• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"[The Republican Party is the party] that has taken Neandrathal positions"...

LOL...he has a good point. THe party has deviated from it's roots and is now an extremist, invasive, and anti-Constitution party.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a57JFM1OfYvY&refer=home

Obama Wins Over Chicago Fed's Canning, a Top Bush Fundraiser

By Jay Newton-Small

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- John Canning has impeccable Republican credentials: He was a Pioneer, one of President George W. Bush's top fundraisers. He's the head of a leveraged- buyout firm. He's the deputy board chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Now he has given the maximum campaign contribution, $4,600, to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Canning says he's fed up with the Republican Party. ``It's become a party that's taken Neanderthal positions on things like stem-cell research and global warming,'' Canning, who was appointed to the Fed post in 2004, said in an interview. ``I no longer find myself on the same page.''

To Canning, 62, the party once represented individual rights. Then in 2005, the Republican-led Congress intervened in an effort to keep Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, alive against her husband's wishes. The move was symbolic of Republican positions on social issues that Canning says he found increasingly frustrating.

Canning is one of a number of prominent Republicans who have turned against the party. At least two other Bush Pioneers are contributing to Obama this time, and Bush's chief 2004 campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, assailed the president's second-term performance in an April 1 New York Times interview.

Canning said he likes Obama's approach to reducing greenhouse gases, his opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that he's spent so little time in Washington.

`Strongest Candidate'

``You know when they say someone's experienced, if that means they've spent a long time in Washington, I don't know if that's a pretty good deal,'' he said. ``He's the strongest candidate in the entire field from both parties.''

``I've probably veered away from the conservative, Republican agenda significantly,'' said Canning, chairman of Chicago-based Madison Dearborn Partners LLC, one of the 20 biggest U.S. private-equity firms.

Because of his role at the Chicago Fed, Canning said he can't raise money for Obama, 45. ``He has my emotional support,'' he said.

Before co-founding Madison Dearborn in 1992, Canning spent 24 years at First Chicago Corp. and was executive vice president of First National Bank of Chicago, according to a biography on his firm's Web site. Madison Dearborn is named after two streets that intersect near the firm's headquarters.

Canning also contributed to Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. ``I gave, I think, $1,000 to Mitt Romney as a favor to a friend,'' he said. ``I don't have anything to do with him.''

Other Bush Pioneers

One Bush Pioneer who contributed to Obama, Framingham, Massachusetts-based Staples Inc. founder Thomas Stemberg, also gave to Romney, a former governor of the state. He didn't return phone calls seeking comment. Another, Chicago publicist Jayne Carr Thompson, declined to discuss her contribution to Obama except to say, ``He is a great representative of Illinois.''

To qualify as a Bush Pioneer, fundraisers had to bring in at least $100,000 in donations for the 2004 election. Pioneer Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive officer of New York-based Verizon Communications Inc., contributed this time around to New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Senator John McCain.

Obama also is attracting support from Republicans who aren't prominent in business. It's hard to go to one of his events and not meet at least one Republican, either curious about the senator or already converted.

Volunteer

Until two weeks ago, Kristen Martin was a lifelong registered Republican. On April 15, she wore a blue ``Obama Volunteer'' T-shirt while working a $25-a-person fund-raising crowd in Tampa, Florida.

``One of the reasons I support him is his stance on the war in Iraq,'' said Martin, 31, a registered nurse. ``It's just kills me the way we're viewed overseas.''

David Warden, 50, spent 30 years in the Navy, retiring with the rank of master chief. At an Obama low-dollar fundraiser in Milwaukee on April 15, he blushed and said he was a lifelong Republican.

``I like his perspective, his fresh ideas,'' said Warden, who gave $25 and said he's not considering any other candidates. ``This is the first Democrat I've ever supported, let alone gave money to.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Jay Newton-Small in Washington at jnewtonsmall@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: April 25, 2007 00:09 EDT
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
At this point I think America is Dammed no matter what party takes over.

Why does a party have to take over? Why can't we elect people based on ideas rather than party lines? People who vote for Democrats and Republicans (and morons like Dave) are more focused on their team winning than actually doing anything positive and that's why we're in this mess. The only sane vote is for a 3rd party. Any 3rd party, it doesn't matter, we just have to get rid of the entrenched career politicians.
 
I find it amusing he goes from being a republican to supporting a big govt liberal. Oh wait he is a govt employee, gee wonder why his views changed? 😀

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing he goes from being a republican to supporting a big govt liberal. Oh wait he is a govt employee, gee wonder why his views changed? 😀
Uh, you do realize he certainly makes most of his money as head of the leverage buyout firm and presumably took the other position due to a desire to serve the public?

He simply realized that the current Republican Party is about forcing what some view as Christian values upon other Americans, and certainly isn't about individual rights anymore.

Its not like he's receiving a salary directly from the government , and even calling him a government employee at all is really quite iffy.
 
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing he goes from being a republican to supporting a big govt liberal. Oh wait he is a govt employee, gee wonder why his views changed? 😀
Uh, you do realize he certainly makes most of his money as head of the leverage buyout firm and presumably took the other position due to a desire to serve the public?

He simply realized that the current Republican Party is about forcing what some view as Christian values upon other Americans, and certainly isn't about individual rights anymore.

Its not like he's receiving a salary directly from the government , and even calling him a government employee at all is really quite iffy.

Heh so he goes to a big govt liberal? That sounds pretty amusing if individual rights are his concern.


 
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing he goes from being a republican to supporting a big govt liberal. Oh wait he is a govt employee, gee wonder why his views changed? 😀
Uh, you do realize he certainly makes most of his money as head of the leverage buyout firm and presumably took the other position due to a desire to serve the public?

He simply realized that the current Republican Party is about forcing what some view as Christian values upon other Americans, and certainly isn't about individual rights anymore.

Its not like he's receiving a salary directly from the government , and even calling him a government employee at all is really quite iffy.


The Fed is a quasi-government entity, as Aegeon alludes to, and hasn't really expanded like anything else. Utilizing a "big government" =liberal line is complete crap and avoids reality, which I would expect from cavemen.

The reality is is that current "republicans" are regressing. They have tossed aside all values that were held dear to people like me. Small government, state rights, small taxation, fiscally conservative, pro-constitution, privacy, and no nanny state. In fact, the current crop of "republicans" (notice the quotes) are more liberal than the liberals you attack.

Realize how the shift in polarities in the last three decades. Realize that since Reagan the Republicans have outspent democrats. Realize that we now have almost 9 trillion in debt, a 50% increase from when Clinton left office. We have a bigger, more inefficient, and more burdensome government than ever before.

Get a clue.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: piasabird
At this point I think America is Dammed no matter what party takes over.

Why does a party have to take over? Why can't we elect people based on ideas rather than party lines? People who vote for Democrats and Republicans (and morons like Dave) are more focused on their team winning than actually doing anything positive and that's why we're in this mess.

The only sane vote is for a 3rd party. Any 3rd party, it doesn't matter, we just have to get rid of the entrenched career politicians.

You're implying I am a Democrats or nothing. I never said that.

I've ragged on many Dems in here as well.

It's just that Republicans have been in absolute control since 2001 and have done all the damage to the U.S. since.

Quite frankly Republican "ideas" for America is not the kind of ideas any American should be behind.

The list of things they think is a good idea that destroys the core of this Country is too long even to list.

Your heros version of energy costs, health care, war, the economy et all are simply so horrible the rust is showing through what was once a shiny giant SUV that your heros are still peddling.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing he goes from being a republican to supporting a big govt liberal. Oh wait he is a govt employee, gee wonder why his views changed? 😀

Who is a Govt employee?
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: piasabird
At this point I think America is Dammed no matter what party takes over.

Why does a party have to take over? Why can't we elect people based on ideas rather than party lines? People who vote for Democrats and Republicans (and morons like Dave) are more focused on their team winning than actually doing anything positive and that's why we're in this mess. The only sane vote is for a 3rd party. Any 3rd party, it doesn't matter, we just have to get rid of the entrenched career politicians.

too many are voting out of spite instead of belief.

There are diehards on both sides who could never vote for the other no matter what.

worse, they won't even consider alternative parties hence we are stuck with Democrat and Republican domination, or is that damnation
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: piasabird
At this point I think America is Dammed no matter what party takes over.

Why does a party have to take over? Why can't we elect people based on ideas rather than party lines? People who vote for Democrats and Republicans (and morons like Dave) are more focused on their team winning than actually doing anything positive and that's why we're in this mess. The only sane vote is for a 3rd party. Any 3rd party, it doesn't matter, we just have to get rid of the entrenched career politicians.

If you really want something like that it seems to me that you will have to figure out a way to get the American people to focus on two things.

First off something has to be done about 'winner take all' voting, such as a ballot that allows you to vote no on all the above, and an ordering of your preference, such that you can vote for a third party as your first choice but your vote would go to your second choice if that person failed to win.

Secondly, congressional district boundary definitions must be taken out of the hands of state legislatures and done by computer and independent persons to make districts, rather that totally safe, actually competitive.

Neither of these things will ever happen via the political parties because they are contrary to their entrenched interests. Therefore, you will have to find a way to force them to vote this way. That will require an education effort to alert the American voter that only by changing these two things will we ever get people in office that will vote in our interests rather than theirs. You will need, therefore, to make these two things and doubtless other election reforms the only topic ever discussed by talking heads. You will have to find a way to put these issues on the front burner and hold politicians feet to the fire. We will have to assure them that if they do not change the law in this direction they will be voted out. Good luck.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: piasabird
At this point I think America is Dammed no matter what party takes over.

Why does a party have to take over? Why can't we elect people based on ideas rather than party lines? People who vote for Democrats and Republicans (and morons like Dave) are more focused on their team winning than actually doing anything positive and that's why we're in this mess. The only sane vote is for a 3rd party. Any 3rd party, it doesn't matter, we just have to get rid of the entrenched career politicians.

Because it's about which groups of people should have more power and wealth - do you want 'avergage Americans' to or do you like a high concentration of power and wealth?

Republicans are for the few and democrats are for the many. While for some it's about 'your team' winning and that's a mistake, there are good reasons to choose democrats.

I'd switch sides immediately if the parties changed so that republicans were the party for as many doing well as possible. That's not going to happen, though, nearly certainly.

Third parties are nothing but a waste of a vote until one of two things:

- Reform to some sort of ranked voting system where you can vote for a third party candidate but still have your vote count for one of the two main parties if the third party candidate doesn't win. For example, you might say your first choice is a libertarian and your second choice a democrat, and if the election came down to the republican and democrat, your vote would still count.

- The democratic party is taken over by the same small, powerful groups who own the republicans, so that you really 'don't have a choice'.

In that case, things are very bad and the American people will have to fight for radical changes to fix them, an uphill battle to get a third party challenging the big two.

Ask Ross Perot how easy that is.

That's why it's important now that voters choose the democrats who are not owned by the very wealthy/corporate interests, and take back the government.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234

That's why it's important now that voters choose the democrats who are not owned by the very wealthy/corporate interests, and take back the government.

Good luck with that.

If that was truly the case I would be the front runner and a shoe in for a landslide.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: piasabird
At this point I think America is Dammed no matter what party takes over.

Why does a party have to take over? Why can't we elect people based on ideas rather than party lines? People who vote for Democrats and Republicans (and morons like Dave) are more focused on their team winning than actually doing anything positive and that's why we're in this mess. The only sane vote is for a 3rd party. Any 3rd party, it doesn't matter, we just have to get rid of the entrenched career politicians.

If you really want something like that it seems to me that you will have to figure out a way to get the American people to focus on two things.

First off something has to be done about 'winner take all' voting, such as a ballot that allows you to vote no on all the above, and an ordering of your preference, such that you can vote for a third party as your first choice but your vote would go to your second choice if that person failed to win.
I would love to see instant run off voting or something similar. The idea of a wasted vote is disgusting. No vote in this nation should be considered wasted, they're all valuable.

Edit: To clarify, I do believe that all votes are valuable, even votes for Democrats and Republicans as long as those votes are based on the voters true values and beliefs. When those votes are cast as a lesser of two evils or simply due to apathy, those votes are actually harmful. Under the current winner take all system, I believe millions of voters fall into the second category. Not until we have a decent voting system will we actually know how many people truly agree with the Ds and Rs.

Secondly, congressional district boundary definitions must be taken out of the hands of state legislatures and done by computer and independent persons to make districts, rather that totally safe, actually competitive.
Is there really ANY fair districting? Someone will always get shafted and consider their vote to not count. Perhaps the proportional systems that some countries use is a better answer? Everyone votes, the votes are tallied, and seats are given to parties based on percentages. And that's only if we have political parties. Personally I'd like to see political parties removed from the ballot. If a voter can't be asked to learn who they're voting for on anything other than the letter behind their name, do we really want them voting? Straight party tickets are a cop out.

Neither of these things will ever happen via the political parties because they are contrary to their entrenched interests. Therefore, you will have to find a way to force them to vote this way. That will require an education effort to alert the American voter that only by changing these two things will we ever get people in office that will vote in our interests rather than theirs. You will need, therefore, to make these two things and doubtless other election reforms the only topic ever discussed by talking heads. You will have to find a way to put these issues on the front burner and hold politicians feet to the fire. We will have to assure them that if they do not change the law in this direction they will be voted out. Good luck.
Sadly you're 100% correct.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Craig234

That's why it's important now that voters choose the democrats who are not owned by the very wealthy/corporate interests, and take back the government.

Good luck with that.

If that was truly the case I would be the front runner and a shoe in for a landslide.
The only thing you're in the running for Dave is Biggest Lying Sack of Dung.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Craig234

That's why it's important now that voters choose the democrats who are not owned by the very wealthy/corporate interests, and take back the government.

Good luck with that.

If that was truly the case I would be the front runner and a shoe in for a landslide.
The only thing you're in the running for Dave is Biggest Lying Sack of Dung.

Well Dung is a very valuable bio fuel these days, thanks :thumbsup:

Show proof of this lying you speak of.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing he goes from being a republican to supporting a big govt liberal. Oh wait he is a govt employee, gee wonder why his views changed? 😀
Uh, you do realize he certainly makes most of his money as head of the leverage buyout firm and presumably took the other position due to a desire to serve the public?

He simply realized that the current Republican Party is about forcing what some view as Christian values upon other Americans, and certainly isn't about individual rights anymore.

Its not like he's receiving a salary directly from the government , and even calling him a government employee at all is really quite iffy.

Heh so he goes to a big govt liberal? That sounds pretty amusing if individual rights are his concern.

Well if it's between candidates who are for big government and more social against candidates that are for even bigger government and less social freedom, I'll take the former. Don't try to pass of that BS that Republicans aren't for big government. You know that isn't the truth. Just because they are pro-tax cuts doesn't mean they aren't for big government.

At least the Democrats are trying for some fiscal responsibility.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Craig234

That's why it's important now that voters choose the democrats who are not owned by the very wealthy/corporate interests, and take back the government.

Good luck with that.

If that was truly the case I would be the front runner and a shoe in for a landslide.
The only thing you're in the running for Dave is Biggest Lying Sack of Dung.

Well Dung is a very valuable bio fuel these days, thanks :thumbsup:

Show proof of this lying you speak of.

You called me a Bushista but have still failed to show me "parrot[ing] the GOP" as you put it. Put up or shut up.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh so he goes to a big govt liberal? That sounds pretty amusing if individual rights are his concern.

You are such a partisan tool. The Repugs led the biggest expansion of government ever. Wake up and smell your own elephant dung.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing he goes from being a republican to supporting a big govt liberal. Oh wait he is a govt employee, gee wonder why his views changed? 😀
......

Heh so he goes to a big govt liberal? That sounds pretty amusing if individual rights are his concern.

Seems to me that if he was formerly a Bush supporter then he goes from supporting a big government pseudo (as in FAKE) conservative to Obama who you label as a big government liberal.

If your concern is about big government why would you be defending Mr. Bush and friends?
 



[/quote]

Well if it's between candidates who are for big government and more social against candidates that are for even bigger government and less social freedom, I'll take the former. Don't try to pass of that BS that Republicans aren't for big government. You know that isn't the truth. Just because they are pro-tax cuts doesn't mean they aren't for big government.

At least the Democrats are trying for some fiscal responsibility.[/quote]



Republicaners are the biggest liars and spenders of our money.
 
Back
Top