Obama Republicans?

Remember Reagan Democrats? Now we may be seeing the rise of Obama Republicans. (See also this.)

These would be Republicans disenchanted with the current GOP candidates and attracted by Obama’s promises of racial reconciliation and national unity. What do you think? Are there any Obama Republicans reading this blog? If so, please make your case.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://castingoutnines.wordpress.com Robert Talbert

    That depends on who the GOP candidate turns out to be (and assuming Obama gets the nomination). But right now, looking at each possible GOP candidate, my wife and I both are thinking we’ll either vote Obama or abstain. And neither of us has anything like a Democrat or liberal tendency. We’re just really underwhelmed by the GOP slate right now.

    And we get the sense that although Obama is pretty much a socialist in a lot of ways, he at least does have some good policies (his technology platform is quite sound) and has been paying lipservice to the idea of listening to people with whom you disagree, especially conservatives and evangelicals, as we’ve read about on this blog before.

  • http://castingoutnines.wordpress.com Robert Talbert

    That depends on who the GOP candidate turns out to be (and assuming Obama gets the nomination). But right now, looking at each possible GOP candidate, my wife and I both are thinking we’ll either vote Obama or abstain. And neither of us has anything like a Democrat or liberal tendency. We’re just really underwhelmed by the GOP slate right now.

    And we get the sense that although Obama is pretty much a socialist in a lot of ways, he at least does have some good policies (his technology platform is quite sound) and has been paying lipservice to the idea of listening to people with whom you disagree, especially conservatives and evangelicals, as we’ve read about on this blog before.

  • MarkE

    Obama appeals to Republicans who are willing to disregard every plank of the Republican platform. He promises he would raise taxes, nationalize health care, abandon Iraq, and appoint pro-abortion judges. What sort of “Republican” would support that?

  • MarkE

    Obama appeals to Republicans who are willing to disregard every plank of the Republican platform. He promises he would raise taxes, nationalize health care, abandon Iraq, and appoint pro-abortion judges. What sort of “Republican” would support that?

  • fw

    #1 obama was a professor of constitutional law at the university of chicago which is known for it´s conservatism with such men as Milton Freedman. I am sure his experiences there greatly influenced his ability to listen to opposing viewpoints and respect and understand them.

  • fw

    #1 obama was a professor of constitutional law at the university of chicago which is known for it´s conservatism with such men as Milton Freedman. I am sure his experiences there greatly influenced his ability to listen to opposing viewpoints and respect and understand them.

  • http://prouty.wordpress.com/ Les Prouty

    #3, while Obama might LISTEN to others on issues, his record (short as it is) is replete with DOING many things completely inconsistent with Republicaniam. There are more issues than the right to life for the unborn, but none more important to the fabric of our nation. Obama fails miserably on this issue.

    #1, you wrote “although Obama is pretty much a socialist in a lot of ways…” That should be scary enough to stay very clear of Obama.

  • http://prouty.wordpress.com/ Les Prouty

    #3, while Obama might LISTEN to others on issues, his record (short as it is) is replete with DOING many things completely inconsistent with Republicaniam. There are more issues than the right to life for the unborn, but none more important to the fabric of our nation. Obama fails miserably on this issue.

    #1, you wrote “although Obama is pretty much a socialist in a lot of ways…” That should be scary enough to stay very clear of Obama.

  • Joe

    Here is what I don’t understand. Reagan Democrats voted for Reagan because the Democratic party shifted its philosophy and became the liberal party it is today. The Reagan Democrats voted to for Reagan because they agreed with his policy goals. The reason that conservative Democrats do not play that big of a role in elections any more is that over the last 28 years most of the Reagan Democrats became Republicans.

    I don’t think there has been a similar philosophical shift since 2000 in either party. I can only conclude that Obama Republicans are not Republicans. They’re Independents who voted Republican most recently.

  • Joe

    Here is what I don’t understand. Reagan Democrats voted for Reagan because the Democratic party shifted its philosophy and became the liberal party it is today. The Reagan Democrats voted to for Reagan because they agreed with his policy goals. The reason that conservative Democrats do not play that big of a role in elections any more is that over the last 28 years most of the Reagan Democrats became Republicans.

    I don’t think there has been a similar philosophical shift since 2000 in either party. I can only conclude that Obama Republicans are not Republicans. They’re Independents who voted Republican most recently.

  • Bror Erickson

    I don’t know that I want Obama, but I do want him to take the democratic ticket. Looks like he might. I may even vote for him depending on who the Republicans nominate. Or I just might “throw away” my vote on some independant candidate. All I ask of either party is give me someone I can vote for.

  • Bror Erickson

    I don’t know that I want Obama, but I do want him to take the democratic ticket. Looks like he might. I may even vote for him depending on who the Republicans nominate. Or I just might “throw away” my vote on some independant candidate. All I ask of either party is give me someone I can vote for.

  • Don S

    Joe has already said what I first thought when I read the original post. Although Obama seems to be a moderate, reasonable, likeable man who has a genuine spiritual side to him and desires unity, his ideas are in the far left portion of the spectrum. His advisers are, as a whole, substantially more liberal than those whom even Hillary has selected. In particular, his primary mideast adviser (whose name escapes me) is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli radical.

    The Republican party is the party of ideas, while the Democrat party tends to be the party of feelings. At least that’s how I see it. No genuine Republican who has historically held ideas as expressed in the Republican platform could support Obama unless they have had a conversion of some sort as to what they believe politically. As Joe so ably stated previously, the Reagan democrats were largely attracted to the Republican party in the ’80′s because their party had moved away from their ideas. Their ideas and beliefs had not changed. On the other hand, while it is true that the Republican party, in general, has become more liberal and moved away from many of my ideas, for example, the democrat party has liberalized even more dramatically, so it could never be a suitable alternative.

    Isn’t it strange how the media always highlights so-called Republican defectors to the democrats, but spends much less time talking about democrat defectors to the Republicans? I suspect there is a lot less here than meets the eye.

  • Don S

    Joe has already said what I first thought when I read the original post. Although Obama seems to be a moderate, reasonable, likeable man who has a genuine spiritual side to him and desires unity, his ideas are in the far left portion of the spectrum. His advisers are, as a whole, substantially more liberal than those whom even Hillary has selected. In particular, his primary mideast adviser (whose name escapes me) is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli radical.

    The Republican party is the party of ideas, while the Democrat party tends to be the party of feelings. At least that’s how I see it. No genuine Republican who has historically held ideas as expressed in the Republican platform could support Obama unless they have had a conversion of some sort as to what they believe politically. As Joe so ably stated previously, the Reagan democrats were largely attracted to the Republican party in the ’80′s because their party had moved away from their ideas. Their ideas and beliefs had not changed. On the other hand, while it is true that the Republican party, in general, has become more liberal and moved away from many of my ideas, for example, the democrat party has liberalized even more dramatically, so it could never be a suitable alternative.

    Isn’t it strange how the media always highlights so-called Republican defectors to the democrats, but spends much less time talking about democrat defectors to the Republicans? I suspect there is a lot less here than meets the eye.

  • Booklover

    The platform of the protection of innocent human life usurps the “promise” of racial reconciliation and national unity for me and for many.

  • Booklover

    The platform of the protection of innocent human life usurps the “promise” of racial reconciliation and national unity for me and for many.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S, you asked (@7), “Isn’t it strange how the media always highlights so-called Republican defectors to the Democrats, but spends much less time talking about Democrat defectors to the Republicans?”

    Are you saying that you’ve never read about Reagan Democrats, as mentioned by Veith in the article? And have you never read any stories about Lieberman’s (thus far de facto) defection from the Democratic party?
    I mean, I came up with those two examples off the top of my head. Sometimes I wonder if people who complain about “the liberal media” actually read it.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S, you asked (@7), “Isn’t it strange how the media always highlights so-called Republican defectors to the Democrats, but spends much less time talking about Democrat defectors to the Republicans?”

    Are you saying that you’ve never read about Reagan Democrats, as mentioned by Veith in the article? And have you never read any stories about Lieberman’s (thus far de facto) defection from the Democratic party?
    I mean, I came up with those two examples off the top of my head. Sometimes I wonder if people who complain about “the liberal media” actually read it.

  • S Bauer

    As a Republican who went door to door for Barry Goldwater before I had even made it into high school, I can tell you that the present “republican” platform has been unrecognizable as Republican for the last 20 years. So don’t talk to me about the Republican party not shifting away from its roots.

    And the party of ideas? Hah. One Republican idea is that the government shouldn’t be funding people’s retirement. Or, if government is going to be funding people’s retirement, then it should not be a “pay as you go” system as Social Security is now, but a system in which government “assists” people to save enough for their own retirements. But try getting elected on that idea. So the Republican party has already shown it is ready to sacrifice “ideas” and “principles” for the sake of getting elected. And once you’ve given up that point, there is no “principled” stand to take against national health insurance.

    My decision also depends on who the Republican nominee will be. I can say that of all the Democratic possibilities, Obama is the only one I would be able to support.

  • S Bauer

    As a Republican who went door to door for Barry Goldwater before I had even made it into high school, I can tell you that the present “republican” platform has been unrecognizable as Republican for the last 20 years. So don’t talk to me about the Republican party not shifting away from its roots.

    And the party of ideas? Hah. One Republican idea is that the government shouldn’t be funding people’s retirement. Or, if government is going to be funding people’s retirement, then it should not be a “pay as you go” system as Social Security is now, but a system in which government “assists” people to save enough for their own retirements. But try getting elected on that idea. So the Republican party has already shown it is ready to sacrifice “ideas” and “principles” for the sake of getting elected. And once you’ve given up that point, there is no “principled” stand to take against national health insurance.

    My decision also depends on who the Republican nominee will be. I can say that of all the Democratic possibilities, Obama is the only one I would be able to support.

  • Don S

    S. Bauer, if you are referring to my post, please note that I was speaking historically when I talked about the Republican party is the party of ideas, and specifically referenced the Republican platform. Obviously, the party itself, in practice has tended to throw over many of those ideas under media pressure and because of its crass desire to curry favor and votes. My point was that the democrat party is certainly not an alternative for disaffected Republicans who still hold to the Republican party’s historical ideas. In order to support Obama, you have to disavow, as a Republican, practically everything you have ever stood for. So basically, a Republican who holds to Republican ideals either has to move to a third party or stay in the Republican party and keep fighting for its return to its ideals. In my view, only the second alternative is viable. Defecting to the democrats is antithetical to everything I stand for.

    tODD, you will have to do better than those two examples. The Reagan democrats weren’t acknowledged until after Reagan’s “stunning” defeat of Carter in 1980. The media fully expected Carter to win, and had to acknowledge the defection of democrats to Reagan after viewing the exit polling data and realizing what had happened. They certainly weren’t looking for trends ahead of the election, as they are most anxious to do now when they believe that it is Republicans who are defecting. Your second example is even more off the mark. How could they not acknowledge Lieberman’s defection when he was running for Senate in Connecticut, and still call themselves newspeople? They had no choice but to report it.

    Here’s a challenge for you — find an example in the media of a reporter actually looking at trends and attempting to forecast an election and actually finding everyday (not public figures) democrats who are thinking of voting Republican. You are not going to find it, and it’s not because it doesn’t happen. Look at the South over the past 25 years.

  • Don S

    S. Bauer, if you are referring to my post, please note that I was speaking historically when I talked about the Republican party is the party of ideas, and specifically referenced the Republican platform. Obviously, the party itself, in practice has tended to throw over many of those ideas under media pressure and because of its crass desire to curry favor and votes. My point was that the democrat party is certainly not an alternative for disaffected Republicans who still hold to the Republican party’s historical ideas. In order to support Obama, you have to disavow, as a Republican, practically everything you have ever stood for. So basically, a Republican who holds to Republican ideals either has to move to a third party or stay in the Republican party and keep fighting for its return to its ideals. In my view, only the second alternative is viable. Defecting to the democrats is antithetical to everything I stand for.

    tODD, you will have to do better than those two examples. The Reagan democrats weren’t acknowledged until after Reagan’s “stunning” defeat of Carter in 1980. The media fully expected Carter to win, and had to acknowledge the defection of democrats to Reagan after viewing the exit polling data and realizing what had happened. They certainly weren’t looking for trends ahead of the election, as they are most anxious to do now when they believe that it is Republicans who are defecting. Your second example is even more off the mark. How could they not acknowledge Lieberman’s defection when he was running for Senate in Connecticut, and still call themselves newspeople? They had no choice but to report it.

    Here’s a challenge for you — find an example in the media of a reporter actually looking at trends and attempting to forecast an election and actually finding everyday (not public figures) democrats who are thinking of voting Republican. You are not going to find it, and it’s not because it doesn’t happen. Look at the South over the past 25 years.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S (@11), your argument vis-a-vis Lieberman isn’t fair. You claimed that the media rarely covers Dem-to-Rep defection. I gave an example. You shot it down because the media “had no choice but to report it”. What example could I provide you that wouldn’t be dismissed by such an argument?

    Furthermore, your challenge assumes (in fact, you state outright) that there are many examples of “everyday … Democrats who are thinking of voting Republican” that the media choose not to report. What evidence do you have for this?

    Myself, I have no reason to believe there are any significant number of Dem-to-Rep defectors this year. There certainly are none in my (anecdotal) experience — all the Dems I know are ready for a change and would vote for anything labeled “D” as long as it was 35 years old. In short, prove such people exist in a non-anecdotal sense, and I’ll look into what the media is saying about it.

    Now, if you’re only talking about such defections in the past 25 years (and probably not so much in the past 4 or 8), then I can’t answer your challenge because I have no ability to find media examples from that far back.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S (@11), your argument vis-a-vis Lieberman isn’t fair. You claimed that the media rarely covers Dem-to-Rep defection. I gave an example. You shot it down because the media “had no choice but to report it”. What example could I provide you that wouldn’t be dismissed by such an argument?

    Furthermore, your challenge assumes (in fact, you state outright) that there are many examples of “everyday … Democrats who are thinking of voting Republican” that the media choose not to report. What evidence do you have for this?

    Myself, I have no reason to believe there are any significant number of Dem-to-Rep defectors this year. There certainly are none in my (anecdotal) experience — all the Dems I know are ready for a change and would vote for anything labeled “D” as long as it was 35 years old. In short, prove such people exist in a non-anecdotal sense, and I’ll look into what the media is saying about it.

    Now, if you’re only talking about such defections in the past 25 years (and probably not so much in the past 4 or 8), then I can’t answer your challenge because I have no ability to find media examples from that far back.

  • http://www.jonathanandkaethe.blogspot.com Kaethe

    I’m really impressed by Obama, although I probably can’t bring myself to vote for him. I love the way he addresses racism, poverty, and the role of fatherhood. Although I disagree with him on the issue, I value the way he struggles with abortion. He appears to truly love his wife and girls. His autobiography is a good read. I keep telling my husband that even though I don’t necessarily want him as president, I wish we could live next door to him.

  • http://www.jonathanandkaethe.blogspot.com Kaethe

    I’m really impressed by Obama, although I probably can’t bring myself to vote for him. I love the way he addresses racism, poverty, and the role of fatherhood. Although I disagree with him on the issue, I value the way he struggles with abortion. He appears to truly love his wife and girls. His autobiography is a good read. I keep telling my husband that even though I don’t necessarily want him as president, I wish we could live next door to him.

  • Don S

    tODD, surely you don’t disagree that the examples you cited are far different than the article linked by Dr. Veith, reporting what the reporter sees as a trend by citing anecdotal evidence of a few particular individuals who claim to have been republican, but are not planning to or considering voting democrat. Obviously, there are such examples in every election year, but media reporters somehow don’t pick up on the democrat to republican shifts.

    Obviously many of these shifts occurred during the ’80′s and ’90′s, when the southern states shifted from voting almost uniformly democrat to voting almost uniformly republican. It also occurred abruptly in ’94, when the Congress abruptly shifted some 60 or 70 seats from democrat to republican in one election. Haven’t you ever noticed that the media never picks up on these shifts, and is always staggered when they occur? Look, I am not saying that they do it deliberately or that it is some sort of conspiracy. Rather, it’s because they tend to run in liberal circles , in a bubble so to speak, and thus don’t notice conservative trends. On the other hand, in the linked article, and others like it that I’ve frequently read in the past, the reporters seem to be looking and hoping for the reported “trend”.

    No matter how recently or how far back you look, you will not find an example parallel to the linked article which triggered this thread. It’s just the way it is.

  • Don S

    tODD, surely you don’t disagree that the examples you cited are far different than the article linked by Dr. Veith, reporting what the reporter sees as a trend by citing anecdotal evidence of a few particular individuals who claim to have been republican, but are not planning to or considering voting democrat. Obviously, there are such examples in every election year, but media reporters somehow don’t pick up on the democrat to republican shifts.

    Obviously many of these shifts occurred during the ’80′s and ’90′s, when the southern states shifted from voting almost uniformly democrat to voting almost uniformly republican. It also occurred abruptly in ’94, when the Congress abruptly shifted some 60 or 70 seats from democrat to republican in one election. Haven’t you ever noticed that the media never picks up on these shifts, and is always staggered when they occur? Look, I am not saying that they do it deliberately or that it is some sort of conspiracy. Rather, it’s because they tend to run in liberal circles , in a bubble so to speak, and thus don’t notice conservative trends. On the other hand, in the linked article, and others like it that I’ve frequently read in the past, the reporters seem to be looking and hoping for the reported “trend”.

    No matter how recently or how far back you look, you will not find an example parallel to the linked article which triggered this thread. It’s just the way it is.

  • chas

    OK, I’m not much of a Republican. I don’t have a “home” in either party, but I’ve voted Republican fairly consistently in presidential elections. I have some Libertarian leanings, but a strong sense of a few areas I think the federal government should be involved in besides basic defense (scientific research, environmental stewardship, a safety net for the poor that does not destroy their dignity).

    I want to send a very strong message to the Republican party that their leadership in recent years has missed the mark: in Iraq, in science funding and science policy, and in the environment.

    Obama interests me because of his concern for poverty and the environment, and because he has at least some sense about science and education.

    I am put off by Obama’s stance on abortion, but think it unlikely that the next four years will change much on that front.

    Bottom line: There is nobody I really like in this election. I may just vote for Obama.

  • chas

    OK, I’m not much of a Republican. I don’t have a “home” in either party, but I’ve voted Republican fairly consistently in presidential elections. I have some Libertarian leanings, but a strong sense of a few areas I think the federal government should be involved in besides basic defense (scientific research, environmental stewardship, a safety net for the poor that does not destroy their dignity).

    I want to send a very strong message to the Republican party that their leadership in recent years has missed the mark: in Iraq, in science funding and science policy, and in the environment.

    Obama interests me because of his concern for poverty and the environment, and because he has at least some sense about science and education.

    I am put off by Obama’s stance on abortion, but think it unlikely that the next four years will change much on that front.

    Bottom line: There is nobody I really like in this election. I may just vote for Obama.

  • Joe

    Do you hear yourselves? I am a libertarian who is sick of the current Republican’s failure to stick to the core principles, so I am going to vote for Obama. You think this will make the Republican party move in a more libertarian direction? It will do the opposite. The next Rove will say, we lost folks in the general to Obama so we better move more to the center.

    And a Goldwater Republican doing the same thing is just as disjointed. If you want to punish the Republicans because they betrayed their core principles you don’t do it by voting for a man who is opposed to just about everything you wish the GOP still stood for.

    The lack of logic in this position is simply astounding. It leads me to wonder aloud if all of these self-professed conservatives and libertarians really have any core beliefs or were they simply sucked into the personalities of Reagan and Goldwater and now are being sucked in by the strongest personality in this race.

    I am not thrilled either but I sure as heck and not going to vote for Obama. Sure he seems like a nice guy, is good on the stump and has a nice family but his ideas are so far to the left. He earned a score of 95 (out of 100) on his voting record from Americans for Democratic Action.

    The point I made earlier is that the Reagan Dems. voted for Reagan because their party left them and Reagan espoused the values their party used to hold to. This makes perfect sense. Your party quits you and you find a new party that agrees with you. Now we are seeing Republicans who feel their party has left them but they are running to a candidate who holds even more dissimilar views. This is a drastically different phenomenon.

  • Joe

    Do you hear yourselves? I am a libertarian who is sick of the current Republican’s failure to stick to the core principles, so I am going to vote for Obama. You think this will make the Republican party move in a more libertarian direction? It will do the opposite. The next Rove will say, we lost folks in the general to Obama so we better move more to the center.

    And a Goldwater Republican doing the same thing is just as disjointed. If you want to punish the Republicans because they betrayed their core principles you don’t do it by voting for a man who is opposed to just about everything you wish the GOP still stood for.

    The lack of logic in this position is simply astounding. It leads me to wonder aloud if all of these self-professed conservatives and libertarians really have any core beliefs or were they simply sucked into the personalities of Reagan and Goldwater and now are being sucked in by the strongest personality in this race.

    I am not thrilled either but I sure as heck and not going to vote for Obama. Sure he seems like a nice guy, is good on the stump and has a nice family but his ideas are so far to the left. He earned a score of 95 (out of 100) on his voting record from Americans for Democratic Action.

    The point I made earlier is that the Reagan Dems. voted for Reagan because their party left them and Reagan espoused the values their party used to hold to. This makes perfect sense. Your party quits you and you find a new party that agrees with you. Now we are seeing Republicans who feel their party has left them but they are running to a candidate who holds even more dissimilar views. This is a drastically different phenomenon.

  • Don S

    Chas, regarding the abortion point. The next President is very likely to appoint two or three new Supreme Court justices, and perhaps more. Stevens is 87, Ginsberg is 74 and in fragile health, and Scalia and Kennedy are both in their early 70′s. Souter and Breyer are 68 and 69, respectively. Obama is 100% certain to appoint justices who believe that the right to an abortion is a fundamental constitutional right, as established by Roe v. Wade and its progeny. So, I strongly urge you to re-think your statement that it is unlikely that the next four years will change much on the issue of abortion. If Obama appoints three young, vibrant liberal justices, abortion will remain a fundamental constitutional right for the next 30 years!

  • Don S

    Chas, regarding the abortion point. The next President is very likely to appoint two or three new Supreme Court justices, and perhaps more. Stevens is 87, Ginsberg is 74 and in fragile health, and Scalia and Kennedy are both in their early 70′s. Souter and Breyer are 68 and 69, respectively. Obama is 100% certain to appoint justices who believe that the right to an abortion is a fundamental constitutional right, as established by Roe v. Wade and its progeny. So, I strongly urge you to re-think your statement that it is unlikely that the next four years will change much on the issue of abortion. If Obama appoints three young, vibrant liberal justices, abortion will remain a fundamental constitutional right for the next 30 years!

  • Don S

    Preach it, Joe! It really does make absolutely no sense.

  • Don S

    Preach it, Joe! It really does make absolutely no sense.

  • Altar Guild

    Ron Paul, people.

  • Altar Guild

    Ron Paul, people.

  • ELB

    This thread is a tribute to Obama’s (and the mesmerized press’s) ability to eclipse what he is with the image he projects.

    He is my senator. He is a far far left dedicated globalist, willing and eager (forget the University of Chicago experience) to replace our constitution with some UN charter of human rights – including getting rid of the 2nd Amendment by signing an international treaty that would essentially revoke it. Forget any right to free political speech, right to keep and bear arms, right to private property.

    The only rights he seems to recognize in speech are the rights to porn. He cherishes the right to kill children, voting against even the mildest restrictions on partial birth abortion.

    His religious noises are really only a vague spirituality, hardly related to Christianity.

    He is in bed with the worst of the Chicago influence peddlers – Tony Rezco.

    For all that, I’m sure he’s kind of a nice guy.

    THINK, people. DISCERN.

  • ELB

    This thread is a tribute to Obama’s (and the mesmerized press’s) ability to eclipse what he is with the image he projects.

    He is my senator. He is a far far left dedicated globalist, willing and eager (forget the University of Chicago experience) to replace our constitution with some UN charter of human rights – including getting rid of the 2nd Amendment by signing an international treaty that would essentially revoke it. Forget any right to free political speech, right to keep and bear arms, right to private property.

    The only rights he seems to recognize in speech are the rights to porn. He cherishes the right to kill children, voting against even the mildest restrictions on partial birth abortion.

    His religious noises are really only a vague spirituality, hardly related to Christianity.

    He is in bed with the worst of the Chicago influence peddlers – Tony Rezco.

    For all that, I’m sure he’s kind of a nice guy.

    THINK, people. DISCERN.

  • Bror Erickson

    Joe,
    Yes that makes about as much sense as Libertarians threatening to move to Canada if a democrat gets in.
    oh well. People pissed off, tired, exhausted don’t always think logically. No one thinks the libertarian ticket can win so even though they want the government to go more in that direction they will stay within the two popular parties. but if enough voted Libertarian in the next election and the republicans lost because of it, they would swing more that way by the next election.

  • Bror Erickson

    Joe,
    Yes that makes about as much sense as Libertarians threatening to move to Canada if a democrat gets in.
    oh well. People pissed off, tired, exhausted don’t always think logically. No one thinks the libertarian ticket can win so even though they want the government to go more in that direction they will stay within the two popular parties. but if enough voted Libertarian in the next election and the republicans lost because of it, they would swing more that way by the next election.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S, you are aware that the link is to The Times (of London), a conservative media outlet (owned by Rupert Murdoch — you may have heard of him), right? So first of all, this is hardly a smear article from another member of the so-called liberal media.

    Secondly, your characterization of the article being merely “anecdotal evidence of a few particular individuals who claim to have been republican” made me chuckle. Anecdotal yes, though you seem to have missed the point that these aren’t merely random people on the street — they were high-profile former supporters of Bush. And as to the risible notion that they only “claim[ed] to have been Republicans” … seriously? You think Matthew Dowd, Bush’s chief campaign strategist in 2004, was faking it? Or Tom Bernstein, former big donor and co-worker with Bush? His large donations to Bush and the RNC in 2004 (as well as his 2008 donation to Obama) are easily verified on FundRace. Same with “Bush pioneer” and investment banker John Canning (though he also gave the maximum to Romney). These are not merely “everyday (not public figures)” people, as you implied @11.

    Anyhow, I actually tested some of your assertions, and while I have limited time and skills (only Google News, no Nexis for me), I found plenty of counter-examples (no links from me because they’re pay articles and I don’t want to trip the spam filter here).

    You claimed that the “media never picks up on these shifts, and is always staggered when they occur”, as in the 1994 Republican revolution. But I found
    *An August 25, 1994 article from the Washington Post titled “For the GOP, a Long-Running Southern Tide”, which says “There is an inexorably rising Republican tide in the South …”
    * Or how about a May 15, 1994 article from the Miami Herald titled “It’s Looking Gloomy for State’s Democrats”, which also mentioned the “pro-Republican tide” (incidentally, my search phrase).
    * Or an October 17, 1994 article from the LA Times titled “White House Sees Glimmer Amid Election Gloom” which says “And in the House, while Democrats point to local circumstances that might allow them to win many close contests nationwide, they concede that a strong Republican tide could still make such calculations irrelevant.”

    Someone with more time or better keywords could unearth more and better examples, I’m sure. So unless you want to argue that (1) these are not liberal media outlets or (2) these articles were written after the 1994 election, I’m going to say your assertion is baseless.

    As to your assertion that “No matter how recently or how far back you look, you will not find an example parallel to the linked article which triggered this thread,” here’s what I found with a quick search:

    * A February 10, 2000 NY Times article titled “Democrats Drawn to McCain Are Unsettling Republicans” that tells the (anecdotal!) story of Samuel J. Tenenbaum (and others) voting for McCain in an election shift oddly similar to the one in Veith’s article.
    * There are, in fact, too many articles to list on the “throngs” (Miami Herald’s word) of Democrats changing their party affiliation to vote for McCain.
    * A February 21, 1988 article in the Sacramento Bee titled “It’s GOP’s Turn to Whistle Dixie” does what you said the media didn’t do: note the “changing loyalties” of “conservative rural Democrats to the Republican Party.”
    * Or a May 8, 1985 NY Times article that notes that ” Another Democrat, former Gov. Edward J. King of Massachusetts, has said he is thinking about switching to the Republican Party …”

    Again, I could find more and better examples if I had the time or desire, but it’s dinner time for me.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S, you are aware that the link is to The Times (of London), a conservative media outlet (owned by Rupert Murdoch — you may have heard of him), right? So first of all, this is hardly a smear article from another member of the so-called liberal media.

    Secondly, your characterization of the article being merely “anecdotal evidence of a few particular individuals who claim to have been republican” made me chuckle. Anecdotal yes, though you seem to have missed the point that these aren’t merely random people on the street — they were high-profile former supporters of Bush. And as to the risible notion that they only “claim[ed] to have been Republicans” … seriously? You think Matthew Dowd, Bush’s chief campaign strategist in 2004, was faking it? Or Tom Bernstein, former big donor and co-worker with Bush? His large donations to Bush and the RNC in 2004 (as well as his 2008 donation to Obama) are easily verified on FundRace. Same with “Bush pioneer” and investment banker John Canning (though he also gave the maximum to Romney). These are not merely “everyday (not public figures)” people, as you implied @11.

    Anyhow, I actually tested some of your assertions, and while I have limited time and skills (only Google News, no Nexis for me), I found plenty of counter-examples (no links from me because they’re pay articles and I don’t want to trip the spam filter here).

    You claimed that the “media never picks up on these shifts, and is always staggered when they occur”, as in the 1994 Republican revolution. But I found
    *An August 25, 1994 article from the Washington Post titled “For the GOP, a Long-Running Southern Tide”, which says “There is an inexorably rising Republican tide in the South …”
    * Or how about a May 15, 1994 article from the Miami Herald titled “It’s Looking Gloomy for State’s Democrats”, which also mentioned the “pro-Republican tide” (incidentally, my search phrase).
    * Or an October 17, 1994 article from the LA Times titled “White House Sees Glimmer Amid Election Gloom” which says “And in the House, while Democrats point to local circumstances that might allow them to win many close contests nationwide, they concede that a strong Republican tide could still make such calculations irrelevant.”

    Someone with more time or better keywords could unearth more and better examples, I’m sure. So unless you want to argue that (1) these are not liberal media outlets or (2) these articles were written after the 1994 election, I’m going to say your assertion is baseless.

    As to your assertion that “No matter how recently or how far back you look, you will not find an example parallel to the linked article which triggered this thread,” here’s what I found with a quick search:

    * A February 10, 2000 NY Times article titled “Democrats Drawn to McCain Are Unsettling Republicans” that tells the (anecdotal!) story of Samuel J. Tenenbaum (and others) voting for McCain in an election shift oddly similar to the one in Veith’s article.
    * There are, in fact, too many articles to list on the “throngs” (Miami Herald’s word) of Democrats changing their party affiliation to vote for McCain.
    * A February 21, 1988 article in the Sacramento Bee titled “It’s GOP’s Turn to Whistle Dixie” does what you said the media didn’t do: note the “changing loyalties” of “conservative rural Democrats to the Republican Party.”
    * Or a May 8, 1985 NY Times article that notes that ” Another Democrat, former Gov. Edward J. King of Massachusetts, has said he is thinking about switching to the Republican Party …”

    Again, I could find more and better examples if I had the time or desire, but it’s dinner time for me.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Pr. Lehmann

    Altar Guild,

    Ron Paul is a nut who thinks that the best way to address terrorists building nuclear weapons is to wring his hands and say, “Hmm… I don’t like that.”

    And Ron Paulists revere him as if he bodily descended from heaven with the constitution in his hands.

    To be perfectly blunt… they scare me to death. I don’t want a demagogue. If it were Obama v. Paul, it’d be Obama. NO QUESTION IN MY MIND.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Pr. Lehmann

    Altar Guild,

    Ron Paul is a nut who thinks that the best way to address terrorists building nuclear weapons is to wring his hands and say, “Hmm… I don’t like that.”

    And Ron Paulists revere him as if he bodily descended from heaven with the constitution in his hands.

    To be perfectly blunt… they scare me to death. I don’t want a demagogue. If it were Obama v. Paul, it’d be Obama. NO QUESTION IN MY MIND.

  • Don S

    tODD, I hope you didn’t spend all afternoon on this project.

    1. The Times of London, though not as liberal as the Guardian, is not conservative. It supported the Labour Party in the last two election cycles (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/417fa1a2-ab60-11d9-893c-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=fdb2b318-aa9e-11d9-98d7-00000e2511c8.html, and declined to support a party the cycle before that. Besides, as you know, even papers with conservative editorial policies tend to employ liberal news reporters and editors. This is because only 5% of all national press reporters in the U.S. are self-described conservatives (Pew Research Center for People & the Press Survey of Journalists 2004).

    2. Dowd never was a conservative. He is a hired gun. His only political contributions have been to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D) in 1991 and 93. So why exactly is his alleged shift to Obama news? He’s no different than Dick Morris, who worked for Clinton and now does everything he can to oppose the Clintons. Didn’t see Morris in that story. Guess it didn’t fit the storyline.

    3. Tom Bernstein — You need to check out something other than the Huffington Post. Try Newsmeat.com, where you will see that over the past 20 years Bernstein has mostly supported democrats and liberals with over 20 separate donations, including donations to Dukakis in ’88, Bill Bradley in ’90, Ted Kennedy in ’92, Bill Clinton in ’95, Ted Kennedy again in ’98, Harry Reid in ’03 and BARACK OBAMA in April ’04. His only Republican donations were to his buddy George Bush, Norm Coleman in ’04, and the RNC a couple of times while his buddy George Bush was president. So, you tell me — is Mr. Bernstein a disgruntled Republican, going to the dems for the first time in his life, or is he going back to his natural roots because his buddy is leaving office? Nice job of research by that unbiased reporter!

    3. Ditto for John Canning — you and the Times are 0 for 3! Venture out from the Huffington Post and try Newsmeat.com again for the real story. Canning since 2001 has given 19 contributions to democrats and 26 to Republicans, and the dollar amount is pretty evenhanded. He appears to be a typical businessman donor — he gives to whichever party and/or politician he believes is in his personal interest. There is no story that he was a died in the wool Republican and now he is a democrat because of disillusionment. Sorry, but according to his donor record, which the reporter could and should have reported, it’s not there.

    4. So the Washington Post picked up on the Southern shift to Repubs in 1994, only 14 years after it began. I’m impressed! Not seeing the anecdotal democrat defectors though.

    5. Feb. 10, 2000 NY Times article — nice try, but you know as well as I do that the purpose of this article was to push McCain over Bush in the primaries — these were crossover voters trying to screw up the Republican party by getting McCain nominated over Bush — they had no intention of voting Repub. in the general.

    Good effort, overall, but it’s tough to defend the indefensible.

  • Don S

    tODD, I hope you didn’t spend all afternoon on this project.

    1. The Times of London, though not as liberal as the Guardian, is not conservative. It supported the Labour Party in the last two election cycles (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/417fa1a2-ab60-11d9-893c-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=fdb2b318-aa9e-11d9-98d7-00000e2511c8.html, and declined to support a party the cycle before that. Besides, as you know, even papers with conservative editorial policies tend to employ liberal news reporters and editors. This is because only 5% of all national press reporters in the U.S. are self-described conservatives (Pew Research Center for People & the Press Survey of Journalists 2004).

    2. Dowd never was a conservative. He is a hired gun. His only political contributions have been to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D) in 1991 and 93. So why exactly is his alleged shift to Obama news? He’s no different than Dick Morris, who worked for Clinton and now does everything he can to oppose the Clintons. Didn’t see Morris in that story. Guess it didn’t fit the storyline.

    3. Tom Bernstein — You need to check out something other than the Huffington Post. Try Newsmeat.com, where you will see that over the past 20 years Bernstein has mostly supported democrats and liberals with over 20 separate donations, including donations to Dukakis in ’88, Bill Bradley in ’90, Ted Kennedy in ’92, Bill Clinton in ’95, Ted Kennedy again in ’98, Harry Reid in ’03 and BARACK OBAMA in April ’04. His only Republican donations were to his buddy George Bush, Norm Coleman in ’04, and the RNC a couple of times while his buddy George Bush was president. So, you tell me — is Mr. Bernstein a disgruntled Republican, going to the dems for the first time in his life, or is he going back to his natural roots because his buddy is leaving office? Nice job of research by that unbiased reporter!

    3. Ditto for John Canning — you and the Times are 0 for 3! Venture out from the Huffington Post and try Newsmeat.com again for the real story. Canning since 2001 has given 19 contributions to democrats and 26 to Republicans, and the dollar amount is pretty evenhanded. He appears to be a typical businessman donor — he gives to whichever party and/or politician he believes is in his personal interest. There is no story that he was a died in the wool Republican and now he is a democrat because of disillusionment. Sorry, but according to his donor record, which the reporter could and should have reported, it’s not there.

    4. So the Washington Post picked up on the Southern shift to Repubs in 1994, only 14 years after it began. I’m impressed! Not seeing the anecdotal democrat defectors though.

    5. Feb. 10, 2000 NY Times article — nice try, but you know as well as I do that the purpose of this article was to push McCain over Bush in the primaries — these were crossover voters trying to screw up the Republican party by getting McCain nominated over Bush — they had no intention of voting Repub. in the general.

    Good effort, overall, but it’s tough to defend the indefensible.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S (@24), I trust you didn’t spend all night on your response. :)

    Saying that The Times isn’t conservative just because they supported Labour in the last two elections would also mean that every newspaper that endorsed Bush in (either of) the last two elections isn’t liberal. Is that something you’d agree to? (I’m going to proceed assuming “no”.) Perhaps they are not conservative enough for you. Anyhow, their readership is mainly conservative (according to your article).

    Moreover, the linked-to article was from The Sunday Times, you’ll notice — a separate entity though under the same ownership now. And according to your FT article, “The Sunday Times urged readers to vote Conservative to curb Labour’s arrogance, but noted that it seemed unlikely that the party could win, because of its failure ‘to offer an alternative vision the country needs’.”

    As to your assertion that “Dowd never was a conservative,” I’m afraid you’ll have to back that one up. In opposition to your assertion is the NY Times article that states that “Mr. Dowd said he decided to become a Republican in 1999 and joined Mr. Bush after watching him work closely with Bob Bullock.” He also worked with the RNC, and the campaigns of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dick DeVos, both Rs. Keep in mind that the point we are discussing is stories about (former) Republicans supporting Obama, not “conservatives”.

    As for the FundRace numbers, you have better sources than I did — thanks for that URL. I was familiar with FundRace from 2004, though they now seem to have migrated to HuffPo. Regardless of what you think about HuffPo’s content (I don’t read it, so I don’t know much about it), the numbers were obviously unbiased, if only for the past four years. Anyhow, point well taken on Canning and Bernstein. Though as to what to attribute this poor reporting, I am reminded of the saying, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

    As to the WaPo article on the “Southern shift,” I’m afraid you moved the goalposts on me. You said such a shift “occurred abruptly in ’94, when the Congress abruptly shifted some 60 or 70 seats from democrat to republican in one election. Haven’t you ever noticed that the media never picks up on these shifts, and is always staggered when they occur?” I showed you several articles (which I found with very little research) in which the media picked up on the shift before it happened — one of which was 6 years before the 1994 election. Now you complain that they didn’t notice it at some arbitrary earlier date. And if I find an article at some earlier date, will you decry the lack of articles from the 70s?

    You also completely ignored the May 8, 1985 NY Times article on Edward J. King (there were others). This is a topic very like that of the linked-to article, since King was at the time a well-known but unelected figure who officially changed from Democratic to Republican, though as the NY Times notes in a different article, “the change of allegiance represented no great ideological shift. … He has always been known as a conservative.”

    Meanwhile, no evidence is forthcoming from you on how you know that there are defectors moving from the Democrats to the Republicans. What is it that you know about that the media isn’t reporting?

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S (@24), I trust you didn’t spend all night on your response. :)

    Saying that The Times isn’t conservative just because they supported Labour in the last two elections would also mean that every newspaper that endorsed Bush in (either of) the last two elections isn’t liberal. Is that something you’d agree to? (I’m going to proceed assuming “no”.) Perhaps they are not conservative enough for you. Anyhow, their readership is mainly conservative (according to your article).

    Moreover, the linked-to article was from The Sunday Times, you’ll notice — a separate entity though under the same ownership now. And according to your FT article, “The Sunday Times urged readers to vote Conservative to curb Labour’s arrogance, but noted that it seemed unlikely that the party could win, because of its failure ‘to offer an alternative vision the country needs’.”

    As to your assertion that “Dowd never was a conservative,” I’m afraid you’ll have to back that one up. In opposition to your assertion is the NY Times article that states that “Mr. Dowd said he decided to become a Republican in 1999 and joined Mr. Bush after watching him work closely with Bob Bullock.” He also worked with the RNC, and the campaigns of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dick DeVos, both Rs. Keep in mind that the point we are discussing is stories about (former) Republicans supporting Obama, not “conservatives”.

    As for the FundRace numbers, you have better sources than I did — thanks for that URL. I was familiar with FundRace from 2004, though they now seem to have migrated to HuffPo. Regardless of what you think about HuffPo’s content (I don’t read it, so I don’t know much about it), the numbers were obviously unbiased, if only for the past four years. Anyhow, point well taken on Canning and Bernstein. Though as to what to attribute this poor reporting, I am reminded of the saying, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

    As to the WaPo article on the “Southern shift,” I’m afraid you moved the goalposts on me. You said such a shift “occurred abruptly in ’94, when the Congress abruptly shifted some 60 or 70 seats from democrat to republican in one election. Haven’t you ever noticed that the media never picks up on these shifts, and is always staggered when they occur?” I showed you several articles (which I found with very little research) in which the media picked up on the shift before it happened — one of which was 6 years before the 1994 election. Now you complain that they didn’t notice it at some arbitrary earlier date. And if I find an article at some earlier date, will you decry the lack of articles from the 70s?

    You also completely ignored the May 8, 1985 NY Times article on Edward J. King (there were others). This is a topic very like that of the linked-to article, since King was at the time a well-known but unelected figure who officially changed from Democratic to Republican, though as the NY Times notes in a different article, “the change of allegiance represented no great ideological shift. … He has always been known as a conservative.”

    Meanwhile, no evidence is forthcoming from you on how you know that there are defectors moving from the Democrats to the Republicans. What is it that you know about that the media isn’t reporting?

  • Don S

    tODD:

    I spent more time than I should have, as have you, I suspect.

    Let me bring this discussion back to center a little bit. My original post objected to what I considered the theme of the article, which is that the Republican party has become so repugnant to “rock-ribbed” Republicans that they are defecting to Obama and the Democrats. Three examples of such rock-ribbed Republicans are cited. I have shown that none of those three were really rock-ribbed. They all, at least, have donated substantially to democrats over the years, so they obviously don’t hold to a strictly Republican ideology. Dowd’s conversion to Republicanism in 1999 seems strangely timed to his work for Bush, and now he is shifting back. No different than Dick Morris shifting over to the Repubs after working for Clinton. Political consultants seem to be a cynical and different breed.

    I wasn’t able to look at your cites, for the same reason you didn’t link to them, so I can’t ascertain whether they identify so-called rock-ribbed democrats who converted to the Republicans. I’ve never read such an article, in my long experience reading news. I have only read articles identifying converted republicans, which mostly turn out to be misleading, as did this article.

    Here’s my point — politics are an ebb and flow — right now it is obvious that voters on the margins, largely independents, have shifted to the democrats, just as they shifted to the republicans in 1994 and 2004. No one who holds a strong ideology, either conservative or liberal, shifts back and forth between parties like that. It wouldn’t make sense, because you would be betraying your entire value system. I do know of some celebrities who habitually voted democrat prior to 9/11, and now vote republican because of national security, such as Ron Silver, Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Voight, etc. I haven’t seen any big media splash stories about these guys and their voting shifts, but maybe I missed something. I guess these examples answer your last paragraph, however.

  • Don S

    tODD:

    I spent more time than I should have, as have you, I suspect.

    Let me bring this discussion back to center a little bit. My original post objected to what I considered the theme of the article, which is that the Republican party has become so repugnant to “rock-ribbed” Republicans that they are defecting to Obama and the Democrats. Three examples of such rock-ribbed Republicans are cited. I have shown that none of those three were really rock-ribbed. They all, at least, have donated substantially to democrats over the years, so they obviously don’t hold to a strictly Republican ideology. Dowd’s conversion to Republicanism in 1999 seems strangely timed to his work for Bush, and now he is shifting back. No different than Dick Morris shifting over to the Repubs after working for Clinton. Political consultants seem to be a cynical and different breed.

    I wasn’t able to look at your cites, for the same reason you didn’t link to them, so I can’t ascertain whether they identify so-called rock-ribbed democrats who converted to the Republicans. I’ve never read such an article, in my long experience reading news. I have only read articles identifying converted republicans, which mostly turn out to be misleading, as did this article.

    Here’s my point — politics are an ebb and flow — right now it is obvious that voters on the margins, largely independents, have shifted to the democrats, just as they shifted to the republicans in 1994 and 2004. No one who holds a strong ideology, either conservative or liberal, shifts back and forth between parties like that. It wouldn’t make sense, because you would be betraying your entire value system. I do know of some celebrities who habitually voted democrat prior to 9/11, and now vote republican because of national security, such as Ron Silver, Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Voight, etc. I haven’t seen any big media splash stories about these guys and their voting shifts, but maybe I missed something. I guess these examples answer your last paragraph, however.

  • chas

    Pissed off? Tired? Exhausted? Guilty as charged. And yes Don, you are right that it is only wishful thinking on my part to suggest that the next president will not appoint a justice or two. What I have been asking myself is just how wrong the Republican party has to be before that one issue is not enough to get my vote. Will you call me cynical if I tell you that the GOP has calculated the precise binding energy of the Christian voter, has reverse-engineered the username and password to every one of our consciences: just take the right position on one issue, and we can do *anything* *we* *want*.

    As I stated earlier, I’ve never ardently espoused the philosophy of either major party. In principle, I am unconvinced that any one political philosophy has what it takes to navigate our nation’s future. The conservative/liberal divide in American politics does not align with my perception of right vs. wrong, or even practical vs. impractical. So why did I vote Republican for so many years? For a long time, for many reasons, I thought the Republicans would do less harm than the Dems, but now that is all up for grabs. We now have big Republican government, ill-considered military adventures, utter disrespect for the best scientific research, and rationalization about torture. Our country is still a long, long way from becoming the world’s worst nightmare, but we have found an easy path down the mountain, toward that broad road.

    In Obama I see a principled, forthright, competent leader who is wrong about a lot of things, but willing to listen and compromise. I do not agree with the post that characterized him as willing to shuck the constitution and barter away U.S. sovereignty. Frankly, the principal danger that I see to our constitution today is continued power for the Republican party. They are taking our votes for granted, and like it or not, even the Donkey knows better. This year.

  • chas

    Pissed off? Tired? Exhausted? Guilty as charged. And yes Don, you are right that it is only wishful thinking on my part to suggest that the next president will not appoint a justice or two. What I have been asking myself is just how wrong the Republican party has to be before that one issue is not enough to get my vote. Will you call me cynical if I tell you that the GOP has calculated the precise binding energy of the Christian voter, has reverse-engineered the username and password to every one of our consciences: just take the right position on one issue, and we can do *anything* *we* *want*.

    As I stated earlier, I’ve never ardently espoused the philosophy of either major party. In principle, I am unconvinced that any one political philosophy has what it takes to navigate our nation’s future. The conservative/liberal divide in American politics does not align with my perception of right vs. wrong, or even practical vs. impractical. So why did I vote Republican for so many years? For a long time, for many reasons, I thought the Republicans would do less harm than the Dems, but now that is all up for grabs. We now have big Republican government, ill-considered military adventures, utter disrespect for the best scientific research, and rationalization about torture. Our country is still a long, long way from becoming the world’s worst nightmare, but we have found an easy path down the mountain, toward that broad road.

    In Obama I see a principled, forthright, competent leader who is wrong about a lot of things, but willing to listen and compromise. I do not agree with the post that characterized him as willing to shuck the constitution and barter away U.S. sovereignty. Frankly, the principal danger that I see to our constitution today is continued power for the Republican party. They are taking our votes for granted, and like it or not, even the Donkey knows better. This year.

  • S Bauer

    Preach it, chas.

    And I’ll probably vote for McCain for most of the reasons that “conservatives” have advanced here for not voting for him. (Like Luther, the “older” Goldwater was even better than the “younger” Goldwater.)

  • S Bauer

    Preach it, chas.

    And I’ll probably vote for McCain for most of the reasons that “conservatives” have advanced here for not voting for him. (Like Luther, the “older” Goldwater was even better than the “younger” Goldwater.)

  • Joe

    Chas – by your own admission you are not a Republican, your and independant voter. So you are not part of the bug switch that is the focus of the post.

  • Joe

    Chas – by your own admission you are not a Republican, your and independant voter. So you are not part of the bug switch that is the focus of the post.

  • Joe

    please, forgive the typos …

  • Joe

    please, forgive the typos …

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S (@26), you said you “objected to what I considered the theme of the article, which is that the Republican party has become so repugnant to ‘rock-ribbed’ Republicans that they are defecting to Obama and the Democrats.” That’s a bit much, isn’t it? The headline notwithstanding (and those are often written by editors), the article states it is more about “former Bush donors” than “Republicans”. Nothing about “rock-ribbed” or “repugnant” there, though you are free to read with as much bias as you imply the article is written with. Anyhow, more than three examples are cited — and it would seem that we could maybe add a few Cranach readers as examples, even!

    (About the phrase rock-ribbed: why do you keep using it like it appears in the article? You put it in quotes, you prefix it with “so-called”, but you are the only one calling it so.)

    As to Dowd, you seem to feel free to explain his true beliefs without knowing the man. What seems “strangely timed” to you makes sense to me — he had worked for the Democratic Lt. Gov. under Bush (they’re elected separately in Texas), came to admire Bush in that time that his work brought him into contact with him, and switched to support him (and Republican ideas) at that time. If you’re going to continue to malign him as merely an opportunist “hired gun”, at least cite a reference! (I dare say political consultants aren’t the only “cynical breed” here.)

    Also, just curious: you said you’ve never read an article on “rock-ribbed Democrats who converted to the Republicans” … but have you ever looked for one? I mean actually gone searching, like I did to a small degree? Because for every example that I’ve given and had you shoot down for one reason or another, I’m not sure you’d notice one if you did read it.

    You went on to claim that “no one who holds a strong ideology, either conservative or liberal, shifts back and forth between parties like that.” You do realize that there are people (yours truly!) who hold strong ideologies that are neither conservative nor liberal, right? And that labels like “conservative” and “liberal”, fungible as they are, frequently fail to line up with partisan lines? So that a person with a strong ideology — even a strong political ideology — might vote for one party this year, and another party the next. I certainly haven’t voted for any one party consistently (though since Bush started wreaking his own particular brand of action, I’ve been swinging Democratic).

    And now that we’re talking about celebrities instead of normal people, I dare say the reason you haven’t seen any “big media splash stories” about Ron Silver is because … who? I had to look him up. Biggest thing he was in I’d heard of was Timecop. I’ll give you Bruckheimer, but what evidence do you have that Jon Voight ever supported the Democrats? I can’t find it.

    Anyhow, I’m not sure what you’re expecting. A recent article? An article when these people switched parties — if they did, did they do it in the same timeframe? There are many articles about the support Republicans have in Hollywood — certainly disproportionate to the amount of support there is. But while there aren’t any articles I can find about the en masse switching of parties in Hollywood from Dem-to-Rep, nor can I find any on Rep-to-Dem changes. So what is it, again, that you’re alleging is happening but not being reported fairly in the media?

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don S (@26), you said you “objected to what I considered the theme of the article, which is that the Republican party has become so repugnant to ‘rock-ribbed’ Republicans that they are defecting to Obama and the Democrats.” That’s a bit much, isn’t it? The headline notwithstanding (and those are often written by editors), the article states it is more about “former Bush donors” than “Republicans”. Nothing about “rock-ribbed” or “repugnant” there, though you are free to read with as much bias as you imply the article is written with. Anyhow, more than three examples are cited — and it would seem that we could maybe add a few Cranach readers as examples, even!

    (About the phrase rock-ribbed: why do you keep using it like it appears in the article? You put it in quotes, you prefix it with “so-called”, but you are the only one calling it so.)

    As to Dowd, you seem to feel free to explain his true beliefs without knowing the man. What seems “strangely timed” to you makes sense to me — he had worked for the Democratic Lt. Gov. under Bush (they’re elected separately in Texas), came to admire Bush in that time that his work brought him into contact with him, and switched to support him (and Republican ideas) at that time. If you’re going to continue to malign him as merely an opportunist “hired gun”, at least cite a reference! (I dare say political consultants aren’t the only “cynical breed” here.)

    Also, just curious: you said you’ve never read an article on “rock-ribbed Democrats who converted to the Republicans” … but have you ever looked for one? I mean actually gone searching, like I did to a small degree? Because for every example that I’ve given and had you shoot down for one reason or another, I’m not sure you’d notice one if you did read it.

    You went on to claim that “no one who holds a strong ideology, either conservative or liberal, shifts back and forth between parties like that.” You do realize that there are people (yours truly!) who hold strong ideologies that are neither conservative nor liberal, right? And that labels like “conservative” and “liberal”, fungible as they are, frequently fail to line up with partisan lines? So that a person with a strong ideology — even a strong political ideology — might vote for one party this year, and another party the next. I certainly haven’t voted for any one party consistently (though since Bush started wreaking his own particular brand of action, I’ve been swinging Democratic).

    And now that we’re talking about celebrities instead of normal people, I dare say the reason you haven’t seen any “big media splash stories” about Ron Silver is because … who? I had to look him up. Biggest thing he was in I’d heard of was Timecop. I’ll give you Bruckheimer, but what evidence do you have that Jon Voight ever supported the Democrats? I can’t find it.

    Anyhow, I’m not sure what you’re expecting. A recent article? An article when these people switched parties — if they did, did they do it in the same timeframe? There are many articles about the support Republicans have in Hollywood — certainly disproportionate to the amount of support there is. But while there aren’t any articles I can find about the en masse switching of parties in Hollywood from Dem-to-Rep, nor can I find any on Rep-to-Dem changes. So what is it, again, that you’re alleging is happening but not being reported fairly in the media?

  • Don S

    tODD, maybe it’s because it’s late, but I couldn’t follow that last post at all. I think that’s how you know you’re done with a thread.

    I heard Voight on a talk show, talk about his conversion from democrat to republican voting patterns because of 9/11, though I’m pretty sure he re-registered as an independent, as did Silver. Remember, Angelina Jolie is Voight’s daughter, certainly no conservative. If you check IMDB.com, Silver has been a consistently working character actor for some 20 years, but is most famous, probably, for speaking at the 2004 Republican convention about his 9/11 conversion. But anyway, the point wasn’t how famous they were, but that these were examples you requested of people who have recently converted from demo to repub. I wasn’t asking you for anything, just answering your query.

    Sorry the quotes offended you. I used them, because “rock-ribbed” is an expression people use in politics to describe strongly ideological positions or people. And the article was clearly taking the position that the Repubs are in serious trouble because even their best donors/strategists are jumping the sinking ship. I don’t see how you can read it any other way.

    See you on another thread.

  • Don S

    tODD, maybe it’s because it’s late, but I couldn’t follow that last post at all. I think that’s how you know you’re done with a thread.

    I heard Voight on a talk show, talk about his conversion from democrat to republican voting patterns because of 9/11, though I’m pretty sure he re-registered as an independent, as did Silver. Remember, Angelina Jolie is Voight’s daughter, certainly no conservative. If you check IMDB.com, Silver has been a consistently working character actor for some 20 years, but is most famous, probably, for speaking at the 2004 Republican convention about his 9/11 conversion. But anyway, the point wasn’t how famous they were, but that these were examples you requested of people who have recently converted from demo to repub. I wasn’t asking you for anything, just answering your query.

    Sorry the quotes offended you. I used them, because “rock-ribbed” is an expression people use in politics to describe strongly ideological positions or people. And the article was clearly taking the position that the Repubs are in serious trouble because even their best donors/strategists are jumping the sinking ship. I don’t see how you can read it any other way.

    See you on another thread.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X