Tuesday, October 28, 2008

How They'll Vote

TAC's November 3 issue is online with some endorsements. Readers might be surprised by a few of them...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like a lot of things about TAC. Except, and this might be strange given that he founded the magazine, Pat Buchanan seems to be completely unhinged with respect to Obama these days.

What is interesting in this list of endorsements is how many of them who are not for Obama resort to name-calling -- "socialism", "pro-abortion zealot".....

I actually expected better from several of these people.

Nevertheless, when you have people from The American Conservative endorsing Obama, I do agree that it qualifies as a surprise.

- Whammer

10/28/2008 1:28 AM  
Blogger Tony said...

TCR, where is your endorsement?

10/28/2008 7:18 AM  
Blogger Dave S. said...

Dreher's non-endorsement is a model of the genre: demonization of the opponent combined with intellectual schizophrenia(Republicans have governed badly but I can't vote against the Bush years).

His ilk (to borrow one of their favorite words) cannot wander in the wilderness long enough. Farewell and good riddance. Heckuva job, Crunchy.

10/28/2008 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly, Dave S.

Dreher in particular came across as Crunchy, as in rocks in the head.....

- Whammer

10/28/2008 2:39 PM  
Anonymous gypsy howell said...

A bigger bunch of whiners, idiots and nincompoops I have never read. Almost every single one of these people are putting their fingers in their ears and shouting LA-LA-LA-LA LA.

Why should we care what these people think? Their ideology is about to be consigned to the ashbin of history, as it should be.

10/28/2008 7:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even though it was midwifed by the thug Buchanan, I got kinda fond of TAC because it published people like Bacevich and Larison. But looking at the list in the linked page is like scanning the local halfway house resident list. If this is the cream of right wing 'talent', they're in even worse shape than I imagined.

And jeez -- Sobran?!?! I didn't even know he was still published! I thought he'd been mercifully put down during an anti-rabies campaign years ago.
-- sglover

10/28/2008 8:35 PM  
Anonymous goldhorder said...

This is why I hate you guys.

I love Joe Sobran. He was kicked out of the National Review by Buckley because he was not pro-Israel. He refused to buckle.

Buchanan will never endorse a Democrat. As many of these writers will never do. I understand their actions completetly. Your family might have lost their mind and been suckered into this endless pro-war nonesense but you don't make friends with the enemy. Buchanan and the others hope that they can convince their people back to their way of thinking. Freedom and Liberty opposed to further stanglation by the federal reserve bank, Wall Street, and the politicians that support them. Pape is a liberal here but a good man. Scott McConnel half heartedly supports Obama...not a convincing argument at all. I will not be voting myself. If I was forced to vote by gunpoint I'd write in Ron Paul. You Obama worshipers are nuts.

10/28/2008 11:29 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

Sobran is an asshat. He states:

"Neither of the major-party presidential candidates, let alone President Bush, could have held an intelligent conversation with Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, or John Jay, the authors of The Federalist..."

Since one of the "major party candidates" was a lecturer at an elite university law school on Constitutional law, something tells me he could carry on a "conversation."

He may disagree with Sobran, but get real.

10/29/2008 6:18 AM  
Anonymous goldhorder said...

No...actually I agree with that statement. Yes Obama is very eloquent but is hardly any kind of philosopher. He just wants to be king. Like all modern day politicians. He wants to be FDR. We want to wield power. Our earlier political class...as evidenced by the federal papers...used to argue about the roll of government in peoples lives. They used to argue about the practical limits of political power. Our modern day political leaders (certainly including Obama) don't believe in such limits. They see themselves as world conquerers and savior figures. You give Obama way too much credit.

10/29/2008 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like all modern day politicians. He wants to be FDR. We want to wield power. Our earlier political class...as evidenced by the federal papers...used to argue about the roll of government in peoples lives. They used to argue about the practical limits of political power.

Uh, yeah, sure. I'm sure that things like human slavery and Shay's Rebellion caused those philosopher kings untold aesthetic angst. The suggestion that politicians now are somehow worse as a group than their predecessors is risible. The precious Founders were nowhere close to sainthood, and were truly concerned about little beyond the privileges of their own class.
-- sglover

10/29/2008 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surprising, all right. Dreher thinks that Obama is a "pro-abortion zealot" as though being pro-choice means believing that abortions are a good unto themselves. Peter Wood (nice double phallic) calls Obama a thug, and one dude I've never heard of calls for a protest vote for the Constitution Party, a bunch of relabeled Birchers. Pretty disappointing if this is the voice of paleocon reason.

10/29/2008 11:33 AM  
Anonymous goldhorder said...

Very naive sglover...how easy to fault men before electricity was invented, before the steam engine, before the industrial revolution...powerful men control public opinion. They did back then and they do today. Powerful men needed slavery back then to live any kind of decent life. Even with slavery they didn't live near as well as any average American does today. How easy it is to look back from the year 2008 and point an accusing finger. Abolotionists only came into the main stream after the beginning of the industrial revolution. James Watt freed the slaves not Abraham Lincoln.

10/30/2008 1:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home