Clinton and Obama Raiding Donors Who Backed Bush
Reader comment on: Clinton and Obama Raiding Donors Who Backed Bush

Submitted by Roger H. Werner, Apr 30, 2007 12:25

Mr. Gerstein stated that, "the motives of those who lend financial support to candidates with divergent views are difficult to assess" and then outlines several reasonable justifications why people are willing to support those with divergent political views: Yet, Gerstein left me with the impression that he has a fairly well defined notion of why people do this.

I found the reasons given by various people largely believable but also rather predictable. If we are to believe Steven Greenwald, for example, the man wrote a check for $1,000.00 without bothering to find out where or how his money was being spent? I've accummulated a tidy networth and I can tell you when I write a check for any amount I know where the cash is going and I wouldn't possess a modest fortune without consistently doing this. Perhaps Mr. Greenwald has so much money that $1000.00 to him is like ten bucks to the rest of us? Recent history and or my personal experience suggests that unless one is a close personal friend of Bush and or Cheney, it is difficult to accummulate a fortune; especially if one doesn't keep track of their money and how it is being spent.

While most of the reasons given by various people are believable some are less so, which leads to the one justification not mentioned by any of the doners interviewed: People donate large sums of money to the candidate they feel will best serve their business and or professional interests. I'm not sure why anyone would be embarrassed to admit this since it is perfectly rational and hardly unethical. For most of the people in the top 10% of the networth and income brackets, the past six years have been good for us; indeed the past 26 years have been very good. For the rest of the people, life has grown more difficult for many reasons; one of which is government policies favoring a certain class of people. It is hard for me to believe that at least some people making sustantial donations to certain candidates do so because they feel a candidate best represents their financial interests. I suppose however such an explanation smacks of greed and avarice; especially when the candidate craps all over the majority in favor of his main constituency (I believe Bush referred to his constituency as "the haves and the have mores").

Another reason alluded to by one or more of people interviewed is that the election 2000 George W. Bush that was sold to the American public was not the Bush presently sitting in the Oval office. The election 2000 Bush was a figament of Karl Rove's imagination and I find it difficult to believe that the national Republican party didn't know the real Bush in 1999, which is why they hung Dick Cheney around the man's neck. Many people contributed to and voted for Bush in 2000 because they thought he was a typical conservative politician. Unfortunately for the GOP and the rest of us he proved otherwise and so the county and the GOP find itself in the impossible situation we are today.

I agree with Gerstein that people support candidates and change their political views for many reasons. I also agree that people can radically alter their personal political philosophy. It is unfortunate that more people don't bother to comprehend the impact of thair donation or make the effort to understand the political beliefs of the candidate subject to largesse. If that happened we might have avoided the past six years and maybe some of the previous 26 years.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.