Bush's 'Rangers', CEOs, Switching Sides To Dems in '08 Race

Bloomberg:

Dozens of corporate executives who backed President George W. Bush for re-election in 2004, including some of his top fund-raisers, are now helping Democrats running for president.

John Mack, chief executive officer of Morgan Stanley, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp., and Terry Semel, chairman of Yahoo! Inc., are among some 60 executives writing checks to Democrats such as Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, a review of U.S. Federal Election Commission records shows.

Read the whole story: Bloomberg

Comments

[plutorage]

12:41 PM on 09/22/2007

The posts here are very negative towards CEO's.

Actually I think the desertion from Reds to Blues by business community shows you how far the Republican party has sunk. I mean, if they can't even hang on to CEO's, who can possibly remain??

I have heard more and more businessmen asking for more regulation recently. The Bush administration seems to have had the idea that lack of regulation was a universally good thing. What is the difference between regulation and "law and order" anyway?

[Kendo Nagasaki]

01:43 PM on 09/22/2007

Why would anyone bet on a loser?

Losers:

Gaga McCain

Rudi Ghouliani

Jeb Bush et cetera

[consrevil]

10:11 AM on 09/22/2007

Follow the money. Big money never lies.

President Hillary Clinton

[AKJM]

11:44 AM on 09/22/2007

She appears considered and calculating, the problem is that you really don’t know where she stands and which lines she has drawn. I understand that she must placate her constituency, but those positions are not necessarily best for America.

[rektruax]

10:01 AM on 09/22/2007

And thus more evidence of the decline of true liberalism...

One can't help but notice the homogenization of the old school liberal/conservative point of view and morale scope over the years.

While I couldn't care less what a billionaire's (or TV star's, or music, or film, etc.) political opinions are, the evidence of the end of liberalism in the public view is rarely more obvious then when one reads the posts here in HuffPo.

The neocon agenda has been seeking an "in" since the late 1940's. They would appear to have done their job well.

What few understand is that they seeked to destroy the original republican party as well (I think they're done). They seek to destroy all individualism. Hillary Clinton is just as much a neocon as Rove, and the term "neocon" will eventually be interchangeable with "neoliberal" (maybe "progressive").

A slow process to be sure. Strauss started teaching the first batch after WWII. Ultimately, the moral will of the well trained masses will prevail. Individualism will end up this watered down teen age girl version of "I'm different and unique" but not too different of course. That's just wrong.

[Dejack]

09:46 AM on 09/22/2007

Well this is just peachy -- rich Republicans siding with the Democrats -- because rank and file Democrats are looking outside the party because THEIR leaders have failed them!

Third party, anybody??

[owiseone]

09:32 AM on 09/22/2007

Hopefully this will backfire, and bring in a candidate other than Hillary.

Once in awhile the voters get it right.

[truthyguy]

08:41 AM on 09/22/2007

If you think that all these rangers had a sudden change of heart, better think again.
You will find that they are supporting Hillary (not the Dem party) because they know that with her as the Dem nominee the republicans who are now divided will come together and will show up at the polls. Hillary has an overall disapproval rating among all voters of 47% and a disapproval rating among republicans of 90%. She cannot win the general election and the "rangers" and GOP know this and will do what they can to make her the Dem nominee.

[breakfast]

06:49 AM on 09/22/2007

O.K. I'll say it again. The Democrats are feeding at the same trough as the Republicans.

And there's the old saying: "you are what you eat"

And a definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

So we are going to go to the polls and vote for Democrats, but this time the results will be different.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

02:03 AM on 09/22/2007

Do It Now! Need to clean house on corpoRat "donations" Thus: No corporation headquartered overseas, nor any corp. not paying fair-share US income taxes can selectively fund ANY individual political campaigns, directly OR indirectly. Make the candidates accountable to the People, not to the CorpoRats!.

[wmbear]

01:59 AM on 09/22/2007

SANIFLO...

"Up flush toilets allow you to add a bathroom anywhere" (Huffpost Ad)

Don't tell Bush. He'll name if for some Arab country and flush billions of tax $$$ down it....

[mommadona]

12:47 AM on 09/22/2007

You gots to PAY for GOOD HELP.
Otherwise, no tellin' WHAT they'd do.

[JeffDeVore]

11:14 PM on 09/21/2007

It couldn't be that they are eager to see Ms Clinton as the nominee as she is the Republicans favored pinata? Karl Rove has made it clear that he prefers to go up against Clinton as she fires such animosity within the ranks of conservatives.
These folks get the best of both outcomes. If she wins, they can say they supported her. If she loses then they can claim a role in a grand scheme.

[MA]

11:09 PM on 09/21/2007

Everything Hillary says telegraphs to the lobbyists, health insurers, corporations, etc, "I'm here and I'm ready to deal!"
Vote Edwards, enough of these corrupt dynasties...

[kfdan]

10:59 PM on 09/21/2007

The key observation here is that corporate leaders hedge their support for candidates. I don't think their personal beliefs enter into their business dealings, hence, the split personality. These corporate leaders believe: they are good people, support society, want safe environment for people in general to live in, and over all, hope for the best.
Yet, their corporate identity and corporate actions do not support these ideas. They are do not translate into positive actions!
I personally believe that corporations are sociopaths and need to be controlled much more closely and do not deserve the designation as a legal person and do need to be regulated. What do they say to that? Just about what you would expect a sociopath to say! Politicians, in general, have form a new ideas about political contributions and how those contributions translate into corporate benefits! In other words, get the strangle hold that corporate special interests exert out of politics!

[BlueBoomer]

10:56 PM on 09/21/2007

Notice how it's always Hillary and Obama who are the beneficieries of Corporate largess???

So why is it that, despite the illogic of it, so many of you out there dismiss Joe Biden as being in corporate America's pocket?...If he WERE in their pocket, don't you think he'd have more of their money in HIS CAMPAIGN POCKET???
DUH...

If anything, he has demonstrated that HE CAN'T BE BOUGHT...Can you say the same for Hillbama?

(BTW,It's THE STATE GOV'T of Delaware that has made it corporate friendly...they don't need Biden to get their perks.)

A)TRUTH TO POWER...
B)POWER TO THE PEOPLE...
C)EXPERIENCE = CHANGE...
D)QUALITIES AND QUALIFICATIONS
E)ALL OF THE ABOVE

E): BIDEN/Richardson...All of the Above.

[Danny]

11:59 PM on 09/21/2007

Biden/Richardson -- we should be so lucky!

[larry278]

10:40 PM on 09/21/2007

W's former rectal rangers who are now funding DLC types have earned a new name from progressive Democrats & disgruntled neo-cons: ass hole bandits. W's vapid vigilantes don't have what ever it takes to brand the ass hole bandits as turn coat maverick former rectal rangers for W. Progressive Democrats are avoiding the former Replican turncoats to avoid hoof & mouth carriers. DLC types are risking infection & rejection by dealing with turn coat bandits.