Republicans for Obama (And Against McCain)

In June the McCain campaign released a list of "prominent Democrats and Independents" supporting John McCain. Few of the names were prominent, and a review by the Huffington Post found that more than half of the list had "either obvious ties to the Republican Party or are regularly touted by GOP politicians as Democratic defectors."

The newly announced group of "Republicans for Obama" hope to have a more lasting impact. They certainly have a higher profile than McCain's Democratic defectors (other than top surrogate and possible veep Joe Lieberman). Organizers on a conference call this morning included former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach, former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee and Rita Hauser, a member of President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The Republican Mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska also endorsed Obama today. (There's an already existing Republicans for Obama website founded by John Martin, a Navy reservist who served in Afghanistan and lives in The Bronx.)

These so-called "Obamicans"--throwbacks to the days of traditional Republicanism--are disgusted by the Bush Administration's militant foreign policy, reckless spending and cronyism at home, and America's plummeting reputation in the world. In John McCain, they no longer see a maverick, but a continuation of the Bush-Cheney era.

"From my perspective, this is simply not a time for politics as usual," said Jim Leach, one of the smartest and most decent members of the House of Representatives, who represented eastern Iowa for three decades until 2006 and was one of only six House Republicans to presciently oppose the war in Iraq. "The case for inspiring, new political leadership and a social ethic has seldom been more self-evident."

Adds Leach: "Barack Obama's platform is a call for change. But the change that he is so gracefully articulating is more renewal than departure. While a break from the ideological policies of the moment, it is rooted in very old American values that are as much a part of the Republican as the Democratic tradition. There's an emphasis on individual rights, fairness and balance at home, and progressive internationalism."

Says Rita Hauser, "It is not traditional Republicanism to make war on everybody who disagree with you." The longtime foreign policy hand called McCain's response to the Russia-Georgia conflict "bellicose [and] threatening."

Like Leach, Lincoln Chafee is a reminder of the days when moderates could find a home in the Republican Party as advocates for fiscal responsibility, environmental protection and restraint in foreign policy. Chafee left the Republican Party in March to vote for Obama in Rhode Island's Democratic primary. He was the first Democrat Chafee had ever voted for.

Chafee served alongside McCain in the Senate; they were the only two Senate Republicans to oppose the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Chafee has since watched McCain adopt the very policies he once denounced. "Seeing the two different John McCain's is a fracture in his credibility," Chafee says.

How big of an impact this group will have remains to be seen. Obama performed well in traditionally Republican areas in the Democratic primary and attracted legions of "Obamicans" in swing areas like Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Yet partisanship has hardened since the primary has ended (usually the opposite occurs), with both Obama and McCain now drawing 90 percent support from self-identified members of their parties.

Both candidates have attempted to encroach on the other party's turf. McCain has made a bid for disaffected Clintonites, and elderly and blue-collar Democrats. Obama has courted moderate and suburban Republicans in swing states like Virginia and libertarians out West. It only takes a few points here or there to alter the election.

Hauser says the "Republicans for Obama" website will be online tomorrow and will include "a couple of hundred thousand names. We hope it will grow exponentially as we go through the campaign."

Comments (32)

1. >>>These so-called "Obamicans"--throwbacks to the days of traditional Republicanism--are disgusted by the Bush Administration's militant foreign policy, reckless spending and cronyism at home, and America's plummeting reputation in the world.<<<

   I think Obamicans also are disgusted with the corrupt nature of special interest politics and realize that despite McCain-Feingold, McCain is clearly the preferred choice of lobbyists, which means more of the same hijacking of public policy to serve the clients of these lobbyists rather than the American people.

   Obama they sense is serious about curbing the influence of special interest groups, and this is one of the key reasons they support him over McSame.

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 1:09pm

2. frank,

   there's no equipment available for years to begin drilling.

   check your tires pressure.

   that's a much more effective way of ending your dependence on canadian oil.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 2:22pm

3. Why is this about Russiq/Georgia in this thread about Obamicans?

   Posted by Mistral at 08/12/2008 @ 2:31pm

4. 'If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' -- Old American proverb

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/12/2008 @ 2:34pm

5. Where do we find the moral high ground for this one? I truly hope that the kids and the,"so called", Obamicans do it. There are still those, however, that have managed to morph the "N" word into Foreign and Muslim. The, "pro-choice, amen" crowd are still spreading the lies about the Senator. Wouldn't it be a turn around if the blow back from the Edwards story take McCain out too? Carole Shepp McCain says that the reason for their divorce that John war forty and he wanted to be 25 . That story make Edwards look like a choir boy.

   Posted by julien38 at 08/12/2008 @ 2:45pm

6. EDITING: if the "blow back" from the Edwards story (takes)out too. Carole Sheppp McCain said that the reason for their divorce was that, "john was 40 and wanted to be 25 again".

   Posted by julien38 at 08/12/2008 @ 2:54pm

7. >>>Geopolitics necessitates the need for getting every drop of oil out of our own country as possible and as fast as possible.

   Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 2:41pm<<<

   I guess you didn't read the memo from the oil companies pushing for off-shore drilling.

   It said:

   WE ONLY WANT TO DRILL OFFSHORE TO BOOST OUR ASSETS AND STOCK VALUE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN SELLING ANY OIL FOUND OFFSHORE AT A DISCOUNT TO WORLD MARKET PRICES OR EVEN RESTRICT OUR SALES OF SUCH OIL TO AMERICA.

   Off-shore drilling is fraud being pushed by big oil and their lobbyists, and has absolutely nothing to do with lowering the price of oil or energy security.

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 2:58pm

8. The air pressure thing was nonsense.

   Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 2:41pm

   Keep Tires Properly Inflated

   You can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure. Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by 0.4 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure of all four tires. Properly inflated tires are safer and last longer.

   Fuel Economy Benefit: up to 3%

   Equivalent Gasoline Savings: up to $0.12/gallon

   http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml

   hmmm...... let's see....

   u.s. gas consumption 390 million gallons/day (9,286,000 barrels/day) x .03 = 11,700,000 gallons/day or 278,580 barrel/day savings.

   U.S. Petroleum Product Imports from OPEC 592,000 barrels/day

   hmmmm. nonsense?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 3:39pm

9. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/12/2008 @ 3:01pm

   The Georgian president thought that by invading South Ossetia and killing 2000 Russian citizens that this would prompt a military response from Russia that would convince the European holdouts that they should be in NATO.

   But if you look under the hood, it is the Western oil companies that want Georgia in NATO to protect their oil pipeline. They are too selfish and greedy to PAY for security using their own private security forces, so they want the Western governments to foot the security bill for their profit making oil venture.

   The problem is the oil pipeline's largest shareholder is BP (British Petroleum), followed by the Azerbaijani state oil company, Socar, which holds 25 percent. Other shareholders include US oil companies Chevron and ConocoPhillips, Norway's StatoilHydro, Italy's ENI and France's Total.

   It seems that Germany and some other important NATO allies were left out of the oil profit scheme, so the only way to get them to agree to use NATO to protect their private financial investment in the pipeline is to get their boy Mikheil Saakashvili to provoke a military response from Russia by attacking South Ossetia.

   So far it looks like the scheme is working, as the MSM is trying to make Russia look like the bad guy. The difficult part to swallow is that thousands of people had to die to help protect these oil companies' investment, which is a completely inappropriate use of military force.

   NO MORE WARS FOR OIL!!!

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 4:05pm

10. By the time we've reached election day, I think you'll find that untold hundreds of thousands of Republicans have 'silently' voted for Obama... as he is obviously an earnest and devoted Christian... and he is not afraid of developing the superior alloys that come from 'melting pot' think tanks...

    The right wing spin machine is stupid, intolerant and violent... and it is inhibiting global human development.

    But you know that... right?

    Posted by ttr at 08/12/2008 @ 4:26pm

11. Geopolitics necessitates the need for getting every drop of oil out of our own country as possible and as fast as possible.

    Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 2:41pm

    So that we will be TOTALLY dependent on foreign oil as fast as possible?

    We don't have enough oil to get off of foreign oil. As has been pointed out, using government sources, we gain more oil (through consumption savings) by keeping our cars running properly than by drilling. Of course, big oil doesn't profit by proper maintenance...but none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

    Posted by Balrog at 08/12/2008 @ 4:29pm

12. A rather dumb red herring on your part. The former Mrs. McCain supported his run for the president in 2000. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 3:17pm

    Wait, what does that have have to do with the quote though?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 4:31pm

13. A rather dumb red herring on your part. The former Mrs. McCain supported his run for the president in 2000. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 3:17pm

    Ah, so long as the wife doesn't care, adultery is okay? Glad you cleared that up for us.

    Posted by Balrog at 08/12/2008 @ 4:35pm

14. Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 2:41pm

    I must chime in on this too FG. The tire pressure is but one of many ways to improve efficiency...which will save buttloads of energy. See:

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/12/2008 @ 4:37pm

15. Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 2:36p

    God. The person talking about Democrat crossover votes like it's the end of the world is now downplaying Republican crossover votes. When they posted to list of Democrat crossovers you were screaming like it was the ultimate list. Now you are downplaying Republican crossovers who are of more prominence than all but one of the Democrats on that list.

    Once again you prove my point. You don't care what is being said all you care about is badmouthing Obama. You have zero ability to speak objectively. You are the exact opposite of the Obama cultists. They don't care what negatives he has, they will all speak positively. You don't care what positives he has, you will always speak negatively. What's the difference really? It's the same obsession just different manifestations.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 4:38pm

16. NO MORE WARS FOR OIL!!!

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 4:05pm

    oil, gas, potash, water, uranium, manganese, beryllium, cobalt, palladium......

    no more wars.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:19pm

17. Geopolitics necessitates the need for getting every drop of oil out of our own country as possible and as fast as possible.

    Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 2:41pm

    actually, it's more to do with balance of trade.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:21pm

18. Geopolitics necessitates the need for getting every drop of oil out of our own country as possible and as fast as possible.

    Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 2:41pm

    actually, desisting in burning hydrocarbons is of more importance.

    forget global climate phoque up, are smog days acceptable?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:23pm

19. Ah, so long as the wife doesn't care, adultery is okay?

    Posted by Balrog at 08/12/2008 @ 4:35pm

    hmmmm?

    naw, better not think about it.

    karma 'n' all.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:24pm

20. If Georgia were in NATO, would NATO now be at war with Russia?

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/12/2008

    why do you think this is happening now?

    the russians have already taken control of a large portion of caspian gas......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:26pm

21. Yes, it's nonsense and a stupid thing for Obama to say. Most people don't even consider the air pressure in their tires. How many people do you know who carry a tire pressure guage in their glovebox. Most people have their tire pressure checked when they get their oil changed. Let's see, the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning is if my air pressure is correct. Oops! Better run outside and check. NONSENSE!

    Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 4:41pm

    o.k.

    i'll be patient.

    frank, have you ever ridden a bicycle?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:28pm

22. This shows that Obama thinks small

    Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 5:01pm

    no, it shows that obama has the potential of saving the u.s. 3% in gas consumption by saying the truth.

    this time.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:31pm

23. I prefer to click my tounge rather loudly at them, TWICE!

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/12/2008

    i think their reactions to their actions take care of their distractions.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:32pm

24. Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 5:01pm

    Actually Frank what you choose to ignore is that that IS looking at the bigger picture. He is looking at small solutions AND large solutions. When you think about saving energy you think what can people do on a daily basis and what can we do as a nation.

    Daily basis: Turn off your house lights, recycle etc.

    As a nation: Find alternative energy sources

    His compromise on off shore drilling is a chance to gain a lot of on alternative energies. Anyone who is actually SERIOUSLY looking at things can see that. On the other hand people like you who are just looking for an excuse to criticize will never see this stuff. Obama is not by any means perfect but he has good ideas and good plans. You refuse to see this so what is the worth of your opinion? You refuse to acknowledge anything positive that Obama does so why even talk? We know what you are going to say long before you say it. Gain something worth listening to and maybe people will care.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 7:32pm

25. c'mon happy,

    take a chance on the darkie......

    could just be that the long succession of sour ol' white guys has gotten you into the mess you currently feel you're in.......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:34pm

26. Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:31pm

    See Frank can't see the big picture. If you look at the big picture you realize let's say 10 million of our 20 million barrels of oil used a day are toward gasoline, 3% per day is 300,000 barrels less a day.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 7:37pm

27. Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/12/2008 @ 6:55pm

    We all know Franks reasons.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 7:42pm

28. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 7:42pm

    Look at every FRANK post and just overlap it with...

    "Please don't vote for Obama! Hillary has to have 2012 free and clear for her!"

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/12/2008 @ 10:47pm

29. This shows that Obama thinks small

    Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 5:01pm

    No, it shows that offshore and ANWR drilling is no solution. It's a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. It offers less relief than, say, properly inflated tires.

    Posted by Balrog at 08/13/2008 @ 12:56am

30. I just don't see a successful presidency for Barack and could well be worse than Carter.---Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 12:24am

    You mean like, in addition to high gas prices, "stagflation", Russia invading neighboring countries etc., he might have us bogged down in an occupation in the Middle East and the largest deficit and debt in American history?

    Naawwwww....I think somebody beat Obama to that!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 08:59am

31. Naawwwww....I think somebody beat Obama to that!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 08:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

    heehee...

    if an obama prez were to be as supposedly as awful and terrible as ol jimmy's...

    it COULD well be seen as successful compared to the idiocracy in power now...

    heck...could even get two terms out of such - jimmy only barely lost to reagan in 80, after all.

    but one struggle at a time.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/13/2008 @ 11:02am

32. Posted by frankgrits at 08/12/2008 @ 4:44pm

    If this is BS, FRANKGRITS, then please tell us how?

    No one with intelligence believes that tiny Georgia can defeat the Russian army, so why did they "start" the attack and kill 2000 Russian citizens in South Ossetia?

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the attack was to provoke a Russian military response and that "somebody" wanted to use the Russian response as a basis for a "new" argument for Georgia to be part of NATO.

    Georgia's first application to NATO was turned down - go research which European countries were responsible for turning the application down and the reasons they gave, and whether they have a financial interest in oil pipleline like the other European countries that voted in favor of Georgia's NATO application.

    I think this may help you connect the dots.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 1:02pm