George W. Bush drives conservatives crazy. So disturbing has Bush the Younger's reign been to the psyches of lifelong, legitimate conservatives that several prominent ones will be casting their ballots for a socialist next Tuesday. It won't be the first time. Conservative Mind author Russell Kirk, for instance, voted for quadrennial Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas in 1944 instead of tweedle-dum (Thomas Dewey) or tweedle-dee (Franklin Roosevelt). Come to think of it, most conservatives voted for a socialist these last two elections--but that's a post for another day.

Douglas Kmiec, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, was the first out of the gate, the founding father if you will of Conservatives for Obama. A few weeks back, Christopher Buckley, dauphin of the late Conservative King William F. Buckley, cited John McCain's inauthenticiy in endorsing Obama. Now comes word that Jeffrey Hart, longtime National Review editor and Dartmouth professor of English, will be voting for the Illinois senator because he is "conservative in comparison to the Republican Party as it is."

That's about the furthest any of the Obamacons will go in citing anything conservative about Barack Obama. They cite Obama's eloquence and Ivy League pedigree. They refer to Sarah Palin as if she were a travelling Lyndard Skynyrd groupie instead of an elected mayor and governor. They note, quite correctly, the wrong direction of the Republican Party over the last eight years. But they don't cite any specific area where Barack Obama will be more conservative than John McCain, or, more to the point, they don't cite any area where Barack Obama doesn't take a knee-jerk liberal position.

I understand the enthusiasm of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, and professional homosexual Andrew Sullivan for Obama. None of the above has ever been considered conservative by actual conservatives, and each supports the radical stands of Barack Obama on abortion and other controversial social questions. Not knowing the current party affiliation of these gentlemen, I don't know if it would be accurate to label them "Republicans for Obama." I do know that "Obamacons" they are not.

I don't question the conservatism of Kmiec, Buckley, or Hart. I do question their judgment. A principled conservative could hold his nose and vote for John McCain. A conservative might cast a third-party ballot for Libertarian Bob Barr or Constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin, write in a name, or even leave the presidential slate blank. But a conservative voting for Obama? That is cutting off your nose to save your face.

So what is this, a big "I told you so"?! Or a more childish holding of ones breath? Or could it be more insidious? Something like these haughty elite "conservatives" finding a kindred spirit in the haughty elite Obama.

Whatever way you look at it, these "conservatives" ought to be ashamed of themselves as a vote for Obama moves us the furthest away from Conservatism imaginable.

I think there's something insightful in your observation about "haughty elite 'conservatives' finding a kindred spirit in the haughty elite Obama." Style trumps substance in politics. Turning the coin on its other side, liberals loved John Kennedy even though he cut taxes, increased defense, and did very little on civil rights. They hated LBJ even though he did more for the civil rights movement than his predecessors and expanded the size of government dramatically. Why? Kennedy was a Harvard-educated (Irish) Boston Brahmin. LBJ went to a teachers college, spoke with a drawl, and did vulgar things in private. I think a lot of the animus against Palin among conservatives stems from geographical snobbishness rather than substance.

A conservative voting for Obama is no worse than a conservative voting for Bush in 2004. By 2004 we knew that Bush was a gigantic, corrupt, immoral, global socialist, and right now we don't know how Obama will govern. If Obama is twice as liberal as Clinton he'll still be much more conservative than George Bush.

The problem is that many in the Republican and conservative establishment don't understand how toxic President Bush is and why he is so reviled throughout the world. They live in a little echo chamber where they read and write talking points to defend the president. This is real problem: conservatives spent the last 8 years defending Bush from liberal attacks rather than defending conservatism from George Bush.

"But a conservative voting for Obama? That is cutting off your nose to save your face."

-- Daniel J. Flynn

That quote is one for the books. Is David Brooks disfigured then? Or to step back further, are pragmatists everywhere bleeding at the nose?

Daniel, you are an intellectual, but your blog is unfairly discounting rationality and the facts before the American electorate, and thus you are coming off as a reactionary.

We get it. Obama is the devil. He will destroy America. He's going to be the most left-wing... Oh never mind... Soon, I will no longer have to read you, because I will know what you will say, and that is the ultimate crime of a writer.

At least have the good craft to praise the intellectual merits of the man before you demonize him with simple abstractions and polarizing distortions. It makes for a more convincing argument.

I did not think of you as immune to reality, as a man who would decry supporters of our next president in no more original terms then the McCain talking points.

What comes next, Daniel? As we move to actually solve partisan conflict, will you be the first to forfeit your rigid ideological stance to rescue the conservative movement.

You can, as your blog does every week, by reminding readers of the virtues of the philosophy, virtues that were not embodied in the McCain campaign this year.

Instead, independents like myself found a more "congruent" approach in Obama. But I am not the gifted writer you are, so I would ask that you read David Brook's account of why Sarah Palin is a "cancer" to the Republican party.

I found his account refreshing, as he expresses why countless independents like myself have made the transition.

And, no, I will not leave the presidential slate blank, and roast in a foul mood, or a defensive stupor, but proudly endorse the man who has clearly stepped up to the plate to solve some of the nation's most gripping problems.

Finally, Daniel, I will concede a final point to you. There is a strong bias in this election, in the media, in Slate Magazine, and in the United States of America, but the bias is not in favor of rabid liberalism, but rather, the bias is in favor of competence.

Yes, the numbers are staggering, but only because the stark differences between the men make this election lop-sided.

Daniel, where have the intellectuals of your party gone? Please make your case of me. You know, the case John McCain should have made, but didn't get around to in time. Please iillustrate why the black man is so bad, and the folksy old guy has it right.

I am sure I missed something through both conventions, countless debates, thousands of news appearances.

Please devote a blog entry to your case. Charles Krauthammer made his case in the Washington Post, albeit, somewhat embarrasingly.

But I know you can do better. Tell me quite simply, and with REASONS, why I should vote for McCain.

I promise you I will read your response with an open mind.

Thanks,
James

James,

If you had been reading Dan up to this point with an "open mind" you would have noticed that he is a fierce critic of both McCain and the Bush Administration -- and has been since day one of his presidency, and that he is not endorsing McCain for president.

“By 2004 we knew that Bush was a gigantic, corrupt, immoral, global socialist, and right now we don't know how Obama will govern.”

Corrupt? Immoral? How so?

I’ve had my share of BDS too, but I’m tired of lefties talking about Bush like he was and is the latest incarnation of Hitler.

Contrary to what is said and written by the mainstreams and many on the disgruntled left, life has not been that bad during Bush’s tenure.

He has been one minded when fighting terror and has been a success even though he’s needed to fight off detractors all the way. He has taken many stands he believes in even through not politically expedient and has for the last five years of his Presidency gotten the crap kicked out of him by his own party, the opposition party, the media and many citizens. In certain cases, justifiably so. But I don't ever hear him whining about it.

Outside of his spendthrift ways and his constant thronging for open borders, he’s been pretty solid and at least you know where he stands.

Obama twice as liberal as Clinton? Bill Clinton was a moderate Democrat. Obama makes Bill Clinton look like Barry Goldwater considering that O is spot on Saul Alinsky.

You demonstrate marginal insanity when you say that he'll be much more conservative than George Bush.

I fear that elitism, regardless of party affiliation, has much to do with it.

Your example of JFK/LBJ is a good one and depicts within a political party how snobbery and elitism can exist and run contrary to political philosophy.

McCain is not one of them and this is why many “conservatives” can’t stand Palin. She didn’t go to Haahvaghd and she isn’t part of the Washington Beltway or New York cocktail set. Just being an accomplished, tough, self made woman who likely will never be an insider is not enough. In fact, I would say that not only do they resent her lack of social credentials but also her many accomplishments as many of them have to go along to get along. This has not been Palin’s style.

Truth is we need more Sarah Palins than Hillary Clintons in Washington.

Thank you, Erics--both Langborgh and Wilds. Wilds' point is 100 percent right: "[C]onservatives spent the last 8 years defending Bush from liberal attacks rather than defending conservatism from George Bush." I have done the latter. I think Langborgh's point to James is: Read the blog more, or my books, before jumping to conclusions. I am not a McCain supporter. I know I will not vote for Obama, but, as was the case in every presidential election in my voting life, I will go into the voting booth uncertain of who I will opt for.

As misguided as he is to most Conservatives, I just don’t see Bush as a bad man, corrupt or otherwise. When people paint him with the broad brush with the intent to demonize him, I think they have it wrong.

It’s true that Bush is not a Conservative. And I would really love to see the GOP actually nominate one who is the ideal. But I don’t believe that going forward there will ever be another GOP candidate who is palatable to true Conservatives. I think that will be left for a third party candidate.

It’s unfortunate, but years of big government programs, getting used to fiscal irresponsibility and an educational system that has taught left leaning values with emphasis on how America is flawed has produced recent generations who are more consistently left of center. So, as we’ve seen in past elections, to win, the candidate has to be a centrist (aka, John McCain).

I think this is how a way, way radical leftist candidate like Obama is even a viable choice.

To today’s voter, he doesn’t seem all that radical or left. God help us.

The point is well taken, and I retract my comment if I was implying that you are a McCain supporter. I only supposed that fact because two men are running (that have a chance of victory), and you are clearly not voting for Obama, which left me to conclude you were for the other guy. I did not suppose that you were in favor of a write-in candidate or a libertarian.

You state, "I know I will not vote for Obama, but, as was the case in every presidential election in my voting life, I will go into the voting booth uncertain of who I will opt for."

I did read Intellectual Morons, and I frequently read this blog. In particular, I was a huge fan of your chapter on Ayn Rand. One of the reasons I am attracted to your writing is that you don't tow the company line. You calked Ayn Rand out for her very real flaws.

Not knowing you are going to vote for until the moment you get into the booth seems whimsical, so I still offer my invitation. Whomever you plan to vote for, write a blog entry explaining your decision.

You see, I would like to see the pragmatic, reasoned, civic, and concrete decision that your philosophy and constant rumination results in...

Who is Flynnfiles endorsing?

Thanks!

If one intends to vote at all, I can't imagine at this point that a person could not know who they'll be pulling the lever for. With all of the information that's out there, I find it silly that one would consider it an "inside the voting booth" decision.

James: I am excited to vote--but for the ballot questions here in Massachusetts, not for president. I'll post on the three questions--taxes, pot, and dog racing. But please, we have the Australian ballot for a reason--I will be keeping my presidential vote a secret because I sense no matter who I vote for I will not want to advertise it to the world.

ASDF: I guess if one viewed the election as a choice of two candidates, then your point holds. I have voted third party in the past for a multitude of offices. I have even voted Democrat on the state and local level. I don't know what third-party candidates will be on the ballot here in Massachusetts. I also don't know what mood I will be in when I enter the booth. I have been talked out of 3rd party before, and talked myself into it before. I have also looked at the 3rd party candidates who made the ballot and decided that they were a bunch of screwballs and, begrudgingly, I had more in common with the Republican nominee. That--past personal voting booth performance--is why I say I am undecided.

I too do not just look for the ‘R’ next to names on a ballot and have been known to not tow the party line. But at this point, in my opinion, all that needs to be known about the candidates (not just the main party candidates) is out there and I think there’s been ample time to know what they represent to the voters. Guess that’s why I can’t understand why there would be any confusion so close to the election.

Although at the state level in Mass. it’s easy. Just look for the ‘D’s as most candidates are running unopposed and the ‘D’s rule.

Anyway you look at it; this election cycle will go down as a truly painful affair.

"Corrupt? Immoral? How so?"

Let's see: ordering that telecoms to spy on innocent Americans (against the law.) Ignoring the FISA court and spying on innocent Americans. Manufacturing a threat about Iraq that didn't exist and was willing to allow others in his administration to use deliberately false information to peddle a war that was not in our national interest. {Even Republican Dick Armey admits that Cheney "BSed" him about Iraq.}

What is more evil, more immoral, than deceiving a nation into war that results in thousands of lost lives, ten of thousands of wounded, and imposes costs on us that not even our grandchildren will be able to pay off? If this isn't evil, then I don't know what is.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terror; instead it was just the application of a Neocon foreign policy that asserts the right of the United States to invade any nation so as to project military dominance and global hegemony.

Bush, a good man? Hardly, more like a corrupt, immoral, war mongering, proto-Socialist demagogue. After 8 long years we do know where Bush stands, and it's on the side of evil.

What you’re explaining here is that it’s corrupt and immoral to want to protect and secure your country. This is a stretch.

Spying? You mean monitoring outgoing and incoming foreign communications of suspected terrorists and wrong doers, domestic and foreign? I’ll accept that any day of the week as long as I don’t have to worry about being blown up in the subways of Boston. And, this has impacted the average law abiding citizen how?

And I will grant you that there were Neocons in the administration that prodded Bush to invade Iraq. But there was a little thing that happened on 9/11 that changed most people’s mind about state sponsored terrorism and the fact that all intelligence (foreign and domestic) pointed to Saddam as being one of the sponsors and a proponent of terror against the United States. That might have been more of a determining factor than suggestions by a bunch of war mongering hacks.

You know, (instead of watching Barack Popeil’s infomercial) I was watching an expose on the Bio channel last night and they did two programs: one on Saddam’s sick and twisted sons and one on Saddam the twisted himself. I’m not normally an advocate of international policing but these guys were truly nasty murderous psychopaths and, although I wouldn’t change my reasoning of why Iraq was a target, the World and particularly the Iraqi people are way better off with those guys off of the planet.

The program also provided a lot Saddam’s WMD chemical weapons and his ongoing development of a NUCLEAR (or as Jorge would say NUCULAR) program and how when things got hot, most WMD’s were moved into Syria. So, the reports had most of it right and parts that it didn’t, well we needed to confirm that.

You see, even Bill Clinton knew this and, in fact, camethisclose to invading Iraq himself. Especially after U.N. resolutions based on Saddam’s constant acts to thwart weapons inspections.

So, I don’t see how GW’s push to keep this country secure for the last 7 years has been so corrupt and immoral.

"What you’re explaining here is that it’s corrupt and immoral to want to protect and secure your country. This is a stretch."

I've argued nothing of the sort. However, committing felonies and pursuing unaccountable executive power are immoral, illegal, and corrupt.

As whistleblower Adrienne Kinne said, "Personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything having anything to do with terrorism. It was just personal conversations that nobody else should have been listening to."

She went on to say that Bush's claim that the program was only directed at al-Qaeda "I would say that that is completely a lie — I would call it a lie — because we were definitely listening to Americans who had nothing to do with terrorism…"

Even if the Bush Administration didn't listen to the personal conversations of Americans overseas, that does not make it acceptable to violate the law (commit a felony) and then try to cover it up. President Bush only resurrected the Osama bin Laden boogeyman when he got his hand caught in the illegal wiretapping cookie jar. This shows that it's not about protecting the country, but creating a surveillance state that watches Americans and that is answerable to no one. Clearly evidence of corruption.

But it gets worse. When it became clear that leading Republican Dick Armey of Texas was not behind the Iraq war, vice-president Cheney paid him a visit and flat out lied to him.

As reported in Gellman's new book Angler, "He told Armey two things that he's never said in public and that are not true," Gellman continued. "He said that Saddam personally, and his family, had direct ties with al Qaeda. And he said that Iraq was making substantial progress towards a miniature nuclear weapon."

So the vice president deliberately falsified our intelligence in order to convince Dick Armey to support the war. Sadly, it worked. If deliberately lying to start a war isn't immoral, then what is?

"(foreign and domestic) pointed to Saddam as being one of the sponsors and a proponent of terror against the United States."

What terrorism did Saddam sponsor against the United States?

"the World and particularly the Iraqi people are way better off with those guys off of the planet."

This is your opinion, which is really nothing but an expression of your blind support for George Bush, but this is the wrong question anyway. The question is how is the United States better off occupying and fighting in a country that did not threaten us?

"program and how when things got hot, most WMD’s were moved into Syria."

Do you still believe this? Every investigation into the WMD fiasco has concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq was developing WMD. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that any WMD were secretly sent to Syria.

"So, I don’t see how GW’s push to keep this country secure for the last 7 years has been so corrupt and immoral."

This is ahistorical. Perhaps if Americans were being killed by the truckload during the Clinton Administration at the hands of radical Muslims. Or if Russian Communists were killing thousands of Americans throughout the 1980s, you could argue that the illegal measures taken by the Bush Administration have made us safer. But this wasn't happening. We are no more safer in the Bush Administration than in previous administrations. However, unlike previous administrations, the Bush Administration is arguing for extra powers, more surveillance powers, and the ability to exercise them with impunity.

You simply cannot assert that in the absence of such measures we would less safe because there's no evidence that any of these extra measures have done anything to protect Americans. You are simply falling for the oldest statist trick in the book: government scares the people; people give the government more power.

The lies and illegalities of the Bush Administration do not bother you because you are not really a conservative. You are simply a Bush Cultist who likes Bush and repeats the talking points of his administration.

Know what Eric, if Obama gets elected, I think we’ll have bigger worries than when that eveil Bush and Cheney were listening in on conversations between cheating spouses. I think you should be concerned more about the former.

Because if that happens, it won’t be just that his legions will be listening in on people’s conversations for any sign of verbal protest against The One but you’ll need to bar the door when his storm troopers come to your house to make sure you get in line.

And for the record, I am no huge Bush fan and certainly not a Bush apologist. It just gets under my skin when people decide to not just reasonably criticize him but depict him as the most ‘corrupt and immoral’ person in government today. He’s not.

The funny thing is that if Obama gets elected, a lot of people who think that things are really bad now will be looking back nostalgically on the Bush years.

Just ask Joe the Plumber who’s experiencing a preview of what real spying and harassment is.

This is a year when the Republican Party, including McCain, has officially endorsed what I would call "communism." At this time, I think a conservative has no choice but to stand up and deck the party right in the face. This is a time to say--and say with conviction--"This all ends now. This ends now, or you go out of business. I'm not voting for someone who's going to stab me in the back and then tell me I should keep supporting him because the other candidate will push the knife in deeper. If threats won't work, here's action. I'm not voting for you this year, or ever again until you clean up your act."

I think a principled conservative could vote for Obama (though I won't) simply to make sure that McCain doesn't win. Obama can move the country to the left, but he can't move the GOP to the left. McCain can do both, just as George W. Bush did. It would be better for conservatives, over the long run, if the super-RiNO McCain doesn't win, because allowing him to win will legitimize the RiNOs and prove once and for all that Republicans can get away with absolutely anything--any and every crime against conservatism--because conservatives will always vote for the lesser of two evils. If we won't stand up to the Party when it picks McCain to lead it, then what on Earth will it take?

I'm voting for Bob Barr. I desperately want McCain to lose, just as I'm glad Gerald Ford lost in 1976. But I can't bring myself to vote for Obama. I want my vote to show up as a protest vote, to let the GOP know that it can't take my support for granted when it endorses policies like nationalization.

You make all excellent and valid points Alan. It's hard to argue with your logic and it is true that if we Conservatives continue to vote for candidates that represent the Republican party but are not Conservatives we will never get to where we want to be fiscally or philosophically.

But, as I've said before, I believe the country is moving left and I'm not convinced that we will ever see another truly Conservative candidate at the top of the Presidential ticket for the GOP.

I think if you're a Conservative looking for the GOP to nominate a Conservative candidate, your pi$$ing into the wind. It’s very frustrating.

That means that real Conservatives are likely going to have build a legimate alternative third party that can compete with the two established parties. Not sure how that gets done but it's been clearly shown by what’s developed this election is that both parties have skewed as far left as possible as we have a Marxist running Democrat and a Socialist Light running Republican.

For my part, I’m voting with my Party for the LOTE as the alternative is just too scary to imagine. This would not have been the case if Clinton had been the Dem selection.