What Exactly Is the Source of Conservatives' Fear of Obama?

[Fire Fly]

According to a recent Democratic focus group study, it's not racism (despite a poll on the Birther Movement showing that the majority of such people were from the Deep South). A quick excerpt of their views (leaving out various quotes):

The conservative Republican base is deeply suspicious of Obama’s political success and true motivations. These questions were part of the conversation throughout the 2008 electioncycle, but now they feel their greatest fears are being realized, and they do not understand the lack of outcry from the rest of the country. They believe Obama is determined to fundamentally change and weaken our country, taking it away from its founding principles. Four central pillars support their beliefs:

Pillar #1 – Deception and a Hidden Agenda
Their feelings toward Obama are not simply a reflection of intense partisan differences. They are actively rooting for Obama to fail as president because they believe he is not acting in good faith as the leader of our country. Only 6 percent of these conservative Republican base voters say that Obama is on their side, and our groups showed that they explicitly believe he is purposely and ruthlessly executing a hidden agenda to weaken and ultimately destroy the foundations of our country.

Closely related to this well-established notion of a secret agenda is a hidden set of liberal elites or power brokers who have guided and directed Obama as a puppet, helping him to reach the highest office in the land. It is simply implausible to them that Obama has reached this position on his own without some greater force at work.

These conservative Republican base voters were not just shooting off half-cocked theories about conspiracies. They actively believe President Obama is purposely lying about his plans for the country and what his policies would do, and that he is exaggerating the threats America faces in order to create support for his policies. A key component to this deception is a pattern of always telling people what they want to hear, regardless of the truth. They believe this strategy has been particularly successful in seducing younger voters, who they believe swung the election to Obama because they were taken in by his charisma and idealistic appeals to ‘change’ and ‘hope.’

We find further evidence of this pattern of deception in questions they believe have not been adequately answered or investigated about Obama’s background, including his place of birth, his education, the authorship of his books, the degree of his associations with controversial figures including William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, his work as a community organizer, his links to ACORN, and his service in the Illinois legislature. Again, they see a unique pattern of secrecy and subterfuge, abetted by either incompetence or willful neglect by the mainstream media.

When the level of the current political rhetoric in the country was raised and they were asked whether there was any fear that it could escalate into violence, they rejected the suggestion out of hand and cited it as an example of a coordinated media campaign of deception to discredit attacks on Obama.

Pillar #2 – Speed
A key piece of the hidden agenda identified and detailed by conservative Republican voters in our focus groups was speed, which was linked to the larger pattern of deception detailed above. They believe Obama is pushing his agenda at record pace because he does not want the American people to know what he is doing. The decision to tackle so many major issues at once early in his term is born not out of necessity, but out of secrecy and political calculation. And the media is once again a key part of this strategy, refusing to expose information that might slow down his legislative march.

Pillar #3 – Driving Government to the Brink and Total Control
Conservative Republicans do not oppose Obama’s policies simply because they think they are misguided or out of partisan fervor. Rather, they believe his policies are purposely designed to fail. When they look at the totality of his agenda, they see a deliberate effort to drive our country so deep into debt, to make the majority of Americans so dependent on the government, and to strip away so many basic constitutional rights that we are too weak to fight back and have to accept whatever solution he proposes. The numbers from our database also demonstrate this belief – 92 percent of these voters believe Obama is a “big spender” and only 17 percent believe he has good plans for the economy.

Fear of government control is at the heart of virtually all of the concerns raised by these voters about Obama’s agenda, and it is literally a fear of two things – government and control. They see government as inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt and believe it preys on the middle class and ‘hard-working Americans.’

Even more concerning than the waste and corruption of government for these voters is the inexorable movement of government toward controlling an ever increasing share of our economic marketplace, as well as our individual lives.

Pillar #4 – The Ultimate Goal: Socialism and End to Liberties
There is no doubt in their minds that the ultimate goal of this strategy is to change our country to a socialist nation. In their minds, this is the key to truly understanding the Obama presidency and what is happening in our country today. Everything goes back to government control and Obama (aided by Democrats in Congress and the liberal media) seeking to systematically strip away individual rights and insert government into every aspect of our daily lives.

They exhaustively cite examples of this strategy at work, starting with the bank bailouts, the takeovers of Chrysler and GM, and foreclosure assistance making homeowners dependent on government for their homes. Another example repeatedly raised by conservative Republicans that undoubtedly reflects the power of FOX News and conservative commentators among these voters was their concern over President Obama’s policy ‘czars’ wielding power over every issue with no accountability.

The final, and in many ways most important, piece of evidence they cite is the planned government takeover of health care. The notion that Obama's health care reforms represent a government takeover of all aspects of health care is an article of faith; they reject as laughable the suggestion that it might not, pointing to his arguments to the contrary as further proof of his determination to lie and deceive to fulfill his ultimate agenda. Even after a description of the health care reform plan in our recent polling, these conservative Republican base voters reject it by a 59-point margin, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) strongly opposed to reform (77 percent total opposed).

These delusions are approaching, if they are not already, psychosis and it's rapidly becoming difficult to tell who is a sane conservative from the above mentioned, who are now largely fueling the opposition to Obama's domestic agenda.

[Anguirus]

They believe Obama is pushing his agenda at record pace

As far as I can tell, he's gotten very little done domestically. Although that was largely Congress' fault. Still, seems to me he's been cautious at pushing forward progressive social issues, apparently hoping to score points with the demographic that thinks he's the Antichrist.

When they look at the totality of his agenda, they see a deliberate effort to drive our country so deep into debt, to make the majority of Americans so dependent on the government, and to strip away so many basic constitutional rights that we are too weak to fight back and have to accept whatever solution he proposes.

The irony is physically painful.

They exhaustively cite examples of this strategy at work, starting with the bank bailouts, the takeovers of Chrysler and GM, and foreclosure assistance making homeowners dependent on government for their homes.

Bush got the ball rolling on, at the very least, the bailouts. And while I know many conservatives didn't like that, they also didn't declare him evil en masse. Bush also had czars.

The final, and in many ways most important, piece of evidence they cite is the planned government takeover of health care. The notion that Obama's health care reforms represent a government takeover of all aspects of health care is an article of faith; they reject as laughable the suggestion that it might not, pointing to his arguments to the contrary as further proof of his determination to lie and deceive to fulfill his ultimate agenda. Even after a description of the health care reform plan in our recent polling, these conservative Republican base voters reject it by a 59-point margin, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) strongly opposed to reform (77 percent total opposed).

The Democrats really need to hit this issue harder. They won't convince the people who believe this no matter how cautious or neutered their plan is (and it is pretty fucking cautious and neutered at the moment). So I'd like to see them just hit the middle hard with the message about what a fucking failure American health care currently is and that virtually anything would be better...like what the "don't get sick, die early" guy was saying.

And I know this has said before, but the right-wing perception of the "liberal agenda" is just really...weird. So the secret goal of the conspiracy is to...give people free health care? They are extremely unspecific about how this would weaken and corrode America, and about what those evil liberals are actually getting for all their trouble, but they'll work themselves into a frothing lather over it anyway.

[Samuel]

They believe Obama is determined to fundamentally change and weaken our country, taking it away from its founding principles. Four central pillars support their beliefs:

The United States doesn't have founding principles. The constitution is about how the government is to be set up and nothing else.

Closely related to this well-established notion of a secret agenda is a hidden set of liberal elites or power brokers who have guided and directed Obama as a puppet, helping him to reach the highest office in the land. It is simply implausible to them that Obama has reached this position on his own without some greater force at work.

Wow, people too stupid to get how elections work. I guess these are people who also think Bush did a good job so they don't understand the backlash. See, this is what happen when you enter a bubble.

and that he is exaggerating the threats America faces in order to create support for his policies.

Unlike terrorists, who seek to destroy our freedoms.

Again, they see a unique pattern of secrecy and subterfuge, abetted by either incompetence or willful neglect by the mainstream media.

This are people who thinking being a card carrying member of the the ACLU is an insult. Why don't we just be honest- they are idiots who are lunging at smoke and mirrors?

They see government as inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt and believe it preys on the middle class and ‘hard-working Americans.’

Like how they are in favor of reducing military spending?

I'd go on, but all of these are examples of idiocy and not bothering to do the research or ask questions.

it's not racism (despite a poll on the Birther Movement showing that the majority of such people were from the Deep South).

Or they don't want to admit that they are bigots.

[Count Chocula]

Just a quick post, and I'll follow up tomorrow: from my perspective at least, it's not fear, but ther is a deep concern, over Obama's (and I can't really pin it on Obama, as Congress is equally complicit) spending, personal profligance, straddling (i.e. "nobody making under $250k will pay more taxes" juxtaposted with "Cap and trade will pose a necessary massive increase in individual energy bills [paraphrased]", the political leanings of his czars, staffers and mentors, and oh yeah the incredible, record-setting, deficits that he authorised, far beyond Bush's already ridiculous deficits.

The "fear" is not about race for the most part, it's about policies and spending.

[Darth Wong]

Well of course they don't admit it's racism. But that doesn't mean it's not. A lot of their fears revolve around the idea that he's some kind of "sleeper agent" for a sinister unAmerican takeover agenda, and if you can't see the connections between that and the endless "Secret Muslim" and "Kenyan plant" conspiracy theories (which are in turn quite obviously racist in origin), you're just being willfully obtuse.

[ThomasP]

I've still yet to get the argument "he's stealin mah freedomz!" when none of these people ever opened their mouths about Bush's adventures in authoritarianism.

They could at least bother to be consistent; but I guess killin' brown folks is an acceptable reason to massively expand the role of government?

[Darth Wong]

I've still yet to get the argument "he's stealin mah freedomz!" when none of these people ever opened their mouths about Bush's adventures in authoritarianism.

They could at least bother to be consistent; but I guess killin' brown folks is an acceptable reason to massively expand the role of government?

Authoritarian is OK as long as it's being led by "one of us". Again, I think it's incredibly premature to say that it's not racism just because the Southerners in question can manufacture other excuses for their behaviour. Modern racists almost never admit that they're racists. They always have some bullshit rationalization. Just look at that Louisiana judge who unilaterally banned interracial marriage. He continues to insist that he's not motivated by racism! What makes anyone think these ass-clowns are any different?

[Instant Sunrise]

Well of course they don't admit it's racism. But that doesn't mean it's not. A lot of their fears revolve around the idea that he's some kind of "sleeper agent" for a sinister unAmerican takeover agenda, and if you can't see the connections between that and the endless "Secret Muslim" and "Kenyan plant" conspiracy theories (which are in turn quite obviously racist in origin), you're just being willfully obtuse.

You're right, they tell the public that they aren't racist, but you know what happens when they start to e-mail their own constituents, a group of like-minded individuals. Never mind the shit that went down at the tea parties.

(each picture is a link to the story about the person who was caught forwarding it)

Inland Empire GOP Mailing List


Dr. David McKalip - Founder of right wing think tank Doctors for Patient Freedom.

From: Carol Carter
Friday, January 30, 9:30 AM
Subject: FW: Amazing!

I’m confused

How can 2,000,000 blacks get into Washington, DC in 1 day in sub zero temps when 200,000 couldn’t get out of New Orleans in 85 degree temps with four days notice?

Carol Carter

Los Alamitos, CA Mayor Dean Grouse (R)

Just one big pile of "I'm not a racist, but..."

[Stark]

Authoritarian is OK as long as it's being led by "one of us". Again, I think it's incredibly premature to say that it's not racism just because the Southerners in question can manufacture other excuses for their behaviour. Modern racists almost never admit that they're racists. They always have some bullshit rationalization. Just look at that Louisiana judge who unilaterally banned interracial marriage. He continues to insist that he's not motivated by racism! What makes anyone think these ass-clowns are any different?

This sort of attitude is often painfully obvious. You can talk to someone about xyz opponent and their policies or actions or scandals and get them worked up about how horrible it all is, and then turn to the similar actions of their 'team' and watch the hilarity. In my experience they often don't even try to justify the hypocrisy, they simply say 'no no abc identical action was fine because he was responsible' or 'jfk scandal was okay because he admitted it' or whatever - baldly looking past the contradiction. Look at this 'fear' that Obama will 'hurt' the economy or take away liberties - they didn't care with Bush because it was hurting OTHER PEOPLE THEY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT. People like Shep STILL say that everyone hurt by Bush's Patriot Act etc were all terrorists, while simultaneously posting hysterical drivel about the end of the USA!

[Medic]

Now we ought to remember typical Conservative notions of liberty includes actively denying the same to others: gays marrying, atheists... existing, scientists being at the whim of religiously-inspired horseshit to make the classroom, textbooks and universities safe for the budding beliefs of the teeming hordes of Christian children out there vulnerable to a belief in the "theory" of evolution. Also, a little deregulation never hurt anyone! Until it did, of course.

And some of the few areas they're actually defending a right and not a wrong like gun rights, Obama and the left has been comparatively inactive, since Healthcare figures so prominently at the moment.

Also, Count Chocula, the great reason Obama's deficits will run so deep is due in large part to extending Bush's own taxcuts, instead of immediately going back to Clinton-era figures. Healthcare and the Bailout (which Bush backed too, anyway) ON TOP of keeping those tax cuts are what's so injurious. (although don't assume that to mean that I personally approve of tax hikes; actually I don't, among a number of other things I'm center-left or center-right, if a center-right even exists anymore)

[Anguirus]

So on the "Republitard Racism" front, I just read in my college paper an article about a protest at Texas A&M, where and Obama and George H. W. Bush spoke at an event commemorating the 20th anniversary of the "Points of Light" campaign. The front picture showed a lily-white crowd (ok, one guy was pretty tan) and the caption revealed that one of their chants was "Obama been lyin'."

Not "Obama lies," "Obama's a liar," or "Obama's been lying." "Obama been lyin'."

Can any of you guys imagine a white crowd shouting that to a white president? Cos I sure can't.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't see why Republicans are afraid of him at all. At the end of the they he's been bending over for them constantly and hasn't actually done tremendously much yet (through lack of Congressional action and via little use of force). They couldn't ask for a better Democratic administration for their agenda (lord knows Bill Clinton wouldn't have taken this shit without a fight) and they still hollar that Obama has a Secret Evil Agenda to Steal their Freedoms and Spread Socialism Everywhere!

[Gil Hamilton]

So on the "Republitard Racism" front, I just read in my college paper an article about a protest at Texas A&M, where and Obama and George H. W. Bush spoke at an event commemorating the 20th anniversary of the "Points of Light" campaign. The front picture showed a lily-white crowd (ok, one guy was pretty tan) and the caption revealed that one of their chants was "Obama been lyin'."

Not "Obama lies," "Obama's a liar," or "Obama's been lying." "Obama been lyin'."

Can any of you guys imagine a white crowd shouting that to a white president? Cos I sure can't.

That seems to be a play on "Osama bin Laden", but that frankly doesn't make what they were saying any less vulgar.

[Duckie]

To me it seems to be an attempt at imitating African American Vernacular English- the copula drop in particular is as far as I know unique among english dialects. Which isn't even sensible because if Obama does have the ability to speak that dialect, he hides it exceedingly well and hasn't spoken a sentence in it within anyone's earshot.

The only logical reason to be imitating Ebonics in that situation is because he's black. There might be a further pun to it, but it's entirely enabled by the fact that he's black- the specific phrasing wouldn't make sense in context of anything else.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Just a quick post, and I'll follow up tomorrow: from my perspective at least, it's not fear, but ther is a deep concern, over Obama's (and I can't really pin it on Obama, as Congress is equally complicit) spending, personal profligance, straddling (i.e. "nobody making under $250k will pay more taxes" juxtaposted with "Cap and trade will pose a necessary massive increase in individual energy bills [paraphrased]", the political leanings of his czars, staffers and mentors, and oh yeah the incredible, record-setting, deficits that he authorised, far beyond Bush's already ridiculous deficits.

The "fear" is not about race for the most part, it's about policies and spending.

What's the difference between "fear" and "deep concern"?

[General Zod]

Just a quick post, and I'll follow up tomorrow: from my perspective at least, it's not fear, but ther is a deep concern, over Obama's (and I can't really pin it on Obama, as Congress is equally complicit) spending, personal profligance, straddling (i.e. "nobody making under $250k will pay more taxes" juxtaposted with "Cap and trade will pose a necessary massive increase in individual energy bills [paraphrased]", the political leanings of his czars, staffers and mentors, and oh yeah the incredible, record-setting, deficits that he authorised, far beyond Bush's already ridiculous deficits.

The "fear" is not about race for the most part, it's about policies and spending.

What's the difference between "fear" and "deep concern"?

More importantly, where was this "deep concern" over Bush the dumber's spending deficits?

[aerius]

Just a quick post, and I'll follow up tomorrow: from my perspective at least, it's not fear, but ther is a deep concern, over Obama's (and I can't really pin it on Obama, as Congress is equally complicit) spending, personal profligance, straddling (i.e. "nobody making under $250k will pay more taxes" juxtaposted with "Cap and trade will pose a necessary massive increase in individual energy bills [paraphrased]", the political leanings of his czars, staffers and mentors, and oh yeah the incredible, record-setting, deficits that he authorised, far beyond Bush's already ridiculous deficits.

The "fear" is not about race for the most part, it's about policies and spending.

I put some blame on Obama since he doesn't listen to the one person in his economic advisory panel (Paul Volcker) who's actually making sense and giving sound advice. Nope, Volcker gets marginalized and stuffed in the back closet while Obama takes all his advice from Larry Summers, Rick Rubin, and Tim Geithner; the same goddamn idiots who never saw the crisis coming and whose policies past & present, fucked up the economy in the first place.

[Anguirus]

To me it seems to be an attempt at imitating African American Vernacular English- the copula drop in particular is as far as I know unique among english dialects. Which isn't even sensible because if Obama does have the ability to speak that dialect, he hides it exceedingly well and hasn't spoken a sentence in it within anyone's earshot.

The only logical reason to be imitating Ebonics in that situation is because he's black. There might be a further pun to it, but it's entirely enabled by the fact that he's black- the specific phrasing wouldn't make sense in context of anything else.

That's absolutely the way I read it. And the protest leader was a 30-something well-dressed guy from San Antonio, so I kind of doubt that's actually how he talks.

[SirNitram]

Honestly, it's more than just Black. It's that he's a Democrat. It's not really a giant secret the Republicans and their core(The remnants of their base, the batshit insane fuckers) hate Democrats. They are evil, in the GOP groupthink. They are less than human. They are enemies of God.

[Axis Kast]

Because of the specific assumptions they make about the behavior of the economy, the motivations of the international community, the nature of government, and the implications of liberal thought, a lot of Republicans see politics as a game "for all the marbles." Noxious behavior seems to have many more excuses -- and many more friends -- under those circumstances.

It doesn't help that many liberals are easily persuaded that Republican fears are not real concerns that can be addressed through dialogue, but canned talking points that reflect blind obedience to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

A conservative says, "There should be a limit to tolerance." A liberal hears, "I'd like to treat other folks badly." A conservative means, "I shouldn't have to endorse behavior I disagree with." If asked, a conservative would say, "The government should leave people alone to do as they please."

Plenty of inconsistencies can and do occur. I think that liberals should make aggressive efforts to counter them. I'm sure most readers are thinking, "But Axis Kast, hundreds of thousands - millions! - of conservatives have proven that they are ready and willing to legislate limits to what somebody can do in their own home. This isn't just a question of endorsement."

Liberals should step forward and steal a play from the conservatives' own book. Talk about God. Talk about Jesus. Some suggestions.

1. Say, "Well, who's truth should I answer to? You want me to legislate from the Bible. Who's Bible should I use? Whose doctrine? The one from the church down the street? Your church? There are no answers to these questions. And you don't want the government getting into the business of religion. That's between you and God, or you and your pastor."

2. Wouldn't God say that the problem lies in man's heart, and that the law is a reflection of that problem? Changing law doesn't change the heart. That's taking the wrong approach.

3. Ask them to explain why gay marriage is so "dangerous." If it's because "God said so," remind them that changing the law won't solve the problem. If it's because "it might affect others," point out that there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice. If it's because "it's just wrong," ask them why we should build laws "just because you say so." If it's because "once you get started approving things, you'll never stop," ask why the number one is any different than the number two. They're just as arbitrary.

4. If they oppose healthcare due to rationing, ask what is the difference between, "I'm sorry, Mr. Smith. We can't give you health care because our beds are full," and, "I'm sorry, Mr. Smith. We can't give you health care because you can't pay." There is a difference: the second excuse can be used even when there are beds to spare.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

3. Ask them to explain why gay marriage is so "dangerous." If it's because "God said so," remind them that changing the law won't solve the problem. If it's because "it might affect others," point out that there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice. If it's because "it's just wrong," ask them why we should build laws "just because you say so." If it's because "once you get started approving things, you'll never stop," ask why the number one is any different than the number two. They're just as arbitrary.

Such logical questions are not effective in convincing conservative voters to change their minds. As a canvasser for the past several months, I have been engaging in one on one conversations with conservative voters who voted in favor of proposition 8 in California in 2008. They will tell you straight to your face that they don't believe the government should interfere with people's lives and still advocate outlawing same-sex marriage without acknowledging for a second how absurdly contradictory their statements were. We're still in the process of doing research on messaging and finding out precisely to a science what really pushes people's buttons. So far, the most effective counters are emotional ones. By showing a human face on the other side, it curries sympathy. The real root of conservatives' opposition to marriage equality really is homophobia. Quite honestly, the best methods of moving voters to be more supportive of equal rights for LGBT individuals have been combating homophobia by showing them that we're people just like them.

That's not to say that such logical questions are never effective at all. Surely, there are many whom I've spoken to where those logical arguments actually have moved them. But far more often than not, it's the emotional aspect that wins over voters.

[Samuel]

It doesn't help that many liberals are easily persuaded that Republican fears are not real concerns that can be addressed through dialogue, but canned talking points that reflect blind obedience to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

the nature of government, and the implications of liberal thought, a lot of Republicans see politics as a game "for all the marbles."

This is why. Read Moral Politics. Liberals and conservatives think differently.

Talk about God. Talk about Jesus.

The Democrats do.

You want me to legislate from the Bible. Who's Bible should I use? Whose doctrine? The one from the church down the street? Your church? There are no answers to these questions.

The answer is obvious- their interpretation which is the only reasonable one of course. You don't agree? Well obviously you are misguided...

Wouldn't God say that the problem lies in man's heart, and that the law is a reflection of that problem? Changing law doesn't change the heart. That's taking the wrong approach.

Wrong answer. Conservatives think that you can change people and their hearts- discipline and punishment for a reason.

If they oppose healthcare due to rationing, ask what is the difference between, "I'm sorry, Mr. Smith. We can't give you health care because our beds are full," and, "I'm sorry, Mr. Smith. We can't give you health care because you can't pay." There is a difference: the second excuse can be used even when there are beds to spare.

They think the wealth is deserved and if you couldn't afford it... well, it is your fault you are poor.

Seriously, the nations liberals and the democrats have been trying this. It doesn't work.

[Axis Kast]

This is why. Read Moral Politics. Liberals and conservatives think differently.

And thinking can change.

The Democrats do.

Democrats do not aggressively challenge conservatives on their "ownership" of interpretation, presumably because most Democratic politicians do not feel that it is necessary for their reelection.

The answer is obvious- their interpretation which is the only reasonable one of course. You don't agree? Well obviously you are misguided...

The point is to emphasize that most of the Republicans they know and are comfortable with probably espouse doctrine which they'd have a hard time swallowing.

Wrong answer. Conservatives think that you can change people and their hearts- discipline and punishment for a reason.

The discipline of prohibition does not change people's hearts.

They think the wealth is deserved and if you couldn't afford it... well, it is your fault you are poor.

The primary opposition revolves around cost and socialism, not the question of who deserves what.

[Patrick Degan]

This is why. Read Moral Politics. Liberals and conservatives think differently.

And thinking can change.

NOT with them. Conservatives do not approach problems from a standpoint of empirical reasoning but one of emotion and "gut feel".

Democrats do not aggressively challenge conservatives on their "ownership" of interpretation, presumably because most Democratic politicians do not feel that it is necessary for their reelection.

This is because Democrats have been attempting to play the centrist game for so long that they've lost sight, largely, of the need to directly challenge the opposing side's ideology.

The answer is obvious- their interpretation which is the only reasonable one of course. You don't agree? Well obviously you are misguided...

The point is to emphasize that most of the Republicans they know and are comfortable with probably espouse doctrine which they'd have a hard time swallowing.

The problem is that "reasonable" Republicans who still remain part of that party have become rather adept at not seeing the uglier sides of the groups that are part of their coalition, or they rather neatly employ their own form of doublethink to avoid the dilemma. As for hard-core conservatives, there is no dilemma, of course. They are right and everybody else is wrong in their view and it's on everybody else to change —not them.

Wrong answer. Conservatives think that you can change people and their hearts- discipline and punishment for a reason.

The discipline of prohibition does not change people's hearts.

They do not see the problem in that way. In fact, they see it precisely the opposite way: prohibition and punishment eventually will work in the end and they remain steadfast in that conviction despite all empirical evidence to the contrary. See the War on Some Drugs and Zero Tolerance laws.

They think the wealth is deserved and if you couldn't afford it... well, it is your fault you are poor.

The primary opposition revolves around cost and socialism, not the question of who deserves what.

See Calvinism. Cost is merely an excuse and "socialism" is seen as a threat to the Divine Plan according to Calvinist doctrine. It does come down to "who deserves what" with many of these people. Bill Kristol even let that one slip out on a panel show just a few months ago discussing healthcare reform and why universal coverage paid for by the government would be a Bad Thing™.

[Count Chocula]

Also, Count Chocula, the great reason Obama's deficits will run so deep is due in large part to extending Bush's own taxcuts, instead of immediately going back to Clinton-era figures.

Actually, that's not true:

President Obama is proposing to add more than $85 billion to the nation's budget deficits over the next decade to extend two tax breaks for the working poor, a move critics on Wednesday blasted as a violation of Obama's pledge to pay for new policies. [that's $8.5 billion in tax cuts per year, inconsequential when compared to a $3+ trillion budget]

...The reason? Technically, the stimulus amended a series of sweeping tax cuts enacted in 2001 during the Bush administration. Obama has repeatedly said he does not expect Congress to cover the enormous cost of maintaining the Bush tax cuts past their 2010 expiration date.

So Obama's proposed keeping the $1,000 child credit from Bush's cuts, but nothing else.

On to fear versus deep concern:
Fear:1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.

Concern:3. to trouble, worry, or disquiet: I am concerned about his health.

Really, Pint0, do you not understand the difference? What a bullshit reply.

So, now to what I perceive as the reasons for conservatives' fear of (or concern over) Obama. Note that, in my opinion, I think a lot of this concern is equally over the Democratic controlled Congress since, as news authority Saturday Night Live observed, Obama hasn't accomplished anything yet.

Spending:

• Bush/Paulson's $700 billion TARP bank bailout, for which both Obama and McCain voted. He was a Senator, so he owns that one;
• The $787 billion "stimulus" plan
• A 2009 budget that is 50% funded by deficit spending. In 2009 alone, the federal government dropped $5,000 of debt onto the backs of every man, woman and child in America.
• A 2010 budget that is also....oh never mind...it's October 20, three weeks past the last budget year, and it's not implemented. We're funding the government on interim authorization. What was submitted was a $3.6 trillion federal budget, with "only" 33%, $1.2 trillion, funded by Americans and foreign states purchasing our Treasury bills. That's another $3,900 in debt payment for every man, woman and child in America. $8,900, or 307 million Kia Rios, in two years! And you thought student loan repayments were onerous! And federalized take-effect-in-2013 health care is such a hot-Hot-HOT issue that it takes precedence over funding the government's 2010 operations? Give me a break.
• "Cap and Trade," or the CO2 tax. It's estimated that it will cost every American household an additional $800 per year, according to the leading MIT study's author. That's after Obama's proposed tax credits to reduce the sting. Note that the Republicans are doing simple math to come up with a $3,100 per household per year figure and the Heritage Foundation has calculated $1,500 per year, which are exclusive of proposed the tax credits. We'll know more when/if the bill passes, but it's not there yet. But people are worried about the implications.

Next, on to a few of President Obama's stated positions:

• Obama versus Joe the Plumber: "I think..when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." That sounds like redistribution, i.e. taking from those who have and giving it to those who have less. Of course, through the appropriate Federal agencies, to properly vetted recipients.
• 1/17/2008, San Francisco Chronicle as reported in the Tallahassee Examiner: "If somebody wants to build a coal powered plant they can, it's just that...it will bankrupt them, because they're gonna be charged a huge sum for all that...greenhouse gas that's being emitted." "...Under my plan..uh..of a cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket." We're in a depression, and the signs of economic malaise were very very clear in early 2008 when he gave this interview...yet he still advocated yet another taxation-by-regulation plan to reduce CO2 emissions by...how high a percentage? 4 parts in 10,000? Another grand in taxes per year, and this is a good thing?
• Speech to the AFL/CIO, 2003: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan."
• Speech to SEIU 3/24/2007 (starting at 6:21): "My concern is to make sure that we have univeral health care for all Americans by the end of my first term...there's gonna be...potentially some transition process...I can envision a decade out, or fifteen years out, or twenty years out..." In other words, parsing his speech, he sees the subsuming of private insurance businesses by a Federal one-for-all program - or a long process of driving private insurers out of business.
  
  While I'm not happy with the price I pay for health insurance, I lay blame on my company's small pool of subscribers, and the states and federal government for limiting the number of health insurance carriers in my state and not on the providers of said insurance. 90% of Americans have health insurance; I, and millions of other Americans, fail to see why the federal government needs, or has the authority, to take over the provision of health insurance for EVERYONE just to provide insurance to the 12 million or so who, according to Census figures, truly can't afford it. Wouldn't an expansion of Medicaid serve the same purpose, without an effective federal takeover of 1/6 of our economic output?
• From a 2001 Chicago National Public Radio interview: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical I think as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted..." Wait what? In 2001, he's on record saying the Supreme Court should have addressed (Communist style) redistribution of wealth and nebulous "political and economic justice" issues, and bemoans the fact that the Supreme Court hasn't (essentially) done any run-arounds on the Constitution! This is the kind of "wisdom" we get from an Ivy League Constitutional scholar? Yeah, to me anyway, this attitude is cause for concern.

Well, it's late and this post is long enough. Tomorrow, I'll scratch the surface of President Obama's mentors and appointees, and why they too worry conservatives.