An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Obama McCain Campaign Watch

Sarah Palin, Fruit Flies, and the Party of Darkness »

Going There: Politics and Friends

Posted by PETE ABEL, Managing Editor in Politics.
Oct 25th, 2008 | Comments

The amorphous and omnipresent “they” advise that we should never discuss certain subjects with friends, politics included. Yesterday, I broke that rule — and I broke it not with some borderline, persuadable friends, but with three of the most hard-right, Limbaugh-like friends I know.

OK. So what possessed me to do that? What did I hope to accomplish? My goal was nothing more complex than to clear my conscience. In every prior political discussion with these friends, I had meekly defended Obama on certain points, but I never crossed the line of actually admitting that I planned to vote for him. “Coward,” my brain told me. “You can canvass for Obama, promoting him to complete strangers, but you can’t tell your closest friends, because you know they’ll ridicule you and possibly, friendship or not, think less of you. Buck up, man. If you’re gonna pull the lever, have the stones to admit it.”

So I did admit it, and then — in the bravest fashion I could muster (by email, with a self-deprecating touch) — defended my decision by attaching to it a list of conservatives/Republicans who are far more credentialed than I, but of similar mind. I even included links to the reports of these individuals’ Obama endorsements and their reasons why. That last touch was, in part, a final flash of cowardice — I could not be perceived as a lone ranger — but it was also my strongest potential defense. I even (foolishly) hoped it might make my Hannity-wannabe friends pause and question their own decisions.

So much for that. Friends or not, these men didn’t blink on their way to disparaging my decision, hurling every proverbial stone within their reach — most of which were of similar ilk to the tossed stones that Jon Swift recently and brilliantly excoriated.

Below the fold, I’ve pasted my email to these friends of mine, followed by their various replies, left in raw form with the most minimal of edits, largely to remove names and other identifiers and to insert a relevant link. After reading their replies — in particular, the two longer replies — those of you who have likewise decided to vote for Obama might wonder how I can consider these men my friends, given the disparity in our views. It’s simple, really: First, we’re free to disagree with each other on politics and still get along — that’s America, or at least, that should be America. Second, when I follow the advice of the omnipresent and amorphous “they” and avoid discussing politics, I find these guys to be decent and delightful souls. They are, all of them, loving husbands and fathers, uncles, brothers, and sons. They are also selfless givers of their time and talents to worthwhile causes. I defend them, not their words, for the same reason Obama defended the person of Rev. Wright without defending his remarks: What my friends say is not the sum of who they are.

And no, not one of them would appreciate being mentioned in the same paragraph as Rev. Wright. So be it.

—————–

TEXT OF EMAIL TO MY FRIENDS

Gentlemen,

At least two of you already know — and the other one is about to find out — that I’ve gone insane and plan to vote for Obama. I suspect you’re baffled how a lifelong Republican could make such a decision. For what it’s worth, I’m not alone. You’ve obviously heard of Colin Powell’s endorsement. Below is a list of a few other prominent conservatives and/or Republicans who are supporting Obama, with embedded links to relevant sources. Some of the names on this list are “moderate Republicans” -– so I’d understand it, if you were not impressed by them. But others on this list are not so easily discounted, including:

* Larry Hunter, who includes the following among his credentials: “a lifelong Republican — a supply-side conservative … worked in the Reagan White House … chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years … helped write the Republican Contract with America … served on Bob Dole’s presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp’s Empower America.”

* Ken Adelman, who is reported to have held “a key role in George Bush’s defense agency” and “senior policy positions under Reagan, Ford, and … Nixon.”

Also, I don’t want to forget what might be the most persuasive set of endorsements this political season, from Opie, Andy, and the Fonz.

Sincerely,

Pete “Yes, I’ve Lost My Mind” Abel

PARTIAL LIST OF REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES SUPPORTING OBAMA

Susan Eisenhower
Christopher Buckley
Alison Goldwater Ross
C.C. Goldwater
Francis Fukuyama
Larry Hunter
William Weld
David Friedman
Charles Fried
Arne Carlson
Ken Adelman
Doug Kmiec
Wayne Gilchrest
Jim Leach
Lincoln Chafee
Lowell Weicker
Linwood Holton
Jim Whitaker
Bill Ruckelshaus

—————–

RESPONSE FROM “FRIEND A”

It just so happened I got an article from the Investors Business Daily emailed to me about the same time I got your email.

Although it was about Carter and the things he did that arguably led to our (and the worlds’) current problems in Iran and in the economy because he was naive and weak, it is a reminder of where our current problems germinated. As Margaret Thatcher said- ‘I could not help liking the man but he had no business being president’ . We could be saying the same thing about Obama in a few years.

The corrupt and unaccountable UN will be empowered by him as well as the liberal ideologues which will dominate the Supreme Court and rewrite the constitution from the bench to fit their ideology, which may not matter anyway since we will be subservient to the UN rules and taxes. The opposing point of view will be muffled by the equal time laws Nancy Pelosi is already pushing for, supported by her other left wing friends.

If Obama was president instead of Bush, we would be out of Iraq- we never would have gone there, they would have completed their nuclear weapons and other WMD programs by now, no telling what they would have done with them, particularly to the people who made him look bad over the last 10 years. I guess you heard about the yellow cake stockpile sent to Canada from Iraq a few months ago, or the parts for their nuclear program buried in someone’s yard. There would be at least one less democracy in the middle east, thousands of more people would be tortured or killed in the area, and any hope of Mideast peace with Israel in existence would be once again postponed indefinitely, and Uday and Qusay would be waiting in the wings torturing and raping people ready to take over. As you may recall, the UN was attempting to end the embargo against Hussein since it was ‘hurting his people but not him’.

If the middle east is a peaceful place in 20 years, history will likely show the stability began with the introduction of democracy via the Iraq war, not with the Jimmy Carter starry-eyed dreams that unleashed a monster in Iran that has terrorized the middle east with Hezbollah, Hamas, Quds and others since Carter empowered them with his ineptitude.

If you vote for him you vote to empower Nancy Pelosi’s left wing ideology, which is way too similar to Obamas. Remember- you will know them by their friends and supporters. George Soros is a major supporter of Obama, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayres and others, as are many other socialist ideologues. Keep in mind too that he is endorsed by the American Communist party.

From the Chicago Sun Times 4/18/08—- “Obama made it seem at the debate (v Clinton) he hardly knew Ayers. Besides serving on the Woods Fund board, in 1997 he and Ayers were to be on a University of Chicago panel organized by Michelle Obama, then an associate dean. And Ayers could reinforce Obama as an elitist: In 2002, Obama and Ayers were scheduled to be on a UIC panel with this lampoon-able title: “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis.”— Obama called him ’some guy in my neighborhood’.

—————–

RESPONSE FROM “FRIEND B”

Funny, exactly what I said to Pete earlier. Think Jimmy Carter when you make that vote. My recollection is that he had crossover support as well…he was an unknown.

—————–

RESPONSE FROM “FRIEND C”

… I see this as just one more opportunity to have some fun with my great friend … Pete Abel, who is now exposed as manipulable and targeted as a tool to facilitate BO’s new master race. Pete’s next step is to convince his followers that he is actually a poor bi-racial black man, community organizer/anarchist who overtly speaks of Change but covets his covert mission to inspire a friendly form of facism to the world through Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barry Obama. Pete, Harry and Nancy luxuriate in the thought of BO as Commander-in-Chief as he is the necessary RUBBER STAMP for their cause. Soon, Pete will join Ted Kennedy and Tom Dashle on their annual fund raising dive (drive) for the victims of Chappaquiddick drownings caused by the inept leadership of George W Bush.

I know you Pete and I know you are aren’t so delusional that you believe BO ISN’T anything other than the POSTER CHILD for the same old Social Facsim Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have been promoting for decades (all WHITE and EXTREMELY RICH WASHINGTON INSIDERS).

I also don’t believe you are sharing your true agenda behind your so called moderate approach. The consequences of legitimizing and emboldening the enemies of combat soldiers … (MOVEON.ORG) and Social Fascists like Pelosi and Reid will devastate everyone you love. We (collectively) aren’t naive to the counter-culture’s strategy, tactics and messaging. We have lived through Mussolini, Hitler, and Castro AND we’ve experienced the counter-revolution that began in the 1960’s. Everything you are justifying has been justified before.

The list of Republicans who have jumped ship are inconsequential to the list of those who have been front and center in this war against America as we know it. You aren’t simply promoting BO; I hope you realize WE know this. Anyone who votes for BO is complicit in bring even more power to HARRY REID and NANCY PELOSI and all those HATE groups that will do ANYTHING IT TAKES to CRIPPLE OUR SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT.

You aren’t so a fool. You know that without McCain in the White House, the Pelosi/Reid agenda is UNSTOPPABLE and our Nation will eventually suffer through the violent repercussions history has shown necessary to eradicate Fascist regimes. To their own demise, Germany’s Catholics and Jews supported Hitler for the same reasons you support BO. You have the opportunity to study the history and help all of us to reverse this alarming trend. “It can’t happen here” is happening here. Revisit your decision to support this untested, unknown, agenda-ridden enigma of a candidate and realize what an awful decision you are making.
Don’t make yourself the fool of the tool. Wise up Brother!

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Silhouette

"So much for that. Friends or not, these men didn’t blink on their way to disparaging my decision, hurling every proverbial stone within their reach — most of which were of similar ilk to the tossed stones that Jon Swift recently and brilliantly excoriated."
******
It's worth every effort. GOP hardnosers tend to be knee-jerk reactivists...and hence the McCain campaign...lol...

But in the dark of night as they're pulling their covers up close to their chins..they're going to worry why all these people they used to respect and follow (for they ultimately are followers too) are jumping ship. Is the ship really on fire? They'll ask themselves when you're nowhere in sight...

And this is what is known as "seeding thoughts". Even the strongest of bullheads is not immune to this very effective technique. Ironically, the GOP goons perfected it and tried to keep it a secret.

Then came the internet...lol...

jchem

It's interesting to see the reactions from people when you do tell them who you voted for, regardless of who you voted for. I'm reminded a bit about T_Steel's post a few days ago that generated 43 comments:

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/republican...

jdave

Wow. Rush Limbaugh has been ruinous for this country. Wow.

pacatrue

What's most striking about these responses is that they come off as conspiracy theorists of the 1st degree. You could imagine these same minds, choosing different "facts", going off about 9/11 being an inside job or that Haliburton is the center of the new Illuminati.

Ricorun

You forgot Scotty. Lol!

I like this line the best: Anyone who votes for BO is complicit in bring even more power to HARRY REID and NANCY PELOSI and all those HATE groups that will do ANYTHING IT TAKES to CRIPPLE OUR SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT.

Uh, hullo... Have they looked around at the society we have now? And how is doing more of what got us into this position going to help? Obviously that question is framed too simply. But my goodness you'd think they'd have a little appreciation for the debacle Bush has bestowed, and a little appreciation for at least the possibility that maybe we have to rethink things, and not just assume we should do more of it. Interestingly, Bill Maher had the infamous Arthur Laffer, of "trickle down" fame, on his show yesterday (also in attendance was Matt Dowd, another disillusioned Republican, though one who isn't, or isn't yet, a total apostate). There he made the point that cutting taxes is, in and of itself, too simple a concept. You have to consider where you are on the (Laffer) curve. His intent, in the Reagan era as now, was/is to maximize revenues, not "starve the beast". Whether you listen to him, or to Alan Volker (Fed chairman who is widely credited for Reagan's money supply strategy, and now a strong Obama supporter), or to Bruce Bartlett (a protegee of Laffer, and if I remember correctly is the one that coined the "Obamacon" phrase), among many other economists, you come to appreciate that there are alternatives to the "tax and spend" mentality on the one hand and the "cut taxes no matter what, even if you have to borrow" mentality on the other. It's a false dichotomy.

Then again, some people are simply "culture warriors" -- anything Democrat (or vice versa) is bad, or anything pro-government (or vice versa) is bad. I happen to believe that there is such a thing as efficiency -- efficiency in tax policy, efficiency in fiscal policy, and efficiency in economic policy. And I see a much greater appreciation of that in Obama than I do in McCain. And that is one reason why I support Obama. And I notice, Pete, you didn't spend much time explaining why you supported Obama. Could that partially explain the reaction you got?

Colin Powell, who IMO delivered one of the more eloquent and comprehensive arguments I've heard, still hardly touched on economics. Different people have different reasons for supporting Obama. On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly the case that those who support McCain do so, either exclusively or predominantly on ideological grounds. By the way, how do the friends you mentioned feel about GW Bush? If they still think he's fine, albeit misunderstood, that might explain the reaction you received. It seems the only non-ideological argument left is the resistance to one-party rule (which is more anti-ideological than non-ideological). Other than that it's only the "culture warriors", who are just fine with one-party rule as long as it's theirs. And the purer the party the better. They are the ones who remain unconcerned by the fact that the moderates, the RINOs, the non-Norquist "government-in-the-bathtub" types -- even the too purely "government-in-the-bathtub" types like Ron Paul who don't make exceptions for aggressive defense -- are jumping ship. They don't seem to realize that whatever coalition that remains will necessarily become more fractured, schizophrenic, and difficult to maintain. That's my opinion, anyway.

pacatrue

I wanted to add a couple more thoughts:

First, there's something strikingly missing from the responses: John McCain. Are any of them voting for McCain or just against Democrats?

Second, there's a whole lot of vagaries in here. I have no idea what social fascism is, but I'm sure I don't want it!

Third, both long responses have bought into the idea there's a Reid/Pelosi philosophy that will destroy America, but it's not clear there even is such a philosophy. Neither leader is the great philosophical inspiration for the party; they're just who's in charge for intra-party political reasons. This indicates that it doesn't make a difference who's in charge or what they think. They'd be afraid of whoever was the head of the Democratic Party, no matter who it was.

Ginny_in_CO

First, one of those conservatives pointed out that the country would be better off if the SC appointees likely to be appointed in the next 4 years are NOT conservatives because the bench would then be tipped for decades. Two or even three 'liberal' judges will simply maintain a balance, not pack the court with liberal ideologues who could "legislate from the bench".

True, Carter was not a good politician. If the country could have gotten off it's 'don't think about the long term consequences' attitude towards policy, we would probably have been free of our dependency on foreign oil by 2000, would have contributed a lot less to global warming and a lot more to the world economy. Conservatives are always the most 'think inside the box' group anywhere.

Generally, I distill the basic difference between the GOP and Democrats in how they carry out this purpose of the Constitution from the preamble:

Provide for the General Welfare.

The GOP is convinced that if you provide for the welfare of the elite, have mores, it will end up improving the welfare of the general population.

The Democrats prefer to distribute that support to the general population, with some thrown in for the corporations (too much for them as far as many progressives are concerned).

The later is a balance that has worked fairly well historically. The former has brought down every nation that pursued it to the inevitable end.

I think Bill Moyers' on his journal last night cited a new statistic that America is now the country in 4th place in the disparity of wealth distribution.

Although I personally reject the idea of a world government, the current economic situation is highlighting the need for some form of international regulation of finance and commerce, which would need a stronger judicial component. The legal aspect is also important in other areas: international organized crime, terrorism, public health and displaced populations. If we can get that in place, the growing issue of water resources might be kept out of warfare and resolved with negotions and enforcement at international levels.

Kathryn

Wow Pete, you are a braver person than I am. This is food for thought however.

aba23

Having conservative friends (with scarily ideologically driven perceptions of reality) is one thing, but how do you defend a relationship with someone who uses all caps in an email?

nicrivera

Pete,

I'm not going to quibble much with your friend's views of Obama. As it is, I've already voted (not for Obama) and could give a list of criticisms of the guy just as long as the ones your friends presented.

I can respect other's political opinions. But one thing I cannot respect is when people form their political opinions based upon ignorance, which is apparently true of one of your friends, whom you call "Friend A."

In his/her response to your email, "Friend A" wrote:

Although it was about Carter and the things he did that arguably led to our (and the worlds’) current problems in Iran and in the economy because he was naive and weak, it is a reminder of where our current problems germinated.

The whole "Our problems with Iran started during the Carter Administration" appears to be a staple uttered by Republicans and hawkish non-Republicans any time they wish to argue in favor of a more aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. I heard it repeated countless times during the run up to the war in Iraq, and I have heard it repeated countless time since then as a talking point as a partial justification for the use of force against Iran. And it remains no more true today than it did then.

Perhaps your friend should read up on Iran's political history, because the rift between the United States and Iran didn't start didn't the Carter Administration. It started during the Truman/Eisenhower Administrations. This may come as a surprise to your friend, but Iran once had a working democracy with a democratically-elected prime minister by the name of Mohammed Mosaddeq. It wasn't perfect, and Mosaddeq was hardly a saint, but it was much preferable to the American-backed dictatorship that followed it or to the Ayatollahs who took over Iran following the Iranian Revolution.

Mosaddeq, was a democratic socialist who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil industry. While the majority of the Iranian people supported this position, you might imagine that the foreign oil companies that actually "owned" much of Iran's oil didn't like this position one bit. And the United States (under President Eisenhower) and the United Kingdom under (under Prime Minister Churchill) decided to intervene in Iran on their behalf. This intervention came in the form of a covert action in 1953 known as Operation Ajax, in which the American CIA and British SIS fomented an insurrection in Iran that successfully led to the removal of Mosaddeq and reinstallation of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Despite being backed by many Western governments (including ours) and ushering in several Western-style reforms, Pahlavi remained unpopular with his own people, in part because he did not have the support of the Shia clergy in Iran and in part due to his increasingly autocratic rule.

Iran had a democratically-elected government back in the late 1940's/early 1950's, but our own our government helped put an end to that. A large portion of the American people don't seem to remember that fact, but the Iranian people do, and our government's decision to get rid of a democratically-elected leader and support a pro-western dictator fueled both the backlash against the United States and the Iranian Revolution that put the Ayatollahs in power.

Yes, Carter was a flawed president. But for Republicans and foreign policy hawks to argue that our rift with Iran began during Carter's presidency is to engage in historical revisionism.

Your friend is entitled to his/her own political opinions, but he/she is not entitled to his/her own version of the truth. And it is a sad testament to our country that so many Americans are completely ignorant about the history of the Middle Eastern nations and yet presume that our government has some God-given right to interfere with the affairs of those nations.

PattonGuy

Hmm, one question. Why would the CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA) endorse the Democratic candidate when they're running their own ticket? By the way, I've never really paid attention to "they" saying that one shouldn't discuss politics with friends. Of course, most of the people I discuss politics with are, if not exactly in agreement with me, at least not Limbaugh-wannabes. And lastly, experience, as has been said many times in the election, is overrated. No one knows what lies in the future, and anyone who says they do is lying. So we have to take a chance with whichever candidate we believe to be most qualified. There's no such thing as total safety, and every choice is a gamble. Not meaning to go philosophical here, but I just cringe to hear people say that "So-and-so is perfect for this." Horse manure.

elrod

So Obama is Jimmy Carter. Except he isn't. Carter's flaw was that he was a micromanager. Obama is the opposite; his whole campaign is based on delegating authority to various lower levels that must answer for specific goals.

Arguing that Obama is Carter is like when Democrats argued every Republican is Herbert Hoover.

GeorgeSorwell

These are the same top three arguments I keep hearing.

Friend A: WMD's! (And history would have proved it!)

Friend B: Jimmy Carter! (And history will prove it!)

Friend C: Violence! (And history already proves it!)

It's the last one that frightens me.

shaun

Hmm.

Voting as open-heart surgery. May you have a speedy recovery, which you should having bravely cleared your conscience.

Rudi

Sorry!!

DLS

The General Welfare clause is a qualification of the power granted in that section of the Constitution, to the Congress to levy taxes. (Article 1, Section 8. The clause in the Preamble and the rest of it have no judicial meaning whatsoever, obviously -- the Preamble is merely the straw grasped by the -- desperate and silly, such as Lazare with his predictable scene describing abolition of the Senate.)

Indeed, the desperate and the silly stretch to ridiculous lengths to "justify" their goals, since the 1930s.

At least some in the 1930s were honest -- the existing constitutional arrangement was in their way, so they ignored it when and where it was convenient. Eventually they found in the judiciary a political weapon that they could use to support themselves and additional, future objectives. It's still that way.

As for Obama this year, as I've written, he could wear a hammer and sickle and he'd still probably get elected. The dysfunctionality of the GOP and lack of coherence (never mind anything like appeal) of contemporary conservatism as well as the GOP simply serves not merely to disappoint, but to repel large numbers of voters.

blog comments powered by Disqus