Another Republican Endorses Obama

Update: Add Scott McClellan to the list of Republican Obama-endorsers. The video is here.

MCCLELLAN - From the very beginning I've said I'm going to support the candidate who has the best chance of changing the way Washington works and getting things done. I will be voting for Barack Obama.

original post:

The latest Republican to abandon ship, after finally noticing that John McCain's GOP is not just out-of-touch but downright nasty, is former Minnesota governor Arne Carlson.[more ...]

Former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama today, saying Obama represented the best hope for an America facing an economic crisis and criticizing Republicans for waging a mean-spirited campaign that has "been going down all these side roads."

We can thank Rep. Michele Bachmann's rant about "anti-American" legislators for Carlson's decision.

Carlson also took aim at Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, saying that her controversial remarks of the past week, suggesting Obama may have anti-American views, had led him to endorse the Democratic nominee. ...

At one point, Carlson compared Bachmann's statements to the tactics of Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator during the 1950s who helped define an era when the patriotism of many Americans was publicly questioned.

"I don't want Minnesota to continue to be seen in the national picture as some sort of a land that has these rather strange views -- we don't," he said.

< Stevens Jury Stressed | Will the Big Ten Sweep? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Let's also remember (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:32:19 PM EST
    that Goldwater's grandchildren are endorsing and/or voting for Obama.

    That's gotta sting.

    I still remember the TV ads put up in 1972 by Democrats for Nixon.

    Conservative principles at their very best (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    Something to think about as we try to find common ground with the many people now supporting our candidate.  

    Let's not forget (none / 0) (#8)
    by landjjames on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:44:59 PM EST
    the other children/grandchildren of Republican iconoclasts who have switched to supporting Obama.  Christopher Buckley (son of William F.), and  Susan Eisenhower (granddaughter of Ike).  I don't know if Stephanie Miller of Air America counts. Despite being the daughter of Goldwater's Veep candidate,  I think she's been a Dem for a long time.  I've been looking for a list online of famous Republicans who have switched sides for this election, but can't find one.  

    I suspect you mean "Icons" (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:49:52 PM EST
    and not "Iconoclasts", the latter term more appropriately describing the kids breaking with their parents' orthodoxies....

    Google obamacon (none / 0) (#11)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM EST
    or Conservatives for Obama

    Huge selection of blogs and articles.


    It seems there is an Eisenhower Republican (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 05:02:01 PM EST
    Revolt going on.  I would love to see two strong parties (maybe more) in this country.  It is through strong intellectual debate that we get our best ideas.  The problem now is that we have a wimpy Democratic party, and a bizarre ideologically fascist Republican party

    Because Obama is an Eisenhower (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:23:32 PM EST
    Republican! I've said this for months.

    Bill Clinton governed just this way. n/t (none / 0) (#53)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 08:38:18 PM EST
    That's EXACTLY what's (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 05:09:23 PM EST
    going on here imo. As many have said, notably (and eloquently) Joe Klein, Obama seems to be growing more into the leadership role that was more natural (imo) to the Clintons before so maybe that will bear more fruit throughout the party. With the ideological fall of McCain, and the rise of Palin, I see no hope of the repubs "righting" their ship at the moment.

    also (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 05:44:30 PM EST
    Scott McClellan has endorsed Obama as well.  There was as blurb in the washington post today.

    Scott McClellan just endorsed Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by vml68 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    Doesn't that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling!

    SAY WHAT? (none / 0) (#29)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:08:02 PM EST

    For that I might just read his book.


    that's his evil plan. (none / 0) (#34)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:49:00 PM EST
    he could not care less about anything else.

    I did read his book (none / 0) (#39)
    by zyx on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:46:32 PM EST
    I kind of liked it, because I thought he was pretty sincere.

    And you should read it to see how badly people like him are/were treated in that administration. It ain't purty.


    Says in the article (none / 0) (#45)
    by WS on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:28:29 PM EST
    that McClellan was toying with the idea of becoming a Democrat.  

    Is he a Rockefeller type?  Do we have to make room for Rockefeller Republicans in the Party now?  


    Rockefeller Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:03:40 PM EST
    Actually, this split in the GOP started with Goldwater who was not a Rockefeller Republican.  Nixon was a transitional Republican, not a Rockefeller guy and definitely setting the stage for today's GOP. Ford was in the Rockefeller camp, and Reagan was not. The Goldwater wing of the party hit paydirt with Reagan.

    Hard as it might be to believe, at one time Republicans were the party of civil rights. And the Democrats, led by southern Senators like Richard Russell, were not. The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Goldwater's campaign switched the parties' positions.

    Oddly, in his later years, Barry Goldwater became an advocate for LGBT rights.

    TChris, what happened to my comment (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:11:52 PM EST
    on Rockefeller Republicans, to which this comment is replying?

    Actually, a couple of my comments have disappeared with no explanation (as I found out in another thread, where a commenter had to ask me to give info again, after my comment disappeared here).

    Is there a change to the comment policy under which the host notes when a comment has been removed and why?


    I don't remember the comment. (none / 0) (#50)
    by TChris on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:38:28 PM EST
    I deleted a thread of comments that had strayed far off topic.  If I missed a comment in that thread, it should have been deleted too.

    I don't know whether Jeralyn invariably notes her reason for removing comments.  I usually don't.


    This is good (and bad) (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Manuel on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:09:30 PM EST
    There will a break from the Bush policies to a new set of policies that are not well defined.  I worry that Obama's support will be a mile wide but an inch deep.  Such an environment decreases the chances for bold action because of the need to listen to everyone and the fear of offending some supporter.  We lost the chance in this election to draw sharp philosophical differences between the parties.  To the extent that issues have not been discussed seriously in this campaign, it can be claimed that a vote for Obama is simply a vote against incompetence and not a vote in favor of Obama's governing philosophy (whatever that might be).

    If you do not believe (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TChris on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:38:40 PM EST
    that sharp philosophical differences have been drawn in this election, you are watching a completely different election.  On issue after issue, from tax policy to health care to diplomatic engagement with other countries, Obama and McCain have taken very different positions.

    I agree with this... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Tom Hilton on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    ...and more to the point, I think Obama has been making the case (since 2004) for basic liberal principles as well as just making policy arguments.  

    No, I have been watching closely (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Manuel on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    If you look closely, you'll see that the differences are more a matter of details than of philosophy.

    On foreign affairs, I see Obama drifting towards a "pragmatic", more internationalist position not too dissimilar from Bush I.  It isn't a coincidence that he has earned Powell's support and that Lugar is mentioned prominently for a post in his cabinet.  Like I said, more competence but nothing game changing.

    On the economy, I am afraid he will continue the new democrat line of using the debt and the deficit as an excuse for not making the permanent investments that would bring about fundamental change.  This would continue the bipartisan "consensus" line of economic thought of the last thirty years.

    On all issues (FISA, death penalty, gay rights, abortion), Obama has signaled his willingness to compromise and to accomodate all sides.

    I hope I am wrong but this all foretells marginal changes not fundamental breaks.

    We'll see.  Obama has said he would like to be a Reagan of the left.  It will be interesting to see how he spends his political capital.


    A lot of what you say is true, especially (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:21:17 PM EST
    the last line. This is why I find it odd O encourages such strong reaction from people. Hopefully we are wrong and my first instincts from an ideological standpoint will be proven right.

    Agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:24:28 PM EST
    Among the problems with old line Republicans jumping ship is just the phenomenon you've described.

    A sharp definition of the difference between the two parties was my biggest hope in this election and for now that seems a forlorn hope.

    And while I'm happy about the various endorsements, I have to confess that some of the joy is more than a little bit of shadenfreude.


    Has Dick Cheney endorsed yet (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:05:31 PM EST
    or is he waiting to make his decision after Obama's infomercial?

    Bipartisanship in action (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Tom Hilton on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:16:07 PM EST
    This is what Obama was shooting for all along.  He's spent two years developing a narrative in which the enemy is precisely the sort of campaign we all knew the Republicans would run.  In this narrative, 'bipartisanship' isn't about splitting the difference with the wingnuts (the prospect that made so many progressives uncomfortable); it's about peeling off enough not-completely-insane Republicans to isolate and neutralize the angry losers.  The 28 percenters will never go away completely, but if a Democratic candidate can sever their link to 'mainstream' conservatives, they'll be much less of a threat.  

    You would think this (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    would be obvious as well as desired in the current political context.

    The questions come (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:52:49 PM EST
    when it's time to start campaigning for re-election, with what is needed to retain that voting bloc.

    It ought not take long to find out, since a first-termer tends to start running for a second term on Day 2.:-)


    I bet Bush would like to endorse (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:31:30 PM EST
    Obama, just because he hates McCain.

    Well, his was the Independent-Republican (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:24:04 PM EST
    Party, as it's called in Minnesota.  Tells ya something about Arne -- and more about that wonderful state, ya, yabetcha.  I wish that in my state, I could belong to a Farmer-Populist Party -- that was my dad's party, too, across a river from the lovely "land of 10,000 lakes, but who's counting?" :-)

    Not any more. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TChris on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
    It was the Independent-Republican Party from 1975 to 1995, when it reverted to the name Republican Party.  Carlson was gov from 1/91 to 1/99, so he started as an IRP gov and ended as an RP gov.

    BTW, with all due respect to my Minnesota friends, you have to count every mud puddle in the state to get up to 10,000 lakes.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by eric on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    just because us Minnesotans are fiercely provincial and somewhat defensive, I would like to point out that there are 11,842 Lakes that measure over 10 acres.

    So there!


    Ya, I been told dat dere (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    so I put it in quotes.  As if I can remember exactly how many ponds and pools of water are "lakes" in your state.  That's how some of 'em look to those of us in states on GREAT Lakes that look like inland oceans.:-)

    Minnesota is on the border (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by mg7505 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:17:56 PM EST
    of the Greatest Lake of them all, Superior -- it's called the North Shore.

    But more seriously, as a proud semi-native Minnesotan, I think Bachmann is disgraceful. I hope she loses to Elwyn Tinklenberg (now THAT's a name Dems can be proud of).


    Ya (none / 0) (#49)
    by eric on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    and Wisconsin does seem to have the world record for muskie.  Although it does appear it is in dispute.  Oh my.  I have fished in the flowage.  I caught nothing.  :)

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 05:18:06 PM EST
    I was about to do that too.

    no one attacks our lakes! and you people better be happy MN is THE bedrock Democratic state. we are the longest running state to vote straight Democrat,

    California and New York would vote GOP before MN does.

    and we are breeding a new breed of politicans, with Aswin Madia, Al Franken, and the new breed of GOP I guess too, with Bachmann and Pawlenty


    Yep, (none / 0) (#2)
    by eric on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    the Republicans used to be called Independent-Republican Party here in Minnesota, but they changed it in 1995.  It was at about that time they started acting more like their national counterparts, as well.  Now, they are about as rabid as any.

    Arne was surely seen as a moderate Republican, although I never really bought that.  But he wasn't particularly mean, and he wasn't a "no new taxes" type guy.  He was an "old" style republican, as we refer to them here.  He really was quite popular for that reputation.  I am confident that there are a lot of people that see themselves as independent-republicans that will listen to this endorsement.

    I can't imagine (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    unreasonable Minnesotans.  A contradiction in terms.

    Maybe I've only met the "Minnesota nice" ones, but there's a reason for the term.


    Didn't another Minnesota Republican governor (none / 0) (#13)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:59:37 PM EST
    Endorse Kerry?

    Yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:00:31 PM EST
    But I can't remember his name.  Seems to me he was in his late 70s or 80s.

    Former Republican Governor William Milliken of Michigan also endorsed Kerry.

    Interestingly John Eisenhower, Ike's son, also endorsed Kerry.  His endorsement, about a 500 or so word column was published in the Manchester Union-Leader of all papers.

    Never heard another word about it. Not a peep in the national media, at least none that I saw.


    If the Dems know what they are doing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:40:01 PM EST
    over the next generation starting with Obama, we can effectively destroy the Republican party as we know it. You can see the fractures in their coalition, and they are much bigger than the Dems' (right now).

    Here's one Republican who won't.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:53:25 PM EST
    ...be supporting Obama:

    We have the tape of a 911 call made by John McCain's brother earlier this week. He called the police emergency line because he was angry he was stuck in traffic.

    The 911 call came into the City of Alexandria on Oct. 21st.  That's creating some buzz because it appears to come from Joe McCain, John McCain's brother.

    Operator: 911 state your emergency

    Caller: It's not an emergency but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?

    Operator: Sir, are you calling 911 to complain about traffic? (pause)

    Caller: "(Expletive) you." (caller hangs up)


    Guess the anger thing runs in the family.

    New York Times just endorsed (none / 0) (#43)
    by zvs888 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:15:19 PM EST
    So... (none / 0) (#51)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:52:46 AM EST
    ...why is it a good thing that Obama is loved by die-hard conservatives? Why is it cause for celebration that Colin "My Lai," or is it Colin "Iraq Has WMDs" Powell endorses him, that Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman thinks he's swell, that Obama has unearthed the decaying corpse of Super-Reaganite Paul Volcker to join his economic team, and that his possible SCOTUS nominee, Cass Sunstein, is pro-torture and anti-choice?

    Tell me again why Democrats should be happy about this. Becuz if all the Republicans, neocons, and rightwing religious whackos are going to the Obama camp, maybe Democrats should vote for McCain??

    Should Obama turn down their votes? (none / 0) (#52)
    by TChris on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    It's a good thing because it helps Obama get elected.  I don't care how odious some of these folks have been.  If they've seen the light and will vote D and will get their friends and fans to vote D, why would Democrats want to complain?