As many of you know, I was once New Yorker. As that character, I played a conservative, pro-Republican stance. Well the truth is that I have been in transition. From a diehard Republican that voted for George Bush Sr and who once was anti-Clinton to now planning to vote for Obama - but my shift to the left has been happening for the past 15 years. Why has this happened? I have always believed in capitalism, market freedom, liberty, and patriotism. I have believed in having a strong military, sound economics, and sensible foreign policy. The Republicans of Ronald Reagan made sense to me. I was never one to believe in free hand-outs and my experiences has always been that those who volunteered their time to help others have always tended to be religious, conservative, and yes Republican. So how did I end up disenfranchised with the Republican party? Well let's be honest, I've had a distaste for liberals for a long time, and my clashes with Batman Jones, mcmark, and others are all well known. There's an element in truth in that character I played to be honest. But at the same time, I saw the disaster of the 1988 savings and loans problems and realized that gov't regulation isn't all bad. And I also didn't understand why my fellow conservatives got involved in the whole gay marriage and abortion issues. The libertarian in me found this to be repulsive. Leave people alone was a fundamental idea that I really loved about Republicans. But that was shattered. And I admired Clinton about trying to remove those barriers - gays in the military was the first time I liked him. because it was a libertarian mindset. Get gov't out of people's personal lives. As a fiscal conservative, when Clinton balanced the budget, I really liked that. And when Newt lead the whole contract for America, and then impeached Clinton over a person issue when they were suppose to be investigating white water - that turned a corner. As a libertarian, the Republican party failed that philosophy. Gov't was getting involved in the President's personal life - antithesis to the very most sacred belief I held. I liked Bob Dole, but I voted Clinton - the first time I voted for a democrate because I felt he really cared about the average joe and was pushing more of a libertarian cause than the Republicans. Then Bush Jr came along, and I voted for Gore because I didn't agree with his religious slant and his cow-towing to the right wing religious conservatives. But still, even after he gained the Presidency, I supported him and was hopefull. After 9/11, I was very optimistic about Bush. He said the right things. He acted right. He went into Afganistan. I was totally in support of George W. Bush. Then came Iraq. iraq was the turning point. The point where I lost faith in not just Bush, but Republicans across the board. The big nail was 2004, with the Rovian tactics ran against Kerry. A year ago, if someone asked me if I'd vote for Obama vs. McCain, I'd have said McCain. But Obama impressed me. I thought he was reckless about his pakistan comments (invading) a year ago, but now i see it's actually the kind of boldness we need. But the final straw was McCain's way of playing the same politics. Had McCain attacked Obama's experience in a way that was truthful and legit - I might have been swayed. Not likely, but I am technically one of those independent voters. But after what I've seen the past few months, my divorce from the republican party is now complete. I have always admired guys like McCain, Spector, Colin Powell, Rice, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Ramstad, Christy Todd Whitman, and even the terminator to name a few....i just feel like they are going the way of the dinosaur and being replaced by radical right wing nutz. So I have to support Obama, but not only that, but to vote a straight Democratic ticket. Because the Republican party has lost it's way. It's become a tool of those who hate, misguided nationalists, religious zealots, and the rich. Gone are those with the vision of the power of capitalism, the power of liberty, and the belief in fiscal conservatism. Instead it's been replaced with make the oil companies happy, make the rich happy, use images to pretend we're patriotic, and talk about religion - and forget about our future. Think about control and not about moving the country forward. That' what I feel. So I say, it's time to punish the republicans, make them lose all branches of gov't - local, state, national - and all three branches - so they can regroup and redifine themselves as what they were. A libertarian party that believed in small gov't, capitalism, but also was pragmatic and analytical in it's approach.
I think these two do a better job of articulating why they chose Obama. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDSuZl0Onas&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDSuZl0Onas&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Nice post sweet lou. I have seen similar sentiments espoused here by several libertarian and conservative leaning posters who have become disillusioned with the Republican abandonment of true conservative ideals.
As a Ross Perot voter, I commend you. I'm not a big fan of Obama but I will probably vote for him. The republican machine went down the wrong road. I believe in Personal liberties Fiscal responsibility free markets corporate responsibility religious freedom Opportunity for all our citizens I'm all for low taxes but at the risk of bankrupting america The republican party has become the "all about me, who gives a crap about anyone else" party. Give me a true fiscal conservative without all the religious baggage and I am there. Until then, I will probably vote democrat. At least I think their heart and brain is in the right place even though it may be misguided.
Nice post, thanks for that, New New Yorker. It's a nice reminder that one's ideals can differ from the behavior of one's political party. As long as the soul of the conservative movement is contaminated and simplified by fear-mongering, truth distorting dittoheads - vocal, loyal, supremely organized and supremely scared enough to elect Cheney twice and get Rush a fat contract and ass but that's about it - they will lose, despite the numerous bounties that fear-mongering and simple thinking typically produce. But it can only be plundered so far. 2008 should make 2006 look like a warm up, if the progressives can hold it together. Its sad that the word 'conservative' gets weighed down by those who have bastardized the honorable ideals of the movement - they have stubbornly endorsed the astronomical human, military and economic costs of an ill-advised and ill-planned war in the face of overwhleming evidence that their strategy was wrong. They have brazenly breached the privacy and individual liberties that were the heart of the movement. And, of course, they have generally treated those who differ as traitors because it is their only remaining strategic play. The notions that individuals should be allowed freedom to express themselves and exceed vocationally, personally, financially, etc. have been lost; avoiding that cricual self-criticism and substantive debate in favor of name calling and distortion. They are a powerful parasite, and they have bloodsucked the conservative movement four years too long. Feast is over, time for famine for them. It's a weird world when the differences between Ronald Reagan and the democratic nominee for president in 2008 seem almost quaint in comparison to massive philosophical disparities between the Republican base and the president they worship so feverishly. But welcome to 2008, I guess.
I'm a conservative leaning independent (more libertarian than republican) and I too an disillusioned with the conservative options. However, Obama is just way too far to the left of my views to vote for him. I cannot, however, in good conscience vote for McCain either. I will abstain, courteously.
LOL at some of you people who claim to be libertarian and then are deciding to vote for Obama. LOL at some of you people who claim to espouse fiscal conservative beliefs, yet are voting for Obama. LOL at some of you people who feel like the Republican Party has abandoned the conservative reasons why you supported them, then turn around and say you want to vote Obama. LOL at some of you people who think McCain has run a negative campaign, and therefore are leaning Obama. Obama is in favor of bigger government. Obama is in favor of higher taxes on at least half of Americans. Obama is not conservative, in any way, shape or form, and in fact was voted the most liberal Senator. Obama has run a relentlessly negative campaign, filled with half-truths and dishonest comparisons of John McCain to W. When you say the Republican Party has abandoned you, if you were being honest, wouldn't you be gravitating towards Bob Barr (a Conservative) as compared to Barack H. Obama (a flaming liberal with San Francisco values)? It just doesn't add up, which is why it's likely disingenuous.
^^^If there ever was something that deserved the proverbial, “who are trying to convince” response, this post it.
And, once again... swapping one "political signature" for another... Typical "the rules don't apply to me" T_J...
I think Jorge is right. It's hard to believe a true fiscal conservative is voting for Obama unless they no longer believe in that method of government. McCain is not someone I can vote for, but I still can't vote for Obama.
I see it as being what you'd rather have as your budget-deficit-creating method. With McCain, your taxes will be going to fund god-forsaken wars in Iraq, and if he's feeling really lucky, Iran. It's no secret that Bush's war has created tons of our debt. The notion that John McCain would be a "fiscal conservative" is outlandish. By voting for Barack Obama, I'll at least take comfort in knowing that my money is being wasted in this country, rather than by propping up the surplus-creating Iraqi government who wants us gone anyway. If you want fiscal conservatism, vote for Bob Barr.
I'm voting for Obama because it's Obama or McCain who will be president, and I think Obama is more of a fiscal conservative than McCain. To balance the budget we have to both cut spending and increase taxes. Now cutting spending isn't going to be easy with a democratic congress. A tax increase will be ok in because by the time it takes effect the economy will already be well on it's way to recovery. I'd also point out that the last president to balance the budget was Clinton, not Bush jr, sr, nor reagan, although I have to credit Reagan with lowering taxes in a way that did indeed spur the economy. No doubt that cutting taxes back in the early 80's helped us lunge forward. Obama is certainly wrong on numerous issues - don't get me wrong. He's wrong on trade. he's wrong on nuclear power, and he's wrong education. He won't be a strong foreign policy president. But what he will do is run a pragmatic gov't. That much I am convinced of. He reaches out to conservatives and has included highly respected opinions of fiscal conservatism in his economic plan. I can vote for Bob Barr - but that only makes it more likely for McCain to get elected. Actually, living in New York, the state will go to Obama no matter what I do, but I still feel my vote counts.
Because it's simply jorge. McCain's budget is worse than Obama's. McCain will put us in a bigger hole. McCain is more favorable of gov't interference in our lives. McCain proposes ideas that are just stupid - like gas tax holidays. fiscal conservatism doesn't mean the same thing it did 30 years ago. It's not just about smaller gov't, it's about reducing the deficit. What good is it to lower the tax rates on the rich when you make up for it by increases taxes on everyone else by increasing the payroll tax - that's what Reagan did. he somewha shifted the burden from the rich to the poor. Is that fiscal conservatism? like I said, I'm evolving. I am not sure if the views i held in the past are the same ones i hold onto today. i think reducing the budget deficit is a huge priority in the next 5 years - we need to get back on track. And Obama seems to be the better of the two candidates in this area. John McCain does have a better track record of fighting earmarks and pork - but than why is his budget increasing our deficit more than Obama's??????
Obama has a fairly centrist position on trade. The only meaningful way he leans left here is wanting to renegotiate Nafta such that it will not be so beneficial to move jobs out of the country and such that the environmental and labor standards will be enforced. I'd be interested to know where you disagree with him on trade. He took a lot of heat during the primaries for saying that he supports limited nuclear power, so I'm not sure where you disagree with him here either (unless you're against all nuclear). McCain meanwhile supports nuclear as long as the waste is never stored in and never travels through his home state. That's a BS position. If he's for it, he should be okay with his state sharing some of the risk and burden. I'm interested to know where you disagree with Obama on education. Do you favor private school vouchers? If so, you are right to disagree with him here. But most of all I'm interested in how you could possibly suggest he'd be a weak foreign policy president. We are in the mess we are in today, in so many ways, because we have a president that favors force over diplomacy. Obama is clearly ready to use force where necessary but he also clearly favors forceful diplomacy first. I defy anyone to name a way in which McCain's foreign policy would be different than Bush's, except for the possibility that he is more eager for war in Iran. I would really love it if you would expand on this, New Yorker.
