Horrible story, typical of the worst misleading garbage from the mainstream media. The story provided only one example of a former Bush supporter who supported Obama.
This just isn’t true.
Let’s see you back that up.
First, it didn’t say “former Bush Supporters” it said Republicans. I’m not sure why only Republicans that are Bush supporters get credibility for switching camps.
Not my point. I was pointing out that Bernstein was the only example given of (as the headline put it) Republicans defecting to Obama; Bernstein was a former Bush supporter.
Second, there were two to three former Bush Supporters who now supported Obama in the article. Incase you didn’t read the article I listed the people this article claims, now support Obama. I left out the McCain supporter who still supports McCain, but publicly endorses Obama’s message.
Let’s see how you did on the whole.
[quote author=“Article”] Tom Bernstein, went to Yale University with Bush and co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with him.
That’s the one example to which I referred, and Berenstein has an extensive record of supporting liberals and liberal causes.
Matthew Dowd, Bush’s chief campaign strategist in 2004.
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.
I “like” Obama. Like Dowd, I am not endorsing Obama. And I’m definitely not voting for the man. You’re trusting that a reporter who described Bernstein as a Republican despite his extensive history of supporting Democrats is not using a misleading paraphrase. You’re adopting the conclusion the reporter wants you to adopt.
Turns out that Dowd is another Berenstein:
“A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington.”
Whatever kind of mental gymnastics you need to do to turn somebody who “likes” Obama but hasn’t endorsed him into a “supporter” ...
John Martin, a Navy reservist and founder of the website Republicans for Obama.
Martin might be a real Republican supporting Obama, but the story merely described him as the founder of Republicans for Obama—as if that’s something a Democrat couldn’t do (Martin interned for Republican-turned Independent Jim Jeffords and received his political education at Columbia University).
If there aren’t two John Martins with a history of political contributions from White Plains, NY, then Martin may not be as conservative as he presents himself (as of now he has the benefit of the doubt).
John Canning, a “Bush pioneer” and investment banker who pledged to raise $100,000 for the president in 2004, has given up on the Republicans.
Democrats can’t give up on Republicans. Neither can Independents. Is that the implication?
Seriously, if Canning has really “given up on the Republicans” as the story says, then why is he still the president of Republicans for Romney (Goof-up alert: Canning isn’t/wasn’t president of Republicans for Romney—Romney is. I misinterpreted the data and didn’t realize my error until recently) (with his most recent recorded political contribution going to Romney to the tune of $1,300?
Starting to feel like the story sold you a bill of goods?
According to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, Obama and Clinton have vacuumed up more than $750,000 (£375,000) in individual contributions from former Bush donors.
Let’s just skip over the caveat, shall we?
Some of the donations reflect the natural tendency of those with power to shift to the likely White House winner. Penny Pritzker, the staggeringly successful head of fundraising for Obama, voted for John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic candidate, but also donated that year to Bush.
Canning seems to be a perfect example of that, despite supposedly giving up on Republicans.
The story seems to have come after the story idea in this case. A responsible reporter would not use this set of examples to assert that Republicans are defecting to Obama. Martin is probably the best example in the bunch, but the story does not present him as a convincing example of a Republican switching to support of Obama. Bernstein was the only one unequivocally presented in that light, and that presentation was a sham.
The story’s a turd, bottom line.
Are there real Republicans supporting Obama? No doubt, but probably no more significant a number than the Democrats who supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 (I wonder if we can find a mainstream media story about Democrats defecting to Bush?).
This seems to be how they write that story:
Bush won Arkansas with 51 percent, snaring far more votes than might have been expected in hard-luck areas such as Mississippi County, where he got 41 percent to Al Gore’s 56 percent. Democratic Party leaders are concerned that many of their voters could defect to Bush.
Zell Miller got some ink:
The Gore camp’s decision about how to deploy Clinton came amid several new national polls that raise warning signs about the degree of crossover support among Democrats for Bush. New surveys by the Gallup Organization Inc., independent pollster John Zogby and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press all showed Bush drawing between 9% and 14% of Democrats, while Gore garnered just 4% to 9% of Republicans.
I guess I should run off and blog about the “warning signs” of Republicans supporting Obama. In the tradition of objective journalism ...