Pleas from an Obama Republican

[kpete]

Pleas from an Obama Republican

ask yourself,: WWOW ("What would Obama write?").
He might slam a "repug troll", but he would do so in a
way that kept his own dignity intact.

By David - April 11, 2008, 3:35PM

...............

I support Senator Obama for President in
large part because I believe that he will be an effective, principled
leader. A big factor in my decision has been the consistency and
generosity of his message during this campaign. Whether he's up or down
in the polls, whether he's being treated fairly or unfairly himself, he
has always done his best to stay on his message of hope and
reconciliation, and to treat others fairly and with respect.


In my mind, this strategy credibly signals that he wants to win the
Presidency to serve America rather than for himself. If he were to
attack Senator Clinton more aggressively, or if he were to revise
policies that turned out not to be popular, he might increase his
chance of winning. However, if he wins HIS way, without attacking a
fellow Democrat and without compromising his policy goals, he will be
better placed to govern and to push that agenda forward. By contrast,
Senator Clinton's strategy shows that she is primarily "in it to win
it". And, quite to the contrary of what she claims, I expect her to
abandon her policy goals should it turn out that pursuing them might
endanger her re-election chances. After all, this is someone who
supported Bush's war in part because she felt that the American people
would demand that any President be sufficiently hawkish in the war on
terror.

..................

However, as this primary season has dragged
on, I have been disappointed to see more and more "repug"nant posts
that are dismissive or just hateful of others' views. You should
understand that TPM becomes irrelevant as soon as it grows too insular.
This morning I read through some of the blog postings on Senator
Clinton's campaign site. Self-congratulatory but dismissive of others
and their opinions -- with special venom for fellow Democrats who have
chosen to support Obama, one woman even speaking poorly about her two
sons who had chosen to back Obama -- that website will never convince a
single soul to support Hillary Clinton.

(We)have the potential to be different, to actually
influence the thinking of swing voters and
help the Democratic Party win this Fall. I encourage you to return to
the sort of self-monitoring that I saw earlier this year, when Obama's
supporters urged each other to attempt to emulate their candidate's
grace under fire. Before you post, ask yourself,: WWOW ("What would
Obama write?"). He might slam a "repug troll", but he would do so in a
way that kept his own dignity intact.

more at:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/pleas-from-an-obama-republican.php

[Capn Sunshine]

1. Completely awesome

Nice find Pete

[DearAbby]

2. Great Post ** K&R

:thumbsup:

[sellitman]

3. Hope it's catching!

Another reformed repiggy!

[stray cat]

4. A call to civility between one another versus looking like the Free Republic

Its discouraging when DU could pass for Free Republic or even a bunch of skin heads with only the names people are called and stances being different. Obama is an example in civility which is sorely lacking...

[Aloha Spirit]

5. Agreed. But a question about Obamacans...

When I think of core Republican goals, what comes to mind is tax cuts, free trade, less regulation (see Obama's recent proposal for CEO compensation), privatization of healthcare and social security, .... etcetera. As well as the social issues.

Now, I can see where someone would say, we need a President who will be pragmatic and uniting.
And I can see someone thinking that the most pressing issues our country faces are non-partisan.

But can someone please help me understand why a registered Republican would support a candidate that has promised to raise taxes, increase regulation in many industries, and so on?

[stray cat]

6. Personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, a strong defense but with responsible use

[mamalone]

7. Everyone

wants to be able to entrust themselves to their leader.

One can agree with a candidate who shares similar viewpoints, and one can support the rise to power of such a person in the hopes that their future behavior will hold true to those shared views. But if that candidate's integrity or judgment is questionable then those shared philosophies and strategies are meaningless. I think the right, and in particular the religious right has found this out to their chagrin over the past 7 years.

If a candidate emerges who shows integrity and grace under fire... who has shown wisdom and clarity of judgment even when the right course is unpopular, people of all philosophies will clamor to support such a person. In the final analysis, we all know that our own judgment is frequently flawed. No matter how passionately we hold to our beliefs we all have error. If we see someone who consistently does the right thing, makes the right choice and acts with integrity, compassion and wisdom we can trust that the choices he makes are going to be correct... at least correct more often than the average person's! In short we can trust them to lead us.

I don't agree with everything Obama says and does, but I trust that he is correct more often than most folks. I see him come up with innovative solutions to novel problems. He may not enact all of my personal pet policies, but I think he has the "stuff" to take the country to a better place. I think that's what a Republican or conservative might see in him as well... and why they might choose to vote for him despite some conflicting policy positions.

[stray cat]

9. Really nice answer and so very true

[mamalone]

17. Thanks for the warm words:-)

[Two Americas]

18. we do?

Everyone wants to be able to entrust themselves to their leader?

He has the "stuff" to take the country to a better place?

The fight for justice and equality is merely about "personal pet policies?"

I could not be more opposed to those three statements. What you are describing in antithetical to every principle and ideal upon which the party and the country were founded. I do not want a strong charismatic leader to entrust myself to, I do not want the country to be taken to a "better place" when that place is not even well defined, I do not see politics as having anything to so with anyone's "personal pet policies" or any personal feelings at all, I do not see the struggle for the survival and well being of the working class and the poor and persecuted and oppressed people as "pet policies," and there is nothing else that matters to me in politics other than "conflicting policy positions." The only reason to support, work for or vote for a politician to represent us is policy positions - there isn't anything else to politics.

What you are describing is a public yearning for a strong man, a "man on horseback" as the French say, a savior, a charismatic idol. This is very dangerous.

[babylonsister]

12. I don't know what an obamacan is, but I support Obama.

You ask why a registererd republican would support this candidate? Have you been paying attention the past 8 years? Have you noticed the illegal occupation still raging endlessly, the economy where people are losing their homes, can't fill up their pantries or tanks, have you noticed our Constitution is being shredded daily, and that torture is A-OK? Oh, and the deficit, have you noticed that?

Maybe some of these republicans have noticed, and are just as sick of seeing this happen as we are. What's their alternative-McCain? I welcome anyone who thinks a Dem has a better answer, especially Obama. I think he does, and the thoughtful person in the OP does, too.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. The issues of

"Raising taxes" - it's WHOSE taxes are being raised. The very ones (the "masses") who have been brainwashed with FUD to think it will be them if a Dem were in charge don't seem to realize that ironically, over the past 3 decades, it has ALREADY been them, thanks to their own Party. Reagan took the 11% tax bracket up to 15% and took the 70% bracket down to 35%. There has been this horrid paralysis by Congress and the last 4 Presidents to take that fraction of a % of the very highest of earners and make them pay more. Hell... even Warren Buffet came out and said it. The fact that for the first time in history, the Forbes 400 were ALL billionaires and that there were something like 6 million, millionaires in the U.S. alone, is cause for pause. Allowing hedge fund managers who make little or no actual "salary" , in quotes, to pay only 15 % "capital gains" on the millions and millions that they make by managing those funds is criminal.

"Increased regulation" - Look at the pet food scandal, the planes now being grounded, the bridges and other infrastructure crumbling causing deaths far and wide. I think the public can no longer put their heads in the sand about this including the repukes. Need I even mention the rise and fall of the biggest banks and investment firms in the world.

When the pain finally touches a person, they finally wake up. Deregulation has failed. Phony tax reform has failed.

[bain_sidhe]

8. Make it rise!

Lovely post, and thank you!

[stray cat]

10. Make it rise!

[BumRushDaShow]

11. K&R

:kick:

[mmonk]

13. An interesting and proper call to our better natures.

I'll work on it (as my bottom lip throbs).

[Labors of Hercules]

14. spot. on. nt.

[DerekJ]

16. Fine... Make it rise :)