Republicans defect to the Obama camp

[spindrifter]

May 6, 2007

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.

<more>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece

[medeak]

1. gee...maybe Matt is related to Maureen.. n/t

[AlCzervik]

2. good news but in the words of their hero "Trust but verify".

[Truthiness Inspector]

31. I'd have to agree with that

A few anecdotes may be encouraging, but they may be just that: anecdotes. Most people don't have such extreme swings, it would seem more likely for people to migrate left/right within their own party rather than go all the way in one fell swoop.

Hopefully we will be disproven, though!

[tblue]

3. The Commander Guy has done more for the Democratic party than anybody. I heard Pete McCloskey also

just changed his affiliation from Republic to Dem.

[illinoisprogressive]

21. you are sooooooooo right. Bush is a dems best friend! lol

[Jack Rabbit]

4. This is encouraging

First of all, I'm encouraged about Republicans realizing that Bush's divisive political tactics were wrong for the country.

Second, it makes me feel better about Obama that they are willing to cross over and trust him.

[zulchzulu]

5. I talked to three Republicans today at our Obama table in Madison...

They are moderate Republicans...all who voted for Bush twice...and now are embarrassed to even be called Republicans.

While there are some issues concerning how to get out of the war, they all unanimously thought that Obama would be a great leader and one that this country needs to heal from the wounds that Bush has created.

Oddly, they all agreed that they would vote for whoever the Republican candidate was over voting for Senator Clinton if she was the nominee.

[elocs]

10. I have a Republican friend who would not vote for McCain unless

he was running against Senator Clinton. She does help to unite Republicans. (I, incredibly, am still undecided this late in the game.)

[Gman]

11. This is NOT late in the game

late in the game is November-December this year. I like Hillary, but I'll switch in a minute if Gore gets into it.

[elocs]

13. I know. "Late" was meant as a shot at those who somehow feel the need to choose now. n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

22. they all say that. They love Obama but, will vote repug over Clinton.

[jsamuel]

68. Did they say anything about Edwards?

[zulchzulu]

70. There is an Edwards table on the other end of the market

I've been polite with the student running the Edwards table but haven't talked much about his experiences...perhaps next week...

[jsamuel]

79. thanks for being polite :)

I know this stuff can get pretty stressful. Sometimes we get on each other's nerves, but if we just realize that most the people on both sides are fighting for the same causes, then I think we can work together after the primaries to get the Democrat, whoever that may be, elected.

[butterfly77]

6. I am suspicious...

[Gloria]

8. Me, tool. What is it about Obama that makes them think he's the one to

meet their Republican needs??? And what, exactly, are those needs?? Business? Or a good target for a Repug??

[butterfly77]

14. My thoughts exactly...

[TwilightGardener]

17. It has nothing to do with "meeting needs", as far as platform goes.

Obama comes across as cool and competent, he commands respect, he doesn't have to TRY to look like an Alpha Male--he comes by it naturally. In short, there is nothing about the man to laugh at or mock (like some of our prior candidates), and everything to respect and take seriously. It's a personality thing--he may not be a "daddy" to the Daddy Party, but he's like a hip, capable young uncle, I guess.

[illinoisprogressive]

23. they are sick and tired of the same shit we are.

[Imagevision]

45. If your fortunate enough to atten an Obama rally, the rest simly speaks for itself!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. Try this:

He's not Hillary.

[Pirate Smile]

16. An explanation, if you're interested, from earlier in his life:

Early on, Obama showed talent for bridging divisions

By Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage, Times Staff Writers
January 27, 2007

-snip-
"The Harvard Law Review was a place of petty and vicious internal politics," said Brad Berenson, an editorial board member with Obama and, more recently, an associate counsel to President Bush.
"Compared to Washington and the White House and the Supreme Court, the Harvard Law Review was much more politically vicious," Berenson said. "The conservatives threw their support to Obama because he could bridge the gap between both camps and retain the trust and confidence of both."

-snip-
The son of a racially mixed marriage, Obama did not present himself at Harvard as either a black candidate or a white candidate. He gained the respect of the law review's famously divided factions by listening to all sides.
Former staffer Michael Froman, now a corporate executive who has supported Democratic presidential candidates, agreed that when Obama led the law review in 1990 and 1991, much of the staff's right wing "felt comfortable" with Obama, even those in the conservative Federalist Society.

"It's funny," Froman said, "but it's the same thing I hear now from some conservative friends of mine — not that they agree with him on policy, but that they feel he hears them out. Unlike some of the firebrands on both the left and the right, he was just a very good listener."
Interviews with more than a dozen people associated with the law review, both liberals and conservatives, found no one who did not profess respect for Obama.

-snip-
Kenneth W. Mack, now a law professor at Harvard, said Obama stood out from the beginning. "He seemed more mature," Mack said. "Everyone understood he was a liberal. He didn't hide that.
"We had opinions, and we argued. But he was always able to make common ground," Mack said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama27jan27,1,1522614.story?page=1&ctrack=2&cset=true

[TwilightGardener]

7. I predict he will have the greatest crossover appeal of either party--

this is bearing out my theory quite nicely!

[nevergiveup]

9. I know 3 Republicans

who might vote for Edwards and for sure would vote for Obama because they are convinced he would restore our prestige in the world. They are sick of this war and scared that a Republican will declare war on Iran. One of them might be persuaded to vote for Hillary but the other two are a lost cause if she is the nominee.

[Cha]

67. That's what it's

all about, at this point.."PRESTIGE!", BABY!

[Wiley50]

12. That's it. No way I'm voting for Obama now n/t

[global1]

15. So Are You Saying That Because Repugs Will Support Obama That....

it is the kiss of death and Dems/liberals/progressives will not support him because of that?

[Connie_Corleone]

18. It's just an excuse to not vote for Obama.

I guess if Obama gets the nomination, they'll just vote third party and let a republican become president again.

[TwilightGardener]

19. Hmmm...no Republicans are allowed to vote for, or be attracted to, our candidate--

now that's a surefire way to win a general election--NOT!

[SayWhatYo]

41. I may be wrong, but I think that was sarcasm.

[Wiley50]

51. You're right. I forgot the sarcasm thingy n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

25. that's rather winger minded of you. Because he has crossover appeal

the whole point is to steal voters from the other side to get the overwhelming majority. Where do you think Reagan got all his? they were not all repubs. He stole all those dems.
So, now we steal them back!

[Zhade]

75. It was sarcasm.

NT!

[illinoisprogressive]

20. I just read about this on Obama's site on the blogs. so cool!

the name of the game is to get people to come over to your side and vote.

[Solly Mack]

24. You know, in all honesty, I've got absolutely no inclination,

whatsoever, to be "reconciled" or "united" with anyone that supported torture, illegal detentions,extraordinary rendition, illegal invasions, spying, and the other assorted illegal actions of the Bush administration.

I just don't.

[illinoisprogressive]

26. how small minded of you. Crossover is how you win. duh

[Solly Mack]

27. Yes, I can see how it is small-minded to not want to associate with

people who support torture

I should be tolerant of those who support human rights abuses.

I can see that now

LMAO

[TwilightGardener]

28. Then consign yourself forever to supporting "boutique" candidates

who are ideologically pure but can't win. I'm voting for the guy who can pull others across the aisle and make them see the light.

[Solly Mack]

29. Brainiac, exactly who said anything about voting or a candidate?

Read what I said...and try NOT to read anything extra into it.

I said nothing about voters or a candidate.Absol-fucking-lutely nothing about voters or candidates.

I said I - as in - my, myself and I - don't plan on being "united" with people who support torture.

Understand the difference?

I don't care who the torture supporters vote for - doesn't mean I have to be tolerant of torture supporters.

[TwilightGardener]

35. Not getting your point, then--the point of this thread is that Obama

is helping bring GOPers into the fold, and YOUR post made it sound like you don't want GOP defectors in the Dem party--did I misread you, Einstein? (Sorry, had to call you something back, and I'm tired right now) :)

[Solly Mack]

36. Oh, I wasn't addressing anything about Obama at all

I was addressing how those who are switching from Bush claim they want someone that unites the country - after supporting a man (Bush) for years whose criminal actions have done nothing but hurt the country.

I don't care how they vote or who they vote for...I just have no desire to be united with people who supported a President that implemented torture....because when you vote for such a man, you are also voting in favor for his policies...to include all his criminal actions.

[TwilightGardener]

38. Fair enough.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. That's fine.

And there will still be a certain portion of the population who won't want to get along with baby-murderering communist hippies like you. (See how that works?)

Meanwhile, the rest of us imperfect people will get on with our lives in a reasonable manner without giving a lot of thought to which group of people we're going to despise this week.

[Solly Mack]

62. LMAO Like I want torture/Bush supporters to like me?

Get real

I'm supposed to care what someone who supports torture thinks about me?

LMAO

I'm supposed to care what someone who worked for Bush thinks about me?

LMAO

I'm supposed to care what someone who voted for Bush thinks about me?

LMAO


Just because you're willing to overlook the the complicty of those who enabled Bush's crimes doesn't mean anyone else has to


I make a statement that I have no desire to be united with torture supporters and some people on DU find that offensive?

LMAO

I find that very telling.

Very telling.

[Zhade]

77. LMAO indeed. As if people who support torture should be allies.

Disgusting, the amount of accountability willingly tossed out the window for electoral gain.

[Solly Mack]

82. Unreal isn't it?

I don't want to be "united" with people who supported the crimes of Bush - and not only supported but was part of the money engine that drove republican/bush campaigns that enabled those crimes - and I'm the bad guy?

WOW

And you're right, all to "win" a vote...




Does anyone really believe the people mentioned in the article have had some great epiphany? I don't think so...they, just like the others trying to distance themselves from Bush, are still the same profit before people money grubbers they have always been... How can anyone trust their motives?





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.


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.

[magellan]

30. I agree with you, Solly Mack

I decided a while ago that Obama was too centrist for my taste and he'd only pull the Dems further to the right. There's been no surer sign of that than this news. No thanks.

[Solly Mack]

33. I really don't have an opinion on who votes for any candidate

As in, if a republican wants to vote for a democratic candidate, I don't care.

I can only speak to how I feel - and I don't feel inclined to break bread with people who supported the criminal actions of Bush...and fact is, a great many who supported those criminal actions also benefited from those criminal actions.

I'm not of the belief that those who do support torture are the kind of people I want to associate with, which is all I was saying - and apparently, from some of the responses I got - not wanting to be "united" with people who supported Abu Ghraib is a bad thing. Go figure.

[peacebaby3]

40. He's really not a centrist on most issues. He's not as liberal as

Kucinich or Gravel, but as far as all of the other candidates go, he is just as liberal and maybe more liberal than most of the others. Check out some of his voting record here:

<http://www.ontheissues.org>

You can also take a quiz to see which candidate you match up with most closely. This seems to be a very fact driven and objective site.

He's very liberal on most all social issues. The only thing he leans a little more to the center on is business related matters, but so do all of the other candidates besides the couple that are very, very liberal. Some of them don't say it, but if you look at their voting record, you'll see.

No Democratic candidate is going to win with just the liberal vote just like no rep. candidate can win with just the conservative vote, they will have to pull people from the middle. Bill Clinton definitely had to do so. He actually hired that piece of conservative crap, Dick Morris, to help run his re-election campaign.

I don't think it has anything to do with Obama's positions on many of the issues that has brought over the more moderate conservatives and the conservative independents...I think it is that people are so damn tired of feeling like they are completely divided and Obama has a positive message. They have got Bush* Blues.

Obama also has the "it" factor. I used to do some work in politics (It really will kill your soul if you let it.) and we knew that some candidates just had "it." If you watch the pilot for the "West Wing", they talk about how Bartlett is the candidate with "it." What is "it?" Well, that's the $64,000 question because it is impossible to really explain. It's not really fair either because the candidate that has "it" can mess up and lose "it", but many candidates never have "it" so they really never have much of a chance. Again, not really fair, but very true.

Magellan,
I have the greatest respect for you and certainly respect your decision for whichever candidate you choose to support, but I do think that Obama sometimes gets tagged as being very centrist when he really has a pretty liberal record and position on the issues.

Peace to you, my friend. :-)

[magellan]

42. Thank you, peacebaby3

The 'centrist' thing is all relative, definitely. Here's where I'm coming from: I took the test at On the Issues and my best matched candidate is Kucinich (who I'm supporting). Next was Sharpton, then Clinton, Dodd, and Obama.

I mean no offense when I say I can't support the Dems' drift to the right; that's simply how it appears to me from where I'm standing, way over here on what's become the "far left". If Repubs truly are flocking to Obama, then it's just another indicator of the bad I see happening within the Democratic Party. And it scares me.

I hope that helps explain my perspective a bit better. :)

[illinoisprogressive]

32. grow up. Not everyone supports Jr and his misguided ideas.

[Solly Mack]

34. LMAO

Uh, anyone that voted for Bush DID indeed support his actions...

A vote for a President that implements torture is a vote for torture

[Zhade]

76. Uh, not wanting to associate with people who SUPPORT TORTURE is not fucking small-minded.

Are you saying you have no qualms whatsoever linking hands with people who support hurting/killing people and breaking the law?

[Solly Mack]

83. "Have you hugged a torture supporter today?" is the new bumpersticker I guess

[w4rma]

37. They'll be "crossing over" right until the Democratic candidate is locked in then they'll cross back

to the Republican candidate. That newspaper is a right-wing paper. They focus on stories like this to push their right-wing agenda. I don't think Obama can win (he's an *extremely* easy target) and the owners of this newspaper don't either.

[progressoid]

39. My M-I-L is showing interest in him.....and she's a life-long Repub. eom

[BenDavid]

43. Do not buy into this.

Let me say from the outset I am supporting HRC and feel as though she is the best qualified. Plus, I have nothing bad to say about Obama. If Obama wins - whoever wins the Democratic nomination, I'm behind him/her all the way. (That's a sentence you won't hear from most in here.)

But seriously, between Obama with little experience and the only team to win back-to-back presidential campaigns since FDR, (the team that beat war hero Bush and war hero Dole), ...

who do you think the super-racist GOP wants to run against?

Just my thoughts and I thank you.
BD

[ribrepin]

44. Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test

Life long republicans don't suddenly jump to the democrats....escpecially ones who have been involved with campaigns.

[calteacherguy]

46. This is very interesting and important.

I can't imagine these people ever supporting Hillary Clinton, but they support Obama.

This is important.

[Pushed To The Left]

47. This is one of the main reasons I'm supporting Obama. He's a progressive

candidate who can attract moderate Republican voters as well as hardcore liberal Democrats like myself. If Republicans are switching party affiliation to support him, I imagine many independent swing voters will be drawn to his as well.

[Philosoraptor]

48. WELCOME republican brothers and sisters!

[glengarry]

49. Don't believe it. It's a classic GOP/ media ruse.

This is a pre-emptive strike against a possible Gore candidacy.

And democrats keep falling for the propaganda over and over again.

[ejbr]

50. Obama, following in Lieberman's footsteps*

why repukes would defect to a Dem when they have many repukes to defect to, Ron Paul for example, is quite disturbing.

*partisan politics or calling Bush on his shit? Uniting the nation or helping to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. Because not all Republicans are freepers.

And because a lot of them know that more likely than not the next President isn't gonna be a Republican.

[ejbr]

57. OK. That gives me much comfort. NOT! n/t

[never cry wolf]

64. Here's an interesting article I wish you'd peruse

It is fairly long but goes on to detailand document some of the tons of legislation Obama has pushed.

All that said, though, I can't imagine why we're talking about this stuff when we haven't even had the 2006 elections yet. There are a number of people I could imagine getting behind, and I'll decide which of them to go for when the election is closer, and the question a bit less hypothetical. But I do want to add one little data point while people are talking about him, because it's something I haven't seen people say. And it's this: a lot of people are going on about how Obama has not sponsored legislation on any of the Vital Issues Of The Day. Personally, I think that he'd have to be delusional to introduce, say, his own solution to the health insurance crisis: no bill on such a topic introduced by a freshman senator from the minority party would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, and the only reason to introduce one would be to grandstand. For that reason, I think that his failure to do so tends to speak well of him.

(Besides, consider how many Senators must have been watching for any hint of self-importance when Obama arrived in the Senate, given the press he had coming in; how many of them would have had to have been waiting for any sign that he was thinking: here am I, the wondrous Barack Obama, ready to set the Senate straight! The fact that he seems to have disarmed most of them is, I think, an achievement in its own right; it would have been impossible had he introduced his own comprehensive anti-poverty program, or something.)

But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

[derby378]

52. Honestly, I'm torn...

On one hand, pulling away support from the Republican Party is exactly what Democratic candidates need to be doing right now.

On the other hand, what if some of these Republican expatriates are actually "poison pills" trying to dilute the overall Democratic message, not to mention Democratic candidates?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

59. Here's what I think it boils down to:

A lot of (male) Republicans are much more terrified of a Hillary presidency than they are of losing the 2008 election to some other Democrat. And they know the Democrats stand a very, very good chance of winning - especially with all of the main Republican candidates aligning themselves so closely with Bush (thus writing our general election TV commercials for us, using the Republicans' own words from the primaries.)

That is one factor, I think. They see him as a potential winner, and a bulwark against the Evil Bad Clinton Woman.

On the other hand, I know a lot of moderate Republicans who voted for Bush on the Terra platform who aren't particularly happy with the utterly divisive (Rovian?) way in which Bush has conducted his Presidency, and worry that Clinton would be just as divisive.

I've got to hand it to Obama. He's got a message that resonates with people, especially if they're tired of Bush and Rove's slash-and-burn tactics.

Just my two cents.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

53. Weird shit.

So in fifteen years we've gone from Reagan Democrats to Obama Republicans? Now I've seen everything.

[TwilightGardener]

58. Obama has made an excellent foreign policy speech that

will attract Republicans--very ambitious and far-reaching, and has even garnered the notice of neocons like Kagan--and no, Obama is NOT a neocon, so don't start that shit. He's got a great global vision, and also wants to increase the size of the Army/Marines, which I agree with--I'm glad he looks strong on defense--that will help in the general. Foreign policy and defense will dominate this election.

[mnhtnbb]

60. These x-over Repubs may sense something that Dems are missing

"The Obama Illusion"

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

Look carefully at the source of Obama's support and his record.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

61. Yes, they're all in on the conspiracy.

Obama is actually the love child of George H. W. Bush and his... oh, I give up.

[mnhtnbb]

66. No conspiracy. Maybe Dems wearing blinders?

[w4rma]

63. Hamilton Project, Lieberman campaign, against antiwar liberals in primarys, against Alito filibuster

The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
• oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
• expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
• voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
• voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
• opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
• distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
• refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
• makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
• joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
• he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
• “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

[mnhtnbb]

65. Nice summary. Thanks.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

69. OK, forget it.

I'm not geting involved in one of these weird combat operations between partisans for each candidate. Have at it, guys.

[zulchzulu]

71. So your take on te Hamilton Project?

I've read the other half-truths and lies you posted as a cut-and-paste blob...so your take on the Hamilton Group is....what?

[mnhtnbb]

78. I recommend William Greider's take, published in The Nation

http://alternet.org/workplace/38981/?page=1

[Colobo]

72. Even when I was part of the Republican Party back in 04

Barack Obama came across as an interesting politician I paid attention to, same with John Edwards. Those two politicians helped me "see the light", as well as my own judgement and, yes, Bush and his disastrous administration.

I know quite a few Republican friends of mine that are simply hooked up on Obama, including one that is donating to his campaign and has a Obama '08 bumper sticker.

The guy's crossover appeal is for real.

[kskiska]

73. I just met a young Conservative Republican tonight

and he talked about how disappointed he is with the party and told me he's seriously considering voting for Barack Obama if he's the Democratic candidate.

[Zhade]

74. Just think how many innocent people would still be alive if they'd listened to us earlier.

NT!

[Forkboy]

80. I'm proud to be voting for a guy the Repubs still don't like.

[Roland99]

81. Notice the PNACer drifting to Obama as Obama supports feeding The Beast?

The NEOCONS don't care what party the President is a member of. As long as they can keep their claws into perpetuating the annual whoring to the military industrial complex, they are happy