Big Red endorses Obama

Former Massachusetts Republican Governor Bill Weld has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Weld is another prominent Republican to change sides, joining Colin Powell and former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson in jumping on the runaway Barack Obama freight train. From the Globe:

Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a Republican, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president on Friday, citing the senator’s good judgment, “deep sense of calm” and “first-class political temperament.”

Weld said he’s never endorsed a Democrat for president before, but in the last six weeks or so, it became “close to a no-brainer.” Obama has a history of bringing Democrats, Republicans and independents together and is the best choice at a time when America’s standing in the world is at a low point, he said.

“It’s not often you get a guy with his combination of qualities, chief among which I would say is the deep sense of calm he displays, and I think that’s a product of his equally deep intelligence,” he said in a phone interview.

Weld had been kicked around by Jesse Helms and the Republican Party when he was nominated by Bill Clinton to be ambassador to Mexico. He had endorsed Mitt Romney in the Republican primary season. And Weld had been treated pretty shabbily by Republicans when he contemplated a run for Governor of New York. I guess if they don’t want Bill Weld we are happy to have him come on over to the Democratic side!

http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/271552990

This entry was posted in National News, State News. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Big Red endorses Obama

  1. Patrizia says:

    What, what, I’m sorry, did Weld just say: “Obama has a history of bringing Democrats, Republicans and Independents together…” Can he cite one example of this? As opposed to McCain, who most clearly HAS done just that.

    What, was Willy ingesting some hallucinogenics and heading to a Grateful Dead concert when he said that?

    What a moron.

    Like

  2. Bill Manzi says:

    Well first off Willy is a Jack Daniels man, and has never been known to ingest hallucinogenics. The simple act of attending a Grateful Dead concert does not mean that a person is necessarily ingesting hallucimogenics, although I will concede that such a likelihood is rather high.

    As far as McCain being a “maverick” and bucking party and President Bush wasn’t he heavily criticized by the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, and James Dobson for that? And in light of that criticism didn’t McCain then conform, and tow the Bush line?

    Keep in mind that hallucinogens may apparently be at play when you do the exact same thing twice, and expect a different result the second time. The American public has seen enough of the Bush incompetence and bungling. They just can’t take four more years of the same.

    Like

  3. Patrizia says:

    Yes, McCain was heavily criticized by Limbaugh, Coulter, et all…FOR REACHING ACROSS THE TABLE and working with the Democrats. THAT’S why he was roundly criticized by the conservative pundits. That awful immigration bill, which Teddy and McCain loved so very much. Teddy and McCain walked hand-in-hand with that one. And when you do stuff like that, the conservative commentators are going to go against you every time. But, it’s a clear example of working with Democrats. And I’m still waiting for Willy to cite an example of B. Hussein doing the same. He can’t.

    Four more years of the same? Right, ok. I should just embrace the Obama tax increases. I have nothing to worry about there. Because they’ll only affect me if I have a 401(k), any savings, buy anything from small businesses, or if I’m looking for a job. If I don’t fall into any of those categories, life is gonna be sweet for me with Obama. What was I thinking? GO OBAMA!!

    Gotta run and go get some more kool-aid.

    Like

  4. Bill Manzi says:

    A 401k? The Bush Administration has brought us to the point where pension plans throughout the country have lost billions. And workers in steel plants and other distressed industries saw Republican sponsored rules that allowed new owners to vaporize their pensions. Obama has proposed eliminating the Bush tax cuts, which were tilted to the top one percent. If you earn above $250,000 you would pay what you paid under Clinton. George Bush was elected to attack the problems of “peace and prospeity” under Clinton, and he certainly suceeded in his task.

    Like

  5. Patrizia says:

    Oh, so the Bush tax cuts were tilted to the top one percent? Let me refer you to this illuminating article:

    http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2008/20080121.html

    And this Bush tax cut sounds like it skewers towards the rich (my eye).

    http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/29/bush-tax-children-biz-wash-cz_ae_0130beltway.html

    Let Obama get in, this will DISAPPEAR. And if you let it DISAPPEAR, isn’t that the same as a tax hike???

    Finally, let me end with this:

    Like

  6. Bill Manzi says:

    OK lets look at your first reference.

    “The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent.
    During the same period, the percentage of income the top 1 percent of tax filers paid in federal income taxes rose from 18.3 percent to 19.6 percent. By contrast, the percentage of income the bottom fifth of tax filers paid in federal income taxes dropped from 0.4 percent to zero.
    The income share of the top 1 percent rose 7.7 percentage points, from 11.3 percent to 19 percent, while their income tax burden rose even more, by 11 percentage points, from 26 percent to 37 percent.”

    Nice try, but the Bush tax cuts for the top one percent started well after 1986. Your argument here would seem to be that the top earners already pay a disproportionate share of the overall tax burden, and hence the Bush cuts, which rewarded them, are good policy based on that. You can make that argument if you like, but it doesn’t refute the fact that the Bush tax cuts rewarded the top one percent of earners.

    Like

  7. Patrizia says:

    Are you kidding? Are you saying that Bush didn’t give the middle class a tax break? DID YOU READ THE SECOND ARTICLE? And, tell me, when Obama wants those Bush tax cuts to expire, would that not mean a TAX INCREASE FOR EVERYONE?? No, the Bush tax cuts did not only favor the top one percent. They helped people with capital gains (READ THE SECOND ARTICLE). And, no, these aren’t wealthy people by any means.

    So, try and spin and spin and spin. You’re getting dizzy, you’re going to fall. As is this country if and when Obamarx takes the helm.

    Like

  8. Jim says:

    She’s got a point mayor. I do recall getting my $600 stimulus check (on loan from China) that promptly went towards paying my bills, rather than as a windfall to stimulate the U.S. economy by purchasing foreign imports….

    Jim (the original)

    Like

  9. Bob LeBlanc says:

    Gee, Big Red was the first of the jajuga-baddour republicans posing as democrats list of favorite folks..Baddour was against Clinton before he was for her and then for Obama..maybe he knew what Big red was going to do …or maybe Weld was just listening to Baddour..good move!

    Like

  10. Patrizia says:

    Jim, as always, you remain, a complete and total (personal insult removed by editor). Stand up Jim! Oh God almighty!

    Like

  11. Jim says:

    OUCH! You know Patrizia, maybe I’m just being too sensitive, but I’m just not feeling the love… 😦

    Like

Leave a reply to Jim Cancel reply