There are many strange creatures in the political zoo, and this election brings us the discovery of a new species that has been the focus of much media attention — the Republican for Obama. In fact, the idea that Obama is garnering significant Republican support is a veritable media meme. The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, and the Times of London have all done high-profile articles on the Republicans for Obama phenomenon (so have many other publications that do not have the word “Times” on the masthead).

Aside from “Republicans for Obama” being a media meme, on a campaign conference call earlier this week, former Iowa Republican congressman Jim Leach and former Rhode Island senator Republican Lincoln Chafee announced the formation of “Republicans for Obama.” Of course, neither Leach nor Chafee is particularly known for his staunch conservatism; they’re members of one of the least popular species in the political zoo: RINOs, or Republicans In Name Only. Chafee even formally left the Republican party in 2006, but it seems doubtful that naming the group “Former Republicans for Obama” would be well received.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nonetheless, Chafee and Leach’s announcement stole a few more headlines. When Leach claimed that Obama is rooted in “old American values that are as much a part of the Republican as the Democratic tradition,” it was even reported with a straight face. Of course, given Leach’s lifetime rating of 43 percent from the American Conservative Union, there’s no compelling evidence that Leach has any idea what American values have been espoused by Republicans over the last 50 years, let alone how Obama’s liberal politics are somehow welcoming to Republicans.

So much for Leach and Chafee. Gauging whether there’s any actual grassroots Republican support for Obama is another matter. John Martin is the founder of another group, also called “Republicans for Obama,” which he started in December 2006, before Obama even officially declared his candidacy. The organization now claims “over 2,000” members from all corners of the country.

Though he admits he’s of a more libertarian bent on gay marriage and other social issues, Martin says he’s a solid Republican bordering on conservative. A Naval reservist who just returned from Afghanistan, he declares himself to be pro-life and an avowed fan of Rush Limbaugh who as a teenager used his allowance money to buy issues of National Review.

So why Obama? “Right now we’re definitely not confident with our prospects in the world, not confident about our future or our economy and Barack Obama is definitely the kind of leader that has the ability to uplift people the way that Ronald Reagan did,” Martin told National Review Online. “Of course he’s more liberal than I am — he’s more liberal than most people within our organization, because we are Republicans, but he has the ability to bring people together so we can solve our problems that we’ve just ignored for the last two decades because of partisanship.”

This idea, however — that Obama can bring the parties together — is an assertion backed by scant evidence. Senator Obama’s brief time in the Senate is marked by a voting record that shows him to be more of a Democratic partisan than the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Martin counters by noting it’s hard to be overly concerned about Obama’s lack of a bipartisan voting record given his short time in the Senate and the fact that the Republican leadership’s agenda during that time was so far removed from traditional Republican values like small government.