Capital Times (Wisconsin) 2/18/08 - why Republicans should vote for Obama

[RiverStone]

This editorial gives a good indication of how many rethugs are feeling about their party's choices.

Arizona Sen. John McCain is going to be the party's nominee. That's good for Republicans, because for all his flaws, the Arizona senator is the most appealing prospect their party has to offer this year.

Unfortunately, that's not saying much.

What once distinguished McCain from the other leading Republicans was his remarkable personal story of public service, his tendency toward tolerance and bipartisan solutions-oriented approaches to policy debates, his record as a maverick, his accessibility and his wry sense of humor.

Unfortunately, McCain was so shaken by his defeat by a far less accomplished candidate — George W. Bush — in the race for the 2000 Republican nod that he decided to run in 2008 as a harsher version of himself. Anyone who watched McCain's victory speech in Virginia last Tuesday came away with the impression that the senator who once seemed so appealing is now running as the angry old "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn" candidate.

McCain has always been a hawk, but now he's a hawk on steroids, ranting about the 100-year war he imagines us fighting in the Mideast. His foreign policy positions make McCain an unacceptable primary choice for Wisconsin Republicans, who polling and referendum results suggest join Democrats in wanting an end to the war in Iraq and no war with Iran.

Mike Huckabee, McCain's last serious challenger, is better on foreign policy and some economic issues. But the evolution-denying Arkansan is the most anti-scientific candidate to seriously compete for the presidency in the history of a nation founded by men of the enlightenment. And his disregard for the Constitution is alarming.

What's a responsible Republican to do? Susan Eisenhower and former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee, members of great Republican families, have recently announced their intentions to vote in Democratic primaries for Barack Obama, whose politics of reconciliation, responsibility and renewal is closer in spirit than anything offered by McCain or Huckabee to the best of what the Grand Old Party has stood for since its founding in Ripon.

Wisconsin Republicans should follow Eisenhower and Chafee's lead, take Democratic ballots and vote for Obama.

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/273021

As usual, some here will complain that ANY appeal to a rethug means Obama is not 100% pure Dem. On the contrary, his appeal across the aisle, across socio-economic groups, across international boarders, and across all creeds suggests that what we need - as a country - is a candidate who will unite, who will not polarize us further, and who inspires change that anyone can believe in.

As much as I am repulsed by the sheeple who have followed Shrub off the cliff, I will also not begrudge any of them who have come to their senses. Obama will help heal the divides in our country; and that is not empty words - its REAL.

[JimGinPA]

1. Demonizing All Repubs Instead Trying To Bring Them Over...

Is plain STUPID! Dean got it 4 years ago, Obama has always believed it. Let's try and build a working majority.

[Rageneau]

2. Trusting all Repubs without being smart about it...

I do not want to get into bed with these fascists. And if Obama does, he will become part of the problem, not the solution.

Democrats need to learn that we must deal with Republicans the same way they will ALWAYS deal with us, from behind shotguns or the controls of bulldozers.

Republicans CANNOT be appeased. They must be CONQUORED!

Yeah, when I was young, I believed different, but now I KNOW a few things.

[RiverStone]

4. The good news is...

With an Obama victory this November, we Democrats will control The House, The Senate, and the Executive Branch.

Unlike the do-nothing Congress, un-like all the inexplicable placating to Shrub, un-like having to give a flying fuck what Lieberman does...

Obama will take with him on his coat tails a massive Democratic voting block who will sweep in majorities for our party that could last for years. Hillary is way to polarizing to do anything close.

I would never say never - but it's damn hard for me to trust any puke; but with the DEMS in real power - they will have to listen to us for change. Trust pukes or not, we will be in the drivers seat!!!

[tyne]

6. Why would

you think that just because repubs vote for Obama, that would make him change his policies?

He's not getting into bed with them...they're getting into bed with him.

Big difference.

[RiverStone]

12. Well said tyne!

We Dems will control the House, Senate, and Presidency. And by much bigger margins if Obama is our nominee!

We will control the message - not the pukes.


FINALLY!!! :applause:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. Rageneau you echo my feelings

[Straight Shooter]

3. Looks like the Repubs are using the Solomon "split the baby" approach to democracy.

Even the nicest Repubs I know are willing to admit that the GOP as an institution will infiltrate and destroy from the inside, if they can't do it from the outside. Gain trust, then betray.

[Andy823]

5. I hope your are right

I was once one of those who used the fact republicans were voting for him against him. I heard republicans saying that they were voting for him because he was the one they could beat. I don't buy that anymore. I now believe the republicans were saying this kind of stuff, about him being the easiest to beat, in order to push dems to vote for Hillary. I have talked with repbulcians that I believe to be honest who are looking hard at Obama, and some have already decided they would vote for him over McCain. My father is an ex-military man who, for the first time, did not vote at all in the primaries. He always votes republican. What he said was that he could "NOT" bring himself to vote for "any" of the republicans. He is fed up with all the crap that has been going on since Bush took office. At first he defended Bush, but in the last year that has changed. He actually told me a few weeks ago, before Florida, that "maybe" Obama wouldn't be to bad! That was a real shock to me.

I have also seen many other republicans who accept that McCain will be the nominee on their side, who have now come out and said they would be voting for Obama over McCain. Others will not go as far as to vote for a dem, but have said they have no intention of voting, and will stay home, "UNLESS" Hillary wins the nomination, then they said it didn't much matter how much they disliked McCain, they would vote "against" Hillary.

Now before the Hillary camp tries to paint me as a Obama supporter, I would like to point out that I was for Edwards from first day he announced he would run. I have not been supporting any of the two candidates so far, and still would like to hear more from Obama on the issues, though he has been doing much better the last few weeks talking about things that Edwards brought to the front, and I do like that. To be fair Hillary has addeed a lot of Edwards stuff also, but I just can't seem to jump on the Clinton bandwagon. I strongly disagree with NAFTA, outsourcing, and have a bad feeling about more jobs being outsourced if Hillary ever did become president, and more of those "free trade" agreements being pushed that really do "not" benefit anyone but corporate america.

[RiverStone]

9. If your dad can change...

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Andy. Cool that your dad took time to really think this one out!

I have always had a knee jerk reaction that any rethugs intention was a bad one. My disdain for their party was so strong - that I NEVER could concede anything good about them.

But living in a red county in E. Washington state (Go Hawks!) - I have met many semi-reasonable pukes who have indicated for the first time ever, they were thinking of voting for a Democrat in Obama.

Even the religious wacko's, see Obama as speaking not as a hypocrite, not as a man that wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years --- but as a man who will make this country a better and safer place for their children and grandchildren. It has been an amazing transformation and even on the streets of my small town - it is building unity. :hi:

[Renew Deal]

10. You stole that from Rocky

"If I can change..."

[RiverStone]

13. Yikes - Stallone endorsed McCain

Idiot!

But I must confess - I did think the original Rocky flick was a good one! The only good one in the Rocky series.

His trainer - Mick - was a Democrat!!!

[Andy823]

16. We do need to unite

And that means we have to try and convince the republicans to work together to make that happen. Like you, I sometimes have a hard time with republican thinking, but things can change, for the better. I remember times when the two parties could work together, and there wasn't all the "hate" for each other. Over the years things have gotten worse, and since Bush, well I don't need to tell anyone here how that guy divided this country! The neocons that run things now don't want to work together. There are still some in congress that will cross the lines for the good of the people, but not many. Sadly that includes both sides of the isle. I really want to believe that Obama can unite this country, but it's hard after so many years of Bush and his "hate" politics! I think what we need in congress is new blood, those who will work for the people, and not the corporations that bankroll the elections! The goes for both parties. I do think many republicans are getting tired of the same crap we are tired of, it just takes them longer to admit it! :eyes:

It's a small world, I too live in a red county in NC Washignton, Okanogan county! :hi:

[ORDem]

11. Agreed. Well said. n/t

:kick:

[Renew Deal]

8. That's actually a nice endorsement.

:bounce:

[grantcart]

14. "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn" candidate

Priceless lol

[rodeodance]

15. Hillary CLEARLY best to lead nation: *** Madison Cap Times8**

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Hillary CLEARLY best to lead nation: by Steve Schlesinger 2/17
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4637954#4637954
4637954, Hillary CLEARLY best to lead nation: by Steve Schlesinger 2/17
Posted by LulaMay on Sun Feb-17-08 11:27 PM

Stephen Schlesinger: Hillary Clinton clearly is best to lead nation

Stephen Schlesinger — 2/17/2008 1:01 pm

In the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, Wisconsin voters are blessed with two candidates who are smart, energetic and forward-looking. Nonetheless, the state's residents have to decide who will be the most qualified starting on the first day in the Oval Office. My choice is Hillary Clinton.

I have had the good fortune to observe Clinton's career while living in New York. Up close, she is an unusually tough and savvy as well as charming political figure. While not as visible as Mayor Rudy Giuliani on 9/11, she showed great mastery in the difficult days after the attacks in helping to bring about the physical and emotional recovery of New York City and gaining federal assistance for ground zero workers exposed to toxic air.

As important, in her eight years in the Senate, she has compiled a strong liberal voting record in the tradition of Wisconsin's great Sens. Bob La Follette and Gaylord Nelson. While she has known defeats (e.g., health care in 1994), she has turned her reversals into legislative prowess on Capitol Hill.

Her work on the Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to pre-emptive war, as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech. Today she is trying to prevent the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq by requiring prior congressional approval for any such outposts.

Of extraordinary importance, she has taken the lead on the most important economic crisis to face our country in decades. She was among the first of the Democratic contenders to propose a bold economic recovery program designed to rescue the nation from recession. Over a month ago, Clinton advocated for $70 billion in emergency spending and a backup of a $40 billion tax rebate should economic conditions worsen. Hers is a direct attempt to help the most threatened people in America -- namely, lower-income families facing foreclosures of their mortgages, those in need of home heating aid, and people who require extended jobless benefits.

Her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, belatedly came out with his own plan, which seemingly lifts most of his ideas straight out of Clinton's proposal.

On a more specific level, Clinton's recommendations on helping Americans caught in the subprime mortgage mess are far-reaching. She has called for a moratorium on foreclosures, a freezing of interest rates, the use of federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and augmented regulation of the financial industry.

Obama has come up with an alternative plan, which, by contrast, does none of these things but tinkers around the edges. He backs a bill against mortgage fraud, supports an average $500 tax credit for homeowners, and endorses additional funding for a limited class of homeowners. His is a tepid response to an enormous tragedy.

In many ways, Clinton is to the left of Obama. She has outlined a program of universal health insurance -- meaning that every person in America would be covered. By contrast, his plan is more restrictive and would leave millions of people uncovered.

Lastly, Clinton is a fighter for change. Obama, on the other hand, is a self-described conciliator. What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a mediator. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the contest directly to the opposition. Come the fall showdown, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" is going to be Swift-boated into oblivion.


OP for The Capital Times, "your progressive news souce", Madison, WI- Here's the link

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/272859

[RiverStone]

17. Problem is --- she will never get the votes

Obama will bring out such a HUGE groundswell of support that we will have much higher majorities in the House and Senate.

Hillary's polarizing quality would do far less.

Eventually rodeodance, all the rooting in the world that you do for Hillary won't change a simple but obvious fact:

Obama has the capacity to bring out a much larger and diverse vote for him (and our party) than Hillary.

Guess it's like arguing religion eh? :hi:

[Thrill]

18. Interesting article

[UALRBSofL]

19. Hillary is the one getting the republican vote

She's the one bringing everyone together. However, thanks for the thread, but, I don't think it's accurate.

[cooolandrew]

20. And this is the most important part a genuine United States.