| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Switching from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa
Former Phoenix Suns superstar Charles Barkley is considering the possibility of running for Governor of Alabama in 2010. Nothing especially notable about that (outside of the celebrity factor) but what is worth noting is his announcement that if he did decide to seek the Alabama Governor’s office in 2010, he’d so so as a Democrat because he’s no longer a Republican. Via AP:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Basketball Hall of Famer Charles Barkley has changed his political uniform from red to blue and is talking again about running for governor of Alabama, possibly in 2010.
“Alabama, that’s my home. I’m thinking about running for governor; they need the help,” Barkley said.
[...]
Barkley, a Leeds native, has been talking about running for governor of his home state since he was playing with the NBA’s Phoenix Suns. In 1995, he said he was considering running in 1998 as a Republican but that never materialized.
After that, Barkley continued to identify himself as a Republican until recently, when he switched to the Democratic team.
“I was a Republican until they lost their minds,” he said earlier this month at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada.
“Sir Charles” reinforced that Tuesday while speaking to a convention of public school board members in Destin, Fla.
“What I’ve said is I’m rich like a Republican. But I’m not one,” Barkley said in remarks reported by The Birmingham News.
I don’t know what issues he has with the Republican party that were so bad he decided to part company with them, but I do believe that there is more at play here than just him being disgusted with Republicans. As someone who herself switched parties back in the early-to-mid 90s, I can speak with experience when I say that when you switch from Democrat to Republican or vice versa, you don’t do it because you’ve had it with your party: you do it because your beliefs have changed radically, or just enough to make you feel like you have more in common philosophy-wise with one party over the other.
Think about it this way: had I been disgusted with the direction Democrats were headed back when I affiliated myself with Democrats, I likely would have switched to the Green party or some other left-wing political party. Another example: there are conservatives today who are upset with the Republican party and who have considered or are considering switching to the Libertarian party, or some other right-wing based political party. That makes perfect sense. What wouldn’t make sense would be, for example, for me to state “I’m a fiscal conservative who is upset with how Republicans have spent taxpayer money like wildfire on ridiculous pork projects – so I’m hereby declaring myself a Democrat!” – because I know good and well the Democrats would be even worse.
That seems to be what Barkley is doing here – he claims that he believes the Republican party has “lost their minds” but instead of working within the party to change things, he’s switched parties altogether. Which tells me that it’s not so much the Republican party who has disgusted Barkley but more like that Barkley’s had a change of heart over the years in how he views political issues.
I should also note that I could care less about whether or not Barkley runs – but I thought that his declaration of a switch in party affiliation was a good springboard to discuss the issue of why people switch parties.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
26 Responses to “Switching from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Sister Toldjah,
Good analysis — but yours are always good.
Charles is playing to his constituants in Alabama. If he runs as a dem, the Black vote will come out of the woodwork..
If he runs as a Republican, he would get only a modicum of support from the Black community. (my guess).
I believe he may have been hit on the head by too many basketballs — and he is wildly running from basket to basket to find which side of the court to play.
ExPreacherman
Yeah, there’s definitely more behind this than one party “going nuts.” If he’s sticking to that, that means he felt that both parties were basically the same, but one veered off so far that he had to switch.
Personally, I think the round mound of rebound is just an idiot.
It makes me wonder just what he thought Republicans represented in the first place?
His comment about “I was a Republican until they lost their minds” makes me think he is, and always was, in typical jock/celebrity moonbat territory, but like a lot of jocks/celebrities never paid enough attention to current events and politics to know his butt from a hole in the ground before. Now he has listened to the usual moonbats, and falls right in with the anti-Bush leftist celebrity twits.
I think it’s highly likely he was spouting off about being a Republican without having spent any time looking at either party, it was just something to say. Now he decides he wants to be a politician, money, power, fame, and finally figured out his politics lean more towards leftist moonbat than conservative Republican, and he’s found the party for him.
Actually, Barkley has come home to his real party. Just consider his fellow plutocrats – Ned Lamont, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Ted Turner, John Kerry (via his wife).
I live in Alabama and Barkley knows if he runs he has to run as a loony left candiate cuz all the blacks here vote demoncrat and most of the blacks here hate the Jews and suppport the hezzies in this conflict.
He is spoiled celeb aka Alex Baldidiot, Babs moonbat, streisand and susie total idiot, sarandine and spouse.
He has a much chance of winning here as a dem as I do of fufulling my dream of being elected to Congress as a Conservative and we Alabamians are rather sick of sir charlie anyway.
I will agree with Drewsmom. Here is another example of pandering to the race card. I doubt he will ever run. Barkley is alot of talk, he might be looking for more speaking engagements. Who can say, but I doubt he was ever truly a Republican. He might of thought he was due to the concept that Republicans are rich, but I seriously doubt he took a honest look at the political phylosophy of the party before now. – Lorica
Back when I was a punk kid who knew everything, I used to think I was a Democrat and that the Republicans were evil incarnate. Sound familiar, right? Now I never really had a deep interest in politics until around the Reagan years. Listening to a talk show on a Christian radio station, a few people had compared the host to Rush Limbaugh, and while he didn’t freak about it, he didn’t seem totally comfortable, either. At the same time, near my home, I’d often drive by a billboard with Rush’s then big, fat face on it. So I decided to listen in and see who he was. Coincidentally, the first day I listened, Rush mentioned that in order to really know where he was coming from required listening for about 4-6 weeks. Thinking it was just a ratings ploy, I listened anyway and in the ensuing weeks, I realized I agreed with darn near everything he said. I realized I was totally ignorant of what it meant to say one was one party or the other. To conclude, and ain’t it about time?, I’m glad I listened in.
Marshall and Lorica and all — my heroes/
ST – What makes you think he left the Republican party because of their poor fiscal policy? He didn’t say anthing about taxes, but you somehow infer it. Maybe he left because this congress seems so corrupt. Or maybe he left the party because he sees the extreme ‘religous right’ of this party hijacking it from the rest. Maybe he just can’t agree with the neocons and their unpopular war.
Barkley is not the last person that will be leaving the republican party back toward the center. There are many ‘old conservatives’ – those who still believe in a conservative fiscal policy and that the government should stay out of making social policy.
“ST – What makes you think he left the Republican party because of their poor fiscal policy? He didn’t say anthing about taxes, but you somehow infer it.”
Um, no I didn’t. If you’d have read carefully, you would have seen that. Here’s what I wrote:
You were the one doing the inferring, not me.
“Barkley is not the last person that will be leaving the republican party back toward the center. There are many ‘old conservatives’ – those who still believe in a conservative fiscal policy and that the government should stay out of making social policy.”
Let me guess: you’re going to try and convince me that you’re one of those ‘old conservatives’ right? I’m waiting for the “I’m a conservative bbbbut…” lines anytime now.
You know, I seriously doubt at many conservatives go liberal as liberals go conservative, certainly there are more and more conservatve and Republicans as time goes by. More liberals get mugged by reality and turn right than the reverse in my experience and observation. People who go left usually were pretty well there to start with, but just were so confused and out of touch they didn’t really know what they claimed their own party was actually stood for.
I have to laugh. Only a good leftist when discussing why someone left the Republican party, would talk about corruption in congress, and leave out the elephant in his own living room. Hey Tom, ever hear of William Jefferson’s lasagne??? That ain’t rocotti in that pasta.
– Lorica
Charles Barkley admits that he is not a rold model. I agree, indeed!
ST, here is what you said
What wouldn’t make sense would be, for example, for me to state “I’m a fiscal conservative who is upset with how Republicans have spent taxpayer money like wildfire on ridiculous pork projects – so I’m hereby declaring myself a Democrat!” – because I know good and well the Democrats would be even worse.
That seems to be what Barkley is doing here –
Sounds allot to me like you think he left because he disagrees with the Repbulicans fiscal policy. How did I misunderstand this??
You replied to me
Let me guess: you’re going to try and convince me that you’re one of those ‘old conservatives’ right? I’m waiting for the “I’m a conservative bbbbut…” lines anytime now.
Actually, I’m not conservative and won’t claim to be – I don’t affiliate with any political party. I know you don’t get opposing view points much here. I read your site to try to understand the conservative view point. You seem to (generally) have a reasoned, balanced take on current events. But when I disagree, I’ll let you know. Fair?
I know. You were once lost, and now found – and have joined the Republican party. You said you switched because your beliefs have changed, but that’s not true of everyone that changes parties. Sometimes you leave the party, sometimes the party leaves you. ‘Old Conservatives’ like John Dean, WF Buckley and publications like The American Spectator are all trying to distance themselves from this administration. I’m not saying they’ve left the Republican Party, but they increasingly feel at odds with the direction of the party, and I don’t think they’d tell you they’ve change their beliefs. Hopefully they’ll fight to get their party back.
Lorica –
FYI ‘Congress’ does not refer to any party in particular. They all have their corruption problems. However, it is widely agreed that this Repbublican-led congress has invited corruption with ideas like the K-street project. You think the Abramhoff scandle is just a coincidence? And who should we blame? Let’s start with the party in control.
From the Pew Research Center
The American public is angry with Congress, and this is bad news for the Republican Party. The belief that this Congress has accomplished less than its predecessors is markedly higher than at any point in the past nine years, and by a wide margin Republican leaders are blamed for this. Many more voters than in the recent past say the issue of partisan control of Congress will be a factor in their vote in November. And as has been the case since fall, voters are significantly more inclined to vote for Democrats than Republicans – by a 51% to 41% margin.
“Sounds allot to me like you think he left because he disagrees with the Repbulicans fiscal policy. How did I misunderstand this??”
Because you took me out of context. If you read what I wrote in context (in addition to what I’d already written about not knowing what “issues” Barkley had with the Republican party – which I requoted to you already) it should have been pretty clear. Here’s what I wrote in context:
“‘Old Conservatives’ like John Dean, WF Buckley and publications like The American Spectator are all trying to distance themselves from this administration. ”
This administration is not “the party”.
“I know. You were once lost, and now found – and have joined the Republican party. You said you switched because your beliefs have changed, but that’s not true of everyone that changes parties. Sometimes you leave the party, sometimes the party leaves you. ‘Old Conservatives’ like John Dean, WF Buckley and publications like The American Spectator are all trying to distance themselves from this administration.”
But this administration is not “the party.”
“I’m not saying they’ve left the Republican Party, but they increasingly feel at odds with the direction of the party, and I don’t think they’d tell you they’ve change their beliefs. Hopefully they’ll fight to get their party back.”
Which is my whole point. I’m not merely talking about “leaving the party” – I’m talking about leaving one of the big parties to go to the other one simply because you are ‘frustrated’ with the party you formerly affiliated yourself with. You’re kind of proving my point for me.
Also, Also, you’re mixing two points together that should be separate. You bring up examples of people who are distancing themselves from the party, but not leaving the party – they’re working within it to change it. You also note that some people ‘change parties’ because the party has left them – yet the examples you cite are examples of people who have not left the Republican party.
“Actually, I’m not conservative and won’t claim to be – I don’t affiliate with any political party.”
Really? Why did you write this, then, back in late April?
What was that you were saying to me in another thread here about honesty, tom?
The discussion was about why Barkley left the Reb party for the Dem party. YOU alude to the fact that it might be caused by the corruption in Congress. Ok so logically he left the Rebs for the Dems because the Dems are as pure as the driven snow??? I rightful corrected you, pointing out that the corruption was on both sides of the aisle. SO then you attempt to correct me by posting about the “Rep” Abramhoff Scandal.
I am sorry but the last I saw there are almost as many Dems on that list as Rebs.
Good try to correct me, but it is not going to work. Logically why would someone leave one organization due to corruption, only to go to another organization that is equally corrupt.
There is no logic in that thought. – Lorica
Ohhhh and as far as the PEW Research Center. How can a good conservative get a job there, cause I didn’t see any on there website.
– Lorica
What was that you were saying to me in another thread here about honesty, tom?
You know, with people like tom, it’s hard to tell if they are just basically intellectually dishonest, or if their reading comprehension skills are so bad, coupled with a complete inability to reason or understand logical thought, that they don’t know any better when they wander around aimlessly trying to find a point, or if it’s both at the same time.
It is apparent, however, that a return to classical educational values, including emphasis on logic, reasoning, and hard facts, is long overdue.
ST – look, maybe I misunderstood your posting, but I think it was reasonable to assume when you wrote
That seems to be what Barkley is doing here
the word ‘That’ refered to Barkley stating or thinking
“I’m a fiscal conservative who is upset with how Republicans have spent taxpayer money like wildfire on ridiculous pork projects – so I’m hereby declaring myself a Democrat!”
I did vote Green. It doesn’t mean attend Green primaries and give to the party. Affiliate: To adopt or accept as a member, subordinate associate, or branch.
Lorica – let me guess. You like posting because you can add lots of funny faces. You’re easily amused- and confused.
I didn’t refer to the Abramoff scandal as a Republican scandal, although it mostly is. The only one indicted in connection to this scandal is a Republican.
1) Only Republicans received campaign donations directly from Jack Abramoff. If you do a search by donor and look at all the contributions made by “Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela”, you’ll see that every single donation was made to a Republican candidate or PAC.
2) The rest of the money is money donated by the various Indian tribes that hired him, NOT Abramoff himself. True, these funds could be tainted. Which brings us to point 3. Since this spin has been noted previously, I’ll quote from the Media Matters article.
3) From Media Matters:
Although Kornblut amended her statement to claim that Abramoff “had his clients donate to Democrats,” her comment falsely suggests that Republicans and Democrats are equally enmeshed in the scandal surrounding Abramoff. In fact, while Democrats have received contributions from Abramoff’s lobbying groups and his clients, Kornblut’s statement ignores the difference between accepting contributions from groups linked to Abramoff, which is legal and proper, and taking contributions in exchange for official actions, which is illegal, and which is at the heart of the ongoing investigations.
Again, just because Abramoff’s clients (Indian tribes, which have historically supported the Democrats) have contributed to Democrats doesn’t mean that the Democrats are at all involved in this scandal.
Ah, Media Matters, straight from the horse’s ass…
Serving the delusions of liberals with false facts and moonbat talking points…we think so you don’t have to!
Yeah I am easily amused, but rarely confused. Why don’t you post a link if you gots all the facts. Yeah I like the funny faces, you should see the one I have on my face right now as I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Also, you should do yourself a favor and stop constantly telling us the “facts” from these liberal mind control groups like PEW and Media Matters.
Also my original comment was on William Jefferson, you brought up Abramhoff and now you are defending your comment but oddly enough, We see nothing in your posts about William Jefferson. Ohhh but the corruption is only in the Republican party. That is all we hear from you guys. Do we see William Jefferson resigning like Duke Cunningham??? Noooo he even plays the race card in his defense.
To bring this back to what this thread was about originally, which was Barkley switching parties. I only commented on your original post because you seem to only want to see Republican corruption. When I am only trying to figure out the logic you used as to why Barkley switched parties. As I said before WHY would Barkley switch parties due to Republican corruption in Congress, when the Dems are just as bad??? Why don’t you try to answer the question??? – Lorica
- PEW… Ahh yes…Lets see, weren’t they the group that declared Kerry the heavy winner in the buffon exit poll of all time. Then they met with the DNC openly to see why they hadn’t pulled off the scam they got payed for. Yeh. I think if I were trying to make a point I’d surely rush to site them as a “fair and balanced source”. Uh huh, that could happen.
- Oh and Media matters, feeding the public all the bull***t Sorose’s money can buy. Yep, another moonbat winner.
- Anyone who believes there’s any more or less coruption in one party versus another, and trusts partisan groups, bought and paid for, to get their “facts” is either young, inexperienced, or both.
…*chuckle*
- Bang
Tom never did answer my question. Libs ohhh how the world would be better off if they would just use alittle discipline in their thinking. – Lorica