Republicans for Obama

[Dari]

Someone told me about this website: http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage.

Looks interesting. It probably explains why Obama has just dominated the entire western United States as far as the Democratic primaries go. Apparently there are a lot of paleoconservatives there. Having the support of paleoconservatives can't be a bad thing, right? The website was started by a former soldier.

 

[Brutus04]

Does look interesting...
thanks!

 

[senseamp]

If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.

The only one damaging the Democratic party is Hillary.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.

Yep, if I was a republican I'd probably vote for him to, knowing that he will most likely fail to carry key swing states and end up losing the election by a hair just like Gore did.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.

Yep, if I was a republican I'd probably vote for him to, knowing that he will most likely fail to carry key swing states and end up losing the election by a hair just like Gore did.

And I'm guessing Hillary will win by a landslide because of her 60 years of experience?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.

Yep, if I was a republican I'd probably vote for him to, knowing that he will most likely fail to carry key swing states and end up losing the election by a hair just like Gore did.

That would be the best case scenario for the Democrats if Obama is the nominee. If he actually wins, he has potential to be their equivalent George W. Bush.

 

[techs]

Whoever wins the Presidency, they are in for a tough time.
George "Deficits Don't Matter" Bush ensured that.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: techs
Whoever wins the Presidency, they are in for a tough time.
George "Deficits Don't Matter" Bush ensured that.

That's very true.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.

Yes, because he has the audacity to try to win the nomination while Hillary is running. How dare him.

 

[nageov3t]

this republican looks forward to voting for McCain.

I'm not a paleoconservative by any stretch of the imagination, but it makes me scratch my head wondering how they could support a big government liberal who's bent over backwards pandering to the unions and has never actually stood up to his own party, especially when he's going to have control over the house and senate too.

2 terms of single-party rule was enough for me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs
Whoever wins the Presidency, they are in for a tough time.
George "Deficits Don't Matter" Bush ensured that.

Yup. Question is, will they have the same policy?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.

Yep, if I was a republican I'd probably vote for him to, knowing that he will most likely fail to carry key swing states and end up losing the election by a hair just like Gore did.

If I were a Republican, i'd be doing everything in my power to get Hillary the nomination... why do you think the rightwing talk radiosphere is encouraging people to vote for Hildabeast? Because she has no chance of winning the general election :laugh:

 

[Phokus]

BTW, the difference between Republicans for Obama and Republicans for Hildabeast:

The Republicans that are voting for Obama are inspired by him and genuinely like him as a politician and look past the "D" and "R" designations.

The Republicans voting for Hildabeast are doing so because they are party hacks who are smart enough to know that Hildabeast will never get elected and will destroy the Democratic party.

Have fun with that, Hildabeast voters!

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Phokus

If I were a Republican, i'd be doing everything in my power to get Hillary the nomination... why do you think the rightwing talk radiosphere is encouraging people to vote for Hildabeast? Because she has no chance of winning the general election :laugh:

Odd, because she's winning all the key swing states that will be required to carry if you want to win a general election. I don't give a fart what Rush Limbaugh thinks. And I don't peg your intelligence as being much more than a 5th grader, since that's where your maturity level seems to be with the constant name-calling.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Phokus
BTW, the difference between Republicans for Obama and Republicans for Hildabeast:

The Republicans that are voting for Obama are inspired by him and genuinely like him as a politician and look past the "D" and "R" designations.

The Republicans voting for Hildabeast are doing so because they are party hacks who are smart enough to know that Hildabeast will never get elected and will destroy the Democratic party.

Have fun with that, Hildabeast voters!

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Phokus
BTW, the difference between Republicans for Obama and Republicans for Hillary:

The Republicans that are voting for Obama buy into his meaningless rhetoric because they're mindless drones who can't think for themselves.

The Republicans voting for Hillary know that McCain would make a better president than either of these partisan hacks.

fixed.

baseless generalizations are fun, amirite?

 

[Rio Rebel]

The fact that Hillary is beating Obama in "swing states" means absolutely nothing to the general election. She's not running against Obama in the general election. It is just as reasonable to assume that Obama will actually do better in these states as it is to assume that Hillary will carry these states in the general election against McCain.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481
this republican looks forward to voting for McCain.

I'm not a paleoconservative by any stretch of the imagination, but it makes me scratch my head wondering how they could support a big government liberal who's bent over backwards pandering to the unions and has never actually stood up to his own party, especially when he's going to have control over the house and senate too.

2 terms of single-party rule was enough for me.

The flaw in your logic is in the last sentence, lumping all single-party rule into one group as if it's all equally good or bad. There's a big difference between GWB and FDR.

Frankly, we need some one-party rule by the right democrats now to undo the damage of six years of one-party rule under GWB. The results won't be the same for the two.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
this republican looks forward to voting for McCain.

I'm not a paleoconservative by any stretch of the imagination, but it makes me scratch my head wondering how they could support a big government liberal who's bent over backwards pandering to the unions and has never actually stood up to his own party, especially when he's going to have control over the house and senate too.

2 terms of single-party rule was enough for me.

The flaw in your logic is in the last sentence, lumping all single-party rule into one group as if it's all equally good or bad. There's a big difference between GWB and FDR.

Frankly, we need some one-party rule by the right democrats now to undo the damage of six years of one-party rule under GWB. The results won't be the same for the two.

maybe we're just coming from different schools of conservativism.

a perfect government to me is one that's completely locked down by fighting and does as little as possible.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: loki8481
this republican looks forward to voting for McCain.

I'm not a paleoconservative by any stretch of the imagination, but it makes me scratch my head wondering how they could support a big government liberal who's bent over backwards pandering to the unions and has never actually stood up to his own party, especially when he's going to have control over the house and senate too.

2 terms of single-party rule was enough for me.

While I'm not entirely sure what sort of conservative you consider yourself, but I never got the impression you are the GWB variety of Republican. And how much of an improvement, really, is McCain? He might not pander to unions, but he panders like hell to the religious right, despite the fact that his personal beliefs clearly oppose the religious direction his party is taking. He DID stand up to his party, I'll admit, but only until he decided he wanted to be President, and then suddenly his (very admirable) stances on religion and torture and a lot of more traditional conservative positions went right out the window. He didn't change his mind, he just knows he needs the votes of Bible thumping, '24' watching new-age conservatives to win.

Obama might not be a good candidate on the issues for some conservatives, but McCain seems like a poor choice to "look forward to". Instead, he seems more like the kind of guy the Republicans were left with when they couldn't find anyone who wasn't a terrible candidate, sort of like how Democrats ended up with Kerry in 2004. At a certain point, it can't be about the issues as much as it's about the kind of man or woman you want in the Oval Office.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
this republican looks forward to voting for McCain.

I'm not a paleoconservative by any stretch of the imagination, but it makes me scratch my head wondering how they could support a big government liberal who's bent over backwards pandering to the unions and has never actually stood up to his own party, especially when he's going to have control over the house and senate too.

2 terms of single-party rule was enough for me.

The flaw in your logic is in the last sentence, lumping all single-party rule into one group as if it's all equally good or bad. There's a big difference between GWB and FDR.

Frankly, we need some one-party rule by the right democrats now to undo the damage of six years of one-party rule under GWB. The results won't be the same for the two.

maybe we're just coming from different schools of conservativism.

a perfect government to me is one that's completely locked down by fighting and does as little as possible.

How about a government that is competent and caters to the long-term needs of the nation? That is the perfect government for me.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: loki8481
this republican looks forward to voting for McCain.

If you want to vote Democrat, why not at least vote for a guy who isn't afraid to put the (D) beside his name? :laugh:

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
The fact that Hillary is beating Obama in "swing states" means absolutely nothing to the general election. She's not running against Obama in the general election. It is just as reasonable to assume that Obama will actually do better in these states as it is to assume that Hillary will carry these states in the general election against McCain.

Obama has trouble with blue-collar working-class whites. This is a BIG BIG problem, because these people will flock to McCain in droves, and Obama can say bye-bye to states like OH, PENN, MI, maybe NJ Add to that the fact the his chances in FL are pretty much nil, and he's got major problems with electoral college math.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: loki8481
this republican looks forward to voting for McCain.

If you want to vote Democrat, why not at least vote for a guy who isn't afraid to put the (D) beside his name? :laugh:

how is it possible to have two posts in the same thread with one saying he's too much of a republican and another saying he's too much of a democrat? lol.

no one gets to washington unless they're in it for themselves... I'd much rather checks and balances be upheld then let single parties run roughshod over DC, and there's no scenario that I can see in which the democrats are not going to keep or increase their majorities in congress.