Citing Iraq opposition, former Bush donors are reluctant to donate to McCain.
By on Jun 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Citing Iraq opposition, former Bush donors are reluctant to donate to McCain.
A CQ analysis shows that only about 8 percent of the 62,800 donors who gave the maximum contribution of $2,000 to Bush in 2004 had given to McCain as of April 30. Moreover, at least 46 of Bush’s 2004 donors have contributed significantly to both Obama and Clinton but are not listed as McCain donors. One, a lifelong Republican who donated $2,000 to Bush in 2004, said that he will not donate to McCain because of the senator’s fervent support of the Iraq war:
I always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government. And if you want a smaller government, you don’t want wars — especially wars that can be avoided.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
42 Responses to “Citing Iraq opposition, former Bush donors are reluctant to donate to McCain.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
WHAT? FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY FOR THE CAMELJOKERYS! WE HAVE TO FIGHT THEM EVERYWHERE ELSE SO WE DONT FIND THEM HERE! SADDAM SMELLED BAD. OSAMA BIN LADEN SAYS WE ARE BIG HUMUSHOM00S IF WE LEAVE SO WE CAN'T...TERROR! TERROR! TERRROR! BRING EM ON!
WAAAAA. GIVEE ME MY IRAQQQQQ!!
June 10th, 2008 at 1:48 pmWow, you mean smaller government means fewer wars? Especially un-necessary ones? Geez, what a revelation. The right siders are gettin' smarter and smarter all the time.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:51 pmOuch indeed, Guido.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pmPerhaps it is my naivete, but can someone be so kind as to explain why Think Progress and other so-called liberal blogs have totally ignored Congressman Dennis Kucinich's call for 35[!] Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush on the House floor last night?
June 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pmThey won't DONATE to McCain, but they'll VOTE for him.
Just sayin'...
June 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pmI always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government.
Thank you for admitting your typical clueless existence , GOP backer.
The last 3 garbage GOP presidents , Chimpy , Shrub the 1st and Ronnie Retard , are all responsible for enacting the 3 biggest US governments in history , as well as incurring the top 5 deficits of all time.
Jesus , these GOP backing twits are absolutely clueless and so full of crap............
June 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pmErroll,
There was a thread on Kucinich and the Articles of Impeachment last night (as well as live blogging on TheZoo), but TP has had nothing since.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:59 pmIsn't there also some blurb about ACCOUNTABILITY! in the conservative manifesto?
June 10th, 2008 at 2:00 pmActually any SANE person does not want war.
Call your rep.
And tell them : Impeach!!
Tell them you expect them to honor their oath of office and co-sponsor Kucinich's articles.
Called mine (R) this morning.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pmErroll , you are mistaken
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/09/breakingkucinich-introduces-articles-of-impeachment-against-bush/#comments
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/09/rep-dennis-kucinich-introduces-35-articles-of-impeachment/
June 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pmthey need their money for gas man!
June 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pmP.s. Saddam and Bin Laden both smelled bad.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pmFunny how the republic party has been "remodeled" under the Bush Boyz and Gurlz. Are we safe to assume that there will be a few R's creating the hanging chads for the D's?
June 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pmHMMMMMM!
MCMetal Says:
I always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government.
Thank you for admitting your typical clueless existence , GOP backer.
The last 3 garbage GOP presidents , Chimpy , Shrub the 1st and Ronnie Retard , are all responsible for enacting the 3 biggest US governments in history , as well as incurring the top 5 deficits of all time.
Jesus , these GOP backing twits are absolutely clueless and so full of crap…………
I think I just figured it out when Repub's talk about "smaller government" I think what they mean is a smaller number of people having access to and benefiting from government monies......
June 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pmyou know, just the "haves and have mores", the connected cronys, not the run of the mill "little people" and common riff-raff like working taxpayers.
Erroll Says
I posted a link to the full text and posted an outline of all 35 articles in the morning's thinkfast thread.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pmWayne at #17
Thank you.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pmMcMetal, he might being referring to a smaller government, less like it's one global corporate tyrannical state of a government.
If I'm mistaken, then I don't know what the hell he means by smaller government.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pmJebus. They're all freaking delusional.
I might believe that my ass is small - but that sure ain't gonna do nuthin' to help me pull up those size 2's...
June 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pmIt's nice to see that the majority of Hardcore Republicans have finally taken off the rose color glasses.
It's probably because all the highways and bridges by them are in bad shape and in dire need of repair. Or it could possible be that their beachfront property may be under water if someone doesn't address global warming. Last but not least, they have probably lost alot of money on the stock exchange because having a Republican in office is killing their dividend checks.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pmGDumbya is looking more and more like Tricky-Dicky every day . . . a lame duck pariah that no one wants to touch with a ten-foot pole. He should change his name to George M. Bu$h (where the "M" stands for mill-stone).
p.s. -- No, that size 2 dress does not make your ass look big, leftside_annie
June 10th, 2008 at 2:25 pmBad news for republicans and McCain, but it was really just one former donor that sited opposition to the Iraq War. To be more correct, the headline should be:
June 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
McCain might do well to be looking for organ donors instead of campaign donors.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pmBush is to Republican
June 10th, 2008 at 2:36 pmas
Potassium Cyanide is to Tylenol
ot, but, did i miss this story on TP? curious...
Obama To Team Up With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care Reform
[...]
Obama is smart to enlist Elizabeth Edwards, who backed Hillary Clinton’s health care plan earlier in the primary season. I believe that together, they will come up with a health care plan with mass appeal that is so strong it will put the issue out of McCain’s reach this fall.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/09/obama-to-team-up-with-elizabeth-edwards-on-health-care-reform/
June 10th, 2008 at 2:40 pmbackup Says:
Bad news for republicans and McCain, but it was really just one former donor that sited opposition to the Iraq War. To be more correct, the headline should be:
Citing Iraq opposition, former Bush donor is reluctant to donate to McCain.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Oh yes. Because since the CQ article only quoted one person who cited Iraq as one of the reasons for their reluctance to donate to McCain, it logically follows that all 57,775 other non-McCain donors do NOT consider Iraq one of the reasons for their reluctance. It's obvious that when they talk about "frustration with the country's direction:"
They mean the Prescription Drug Act or something and the $4 trillion Iraq quagmire is obviously the furthest thing from their minds.
Thanks for the correction.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pmSorry this is a bit OT, but I have to share this article about how McCain wound up with Cindy, and what happened to Mrs. McCain, Part 1. I consider myself fairly up-to-date on politics, but hadn't heard this disgraceful story yet.
And he doesn't get rave reviews from "friends" who remember what he did:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
The BIG question - will this get any play in our media, or do we still need to rely on overseas media for the real scoop?
PEACE
June 10th, 2008 at 2:45 pmspencers mom Says:
do we still need to rely on overseas media for the real scoop?
June 10th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
_______
Do you even need to ask?
June 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
spencers mom Says:
do we still need to rely on overseas media for the real scoop?
Do you even need to ask?
You're correct... my bad. Still sleepy from staying up with Kucinich last night.
PEACE
June 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pmtoasterhead. Republicans have their share of problems this political season. Granted.
But, bear with me and have an open mind on this particular article.
First. 8% of 2004 Bush backers contributed to McCain. But there are 7 months left in the election cycle. Do those donations usually come later? I don't know.
Additionally, the article gives the impression that the reason Bush backers aren't supporting McCain is frustration with Bush (and the war). Isn't it possible that those that supported Bush in 2004 are frustrated with McCain and not Bush? This information may strengthen the argument that Bush and McCain aren't that similar; if they don't garner the same financial supporters.
Finally, the article points out that 46 of 2004 Bush supporters have now contributed to either Obama or Clinton. 46 out of 62,800. 7/100th of 1 percent. If your honest, that isn't that significant.
And again, the article only refers to one former republican that sites the Iraq War as his reason for not supporting McCain.
Republicans have significant problems. No doubt about it. But, if your objective, you'll agree, this particular headline, is misleading.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm>Citing Iraq opposition, former Bush donor is reluctant to >donate to McCain.
very true my friend, very true. when your side decides to stop distorting things, let me know, and then we'll all play nice :)
June 10th, 2008 at 3:39 pm>Citing Iraq opposition, former Bush donor is reluctant to >donate to McCain.
very true my friend, very true. when your side decides to stop distorting things, let me know, and then we'll all play nice :)
June 10th, 2008 at 3:39 pmChocolate Jesus. you're right. there's plenty of distortion to go around. If we continue to point it out, maybe we'll get to something that resembles the truth.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:48 pm>If we continue to point it out, maybe we’ll get to something >that resembles the truth.
Well your more of an idealist than I...your probably in your late teens or early twenties, am I right?
I'm, unfortunately, more of the "fight fire with fire" type,
I don't beleive that people who profit from conflict, misery, and war will ever surrender their tools of lies and deceit, so I beleive that some distortions, which dont rise to the level of outright lies, are acceptable. While its a bit of an oversimplification, I believe this is essentially a battle between those who worship and are motivated by money, versus peopel who are motivated by ideals and a desire for the common good. In a non-religious context, I think money has a strong advantage over morality, especially when REAL, GENUINE morality (not the "do as I say, not as i do" type) can be more of an impediment to getting things done than a help.
If republicans actually beleived in the morality most of them claim to hold in such high regard, id repsect them alot more. But they dont. They use it as a tool to condemn us, while ignoring it for themselves. So I'm not going to try and fight people who bring knives to a gunfight unless i bring my own gun, so to speak,.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pmZimzone Says:
McCain might do well to be looking for organ donors instead of campaign donors.
Just freakin hilarious :)~
June 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pmChocolate Jesus. Well, I'm older. But, also unfortunately, I think you're right. Most of the time it seems that it's more a Machiavellian battle of ideology, with little use for truth on either side. And maybe there is no universal truth, but only infinite points of truth based on individual perspective.
Anyhow, I appreciate your posts.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pmspencers mom Says:
Sorry this is a bit OT, but I have to share this article about how McCain wound up with Cindy, and what happened to Mrs. McCain, Part 1. I consider myself fairly up-to-date on politics, but hadn’t heard this disgraceful story yet.
And he doesn’t get rave reviews from “friends” who remember what he did:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ femail/ article-1024927/ The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
The BIG question - will this get any play in our media, or do we still need to rely on overseas media for the real scoop?
If all you heard was the US corporate media, McCain's life story would be:1.) He spent 5 and1/2 years as a POW. 2.)He has 20+ years as a Senator.3.) he's a "maverick"
End of story.
There's probably a reason why they don't go into any details or cover any other parts of his life.
No mention of the Savings and Loan scandal or his being one of the Keating 5 which is quite amazing considering how his curent campaign is so dependent on lobbyists.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pmAlso no mention of his finishing 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy. Just how did he get to be a pilot with those credentials? Also, we don't hear from people who knew him in the past, nothing about his "McNasty" nickname in school which sort of validates the reservations that his fellow GOP Senators had about his running for President.
Nothing from his former mates from the aircraft carrier he was on. I don't know they're legit, but I've seen some less than flattering comments about him attributed to some of the crew who were maintaining his plane.
Cop out.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pmralph. okay. that was a little over the top.
But, as long as you believe in the idea of universal truth, consider my post at about #31 and give me an honest opinion if you think the headline of this post is misleading or not.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:57 pmto clarify: my 'infinite points of truth...' idea was over the top. Not the 'Cop out' response.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:59 pmHonestly, no, I don't think the headline is misleadng. I know that TP is occasionally guilty of misleading headlines; I've even called them on it once or twice.
But after reading the linked article, it's clear that former Bush donors are reluctant to donate to McCain, and since one of them explicitly stated that the war was the primary reason, it's reasonable to assume that others felt similarly.
Why they would max out their contributions to Bush and abandon McCain because of his stance on the war is a mystery, but there it is.
And thank you for acknowledging that your stab at relativism was over the top. I recognize that it was probably just a "wrap-up" comment, meant to put a rhetorical flourish on your argument, but still.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:33 pmOkay. Honest answer.
But, I'll stick by my guns.
46 of 62,800 Bush donors now contribute to democrats.
7/100 of 1 percent.
And 1 sites the war as a reason. 1 of 62,800.
I believe that you think it's significant and relevant. I still don't, but thanks for an honest response.
The infinite points of truth comment was a conciliatory response to Chocolate Jesus's admission that the article was misleading (and appropriate) as a tit for tat response to similar republican charges (around post #33). In my mind there is no dispute that both parties engage in it, but it makes this article no less misleading.
Hope you have a great night, ralph.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:23 pmAs I pointed out earlier, you're reading the numbers wrong.
In fact, over 1400 of Bush's top donors have contributed to either Obama or to Clinton.
The smaller number you keep referencing, 46, is the number of Bush donors who have met two conditions: they have contributed to BOTH Obama and Clinton, AND they have failed to contribute to McCain.
I see your point, and I agree that even this number (1400) is statistically miniscule, but it dwarfs the one you cite by a factor of 30.
I hope you too have a great night, backup.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:50 pm