...and currently showing my true colors as a butt-sniffing power worshipper, I am voting for Karl Mar...I mean Barack Obama...
Still, the author is right in saying that the failure of George Bush's popularity is the failure of the Wilsonian worldview, which is not conservative at all.
Saying Bush is not a conservative DOES NOT make Obama one.
I guess the headline itself is a “Barf Alert” - but maybe you could put it in lower case to reduce projectile vomiting.
I’ll take a Wilsonian worldview over a Stalinian worldview any day.
The only way the author’s support for Obama makes any rational sense, is if he’s one of those who’s of the mind that it’s better to bring in Obama, to hasten the start of the Revolutionary War II.
If that’s not his rationale, he’s off his nut.
Come to think of it, you can also put a check by "nation-building."
I suppose it's time to throw it all away so that Bammy can claim he was right from the start.
Tough times always tell you exactly who your friends are, and who your enemies are, as well.
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down…Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused"
... & ....The world is not looking for servants, there are plenty of these, but for masters, men who form their purposes and then carry them out, let the consequences be what they may.- Woodrow Wilson
This kind of thing is unbecoming anyone who has a conservative bone in their body. I suppose this is an election where the elitist masks have come off for many of those who we thought were “fellow travelers” when in truth they were never with us at all. Even more revealing is how light the thinking is among this thoughtful group of turncoats. How they can call one of the most liberal Senators ever to run for President a Conservative is beyond me.
Conservatism and Marxism are two different things. This is like Regan praising the Soviet Union.
My guess is this guy wants to be invited to all the liberal parties. Maybe he thinks this will get him in the door.
This is the same guy who advocated attacking Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, fwiw
I may be mistaken, but I think that former National Review Senior Editor Hart went for Kerry last time, so this is no shocker.
Obama has the Wilsonian worldview ~ which is why he'd get us in a huge war. "W" has no Wilsonian illusions.
This former editor at National Review is clearly senile.
It may be something of a surprise that, as a long time conservative, I now support Barack Obama==========================================
Nonsense. NO conservative could ever vote for a Communist.
If you are for Obama you were never really a Conservative and likely are not much of an American.
If you go back to just before the invasion, you will find a great deal of discussion about Shiite, Kurds and Sunni. You will understand that the purpose of the invasion was to take Saddam out of power and the democratization of Iraq was strictly a side product. Should we have installed a king?? This after the fact crap by Democrats and like minded "I used to be a conservative but now I love Barrack" jerks is infuriating for. among other reasons, the extreme liberties they take with the truth.
Sounds like the thinking of this idiot (Bemused) on a local message board (he’s the most effete person I’ve ever seen). He thinks Obama was inadvertently created by those who voted for Bush:
http://users.boardnation.com/~waff/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=6318
So let me this the “logic” of this mental defective straight:
He claims to be a conservative who is disappointed that George W Bush has not been conservative enough. Therefore, he will be voting for the most radical left wing liberal to ever seek the presidency even though a)Bush is not running, and b)Obama’s positions are the antithesis of everything conservatism stands for. Right......
If this guy is a “conservative” then I am the King of England.
“He invaded Iraq on the basis of abstract theory”
Listening to Republicans praise abstractions like “democracy” and “freedom” makes my Burke ache, too. But anyone who can’t see that we invaded Iraq first and foremost because of 9/11 is an idiot, pure and simple. The Wilsonian rhetoric was superficial, in my opinion. You may just as well posit that Reagan clung too tightly to the abstraction of “Star Wars.”
By the way, it is perfectly fine for a conservative to excoriate Bush. But to vote for Obama when you could easily abstain or vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist is inexcusable.
He was opposed to US Military action in the way that my dog is opposed to going to the veterinarian. She may on some level know that it's good for her but she cannot reason her way into entering the building.
Obama's policies have more in common with Hitler and Stalin than they do with Nixon and even less with Reagan.
Hart's been in New England too long - first he supported the French looking doofus Kerry and now this.
It's been a long time, but when I read Burke in my wayward youth, I seem to remember him being no fan of change for change’s sake, and I don't recall him ever being a proponent of the sort of radical political and economic change that Obama is going to give us.
It seems disingenuous, at best, for Mr. Hart to hand pick three issues- the war, social security privatization and abortion, and say that somehow Obama’s views are more inline with Burke, ergo, in all cases Obama is the conservative.
And of those issues, social security privatization? Seriously? I don't think social security was what Burke had in mind when he referred to the social fabric.