Republicans for Obama
In a surprising development (on the face of it at least), quite some Republicans are siding with Senator Barack Obama:
There is an interesting phenomenon that has arisen over the last few months: a trend of moderate Republicans who want to vote for Barack Obama. It may seem counterintuitive, conservatives supporting a candidate who wants to tax the wealthy and embrace the conventions in the Kyoto Accord, but there is something in Obama’s message about ridding politics of partisanship that is appealing to these Republicans.
He doesn’t carry the baggage of a Hillary Clinton. He is new; he seems authentic — although his connection to indicted fund-raiser Tony Rezko has made some previous supporters wonder — and he has more gravitas than pretty boy John Edwards. The Republicans who like him may have supported John McCain in the past, but after eight years of the Bush White House they feel they can no longer support the Republican field. The idea of a congressional glasnost — a harmonic nonpartisanship in Washington — is an Obama goal they endorse.
Some of these right-wing Obama supporters are putative country club Republicans, hailing from areas similar to the North Shore of Chicago. Others are professionals who are disillusioned by the Bush administration’s failure to develop a sound domestic policy to redress issues of health care and Social Security or to end the relentless war in Iraq.
Add to this the secrecy of the Bush administration, the Scooter Libby affair, the unfortunate choice of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, the scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Tom DeLays and Mark Foleys, and there remains an unsavory stew of problems for those once proud to call themselves Republican.
Kenneth Wehking – who still sees himself as a Republican, from “a philosophical point of view†– explains: “Obama is one of the first candidates who truly seems to embody a spirit of working together and moving forward.â€
Randy Cooper, a 60-year-old lawyer from Eaton, N.H, grew up as an Eisenhower Republican and supported George H. W. Bush and John McCain. However, “Cooper began to feel that George II and his acolytes, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were being disingenuous about the reasons for going into Iraq.â€
Cooper explains: “I absolutely feel we were lied to. There were other reasons [Bush] wanted to go into Iraq. It wasn’t just about weapons of mass destruction.â€
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Republicans for Obama”
Obama, Bloomberg, and Paul as the 3 top candidates. Won’t happen, but there would be a real chance for change.
And when ex GOPper Bloomberg announces later in the year, how many boot-lickers are going to latch on to his coat tails. Mike is the reason NYC bounced back after 9-11, not Rudy.
It will be very interesting to say the least.
Bloomberg is not beholden to PACS, special interests et al- he is one!
Collecting Mercury dimes may be fulfilling as a passion, but hardly going to make you a rich person…LOL!
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for months and why I continue to support Obama. I do not discount Hillary’s ability to lead the country, but its just that she does not have the same galvanizing power that Obama does. If Hillary wins the nomination, it will be just same old same old for Democratic Presidential candidates, meaning that she will not pick any state in this election that Kerry did not pick up in last election, and we all know how that one turned out. By Obama winning the nomination, there is a higher probability that he will add the necessary one or two more blue states needed to win the presidency. The toughest part for him right now are the primaries, so we have got to push hard to get him through.
Not only do I feel that an Obama candidacy has a better chance of becoming a presidency than a Hillary one, it’s that Obama is much more likely to be a real “uniter”.
Even if Hillary became president (and face it, she energizes the Republican base more than the Democratic base) the chances for bitter partisanship are astronomical. Partisanship is not only very irritating, it’s harmful. When two sides are pitted against one another two things happen:
– The extremes on either side dominate the debate, rendering it almost useless. Example: No useful information is going to come out of a conversation between a person who thinks America can do no wrong, that Iraq is hunky-dory and that the people of Baghdad are going to name some street after Bush any minute now, and a person who thinks life with Saddam was Eden and that Iraqis aren’t killing one another, it’s just us messing things up, and with a few hugs and a bong it’ll all be better.
2. Hardening positions makes it much more likely that no agreement can ever be reached, which means issues remain untouched. Better some progress than none.
The country really needs to work on itself for a time. It needs to rally behind things we can ALL support, like helping the poor, reducing deficit, providing health care (even if we disagree on how) to all who need it etc.
There is one more thing. Many Republicans are possibly thinking that with their current candidate pool, a democratic presidency is likely. If it is, I’m sure that they’d much rather have Obama than Hillary, if it HAS to be a dem.
Not sure yet on that choice, Lynx, but since you’re in the mood to appease, I’d prefer Richardson.
Doesn’t necessarily know how to campaign well, but does have some useful experience.
Not particularly in the mood to appease (assuming I thought of all republicans as “the enemy”, which I don’t) I’m just perfectly fine with republicans preferring the candidate that I happen to prefer, whatever their motivations. The idea that we could have a president that both sides could at least partially agree on appeals to me greatly, as well.
Obama, the fluff that refuses to be blown away (yet)
This can’t just be nuttier anti-war sentiment (that last word being an understatement). Does Hillary Clinton repel that many Democratic voters? (There is no question that the GOP field repels many voters.)
Obama, the fluff that refuses to be blown away (yet)
Well, that’s certainly the big dig on Obama. And no, he hasn’t been “blown away” yet. But there might be more to him than fluff or, as David Ehrenstein put it, “Magic Negro” syndrome. Obama has less political experience than most of the other contenders. But he has a broader vision that none of the others seem to have. Is that enough? Only time will tell. My guess is that as long as he doesn’t implode, and he keeps building up supporters and raising money from new contributors, he’ll be comfortably in first place by winter.
Remember, at this point in the 2004 election, Joe Lieberman was in first place for the Democratic nomination.
[...] The Moderate Voice – And when ex GOPper Bloomberg announces later in the year, how many boot-lickers are going to latch on to his coat tails. Mike is the reason NYC bounced back after 9-11, not Rudy. It will be very interesting to say the least. Bloomberg is not beholden … Read more [...]