Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.
Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.
Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.
Obama is a blank slate, a man with no resume, upon whom we can all project our fondest hopes. That is probably the case for Hunter. He will probably be severely disappointed with Obama's policies.
Other conservatives, myself included, wouldn't mind seeing Obama win in a landslide so that the Republican Party will be forced to rebuild from the ashes and return to its limited government principals. Not to mention that the coming four years will have a bad economy that will be blamed on the incumbent. After the Carter, the Reagan. I'm voting for Bob Barr, knowing that a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.
Caveat: Hunter claims to be President of the "Social Security Institute," something which doesn't seem to exist.