Obama says he woudn’t re-impose the Fairness Doctrine, but you can’t take his word for it, of course. Does it matter? I know of at least one scorched-earth paleo who thinks the Fairness Doctrine would be the best thing that could happen to the Right, because for the most part the radio hosts who would be affected are neocon or GOP shills. On principle, I can’t go along with that, but it does seem to me that the Fairness Doctrine is far from the biggest thing we have to worry about.

The Democrats will be terrible on health care and abortion and many other issues besides. But several factors will limit what they can do. First, the Republicans, if they have any sense at all, will once again become oppositional, as they were before the ’94 election, and should try to impede Democratic initiatives. Second, even if the Democrats are close to 60 votes in the Senate, they will not necessarily have a filibuster-proof majority since filibusters are usually about particular issues and there is variation among the Democrats (and among the GOP) on particulars. Philosophical complexion matters more than party label — the exact composure of the Senate, with moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans — is hard to guess. It won’t be pretty, but then government never is.

The last time the Democrats had as much control of Washington as they’re likely to have under Obama was during the early Carter years. Yet the Carter years were marked by less expansion of government than the LBJ and Nixon years — and the G.W. Bush years. No doubt Obama will push the limits as far as he can, but I suspect he’ll fail and generate an anti-Washington backlash that will benefit the GOP in years to come. The question is, will the GOP have learned any lessons from the disastrous leadership of Gingrich, Lott, Bush, and co.?

If you read the piece more carefully, it seems CR does not see a completely failed Obama presidency as an opening for “regenerated conservatism” rather he sees it as an opening for something sinister….

Not when they support Obama.

I myself am voting for Chuck Baldwin.

War without reason or end, zero interest or understanding of economics, and a willingness and preference to work with the warmongering center left – how does any of that describe a conservative? It is an indisputable brief on McCain.

I too am pro-life, but during this presidential election abortion policy is a non factor. A McCain administration would bring on more O’Connors and Kennedys than Alitos. Plus he wouldn’t be dumb enough to inflame the base by picking a Miers (he learned his lesson after losing Lieberman for the VP spot).

Plus I don’t think it is possible to be “sensible” on foreign policy and immovable on a bad domestic economic policy. If we send stingers to Georgia, most Americans wouldn’t care until Russian planes bomb Sarah Palin’s house. If the House passes a bad tax bill, the Dow would drop the next day. Bill Clinton was a master politician, and even his tax hike cost his party the congress for 12 years.

The best thing about Barack is that you can look at his policies and laugh, thinking they would be a tough sell for him as President. With McCain, you can rest assured that the bombs will fall.

Obama may manifest stronger leadership characteristics, a more level hand, a more sensible approach to Iraq, etc., than McCain, which is all well and good. But he’s a literal monster when it comes to abortion, his spending and tax plans are entirely unrealistic, and he’s brought out an unsavory element on the left which makes the fringe Paulites look like centrists.

An inability to support McCain is one thing; a willingness to support a candidate who is entirely incompatible with conservative principles (except when he stumbles on them by accident, and for the wrong reasons) is quite another.

As a young conservative, I see more hope for the future of the “movement” (I abhor the word) in these pages than almost anywhere else. But I’m beginning to wonder what the underlying principles of the emerging new strain of paleoconservatism are. I would have thought at the very least that the fundamental life issues would take priority over these others that follow – war, economy, taxes, spending, immigration, etc. Otherwise, we might as well be non-interventionist libertarians.