America's Real Conservative Choice For President

Much has been made about Barack Obama being a socialist and a Marxist by the dwindling white power base that is the decrpit Republican Party. But the reality is that tommorow America will have a choice between a real conservative President and a Republican. That choice of course is Barack Obama.

For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.

His politics of unity; the third way, his appeal to Americans that they need to take personal responsibility for their families and their neighbours, his rise to power as an example of American meritocracy, his appeal to hard work, and a fair share for all, are traditional American conservative values, indeed they are the values of bourgoise enlightment exemplified by Freemasonry. His are the values of both Abraham Lincoln and FDR, not Ronald Reagan. After all prior to Regans unholy alliance of neo-cons, paleo-cons and evangelicals, conservatism was really just an outgrowth of 'classical liberalism'.

His endorsement by Colin Powell, as well as by other leading Republican's and conservatives such as Chris Buckley, shows that Obama's polics are more closely aligned to 'tradtional American values' than those of the evangelical right wing that hijacked the party of Goldwater.

And his promise to expand the war in Afghanistan means that he and Harper have something in comon despite the difference in their party labels. And Obama's Green Plan will coincide with the one that is still to be unvieled by the Harpocrites.


A Conservative For Obama
Ronald T. Wilcox
I'm a conservative. I've spent my money and my time in support of Republican candidates. I also support Barack Obama for president.
Modern conservatism is deeply rooted in ideas and political philosophy, in rational discourse and pragmatism. John Stuart Mill matters to conservatives.
Conservatives used to ask the tough questions and did not accept simplistic solutions. That is why it is deeply disappointing to me, both personally and professionally, that John McCain has run a campaign that is so antithetical to rational discourse about public policy. His campaign has been about glib answers to complex problems. His choice for vice president was political malpractice.
He has catered to a wing of the Republican Party that believes everything will be all right--if only the government gets out of the way. No matter the problem, that is the only acceptable solution. To suggest that research about or thoughtful analysis of a situation might, in some cases, point in a different direction is apostasy.
For these Republicans, simply the act of doing policy analysis must mean that you are a liberal. They know that real Republicans, and real men, don't need to think things through. I do not respect these people. They have dragged a proud movement that had much to offer our country down into the mud of ignorance.
And yet the reason I now support Obama is only partially due to McCain's decision to embrace this base form of populism. It also stems from a growing respect for Obama's thoughtfulness, which reveals itself when he's faced with difficult questions. I do not agree with all elements of Obama's tax policy, but I certainly get the impression he has thought about it a whole lot more than McCain.

The attraction of Obama to Sullivan and other conservatives is not surprising. In fact, their support is consistent with the constructive wing of the philosophy of conservatism. Those stuck in the world of divisional politics can be baffled by this. How, they ask, can people who admire Reagan and Thatcher also have time for Obama?Aside from his positive message of unity, there are a number of things concerning Obama which appeal to conservatives, not least his appreciative attitude towards traditions and his understanding of the importance of learning from history. In her ambitious New Yorker profile of Obama published last May, Larissa Macfarquhar writes that Obama was critical of his parents and grandparents for breaking up from their respective communities and moving to other towns and countries. They allowed themselves to be seduced by the American dream of individualism and mobility, something which to Obama seems "credulous and shallow." To Obama, the abandonment of their surroundings in Kenya and Kansas to start anew somewhere else seemed, writes Macfarquhar, "a destructive craving for weightlessness." Freedom has a price, and this is shattered communities and loneliness.

Many traditional conservatives (not the neo-con subspecies) are embarrassed by George Bush and are looking for a way out of the foreign and domestic policy nightmare that he has engineered. They also understand that John McCain would be more of the same or even worse. There is a lively discussion of Barack Obama that is taking place both in the blogosphere and in the media directed at a conservative audience, and much of the discourse is surprisingly receptive to the idea that Obama, though a liberal, could bring about genuine change that will benefit the country. A recent article by Boston University professor and former army officer Andrew Bacevich appeared in The American Conservative magazine and is available on the internet at www.amconmag.com. It is entitled "The Case for Obama" and makes the point that Obama is a candidate that is certainly no conservative, but he is the only real hope to get out of Iraq and also avoid wars of choice in the future. Bacevich rightly sees the Iraq war and its consequences as a truly existential issue for the United States, one that should be front and center for voters in November. Any more adventures of the Iraq type will surely bankrupt the country and destroy what remains of the constitution. Bacevich also notes that the election of John McCain, candidate of the neoconservatives and the war party, would guarantee an unending series of preemptive wars as U.S. security doctrine and would validate the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq and wage an interminable global war on "terrorists." Electing Obama instead would be as close as one could come to making a definitive judgment on the folly of Iraq and everything that it represents, a judgment that is long overdue. Many conservatives would agree that the Obama commitment to leave Iraq is the right way to go and long to return to the days when America only went to war when a vital interest was threatened.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:Barack Obama, Barack, Obama, Kenya, America, Indonesia, Senator, Chicago, Illinois, USA, politics, Democrat, President, Presidentialrace, 2008, Abraham L incoln,

Unfair and Unbalanced

So Fox had their debate last night without Ron Paul.

I saw the very beginning of the forum, in which Brit Hume said that ‘one of these five men will be the next President of the United States’ — a statement which I found presumptuous.

They claimed its because they only invited candidates with double digit standings in the National Polls. Well Ron Paul is ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. And it was a New Hampshire debate. But well....fair and balanced as Fox is they did not want him there. Any excuse would do not to feature the only Republican candidate opposed to the War in Iraq. And the result was a very boooooring political forum that fell flat.

Paul has been one of this campaign's biggest surprises. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee have seen their popularity fluctuate, but Paul has continued to climb in polls (he's at 10 percent in the latest CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll, well ahead of Thompson)."It's annoying not able to participate in the debate," said Paul, adding that Fox News reporters and commentators "are war mongerers who don't want to hear other opinions."

The decision by Fox to limit participation in the forum infuriated Paul supporters and even drew the ire of the New Hampshire Republican Party, which withdrew its sponsorship of the event.

Fox had invited Republican candidates Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Fred Thompson to the forum, but excluded Paul as well as California congressman Duncan Hunter.

Paul protested, arguing that he raised $20 million in the last quarter of 2007, almost the same amount as Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, a Research 2000 poll published in the Concord Monitor released Sunday showed Paul garnering 7 percent of the vote, besting Thompson and only 1 point behind Giuliani in the state.

On Saturday the New Hampshire Republican party expressed its disappointment with the decision to exclude Mr. Paul and Representative Duncan Hunter of California by severing its partnership with Fox.

“We believe that it is inconsistent with the first in the nation primary tradition to be excluding candidates in a pre-primary setting,” said Fergus Cullen, chair of the state G.O.P. party. “All candidates regardless of how well known they are or how much money they’ve raised should be treated equally here.”

The New Hampshire G.O.P. has been in discussions with Fox to include all the candidates in the forum, but the network said that it was only inviting candidates who received double digit support in national polls.

On Saturday, Fox News Channel issued a brief statement from David Rhodes, its vice president of news: “We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season.”

The voice that Fox News wouldn’t broadcast Sunday night came through loud and clear to the more than 400 Ron Paul fans who jammed into the Crowne Plaza hotel’s ballroom here Sunday afternoon to hear his alternative vision for America.

The crowd, representing many of the outliers of the American political spectrum, waved placards and American flags as they repeatedly rose to their feet.

If nothing else, Paul’s backers, who include pro wrestler Glen Jacobs (aka “Kane”) and former Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., are more overtly enthusiastic about their candidate than most political activists.

That energy could make Paul’s primary day performance here a compelling undercard for Tuesday’s marquee matchups of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney .

In a Concord Monitor poll this week, Paul was one point behind Rudy Giuliani , well within the margin of error, for fourth place, with Fred Thompson behind them. Finishing behind Paul could be a jarring blow for better-known candidates who hope to compete for the nomination nationally.

“It makes [Fox] look so foolish,” Paul said after his speech. “What do they have against democracy?”

Note that I have been predicting Paul would do well in NH for sometime now , and the polls show that.

If you want to use polls the latest Rasmussen Reports has him tied for third place in New Hampshire with Iowa winner Mike Huckabee at eleven percent (11%) making Fox look even more foolish. Fred Thompson is at four percent (4%) in the state in that poll, and Rudy is only at nine percent (9%).

Fox loves to promote unbridled capitalism as the solution to everything. Well here is what happens when the market responds to such obvious politcal bias and censorship. Ya hit them where it hurts, in the pocket book.

Are Ron Paul Supporters Really Hurting Fox News Parent Company Shares?

Following Fox News exclusion of US Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in a Sunday debate, many of his supporters called for a boycott of sponsors and - perhaps worse - shorting Fox parent company News Corp's stock.

Maybe it's just a reflection of the market overall but News Corp's shares really dropped this past week as seen by the chart below.

Coincidence? Perhaps. Then again....

The exclusion of Dr. Paul has backfired as major newspapers in the state of New Hampshire have jumped all over the story....and it's not a story of how some lowly candidate has been told to stay home by Fox News because he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning. The stories instead ask "How and Why?". How could Ron Paul not be invited when Rudy Giuliani performed much worse in Iowa than Paul, who managed to crack double digits with 10% of the vote? Why is Ron Paul not invited to a state debate where he is presently polling better than three other invitees in New Hampshire?

Fox News for us is a guilty pleasure. We watch it, we've appeared on Fox and we certainly do not encourage the shorting of a company's shares.....but the decision to leave Ron Paul out of this debate was a "bonehead" one to say the least made by individuals who we suspect do not have a full grip on reality.

The Republican GOP in New Hampshire has now backed out of sponsoring the debate, even though it will still go on as planned. The headlines on Monday, however, will be "Where was Ron Paul?" and his New Hampshire exposure is bound to be twofold as a result.

Paul has a real base in the Republican party and can build delegate status, with such an open race. As this liberal Washington state commentator correctly points out.

I stopped going out of my way to deliberately antagonize and belittle the Paul campaign a couple months ago. It was mainly because he ran and is running a real race. The guy raised $20 million in a quarter. Despite not spending a nickel he got 10 percent of the vote in Iowa - more than Giuliani - and with how flakey the voters are in the Granite State odds are good he'll do even better in New Hampshire.

Like it or not the guy is a real candidate. This isn't Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo who couldn't get attention if they were holding the last ham sandwich in hungry town. Paul has name recognition. The way things are looking, he will probably be in the race longer than Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Although there's probably no scenario where Paul can win the nomination it is nowhere out of the realm of possibility that he will control a significant block of delegates which could be a factor should this race be decided at the convention.

The Paulites are playing by all the rules and doing everything you can ask in order to be a valuable part of the nomination process. Right now as you read this there are dewy-eyed Paul supporters signing up to be PCOs and precinct captains laying down the foundation of a good grassroots base. They're doing it across the country. They're doing it in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.

Here in Washington, Democrats are choosing all of their delegates in the caucus while half the Republican delegates are coming from the primary; the open primary. It wouldn't be surprising if Paul came in second or even wins our state's GOP primary.

You see the signs along the road, you read the blog comments and you watch the YouTube videos. In terms of generating excitement the "Paultards" have been kicking the ass every candidate in both parties with the exception of Barack Obama

Paul appeals to pre Reagan Republicans, those who like Barry Goldwater feel the party was taken over by the Moral Majority.

Paul has gained a loyal following in New Hampshire by touting his strict constructionist view of the constitution and his support of individual liberties and small government with lower taxes.

Paul's campaign has helped highlight a growing group of disenfranchised Republicans who say they are being alienated by religious conservatives and others.

Supporter Louise Aitel, a high school teacher from Merrimack, said she was so turned off by the Republican Party's views that she voted for Al Gore in 2000, but will return to the GOP fold tomorrow to cast a ballot for Paul.

"I was so wretchedly tired of religion being part of the state," she said of her 2000 vote.

Paul said yesterday he is working to change the party and hopes his views will be considered.

"If it doesn't transform the Republican party, then it's going to get weaker and weaker," he said, adding that he is trying to "save" the party.

As result of the Fox move Jay Leno, desperate for content, has invited Paul to cross striking writers picket lines to be on his show. The day before the New Hampshire primary. Bingo just like Hucakbee was before Iowa. And we know the result that had.

Leno is competing to have maverick Republican candidates on his show to boost his ratings. He had Huckabee on for his inaugral show last week. With the strong libertarian base in LA and California, this will auger well for Paul and for Leno's ratings. That Paul crosses a picket line to do this does not do his cause justice, but the core of his liberaltarian base are union haters so they could care less.

As for Leno he desperately needs content as his latest endeavors show like when last week he had one of his male staff show off his beer belly in a slinky thong. Desperation reeks off the show which has not come to an agreement with its writers like its competitor Letterman did. Having Paul on is unfortunately a win-win. And a big loss to the Writers Guild.


Writers Guild of America members continue to picket outside “The Tonight Show” studios Wednesday as fans wait in line to get into Jay Leno’s show.

SEE:

Fox Vs. Paul

Tags;
libertarian, Republican, Barry Goldwater US, Ronald Reaganelections, politics, right wing, conservative, Mr.Conservative, Fox News, Jay Leno, US Presidential race, Ron Paul,

Fox Vs. Paul

More evidence that the neo-con establishment hates Ron Paul. In this case Fox News is not inviting Paul to their Republican debate Sunday night. Dumb move. But what do you expect from the channel that hates Paul the most.So much for fair or balanced.

Online protests seek to include Ron Paul in NH debate
An online protest is growing over presidential candidate Ron Paul's exclusion from a Fox News debate here on Sunday, even though other Republicans receiving fewer votes in Iowa or scoring lower in the polls were invited.

Paul received a fifth-place 10 percent of the GOP vote in Iowa's caucus Thursday, ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who received 3.5 percent. He's also ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire polls, polling 7 percent to Thompson's 2 percent.

But both Giuliani and Thompson still appear to be invited to Sunday evening's debate sponsored by Fox News and the New Hampshire Republican Party. Paul isn't.

That's irked many Paul supporters, who responded by flooding a Fox News Web page on the debate with over 580 comments and creating a "Protest Fox" Web site. It says: "We need to send a message to Fox's Rupert Murdoch & his fellow Neocon buddies that he is not Musharraf and the US is not Pakistan, yet! Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion. debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don't like his message of freedom and liberty."

They're also planning protests outside Fox News affiliates. Another likely protest site is Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., which has given Fox News space for a broadcast studio. That's where Sunday's debate will take place.

So why the exclusion? It's hard to say, and Fox News hasn't exactly been forthcoming on this point.

For his part, Paul said he thinks it's because he--alone among Republican candidates--opposes the war in Iraq. After being excluded, Paul explained that he views Fox News as a "propagandist" for the war with editorial views that are hardly in keeping with traditional conservative limited-government principles, according to a story by the Boston Globe.

Adding to the intrigue is that the New Hampshire Republican Party, which is co-sponsoring the debate and presumably has some say in who's invited, published a statement this week saying the media should not be in the "business of excluding serious candidates and talks were continuing with Fox."

And adding to the insult, at least for Paul supporters, is that ABC News is sponsoring a debate at the same place--Saint Anselm College--the evening before. Unlike the Fox News debate on Sunday, however, Ron Paul will be invited to participate.

Of course Fox neo-con commentators just hate Ron Paul.

SEAN HANNITY UPSET ABOUT RON PAUL WINNING DEBATE POLL

While Fox is the voice of America's War,

Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07)



Fox Chatheads Aghast at Ron Paul's Appeal




Ron Paul is the voice of America's Troops. The folks fighting the neo-cons war for them. Paul can say he supports the troops while calling for their withdrawal from Bush's war.

New Spot: "Troops Support Ron Paul"

Republican Ron Paul is out with a new TV ad, set to run in New Hampshire through Tuesday's primary, stressing his military credentials.

Patriotic music booms. Soldiers salute. The announcer begins: "A proud military veteran who served our nation. Ron Paul salutes and supports our troops who protect and defend our freedom." A flag waves. The announcer continues, "But who do the troops support? Ron Paul. The record shows they're standing up for him." The ad concludes: "Ron Paul is their choice for commander-in-chief."

His campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Paul "has long been a praised as staunch advocate for veterans' issues." Still, he "wants to bring the troops home from Iraq" because he would rather America "never again sends out brave soldiers to war unless doing so is necessary for our defense," according to Benton. Whether his anti-war message will appeal to New Hampshire veterans is hard to say.

While being dissed by the Republican establishment and its neo-con media flacks the real libertarian base of the pre-Reagan Republicans comes out in favour of Paul.

Congressman Ron Paul will be joined in the last days of the New
Hampshire campaign by former Congressman and conservative stalwart
Barry Goldwater, Jr.

"We are truly honored to have this legendary conservative family
here to support Dr. Paul and bring his message to New Hampshire
voters," said Jared Chicoine, NH State Coordinator. "A Goldwater
endorsement sends an unmistakable message about what Ron Paul really
means to the Republican Party."

Son of the late conservative senator from Arizona, Mr. Goldwater
himself served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Carrying on his father's legacy of fighting for small government and
individual liberty, the former Congressman endorsed Ron Paul for
President in November of 2007.

New Hampshire is going to be another win for Paul but will the media finally take notice? Only if he succeeds in coming in fourth again and burying both Thomspon and Guilliani once and for all. And his chances are very good in this most libertarian of all states.

Rasmussen: Ron Paul Soars to 14% in NH

And while most polls indicate a slug fest between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona's U.S. Senator John McCain on the Republican side of the fight, another Republican has been waiting behind the curtain for some time now: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Paul has endeared himself to legions of supporters with his grandfatherly conviction and steady, libertarian-style message against the Iraq War, for downsizing goverment with lower taxes, and against the erosion of Constitutional rights. Paul's voters are enthusiastic and oftentimes angry. But they have purpose to their anger, fueled as it is by the outrage of seeing America drift ever closer to a socialist "Nanny State."


Tuesday. If Paul can come into the first tier of candidates, say at least fourth or third, his campaign picks up new legitimacy as he will be introduced to America by the mainstream press.

What many traditional Republicans miss is that Ron Paul, like him or not, truly helps show America that the Republican Party is not all lockstep behind the Bush/Cheney Administration when it comes to foreign invasions and domestic surveillance. Since Bush's approval ratings have been in the deep cellar for two years now, having Ron Paul handy to make articulate arguments on liberty and a more prudent foreign policy shows a Republican Party that acknowledges its mistakes.

And even the liberals like him which just further pisses off Fox.

Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero



And he even has support of an anarchist or two....



SEE:

Winds of Change

Huckabee: Paul is Dead

Republican Presidential Paul-itics

Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater

Ron Paul

Death Of Laissez-Faire Politics

Libertarians for U.S. President

Ron Paul Quotes Ayn Rand

Gravel and Paul on PBS

Tags;
libertarian, Republican, Barry Goldwater US, Ronald Reaganelections, politics, right wing, conservative, Mr.Conservative, Reagan, social-conservatives, US Presidential race, Ron Paul,

Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater

Doug Mataconis of the Liberty Papers reports that Ron Paul is the only elected politician that has won his seat three times against the incumbent, without party support. Which is no small feat. Mataconis points out why;

Paul was helped by the fact that he was running in areas of Texas where the prevailing political beliefs are conservative, but a conservatism that is of the Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan leave-me-alone type than the interventionist/Christianist conservatism that prevails elsewhere in the country

This makes sense and why Ron Paul has broad based support amongst libertarians. However as I pointed out in Mr. Conservative; Barry Goldwater had no kith nor kin with Reagan, who was responsible for allowing the interventionist/Christian types into the ruling echelons of the party. Goldwater blamed Regan for abandoning the libertarian/conservative traditions of the party.

Of course the current crop of neo-cons masquerading as Republicans, Lincoln would be ashamed, would rather hearken to the days of Reagan, and his electoral victory, then the days of principle and defeat; the Goldwater era.

Which is why a politician of principles like Ron Paul stands a snowballs chance in hell in the Republican party of today.

h/t to Go Ron Paul!


SEE:

My Favorite Conservative

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
libertarian, Republican, Barry Goldwater US, Ronald Reaganelections, politics, right wing, conservative, Mr.Conservative, Reagan, social-conservatives, US Presidential race, Ron Paul,