Another Conservative/Republican endorses Obama: More here, here, and here.

Another Conservative/Republican endorses Obama: More here and here.

This blog’s criticisms of Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate are well-known to its readers,so I won’t swell the record here with those points again.  For them, see here, here, and here.  Suffice it to say, her selection by McCain played a role in the decisions of a number of conservatives who have endorsed Obama, myself included—and add Reagan advisor Ken Adelman to the list too—along with decisions by many other solid Republicans who won’t be supporting the GOP ticket, including my Congressman and Colin Powell.  Her addition to the ticket was pretty clearly a cynically executed political maneuver by John McCain, not one that put country first.

McCain: "Wait, what do you mean when you say that you're 'looking out for #1'? Do you mean me...or yourself?"

Now he appears to be paying the price for the decision.  A recent poll shows that voter’s biggest concern with the Republican ticket is Palin’s perceived lack of qualifications.  Another poll indicates that 59% of voters think that she is not qualified to be Vice President.  If accurate, then at most 41% of Americans think that she is qualified (it’s probably lower due to respondants who gave no opinion).  That indicates to me that probably almost everyone who’s not voting for McCain finds her unqualified.

Now, with McCain’s slim chances of pulling off a victory declining each day, one of his campaign aides has said that Palin is “going rogue.”  She has been critisizing McCain’s campaign, saying they should have kept competing in Michigan and should stop using “irritating” robocalls to reach voters, even as the campaign was defending their use.  A second campaign insider said that Palin seemed to be looking out for her own interests more than those of the campaign.

She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone. … She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.

Possibly the words of displaced insiders on a campaign that’s behind big with just days to go.  There is a history of tension between the #1 and #2 people on a ticket and their respective staffs.

Hopefully, Palin will still be seeing plenty of this flag after January 20th, and not just because it's a pretty good one.

But these are also possibly real insights from people who are positioned to know what’s going on behind the scenes.  Palin does appear to be positioning herself for a run in 2012 “if” she and McCain don’t win on Tuesday; when asked if she’d just return to Alaska if Obama wins she said “Absolutely not. I think that if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we’ve taken … I’m not doing this for naught.”  She has also publicly broken with McCain over a federal marriage amendment, something that McCain opposes (he wants states to decide) but that Palin’s most likely constituency, social conservatives, absolutely love.  These are not things that garner the type of attention that a guy needing a huge upset, come-from-behind victory needs to have in the week before the election.

She is clearly now a liability, not the asset she seemed to be in the days after her selection.  A number of sources are now speculating about what might have been if McCain had selected another running mate.  The guy that I would have liked to see, Tom Ridge, recently said in an interview that “I think the dynamics would be different in Pennsylvania [if I were the Vice Presidential nominee]. … I think we’d be foolish not to admit it publicly.”  Ridge, the campaign’s national co-chairman, admitted that McCain “had several good choices and I was one of them.”  (He later backpedaled saying he was “taken out of context” and that “Governor Palin will make a great Vice President” and, oh yeah, they’re going to win Pennsylvania too.)

Ridge was a popular Governor of Pennsylvania and has at least twenty times as much experience as Palin, most of it “executive experience.”  McCain would be extremely competetive in Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) right now if he’d picked Ridge, and would probably be ahead in Florida (27 votes) and Ohio (20 votes) as well. The biggest reason that he wasn’t picked is that social conservatives in the party would probably have objected to someone who is pro-choice being on the ticket.

I hereby propose an amnesty for any and all conservatives and Republicans who have previously endorsed or supported Sarah Palin’s selection as the GOP vice presidential nominee.  Simply admit that she is, after further consideration, not the best possible pick and that you wish that McCain had selected someone else.  Do this by midnight Monday and no questions will be asked.  This doesn’t even require you to vote against McCain, just admit that Palin is not helping the ticket and shouldn’t have been selected.  You can do so in a reply to this post if you’d like.  And, whoever wins on Tuesday, let’s try to pull back together to keep our party from getting screwed up for next time, okay?

Another Conservative/Republican endorses Obama: More here and here.

I share this author’s scorn for the Ken Adelmans of the world, but isn’t blaming the Iraq War on a few rogue intellectuals a bit much? I mean, the Republican base – the same people who supposedly embody all that is good and right about America – were pretty enthusiastic about invading Iraq in 2003. Come to think of it, they’re still pretty jazzed.

Another Conservative/Republican endorses Obama: More here and here.

Ken Adelman, who claimed to be a staunch conservative, tells about his reasons why he’s endorsing Obama :

McCain’s temperament — leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke — and his judgment — leading him to Wasilla — depressed me into thinking that “our guy” would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.

I’d rather a competent moderate president. Even at a risk, since Obama lacks lots of executive experience displaying competence (though his presidential campaign has been spot-on). And since his Senate voting record is not moderate, but depressingly liberal. Looming in the background, Pelosi and Reid really scare me.

Nonetheless, I concluded that McCain would not — could not — be a good president. Obama just might be.

That’s become good enough for me — however much of a triumph (as Dr. Johnson said about second marriages) of hope over experience.

Essentially it is “I would rather have a competent, leftlist, liberal president than a lousy rightist, conservative president”. Well said. Decency and competency should triumph over ideology, race, religion anytime. Here lies the real strength of Obama’s campaign and how McCain is sorely missing the point. He has constantly put himself above the useless bickering over ideology and instead focus his campaign on the message of unity and problem solving. He has shrewdly elevated himself above the fray and become untouchable while our image of McCain is that he’s still stuck in the bottom doing mudslinging. I think Obama has shown how presidential campaigns can be run and won that’s not based on negativity which has caused much cynicism in the political process. But I’m not sure that there’s gonna be another Obama who will have the character, steadfastness, confidence and stature to pull another campaign like this in future. It remains to be seen. Here’s another good article describing Obama’s superb campaign strategy, the non-campaigning passive campaign.

Certainly, one thing this election has shown is that we aren’t all born with the gift of objectivity—or perhaps the parenting of fairness just wasn’t provided to some folks. Weighing the evidence objectively and taking the facts facially, Obama is certainly the superior candidate. Week after week, there has been mounting hard evidence that a McCain/Palin presidency would be disastrous. From Sarah Palin’s inexperience, to John McCain’s fundamental beliefs regarding economics, the world cannot stomach another eight years of status quo maverick politics delivered by a superpower.

By objectively assessing the facts and evidence, more and more Conservatives and/or Republicans are disassociating themselves from their party or ideology by endorsing or showing an intent to support Obama, because the evidence and facts cannot be ignored. These dissenters are observing something greater than their beliefs in a political party—the world is on fire.

Finally, John McCain keeps warning about an all democratically controlled House, Senate, and Executive. However, maybe this is the progressiveness that America needs, since the Republicans have continually diluted legislation into ineffectiveness with their policies, while continually blaming the Democrats for the resulting ineffectiveness, although the Republicans have had a continuous negative impact on government. For example, the Republicans haven’t gone far enough on climate change policy and energy issues—they keep relying on the unsustainable policy of offshore drilling; furthermore, health care and education haven’t been Republican priorities, only deregulation. We need progressive leadership into this new era, because we have complex problems that require broad, progressive thinking, not narrow restrictive ideology.

Some Conservative/Republican endorsements for Obama have included:

Colin Powell endorses Obama:

“I watched Mr. Obama,” particularly in recent weeks, Powell said, and “he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge . . . in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.”

Obama “has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people,” he said. “He is crossing lines — ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines.” Powell added that the Democratic senator had chosen in Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. a running mate who “is ready to be president on Day One.”

In a telephone interview yesterday, Powell said his decision had been “emerging since the conventions, when I heard the convention speeches, saw who the vice presidential candidates were and then watched the debates.”

.       .       .

Former Bush White House press secretary Scott McClellan will be voting for Obama:

The White House press secretary hinted he would do it in May, and now Scott McClellan has finally pulled the trigger, telling CNN’s D.L. Hughley “I will be voting for Barack Obama… I am going to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done.” This scenario looks familiar, and may presage more last-minute Obama endorsements to come.

McClellan is the second high-ranking Bush administration official to endorse the Democratic presidential nominee in as many weeks, following former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s surprise (and surprisingly moving) declaration of support for Obama last weekend.

If and when a third ex-Bushie declares for Obama — there is, conveniently, one more pre-election weekend clear for an announcement — we’ll know this is a coordinated effort to produce maximum gain for Obama, not to mention maximum losses for McCain and his party.

.       .       .

McCain’s ex-aide, Charles Fried, to vote for Obama:

A Harvard Law School professor who advised the McCain campaign and once served as a high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department announced Friday that he had voted for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, part of a growing trend of leading Republicans crossing party lines to endorse the Illinois senator.

Conservative legal icon Charles Fried elaborates on his Obama endorsement:

To me, the most neck-snapping Republican endorsement of Obama comes from Charles Fried, the solicitor general under Ronald Reagan. To say Fried is an important legal figure in the pro-life world is an understatement.

As Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan, Fried was the one who argued that the court should overturn Roe v. Wade in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

.       .       .

Former Republican Senator Charles McC. Mathias Jr. endorses Obama:

Sens. Obama and McCain have vastly different backgrounds and strikingly different visions of how America should navigate these tumultuous times. For me, the decision on who should be the next president transcends private friendship or political affiliation. My decision is based on the long-range needs of our country and which of these two candidates I feel is better suited to recharge America’s economic health, restore its prestige abroad and inspire anew all people who cherish freedom and equality. For me, that person is Barack Obama.

Lifelong Conservative Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama:

Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (“not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself.

.       .       .

Former Republican Governor Arne Carlson endorses Obama, spurred by Bachmann remarks:

Former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on Thursday, saying Obama represented the best hope for an America facing an economic crisis and criticizing Republicans for waging a mean-spirited campaign that has “been going down all these side roads.”

Speaking at the State Capitol, where he was introduced by U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Carlson said his party had strayed from the moderate philosophies of past Republican leaders such as Ohio Sen. Robert Taft and President Dwight Eisenhower. “I consider myself a Republican maverick,” Carlson said in explaining his endorsement of Obama.

Former Republican Governor William Weld of Massachusetts endorses Obama:

Former Governor William Weld of Massachusetts is the latest Republican to cross over and support Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Weld held a press conference in Salem, N.H. to announce his endorsement. While Massachusetts is a slam dunk for Obama, neighboring New Hampshire is a competitive state.

Weld told the Associated Press that while he has never endorsed a Democrat for president before, his choice in recent weeks became “close to a no-brainer.”

.       .       .

Christopher Buckley endorses Obama:

Joining the steady drumbeat of conservative pundits giving up on John McCain today is Christopher Buckley. Unlike, say, David Brooks or Charles Krauthammer, Buckley doesn’t merely lament the nasty turn McCain’s campaign has taken, or predict a Republican defeat. Instead, he goes so far as actually promising to vote for Barack Obama and offering praise for the Democrat.

To demonstrate the magnitude of this heresy, a bit of background: The son of modern conservatism’s patron saint, the late William F. Buckley, Christopher remains a columnist for the National Review, his father’s magazine.

.       .       .

Former Republican Senator Larry Pressler endorses Obama:

Former Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., has decided to endorse Democrat Barack Obama for president, Politico reported Sunday.

Pressler — the first Vietnam veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate — joins a list of prominent Republicans who have endorsed Obama. He has also donated $500 to the Obama campaign, Politico said.

“I just got the feeling that Obama will be able to handle this financial crisis better, and I like his financial team of (former Treasury Secretary Robert) Rubin and (former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul) Volcker better,” he said.

London’s Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson endorses Obama:

The mayor of London, a member of the British political party that is a traditional ally of U.S. Republicans, says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “visibly incarnates change and hope, at a time when America desperately needs both.”

In an article for Tuesday’s edition of The Daily Telegraph newspaper, London Mayor Boris Johnson of the center-right Conservative Party was blunt in his assessment of President Bush’s legacy and how an Obama presidency would break from it.

Johnson’s endorsement of the Democratic candidate came after McCain declared in a radio address Saturday that “socialist leaders” in Europe admire Obama. The Republican candidate has likened Obama’s tax policies to socialism.

Criticizing the Bush administration, Johnson called the invasion of Iraq “catastrophic” and said the economic crisis had forced the U.S. government into a “humiliating resort to semi-socialist solutions.”

“Democracy and capitalism are the two great pillars of the American idea,” he wrote. “To have rocked one of those pillars may be regarded as a misfortune. To have damaged the reputation of both, at home and abroad, is a pretty stunning achievement for an American president. “

Johnson said that only a clean break in the form of an Obama victory would help the U.S. recover in the eyes of the world.

UPDATE: +5 FOR OBAMA

Francis Fukuyama, an original developer of neoconservativism, endorses Obama:

I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale.

McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers. McCain’s lurching from Reaganite free- marketer to populist tribune makes one wonder whether he has any underlying principles at all.

Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein endorses Obama:

Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official – Colin Powell – in his decision.

“Well let’s put it this way – I think Colin Powell’s decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama.”

Powell served as national security advisor to Reagan during Duberstein’s tenure as chief of staff.

.       .       .

Former co-chair of Mike Huckabee’s New Hampshire campaign and alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention Fred Bramante endorses Obama:

Fred Bramante announced on a conference call with reporters that he is backing Obama because he opposes John McCain’s plan to use school vouchers.

“I can’t live with that, I can’t be out there advocating for a candidate who I believe is going to have the center piece of his education plan an issue that I have opposed,” Bramante told reporters.

Bramante also said that he notified former Gov. Craig Benson about his decision last night.

“I had a conversation with Governor Benson, I wanted to give him a heads-up about what I was doing and he said, ‘Fred you’re putting the kids before the party and I applaud you for doing it,’” Bramante said.

Bramante stressed that he is not switching his party affiliation and still intends to vote for Republicans down-the-ballot.

Former head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, Republican Douglas W. Kmiec endorses Obama:

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Gov. Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.

As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

Conservative Radio Host Michael Smerconish Endorses Obama:

On his talk show on WPHT today, conservative Philadelphian Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

.       .       .

“I’ve decided,” he said. “My conclusion comes after reading the candidates’ memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.

“John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I’m voting for a Democrat for president.

“I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amidst the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia,” says the Republican.

Smerconish has given us some more from his op-ed:

“Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it’s the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and, instead, invaded Iraq.

.       .       .

On the Net: The rise of the Obamacons: A striking number of conservatives are planning to vote for Obama

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

It’s so easy to forget that not all people who ascribe to any particular political party, ideal or belief all think alike. During these past 8 years of Bush/Cheney, it’s been hard to keep that in mind as so much of what I personally value about this country was threatened. Some would say Bush’s intentions were good, but his decisions were bad. Others would say he had a personal agenda and simply lied to get what he wanted. I have no way of knowing where the truth lies, but I do know that I felt increasingly like I had found myself in a country I no longer recognized. Sure, most of the people around me shared my beliefs and fears, but I live in Los Angeles, a liberal city, and work in the entertainment industry–as an artist, not a businessman. So my experience of what people think and what they believe based on my personal experience does not very likely reflect the majority of this country.

When President Bush got reelected in 2004, my heart sank and a tangible layer of hope and optimism was stripped away; I no longer had faith that Americans as a whole could recognize what was happening to them; that our ability as a nation to be self-aware, to learn from past mistakes, had eroded. Or never existed at all. 

But this election has given me a renewed sense of hope. And not just because I believe Barack Obama might move this nation toward a vision of America I personally share. I’ve seen too many politicians come and go, too many promises forgotten or pushed aside. I know that, even though Obama is unquestionably the most exciting candidate to come along in my politically aware lifetime, he could prove to be “just another politician.”

No, what’s renewed my hope and optimism is the McCain/Palin campaign. That’s right. McCain/Palin. To my mind, Sarah Palin was a supremely irresponsible choice for running mate on the part of John McCain. Though I understood the initial attraction so far as changing the political game by tossing in the unexpected and stealing some of your opponent’s thunder, I felt it would be a disaster for the country if she were to get elected. Initially, upon watching the Republican base embrace this woman, a familiar dread began to stir inside me. 

As I continued to watch John McCain toss aside many of his own beliefs throughout this campaign, as I watched his desire to be president take him down paths I thought quite disturbing, I feared I would once again be in the minority and that I would end up in that Twilight Zone where no one seems to see what’s going on. But as John McCain’s campaign became uglier, nastier… as he himself showed us a man straining and failing not to come across arrogant, condescending and angry… As Sarah Palin proved over and over again that she was nowhere near ready to represent the best America had to offer, people started speaking up. And not just people like me, not just liberal Democrats who knew without question which way they were voting early in this campaign, but conservatives, Republicans, military personnel, political advisors, on and on… They too saw what was happening and began speaking out, voicing their concerns, sharing their thoughts. And so they started coming out against the candidate who represented the party that most closely epitomized their ideals and vision of America. Not because they had lost faith in the party, but because they realized that the man and woman heading the call of that party no longer represented them; they had gone to a place that was so clearly damaging, so obviously rooted in something other than the best interests of this nation, that to deny that would be to allow this country to slip deeper down the dark chasm it has been sliding down for eight long years. Only this time, the world was in an even more dangerous, even more vulnerable place. And so was America. 

On October 20th, conservative diplomat, political writer, and policy analyst, Ken Adelman, came out for Barack Obama. Or, more precisely, against John McCain. Adelman was once an advisor to President Reagan and the Assistant to United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He was initially a big supporter of the Iraq War. In the most recent edition of THE NEW YORKER, Adelman discusses his reasons for not supporting John McCain:

Ken Adelman

“When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure. Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate. That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.”

In his article today in the Huffington Post, Adelman stated:

“I’ve considered myself less of a partisan than an ideologue. I cared about conservative principles, and still do, instead of caring about the GOP.

“Granted, McCain’s views are closer to mine than Obama’s. But I’ve learned over this Bush era to value competence along with ideology. Otherwise, our ideology gets discredited, as it has so disastrously over the past eight years.

“McCain’s temperament — leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke — and his judgment — leading him to Wasilla — depressed me into thinking that “our guy” would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.

“I’d rather a competent moderate president. Even at a risk, since Obama lacks lots of executive experience displaying competence (though his presidential campaign has been spot-on). And since his Senate voting record is not moderate, but depressingly liberal. Looming in the background, Pelosi and Reid really scare me.

“Nonetheless, I concluded that McCain would not — could not — be a good president. Obama just might be.

“That’s become good enough for me — however much of a triumph (as Dr. Johnson said about second marriages) of hope over experience.”

In yesterday’s online edition of NEWSWEEK, ex-Bush official Nicholas Burns also came out against McCain and Palin. It should be noted that Mr. Burns, now retired, was the United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs within the Department of State, the highest-ranking American career diplomat. He was appointed to the U.S. Senate by President George W. Bush in 2005. Here is what he had to say:

Nicholas Burns

“Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that’s why I’ve been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I’ll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

“The more challenging and pertinent question, especially for the McCain-Palin ticket, is the reverse: Is it really smart to declare we will never talk to such leaders? Is it really in our long-term national interest to shut ourselves off from one of the most important and powerful states in the Middle East—Iran—or one of our major suppliers of oil, Venezuela?…

“The real truth Americans need to embrace is that nearly all of the most urgent global challenges—the quaking financial markets, climate change, terrorism—cannot be resolved by America’s acting alone in the world. Rather than retreat into isolationism, as we have often done in our history, or go it alone as the unilateralists advocated disastrously in the past decade, we need to commit ourselves to a national strategy of smart engagement with the rest of the world. Simply put, we need all the friends we can get. And we need to think more creatively about how to blunt the power of opponents through smart diplomacy, not just the force of arms.

“Talking to our adversaries is no one’s idea of fun, and it is not a sure prescription for success in every crisis. But it is crude, simplistic and wrong to charge that negotiations reflect weakness or appeasement. More often than not, they are evidence of a strong and self-confident country. One of America’s greatest but often neglected strengths is, in fact, our diplomatic power. Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Libya in September—the first by a U.S. secretary of state in five decades—was the culmination of years of careful, deliberate diplomacy to maneuver the Libyan leadership to give up its weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism. She would not have achieved that victory had she refused to talk to the Libyans…

“Rather than default to the idea of using U.S. military force against Iran, wouldn’t it make more sense for the next American president to offer to negotiate with the Iranian leadership?…

“The next U.S. president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn’t determine Iran’s bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks. Similarly, there will be no peace treaty between Syria and Israel if we don’t support the talks underway between those countries…

“The next president needs to act more creatively and boldly to defend our interests by revalidating diplomacy as a key weapon in our national arsenal and rebuilding our understaffed and underfunded diplomatic corps. Of course he will need to reserve the right to use force against the most vicious and implacable of our foes. More often than not, however, he will find that dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, are the smarter ways to defend our country, end crises and sometimes even sow the seeds of an ultimate peace.”

We are still a young country. We are still trying to understand and define the soul of America. Who are we? As a nation? As a people? Are we destined for greatness, or are we to be yet another example of greatness gone awry, misled? Are these just growing pains, or is it a death rattle?

The process of that discovery is fraught with hardship and loss, with changes and growth both exciting and terrifying. It is a painful path, an uncertain path, a demanding path. But a path that if taken with eyes and hearts wide open, with a desire for self-awareness, self-criticism and self-respect, then America may just find its soul and learn to nurture it. And I believe the whole world would be a better place for it.

Someone once told me the closer you get to achieving your life’s goals, to becoming the things that you are most compelled to be, the more monsters and demons will rise up to stop you. And many of those monsters and demons will be of your own making. I have found this to be true. Both in my personal growth and in watching the growth of this country, both historically and presently. I hope we can face those monsters together and find ourselves, one day, on the other side.

Granted, Ken Adelman’s track record is pretty mixed (and I’m putting this charitably), but his indictment of McCain’s decision-making is spot-on:

So I’ve considered myself less of a partisan than an ideologue. I cared about conservative principles, and still do, instead of caring about the GOP.

Granted, McCain’s views are closer to mine than Obama’s. But I’ve learned over this Bush era to value competence along with ideology. Otherwise, our ideology gets discredited, as it has so disastrously over the past eight years.

McCain’s temperament — leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke — and his judgment — leading him to Wasilla — depressed me into thinking that “our guy” would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.

Competence implicates ideology. Which is why we can’t afford to live through another incompetent Republican administration. Four years of McCrisis in the Oval Office will turn “conservatism” into a dirty word.

“Cakewalk Ken” Adelman headlines his self-justification, “Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama”:

Granted, McCain’s views are closer to mine than Obama’s. But I’ve learned over this Bush era to value competence along with ideology. Otherwise, our ideology gets discredited, as it has so disastrously over the past eight years.
McCain’s temperament — leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke — and his judgment — leading him to Wasilla — depressed me into thinking that “our guy” would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.

Keep in mind that this is coming from a supporter of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Bill Kristol’s “National Greatness” outfit that pushed for the invasion of Iraq. It’s one thing not to support McCain (I’ve said since February I would vote Libertarian this year), but to endorse Obama? Not conservative. And definitely not “staunch.”

UPDATE: Matt Lewis observes:

[I]f Adelman values conservative philosophy above all else, shouldn’t he consider a “competent” liberal be the worst possible combination? After all, an incompetent liberal might not be able to pass liberal legislation — but a competent liberal would use his intellect and ability to pass tax hikes, create more departments, nationalize more industries, etc.
In 2000, the thing to value was character and integrity, because it was perceived that Clinton lacked that. In 2008, the thing to value is competence, because it is perceived that Bush lacked that.

Very good point. And it’s remarkable the extent to which a supposedly minor patronage appointment — GOP lawyer Mike Brown at FEMA — helped destroy the Bush administration. Heckuva job.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that these prominent Republicans can be added to the list of people that endorse Barack Obama:

- William Weld says Obama is a “once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America’s standing in the world.”

- Arne Carlson:  “I think we have in Barack Obama the clear possibility of a truly great president,” he said. “I would contend that it’s the most important election of my lifetime.”

- Ken Adelman:  a prominent conservative on foreign policy matters announced his support for Obama on Tuesday, telling the New Yorker that his decision was based on temperament and judgment.   Adelman called McCain “impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird” in his handling of the U.S. economic crisis. He also was unsettled by McCain’s choice of running mate. “Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency,” Adelman wrote.

- Scott McClellan:  Obama has “the best chance of changing the way Washington works.”

- Charles Fried, who recently resigned from the McCain Campaign, “voted absentee for Obama this week, and informed McCain campaign general counsel Trevor Potter of his decision in a letter where he stated he could not support McCain in large part because of his selection of Palin as his running mate.”

Holy Moly!

Obama for President

I’ve been reading the apologists for the GOP and the McCain joke candidacy and I have found out that yes, I am a liberal. Who knew?

SO lets see here:

• I oppose Roe vs Wade because I think it’s bad law and believe in federalism. (Even though I think government should leave this decision to women -If you agree with me that abortion is at best a trade-off of rights, then don’t have one).
• I think government in general should keep their noses out of people’s private lives, specifically what they ingest or who they have sex with, but in general, leaving me the Hell alone unless I’m doing someone else injury.
• I think small government is a good thing. What government we need should be held strictly accountable and work as cheaply as possible while remaining efficient.
• I think any program which spends money needs to be matched by either revenues or spending cuts in other areas.
• I think the military needs to be well funded, trained and used both in direct support of our national interests and in the interests of world stability, because instability always comes back to bite us.
• I think the Second Amendment to the constitution means exactly what it says and resent government trying to restrict my fundamental rights under the guise of safety.
• I think taxes should be no higher than necessary to support government spending. I’m a believer in no tax breaks for anyone. If we decide to subsidize, we should do so directly and in the open light of day.
• In keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine I believe society and government have an obligation to the poor and dispossessed. If this is “liberal” then the Catholic Church is a “liberal” institution.
• I think it’s the duty of all men and women to serve their country, either with military service or some other community service. (Peace Corps, Teach for America, etc.). Those who do not serve are free-loaders.
• Like Jefferson, I view banks and the stock market with distrust, knowing that great wealth acts in it’s own interests, often counter to those of the nation.

Now the last time I looked, these things all lined up with the views expressed by people like Edmund Burke, William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, et al.

But according to the new GOP, the “new conservatives,” these aren’t conservative positions at all. Apparently if one is hostile to fundamentalist wackos, reveres learning or disagrees over a strictly religious or frankly extremist position that a 2-second-old fetus is the same as a human being, you’re a “liberal.”

According to these people, if you vote anything other than Republican, if you question the racist, fear-based, politics of Karl Rove and company, If you look at Sarah Palin and see the obvious; that she is an incurious buffoon hopelessly out of her depth, or if you fail to show proper deference to bible-thumping wackos who’d never pass a sophomore test in any reputable seminary, you’re a liberal and a traitor to conservatism.

And people wonder why the number of conservatives deserting the GOP this year is so large?  It’s because the GOP has been taken over by the kooks. People who value their intellectual integrity and critical thinking don’t want anything to do with these people. -And rightly so.

Who has left the ship?

• Colin Powell
• Christopher Buckley
• George Will
• Peggy Noonan
• Former MA Republican Governor Bill Weld
• NRO writer Kathleen Parker
• Bush Appointee and conservative Talk Show Host Michael Smerconish
• Former MN Rep. Governor Arne Carlson
• The Goldwater Family
• Dan Drezner
• Scott McClellan
• Ken Adelman
• Doug Kmeic

The list goes on and on.

So riddle me this my conservative friends: If virtually every conservative heavyweight out there has either endorsed Obama outright or publicly repudiated the McCain candidacy, are they all traitors? Were they all paid off by the “librul media?” Or maybe, just maybe, is the McCain cadidacy specifically and the GOP in general no longer very “conservative” at all?

Swallowing Blue Pill

Looks like some Republicans are going to vote for Obama because they think he is the more “intellectual” candidate. And because they are embarrassed by Palin.

Here are two examples from the last two days:

• Kathleen Parker in her 10/22 column The Reverse-Bradley Effect.
• Ken Adelman as reported in The New Yorker.

But after all her arguments Parker ends her opinion piece with this (highlight mine):

… They [the votes] also will have been delivered with solemn prayers that Obama will govern as the centrist, pragmatic leader he is capable of being.

And Adelman ends his e-mail with this:

… I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible-dare I say, Clintonesque-than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now.

So basically both admit that the Obama they will vote for is the Obama they want (hope/pray) to see. It is the imaginary Obama of their wishful thinking. Obama as seen through the pages of the New York Times. Obama who has carefully created his “centrist” (?) image for the purpose of the last few weeks of this election campaign.

But, what if the real Obama is the Obama who sat approvingly for 20 years in the pews on Rev. Wright’s church. The one who rose to power in the midst and with the help of corrupt political circle of Chicago. The one who shares ideas with the likes of Bill Ayers and Mike Klonsky. Not a post-racial Obama, but one thoroughly obsessed with race and victimhood. The one who supports and is supported by fraudulent ACORN. So basically a liberal radical who is at home in a corrupt political system.

What reveals more about a person? — A slick website and carefully crafted talking points, or his whole life.

Adelman says that Obamas has liberal record. But he is blind to the reality of Obama’s record and prefers to hope for a centrist Obama.

That is why Parker needs all her prayers, and Adelman needs all his hope.

The other day it was long time Republican Colin Powell.

Conservative hawk Ken Adelman has endorsed Obama for president adding to the growing list of right-leaning thinkers who are fleeing the sinking fortunes of the conservative movement and the McCain/Palin ticket.

This is looking more and more like a landslide for Obama all the time.

Republican Ken Adelman backed Barack Obama in an interview with The New Yorker’s George Packer:

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

]]> http://livingpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/neocon-iraq-war-promoter-adelman-endorses-obama/ Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:07:46 +0000 Aaron http://livingpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/neocon-iraq-war-promoter-adelman-endorses-obama/

Ken Adelman

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency.

The rest of the story