Republicans defect to the Obama camp

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Republicans defect to the Obama camp
Sarah Baxter, Washington

DISILLUSIONED supporters of President George W Bush are defecting to Barack Obama, the Democratic senator for Illinois, as the White House candidate with the best chance of uniting a divided nation.

Tom Bernstein went to Yale University with Bush and co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with him. In 2004 he donated the maximum $2,000 to the president’s reelection campaign and gave $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. This year he is switching his support to Obama. He is one of many former Bush admirers who find the Democrat newcomer appealing.

Matthew Dowd, Bush’s chief campaign strategist in 2004, announced last month that he was disillusioned with the war in Iraq and the president’s “my way or the highway” style of leadership – the first member of Bush’s inner circle to denounce the leader’s performance in office.

Although Dowd has yet to endorse a candidate, he said the only one he liked was Obama. “I think we should design campaigns that appeal, not to 51% of the people, but bring the country together as a whole,” Dowd said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece
 
Bump, figured some might have missed this because of the weekend.

Now why would an ex partner of bush's defect this way ?
 
Why not? Just because I was a partner of somebody doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them politically.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm he was a big contributor and supporter as well, read the article.
Click to expand...
Once again, that wasn't my point. First, Bush isn't running, there is no evidence he wouldn't have given him cash and more support if he was. Second, just because he was a business partner doesn't mean that he "defected" if he chooses a different path.
 
I sent $100 to the Bush campaign and I voted for Bush once, ONCE (holds up one finger for emphasis - My Danny Vermin impersonation;)). I don't share the hate that some seem to have for him. Maybe I am a defector too. I sure won't be "defecting" to the Obama camp though.
 
It may be that he likes the open-border position of the Ds. The one that allows for amnesty before the border has had any real change toward less illegal entry. Like Bush.
 
I hold up no fingers for bush voting....

My point is damo is that he switched to the Dem camp from the repub camp.
Bush not running is a tired old line.
 
Yes, uscitizen. I remember when Bush ran against Gore the line was, "Clinton isn't running." We hear the same things almost every election cycle.
 
uscitizen said:
I hold up no fingers for bush voting....

My point is damo is that he switched to the Dem camp from the repub camp.
Bush not running is a tired old line.
Click to expand...
However in this case it makes all the difference. Would he have supported Bush? We do not know from the story. That he likes Obama doesn't mean he would not have supported his friend this time.

Shoot, we don't know if he ever supported any other R before Bush was running. All we know is that he supported Bush, but now supports Obama. To me the story is lacking much information that would be needed to make such a determination.
 
"Hillary Clinton has many Republican defectors of her own, including John Mack, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, who helped raise $200,000 for the president’s reelection, qualifying him as a “Bush ranger”."

From the same article...
 
uscitizen said:
"Hillary Clinton has many Republican defectors of her own, including John Mack, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, who helped raise $200,000 for the president’s reelection, qualifying him as a “Bush ranger”."

From the same article...
Click to expand...
Once again the article is woefully inadequate to judge. Did this person donate to the Bill Clinton campaign?
 
uscitizen said:
Bill Clinton is not running and did not run against GWB :)
Click to expand...
Yes, but such support would be an indication that they support more than just Rs. Would it not?

The limited time scope of the article plays into a misconception of the people it is about.

Saying basically if they supported Bush they have always supported Rs and therefore have "defected". Many "defected" to Bush from Clinton, yet the article doesn't show such people at all. It is silly to take such a snapshot and judge their "support" from it.
 
Yep and their fathers supported Nixon, what does that have to do with the price of bread now ?
How far back do we go ?
this article illustrates the CURRENT trend of Republicans abandoning their party. Most likely cause is Bush.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep and their fathers supported Nixon, what does that have to do with the price of bread now ?
How far back do we go ?
this article illustrates the CURRENT trend of Republicans abandoning their party. Most likely cause is Bush.
Click to expand...
What it would indicate is whether they were Rs or if they had supported many different people of different parties. Instead they simply state that anybody who supported Bush has "defected" if they choose a different direction at this time.

It is ridiculous to attempt to support a pattern of behavior by one incident.
 
Umm there were at least two high profile incidents in that link....
A "bush Ranger" is not an insignificant deflection.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm there were at least two high profile incidents in that link....
A "bush Ranger" is not an insignificant deflection.
Click to expand...
It siginifies support of Bush, not of consistent support of Rs. My point is that one incident still does not signify a pattern. Without more data, the significance of the "defection" is not apparent.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm you might want to read the 3rd party thread/link Damo.
Click to expand...
I did. That doesn't prove that these people in the story "defected" at all. You are ignoring the small time window, probably purposely, that is supposed to define the people in the article.

If a person often supports the person over party they can often shift from one "party" to another while still remaining true to form. However, we cannot determine if they are remaining true to what they usually have done or have "defected" from this story. There is not enough information to determine a pattern here.

One guy gave money to Bush but now supports somebody else. Well, duh, he can't support Bush this time. However we don't know if he gave to Rs for the past 50 years or if he "defected" to Bush and now goes back to his regular pattern. Instead, in an attempt to convince everybody that they have "defected" they give us only that limited information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top