Where have Silicon Valley's Republicans gone?
A correction was made to this story. See below for details.
Calling venture capitalist Tim Draper an ardent Republican is something of an understatement. In 1999, he was enough of a fan of then-candidate George W. Bush that he chaired three fundraisers over a year before the actual election.
Salon once dubbed him "George W.'s point man in Silicon Valley." The Draper, Fisher Jurvetson managing partner is a longtime proponent of limited government, free markets, and libertarian concepts like school vouchers, making him a natural fit for a political party whose platform lauds "lower taxes, reasonable regulation, and smaller, smarter government."
This year, though, something odd happened. Draper gave $2,300--the legal maximum--to Barack Obama and zero to John McCain. Draper also did something that would have been unthinkable in the days when Bush was touting laissez-faire principles: he disclosed publicly that he will vote for a Democrat.
VC Tim Draper, once George W. Bush's point man in Silicon Valley, is now voting for Barack Obama.
(Credit: Draper Fisher Jurvetson)"It's good to have a fresh face," Draper told CNET News on Thursday. "At least from the press, we've seen about six years of fear. I'd like to see six years of opportunity and what that could do for our country, and I think that might happen with Obama."
Draper likes McCain's views on nuclear power and school vouchers, but believes that government spending has run amok in a capital city dominated by Republicans for much of the last decade. Obama, he says, understands that an economic recovery comes from venture capital and entrepreneurship and, overall, "will be a good ambassador for our country."
He's not alone. A review of 2008 campaign contributions show what amounts to a startling number of defections by Silicon Valley leaders well-known for their support of Republican candidates in the past.
Intel Chairman Craig Barrett wrote checks to Bush during the last two presidential elections. He's handed $2,300 to onetime candidate Mitt Romney, but nothing to McCain.Lead21, a once-thriving outpost of free-market Republicanism in Silicon Valley, has not updated its blog since April 2007 (though it is holding an election party in San Francisco next Tuesday).
While McCain can count on some prominent Bay area donors--Sun Microsystems' Scott McNealy and Intel's Paul Otellini are two--the apparent lack of enthusiasm is telling. One explanation might be that Obama is simply a more attractive candidate than Al Gore or John Kerry. Or it could be a response to the neocon influence in the Republican Party and the fictions that led to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Or, perhaps, is McCain too wishy-washy on taxes and enthusiastic about Internet regulation?
Daniel Ballon, a policy fellow in technology studies at the free-market Pacific Research Institute, believes the shift could be due to how much influence the Democrat-controlled Congress will enjoy over technology companies, especially if the party gains a supermajority.
"I don't think anyone wants to bet too strongly on the wrong horse," Ballon said. "They're looking at how the political winds are moving right now and seeing a strong likelihood of an Obama presidency and a stronger Democratic majority in the Congress. They think supporting the wrong person could come back and hurt them."
The McCain campaign headquarters referred calls on this topic to their West Coast regional director, who did not immediately respond to an interview request.
To be sure, the McCain campaign can count on the endorsements of some of the area's best-known former chief executives. Meg Whitman, who stepped down as eBay's chief executive officer in March, and Carly Fiorina, the chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard from 1999 to 2005, are both active in the campaign and spoke at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn. A survey by Chief Executive magazine says 74 percent of executives surveyed said Obama would be a disaster for the country, and a steady stream of criticisms of the Democratic nominee from business leaders have appeared in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Obama, on the other hand, can count a far longer list of endorsements, including Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt (who appeared with liberal talk show Rachel Maddow during the Democratic convention).
A shift toward the Democrats
The apparent political shift isn't limited to McCain and technology executives. In what could prove to be a worrisome sign for the Republican Party's future fundraising and electoral prospects, rank-and-file employees of tech companies seem to feel the same way about Republican candidates more broadly.
Microsoft employees handed 62 percent of their political giving to Democrats in 2004; now it's up to 70 percent. AT&T employees' Democratic support is up from 39 percent to 44 percent--even though it was Republicans who pushed to shield their employer from lawsuits alleging violations of federal wiretapping laws.
McCain received just $1.35 million from industry employees this year, a quarter of Obama's haul. Even Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the limited-government candidate who broke with his party over the Iraq war, received $802,502--a remarkable showing considering that Paul dropped out of the race months ago, while McCain has been ramping up his fundraising solicitations and even sending donors prepaid Fedex envelopes.
Overall, what Opensecrets.org defines as the computer and Internet industry four years ago favored Democrats by a 54 percent margin. Now it's a 64 percent margin, which is a remarkable shift in a short time.
It's difficult to discern exactly what's causing the shift, and far too early to say whether this is a one-time move away from Republicans or something that will continue.
Part of the reason could be a dislike for the growth in federal power including warrantless wiretapping and interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, or the amazing uptick in federal spending (the debt has more than doubled since January 2001).
Another could be that Obama is promising billions in taxes hikes and subsequent government spending on favored projects, including $150 billion over 10 years for "green energy," much of which would flow to solar and biofuel start-ups in Silicon Valley. More favorites: $10 billion a year on healthcare tech, and broadband technologies, raising the question of whether some of the Obama-thusiasm can be explained by what economists like to call "rent seeking."
It could also be that Bush has not made tech topics the same priority that his predecessor did, something that Obama promises to change.
"Even Republican friends of mine who are diehards will say there was just nothing going on there," said Rob Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and an Obama adviser. "No one was home in the White House when it came to tech."
Atkinson acknowledges that if it looked like Republicans would sweep Congress, "you'd see a very different dynamic." He believes that the lack of enthusiasm for McCain also stems from the Arizona senator's mixed record on tech: "McCain is kind of seen as a little bit erratic in terms of people who have had dealings with him in the past on the Commerce committee. They're not sure what he's going to do and where he's going to go."
Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks the change has to do with revulsion toward Republicans' spending, combined with their desire to centralize power in Washington. "This group is libertarian in outlook and Democratic in donation," Harper said, referring to Silicon Valley. "More so now that eight years of a Republican administration have brought us war and high-spending government."
For Draper, the venture capitalist, spending plays a role in his vote for Obama. "I've noticed that government spending as a percentage of GNP has grown from something like 7 percent to 43 percent in the last 100 years," he said. "During that time the growth in GNP has gone down from 8 or 9 percent to almost flat. I think those two things are related--more government spending equals less growth."
"There's one other thing I think will be a real positive--I think people will start looking up," Draper said. "They've been bombed with bad news for a long, long time and it spread fear throughout the land, and I think it's time to spread opportunity...And I think that might be the visceral thing in Silicon Valley that they are responding to--it's time to swing back to opportunity. Enough of this fear."
CNET's Stephanie Condon contributed to this report
Correction on November 21: The original version of the story reported that, based on public records searches, Republican party loyalists Floyd Kvamme and Michael Kim did not donate to the McCain campaign. A subsequent search showed that they did.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
Pshhhh.
No it's not. You're just looking in the wrong places, apparently.
I had no idea moonshine drinking good old country boys were big into the high tech industry.
Some like Bob Barr joined the Libertarian party:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
Others became Libertarian Pirates:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Neo-Swashbucklers
http://www.neo-swashbucklers.blogspot.com/
http://www.neo-swashbucklers.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Neo-SwashbucklerIsland/
We are tired of Liberals dominating Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and most of the west coast, and tired of Neocons dominating other parts of the USA.
So we rebelled and became Libertarian Pirates, and have a plan to survive once the USA and the Western Economy collapse due to the political infighting between Neocons and Liberals who hate each other. We Libertarian Pirates are passionate and use love instead of hate, but we want positive change, real change, less government, more freedoms and rights. Neither Obama nor McCain seem to be able to give us and the USA what we want. All they do is talk and argue and sling mud, but we want to see deeds not words, we want action, we want bills that make sense and don't bail out stupid people and stupid companies that lied about their income on home loans and whine and complain about how unfair life is to them. Life is unfair, reality check! You have to work harder and smarter to get what you want in life, if you expect someone to owe you a hand-out you are going to be sadly disappointed. Learn to balance your checkbook and don't buy useless things and save your money to make those house payments and stop buying so much from iTunes, and stop buying toys, video games, videos, music, and things you can do without, and instead set a budget so that your expenses are less than your income. Be smart, not stupid, with your finances.
Also think positive, we have too many negative people that are ruining the country and the world:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Psionic_Mind_Over_Matter
That Wikibook is a guide to success and how to think positive and have a better life and fix the economy and the world through positive change. First thing to change is ourselves and the way we think if we really want positive change, we need to start thinking positive.
Newt?
Draper, Powell and Weld should be drummed out of the party forever.
Wait, I thought you guys were uniters, not dividers.
Frankly, I would rather 'spread the wealth' than let the government use public funds to make sure failed businesses with CEOs still taking million-dollar paychecks remain employed.
The press was really concerned about Palin's lack of experience to be number 2, I am more concerned about the lack of experience that Obama brings to number 1.
We have already seen Obama's tax cap of $250,000 shrink over the last week as various thresholds are now used. Biden used $150,000 the other day and the media just ignored it. Regardless, Obama is in favor of raising taxes by not making permanent the Bush tax cuts that affected all tax payers. So overall, all of our taxes would be going up significantly under Obama. For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. See http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
I'm guessing that some of the VC's think that they'll convert over to a "distributorship" model in which they dispense government money to loyal party members who push for "pre-approved" technologies.
When Obama talks about "sacrifice", what he and the other Modern Liberals really mean is that we should all sacrifice success so everyone can be "equal." This is in direct opposition to the concept of risk taking in a VC environment.
This "sacrificing success" concept is key. Think of the inner cities. There is very little Conservatism, risk taking, and very few Republicans. These areas have been controlled by Modern Liberals/Democrats for DECADES and they are content with the hopelessness, despair and daily killings. It's hard to believe, but the idea of everyone being "equal" is more important than any success - so people keep dying and the Democrats/Modern Liberals continue to do nothing. Decade after decade after decade.
Mr McCain ain't no Republican either as most of us know. It must be saying something about country/party/people when incredible candidates such as Mt Romney are rejected while we end up with a choice between two horrendous tickets of people who never done anything of noticeable significance. With his stellar background Mitt would bury any Dem contender. Too late. The middle class (i.e. we Silicon Valley engineers) will be punished regardless of who wins.
Probably America needs a real Dem purgatory to cure its recent flirtation with socialism at free-for-all at the expense of people who actually work. Let's just hope that the economy survives the next four years of socialistic experiments and Republicans will have at least something to salvage in 2012 ..
With the Media and News BIAS, you will NEVER learn the truth from them. You have to search for the TRUTH on your OWN!!!!
Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
IN 2001, BUSH SAID there was a problem with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. THE DEMOCRATS LAUGHED AT HIM. Of course, they would because they were getting money from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html (read this)
April 2001: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
IN 2003-5, the Republicans were saying that FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE Mac needed to be regulated. THIS WAS BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS.
Democrats Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Economic Crisis - WATCH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w&feature=related
IN 2005-6, MCCAIN said we need to regulate Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and a reform is needed. THIS WAS BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA.
GovTrack: Senate Record: FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM... (109-s20060525-16)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16
McCain said---
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
THE WHOLE STORY is here
https://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=42650&AuthorID=74795
Which politicians received the most contributions from this fannie crisis???
The Freddie-Fannie Three
1. Sen. Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT) - $165,400
2. Sen. Obama, Barack (D-IL) - $126,349
3. Sen. Kerry, John (D-MA) ? $111,000
THE DEMOCRATS said the following to the Republicans wanting the REFORM, "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, THEN DON'T FIX IT!!!!!"
That's why McCain wants a government and ETHICS reform!!!!!!!!
THE DEMOCRATS wants to see it broken first before it gets fix. So they are NOT proactive. They are reactive!!!!
Then when everything is broken, the democrats go "WE BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ECONOMIC CRISIS!!!"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pelosi+%22bear+no+responsibility%22
B.S. All the DEMOCRATS do is COVER UP and blame OTHERS!!!! Just like how OBAMA covers up his background and ties.
The Republicans never cover up, if they make mistakes, they get in trouble and they accept the consequences of their mistakes. IF ANYBODY WANTS records, the Republicans show the records. Unlike the Democrats, it takes a lot of money and time to get any records out of them and they cover-up.
And when it is all messed up, the republicans are left cleaning up and forming solutions to the Democrat's mess like the bailout bill!!!
So educate yourself before insulting others.
But, following the Bush Doctrine, there is no room for compromise on anything - and President Bush and his fellow Republicans have stuck to their guns, providing legislation so offensive and wrong that the Democrats felt they needed to stand up and block it, rather than give a blank check to the ruling elite.
HERE IS PROOF THAT MCCAIN CARES ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS----
Search this in GOOGLE----
But in 2001, McCain said his chief reason for opposing Bush's cut was that it gave too many breaks to the wealthy and not enough to lower-wage earners. His amendment to skew the cuts to benefit more middle-class taxpayers failed, and he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the Bush package.
http://www.atelier-us.com/e-business-and-it/article/what-makes-obamas-online-campaign-work">interesting article</a>.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/5757118-post6.html
Palin, GOVERNOR OF ALASKA, although pitifully inarticulate has MORE executive experience than Obama. Her great state of Alaska provides healthcare for every child. If the parent can't provide healthcare, then the state can provide the healthcare if the parent so chooses. Alaska does not have state taxes. Alaska gives a cut of the oil revenue to the Alaska residents. Alaska has an economy that is not greatly affected by the crisis.
Watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
Did OBAMA succeed? In fact, his plans are what caused the bank crisis. Don't let Obama experiment on his theories in the entire USA.
He could have CHANGED Chicago but he didn't and couldn't. Obama was more interested in being the most powerful leader in the world. He preaches of spreading the wealth, yet he gave little 5% to charity. And he forgets about his Aunt who lives in the slum. Obama just wants your votes. When he gets them, he will implement his own agenda and will forget about you. Just how he broke his promise with the money spent for his MESSIAH-LIKE 30 minute commercial where it looked like he is GOD who is going to part the sea in half and lead the people to promise land.
A real story from another person.
Obama. Obama. Obama. Like some second coming of Christ.
On my way to lunch at Doe's Restaurant, I passed one of the homeless guys that hang out down there with a cardboard sign written in black marker that read: "Vote Obama - I need the money."
Then once inside Doe's, my waiter had on a "Obama 08" t-shirt on.
So when the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy standing outside the door. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.
As I got in my car, I realized this rather un-scientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.
Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.
Do the right thing - Vote McCain-Palin 2008!
==========
COMMENT:
This is the PERFECT story. The waiter has MORE money than the homeless. Therefore, the tip (tax) of the waiter was taken by OBAMA and given to the less fortunate (homeless) leaving the waiter with no tips and angry.
This is what OBAMA has been preaching.
But you don't see what's wrong in what you did. In fact you're so proud of your cruel behaviour. Really a shining example of your party. You have no sense of decency at all. That's why everyone hates you and your party.
I hope you at least paid for the meal, and don't plan on going back there; once a server knows they have someone who doesn't tip, I bet they will give lousy service and add in surcharges like the airlines.
I'm none of those things.
Except for the boy part, perhaps.
All you republicans who don't like McCain should do the same.
Calif is pretty much "lost" to Obama already and voting for McCain
won't make a difference here anyway.
all they want is deregulations as if that was a good thing and look it gave us wild nut jobs who short everything/anything in the stock market.
- by Captseadog October 31, 2008 8:38 AM PDT
- I want C-net to talk about tech... not politics.... I looked for a "contact us" on this page and could not find one. Since CBS bought them, they want to use the hit and run method of political comment. If I wanted their political opinion, I would go to CBS. If they are issuing their slanted political opinions are they also slanting their product reviews? I will cancel my subscription to c net if this crap continues.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Al57 October 31, 2008 10:19 AM PDT
- The problem is the reason things are so polarized is it's not just politics, it's that the lefty's have a different belief system than the traditional people. The differences are stark and beyond "politics."
-
-
- by Al57 October 31, 2008 12:59 PM PDT
- See, the Democrats are talking again about "sacrifice": http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html
-
-
- by solitare_pax November 1, 2008 4:09 AM PDT
- Actually, their tech section has been failing since before CBS bought them. Sort of the AOL-Time-Warner effect.
-
-
- by declan00 November 3, 2008 12:25 AM PST
- CNET has been writing about tech and politics since the Communications Decency Act of 1996. I've been doing it for CNET since 2002, as have two other tech-politics reporters. This is hardly new.
-
-
(41 Comments)This is why people are talking past each other these days. This all affects how we deal withe ach other in the normal course of business.
Also, since the lefty's (or the term "Modern Liberal" seems more correct these days) are more Socialist, they are opposed to many of the things that allowed the tech industry to grow so dramatically. Again, it's beyond politics.
Traditional people believe in the individual - which allows for individual success through things like risk taking and venture capital. Modern Liberals want things "equal" and they want central control over decisions to insure that things are "equal." As this Modern Liberal/Socialist mentality overloads the normal Americam Dream way of thinking, it will be harder and harder for people with ideas to succeed without state sponsorship. Put another way, when a VC looks at the projections of risk, the one of biggest items will be government interference and it will trump most of the factors that normally drive the decision process.
You can see it already with Obama. He thinks he has won and people are starting to figure out who is going to run what and who is going to be favored and put out of favor. The US is will move to a "who do you know" mentality versus a "what do you know" mentality very quickly. Think about dealings with local governments and all the stories we all read about patronage, cronyism, side deals, etc. Obama is going to tear down the culture of success and change things to work mor elike how failed liberal organizations work. I'm from Chicago and I can tell you he has no interest in making things "better"; it's all about making things "equal" - equally miserable.
In this case, they use the word "selfish" - as in we are selfish for not wanting to pay more taxes. When Modern Liberals talk about "sacrifice", what they mean is we are ALL supposed to sacrifice success so we all can be equal. Just like there is little success in the inner cities (where the Democrats have CONTROLLED things for DECADES), Obama and the other Modern Liberals want to tear down success in the rest of the country.
If you wonder why Modern Liberals are as goofy as they are, watch the video "HOW MODERN LIBERALS THINK" by Evan Sayet at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c. It's very, very good.
I suspect your opinion would have been different if the facts had led to a "Silicon Valley Republicans rise again" headline.
PS: My email address is at the bottom of the article in a mailto link. Hardly difficult to find.