Former Bush donors now giving to Obama
There are lot of quotes from people who say thay are “taken” with Obama….
hundreds of people who gave at least $200 to Bush’s 2004 campaign have donated to Obama.
Among them are Julie Nixon Eisenhower, the granddaughter of the late GOP president Dwight Eisenhower; Connie Ballmer, the wife of Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer; Ritchie Scaife, the estranged wife of conservative tycoon Richard Mellon Scaife and boxing promoter Don King.
They mention his 2004 Convention speech, the Iraq war, dissatisfaction with the way the country is going, and the need for change.
But look deeper into the story and you’ll see quotes like this:
“There is a large block of Republicans, particularly economic conservatives, who just feel that the Republican Party in Washington completely let them down” by failing to control spending and address other problems, Corrado said. “The Republicans have really given these donors no reason to give.”
Do they think that Obama will do the job that Bill Clinton did? Or do they think he will be even more willing to cut the types of programs they want to cut by making deals with Republicans…namely, the social programs already crippled by Bush? Or, do they believe he will co-operate with Republicans to PRIVATIZE Social Security, which Clinton opposed, and further weaken Medicare??
And how many of these donors really are thinking this, mentioned in passing at the bottom of the article after reams of glowing comments from the “little folks” who claim they are Republicans now in love with Obama?
Some converts declined to give any hint of their reasons.
“I consider that to be a private matter,” said Jeffrey Leiden, a Glencoe, Ill., cardiologist who’s a former president of Abbott Laboratories’ pharmaceutical products group.
Corrado said he thinks some of the ex-Bush donors have given to Obama to hurt Hillary Clinton — a suspicion confirmed by Henry Corey, 86, of Bronxville, N.Y., a longtime GOP donor.
He said he gave Obama $250 because, “frankly, I wanted to be sure that someone nudged Hillary Clinton aside. I think she’d be a disaster.”
I think it’s the “economic conservatives” and the “fear Hillary crowd” who are really driving this…it’s just my gut saying this. Am I really supposed to believe that Julie Nixon Eisenhower and the wives of Microsoft execs and Scaife are giving to Obama because they are “progressive”? These people all expect something from Obama and they are comfortable with him because they think he will enable their agendas…Republican agendas. Are they all really altrustic? I doubt it…At least Leiden, the former president of an Abbott Labs group, though not specific, is giving us a hint…
Filed under: Current Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, economic conservatives, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Republican Donors |
InsightAnalytical -- Watching Our World 
“He said he gave Obama $250 because, “frankly, I wanted to be sure that someone nudged Hillary Clinton aside. I think she’d be a disaster.”
A disaster for whom?
Julie Nixon Eisenhower has a special reason for supporting Obama over Clinton. Hillary worked on the Watergate Committee as a young lawyer. The committee recommended the impeachment of Julie’s father.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
THE PERFECT STORM
The problem that Obama’s run for president brings to the America is well beyond the problem of race. That Americans are even considering a black man for president, whether he wins or not, is progress in the cultural realm, in spite of the racists attitudes still in vogue in our collective consciousness. Obama’s candidacy indicates that we are finally willing to overlook race and follow the lead of a black man. That is not “a problem”, that is progress.
The problem resides in the lowly political arena in which Obama is standing. Obama’s “coalition of the willing”, as I call the motley group of political supporters, is based on a gamut of irreconcilable political interest groups. Not only “irreconcilable” but dangerously opposing interests. I’m not talking about “the people”, I’m talking about the groups with political and economical power directing and enacting his public campaign.
Among Obama’s political supporters: members from the extreme right (such as Sen. Byrd), the main stream media (including TV and printed media), big businesses (pharmaceuticals, etc), unions, the old center-left, black separatists, and the extreme radical left. It would be an act of self deception to deny that Obama is deeply connected with the extreme left and the Nation of Islam in Chicago. You can chose to refute the evidence contained in the public records that disclose his alliances with the extreme left, which helped him achieve his political goals. I’m not questioning these alliances nor making judgment about them. These alliances are part of the “perfect storm”, together with the support Obama is getting from the very powerful in Washington.
We know that those groups actively campaigning for a politician expect something in return when their candidate wins the presidency. If the extreme left, the Marxists and socialist, the black separatist, the unions are supporting Obama, what do they expect from him if he wins the presidency? I think it unnecessary to answer this question. It’s elementary.
If the big businesses and the media and the “capitalists” are supporting Obama, what do they expect from him if he wins the presidency? At a minimum, consent for them to continue deriving profits with as little government intervention as possible.
Are the interests of these extreme supporters reconcilable in any way? Do you think that the energy companies that provide funding to Obama’s campaign are going to allow that those demanding that they “redistribute” their wealth, be given access to government offices that would presumably do just that? Who has more political and financial power: the pharmaceuticals and big businesses, or the political left and the black separatists?
The left and the black separatists are counting on Obama’s self identification as “black” to make good on his political promises. Their assumption is that he will stand up for the blacks and will help promote the ideas of the left, on which he stood to gain political power in Illinois. When you read the radical left’s newspapers, you get a sense that they feel that, finally, the worker’s state is at hand. The problem is…
In the middle of these contending groups from left to right, stands Obama himself. And when you look at Obama’s political record, when you dispassionately read his speeches, with a critical eye, you find an Obama that can’t possibly satisfy all the opposing interests at the same time. Somebody has to be cut loose. Guess who.
The “perfect storm” consist of two powerful but opposing forces feeding off the sea of confusion that Obama himself represents.
He himself has said that he has gone through moments of confusion about his biracial make up. And his political goals are as confusing too. He said that Ronald Reagan was his political role model. He said on the first week of June, 2008 that “to be fair to Bush, our economical problems are not all his fault.” He consistently changes the tone of his political positions to accommodate white’s and more center-right opinions. This ability to accommodate can be a plus or a minor in his character, depending on how he uses it. The records show that it tends to be on the “minor” side of the ledger. He accommodates to whites’ interests, as evidenced by his “throwing under the bus” his grandmother and his pastor. Some on the left were not too happy about that.
Obama is a complex human being, with complex life experiences, reaching out for the highest political job in the world. His complexity plays excellent for political purposes. He can swim on both sides of the muddied political waters. He is in here for himself, there’s no doubt in my mind about that. His ego can’t get any bigger: he’s being treated as an avatar, a demi-god, a prophet. He’s no “typical” politician: he’s a rock-star. Who can compete with that? But at the end, he can’t avoid the responsibility and the duty to chose sides. That’s when the American public will get hurt.
When the battle between the “capitalists” and the extreme left unfolds after the elections, it will be fought like all battles: with the foot soldiers bearing the brunt of the fire. There is no way to avoid the meeting of these two powerful storms. Obama’s “coalition of the willing” is bound to disband. The contradictions within his camp are too powerful. The republicans joining him are not going to share power with the Nation of Islam, or with black separatists, or with the old Marxists. Only the mainstream media and big businesses can take Obama to the White House. They want him for themselves.
African Americans will not sit and watch how the wealthy take Obama for themselves. Just now, during the primaries, there have being significant episodes of AAs physically attacking and making death threats to other AAs who wanted to vote for Hillary. An Obama president better deliver on the promises he insinuated to AAs.
“Obama is benefiting from a landslide of black
support, built on social credit being extended on campaign promises. The Black Community is like the loving,
committed spouse, willing to ignore immediate needs so heir partner can conquer the world. But at the end of the
day, something must be delivered.”
ttp://brothers. yourblackworld.com/2008/02/tavis-smileys-
haterology-on-barack.html.
The perfect storm is waiting to collide, on presidential inauguration day, on Obama. At the end, there will be many disappointed hearts, if he wins the presidency. The gains of blacks will be lost in the battle that will ensue for political power grabbing, for cashing in the IOU.
It is going to get ugly, America.
(P.S. pardon my grammar. English is not my first language.)