You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / "Republicans" here who voted for Obama in '08

"Republicans" here who voted for Obama in '08

By thelibrary - Posted on 03 March 2012

Just wondering if this is any of your business.

9% of self-identified Republicans voted for Obama in 2008. That is a fact! This site, and its voters, are by no means "odd."

About 10% of Dems voted for McCain.


So, have you popped over to some site asking if those Democrats were "real Democrats" because they voted for McCain?

Congratulations! You just found out why Obama won the 2008 election (hint... hint... he did really well among independents).

"Just wondering if this is any of your business."




Well does your question make any sense when this very website is a place to openly discuss as "Republicans" your support of Obama  ?

I would just like to know when the decision was made to support Obama.

Come on afraid to admit you voted for Obama in '08 ?


Uh, why would be afraid to admit it?  We were all here on this site at that time.  It's not a mystery.   We spent most of 2008 talking about how we were going to vote for Obama.  Look through the archives.  Sheesh.

I'm a Republican (and have been since I cast my first ever vote for Nixon) and I'm proud to say I voted for Obama in 2008, and will do so again in 2012.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. My question now then, is if you truly are a Republican, why on earth in '08 would you have voted for a VERY inexperienced liberal Democrat when you had a very experienced moderate Republican candidate on "our" ticket ?

Why did you (if you did) vote for someone with an inexperienced vice president who would take over if he were to fall ill?  Why did you vote for someone whose vice president insisted on allowing people to call out the democratic canidate as a muslim and agreed with them?  Why did you vote for someone whose vice president didn't know Africa was a continent and not a country?

Why did you vote for someone, that only after being called out finally started correcting his audience, and yet, his vice president still didn't?

There is a reason our current President keeps his vice president quiet, I am aware - he says some stupid things sometimes.

Why did the person you vote for not keep the words coming from his vice president?

I'm independent so don't go trying to put this "our" stuff into it.  I can vote for whoever I want no matter what their political side.


You're an independant. I want to hear from people "claiming" to be Republicans.

What do you mean by "claiming." As pointed out ad nauseam, 9% (4 million) Republicans voted for Obama in 2008.

I voted for him because our party has been hijacked by people such as yourself. Congrats. 

So you had a choice of voting for a moderate Republican with many years of experience, and you chose a very inexperienced liberal Democrat. 

The truth is you really are not a Republican, and you really should stop this charade.

Nope, but thanks for the input!

Please give your definition of a Republican.  From what I can tell, it is someone who marches in lockstep.


There were many things that went into my decision but this sums it up sufficiently -

I went to, a non-partisan source, to look at the candidates' views side by side website.  Here's what I found.

McCain and Obama paired up next to each other EXACTLY on every issue except two - both very important ones in my value system:

1.  The war in Iraq.  Obama said he agreed with the war in Afghanistan, but that the war in Iraq was started on false pretenses AND that it took resources away to fight the Afghan war.  Those were my sentiments EXACTLY.  (McCain's take on Iraq?  100 more years if necessary.)

2. The way the law stands now a woman's reproductive rights are not for the courts to mandate. 

So I looked at the two candidates side-by-side and in the two issues where they diverged, Obama expressed my POV. 

On top of that I am struggling with the current view of the Republican party - as illustrated by the opinions you have posted on this site: If you disagree with us then you ain't one of us.

WHEN will the party realize that elections are NOT decided by who yells the loudest?

"WHEN will the party realize that elections are NOT decided by who yells the loudest?"

When they lose enough elections to finally realize that the "my way or the highway" mentality is not going to work. Trying their hardest to lose the women's vote (they are going to succeed here) and doing their best to lose the hispanic vote (they are also likely to succeed here) for the sake of an ideology that wants to roll things back to the 19th century isn't going to work anymore. Their attempts to dumb down the electorate (that's the only way today's GOP can possibly hope to survive) is not going to work. Their attempts to bust up every union they can find, then believe that people are going to stand by idly and take it, are not going to work anymore (see Wisconsin).

Today's GOP (taking their cue from the Tea Party and Grover Norquist) are getting more and more out of the mainstream loop where most Americans reside. And that is NOT the way to win national elections (ask Olympia Snowe why she called it quits).

Olympia Snowe called it quits because she was unable to persuade enough Republicans to view things her way. In other words she does not fit the description of todays Republican Party.

Members of this website who are voting for Obama are by default no longer Republicans. You now either fit the description of an independent or a Democrat.  

The GOP is currently more conservative than it has been in past decades, you can either accept and embrace that, or you simply no longer fit the description and should be calling yourself something different instead of embarrassing the party with a website such as this.

Just because the party is going "Tea Party" style conservative doesn't mean that all Republicans have to move with it.

There are Republicans (Many on this VERY SITE) who are far more the the right then I will ever be.  I'm Independent as you know and like to point out if I give you my reasons.

I lean to the right on a good many issues, just as I lean left on others which is why I am independent.

Just like there are more conservative Republicans, there are more liberal Democrats.  If the party started leaning more left (and it could) doesn't mean the Democrats aren't Democrats if they don't vote for the nominee.

Right now the Democratic party is very close to the middle ground at the moment, far more then Republicans.

You will have these types of conflicts.  Just as when Regan was voted in and so many Democrats voted for him.  Were they then not Democrats for voting for Regan? No, they still were, but Regan was closer to their views at the time.

"Olympia Snowe called it quits because she was unable top persuade enough Republicans to view things her way."

NOT ON YOUR LIFE. She represents the state of Maine, where she would have been a shoo-in for re-election. Maine basically agrees with her, and she only had to run in Maine, so why would she care what the rest of the party thought?

Your reasoning is fatally flawed.

That's not what I'm getting at, I'm not talking about Snowe's constituents, I'm talking about her Republican peers in the Senate. Not enough of them see things the way she does, so she's getting out.

Actually, she's getting out because of funding.  She has long been threatened by the national and state party to toe the party line, or lose funding.  She has a Tea Party style challenger, who may well get the money.  Which means losing to a Democrat considering the voters in her state.  Add that to the toxic atmosphere my party is creating in Congress, and who can blame her for getting out.

I continue to vote for Republican judicial candidates, state officials and dog catcher. But since I voted for Obama I lose my "right" to call myself Republican? Am I understanding you correctly?

The party obviously no longer fits your definition. By default you are no longer a Republican under it's current form.

Thank you so much. Good luck with that.

I believe you are understanding "thelibrary" exactly correctly; but of course it does not make any sense whatsoever.

Yup. The GOP apparently no longer has room for folks who think for themselves. Furthermore they are very happy with the exclusionary mindset and - if the library is any indication - the party doensn't want me back. Too bad. It really needs the female vote.

"When they lose enough elections to finally realize that the "my way or the highway" mentality is not going to work."

Again, as I pointed out on another thread, what evidence is there that the current brand of the GOP is not working?

We kicked the Democrats to the curb in the last election as they suffered one of the biggest losses in the House in history.

We also now have the majority of governorships and even more important for the first time since the 1920s, we control a majority of state legislatures.



I wasn't referring to ANY past election result. I was looking at the future which, from where I see it, doesn't look really promising for the GOP in the short term. That's my opinion... and I do pay attention to what's going on. And I am going to repeat... pissing off women and hispanics is not a recipe for winning... and that is EXACTLY what is happening NOW.

And, unfortunately, demographics probably aren't working in the GOP's favor.  With a heavy percentage of elderly, the party may have a problem with natural attrition.

Brandon: you're one of the most reasoned posters I know. Are you telling me you actually think that "my way or the highway" is working? I beg to differ.

"Are you telling me you actually think that "my way or the highway" is working? "

No, I don't think that is a winner at all  Look at 2010's Delaware or Nevada Senate elections for proof.  The GOP could have won both of those races with the candidates that got beat by the Tea Party in the primaries.  

But I think that the idea that this mantra represents the mainstream GOP today is mistaken.  Especially at the state level, we have many good governors and legislators.  This is the future of the Republican Party not the wackos that get way more media attention than they deserve.  

We are about to nominate a very moderate candidate for president who is surviving a brutal assault from the far right.  If the Tea Party, "my way or the highway" faction was as powerful as many act like, Gingrich or Santorum or even Palin would be the nominee.  Instead we are going to run Mitt Romney.


Good post, and I agree with you.


That's a fair answer.  Thanks. 

Sometimes the rhetoric that gets all the coverage clouds the issue. 

I can put a Chevy Corvette emblem on my Ford Taurus, I can then try to race around corners at a fast speed. Unfortunately, it's still just a Ford Taurus.

If you voted for an inexperienced liberal Democrat in '08 over an experienced moderate Republican, that simply makes no sense if you claim to be a Republican. The days of the Eisenhower Republicans are over and have been for many years. I have spoken to countless individuals over the last twenty five years who say they are Republicans, but who formerly were Democrats. All of the say pretty mush the same thing, the Democrat Party became too liberal for them so they left, and are now honest about who they are.

Since you all here claim to be Republicans, which candidates did you support in the GOP primaries in '08 ? I would love to hear this.

"If you voted for an inexperienced liberal democrat in '08..."

There is the crux of where we disagree with you. Obama is NOT a liberal Democrat. We know he is a moderate Democrat, and 3 years of his governance proves that. The Affordable Care Act is almost precisely the same as proposed by Republicans in the 1990s. I suppose the Republicans were wild-eyed liberals. Obama's two Supreme Court appointees can hardly be described as left-wing zealots. Obama has, at almost EVERY turn, sought compromise, especially with the GOP majority in the House of Representatives, only to be rebuffed. He retained George Bush's Secretary of Defense, and actually stepped up pressure on terrorist cells around the world. He routinely used drones over Pakistan against terror units, something even Bush was afraid to do for fear of alienating the Pakistanis. He stepped up the war in Afghanistan, something most "liberals" were appalled at. Obama has governed from the center, and your Fox News depiction of him as a liberal just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Brandon-you are a smart guy. You can't tell me you don't cringe when you see the GOP candidates on the campaign trail, gaffe after gaffe, or honestly talking about social issues which were settled years ago. How about when you hear the leader of the GOP, Rush, speaking such hateful, sexists words while Romney is too afraid to call him out? I'm embarrassed FOR the party and anyone actively supporting them right now. They may as well hold up a sign "minority groups not welcome here including you slutty women!" Boehner's Congress is a joke and has spent more time on abortion or trying to make Obama a one-term president than jobs and the economy! Many thought Nancy Pelosi's agenda was extreme and blame the 2010 GOP victories on that but Pelosi was nowhere as extreme as Boehner in her legislative priorities. Plus, Boehner has no power over the tea party so he had to reject a grand bargain on the deficit because of Grover Norquist. They literally won't raise one penny of a taxes on the rich. Independents want compromise and sincere negotiations, not this "my way or the highway" garbage that gets nothing done. Republicans are turning off Independents everywhere. Personally, I think they will take a beating at the polls, perhaps worse than the Democrats experienced in 2010. And they deserve it! These "winning" Governors have been over-reaching since day 1 in so many ways and clearly are not concerned with the economy since all their "cuts" seem to be countered with tax breaks for the rich. Let's look at a few and tell me if Republicans still stand for small government and care about the deficit. I can't imagine anyone wanting to re-elect these governors.

Gov. Scott-wants drug testing for welfare/unemployment recipients which will cost the state money (which his own connections will profit from)

Gov. Walker-Anti-Union bill. Wants to get rid of collective bargaining and cut education while giving tax breaks to the wealthy (currently in danger of recall.)

Gov. Kasich-tried to crush unions but his anti-union bill was defeated by a large margin by voters

I think it was Kansas that had a "personhood" or extreme abortion measure that was defeated soundly by voters (in such a conservative state!)

Gov. McDonnell-wants to force women to have a vaginal probe if they seek an abortion and even if he must settle on a forced sonagram, his language states "the woman's face must be turned to the picture." So the government will force a woman's head to look at a screen!

And Rick Snyder from Michigan (whom I considered a moderate before he was elected) is taking away Democracy! (See below)

The Facts

Public Act 4, the Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act (PA 4 of 2011), fundamentally threatens democracy and our local rights because it is a power grab by politicians. It must be struck down or repealed for the sake of Michigan Democracy.

The Emergency Manager law allows the governor to declare a local government or school district in financial distress and appoint an emergency manager to take control. Emergency managers are nelected bureaucrats are unaccountable to local taxpayers and have unchecked, unprecedented power. Under this law, they can:

  1. seize and sell assets owned by the city, such as buildings or parks, without the approval of voters or local elected officials
  2. add to local debt, by putting property tax hikes on the ballot with confusing wording that hides the real cost of the tax hike
  3. outsource to private and out of state companies
  4. lay off thousands of public employees including teachers, police and firefighters
  5. change or terminate the contract of city or school district employees
  6. suspend contracts and collective bargaining agreements
  7. eliminate collective bargaining rights for up to 5 years
  8. fire elected officials, and
  9. dissolve or merge whole cities, counties and school districts

The unelected bureaucrats would be empowered to write the local government's budget and all its contracts for two years AFTER they are gone. No input from local residents, no collective bargaining.

This is just a power grab by politicians in Lansing. Political opponents of local officials don't have to beat them in elections. They can just get Governor Snyder and politicians in Lansing to take away power and put their people in place, people who support their political agenda – not the needs of people in the community. We need our leaders to come together to find solutions, not take away voting rights and strip decision-making power from local communities.

Michigan already had a law in place, a law used by both Republican and Democratic governors, that allowed the appointment of officials to help bring communities and school districts in financial trouble back to solid ground. It was working, but now the power-hungry Governor and other politicians rammed a new law through that gave politically appointed managers unprecedented powers to cancel collective bargaining, privatize services, and strip power from local elected officials. This law isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about grabbing power.

When you read the fine print in this law, it says emergency managers have the power to end contracts. That is a backdoor way of taking away the right to collective bargaining. They know they can't pass a law to completely end collective bargaining in Michigan, so they will use this loophole to end it community by community. The rights of public servants like cops, firefighters, nurses and teachers who negotiated contracts in good faith will be stripped away.

One of the most important parts of our democracy is the ability for voters to have local control. They can elect people from their community, people they know, to serve on their city councils or school boards. With the emergency manager law, voters can be completely stripped of that power, and outsiders appointed by the Governor will have more power in communities they don't even live in, without the approval of voters who live there.

The emergency manager legislation has zero oversight and zero accountability. Under this law, it is entirely up to the governor to have his political appointees go into communities and do what they want to change rules for their schools and governments, local tax rates, cancel contracts and sell off community assets. These financial managers don't need one bit of approval from the legislature, local leaders, or even voters to make these drastic changes.



As for the original question of this post, I find it intriging that thelibrary is so insecure that he continues to question our motives, intellect, and preference for a candidate who will move the nation in the right direction. He mocks the notion that moderates who are unhappy with the direction of their party could-gasp-vote for the other guy! How dare we not vote straight Republican? Where is our loyalty? Well, I think most of us go with John McCain's slogan: country first (but we really mean it.) When I heard President Obama's keynote speech at the Democratic convention years ago, I was immediately drawn to his message. I then heard interviews in which he praised Reagan and even complimented Bush and stressed the idea of us all being "one nation"-not focusing on our differences. I had been voting straight Republican since 1988 and could not deny how much his message was resonating and how John McCain just did not "get it." When McCain chose Palin, that made it so easy for me to realize that Barack Obama's ideas and personality were closer to what I wanted for this country than McCain/Palin. Obama is not a liberal. Trust me, I have liberal friends who point out every moderate move he makes and wish he were much more liberal! He is a moderate and operates in a pragmatic way, trying to bring many ideas together. Many wish he would have worked for universal healthcare but he decided to support the Affordable Health Care Act which mirrors the Republican Dole plan and has been endorsed and happily used by Republicans until Obama suddenly got credit. I may take your advice one day and change to an Independent or Democrat, especially if my party keeps going further right. But I am not obsessed with labels like you are. I am comfortable in my knowledge, inteliigence, open-mindedness and ability to think for myself and I don't need to vote like a robot. I want to vote to promote issues I care about and for candidates who seem to have the best ideas to move our nation forward. If you want to demonize me for being smart about how I vote and who I vote for, I will proudly be called a devil. President Obama may have been more inexperienced than McCain but he was much more stable, thoughtful and made me feel that I could trust his leadership. Look at his firm decisions on Iraq, the Bin Laden raid, the auto bailout, etc.These choices were risky but he was strong and steady in his leadership. I don't regret my vote one bit and can't wait to campiagn for and vote for President Obama in 2012 too.

Almost forgot about all the voter suppression laws being put forth by Republicans. College students can't use ID from home state? Requiring ID most African Americans don't have, getting rid of same day registration and early voting. I guess they know this is the only way to win when you alienate so many groups.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.