Libertarians For Obama

By Kleinheider

Joe Lance shows how both the left and right wing of the libertarian movement are showing strong support for Obama: Despite the fact that neither Wright nor Hawbaker mentioned it specifically, a leading cause for libertarians and their ilk to support Barack Obama is their shared position on the country’s involvement in Iraq. Obama famously opposed authorizing the President to send troops before he was yet in Congress. Most of the major candidates in the 2008 election cycle supported the war; several were Senators who directly voted to start it.
Even though Obama is not a libertarian, it is interesting that he has drawn at least modest numbers of them to his cause.

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2008/11/02/libertarians-for-obama/#comment-26596

Libertarians see Obama as a more "libertarian" choice compared to John McCain or Bob Barr

When intelligent Libertarians examine Barack Obama they see his high intelligence and intellect as an asset for rational thinking. Combine this with his background as a civil rights lawyer and constitutional law professor who's favorable to voluntary, free community organization, and who as a Senator, took a daring stand against the Iraq War -- it becomes easy to see that Barack Obama is more "libertarian" than not.


A general definition of a libertarian is:

"A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom."

Barack Obama's background favors many principles held by libertarians and Libertarian Party members.

Obama has the "libertarian" advantage over John McCain (and Bob Barr for that matter):

-OBAMA Upholds the principals of individual liberty:
For libertarians, Obama's heart seems to be in the right place overall.Here are some of the principals of individual liberty which Obama supports and John McCain does NOT support:

• a ban on torture
• gay rights
• separation of church and state
• privacy
• free speech

-OBAMA Wants smaller government:
Obama's favorable to withdrawing and ending the Iraq [war] occupation saving taxpayers $100 billion+ in war spending. McCain talks a good game against earmarks and other wasteful spending. But, as Bleeding Heartland points out, the cost of earmarks in 2007 was about $17 billion. The cost of the Iraq war, which McCain wants to both continue and expand, is about $165 billion. And earmarks don't breed new government programs that destroy our civil liberties.

-OBAMA Supports lower taxes:
Advantage, Obama wants to lower taxes for MORE people (about 90-95% of taxpayers) that is everyone making less than $200,000 but raise taxes for those making over $250,000. McCain wants to lower tax rates for the rich even lower than Bush, but not as low for the middle class. Obama's plan offers the best overall tax cut plan. A hybrid plan would be nice, but unless you are in the "millionaire bracket" Obama's tax plan favors more people overall than McCain and one of McCain's top advisers recently said that, if elected, McCain plans to raise taxes too. (Historical Reminder: Republican George Bush Sr. said, "Read my Lips - No New Taxes" but eventually raised taxes after he was elected.)

-OBAMA Wants more personal freedom:
Obama is the only "major" candidate who is:

• pro-choice
• against a ban on flag burning
• and wants to soften drug laws
• and reduce the use of mandatory minimum sentences
  

Even Conservative Republicans favor Obama

The rise of the Obamacons

Oct 23rd 2008 From The Economist print edition
A striking number of conservatives are planning to vote for Obama

In “W.”, his biopic about his Yale classmate, Oliver Stone details Colin Powell’s agonies during George Bush’s first term. Throughout the film Mr Powell repeatedly raises doubts about the invasion of Iraq—and is repeatedly overruled by the ghoulish trio of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. In one of the final scenes, with his direst warnings proving correct, Mr Powell turns to Mr Cheney and delivers a heartfelt “F*** You”.

The real Colin Powell used more diplomatic language in endorsing Barack Obama on October 19th, but the impact was much the same. Mr Obama is a “transformational figure”, he mildly said, and his old friend John McCain had erred in choosing a neophyte as a running-mate. But you would have to be naive not to see the endorsement as a verdict on the Bush years.
Mr Powell is now a four-star general in America’s most surprising new army: the Obamacons. The army includes other big names such as Susan Eisenhower, Dwight’s granddaughter, who introduced Mr Obama at the Democratic National Convention and Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative icon William Buckley, who complains that he has not left the Republican Party: the Republican Party has left him. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska and one-time bosom buddy of Mr McCain has also flirted heavily with the movement, though he has refrained from issuing an official endorsement.

The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr Bush’s big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended “war on terror”, and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing “libertarians for Obama” web sites. CaféPress is even offering a “libertarian for Obama” lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr Obama can free America from the grip of the “zombies” who now run the Republican Party.
But the army has many other brigades, too: repentant neocons such as Francis Fukuyama, legal scholars such as Douglas Kmiec, and conservative talk-show hosts such as Michael Smerconish. And it is picking up unexpected new recruits as the campaign approaches its denouement. Many disillusioned Republicans hoped that Mr McCain would provide a compass for a party that has lost its way, but now feel that the compass has gone haywire. Kenneth Adelman, who once described the invasion of Iraq as a “cakewalk”, decided this week to vote for Mr Obama mainly because he regards Sarah Palin as “not close to being acceptable in high office”.

The rise of the Obamacons is more than a reaction against Mr Bush’s remodelling of the Republican Party and Mr McCain’s desperation: there were plenty of disillusioned Republicans in 2004 who did not warm to John Kerry. It is also a positive verdict on Mr Obama. For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding.
Much of Mr Obama’s rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reaganesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story also appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons, proving that the country is a race-blind meritocracy and, in the process, bankrupting a race-grievance industry that has produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

How much do these Obamacons matter? More than Mr McCain would like to think. The Obamacons are manifestations of a deeper turmoil in the Republican rank-and-file, as the old coalition of small-government activists, social conservatives and business Republicans falls apart. They also influence opinion. This is obvious in the case of Mr Powell: Mr Obama is making liberal use of his endorsement to refute the latest Republican criticism that he is a “socialist”. But it is also true of lesser-known scribblers. At least 27 newspapers that backed Mr Bush in 2004 have endorsed Mr Obama.

Moreover, the revolt of the intellectuals is coinciding with a migration of culturally conservative voters—particularly white working-class voters—into Obamaland. Mr Obama is now level-pegging or leading among swing-groups such as Catholics and working-class whites. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows him winning 22% of self-described conservatives, a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980.

Don’t blame the rats

The more tantalising question is whether the rise of the Obamacons signals a lasting political realignment. In 1980 the rise of the neocons—liberal intellectuals who abandoned a spineless Democratic Party—was reinforced by the birth of working class “Reagan Democrats”. Is the Reagan revolution now going into reverse? There are reasons for scepticism. Will libertarians really stick with “Senator Government”, as Mr McCain labelled Mr Obama in the best slip of the tongue of the campaign? Will economic conservatives cleave to a president who believes in “spreading the wealth around”?

Much depends on how Mr Obama governs if he wins, and how the Republicans behave if they lose. Mr Obama talks about creating an administration of all the talents. He promises to take the cultural anxieties of Reagan Democrats seriously. For their part, hard-core Republicans are handling their party’s travails abysmally, retreating into elite-bashing populism and denouncing the Obamacons as “rats” who are deserting a sinking ship. If the Republican Party continues to think that the problem lies with the rats, rather than the seaworthiness of the ship, then the Obamacons are here to stay.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470555