfeld's poetic art of war little maxim on that fiasco -- so kudos to Barack for upping the troop numbers.

But I see nothing inconsistent with his goal of increasing troop size and decreasing the budget. Nothing inconsistent at all.

The fact of the matter is so much of our Iraq misadventure is being paid for by cost-plus financing. Do you know what that means? It means that in addition to getting reimbursed for every dime they spend on a project, a company gets a percentage of their total budget as profit (usually around 3%) instead of a flat fee. In other words, the more you spend, the more you earn. There is literally zero incentive to curb waste or fraud. 0. It also means that if you spend 75 million dollars building a police college that's so inoperable that feces literally drips on an inspector's sleeve when he comes by to audit the project, you still earn your regular rate. In other words, the financial rewards of success are the exact same as failure.

I'm asking you, mr. "barack's budget is too big," how that system doesn't turn your conservative heart purple with convulsions of rage. Your government that loves you sooooo much, that stands behind you when you wave your flag goes out and pays the Parsons corp. to build a 75 million dollar poop building. A big, stinking 75 million dollar poop building. If that isn't government waste, then I have a 75 million dollar social program in my toilet for you.

If as a fiscal conservative you can stomach this kind of this massive, wasteful idiocy, then you are not a fiscal conservative. Cost-plus financing insults the entire premise behind the free market system, it turns government contracting into a farce. If I had the will or time, I could drag out ten or twenty incidence of this kind of the rank war profiteering right now, using just my monkey thumbs and your everyday search engine. Lord only knows what we don't know about. But, apparently, to propose that we curb this kind of system down, is akin to surrender, treason, and terrorist coddling.

At some point, you have to say "my party failed me." And you have to sit four years out until some conservative with some credibility somewhere can come out of anonymity and fight your battles. Because yalls dudes failed yall.

I have a week to go and I'm still not sure what I'm going to do, but so far it will probably be Billary.

First, I'm not voting for any republicans until they start acting like conservatives with principles. In my opinion, they continue to get worse - not better. Why should a morally bankrupt republican change his behavior as long as he knows that as long as he runs against a person of the opposing party, he has your vote? So, as much as I'd hate voting democrat, I'm not voting for a king/queen either. There always remains the right and left battles where no side wins every time.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a letter to one of my favorite bloggers asking about what I perceive as a race issue. My question was, if we as voters took Obama to task the same way we do anybody else, would the race card get pulled? In other words, would Obama get the same treatment the media gave Bush before the Iraq disaster? Would they not investigate, prod, and report what could be an unpopular position or problem lest they appear racist?

Well, sure enough Bill O the blowhard makes a comment that although was not racist, could be perceived as racist. And we're almost a year away from the actual election.

So, in my mind, what we have here is this: John McCain. A decent republican who doesn't mind Americans dying in Iraq the next 100 years, but thinks it's ok to leave our borders wide open. But Iraq and the war on terror that we really haven't been fighting is a deal breaker for me. So, I would take Ted Kennedy over any republican supporting Bush's Iraq/GWOT policies. Then we have Hillary. A more moderate democrat who would clearly take advantage of all the great things Bush has provided her in the name of national security. Finally, we have Obama - a person who transcends race, gender, or age. A person who has shown unparalleled judgment in some areas, a brilliant mind, and a person who would seem to accept leadership responsibilities instead of blaming others, getting life and death issues wrong while enjoying unlimited resources, or being compared to our former rapist-in-chief because that's the highest we can raise the bar. Anybody else is throwing away a vote. Because of what I consider to be the defining moment in our lifetimes, allowing John McCain to carry this bastardized GWOT one minute longer is dangerous.

So, between Obama and Hillary, I'm torn. Hillary will divide pundits and policy wonks. Obama - through his supporters - will divide average Americans. The opportunities to exploit racism for personal gain will skyrocket. This is not Obama's fault as I beleive he truley is above all that. But people like him don't create the Don Imus/Bill O'Reilly moments - leaders of the black community will do that for him. So, I believe this a greater concern for me. Racism will be used as a tool and a weapon to advance agendas. I can handle Daily Kos and NRO battles. What I can't handle, is racism accusations being used as a weapon.

So, I expect to hold my nose and vote for Hillary Tuesday. If it comes down between McCain and Obama, it's Obama. My concerns won't matter if we don't stop the invasion of government in our lives and implement a real strategy against Muslim extremists.

If you call yourself a conservative, a Republican, a Libertarian, or even a moderate, is there any way you vote for Obama?


If he supported the war, id consider voting for him. Thats not going to happen but as far as issues go thats the most important to me, followed by things like the boarder, the economy, and Americas progress with our space program. Its all about the issues and where the candidates stand on those issues, right now It looks like I will more than likely be voting for McCain in the general election.

Is there any way in the general election you'd throw away your vote on Paul, if he runs as a Libertarian, or on Nader, or some other unelectable third party candidate?

Id have to see eye to eye with them on the issues, parties are secondary in terms of importance.

The defense of this country is a Constitutionally mandated activity. Providing health care is not. Giving scooters to seniors is not. Limiting CEO pay is not.

When Obama says that America was built on the concept of "I am my brother's keeper" tells you where he stands as far as government power goes. The government should fix all problems. I guess I should be happy that Barack Obama who "could have written his ticket on Wall Street" (whatever the hell that means) chose "community service" instead. But he tells the real story with his proposed policies: government is just another path to power. Sure you can make a ton of money on Wall Street, but only the government can enforce the mantra of "I am your keeper".



This is the Clinton defense deficit that Lesly and I were discussing. The military needs to be revamped. Its capabilities and equipment have been worn out through age and Iraq. 100,000 more troops will cost money and hasn't Bush been lambasted for not being able to fill current quotas on recruitment?





I will assume this troops will have either no equipment or less equipment per soldier than our current army. I guess we can request recruits bring their own gear ala the Revolution period.


Current defense spending is BELOW the average of the last 45 years. The only time it has been lower was during the peace dividend of the 1990s. Clinton balanced the budget on gutting the military. Bully for him. Most conservatives don't agree with what he did.



You are taking his comments out of context. He said nobody would care if we were in Iraq for the next 100 years IF AMERICAN SOLDIERS WERE NOT DYING. No sensible person wants American soldiers in a fruitless escapade. Win the damn war so we can pull back into a Korea or Germany type scenario. That is what he's said.

He also (to preempt the next phase here) said "there will be more wars". Which means that the enemies of this country are not resting. As far as I have seen he has not proposed specific further targets. But the US must be ready to deal with our enemies (North Korea, China, Iran). That's what he has said.


That depends on how you view the issues. As far as the expansion of government power, I believe you are correct. Power corrupts, especially the nearly limitless power of the US federal government. You can do anything if you put that engine to the right purposes. Just ask Barack Obama and his Cat 5 levee system, his mortgage interest subsidy, his healthcare plan, his decrying of corporate profits ("they won't give them up easily" should send chills down anyone's spine) or any of his other big government "fixes".

Dayton Rocker:

Couldn't one argue that the election of Barack Obama would end a chapter in 'racism being used as a political tool.' I disagree with some of what you're saying -- I think the divisive tone of media race wars pales in comparison to the plight of concentrated poverty. (Though I do concede that the 60s created a class of insulated media pundits, on either side of the race divide who basically live from one perceived slight to the next, not calling any names.)

But wouldn't the election of a black president, if only symbolically, mute a lot of those voices. One of my personal concerns is that by virtue of having barack in office, a lot of americans would say, well, that ends that chapter in american history...zzzzip.

But if you're looking to change the way race is used as a political screwdriver, then if you ask me, Barack is your singular chance to do that... as you said, he seems to be above all that.

Amlord:

Wake up and smell the malfeasance. It isn't how much a military spends, it's how. Your government has provided so little oversight on this war that is has to sicken the very soul of a fiscal conservative, and if it doesn't, then I question your intellectual commitment to these issues. Only an incorrigible partisan or an eccentric who prefers the aesthetic arrangement of red states on an electoral map could possibly look at the state of the military and conclude that the US army is stronger under Bush (and his allies in the senate, ahem, Clinton, McCain) than it would be under almost anybody else -- heck even Ralph Nader could run a VFW branch.

Now if you prefer McCain because you don't think leaving Iraq is the right thing to do, or because of some kind of experience benchmark, great go ahead. I would disagree, but probably respect your reasoning. But I just don't see how anyone who has read the Washington Post, or The Hill at some point over these past 7 years would say, "you know what this military needs? A continuation of George Bush's policies."

I mean, are we watching the same movie?

The way things are set up right now we could just go all in on red-37 and pawn every valuable object in America to pay for this war and stttiiilll our troops would be rolling around in hummers with overweighted doors that fall off every time one hits a bump. Because there is a mount everest of journalism out there about how the money isn't getting to the right places, and i would be happy to point you to said mountain if you need the coffee. I could be your sherpa. So it isn't the budget we need to change, and it isn't the budget we need to stand defensively by. My issue isn't with the mathwork, it's the bureaucratic reality behind that math -- a picture that should sicken the heart of every so-called fiscal conservative underneath the twinklin stars stars stars.

I'm a Conservative. Obama is a liberal. Why would I vote for him?

For that matter, McCain is a liberal too.

I know we've been screwed for this entire election segment.

I'll vote for the most conservative candidate I can find.

Baphomet - send me your name. I'll write you in, and I don't even know you. But I'm confident that you'll be more conservative than the sillyness offered us by the GOP.

/uh...
//you're not for universal healthcare, right?

If you call yourself a conservative, a Republican, a Libertarian, or even a moderate, is there any way you vote for Obama?

I call myself a Conservative, and since Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Hitler, or Fidel, all proven nightmares of leftist totalitarianism will be on the ballot against Obama, I can safely say its highly unlikely that I would vote for Obama. Odds in the neighborhood of 1 in a bazillion.

Is there any way in the general election you'd throw away your vote on Paul, if he runs as a Libertarian, or on Nader, or some other unelectable third party candidate?

On Paul only if a) the Democrat was clearly going down in flames and I knew that the correct message to the Repub's would get through (i.e. smaller government is good, as opposed to foriegn policy naivete is good. No chance whatsoever for Nader, another third party candidate would depend entirely on the quality of the candidate and the situation in my state.

Maybe you should look up the word "conservative" and read the definition. A foreign policy that has us in every region of the globe is not conservative, it is liberal. If I conserve energy, I use it sparingly. Same goes for the military. You are an Orwellian conservative. Up is down, black is white, freedom is slavery.

I will NEVER vote for Obama. He's the most radically pro-abortion candidate, hands-down, in the country right now, and abortion is the issue I use to instantly disqualify a candidate from consideration. Obama's support for partial-birth abortion is disgusting. I would never vote for a guy who believes in killing newly born children, and his voting record shows it's much more than a stance to him even if he's too afraid to speak to the American people about his feelings on the issue.

I very likely will end up voting for a third-party candidate.

So, you're going to let someone else decide if we should have a pro-abortion president? Seems to me that if the abortion issue is that much of a deal to you (which I can't say I disagree with your position), why would you step aside and let somebody else make that choice for you? McCain is pro-life - Obama is not.

However, even if that's your defining issue, do you really think Roe v Wade will be overturned? Do you believe abortion will become illegal and women will be sent to to jail for having them? Although I have no real problem with that premise (abortion=illegal), I just don't think it's realistic to think anything will change in terms of overturning Roe or criminalizing abortion.

So what I'm seeing, is that you will throw away your vote for a principle subject to little - if any - change while ignoring all the other issues like McCain throwing Americans into a meat grinder over in Iraq. If you cherish life so much, why not cherish people's lives that continue to be lost in Iraq because nobody has the balls to say "Ooops. My bad" versus continually beating a square peg in a round hole to justify their decision to go to Iraq in the first place?

Your position doesn't seem consistent to me.

"paring down the military budget" would be a fiscally conservative thing to do- since it is probably the single most wasteful portion of the US economy, like was pointed out- we need a shiny new chevy pickup to replace our 1979 Chevy pickup- even though I nearest competitor is still driving the 1946 flathead four.

the chevy still gets better mileage, more hp, more payload, more reliable and all around good truck- but it ain't got no bling or no spinners mangz- so we need to pimp our airforce man!

Amlord- the current defense budgets make no sense at all, and it isn't about "national security" at all- it is straight up welfare for the rich.

Spending money wisely on defense would be a "conservaive" position, spending money like a drunken sailor would be a "liberal" position, of we are talking fiscal conservative.

the boondoggle in Iraq is more wasteful than ANY social program, and nothing in the budget will continue to be a drain on our economy like the GWOT that we are throwing money in a deep, dark hole with no return.

Money spent on infiltrating the arab world would be well spent, money spent on a high tech offensive bomber would be a total waste of resources.


Who is our enemy that we hope to defend against with a several billion dollar per unit bomber Amlord? An old WW2 navy dive bomber would be adequate for the job against an enemy that only has suicide bombers and lives in tents and caves- the shiny new bomber has no more effect than a hand grenade, thrown at the right cave.

I would think "spending your money wisely" shoulc be a conservative value?

BTW- if Ron Paul is on the national ticket on my ballot, I will vote for him. If not, it is Obama.

I disagree with DR that any criticism of him will be percieved as "racist", simply becuase the outrage against Bill O is appropriate- considering a long string of bad behavior by Bill O. He just makes an easy target, and deserves the flak he gets, and I don't think that will change one iota because of who is in the white house.

I don't think this thread should turn into yet another right or wrong abortion thread, so I'll just address the political implications of your post.

You are, of course, free to vote as you choose, Jzyhoshua, even if you are - as you seem - primarily a one issue voter.

I hate to burst your bubble, but with the economy tanking, inflation rising and still being involved in Iraq, abortion will not be a major issue in the 2008 campaign - certainly not like it was in 2004.

You are four years behind the curve on this one.

Dayton Rocker


Damn DR you are basically saying thet you won't vote for Obama because he a Black. I'm not calling you a racist, and I can see your position has nuances through out it. But when it all boils down to it Obama can't stop people from being people, and though you like him more than the other candidates, his race is the trump reason why you won't vote for him.

Well DR I'll say this they don't call them growing pains cause it is easy.

I was clear to point out that Obama is the real deal, but opportunists will use race as a weapon to advance their cause. Yet, you still inferred I'm a a racist without actually calling me one. You claim I won't vote for him because he is black - that is clearly a racist premise. But, that is not true and not what I said.

I don't believe his race makes him an inferior person - let alone an inferior candidate. But I am being accused of being a racist because I have concerns about how the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world will make me into a racist because I don't have a popular view of something to do with Obama - just like what is happening here.

You've helped make my point.

Catch 22 anyone?

Would you not vote for a good republican candidate of your choice, because the neo-cons would take advantage of the situation? I don't think Droop called you a racist- just pointed out, you are voting against him based on his race, based on what an opportunist would make of his presidency- well DR, we have had plenty of that anyway, no matter who is in power- this is the first time one of them was black I suppose though.

If Obama is the real deal- why give a crap what those that don't share his vision think?

I surely wouldn't vote against Bill Clinton because it made Rush Limbaugh more popular, or even led to the advent of right wing radio.

Is this what it means to be conservative, that no matter what someone says or writes you can just hear or read what you want.

I specifically said in my last quote:



Actually I'm not proving your point, instead, you need to reflect. Why do you feel like you are beingcalled a racist at every opportunity. Why would you not vote for a man just because you feel like you may have race issues may come up??

But here is the question, change nothing about Obama, but his skin color... do you vote for him now? From what I gather from your words.. you do. So you shouldn't worry about Jesse and Al and what they might or might not do. In the whole scheme of things how has Jesse or Al showed an ability to affect your every day life??

Change his skin color and he's John Edwards. I call this the Williams sister effect, high publicity for being black, high scrutiny too.

If you change his skin color, he's not even a contender. His accomplishments are less appealing and his candidacy stands in the way of the first woman President in American history. He's just another white guy.

My Platform:

Attack Africa (yes the continent) to rid the world of "weird diseases"
Abolish Connecticut and use their dead to fill the Long Island Sound
Remove the Jury System from the State of California (clearly they can't handle it)
Leave abortion and same sex marriages to the states
Two words - Flat Tax
Two more - Seventeen Percent
Abolish the NEA, Dept of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture - all of thise have failed miserably
Streamline immigration and make it saner
Education, education, education... we need to be smarter than India, China et al
Word of the day for 8 straight years - Merit
Foreign Policy? Overwhelming Strength
Domestic Policy? Help those that help themselves

but, but, he is just another white guy! I'm still boggled that a guy who was raised by his white mother and white grandparents is considered "black." What's his character? Culturally, he's no blacker than I am, and is certainly a darn site closer to being one of the plantation owners, aka oppressors aka "the man" than most of us on this board. I sure didna go to a private prep school in Hawaii, nor am I an Ivy Leaguer.

The John Edwards comparison is fairly apt. Barack Hussein Obama is just another rich limousine liberal who happens to have nappy hair and light mocha skin, as opposed to painstakingly coifed hair and light skin. I suppose we can give him racial cred though for hookin' up with a sista.

oh, and he's "clean and articulate" Oh, my bad, so is John "Dead Baby Channeller" Edwards.

However BD- if John Edwards is driving in North Carolina, he is not going to be stopped for "driving while black"- while there is a very, very good chance, that without his entourage and celebrity status, and even with his celebrity status, that he will not be stopped and executed by a cop that claims that "Obama lunged at me" or some other nonsense that has gone on for decades there, and still exists today. And before they kill him, they wil not ask if he was raised by his white mama.

Who cares who he is raised by? If he were to be arrested for a crime he didn't commit, he is still more likely to do hard jail time for this than a white guy- also, if he is guilty, he will do more time for the same crime as a white guy. With his name "Obama" - prior to his status as a lawmaker- he still would have to worry about his "black sounding name" causing him to lose job opportunities that would go to a white guy- even if Obama is more qualified, and has no criminal record- a white guy with a felony conviction is still more likely to be offered the job. No matter how much money he makes, he will still be more likely to turned down for a nice apartment, simply because he is black.

The only thing he has on the positive side of being raised by "his white mama" is that he doesn't "sound black"- another usual way of discriminated against blacks in a more sneaky manner that doesn't get the racist in trouble as easily.

In not one of those instances will the subject of his "white mama and grandma" come up- he will just be tried, judged and executed for no other reason than his skin color or his name- no matter his ability, his public service, his record- he is still black, and will be treated as a second class citizen by a large portion of the US.

Is that a conservative value now as well?

You know, DR, I was going pretty easy on you, trying to see your point and all, and it's a point i concede, at times: there is certainly a booming industry of mid-level journalists who get their 15 minutes by going on Bill O'Reilly and repeating warmed over talking points about Jena 6, the duke rape case, or some other race-tinged controversy they personally know nothing about... this is a class that spans ideology, and it's bad for America.

But Come. On.

Vote for Obama because you like his issues, you trust his character, you don't like his competition, or something. But I don't think it's logical to not vote for someone because of the race demons he would unleash in this country, especially when he has shown an ability to tone down that kind of racial division. You're basically saying that no black person is qualified to be president. I can't stomach that.

I like a lot of what you stand for DR, and I've had my own brain farts on AD, too. I'm sure if you started digging through the stacks, you could fine an anthology's worth of Dumb Ideas Typed Too Quickly, by DrewYorkTimes. But I gotta call you on this one and hope that, in between now and ballot day, you catch a whiff of your own reasoning here.

I think this is an excellent post and pretty much sums up my feelings for the general elections. The only thing I would add is the anti-war conservatives will either stay home during the general election day or vote for a democrat. To me its a simple choice, pay for everyones healthcare or send my brother off to war again. Of course I since I live in Texas I will definately vote for Ron Paul in the primaries this coming week.

Absolutely not, Obama is well to my left and says little of substance. I will not endorse his views with my vote nor will I assume responsibility for his actions when he destroys John McCain in the general election and takes the office of the Presidency.

Absolutely. I will vote for Ron Paul or myself, I'm not sure which. By voting for Obama [whom I want to be President just as much as I do McCain], I effectively endorse his views and assume some level of responsibility for his actions...I'm not prepared to do that and could not look at myself in the mirror if I did.

CP

I ran across an article written by a conservative, that does a pretty good job of addressing the phenomenon of Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama.

John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee for president, likes to say that he was a "foot soldier" in the Reagan Revolution. So was I, working out of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. But, unlike McCain, a good man and a true American hero, I don't intend to vote Republican this November. I am voting for Barack Obama.

Meritocracy is at the core of American conservative beliefs. So let's face it: George W. Bush has been the worst US president in memory. His administration has been inept, corrupt, and without accomplishment. After this performance, why give the Republicans another turn at the helm?
link

Of the explanations I've read in this thread why various posters have chosen not to support Barack Obama, I can accept most of them as valid and sound reasons.

Amlord says due to his stance on the issues and his liberalism, he can't back Obama.

For Jzyehoshua, Obama being pro-choice is a no sale. If the stance of a politician on abortion is what weighs most heavily in Jzyehoshua's decision-making process that is one I have to respect.

ConservPat also finds Obama too far to the Left and all sizzle, but no steak. I can get to that even if I disagree.

Others have added variations on the same theme: too liberal, too naive, too inexperienced, etcetera.

But there's two responses that puzzle me:




If I grasp the gist of what DaytonRocker is saying here, it's not Barack Obama he has a problem with. It's Barack Obama's supporters who bug him. He seems to be apprehensive that a Black president means everyday is Christmas for professional race peddlers.

I believe exactly the opposite will happen if Obama is elected. The rise of Obama's star comes at the expense of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's ebbing.

Al Sharpton is on a jealousy trip, power trip, ego trip and is tripping over his own two right feet. Last week, the New York preacher declared that presidential candidate Barack Obama should not take the black vote for granted. He also bad-mouthed Obama for supporting Sen. Joe Lieberman. Sharpton's Obama-drama took center stage last week when the New York Post reported a pro-Hillary activist charged that a jealous Rev. Al was out to do deadly damage to Obama's presidential bid. ''He's saying that Obama never did anything for the community, never worked with anybody from the community, that nobody knows the people around him, that he's a candidate driven by white leadership,'' the Post quoted the activist.

That civil rights agenda Sharpton wants to talk about is just fine if you're in the presidential race to see if you can get more votes than the Rev. Jesse Jackson did back in the '80s so that you can claim the de facto Leader-of-Black-America crown. But it won't play in Peoria if you are seeking to become Ruler of the Free World. That calls for universal, not racial, appeal. And whether Sharpton knows it or not, universality in good hands is great for civil rights. Universal health care appeals to all Americans but will help African Americans proportionately more. An African-American president, elected on universal appeal, can launch a public school initiative that will ensure that each child is well-educated and that voting rights are enforced.

To say that Sharpton is jealous is about as obvious as saying that America's not about to elect a black man who wears his hair conked. Why should the media again seek out Rev. Sharpton, a self-appointed leader, when it can call on Sen. Obama, the first competitive African-American presidential candidate? Why go to Sharpton to get a quick quip on how we're losing the war on poverty, when you can go to top-tier candidate Obama for a substantial response on what he'd do about us losing the war in Iraq? link

Nothing promises to dislodge the Sharptons of the world from their self-appointed position as "The Black President of the United States" than a president who happens to be Black and doesn't wield his race as a club to beat Whites into submission. A reason old school leadership like Andrew Young and Julian Bond haven't been feeling the Obama love is he doesn't owe them anything. Oh sure, he appreciates what they've done, but they didn't make him and they can't break him.

Proof of Obama's independence came when he had the stones to blow off Tavis Smiley's invitation (but we expect you to show) to his annual "State of the Black Union" forum last week in New Orleans. Obama thought it was more important to be out on the campaign trail trying to win votes than it was to sit around with a lot of "leaders" talking problems to death. Hillary Clinton showed up in person to apologize for anyone offended by her husband's race-baiting remarks before the South Carolina primary. You don't think Obama knew he was going to take heat from some of the Black Illuminati for not kissing up to them?

You really need to regroup and rethink your support/non-support of Barack Obama, DaytonRocker. If you do, you will find he is not beholden to those who make their living playing games of racial politics. If anything, he could mean the lessening of their influence.




Apparently, those people who gave him the nod over Hillary in those 11 consecutive contests don't quite see it your way.

Here's the facts, barnaby2341. You can't change Obama's skin color and he's not "just another White guy." Way back when before Iowa and he was just treading water as Clinton had a double-digit lead over him, he wasn't Black enough for Black folks. Then he won Iowa and it dispelled the notion that White farmers wouldn't support a skinny Black guy with a funny name.

That's when he became too Black for some White folks and especially for Hillary and Bill Clinton. That's when they woke up to find out they were in for a dogfight instead of the coronation they expected. Sucks to be them.

And when you get right down to the real nitty-gritty, Barack Obama isn't standing in the way of Hillary Clinton and American history. Her crummy campaign for the presidency mixed with equal parts of overbearing pomposity and undeserved hubris is standing in her way.

By this time next week either Hillary will have arisen from the dead by winning big on the REAL "Super Tuesday" or she'll be circling the drain. Either way, I sure hope by then the Clintonistas will find something new to snivel about. This line about the mean ol' Black man standing in her way has gotten real old, real fast.

"Christmas for professional race peddlers" - very, very good term and nails down exactly what concerns me whether anyone agrees with me or not.

Until the Bill O incident, I believed Obama would bridge the racial divide that exists in many people's heads. And this - along with with what he has successfully demonstrated as solid judgment to me - was yet another reason to vote for Obama.

People are pretending past history in terms of legislative achievements label the candidate. "What has Hillary done", "What has Barack Hussien Osama - oops... I mean 'Obama' done"...blah blah blah.

Well, here's a news flash - most politicians are lawyers and every single one of them acts like a lawyer. Therefore, every single one of them is morally bankrupt. So, when they side with an issue, it's a result of a political back-room deal and their personal convictions have little to do with it. Almost all these idiots voted for the authorization to invade Iraq based on political rhetoric and poll numbers. Very few looked at the evidence that made countries like France, Russia, and Germany stand down. But Obama stood almost alone on principle and called it exactly right. Clearly, his judgment is far, far superior than your average politician and for that matter, any candidate running for president. Obama's foreign policies seem clear and decisive to me. He will attempt to solve problems through diplomatic channels (much like Reagan did in dealing with Russia) and only as a last resort, commit our military. I don't see what's so liberal about that. And if a host country would not confront our enemies on their soil, Obama would call for us to do it ourselves - just like Bush did in Afghanistan not long after making fun of Obama's stance on this.

In my mind, it's not a liberal or conservative issue - it's leadership. How much leadership skill does it take to blame democrats for everything, bad intel for all the messes created, and attacks against us for all our problems? It's easy to do very little about everything except for denying a problem exists or "stay the course". Or print more money to solve a problem. What skill does that take? Obama can win and should win based on his track record of better judgment than almost everybody else and his ability to LEAD - not blame. McCain runs away from his record by using the "quit playing the blame game" or "the past is done, we need to look forward" absurdities while Hillary simply pretends her voting record doesn't exist.

So, politics is hardball. I'd like to wish it wasn't, but it is and nobody is going to change that. So, along with the politics of personal destruction played by both parties, race can and will be used as a weapon. I don't want my representative to back down in the event he/she ever found their principles and tried to do the right thing, but thwarted because they didn't want to end up on BET begging for his/her political life.

nighttimer, as much as I hope you are correct and think you may be correct, I look at Trent Lott, Don Imus, and Bill O as examples of what can happen when we don't like someone based on their issues having nothing to do with race. Each of my examples may be idiots, but they are not racists. But what they are doesn't matter - what they say does.

Son, you are soooooo wrong. I bolded some of your text above. IF YOU, OR ANY ONE OF YOU, THINK OBAMA'S RACE IS NOT IMPORTANT, THAT HE IS JUST A WHITE GUY WITH A TAN, THEN YOU MUST, MUST READ HIS BOOK BEFORE YOU VOTE IN NOVEMBER.

I have tried to start two different threads about Dreams from my Father, Obama's book from 1995. The mods here keep killing it. The mods here do not want me to start a heavy-duty racial argument based upon the substance of this book, and I will not do so in this thread, but I say to anyone reading this thread, anywhere in the USA, that you MUST read this book before you vote. To do otherwise is irresponsible, as we know very little about Obama and this book is a clear look at him, written by him--not by some handlers or spin doctors. His newer book, The Audacity of Hope, is more of a pablum sales job, and not nearly so personal. If you wish to read Dreams and Audacity, fine, but if you only read one, read Dreams.

A word to the wise should be sufficient. There is very much at stake.

One word: China. Their influence in foreign affairs is already large, and growing, and we already compete with them for resources and strategic influence. Our relationship with them is already strained...note the recent incidents of refusing to allow our carrier group to have liberty in Hong Kong. The best way to ensure war with them doesn't break out in the future is to maintain our current large technological advantage. It's not like we're ever going to win a war of quantitative differences...it would have to be qualitative superiority. If we let that advantage slip, then we fall into a situation where China might think they could win such a war, making such a war more likely. The current situation in Russia is not encouraging, either. I don't think we should discount the possibility of armed conflict with either country in the not too distant future, particularly if we let our current technological advantage slip. In fact, I would say that global conflict with another superpower is more likely now than it has been in quite some time...since the fall of the U.S.S.R.

Also, development of the unmanned weapons systems you mention here (which I agree with) will also take significant funding, and probably be necessary as we deal with other threats in the future. We are just on the cusp of such systems, so lots and lots of research is needed in this area. Now would be a terrible time to cut funding. Technology is spreading in many other areas too. All of which requires money for funding. Looking forward into the future, it is clear that maintaining a clear technological advantage in these areas is absolutely critical to preventing global conflict and maintaining our strategic influence.

It should also be remembered that defense spending has a positive effect on the economy, as well. While it may be easy to decry the military industrial complex, it's probably a different thing entirely to tell all the people employed by it (with generally well paying jobs) that they need to go hit the employement line because you're shifting the funding over to some social program, particularly when the taxes these workers and companies contribute helps to pay for those very programs.

To answer the debate question, I like Obama the person but am skeptical about his policies. For me, it would come down to whether or not I believed he could maintain his bi-partisan, change the way government works rhetoric when actually governing. Given his very liberal policies, I think he would find this extremely difficult. If he didn't adjust these policies, he would never win support from the right, and they would dig in against him. If he did adjust those policies, he'd lose his support from within his own party. All the bickering would tend to erode his support from his movement, which is mainly based on change. What would happen when all the promised change simply didn't occur? So, as I said, I am skeptical. But I would probably at the least prefer Obama to Clinton. Better the promise of change which might not be kept, than no promise of change at all.

CR, judging someone by their skin color seems to be pretty much a liberal/progressive value today, although there are plenty of "moderates" who buy into it as well. Barack Obama is "black", therefore he's a potential victim. The entire campaign of the Democrat candidates is being covered by the liberal/progressive media on the basis of identity groups.

I don't think he's "just a white guy with a tan." I don't know whether he's deeply alienated from the culture in which he was raised (white), or has cynically chosen what he believes to be the best path to power. Either option is very worrisome.

Do yourself a favor---read the man's book.

I personally love the movie Patton, despite the obvious attempts to poke fun at him in the movie. In North Africa, Patton defeats Irwin Rommel's 10th Panzer and cries out, as he watches the battle unfold in our favor, "Rommel, you magnificient bast@rd, I read your book!"

Read Obama's book--Dreams from my Father. Order it from Amazon--today.

Your commercial is getting old quick.

You are beginning to sound like "HeadOn - apply directly to the forehead, HeadOn - apply directly to the forehead, HeadOn - apply directly to the forehead..."

Funny you mention it... after reading that I should read the book again I applied my palm to my forehead. Directly.

Perhaps--but have you read the flippin' book?

I think you're misunderstanding his message here, Amlord. "I" does not mean the government as it relates to being our brother's keeper. Andrew Sullivan points out the difference here:

That's the brand of liberalism I support as well.

In his book Dreams, however, his entire community organizing career, such as he described it, was channelled into getting a group together, getting a meeting with government officials, and getting money or programs allocated to his community from the government (generally Chicago local govt). His book, his descriptions. I am not sure the self-help philosophy is so near-and-dear to Obama's heart, or perhaps his idea of self-help is to get the govt to pay attention to the people for whom he is working and thereby help yourself to someone else's money.

Frankly, like most Americans, I am happy to give money to causes I support. I sure don't want to be told I HAVE to give to anyone, especially through my tax dollars, collected under the full authority and power of the Federal govt.