Reagan, Nixon Speechwriter Endorses Obama

It may be something of a surprise that, as a long time conservative, I now support Barack Obama. In 1968, I was a speechwriter first for Ronald Reagan, when Governor of California, then, as Richard Nixon became the presidential nominee, a speechwriter for Nixon, working at his home office at 450 Park Avenue. I became a senior editor at National Review in 1969, a position I held until recently. ...

Obama was the true conservative, the Burkean. Like the French radicals of 1790, Bush wanted to democratize Iraq, turn it, as he said in a speech at Whitehall, into a "beacon of liberty in the Middle East." Now, Robespierre and the other radicals were criticized by Burke for wanting to turn France into a republic. Not a bad idea, but they tried to do it all at once, and according to republican theory.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[bonchesva]

This is awesome and another example of a true "maverick" for chosing the right person to be president of this country, by going against his republican party.

[4wehttam]

Where is Chuck Hagel??????? Endorse Chuck, endorse. You know very well the republican party has become a beacon of hate, division and ignorance. The conservative movement, the TRUE conservative movement is shifting. I want him to be a part of an Obama administration.

[leeman79]

Chuck has endorsed Obama, and he will be a part of the team. You're not going to see the deck stacked with a bunch of "chickenhawks" this time. We will be represented by combat warriors like chuck hagel, jim webb or wesley clarke or colin powell, etc... We want heroes with brains and guts, and that's what we're gonna get.

[smkyle1]

Who can blame any Republican for jumping ship. When you consider McCain's pick for VP I can't see how he expected any informed Repubs to stay on board. Her appeal is limited to the base and only the uninformed sector of the base.

Heck, her foreign policy experience is truly laughable. I've had so many belly ache laughs at the tapes where she claims that being able to see Russia somehow gives her insight into foreign policy-- it's beyond ridiculous.

This piece talks about how an average American has more foreign policy than Palin. It's a real crack up.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/10/11/good-grief-i-have-more-foreign-policy-experience-than-sarah-palin/

[KarateKid]

You're right, but I hate that term "base". The "base" has become the neocons and religious zealots, and the reason why I left the party ten years ago. It will be interesting to see what happens to the party after this election. Obama has a chance to turn the paradigm upside down, and if he governs from the center, the Republicans won't know whether to s**t or go blind.

But, first things first........we have to go vote tomorrow.

[pbley68]

I hope Obama sweeps away the last vestiges of Reaganomics, and uses a more Keynesian approach to handling the economy and the capitalist system.

[hudsuckerproxy]

In his Nov. 3 column on the future of the Republican Party, Paul Krugman concludes that "the G.O.P.'s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[KarateKid]

Rush Limbaugh AND Jeremiah Wright will be in for some disappointment with an Obama administration.

[Rog49Thomas]

Not sure I buy that.

The Republican Party had a fairly neat arrangement for years. The leadership (economic conservatives) were happy to harvest the wingut vote by paying lip service to their positions. As a former member of that church, I can tell you that the evangelical base was referred to (behind their backs of course) as the "snake handlers and holly rollers" - including by some whose job it was to court them.

You may remember the angst with which the traditional intellectual elite (Brother Will for one) were absolutely horrified of Pastor Mike - whose social conservatism was tinged with a decidedly non conformist spirit on key doctrines of the economic conservatives.

At the end of the day, the economic conservatives will try to reassert their predominance - their powerful and rich allies in the business community will support them. Economics will triumph extreme social or religious causes. There is just too much at stake for certain parties for this not to happen.

A Goldwateresque or Dukaisesque or McGovernesque defeat need not mean the end of a party.

[Smirk]

Will the evangelical base still be willing to play along? How likely is it that they will form their own party?

[hudsuckerproxy]

Well, I certainly hope Krugman's prediction of the ultimate triumph of the "unreasonable right" doesn't come true. Time will tell . . .

[TrooAmerican]

Spectacular Article.
See? there ARE Conservatives with common sense and guts to say the truth to the world and point out the obvious to people being frauded by the current republican party and its failed leaders.

[Hallucinocynic]

One of the hallmarks of good leadership is the ability to martial and maintain resources, expending them as necessary. That is conservatism. While I don't agree with the writer's position that Nixon or Reagan were responsible conservatives, I do agree that both would probably have dealt with Iraq in a different fashion - though in what fashion, or how successfully is moot.

Many, many people were in sync with Obama's position against the Iraq invasion for the correct reasons. There has been no tangible ROI (return on investment) to this adventure, unless you're a shareholder or employee of one of the war profiteering companies that have been in Iraq from Day One. Setting aside political philosophies, this military misadventure has been a financial disaster - more the cause of our current financial difficulties than the troubled housing/lending markets. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, AND McCain are responsible for this fiasco. They are all misdirected, rudderless ideologues who have neither any knowledge of geopolitical realities nor geoeconomic relationships. None of the above have demonstrated any leadership ability, which highlights Obama's capabilities even more clearly.

[Cyndarella]

Another Republican endorsement for Obama. How many high profile democrats have endorsed McCain/Palin?

[NationalTreasure]

can't think of any other then the Lieman and Lady von Dreck??

[wanttruth]

More great news!

[scjk67]

lots and lots of republicans are flocking toward obama!!! soooo sweet!!

[DWP]

I believe that Obama is really a pragmistist. However, the endorsement is appreciated.

[Pdubya]

it dumbfounds me to no end to see progressives applaud these "conservatives" supporting Obama.

they excuse it away with either a. rats jumping ship, b. an enlightened moment, or c. coddling up to their new boss.

try this on for size:

obama won't practice non-intervention, repeal atrocious civil liberty bills, challenge the federal reserve, or open up third party access.

in other words, just what the "conservative" establishment has worked so hard to achieve.

i hope paul and kucinich have fun pointing these things out in the next few years.

[Teeninchee]

You might be surprised.

[Yarrr]

Obama seems practical and pragmatic, a left-leaning moderate. That might translate into conservatism on some issues and progressive plans on others. Which is fine. If we have to spend money, better it go to making jobs here and improving our economy and infrastructure rather than pissing it away in Iraq. Tags are less important than the wisdom and intelligence of the candidates' decision making.

[wanttruth]

Great post, Yarrr. I totally agree. Sen. Obama is trying to get 'things done' for the American people!

[Rog49Thomas]

Those who have seriously studied history know that it is particularly dangerous to apply currently used definitions to the past without very careful thought.

Using the term "conservative" to describe Edmund Burke is such a case. The set of beliefs and behaviors that constituted "conservatism" during his life time are not the set of beliefs and behaviors that constitute "conservatism" during our life time.

An example.

Generally, we refer to our Founding Fathers as great proponents of liberty and democracy. This is not a precise formulation unless we are very clear as to what that term means.

According to the definition used during their life times, this description is correct. But it is very important to understand what that means. Their concept of democracy restricted the franchise to white propertied males. Women, the poor or people of color were excluded. Based on a profound fear of the unchecked passions even of this limited electorate, they constructed a federal government where the Senate was indirectly elected and set terms of office to isolate senators from popular passions. With respect to people of color, they either tolerated or practiced slavery.

If these fine gentlemen lived today, they would scarcely be called advocates of either liberty or democracy.

[Hallucinocynic]

Sound observation, Rog. Transposing Jeffersonian democratic tenets onto contemporary society doesn't work all that well. That's the danger of trying to limn the writings of Burke, Smith, Paine or Rousseau, without taking them in historical context - an exercise that is apparently too difficult for those ideologues steeped in specious partisan beliefs.

[IntelligentDesign]

Bush/Cheney are not defined by a political ideology, but rather a criminal profile - somewhere in the mass mur der ing psych o phant genre, if I may venture a guess.

[ohmercy]

Narcisstic personality disorder- perhaps even borderline-
psychopathic, sociopathic. and most definitely criiminal.