An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

More Republicans Jumping Ship From McCain Campaign

Jumping_20ship.jpg

More Republicans are jumping ship from the GOP Presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain.

When former Secretary of State Colin Powell used both Meet The Press and a short press conference afterward to deliver what was, in effect, a regretfully but comprehensively voiced indictment of McCain’s 2008 campaign in contrast to the McCain Powell knew for many years, the retired General was simply articulating what some Republicans and independents have felt. There are now signs that other Republicans are now jumping ship to vote for Democratic Senator Barack Obama for one of two reasons, or a combination of them: to vote for Obama over McCain and to register a protest vote against the incarnation of the Republican party as it is evolving under a McCain candidacy managed by proteges of GOP strategist Karl Rove.

Earlier on this site, TMV writer Dennis Sanders, a Republican whose thoughtful posts pointing out the pluses of McCain and defending the Arizona Senator against some of the more fiery attacks, wrote THIS MUST READ POST where he regretfully breaks with McCain and throws his support to Obama.

Now, according to the New Yorker, prominent Republican Ken Adelman is also nixing McCain to vote for Obama.

Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (“not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself.

Why is he voting for Obama?

In a nutshell: McCain’s response to the economic crisis and his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as Vice President — a choice, it’s increasingly clear, that might have wowed Rush Limbaugh but in the long run is also losing McCain some votes. Click on the link to read his email explaining his reasons.

Meanwhile, Louis Zickar, editor of The Ripon Forum, the moderate Republicans’ Ripon Society’s journal of thought and opinion that has been in print for more than 40 years, has an op-ed piece in the Chicago Tribune titled “As Obama channels Reagan, the real McCain vanishes” in which he struggles with the McCain candidacy — making it clear Obama is increasingly appealing.

A few excerpts:

I was born in 1964. Too young for Vietnam, didn’t care about Watergate, I came of age at a time when 52 Americans were being held hostage in Iran. Jimmy Carter was president. Patriotism was passe. And the country my parents told me about seemed broken and faded away.

Then came Ronald Reagan and his promise to restore our national pride. It’s ironic that a 16-year-old boy concerned about the future could be inspired by a 69-year-old man talking about the past. But that’s what happened. I decided the day Reagan was inaugurated to get involved in politics—to help make America great again. I also decided that day to become a Republican.

Nearly 30 years later, I remain a Republican. And, as someone who has spent the better part of his adult life working for Republican candidates and causes, I take a certain amount of pride in what our party has accomplished. We cut taxes. We reformed welfare. We balanced the budget for the first time in a generation. Perhaps most significant, the party—led by President George W. Bush—provided the country with the leadership it needed after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

But like a lot of Republicans, I am deeply distressed by the state our party finds itself in today. Enough has been written about these problems to warrant no further mention in this space. But for those of us who worked in the Republican minority on Capitol Hill during the late 1980s, there is a sense that the GOP of the past few years has become no better than the arrogant, ethically challenged, free-spending Democratic majority we had worked so hard to defeat.

But perhaps the most troubling thing for me this year is that the most Reaganesque candidate in the race for president is not a Republican at all. It’s Barack Obama.

He explains why he sees it this way, then concludes:

Whether it’s accusing Obama of wanting to teach sex education to kindergartners or selecting Sarah Palin as a running mate who shores up his base but is not ready to fill his shoes, McCain has not just been practicing second-rate politics—he has been embracing it.

I say all of this with a heavy heart. I am a longtime supporter of McCain. In 2000, when I was serving as a top aide to a Republican congressman from Texas, I voted for McCain in the primaries. I did this not because I opposed George W. Bush. Rather, McCain won my vote. I cannot say the same thing today.

So does that mean I’m supporting Barack Obama? The simple answer to that is—not yet. After a lifetime of supporting Republicans for president, I am having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that I may actually pull the lever for a Democrat this year. Deep down, I am also still hoping that the old John McCain will return; that he’s like the character Mad-Eye Moody in “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”—locked away in a trunk somewhere, while an impersonator runs amok playing him in public.

Unfortunately, time is running out on that scenario.

If the old John McCain is going to find his way out, he better do so in a hurry. Because there’s another player on the public stage, one who not only resembles Ronald Reagan in his ability to inspire, but who is about to win my vote and, I suspect, the votes of other Republicans too.

Read it in its entirety.

Basically, there are two battles going on: the battle for the White House — and the battle for the soul of the Republican Party.

The voting in two weeks will decide one battle and likely be the opening salvo in a longer-range one…with an outcome still difficult to predict…

  • pacatrue
    IF McCain loses (and I'm not convince yet he will), it is indeed hard to see where the Republican Party will go. Moderates will scream about the loss of moderates and independents, while the talk radio wing will be absolutely positive it's because McCain wasn't sufficiently conservative. The talking points are clear. But which side will win?
  • Silhouette
    "When former Secretary of State Colin Powell used both Meet The Press and a short press conference afterwards to deliver what was, in effect, a regretfully but comprehensively voiced indictment of McCain’s 2008 campaign in contrast to the McCain Powell knew for many years, the retired General was simply articulating what some Republicans and independents have felt."
    **********
    No! I thought Powell threw his support behind Barack because of the "black" thing.

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way McCain (um, I mean Rove) has run his campaign. How dare Powell criticize McCain when we all know Powell's comments were racially motivated!

    ...lol...
  • Don Quijote
    We balanced the budget for the first time in a generation.

    When?
  • superdestroyer
    pacatrue,

    I believe that most Republicans will have enough sense to blame President Bush, former Speaker Hastert, and former Majority leader Frist for not being conservative enough. The Repulblicans have totally abandonned the idea of fiscal responsbility. I doubt a move to the middle will fix that problem.

    The Repulbicans have also abandoned any mention of libertarian ideas. It is hard to argue that people need to be more respoinsible for themselves when Bush created new entitlement and few the government. As long as every problem in America needs a new government program, the Repulbicans are equivalent to the Democrats.

    The Bush lead Republicans have become convinced that elections are won on campaign gimmicks and niche marketing. They will be shown to be incorrect.

    And last, Bush and McCain has demonstrated a total inabilty to understand the long term consequences of their decisions. From the Iraq war to the idiotic illegal immigrant amnesty program, their policy decisions were in opposition with anything that could be called conservative.
  • JSpencer
    Yeah, the battle for the republican party ought to be interesting, and I doubt the electorate is going to be in much of a mood for the usual partisan BS once the new govt. gets up and running. As for rightwing talk radio, they won't be fazed much since their whole gig depends mostly on mischaracterization and ranting anyway. It would be nice if their audience dropped off a little, but there are limits to my optimism.
  • superdestroyer
    Jspencer,

    the battle for the Replubican Party is pointless since conservative politics in the U.S. is unsustainable given the changing demographics.

    A better question is what will happen when the upper class white progress who run the Democratic party are outnumbers by blacks and Hispanics who have very different agendas?
  • Don Quijote

    A better question is what will happen when the upper class white progress who run the Democratic party are outnumbers by blacks and Hispanics who have very different agendas?


    You are aware that when the Irish came to America, they were not considered white, nor were the Italians, the Jews, the poles, or any other eastern Europeans. Today they are the backbone of the "White" middle class.

    More than likely, "White America" will coop "Hispanic Whites" and Asians though the power of exogamy.
  • JSpencer
    SD, your seeming paranoia about a government with increasing participation from minorities is not something I share. We're all Americans and that's enough for me. As for the republican party, I'm sure they are far from being an endangered species. The democracy will survive; it's certainly been through worse than the Bush years and managed to emerge intact.
  • superdestroyer
    you may want to look at migration patterns in California. Whites are moving out of the state and Hispanics are not becoming the next whites.

    People have forgotten that it took two world wars and forty years of almost no immigrant to allow for the intigration of European immigrants. Remember how German-Americans changed their names during WWI and Italians-Americans during WWII.

    These days, most actions of the government and of business is to keep Hispanics and blacks isolated. From cable channels to foreign language DVD to cell phones to majority black or majority Hispanic political boundries, the government and buisness suport keeping blacks and Hispanics isolated.

    On top of that considering that immigration is accelerating instead of slowing. Why would a Hispanic in Los Angles, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso want to become white when whites are decreasing portion of the population.

    Also, if we are all Americans, then why do elite white progressives send their children to all white private schools? If we are all Americans, then why do elite hwite progressives sned their children to private universities where blacks and hispanics are underrepresented?

    If we are all Americans, then why are elite progressive whites crowding into North Shore Chicago, Manhatten, or Northwest DC but avoiding living in Detroit, El Paso, or St Louis?
  • Don Quijote
    Also, if we are all Americans, then why do elite white progressives send their children to all white private schools?


    "Elite White Progressive", who or what are you talking about?

    Define this term.

    In all countries the Elite send their children to special schools, where they get an "Elite Education" and more importantly they get to meet and mingle with their peers, the children of Elites. Why do you think Shrub went to prep school?
  • superdestroyer
    Don,

    the claim is that Democrats have to problem with diversity and that they welcome diversity. I was just pointing out that the leadership of the Democratic party has a problem with diversity is that their children attend very undiverse private schools and work in very undiverse workplaces and that they live in generally undiverse areas where they will only be exposed to others like themselves.
  • JSpencer
    SD, you seem to base a lot of your generalized prognosticating on skin pigment. Color me unconvinced.
  • kritt11
    SD- That is more a function of social class, than a rejection of diversity.
  • kritt11
    SD We have two parties (with any chance to win) to choose from on Nov 4th. One of them has done a much better job than the other at promoting diversity within its ranks. The other is xenophobic and many members think American exceptionalism should be our guiding principle in foreign policy.

    One says that all people and cities in our country love America- the other goes to small midwestern towns and tells the people they are the real Americans- the ones who love their country and believe in the value of hard work. One is running an African-American for president,in the other -no major office-holders are black.

    Which is more inclusive of a population that is becoming increasingly diversified???

    Which is more inclusive?
  • Manchester2
    This post ignores the reality that independents and centrists alone cannot elect John McCain. You begin with your base, and that base in the GOP is made up of the anti-abortion, family traditionalist voters. Prior to his choice of Sarah Palin - who, BTW, is drawing huge crowds still - McCain had not sealed the deal with his own party. After his choice of Palin, his base is now energized. McCain can let Palin be Palin, knowing she will bring along the base on November 4. (All she has to do is appear in public with her Down's Syndrome baby, Trig, and we're reminded why we like this woman. She walks the talk.) Meanwhile, McCain goes after voters in the middle, and recent moves in the poll show the margin is tightening. I'm saying it here in the comment section, because no one on this site is posting it on the main page: This election is NOT over. See you at the polls.
  • DLS
    "no one on this site is posting it on the main page: This election is NOT over"

    Same as the mainstream media, and the image it is trying to project and have the public believe (hedging the media's Obama dream and hope). I believe Obama is the likely winner, but it easily could be closer than many think, and certainly in one or more states, Democratic vote fraud (and anti-GOP "disenfranchisement reflexive lies) will likely make the news -- especially if the media discover the race to be much closer than it predicted (loudly).
  • DLS
    I'll reverse the two Iowa Electronic Markets graphs for the presidential election funds.

    The first one shows the likelihood one or the other candidate will win, but it is the second that directs us toward a rough estimate of what the results will actually be. Whether the "signal" gets above the Dem-fraud and error-related "noise" remains to be seen, though I believe the "signal" will be ascertained.

    http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08...

    http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08...
  • DLS
    Last one out, please salute! Thanks.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/newsstor...
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC