I saw this on Drudge today and was floored.  Of course, I instantly began to wonder about this "conservative."  Why would a conservative make such an endorsement of one of the most socialist candidates ever to run for President.  Why would this person cite the two issues of "traditional marriage" and "pro life" fully knowing that Obama vehemently opposes his stated beliefs on both issues?  

"I know Obama disagrees with me on virtually every matter of core principle, but by golly, in spite of the last month's stunning revelations demonstrating HIS lack of character, leadership and honesty, I am gonna endorse him.  Frankly, nobody running is qualified so what the heck."  

Can you really be a "leading conservative" and endorse an out-and-out socialist?  Is this person one of the people running the GOP currently?  Will other members of the GOP now endorse Obama or Clinton?  

Do not the past several weeks of Obama revelations prove Obama is no more "a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will" than Clinton, Kennedy, LBJ or any other recent liberal politician?  Does this say anything about Mr. Kmiec's judgment?

Do some "so-called" conservatives want to be loved by liberals so much that they are willing to turn off their brains?  What does this say about the GOP?  

Conservative lawyer endorse Obama

Published: March 23, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Print story Email to a friend Font size:LOS ANGELES, March 23 (UPI) -- Douglas Kmiec, a leading conservative Republican lawyer Sunday endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for U.S. president.

Writing in Slate magazine, Kmiec, who served as constitutional legal counsel to former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, called Obama "a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will."

"I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights," said Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at California's Pepperdine University.

Kmiec, a former dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, said he was not sure if Obama's "life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency," but he said he doubts that can be known about any of the current presidential hopefuls.

Kmiec noted that as a Republican and as a Catholic, he supports preserving traditional marriage and believes that "life begins at conception" -- and he acknowledged that Obama may differ with him on those issues. However, he said he is convinced that Obama "is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and … will respect and accommodate them."

Interesting post on the topic from National Review Online.

Did this really happen back in February?  Why is it only noted by UPI now?  

=========================
Friday, February 15, 2008

Catholics for Obama?   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Last night Douglas W. Kmiec e-mailed this response to Ramesh re: his Slate piece on Obama:

Ramesh Ponnuru’s critique of my Slate article suggesting the positive qualities of Senator Obama from the standpoint of Catholic social teaching and in comparison to President Reagan merits a response.

I regret that Ramesh has never found my writing particularly persuasive, though I think he feigns not to understand the message of my Slate commentary, as if to prevail by bemusement. Over the years I have enjoyed the benefit of Ramesh’s insight, but in this matter he cannot prevail by a type of guilt by character denigration – e.g., his quippy – but I think ultimately ironic – reference to my one-time defense of Harriet Miers. I knew Mrs. Miers to be a hard-working and self-effacing legal counsel to President Bush. As Ramesh knows from the public record, well in advance of a Court vacancy, I had advocated the appointment of Samuel A. Alito Jr. with whom I had worked in the Office of Legal Counsel for President Reagan. Nevertheless, in the era of the Bush administration, we have all become accustomed to biting our lip and giving the president the benefit of the doubt. Therein, the irony to Ramesh’s reference to the Miers episode, as it illustrates the proximate cause of the disaffection with Senator McCain and the possible attractiveness of Senator Obama to Reagan Democrats, Catholics, and I daresay even run-of-the-mill conservatives: the patience to give a Bush sequel yet more "benefit of the doubt" is exhausted. Frankly, many of us who answered Reagan’s call and came to Washington are tired of having only a theoretical commitment to budgetary restraint, limited government, the importance of ensuring the economic well-being of average families, and the lack of measurable progress on respect for life.

Read the rest here.

First: There are no conservative lawyers -- law schools make sure of that.

Second: Mr. Kmiec's view make no logical sense.  So he's saying this for one of two reasons:
      A) Like all lawyers, he's a liberal.  But, he considers himself a conservative for some minor difference he has with most lawyers; OR
      B) He IS a conservative who is attempting to make some "point"; I cannot even begin to fathom what the "point" is.

Mostly, I would just disregard any description of the man as "conservative".  Clearly he is not.  To abstain from voting for someone who is not conservative, is far different from actually voting FOR the a candidate who is diametrically opposed to conservative values.

I just don't get it.  Who is this guy? And how is his jackass view even worth reporting?

Eyas wrote:First: There are no conservative lawyers -- law schools make sure of that.

Second: Mr. Kmiec's view make no logical sense.  So he's saying this for one of two reasons:
      A) Like all lawyers, he's a liberal.  But, he considers himself a conservative for some minor difference he has with most lawyers; OR
      B) He IS a conservative who is attempting to make some "point"; I cannot even begin to fathom what the "point" is.

Mostly, I would just disregard any description of the man as "conservative".  Clearly he is not.  To abstain from voting for someone who is not conservative, is far different from actually voting FOR the a candidate who is diametrically opposed to conservative values.

I just don't get it.  Who is this guy? And how is his jackass view even worth reporting?

I just reconnected with two old friends who are both lawyers and they aptly demonstrate your first point.  I think they make Obama look conservative by comparison.

Mr. Kmiec's patently illogical, if not irrational, statement is what caught my attention.  A true conservative could not reach the conclusion that "because Obama vehemently, and perhaps violently, disagrees with me on the only two important issues I choose to raise in my endorsement I therefore support him."  

Clearly, Obama endorses and even embraces the democrat position of maximizing abortions and seems to believe that life begins (and ends) when the state says so and supports same sex marriage.  There is not a hint of possibility that he will so any flexibility on those two issues.  Who cares if he listens to you with an utterly closed mind.  

The MSM loves to find one obscure person and label him a "conservative" or "leading conservative" and then show how he has "grown" by endorsing a democrat.  This is the very nature of the love-fest between the MSM and McCain.  But, notice how the same MSM ignores Ed Koch, a truly leading liberal, when he endorses GOP candidates or positions.  Just more of the amazing MSM double standard.  If you have no news make it up.

I am trying to think of one issue where I agree with Obama.  But, we seem to disagree on virtually everything including his dear old granny.  Obama thinks she is a racist bigot on the order of Jeremiah Wright and I don't.  Therefore, according to Mr. Kmiec's twisted logic I should endorse Obama because we disagree on this issue.  Uh, no....