Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama
Who cares?
That's what I wondered when George Packer (ace of the New Yorker) asked whether he could post my intention to vote for Obama on his blog.
So I duly ignored him. Only when he bugged me two days later did I say okay, and responded in quick, instinctive emails back.
Little did I know the splash this would make. Not until a day later, when my wife and I were up in Philadelphia to teach leadership via scenes from Shakespeare's Henry V for the Wharton Business School. When friends joined us for dinner at UPenn, they said their taxi driver had talked about my "endorsement of Obama," having read it online during a break.
What's most fun about unexpectedly "breaking through" on an issue is not feeling powerful, that you're molding minds out there. People make up their own minds, based on lots more information than my personal inclinations.
Okay, this type announcement can give (maybe a few) conservatives some cover -- not publicly to use with others, but privately to assure themselves that it's actually okay to break away. To break with the most conservative, or Republican, candidate and vote (in my case, the first time ever) for "the other guy."
And it's not most fun dealing with longtime friends, fellow conservatives. Most are polite and say they understand, and they'll get over it. Yet a few do get heated, show their disappointment, and say they can't understand my taking a public stance (even if I privately stray).
I don't enjoy those discussions, since I've long prided myself in being a staunch conservative.
Not a neo-con, since I was never liberal along the way (having campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964, when at that hotbed of lefty politics, Grinnell College). I'm really a con-con.
And not a staunch Republican, as I've never been to a Republican rally or convention (I came closest in 1980, after writing Don Rumsfeld's speech and after we drove there; but I left Detroit before the convention opened).
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.
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.
Now what's most fun about the media breakthrough is hearing from gobs of people from previous lives. Many long forgotten, reminding me of long forgotten times together. People emerging suddenly, from the dark matter of time, into the recesses of the brain.
These folks were important at various stages of my life -- grammar school playmates, Grinnell classmates, Indianapolis cousins, Dan Quayle, Dick Allen, colleagues from the Reagan arms control agency (chuckling over my quip to Packer that I wouldn't have hired Sarah Palin to a mid-level job there).
A veritable stroll down memory lane, to see a line of people who have touched my life at various times, in its varied stages, reconnecting in a most unexpected (even bizarre) manner.
Now that's fun.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
we've come to the point that republicans have gone so FAR to the right, that even the most conservative are fearing their own...so sad...and people call dems sociaist, at least they socially get a long!
Is this thing on?
How laughably, obvious!
Q: Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama?
A: MONEY.
The hedge fund and bailout recipients allied to Obama have it and are spending it lavishly.
What a shame that Sen Obama's financial community sponsors will have no use for him after election day.
Sen Biden and Michelle, at least, get to cash in--should the pollsters be accurate.
I'm with you-- who cares?
I think Mr. Adelman is truly putting Country first. Given he self labelled himself a "con-con", I'm sure I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but I respect his integrity.
I just wish he could have seen that Kerry would have been a much better and competent president than Bush in his second term.
On the other hand, if Kerry had won in 2004, we probably wouldn't have the opportunity to vote for such a great candidate in Obama.
So true, you make a good point, what would have happened had Kerry won, this would all be on him, race would be much different. Everything happens for a reason, including the economic meltdown, we'll get through this...may
I have to disagree on the Kerry point. Not that I wanted 4 more years of Bush, and lord knows I did what I could to get Kerry elected, but maybe, just maybe, it all happened for a reason. Call it karma, fate, divine intervention, or just dumb luck, but Kerry introduced us to Barack in 2004 and I, as well as many I know, said that man will be president one day. He sailed into the Senate in '06 and now here we are today. We are on the brink of taking back America for the 95% that actually make this country work and give their lives to defend her, and on the brink of seeing America regain the respect of the rest of the world.
No, Kerry wasn't meant to be. He just wasn't. I defended him tooth and nail, I respect the hell out of him, and I think he's a brilliant thinker, but I really believe Kerry's role was to introduce us to Barack and bring us to this moment. Maybe I'm just an old softy, but I feel the electricity in the air. If you've ever met someone who the instant you met and your eyes locked you felt electricity crackle in the air between you. That's the way this feels.
Holy sh_it. I just read what I wrote and I sound like Chris Mathews. Oh well I feel you Chris.
The obvious analogy is that Goldwater introduced us to Reagan. I was no Reagan fan, less and less so as I learned more about him, but I sure loved Barry, for his integrity , grit and fearlessness in saying what he wanted to say, and these days he's probaby rolling in his grave. People were tired of the status quo when Reagan was elected, and he was competent in his own way. He had the sense to pull the Marines out of Beirut and had a clear sense of purpose about a lot of things. Could be that Reagan was what we needed at the time, though I never voted for him. Obama is what we need now: a complete transformation. I understood what he meant when he said Reagan was a transformational President. With all my heart, I believe Obama can do the same.
Check out this article about Brian Moore, the Socialist Party candidate who says that Obama is not even CLOSE to a Socialist:
http://www
Even still, we HAVE socialistic entities in society. And they benefit capitalism. Some examples:
1. Public roads and interstate highways: How would we move goods from factories to stores so people could buy them without public transporatation infrastructure?
2. Public Schools: Schools create and train workers that will work in companies and factories. No educated, skilled labor, no capitalism.
3. Welfare: I once had a university professor that said that rich people should really want government assistance for the poor. Think about it. If the poor are satrving who will they go after?
While we don't want the government running EVERYTHING, in my humble opinion certain societal needs are (or should be) public priorities. Health care is a perfect example. Right now, the lack of affordable health care costs companies money in employee absenteeism as well as high premiums for small businesses that can and do provide it. Ask any small business owner what one of his biggest expenses is and he'll tell you health care and other benefits to employees. Fixing health care will be a boost to the nation's economy, not harm it.
Believe it or not, capitalism and yes socialistic entities in society are actually a benefit to each other. Our economic future depends on a competent mixture of both.
Tooteaching, with all due respect, the truth is much worse. Although it may be true that it he may not be a "Socialist", I ask you, is it better to be a "Marxist?"
Research "New Party" in Chicago. Obama was a member and candidate of this party in his Illinois Senate run. The New Party "has its roots in Marxism" as opposed to socialism, according to the Party's own policy statements, so yes technically he would not be a Socialist, but rather be of Marxist ideology. Amazing that after fighting communism in a cold war, we're about to willingly open the doors to those same ideals, which may not be forced upon our nation at once, but you better believe the next 4 years will see a massive move toward them. If the Senate and House go democrat with super majorities, I'm afraid we're in for some drastic changes in our society that will leave us asking why.
People are blinded by Obamas charisma and skills, and our news media has simply ignored the facts behind this man. I for one will not be one of those responsible for accelerating the country toward marxist ideals.
True enough, George Bush is as much to blame in pushing us toward Socialism, with this massive bailout, and it may just be that we've been set up to accept a move toward a more centralized form of government regardless of who wins.
Agree, lets just hope Obama puts his country first. He aligns with those who could help him in his young political career, when no longer politically convenient, claims ignorance and writes them off. He says exactly what we all want to hear. What more a politician could you ask for?
BTW, anyone seen a pic of Karl Marx? Neither one of those 2 guys know whats best for our country, we got this far on capitalism
Well its gonna come out of all our paychecks, see what other countries pay that have socialized healthcare. They already tried it Hawaii, and it was just kids, the program lasted 7 months and was too expensive. Those who can afford opt for free healthcare and leave their current provider, that is not going to solve the problem. What about ille gals? They get free healthcare too, I disagree if it aint broke why fix it? People are too cheap or too lazy to opt to pay. For $200 a month, you can cover your family, no doubt its expensive, but instead they have money for their nice car, or they go out to eat 2-3 a month, Americans do not have their priorities in line, that doesnt mean I should pay for it
I don't know where you find $200 a month health insurance. Where I live it;s more like $700-$1000 a month to buy it privately. Through my employer it;s $1000/month. It's not about being too cheap. It's about choosing between food and heat and lining some fat cat health insurance executive's pocket. I've chosen food and heat. Why should we have to pay billions of dollars for executive pay instead of actual health care? It's reverse welfare. We spend more on health care than any other nation, yet we lag behind other nations infant mortality. For what we spend we should be the healthiest nation on earth. But we're not.
The health care system IS broke. And if the private sector could fix it, it wouldn't be an issue.
We are being robbed to death by greedy executives, and it will take an act of congress to fix it.
The UK has a National Health Service with care free at the point of need. People often moan (its a National habit) but when you really need health care it normally comes up trumps. The cost is about 6% of GDP. In America the amount spent on Health care is about 8% of GDP. A quarter of the population has to do without any care and the cost beggars thousands if not millions of others.
OK, so the wealthy, with their superior health care, like the status quo. Can't imagine why the rest of you don't appear to be keen on universal health care, since the vast majority of you would benefit from it.
In the meantime we don't suffer from people being encouraged/conned into having treatment and surgery they don't need, just because some medical practitioner or firm can make money out of it. That probably accounts for your relatively higher spend to less effect, than here in the UK
tooteaching, you are so right. None of my husband's small business employees could even aford the group plan he offered and would have paid for half the premium, though his emplees fall well into the middle-middle class as far as income is concerned, so it came down to insuring him and me, destroying his cash flow along with gasoline costs ( a landscape company.Yo
I wish the Democrats will hire some kind of PR firm to deal with the mis-information the right has put out. I can't believe they down right lie like this...and I can't believe there are people that believe it. Blind faith is so dangerous.
well, if the polls are to be believed, then no... the people are not believing it. Relax.
Your doing just like the right, preaching hate for the other...ba
well sammdphd,
Thats the same comment I make several times daily whenever I read the post...how can it be that they can get away with so many lies and misinforma
At the same time, its easy to see the connection
I was at the Asheville airport waiting for a friend to arrive (NOT to see Palin) yesterday afternoon and saw this newspaper box with a newspaper called the Asheville Tribune - subtitled Defending the People's Right to Know in a newspaper box. This free paper had on the front " Is Obama really eligible " saying that he was born in Indonesia.
The guy was born in Hawaii. The dirtbags writing in these lying, right-wing, papers even have articles inside titled "Bill Ayers' Scary Plans for Public Schools"..
I turned the papers upside down in the box and took one to see what it was about. This is nothing but propaganda that a sick and desperate pair continues to allow.
If there is any question, it should be about McCain. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which isn't currently a part of the U.S.
Mr .Alderman might have come to his conclusion sooner if he had put aside his ideology for a moment and carefully looked at what matters most: leadership ability.Go
Bush's misuse of authority and religion were signs early on that his presidency was in trouble.Hi
It troubles me that Mr. Alderman didn't mention that President Bush was morally wrong in much of what he tried to do.The fact that he succeeded was a shame of complicity on Mr.Alderma
What good is winning an election if you intend to govern badly?
Obama is a principled man.He was before he ran for election and he will be as a president.
I'm not concerned "when" Mr Alderman arrived at the dance, but that he and others of his political persuasion are in attendance. His metamorphosis certainly aids in extinguishing the them against us scenario that perverts the system itself. Welcome, Mr. Alderman..
Bottom Line.....
The GOP of fiscal responsibility and steady Foreign Policy is long gone. It has been replaced by a party of raving religious bigots who will say and do anything because they believe they are doing God's will. They care little for the damage they are causing to the future of this country because many of them (Palin for instance) believe the 'end times' are upon us.
Unless the GOP purges itself of these fanatics it will continue down the road to ruin.
Mr. Rast,
I couldn't agree more.
As a white man, 66 and fairly well off financially, I am OFFENDED by the white "holier than thou" Christians who parade their righteousness and call Barack Obama a "black muslim."
These bigots consider themselves to be the heartland of our nation, the Silent Majority. Not so.
The polarizing behavior of wingnut bigots like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, must be resisted vigorously by the monied interests in the GOP.
Maybe the trend has already started -- I see no "last minute" money come to the aid of John McCain, who deserves a flushing down the drain he created for himself out of selfishness and utter lack of social empathy.
If conservatives don't depose the likes of Palin and other vulgarizing influences in the GOP, it will show open minded voters that they never deserved a hearing in the first place.
That's just the way it is.
Right on, brother. A perfect depiction of the future, for the GOP, if it doesn't see the writing on the wall. The GOP left me when it let those idiots take control in the 1980's.
That's right. I totally concur. The GOP has been hijacked by loudmouthed social conservatives who do nothing but rant and rave about hot button emotional issues instead of sticking to political matters. Hannity, especially.
Barry Goldwater warned of this happening and nobody listened.
These are the words of a reasonable person. If all voters were to approach their decision in this way, our government would most likely be balanced in a way that would allow for god things to be done. There has to be compromise in our government. The only way to achieve this is by rational thinking people keeping an open mind and looking at the big picture. I applaud Mr. Adleman.
Eight More Days!!!
Back to Wasilla, li'l Miss Hockey Mom in a Valentino Red Leather Jacket.
Thank you, Ken.
"McCain would be bad, Obama might be ok."
That says it all.
Now let's move on to the FairTax bill: If the Liberals don't like it, raise it. Simple, anonymous, concise. Git 'er done.
I don't think I've ever been, nor will I ever be, a raving Democrat. However, I voted Democrat all the way down my ballot this time. I would love to see a day when I can look at the candidate rather than the little R or D next to his or her name, but that time is not now. I would love to see a day when a true Conservative has truly conservative values - fiscally and morally (not to say religiousl
Thank you, I wish more voters were as reasonable and responsible as you. Here in California, a deep blue state, we voted for a republican for governor because we thought he was the best choice. Now we are not so sure.
I just read another article commenting on McCain's campaign and how the finger pointing has started. While I don't believe a lot of it, as the election isn't over, I think it's beginning to look like the rats are deserting the ship. How could anyone who was a rational, thinking adult who believed in anything other than winning or even cared about this country one twit, vote for Bush in 04? What did you need for proof that the GOP policies and programs weren't working -- this financial crisis? You mean it took another crash to convince the wealthy that policies designed to benefit them don't work? Or did the crash exposed just how greedy, unethical and bankrupt those policies are? When did it dawn on you that McCain didn't know what he was talking about, that his temper isn't suited to be president, nor that he even had any coherent policies to run a campaign on? -- When did you realize that Palin was selected because McCain got excited as for obvious reasons and that wasn't a good policy for selecting a VP candidate? If you're so "intellectual" why did it take you so long? I can respect those columnist who said"whoa" early on about McCain/Palin ticket, but not now for those of you who jump ship just before it sinks. As some have said, thanks, but as you jump out of the boat, sorry you'll hit the water. The lifeboats are already filled and heading for shore.
Amen my Friend! Well well Stated!
I totally agree. I think any self respecting informed intelligent republican would have jumped ship by now to save their honor and their country!
As a life long democrat, I find myself agreeing with Adelman more often than not. My Dad fought in the Phillipines during WWII while my Mom was at home welding ships in hunter's point (San Francisco). We (my 4 sidlings and myself) were brought up to believe that work was a privilege. Growing up, there weren't a lot of entitlements given by the government, and none were expected. I grew up on the San Francisco Peninsula and we raised chickens in our backyard not only for eggs, but for meat for Sunday dinners - if you haven't, you really need to try and pluck a chicken for dinner, not to mention the grusome task of chopping their heads off.. Homemade bread (I was embarrassed at school lunch not to have 'store bought bread', homemade candy, pies, cakes - even homemade syrup (brown sugar and hot water with a little corn starch). We were definitely poor, yet our parents accepted no help and got along best they could. I find little to compare with the democrats of today. However, I take offense with the allegations that democrats walk around looking for a handout. I, like my father, served in the armed forces as a conscript (1966 - 1968). And like my father, I ask only that you judge me by my actions rather than my affiillations - unlike the neo-cons (Limbaugh, Hannitty, etc.) You know, there was a time when we all regarded each other as 'fellow Americans'. What happened?
"Our parents accepted no help"
I'm curious. What "help" was offered that they declined?
Those left jobless and homeless by the Bush administration's intentional screw-ups are Democrats, Republicans, Independent voters, non-voters
Hey! Let's be like Michelle Bachman and weed out those we fell deserve help least...th
What do you think?
.
55468785, after WWII, white soldiers were benefited with a GI bill that covered education, housing, and other white affirming perks. Are you saying that your family refused any or all of that "help"? And, no, you as well as many like you did not regard "each other" as "fellow Americans": how did you regard blacks and latinos?
.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
