Dems Are the New Republicans

[question everything]

Dems Are the New Republicans
Democrats are kicking the tar out of their rivals this campaign cycle.
By Daniel Gross
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 3:30 PM ET Oct 13, 2007

(snip)

The Democrats' funds aren't just coming from enraged readers of DailyKos.com who chip in $20.08 via the Internet. They're flowing in from people who can afford to throw $4,000 in post-tax income into campaign coffers. You know the Reagan Democrats, NASCAR dads and soccer moms. Now we have the Fed-Up CEOs and the Angry Yuppies.

Back in 2000, George W. Bush called his base "the haves, and the have-mores." But the have-mores are clearly more receptive to Democrats than they were seven years ago. "It's a much easier pitch drumming up support this cycle from business people, there's no question," says Steve Rattner, founder of the private-equity firm Quadrangle Group, who is a longtime Clinton backer. His take: Fed-Up CEOs are reacting to the bungled war in Iraq, poor fiscal and disaster management, and to conscious outreach efforts by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

As happens every four years during the primary season, Republican business leaders are rallying around the establishment candidate. This time, however, it's a Democrat. Morgan Stanley chief executive officer John Mack, who raised more than $200,000 for W's 2004 campaign, came out for Hillary this spring. James Robinson III, the Atlanta-born banker, former CEO of American Express and co-founder of RRE Ventures, tells NEWSWEEK: "I've been a Republican all my life. I believe in fiscal conservatism and being a social moderate." But this Fed-Up CEO now makes the case for Hillary as effectively as James Carville. "It seems to me she's the person who has got the broadest experience. She understands the importance of business development, innovation and entrepreneurship," he says.

The financial and personal endorsements are partially a symptom of the business world's chronic trendiness. As the noted management guru Bob Dylan once said: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Wall Street CEOs can read polls as well as they read balance sheets, and they like to be on the winning team. Also, many well-heeled donors give the maximum to several Democratic and Republican candidates—the way you and I might buy a few packages of Girl Scout cookies, and then toss a dollar into the Salvation Army bucket. For hedge-fund managers, maxing out to multiple candidates is a cheap hedge. And plenty of well-known business leaders are sticking with Republicans. Ebay CEO Meg Whitman was the finance co-chair for Mitt Romney's exploratory committee.

But it's not just the ultrarich who are abandoning Republicans. CNN's exit poll last fall showed that voters in the East making between $150,000 and $200,000 favored Democratic candidates by a 63-37 majority. Since 2004, the percentage of professionals identifying themselves as Republicans fell from 44 percent to 37 percent, according to a September Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The same survey found 59 percent of Republican voters agreed with the statement that free trade has been a negative for the country.

(snip)

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/43346

[jaysunb]

1. This, says it all for me

As happens every four years during the primary season, Republican business leaders are rallying around the establishment candidate. This time, however, it's a Democrat. Morgan Stanley chief executive officer John Mack, who raised more than $200,000 for W's 2004 campaign, came out for Hillary this spring. James Robinson III, the Atlanta-born banker, former CEO of American Express and co-founder of RRE Ventures, tells NEWSWEEK: "I've been a Republican all my life. I believe in fiscal conservatism and being a social moderate." But this Fed-Up CEO now makes the case for Hillary as effectively as James Carville. "It seems to me she's the person who has got the broadest experience. She understands the importance of business development, innovation and entrepreneurship," he says.

Hmmmm :evilfrown:

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Part of it is that they're betting on a Democratic victory

And want to get in good with whoever the incumbent turns out to be.

The other part is that they're fed up with the religious wrong and the global instability created by the Bush Administration.

[Oakland]

3. HRC, of courrrrrrrse!

Bill Clinton's DLC has proven what a good friend it can be to corporatists.
NAFTA, media consolidation (Rupert's HRC fundraiser), and never touching a dime of
corporate welfare while soundly putting those damned welfare babies in their
places. Any candidate big business supports means more Republican policies.
Clinton, best Republican President in years. Now we get Clinton II. Good thing
they only had one kid, or we might be in store for Jenna Bush followed by Chelsea.
Our political system and process are corrupt.

[question everything]

4. But Clinton did win. Twice

(the first time thanks to Ross Perot).

And he did give us Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer who, until recently, held the tide against the rightward tilting.

And this is why we need to vote for the Democratic candidate - no matter who s/he is.

There will be one, perhaps three vacancies in the next few years and it would be ironic if the left will help Bush accomplish his legacy of a Supreme Court full of Thomases and Scalias.