The Conservative Case For Obama?

[Guest Len]

Many on this board consider themselves "conservatives." If Dr. Bacevich's definition of conservatism is salient (unlike some conservatives, I think it is up to the person being labeled to do the definition of the label, I make no pretense to define "conservative") here, then the following might be of interest. The title is a bit of an exageration since the ultimate main idea of the article is to point out that McCain would be a complete conservative disaster while Obama would be only marginally less bad. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the junior senator from Illinois!

I also don't agree totally with the author in his analysis of the Iraq war -its seems a bit simplistic to me, but hey, its a one page out of a whole book. The overall piece, however, makes a nice case for the current administration being many things, but certainly not "conservative."

The "Right" Choice?

The conservative case for Barack Obama

by Andrew J. Bacevich

Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives—and the state of the conservative movement—they could do worse.

Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the following:

· a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;

· a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;

· veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;

· a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;

· respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market’s corrosive impact on humane values;

· a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.

Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives—especially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire—have prospered. But conservatism as such has not.

The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad. Over the course of Bush’s two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans “safe,†he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles.

As with every Republican leader since Reagan, President Bush has routinely expressed his support for traditional values. He portrays himself as pro-life and pro-family. He offers testimonials to old-fashioned civic virtues. Yet apart from sporting an American flag lapel-pin, he has done little to promote these values. If anything, the reverse is true. In the defining moment of his presidency, rather than summoning Americans to rally to their country, he validated conspicuous consumption as the core function of 21st-century citizenship.

Should conservatives hold President Bush accountable for the nation’s cultural crisis? Of course not. The pursuit of instant gratification, the compulsion to accumulate, and the exaltation of celebrity that have become central to the American way of life predate this administration and derive from forces that lie far beyond the control of any president. Yet conservatives should fault the president and his party for pretending that they are seriously committed to curbing or reversing such tendencies. They might also blame themselves for failing to see the GOP’s cultural agenda as contrived and cynical.

Finally, there is President Bush’s misguided approach to foreign policy, based on expectations of deploying American military might to eliminate tyranny, transform the Greater Middle East, and expunge evil from the face of the earth. The result has been the very inverse of conservatism. For Bush, in the wake of 9/11, ideology supplanted statecraft. As a result, his administration has squandered American lives and treasure in the pursuit of objectives that make little strategic sense.

For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.

Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves. Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a naïf would believe that today’s Republican Party has any real interest in overturning Roe v. Wade or that doing so now would contribute in any meaningful way to the restoration of “family values.†GOP support for such values is akin to the Democratic Party’s professed devotion to the “working poorâ€: each is a ploy to get votes, trotted out seasonally, quickly forgotten once the polls close.

Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush’s misadventures is irrevocable. McCain is determined to remain in Iraq as long as it takes. He is the candidate of the War Party. The election of John McCain would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of liberation.

The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home. The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no longer accommodates such a candidate.

So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.

To appreciate that possibility requires seeing the Iraq War in perspective. As an episode in modern military history, Iraq qualifies at best as a very small war. Yet the ripples from this small war will extend far into the future, with remembrance of the event likely to have greater significance than the event itself. How Americans choose to incorporate Iraq into the nation’s historical narrative will either affirm our post-Cold War trajectory toward empire or create opportunities to set a saner course.

The neoconservatives understand this. If history renders a negative verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war. The “freedom agenda†will command as much authority as the domino theory. Advocates of “World War IV†will be treated with the derision they deserve. The claim that open-ended “global war†offers the proper antidote to Islamic radicalism will become subject to long overdue reconsideration.

Give the neocons this much: they appreciate the stakes. This explains the intensity with which they proclaim that, even with the fighting in Iraq entering its sixth year, we are now “winningâ€â€”as if war were an athletic contest in which nothing matters except the final score. The neoconservatives brazenly ignore or minimize all that we have flung away in lives, dollars, political influence, moral standing, and lost opportunities. They have to: once acknowledged, those costs make the folly of the entire neoconservative project apparent. All those confident manifestos calling for the United States to liberate the world’s oppressed, exercise benign global hegemony, and extend forever the “unipolar moment†end up getting filed under dumb ideas.

Yet history’s judgment of the Iraq War will affect matters well beyond the realm of foreign policy. As was true over 40 years ago when the issue was Vietnam, how we remember Iraq will have large political and even cultural implications.

As part of the larger global war on terrorism, Iraq has provided a pretext for expanding further the already bloated prerogatives of the presidency. To see the Iraq War as anything but misguided, unnecessary, and an abject failure is to play into the hands of the fear-mongers who insist that when it comes to national security all Americans (members of Congress included) should defer to the judgment of the executive branch. Only the president, we are told, can “keep us safe.†Seeing the war as the debacle it has become refutes that notion and provides a first step toward restoring a semblance of balance among the three branches of government.

Above all, there is this: the Iraq War represents the ultimate manifestation of the American expectation that the exercise of power abroad offers a corrective to whatever ailments afflict us at home. Rather than setting our own house in order, we insist on the world accommodating itself to our requirements. The problem is not that we are profligate or self-absorbed; it is that others are obstinate and bigoted. Therefore, they must change so that our own habits will remain beyond scrutiny.

Of all the obstacles to a revival of genuine conservatism, this absence of self-awareness constitutes the greatest. As long as we refuse to see ourselves as we really are, the status quo will persist, and conservative values will continue to be marginalized. Here, too, recognition that the Iraq War has been a fool’s errand—that cheap oil, the essential lubricant of the American way of life, is gone for good—may have a salutary effect. Acknowledging failure just might open the door to self-reflection.

None of these concerns number among those that inspired Barack Obama’s run for the White House. When it comes to foreign policy, Obama’s habit of spouting internationalist bromides suggests little affinity for serious realism. His views are those of a conventional liberal. Nor has Obama expressed any interest in shrinking the presidency to its pre-imperial proportions. He does not cite Calvin Coolidge among his role models. And however inspiring, Obama’s speeches are unlikely to make much of a dent in the culture. The next generation will continue to take its cues from Hollywood rather than from the Oval Office.

Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency.

Whether conservatives will be able to seize the opportunities created by his ascent remains to be seen. Theirs will not be the only ideas on offer. A repudiation of the Iraq War and all that it signifies will rejuvenate the far Left as well. In the ensuing clash of visions, there is no guaranteeing that the conservative critique will prevail.

But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation’s heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them.

For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.

_________________________________

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His next book, The Limits of Power, will be published in August.

[Rightwinger]

I'm a conservative and I didn't need 19 paragraphs of the big word pages of the dictionary to spell it out for me. Just like pornography, you'll know conservative when you see it.

[TGO David]

Len, I'm still curious how you reconcile Obama's staunch opposition to the individual right to bear arms with your personal believe in that right and your hard work to further the cause via the NRA.

[Smith]

What's humorous to me, is that Andrew J. Bacevich and liberals probably think this a a piece of shear genius!

It's a good try, but what he failed to note is the reason the Republicans have suffered as of late is that the conservative movement has finally gained the ability to cause electoral pain on Rino's. The ousting of the Dem's in congress as well as the ousting of Rep's is a sign that conservatives are at a peak of influence as opposed to struggling as the libs like to try and spin.

[saintsfanbrian]

In this country there will NEVER be another TRUE conservative in the White House. The closest we get to it are moderate conservatives that will break their backs bending over the aisle to appease the other side.

I don't like any of the choices for President but I will vote for the lesser of two evils. Had Hillary gotten the nod I probably would have voted 3rd party.

[DavidD]

Sorry Len, though Bacevich may have a few valid points, it is still for the most part.

In this country there will NEVER be another TRUE conservative in the White House. The closest we get to it are moderate conservatives that will break their backs bending over the aisle to appease the other side.

+1

[NuTcAsE]

Len, come to the dark side....

Many on this board consider themselves "conservatives." If Dr. Bacevich's definition of conservatism is salient (unlike some conservatives, I think it is up to the person being labeled to do the definition of the label, I make no pretense to define "conservative") here, then the following might be of interest.

I had fun with it.

The title is a bit of an exageration since the ultimate main idea of the article is to point out that McCain would be a complete conservative disaster while Obama would be only marginally less bad. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the junior senator from Illinois!

Everybody knows McCain isn't a "true" conservative hence no conservative disaster. While on the other hand Obama has had no disasters, failed legislation, etc. Like a fellow told me early on in my career " A man that ain't never F'd anything up, ain't never done NOTHIN'"

I also don't agree totally with the author in his analysis of the Iraq war -its seems a bit simplistic to me, but hey, its a one page out of a whole book. The overall piece, however, makes a nice case for the current administration being many things, but certainly not "conservative."

The good "Dr." should then be happy. Right?

My Comments for the Good Dr.

The "Right" Choice?

The conservative case for Barack Obama

by Andrew J. Bacevich

Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives—and the state of the conservative movement—they could do worse.

Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the following:

· a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;

· a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;

· veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;

· a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;

· respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market’s corrosive impact on humane values;

· a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.

I'm pretty good there!

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives—especially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire—have prospered. But conservatism as such has not.

I like big business, it feeds my family.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad. Over the course of Bush’s two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans “safe,†he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles.

If he only had a "d" after his name the left would be turning cartwheels nekkid on the Whitehouse lawn.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]As with every Republican leader since Reagan, President Bush has routinely expressed his support for traditional values. He portrays himself as pro-life and pro-family. He offers testimonials to old-fashioned civic virtues. Yet apart from sporting an American flag lapel-pin, he has done little to promote these values. If anything, the reverse is true. In the defining moment of his presidency, rather than summoning Americans to rally to their country, he validated conspicuous consumption as the core function of 21st-century citizenship.

Ban on partial birth abortion, ring a bell. Faith base initiatives? How bout' school vouchers, (I'd really like that.). Privatizing Social Security. Where has the left been on these issues that would help Blue Collar Joe?

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]Should conservatives hold President Bush accountable for the nation’s cultural crisis? Of course not. The pursuit of instant gratification, the compulsion to accumulate, and the exaltation of celebrity that have become central to the American way of life predate this administration and derive from forces that lie far beyond the control of any president.

Yeah, and the "Don't worry Honey, We'll get it for you!!, And if that ain't enough We'll raise taxes and steal more form the EVIL RICH PEOPLE!" hand out democrats. Didn't help that at all.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]Yet conservatives should fault the president and his party for pretending that they are seriously committed to curbing or reversing such tendencies. They might also blame themselves for failing to see the GOP’s cultural agenda as contrived and cynical.

You might try that too. Contrary to the liberal mindset, it ain't ALWAYS someone elses fault. And, I might add that that finger you're pointing over here has at least 3 pointing right back at'cha buddy!

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]Finally, there is President Bush’s misguided approach to foreign policy, based on expectations of deploying American military might to eliminate tyranny, transform the Greater Middle East, and expunge evil from the face of the earth. The result has been the very inverse of conservatism. For Bush, in the wake of 9/11, ideology supplanted statecraft. As a result, his administration has squandered American lives and treasure in the pursuit of objectives that make little strategic sense.

You can say a prayer in thanks tonight that it wasn't President NuTcAsE on the job. Israel would own the middle east, We'll buy oil from them. Every law abiding American would own a gun and carry it anywhere they saw fit. 9/11 would'nt have happened.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion.

Hey, Captain Obvious We know that. We also know that if McCain is elected Your bunch of idiots in the House and Senate ain't gonna do nothin to help US!

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is. Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves. Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a naïf would believe that today’s Republican Party has any real interest in overturning Roe v. Wade or that doing so now would contribute in any meaningful way to the restoration of “family values.†GOP support for such values is akin to the Democratic Party’s professed devotion to the “working poorâ€: each is a ploy to get votes, trotted out seasonally, quickly forgotten once the polls close.

Well I'll be.....I think He's tryin to lure me in...

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Still better than what you got.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush’s misadventures is irrevocable. McCain is determined to remain in Iraq as long as it takes. He is the candidate of the War Party.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]The election of John McCain would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of liberation.

So what , they all wanna come here anyway. I don't mind owning the rest of the world.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home. The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no longer accommodates such a candidate.

You wouldn't know a point if it stuck you in the a**. You wouldn't be trying to influence an election would you?

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq.

B/S We'll be there a LONG time. That little runt in iran will take it over as soon as We're gone.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]To appreciate that possibility requires seeing the Iraq War in perspective. As an episode in modern military history, Iraq qualifies at best as a very small war. Yet the ripples from this small war will extend far into the future, with remembrance of the event likely to have greater significance than the event itself. How Americans choose to incorporate Iraq into the nation’s historical narrative will either affirm our post-Cold War trajectory toward empire or create opportunities to set a saner course.

The neoconservatives understand this. If history renders a negative verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war. The “freedom agenda†will command as much authority as the domino theory. Advocates of “World War IV†will be treated with the derision they deserve. The claim that open-ended “global war†offers the proper antidote to Islamic radicalism will become subject to long overdue reconsideration.

Give the neocons this much: they appreciate the stakes. This explains the intensity with which they proclaim that, even with the fighting in Iraq entering its sixth year, we are now “winningâ€â€”as if war were an athletic contest in which nothing matters except the final score. The neoconservatives brazenly ignore or minimize all that we have flung away in lives, dollars, political influence, moral standing, and lost opportunities. They have to: once acknowledged, those costs make the folly of the entire neoconservative project apparent. All those confident manifestos calling for the United States to liberate the world’s oppressed, exercise benign global hegemony, and extend forever the “unipolar moment†end up getting filed under dumb ideas.

Yet history’s judgment of the Iraq War will affect matters well beyond the realm of foreign policy. As was true over 40 years ago when the issue was Vietnam, how we remember Iraq will have large political and even cultural implications.

As part of the larger global war on terrorism, Iraq has provided a pretext for expanding further the already bloated prerogatives of the presidency. To see the Iraq War as anything but misguided, unnecessary, and an abject failure is to play into the hands of the fear-mongers who insist that when it comes to national security all Americans (members of Congress included) should defer to the judgment of the executive branch. Only the president, we are told, can “keep us safe.†Seeing the war as the debacle it has become refutes that notion and provides a first step toward restoring a semblance of balance among the three branches of government.

Above all, there is this: the Iraq War represents the ultimate manifestation of the American expectation that the exercise of power abroad offers a corrective to whatever ailments afflict us at home. Rather than setting our own house in order, we insist on the world accommodating itself to our requirements. The problem is not that we are profligate or self-absorbed; it is that others are obstinate and bigoted. Therefore, they must change so that our own habits will remain beyond scrutiny.

Of all the obstacles to a revival of genuine conservatism, this absence of self-awareness constitutes the greatest. As long as we refuse to see ourselves as we really are, the status quo will persist, and conservative values will continue to be marginalized. Here, too, recognition that the Iraq War has been a fool’s errand—that cheap oil, the essential lubricant of the American way of life, is gone for good—may have a salutary effect. Acknowledging failure just might open the door to self-reflection.

Gobbledy Gook. Notice highlighted words, clues you're talking to an idiot.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]None of these concerns number among those that inspired Barack Obama’s run for the White House ( just a whole lotta MONEY). When it comes to foreign policy, Obama’s habit of spouting internationalist bromides suggests little affinity for serious realism ( no kiddin'!). His views are those of a conventional left wing moonbat. Nor has Obama expressed any interest in working or shrinking the presidency to its pre-imperial ( < clue) proportions. He does cite Calvin Cline among his role models. And however inspiring, Obama’s speeches are unlikely to make much sense. The next generation will continue to take its cues from Hollywood rather than from the Oval Office.

Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War (stick it to the troops). As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the competence of a people to read and write. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination ( as should your sanity). Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency (i.e. bad to worse).

Whether conservatives will be able to seize the opportunities created by his ascent remains to be seen (what the hell is this supposed to mean?). Theirs will not be the only ideas on offer (like they are now?). A repudiation of the Iraq War and all that it signifies will rejuvenate the far Left as well (hahahaha). In the ensuing clash of visions, there is no guaranteeing that the conservative critique will prevail (not if you can help it).

But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation’s heedless march toward empire will continue (< clue). So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan (yeah yeah). Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them (he means he likes what the libs have got for us better) .

For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope (hahahahaha). McCain represents none at all ( no dipsh**, McCain represents NO OBAMA, NO HILLARY, for 4 years and a V.P. who can whip your smarmy little A**!). The choice turns out to be an easy one ( I like tater tots).

Fixed those for you Doc.

Andrew J. Bacevich[/font];162000]_________________________________

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His next book, The Limits of Power, will be published in August.

Oh, Joy!

[Guest Len]

That's easy. I agree with Obama more so than McCain on most everything else. I am not a single-issue voter. And Obama won't do anything regarding gun control. I sleep easy at night with my decision. As for the NRA, I don't like much of its politics -"foaming at the mouth" would be a huge understatement -anyone check out the editorials in this month's American Rifleman? However, I do believe in the idea of a nation of riflemen -of profiecincy and comfort with firearms, the legal possession and use thereof, and the sheer fun of shooting sports and gun collecting. The NRA, for all its many faults, is the best venue to move that agenda forward. Note most of my involvement with NRA is through the Friends of NRA (the non-policial NRA Foundation) and the Education and Training Division of NRA proper.

Sort of like my views of the Democratic Party -warts and all, its better than the alternative. Much, much better!

Len, I'm still curious how you reconcile Obama's staunch opposition to the individual right to bear arms with your personal believe in that right and your hard work to further the cause via the NRA.

[Guest SUNTZU]

You undoubtedly know more about the campaign issues than I do, Len, but I sure don't want my rifle to be a super soaker. I used to be scared of zombies and clowns, but now I'm scared of Obama and what he might do to this country.

[Rightwinger]

Sorry Len, I just threw up a little in my mouth....I'll be back later. Sigh

[TGO David]

I used to be scared of zombies and clowns, but now I'm scared of Obama and what he might do to this country.

Zombie Clowns, my friend... Zombie Clowns. The worst of the worst.

[Im Neero]

Take that picture down! It's terrifying!

[Guest canynracer]

That movie scared the CRAP outta me when I was younger!!! no supersoaker for me, unless it shoots .223/5.56

[fury2neon]

A Conservative voting for Obama is like a Chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

[Mr. Brooks]

A Conservative voting for Obama is like a Chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Sig worthy!

[TGO David]

Frankly the only "case" that this conservative would accept for Obama is a long wooden box. Any other case for him than that just doesn't work for me.

[clipslinger]

There is no conservative case for obama. He is the black mans candidate, the dreamers dream. His lack of anything will not stop the African Americans from voting for him. The youth of our country brought up on vh1 and bet, have been taught that blacks are stronger, smarter and more desirable. They are gonna vote for him soley for his rock star persona. I am a lifelong Democrat who is campaigning as hard as I can for Mcain Palin, because the dream is not my dream and will not help this great nation.