A VC - Latest Comments in The "Obama Republican"

Re: The "Obama Republican"

patty cee — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:41:24 -0000

looks like you were on to something!

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Ben — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:46:43 -0000

He's appealing to people who like President Bush because he is running on the same platform. he is so full of it.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Ben — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:45:34 -0000

The reason he is "intriguing" is because it's easy to project feelings onto him. he has no substance, he doesn't say anything. He is the most economically liberal senator in the senate.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Ben — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:43:21 -0000

You might want to know that Barack Obama is the 10th most liberal senator there is. It makes zero sense of you to support someone just because they dont' say anything.
http://nationaljournal.com/...

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Gerald Buckley — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:55:05 -0000

Chris, looks to me like the Ruskies are going to handle that "resources" job if the continental shelf is any indicator.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Jay Jamison — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:02:51 -0000

i am a republican. i don't buy the notion of an 'obama republican,' and it reinforces a perception i have of obama being long on sound bites and short on substance. i would more likely vote for hillary than obama, based on what i have seen.

the history is worth reflecting on. when reagan took over, the problems imho were far more substantial: interest rates over 15%, inflation out of control, iran hostage problem, cold war, etc. reagan's message and image of optimism, coupled with fast resolution of iran, getting a budget passed etc. exuded both a message of positive image backed with effectiveness. couple with that the vacuum in a countervailing force in the democratic party at the time (carter or kennedy)--neither of them were really credible.

i think obama is great in getting out a positive message--just like reagan. my problem though is that while the times are (imho not as) tough, i'm not sure obama's got the chops or achievements under his belt. by my count, he's proven himself a talented speaker, author, and buzz builder. what's the key *achievement* that he can really hang his hat on though? given his lack of concrete achievements, i find his tone struck to be 'above it all' comes across to me as shallow and vapid. i'd buy in a great deal more if he came across more as deep and detailed on what he'd do and how he'd do it. (kinda like bill clinton, who could wonk out on you at any time...)

more than anything right now, i want competence, effectiveness and fiscal restraint. i'll pull a switch for whomever can deliver it. on that dimension, hillary takes obama hands down--she's obviously ruthless, and i don't agree with many of her positions. but she would put together and run an effective office.

but i'm with you, i wish bloomberg would run--to me, he threads the needle perfectly. he both exudes the positive, pulled together image obama's trying to blend, and he backs it up with achievements and managerial capabilities under his belt.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Stewart Alsop — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:30:17 -0000

I'm pretty well known as a Republican (at least amongst the 13 readers of my blog) and Obama made me waver at first. But his bonehead comments about foreign policy have me think he should wait and get some real life experience before trying to run the world...

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Brooke — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:56:38 -0000

Fred -
As always, you know how to pick a topic for your blog that are going to get people charged. Whether it be an iPhone slam or something political, it's always exciting to see what you're going to come up with next. Either way, it seems pretty clear that people are pretty excited(able) when it comes to the upcoming elections.

Seems that even the politicians are fed up with the current status too ... http://www.unity08.com/cuom...

Disclaimer - I do work for the group but thought that it would be worth mentioning the article given the thread.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Henry Jones — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:17:44 -0000

You have all the information you need and yet it still doesn't click. Liberalism is the very origin of our economic system. It's about cutting out unnecessary interference, and not prejudging things you know too little about. If you think liberalism is about taxes, you've been sold a bad bill of goods. All the major economic centres in the country are liberal. Why? Because open minds and an energy to get things done go hand in hand. This is why the truly brilliant business heads, like Warren Buffett and George Soros, are liberals, while the ones who rely on corporate welfare are conservative.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:39:00 -0000

Do you know how laughable this sounds? You make it sound like "sitting down and discussing" is some sort of new concept.

Let me throw a few examples of why this reading this comment is such a joke:

- North Korea- We sat with North Korea throughout the 1990s, offering them all sorts of economic incentives if they stopped their nuclear ambitions. Of course, they stalled, got us to ratchet up our incentives, and finally agreed. When the time was right for them (1998), they began to ignor their commitments and finally became a nuclear power in 2002. A classic example of the U.S. legitimizing a Government (responsible for untold misery amonst its population), giving them the economic wherewithal to exist (thereby institutionalizing them), and finally being played for the fool as commitments were ignored.

- The Palestinian Authority- Arafat was the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House. The Clinton Administration's effort to legitimize him in 1993 is one of the most frightening policy debacles of the modern era- having the disastrous consequence of legitimizing a known terrorist, selling out a friend (Israel), and compromising U.S. policy for a decade. Needless to say there is much to be written- but long story short- when Arafat did not get exactly what he coveted, he launched the second Intifada (furthering the futile misery of the Palestinian People). Lack of discussions was never the problem- lack of credible partner was.

- Iran- For the past several years the U.S. has taken a back seat as the U.K., France, and Germany have tried to negotiate with Iran. Result: Three years later, Iran is now enriching Uranium and we are left hoping for the best, but foreseeing the worst. Recently, and with France, German and U.K. approval, the U.S. was forced to enter the picture with a more aggressive tone and posture. Unpleasant as it must seem to you, we are left holding the bag because conversations were futile.

In case you haven't noticed, it is not a lack of talking that is the problem. It is the fact that the Governments we are talking to seek three things: Legitimacy (all three examples above were extremely repressive regimes, who foster no human rights amongst their populations), Time (to continue their own ambitions), and a place at the table (where they have no business being at- both Iran and NK are signatories of the NNPT...while Arafat always claimed in his speeches in Arabic that Jihad was the true means to conquer all of Israel). Arafat's negotiations were all part of his stages theory he implemented in 1974.

The world is full of countries that really do not wish the West well. Negotiations are a dead-end with countries that refuse to honor their commitments (thereby making the treaties 'not worth the paper they are written on'). By forcing the U.S. to rely on the good will of these illegitimate governments we threaten both global and national security...while losing our ideals in the process.

Would you continue to trust your LPs money to a CEO who constantly lied to your face?

I didn't think so.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

jeremy — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:46:03 -0000

I vote on two issues. Foreign policy and economics. If Obama can convince me that he sees radical Islam as an existential threat to Western civilization (and has a plan to DO something about it) and generally believes that the private sector does a better job of creating wealth than government (I live in DC area, so see inefficiency first hand), he's got a (slim) chance. I do like his charisma and his attitude and he's inspirational. I am just concerned that we don't see eye to eye on my big two. And, even if we do, I'm concerned that he'd be swayed by the bulk of the Dem party, with which I usually disagree.

My candidate is Rudy.IF he makes it through the primaries, he's my guy.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

fredwilson — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:33:53 -0000

Chris

There is no "slam dunk" candidate for me. If Bloomerg runs, then I am with him 100%.

Unless that happens, this is going to be a hard choice for me.

Fred

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Chris — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 06:37:53 -0000

I attended the "regular folks" gathering in Washington Square Park, where Obama alluded to the "Republicans in the crowd, I know you're out there..." and this appears to be a new edit to his stump speech. I'm sure it's aimed at showing his electability, and I think Fred's asking Republicans to comment is seeking further validation of Obama's claim.

Two comments, one on Fred's position and one on Obama's electability:

1. Are there any other long-time readers of this blog who wonder about the "drama" that Fred is putting us through in picking a candidate to support? We're four months from "Super Duper Tuesday" (2/5/08) and seven months since Obama's candidacy announcement (when Fred complained about the streaming software on Obama's site), and I think it's more-than-clear that Mike Bloomberg is not running (just ask him). Is it really that confusing to figure out whom you support? My sense for some time is that Obama lines up most with Fred's views (progressive, open, different), and it befuddles me that we're being taken through this drawn-out decision-making process.

2. Just as Fred (in my view) obfuscated the "real news" when he complained about Obama's web site's streaming capabilities, I think trying to verify GOP "silent support" misses a more substantive weigh-in on Obama's views and support (or not) for them. If Fred attended a smaller gathering, what was special about that? Were there POLICY (not political) views that turned Fred on? I wrote a way-too-big check to attend a 500-person event in NYC back in March, and my view is that I did not get "special access," it was just a slightly-more-mellow stump speech with a Michelle appearance and free beer. I left the Washington Square Park event early because (i) Obama was 90 minutes-plus late and (ii) I wasn't hearing anything "special" for showing up. I am still a strong supporter, I wish he'd "step it up" and sharpen his words even further, but I am FAR from defection.

I just don't get from Fred's post above what the "rub" is with Obama. Will the degree of GOP support for Obama (in this blog's "comments" section) really swing Fred's position on whom to support? I just don't see any substantive concerns/issues, just non-scientific polling that's missing the point.

Time Magazine (published this weekend) has an updated piece of the subject:
http://www.time.com/time/ma...

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Chris LaBossiere — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:48:02 -0000

I may be a republican, but I honestly think that Obama will be more republican in many ways than the existing crop. He would have my suppport. Regrettably I won't have a say, as I am Canadian. At least until y'all take us over for our resources.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Michael St. Hilaire — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:30:04 -0000

The problem with the republican party is that most of the candidates think it's a good idea to stay in iraq. I think thats a recipe for losing the election, because it's the one thing the majority of americans are solidly against.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Hockeydino — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 06:57:44 -0000

Obama and Hillary? Please...they are both two peas in a pod - liberal socialists. Most of the republicans in the race arent that far behind. They support the status quo. No way in hell I would support those two. Who cares if they are good speakers? Heck imagine listening to Hillary's annoying voice for 4years ....shoot me now.

If you haven't heard , the state of Michigan's house and senate have been in session all week day and night, because the state is about to shut down. Yes, government offices will shut down, and thousands of employees have been told not to come to work. Not to mention all the services everyone seems to want/need will be closed - state parks, casinos, secretary of state office etc. Real nice. How did the state get in this mess? Because the republicans preserved the status quo of the democrats increasing the size of govt. Throw in the fact the private sector leaves left and right (Auto industry etc), there is no reason to do business in Michigan anymore. 68,000 people left the state last year. That's an entire football stadium leaving, and that's without even an App St. win!

New York liberals really have me baffled. You sit on one of the most important cities in the world that could really spur economic growth more than it has, then you support people that want to stifle your business and progress.

There's a few republicans that make sense. Ron Paul makes the most sense. It is a step backwards to limit government? It's a step forward, because more businesses will bring opportunities to research, invest, and spend. If I am getting taxed less, I am going to invest and spend more. Do you see how that works? It's very simple. The more you tax me ( Hillary & Obama) the less money I am going to have to buy all your applications you tout every day. It would be better if I had more money to buy your applications, thus your ventures would be valued more. You could then make more money, give more to charity, invest in really cool businesses, and the world would be a bettter place. The have nots would have more! Now isnt that what liberals really want deep down?

Come on people. Don't vote or support someone just because Tim Russert wants them in the race. Vote on the values this country was founded on - less government, and more personal freedom. I won't be jumping off this soap box anytime soon.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Guest — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:19:59 -0000

there's not a chance i would vote for obama. i don't know of anything he has done that suggests he would be a good president. it's great to say he unites people, but what does he do to unite us? how is he bridging gaps other than talking about bridging gaps?

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Audrey — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:02:55 -0000

I am registered Republican and would vote for Obama over most of the Republican pool.

What's more, the last time I visited my family in Colorado (lifetime Republicans), they were considering voting for Obama.

It seems to me that Obama is gaining a following among disillusioned Midwestern conservatives.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Brian — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:29:29 -0000

I'm not a registered Republican, but tend to vote that way. I think Obama is a non-starter for virtually any Republican. He's a warmed over 60s liberal that lacks substance as far as I can tell. He has charisma going for him, but his primary asset seems to be that he wasn't in the Senate when the vote to go to war was taken - and Hillary rubs a lot of people the wrong way so they would like another option. Hillary would make a much better president and will be more successful courting independents.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

fred wilson — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:18:52 -0000

it's too early to make a call Lloyd.

waiting to see if Mike gets in the race.

i sure hope he does.

social liberal + fiscal conservative = winner

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Lloyd Fassett — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:36:24 -0000

Stop being on the fence, Fred. Between Hillary and Obama go for the not entrenched player...http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2007/01/...

Re: The "Obama Republican"

fred wilson — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:20:44 -0000

exactly why are unconditional meetings with foriegn leaders who openly advocate wiping other countries off the map is a bad move?

maybe it's our unwillingness to talk to our enemies that is making the world a more dangerous place.

fred

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Rogel — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:27:13 -0000

I do agree that Ron Paul will probably will not win the nomination but I think he is starting something that will turn into a bigger force in years to come. Gingrich on the other hand might be able to make the GOP lineup more interesting. But It is hard to imagine that Obama will be able to create a big move of Republicans ( beside of the many so sick of the party and how bad it become as soon as it got the power that will vote for any non-Republican candidate)

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Dan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:00:48 -0000

If I had to vote today I would be an Obama Republican.

Re: The "Obama Republican"

Republican — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:37:54 -0000

Obama is a rookie and a lightweight. I wouldn't support him even if I were a Democrat.