jump to navigation

Freedom Rider: Obama Usurps the GOP March 2, 2012

Posted by rogerhollander in 2012 Election, Barack Obama, Political Commentary.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

 

Roger’s note: I generally stay away from posting articles analyzing the 2012 election, not because it is irrelevant, but because the election “debate” has little to do with the real world and the dangers therein, it is rather an exercise in surrealistic entertainment that would be funny if it weren’t tragically and menacingly insane.  The Black Agenda Review web site has consistently told it like it is about the Obama presidency, and this article while not necessarily brilliant, does put things in their proper perspective. 

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley, www.blackagendareport.com, February 29, 2012

Republicans don’t know how to run against Obama because he has governed as one of them from the start.”

It seems strange that the issues of abortion and contraception have taken up such a large proportion of Republican campaign rhetoric. Every Republican presidential debate features candidates outdoing one another in declaring their opposition to a woman’s right to choose abortion.

I’m against abortion,” one will say, only to be silenced by another candidate declaring that he has been opposed to abortion longer, or with more vehemence, or even in cases of rape. Bizarre statements about contraception are the order of the day, and former senator Rick Santorum uses his home schooled children as a rallying point, unless of course he is telling Americans not to enjoy sex, because it is only for making babies. Liberals, who love nothing more than feeling superior to conservatives, are mystified by the campaign, which looks more like a trip in a time machine back to the 1950s.

Why would the Republicans use campaign issues which appeal to such a small group of their electorate? It is true that religious conservatives make up a large portion of their base of support, but there is something else going on, too.

The prominence of these outlier issues are a direct result of Barack Obama having taken over every other Republican talking point. Before he even took office Obama showed whose side he was on when he made it clear that he would continue the bailouts to the banks that George W. Bush began. He has expanded America’s defense budget and the wars that inevitably result. His “grand bargain” with conservatives has resulted in cuts to government programs and an agreement on austerity measures which are the exact opposite of what should be done to improve the economy and prospects for unemployed people.

Bizarre statements about contraception are the order of the day.”

Republicans don’t know how to run against Obama because he has governed as one of them from the start. They may mutter about “Obamacare” but his health care plan is a bailout of the health insurance industry and Big Pharma. They can’t call him weak on defense issues when he sends drones to kill people in Afghanistan or Pakistan or when he makes good on his threat to kill Muammar Gaddafi. Even American citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki are not safe when the president decides to literally take them out.

What is a conservative to do? Conservative pundit Bill Kristol called Obama a born again neo-con and Republican commentator Ben Stein said that Obama was the perfect Republican candidate. There is nowhere for the Republican faithful to go except to rail against the birth control mandate in the health care plan and call Obama an enemy of the Catholic church.

It isn’t difficult to amuse oneself when Rick Santorum says he throws up thinking about John F. Kennedy’s promise to the American public to keep religion out of government. It is all seemingly harmless theater, but the economic elite, the 1% if you will, win no matter who is in office.

It is indeed appalling when state legislatures across the country take on extreme positions in order to attack abortion. But make no mistake about it, there is never any opposition to thievery at the top because both parties kiss the rings of the rulers. The divide and conquer strategy is at work once again. While it is necessary to point out the dangerous Republican positions regarding women’s reproductive rights, it is also necessary to remember who runs the country and how they and their corporate media spokespersons never allow us to truly debate the most fundamental issues of the day.

Conservative pundit Bill Kristol called Obama a born again neo-con and Republican commentator Ben Stein said that Obama was the perfect Republican candidate.”

The media do not point out the inherent dangers of a billion dollar presidential campaign. If they did so, they would have to reveal how they manufacture public opinion and create phony outrage regarding a number of topics. Despite all the campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama are all conservatives. Gingrich may call Obama the food stamp president now, but neither man had any problems with the other when they joined forces to conduct a jeremiad against public education. Gingrich was welcomed to the White House, and he joined Obama mininion Al Sharpton in pushing for privatization of the schools and promoting a panoply of deadly corporate school “reform” measures.

We are fed a steady diet of manufactured opinion, pure propaganda which diverts our attention from the one constant in American politics. Money rules, and it will rule in January 2013 on inauguration day. Barack Obama will be that person because he plays the game better than anyone else. He has moved as far to the right as Ronald Reagan but Democrats still see him as their savior, the facts be damned. While the media have succeeded in creating smoke screens around contraception or the debate over the role of religion and government, the bailouts continue.

On Election Day in November 2012, we the people will lose, no matter who is giving a concession speech. All the outrage will have been misplaced and another defender of corporate control will rule over the rest of us. The divide and conquer strategy still wins the day.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com.Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Palin in Spotlight as Republicans Turn on Each Other November 9, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in Sarah Palin.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

by: Oliver Burkeman, The Guardian UK

photo
Many Republicans are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin, blaming her for John McCain’s loss. (Photo: Reuters)

As the implosion of the defeated Republican campaign continued yesterday, the landscape of American conservatism was dotted with signs that these were very strange times indeed.

Rush Limbaugh, behemoth of rightwing radio, took to the airwaves to declare war on two enemies: Barack Obama and the Republican party. Bloggers at FreeRepublic.com, an internet hub for conservatives, announced a boycott of Fox News and John McCain’s aides fell over one another to leak embarrassing details about the campaign to the press.

Liberals, indulging in what the writer Andrew Sullivan termed “Palinfreude”, were presented with a smorgasbord, ranging from the tale of how McCain’s pro-Palin foreign policy adviser had his Blackberry confiscated in the closing days of the race, to how the party had paid for Todd Palin’s silk boxer shorts.

The fighting consuming the McCain and Palin camps threatened to derail broader efforts to overhaul the Republican party after Tuesday’s decisive defeat, for which some insiders blamed Sarah Palin. Veterans of the right gathered in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, on Thursday for a summit on the movement’s future, but even as they did so, the blame went on.

“Ladies and gentlemen, it is worse than I thought,” Limbaugh told listeners. “What the Republican party, led by disgruntled and failed McCain staffers, is trying to do to Sarah Palin, is unconscionable … There are country-club, blue-blood … Republicans who want nothing to do with a firebrand conservative [who] can fire up people.” He added: “We’re going to be taking on two things here [over] the next four years: Obama, and our own party establishment.”

John Fund, a Wall Street Journal columnist, said he had received multiple calls from campaign aides wanting “to use me as a conduit for their complaints”.

“Some on the McCain campaign staff seem more eager than most to settle scores,” he noted.

The main ammunition in the war was a lengthening list of allegations against Palin: that she thought Africa was a country; that she failed to inform the campaign about a scheduled call with Nicolas Sarkozy which turned out to be a prank; that she refused to undergo coaching prior to her disastrous interviews with CBS anchor Katie Couric; that she couldn’t name the three countries in the North America Free Trade Agreement; and that the party had spent up to $70,000 (£45,000) on “wardrobe items” for Palin and “luxury goods” for her husband, in addition to the $150,000 already reported. (Some of the claims were revealed by Fox, hence the boycott.)

The New York Times reported that when Palin met McCain in Phoenix on Tuesday night, she held the text of a speech she planned to deliver, in defiance of campaign convention, and had to be overruled.

The attacks are partly ideological: some blame Palin and her social-conservative supporters for blunting McCain’s appeal to independents, while others believe Palin could be the populist, hawkish figurehead of a revitalised Republican future.

But there is plenty of self-interest at stake. “This blame game is the consultants – the people who make their living running campaigns and don’t want to be blamed, because they need another job,” said Al Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator, and former president of Regnery Publishing, the company behind many recent rightwing bestsellers.

At Thursday’s summit, he said, “there was a lot of discussion about these people, who always seem to come back, whether they win or lose, and get paid a lot of money. We said we thought our side would be much better off without them.”

The sniping at Palin has provoked a backlash. One influential website, RedState.com, announced Operation Leper, designed to blacklist campaign staffers believed to be responsible. “We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them,” it explained.

There was speculation that the culprits may be former aides to Mitt Romney, positioning their hero for a future presidential run.

The collapse of the McCain-Palin alliance began long before election day, Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain adviser, speaking to reporters on the candidate’s plane, was making little effort to hide his disdain for Palin. Asked if her presence on the ticket had been a disadvantage, he twice refused to answer.

Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s foreign policy chief, this week denied reports that he had been fired in the final stage of the campaign for siding with Palin and leaking “poison” on McCain to the pro-Palin columnist William Kristol. But even one of his allies, Michael Goldfarb, told reporters that Scheunemann’s Blackberry had been confiscated in the days before the election.

Kristol, who in one column advised McCain to “fire” his campaign, scoffed at reports that he had advised Palin. “I’m afraid it shows how paranoid some of these McCain aides have gotten – they should take a good rest after a tough campaign,” he told Fox.

He had met Palin once in his life, he continued, and interviewed her once by phone. “You know why this is really disgusting and disgraceful?” he said. “It’s disloyal to John McCain. Who selected Sarah Palin? John McCain. Who defended Sarah Palin for the last three months? John McCain.”

Returning to Alaska, Palin dismissed the criticisms, attributing them to “a small, bitter type of person”. Instead, she has emphasised perhaps the only thing that still unites her and her supporters with McCain loyalists: hostility towards the media.

She had “a little bit of disappointment in my heart about the world of journalism today”, she said, while McCain’s closest aide, Mark Salter, told Politico: “Maybe if the media had been fair, we still would have lost. But there were two different standards of scrutiny for us and Obama.”

Palin offered to help reporters confront their problems. “I want to … help restore some credibility there,” she said.

John Dean: Republican Rule is Dangerous November 2, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

truthdig.com, Nov. 2, 2008

Nixon’s former counsel has written a scathing review of conservative Republican politics and says the McCain-Palin ticket, which “scares the hell out of me,” fits the mold. How’s this for an endorsement?: “If Obama is rejected on November 4th for another authoritarian conservative like McCain, I must ask if Americans are sufficiently intelligent to competently govern themselves.”

 

 

John Dean at FindLaw.com:

Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. This works for them because their interest is in power, and in what it can do for those who think as they do. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.

Republicans’ authoritarian rule can also be characterized by its striking incivility and intolerance toward those who do not view the world as Republicans do. Their insufferable attitude is not dangerous in itself, but it is employed to accomplish what they want, which is to take care of themselves and those who work to keep them in power.

Read more

Another Prominent Republican Dumps McCain October 31, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in John McCain.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
October 31, 2008
Posted: 01:35 PM ET
From

Duberstein is pulling for Obama.

Duberstein is pulling for Obama.

(CNN) — Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria this week he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official – Colin Powell – in his decision.

“Well let’s put it this way – I think Colin Powell’s decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama.”

Powell served as national security advisor to Reagan during Duberstein’s tenure as chief of staff.

Duberstein spoke with Zakaria about his final days in the Reagan White House. The Reagan official, along with Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, also discussed the transition process to a new administration.

Watch the full discussion on the next administration this Sunday at 1 p.m. on Fareed Zakaria GPS.

And Yet Another Republican October 29, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in John McCain.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment


McConnell Fundraising E-Mail: Vote for Me to Fight Obama Presidency


Sam Stein, Huffington Post, October 29, 2008


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has sent out a new fundraising email that, at its crux, plays off the assumption of a Barack Obama victory in the presidential election.


Citing media reports that show “an Obama win [as] a real possibility,” the Kentucky Republican positions himself as the one man capable of standing up to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid machine” that “will steamroll a host of new taxes and left-wing social policy across the Senate Floor.”


It is not uncommon for politicians to use presidents or presidential candidates as a boogeyman to curry votes. But McConnell’s fundraising appeal seems to go a step beyond, painting, at times, Obama’s election as a fait accompli that voters in Kentucky must consider.


“[L]ocal and national newspapers are already saying that if my opponent were to win this race, he would be a reliable vote for Obama and Chuck Schumer,” he writes of Democratic challenger, Bruce Lunsford.


Hinting at the possibility of complete Democratic control of government – again a statement predicated on an Obama win — McConnell writes: “national liberals want this Senate seat so badly” because “they are making this race a power play for domination of the public debate. They have made no secret that they are fighting for total unfettered domination of the government and its agenda.”


This is the second time in as many days that a Republican official has sent out a fundraising letter for the Kentucky Senate race that forecasts a future Obama White House. On Tuesday, Mitt Romney blasted out an email on McConnell’s behalf, warning that Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford “was handpicked by Chuck Schumer and will be a reliable vote for the Democrats. And as we face the very real possibility of an Obama presidency, that’s the last thing we need.”


The Kentucky Senate race has become ground zero of sorts for Democratic efforts to secure 60 seats in the Senate. And as the election has approached, McConnell’s once strong standing has diminished.


Good government groups, who have long viewed the Minority Leader as a thorn in the side of their agenda, are also seeing a real possibility of flipping the seat. On Wednesday, Campaign Money Watch, a national nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog organization, announced that it will spend another $800,000 on a television ad in Kentucky accusing McConnell of being a puppet of special interests.



There Goes Another Republican October 29, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in John McCain.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Shays concedes McCain defeat

Staff Reporter, Yale Daily News
Published Tuesday, October 28, 2008

NEW CANAAN, Conn. — The first ballot has yet to be tallied, but some Republicans are already hammering nails into the McCain-Palin campaign’s coffin.

Locked in a tight congressional race, Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut’s 4th district is the latest in a slew of Republican incumbents, including Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, to concede a near-certain victory to the Obama camp.

“I just don’t see how [McCain] can win,” Shays said in an interview here on Sunday.

Shays, the Connecticut co-chair of McCain’s campaign, said he was disappointed by the standards of McCain’s race, which has increasingly relied on mudslinging.

“He has lost his brand as a maverick; he did not live up to his pledge to fight a clean campaign,” Shays said.

But Shays — who is famous for never running a negative campaign ad, even when behind — said the negativity in the presidential race has nevertheless been flowing both ways. He said that though they have been diluted by positive ads, Sen. Obama’s campaign has empirically run a greater number of negative ones.

“Obama has four times the amount of money McCain has, so for every negative ad he runs he can balance it with an upbeat one,” Shays said. “McCain, on the other hand, has been nearly 100 percent negative.”

Shays laid much of the blame on the far right, which, he said, has “hijacked” the Republican Party, threatening to walk out if its demand are not met — despite being in the minority.

He said this situation is a cautionary tale for the Democratic Party, whose Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and MoveOn.org have imposed their often-radical ideas on the rest of the party.

But Shays also said he was skeptical of Sen. Obama’s promise to rule from the political center.

“It’s what all presidents should do, but [Obama] has never been there,” he said, referring to Obama’s left-of-center congressional record.

McCain’s other Connecticut co-chair, Sen. Joseph Lieberman ’64 LAW ’67, has not publicly commented on McCain’s chances on Election Day, but he has continued to campaign for him, most recently in Florida on Monday.

Jeff Grappone, New England communications director for the McCain campaign, did not return several requests for comment Monday.

In Case You Weren’t Scared Enough: Palin on “Fruit Fly Research” October 28, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in Sarah Palin.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Todd Palmer and Rod Pringle, Huffington Post, Oct. 27, 2008

Today, we are blogging from Durham, North Carolina, where we are trying to do our humble bit to help elect Barack Obama. On Friday, Sarah Palin gave us yet another reason to feel good about what we’re doing here.

We are far from the first people to comment on this subject — even within the Huffington Post — so we’ll keep it brief. But Palin’s mockery of “fruit fly research” during her October 24th speech on special-needs children was so misconceived, so offensive, so aggressively stupid, and so dangerous that we felt we had to comment.

Here’s the excerpt from the speech:

“Where does a lot of that earmark money end up, anyway? [...] You’ve heard about, um, these — some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense, and sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!”

It’s hard to know where to begin deconstructing this statement. This was a speech on autism, and Palin’s critics have pounced on the fact that a recent study of Drosophila fruit flies showed that a protein called neurexin is essential for proper neurological function — a discovery with clear implications for autism research.

Awkward! But this critique merely scrapes icing off the cake.

Fruit flies are more than just the occasional vehicles for research relevant to human disabilities. They are literally the foundation of modern genetics, the original model organism that has enabled us to discover so much of what we know about heredity, genome structure, congenital disorders, and (yes) evolution. So for Palin to state that “fruit fly research” has “little or nothing to do with the public good” is not just wrong — it’s mind-boggling.

What else does this blunder say about Palin and her candidacy? Many people have used it as just another opportunity to call her a dummy, since anyone who has stayed awake through even a portion of a high-school-level biology class knows what fruit flies are good for. But leave that aside for a second. Watch the clip. Listen to the tone of her voice as she sneers the words “fruit fly research.” Check out the disdain and incredulity on her face. How would science, basic or applied, fare under President Palin?

We have other questions. Who wrote this speech? Was he or she as ignorant as Palin about the central role that fruit flies have played in the last century of biomedical research? Or was this a calculated slight to science and scientists — a coded way of saying, “We don’t care what you know or what you think”? We find it odd that, of all the examples of dubious expenditures of public funds, the speechwriters alighted on this one.

Whatever the explanation, it scares us. Everyone who has suffered, either personally or indirectly, from an inherited illness, and anyone whose life has been lengthened or enriched by modern medicine, should channel Palin’s flip comment when they stand in the voting booth on November 4th.

 

Palin’s ‘going rogue,’ McCain Aide Says October 25, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in John McCain, Sarah Palin, U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
From Dana Bash, Peter Hamby and John King CNN

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (CNN) — With 10 days until Election Day, long-brewing tensions between GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speaks at a rally in Sioux City, Iowa, on Saturday.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speaks at a rally in Sioux City, Iowa, on Saturday.

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin “going rogue.”

A Palin associate, however, said the candidate is simply trying to “bust free” of what she believes was a damaging and mismanaged roll-out.

McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls — recorded messages often used to attack a candidate’s opponent — “irritating” even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign’s decision to pull out of Michigan.

A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.

“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” said this McCain adviser. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

“Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”

A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is “not good at process questions” and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.

But this Palin source acknowledged that Palin is trying to take more control of her message, pointing to last week’s impromptu news conference on a Colorado tarmac.

Tracey Schmitt, Palin’s press secretary, was urgently called over after Palin wandered over to the press and started talking. Schmitt tried several times to end the unscheduled session.

“We acknowledge that perhaps she should have been out there doing more,” a different Palin adviser recently said, arguing that “it’s not fair to judge her off one or two sound bites” from the network interviews.

The Politico reported Saturday on Palin’s frustration, specifically with McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt. They helped decide to limit Palin’s initial press contact to high-profile interviews with Charlie Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, which all McCain sources admit were highly damaging.

In response, Wallace e-mailed CNN the same quote she gave the Politico: “If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honorable thing to do is to lie there.”

But two sources, one Palin associate and one McCain adviser, defended the decision to keep her press interaction limited after she was picked, both saying flatly that she was not ready and that the missteps could have been a lot worse.

They insisted that she needed time to be briefed on national and international issues and on McCain’s record.

“Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic,” said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the “hardest” to get her “up to speed than any candidate in history.”

Schmitt came to the back of the plane Saturday to deliver a statement to traveling reporters: “Unnamed sources with their own agenda will say what they want, but from Gov. Palin down, we have one agenda, and that’s to win on Election Day.”

Yet another senior McCain adviser lamented the public recriminations.

“This is what happens with a campaign that’s behind; it brings out the worst in people, finger-pointing and scapegoating,” this senior adviser said.

This adviser also decried the double standard, noting that Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama‘s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, has gone off the reservation as well, most recently by telling donors at a fundraiser that America’s enemies will try to “test” Obama.

Tensions like those within the McCain-Palin campaign are not unusual; vice presidential candidates also have a history of butting heads with the top of the ticket.

John Edwards and his inner circle repeatedly questioned Sen. John Kerry’s strategy in 2004, and Kerry loyalists repeatedly aired in public their view that Edwards would not play the traditional attack dog role with relish because he wanted to protect his future political interests.

Even in a winning campaign like Bill Clinton’s, some of Al Gore’s aides in 1992 and again in 1996 questioned how Gore was being scheduled for campaign events.

Jack Kemp’s aides distrusted the Bob Dole camp and vice versa, and Dan Quayle loyalists had a list of gripes remarkably similar to those now being aired by Gov. Palin’s aides.

With the presidential race in its final days and polls suggesting that McCain’s chances of pulling out a win are growing slim, Palin may be looking after her own future.

“She’s no longer playing for 2008; she’s playing 2012,” Democratic pollster Peter Hart said. “And the difficulty is, when she went on ‘Saturday Night Live,’ she became a reinforcement of her caricature. She never allowed herself to be vetted, and at the end of the day, voters turned against her both in terms of qualifications and personally.”

The Exodus Continues October 25, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, John McCain, U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Tony Campbell, 10/24/08

 http://www.republicansforobama.org

In the wake of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama last Sunday I wrote the following statement:

“My gut feeling is that there will be a significant number of moderate Republicans who will endorse Obama over the next week or so.

Four hours later, I wrote this update after Ken Adelman announced he was voting for Obama.

“Ken Adelman is a bonafide Conservative. If he is able to vote for Obama, then the exodus is just beginning…”

Scott McClellan, Bush’s former press secretary has announced that he is going to vote for Obama. McClellan stated that he is supporting Obama because he has “a message that is very similar to the one that Gov. Bush ran on in 2000.” How ’bout them apples? W’s “Compassionate Conservatism” meets O’s “The Change We Need”.

Another former G.O.P. office holder, Minnesota ex-Governor Arne Carlson, endorsed Obama after Powell’s announcement. Obama’s last major hurdle is to win the endorsement of a sitting Republican member of Congress. It has long been rumored that Senator Chuck Hagel may break from the pack to support Obama or perhaps Senator Richard Lugar (Indiana) may support Obama based on his direction for U.S. foreign policy.

My prediction: By Sunday, a sitting member of Congress from the Republican Party will endorse Obama. If that occurs, all bets are off as far as a landslide victory for Obama on November 4th…as the Republican Exodus Continues…

By the way, on a lighter note, when did D.L. Hughley get a news program? If an Obama presidency means that he and David Alan Grier are allowed to get their own shows…I might have to vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul.

Yet Another Republican Jumps Ship October 25, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, John McCain, U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

What Motivates Me to Support Barack Obama

While my crystal ball may be no clearer than anyone else’s, I am sure that we need to choose a President who exemplifies the 21st Century and is not just an echo of the Cold War mentality.  I personally admire John McCain, but I simply cannot see him inspiring the nation and our world economic partners to work together and solve our very daunting problems.  My Obama support-decision matrix includes the characteristics of Judgment, Temperament, Charisma, Intellect, Adaptability, Virtue, Vision, Traditional Republican Values, and dedication to “Main Street.”  Barack Obama is without question the superior choice for me based on my analysis below.  

Temperament:  Inside and out of the next administration, the next president needs a personality and disposition that does not inflame problems, but intelligently resolves them.

Charisma:  Is there any question?

Intellect:  Obama finished at the top of his class at Harvard while McCain finished very close to the bottom of his class at Annapolis; if there is doubt, listen to each of them respond to a complex question.

Adaptability:  I measure this characteristic by a person’s ability and willingness to compromise to achieve a solution to a problem

Virtue:  Obama’s choice to serve his Chicago community and forego lucrative options to apply his acknowledged skills, speaks volumes about his character.

Vision:  I see Obama’s view of the world as deep and nuanced to reflect reality as opposed to ideology.  I am particularly enthusiastic about his plans for converting to clean energy, improving our environment, and encouraging national service.

Judgment:  Obama sees the world in wide angle and Technicolor, as suggested by his views on Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.  Even the Bush administration is beginning to use some of the diplomatic tools Obama has long been discussing.

Traditional Republican Values:  Republican Presidents from Lincoln through Ford were strong advocates for equal rights, balancing labor and business, consumer protection, protecting the environment,  a humble but vigorous foreign policy, promoting peace through strength,  fiscal integrity, and unafraid of great challenges.  A traditional Republican would never condone torture or cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners regardless of circumstances.  Dwight D. Eisenhower probably embodied these traits as well as any Republican President; I see Barack Obama in the same vein, although arguably even more inspirational.

Main Street Values:  America is comprised mostly of folks from “main street” who earn their wages, work in their communities, raise their families, and aspire to create a better world for their children.  Barack Obama has worn the shoes of main street.  His values and success are derived, not from privilege or position, but through real life experience, hard work, and commitment to his ideals and family. 

The opportunity to elect such a leader does not come around often; I hope that America does not squander this opportunity!

Joel Haugen is the Republican Party’s candidate in Oregon’s 1st Congressional district.  
http://www.joelhaugenforcongress.com/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 227 other followers