The Obama threat
Saturday January 26, 2008
Categories: Democrats
A conservative friend in NYC told me last night that he intends to vote for John McCain in the GOP primary. He added, "If Obama is elected president, I would think, 'OK, let's see how this turns out.' But Hillary?...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
WOW, that is some of the most impressive race baiting I've seen in a long time.
I had another comment, but my brain was wiped by that garbage.
Wow, I didn't think I get to have such a close shave with one of Clintons Rovian Puppets. Thomas for Shame!
Thomas, were you purposefully copying Liz from Douthat's comment section, or this vile crap circulating everywhere?
I really feel that a vote for Obama is a vote for a return to grown up politics and a rejection of Boomer infantilism.
Sadly, I think we are going see more of this bilge before things get better.
Thomas:
Man, that's a steamin' pile of cr*ppola.
Nice to see some sanity from Rod on the Obama thing. I'll probably vote GOP (I always do; might not this time if the wrong candidate is the nominee), would never vote Dem because of life and sexuality issues. That said, so you know where I'm coming from, I'm trying to decide which I dread more: HRC or BHO. I detest the Clintons and their tactics. They need to go away, and so if Obama were the nominee, they'd be done (for this cycle -- never count them out, right?). But as Ross notes, Obama would probably due crazy liberal things that we could only reverse through some sort of uprising, and that wouldn't happen. So, assuming the GOP goes down in flames this November, I'm torn over who I'd prefer from the Dems.
Early returns give Obama about a 25 point lead. The networks have already called it. For real? I'm not sure how much I trust these exit poll numbers, but that seems like a pretty big lead!
I thought I saw Obama 70, HRC 18, Breck Girl 12.
Gang, this "Thomas" is a spammer. I'm going to delete his stuff wherever I find it. If you see it somewhere else, please let me know. I've set up a new e-mail address -- crunchycon(at)aol.com -- for correspondence from this site. Please alert me on that address.
I think Douthat's worries are a bit overblown. I too am a conservative who likely will not be voting for either Obama or Clinton in the general election. That said, I am comfortable with the possibility of an Obama presidency and if it were to happen I would expect conservatives to play the role of loyal opposition. And I would expect to see Obama attempt to lead as a left-of-center president constrained by the Congress. Will Obama be transformative? It's possible, but I suspect that claim is overblown as well. In order to be transformative, he'll have to actually transform something substantive, not just govern like a run-of-the-mill Democrat liberal. And the things out there begging for transformation are our bankrupt entitlements (especially social security), our job-killing tax code, and out-of-control spending. If President Obama wants to transform those things for the better, then conservatives are going to be very very happy. But if he wants to continue with the same tax and spend policies that the Dems have always supported to prop up these failing systems, then the transformer label is going to have to wait for someone else.
CB, you smell like a fiscal conservative. What about judges and justices? That's primarily what I as a social conservative am concerned about.
And by "smell like" I mean "sound like."
Rod and all, I haven't read the article referenced. And I assume you'll be posting sometime soon about Obama's win in the SC Democratic primary.
All I can say is:
conservatives, liberals, whites, blacks, Crunchies and non-Crunchies ought to exult in this result.
This is one of the greatest days I can remember in US political history.
I was born in Charlotte, NC in 1963, about 6 miles from the NC/SC border. I lived there until 1999. I was the in the first class bussed "across town" to elementary school (6th grade) in an all-black neighborhood when Charlotte NC decided in favor of school busing for desegregation.
It IS a beautiful day in America when a black man wins (even in the self-selecting Democratic party)a major Presidential battle in South Carolina.
I've lived within spitting distance of SC most of my life, my father lives there now, and this white Southerner couldn't be more thrilled at Obama's victory.
This is a day of hope...even for conservatives, whether you think so or not.
You guys really have no idea how hopeful I feel about this country tonight.
Fear not, I share the same concern about judicial appointments that Irenaeus does. What I was getting at is that historically we have called presidents transformative or great based on their actions in economic crisis and foreign relations or war (i.e., Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Reagan). If, as Douthat suggests, a President Obama became a tranformative figure, then my question is how? And what? In the economic realm, there are big problems (which I mentioned previously) out there screaming to big fixed. Could Obama fix them, could he actually push through a fundamental repair of social security? My point is that he could, but that that would likely require a fix that would make fiscal (and all other) conservatives happy. If President Obama could do that, then, yep, he'd certainly be able to claim he was transformative. But based on his sparse record and the party from which he hopes to secure the nomination, can anyone honestly think Obama would do such a thing? And I think the same would hold true for foreign relations. But who knows, he might surprise us. Again, I'm with you on the judiciary, but judicial appointments aren't something that in and of themselves that would cause a president to be described as transformative. Now I shall go shower the whiff of the fiscal off of me (smile!)
cb, Sorry...you don't smell anymore.:) I'm sure you'd agree, but I do think a president (with a willing Senate) could do a lot to reform the judiciary. It's been thought of before -- remember FDR's court-packing plan? I'm not thinking of anything that crazy, but I do think a President that made judicial reform a priority could do a lot, and be recognized for it.
And yeah, if Obama got our financial house in order, I'd imagine we'd all be pleased. We really, really need all the reforms you mention and then some. But I suspect the best we could hope for from him is that he'd be the most pro-abortion president in history, knocking Bill Clinton (who would still retain the honor of being the first black president) to a respectable second place.
The sheer vileness of the Clintons ought to make anyone favor Obama for the Demo nominee. But in the end he is still highly liberal (affirmative action, confiscatory taxation, etc etc), so any Repub is preferable in November.
I wanted to comment about Rod's debate with whoever the liberal was on the NYTimes website, but after reading that lo-ong list of do's and don'ts governing this blog, I decided hardly anything can be said without danger of violating one or another rule. So rather than waste my time, adios. (Political correctness will be the death of the West). Oops. Sorry.
Obama would be hard pressed to make decisions more devastating to the nation than what has occurred over the last 16 years. When you considered W attempts at supreme court nominations and his suicidal fiscal policies, not to mention fighting the wrong war, it down right hard not to feel hope from the Obama teams entry it to what is already a dirty, dirty race.
Rod, back in my day we called such posters as "Thomas" trolls. Kim M reminded me so much of once such type that used to hand out on the old Christianity Debate board' ole Kimboo. Bit scary really.
Why is it off limits to discuss Barack Obama's black nationalist church? It's insane... They've really had guest speakers calling for the execution of all white people. Have you seen some of Rev. Wright's comments after 9/11 about white people?
Banjo, stay and play the ROC is not Rods creation, but B-net and it has been widely vilified for years now. This blog is respectful and well thought out, and largely the domain of grown ups behaving like grown ups. I don't think any one would mistake it for PC though, check out the archives and reconsider. Rod doesn't break out the smiting wand very often, unless the posting is particularly disrespectful, or obscene.
Pretend we're all having a cup of joe in his living room and post accordingly.
And if the Hil-billy complex gets the nomination, I'm starting a write in campaign for Obama, with Kinky Friedman has VP.
CR its not, check the archives : )
I actually prefer Clinton to McCain. They both advocate essentially the same policies. At least with Clinton you'll have some GOP opposition. Obama is still an untested quantity. He walked into his Senate office only two years ago after winning a practically uncontested election. Does anyone really know how'll he'll handle the Oval Office with thirty thousand interests clamoring about him? He should do another turn in the Senate at least.
Clinton, for all her problems is a known quantity. She's Bill w/o the charisma.
As far as judges go, do you realy think McCain will pick a pro-lifer swing vote? Or Romney? Sure, maybe they will. And maybe they'll turn water into wine right after that.
Derek, that's a good thought re: McCain not provoking GOP opposition. Interesting. As far as McCain and Romney picking judges, it's more complex than the swing vote in Roe v Wade. There are (as you know) hundreds of other positions in the federal judiciary, and on balance, I'll be happier with McCain or Romney choosing those appointments than a Dem. There's something to be said for moving the football a few yards here or there, and a lot of that happens before cases ever have a shot at getting to the supreme court. But yeah, I'm not enthusiastic about either of them.
OK new numbers in, 99% of precincts reporting: Obama 55, HRC 27, Breck Girl 18. That's a pretty decisive victory, coming over two other candidates, especially considering the Breck Girl is a real southerner and from the Carolinas. Obama takes 54% of the female vote and the male vote, and a good deal of the "non-black" vote.
Why do I feel so good if I disdain the guy so much?
Next questions: does he have a legit shot at the nomination? Will the Clintons spin this quietly as, "Well, yeah, there's a lot of black folk down there"?
Politico.com just answered one of my questions: "Bill Clinton earlier in the day evoked the Rev. Jesse Jackson's South Carolina wins in 1984 and 1988 when talking to a reporter about Obama." What an unmitigated arse.
The irony is that the Hil-bily complex thinks their strategy is juuuussssstttttt fine. The hypocrisy is amusing, and deeply troubling at the same time. Hil-bily just doesn't see the incongruence.
I'm 25, I like Obama because he seems to actually care about my generation. HRC seems like another boomer, a generation obsessed with themselves. (This is a general perception my mother is a boomer and worked incredibly hard to raise me by herself. I'm not trying to indict all boomers, but I think that this fits most of the generation well.) Nor do I want another 8 years of Clinton, he listened to polls and never took made a stand for something he thought was right. However, if McCain or preferably Huckabee wins the Republican nomination, they have my vote. Any candidate who wants to keep/expand abortion rights is beyond me. I came to Christ recently and I believed that life began at conception before my conversion. How anyone can support murder is a mystery, Also McCain and Huckabee seem to be men of character, which is something I'm looking for in a President. Romney has flip flopped on so many issues I've lost count, and HRC follow popular opinion instead of any sense of morals. How can you tell? Has she taken an unpopular position and stood by it since her election the Senate? Huckabee earned my support when McCain won the SC primary and then congratulated McCain on a fair and well led campaign. That is character, the ability to lose and keep your cool, that's the President I want. Also I think that childhood obesity is a major problem for America and only Huckabee seems to be doing anything about it.
Chris
From your journalist friend's comments about currency markets, the question of Barack versus Hillary or Republican versus Democrat may be small potatoes in the real world (i.e., the world as it is really run, versus what we perceive is important).
Maybe it's time to vote for a Black President, even if one is a Republican and thinks the Republicans are pro-life versus the Democrats being baby-killers.
We would survive another term of Clintonian split the midd;e triangualtion/fibger in the air governance.Yes, she's an abysmal person.As a conservative, hwile I woudl never vote for her, the idea of another Clinton term is not the end of the world. At least it's a world that's got a foot in the real world, whcih is better than what we've been in since 2000.
And yet, I KNOW Obama would be far. far worse."change you can beleive in"-what are we, children? 8 years of her husband tempered much of the socialist zeal. She'd pay enough lip service to the left to keep herself in office, and ignore as much to do the same.
Obama, the little we know of him, is an avowed unabridged untempered leftist. Better the devil you know, and the one with Robert Rubin in her ear.
Maybe it is time for the liberals to have their turn. Since 1980 the Republicans, conservatives, and the Religious Right have had their chance to run things. Look where we are at now. Maybe the liberals can't do any better. But now is the time, to give liberals their chance.
Didn't the libs have their chance from 1922 to 1991? *ahem* And wasn't Clinton in power from 1992-2000? I sure think he's a lib.
I think I've figured out the attraction a lot of us conservatives are trying to resist when it comes to Obama. But I just blogged about it and I've been blogging all night so my fingers are tired. So you'll have to go check it out there - theupsidedownworld.wordpress.com. And I'm really not just being obnoxious or trying to self-promote. My fingers really are tired.
Why is it off limits to discuss Barack Obama's black nationalist church? It's insane... They've really had guest speakers calling for the execution of all white people. Have you seen some of Rev. Wright's comments after 9/11 about white people?
It's certainly not off limits to discuss Barack Obama's church. I wrote my Dallas Morning News column about it last weekend -- I was highly critical -- and we had a blog thread (or maybe two) about it in the past few days. I don't like people who've never showed up on this blog diving in to post incendiary accusations about "Barack Hussein Obama's church" without backing any of it up. Have they really had speakers calling for the execution of white people? Really? Then blog a link to it. I think the Rev. Wright is going to be a real problem for Obama, but I've not heard it credibly reported that they had speakers at his church wanting to execute white people. And one of the posts (which I deleted) implied something about Obama wanting to rape white women. That kind of vile garbage is going to be deleted on sight, and if you think that's political correctness, fine. There are other blogs for you. This one isn't.
The big question would be with an Obama win would be how many Republicans would be in the Senate because if the Democrats can't get sixty votes in the Senate it does not matter what a President Obama would want.
But Democrats will likely get four or five more seats in the Senate this year. With 55 or 56 votes, getting 60 is easy. There are always four to six Republican who get picked off, especially in a Senate where GOP moderates would have more influence.
All you need is Snowe, Collins (if she doesn't lose), Specter, Smith, Voinovich, Murkowski and you have your 60 votes.
Whatever you think of Edwards being a lifelong (and highly successful) trial lawyer, he would at least be honest AND know the Geneva Convention definition of torture.
A combination none of the last three Attorneys General (including the incumbent Mukasey) have gotten right.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.