Republicans Endorsing Clinton
Kurt Bardella, former GOP Hill staffer:
The America that I love cannot become beholden to our lowest common denominator. And while Donald Trump is anything but a sophisticated political strategist, a man like Steve Bannon can help amplify his hateful rhetoric to an unprecedented degree.
Rosario Marin, former US Treasurer:
It is glaringly obvious that Donald Trump does not have the temperament or the judgment to occupy the Oval Office. This is one of those times where the best interests of the whole outweigh any partisan allegiances or any specific issue. It’s why I’ve made the personal choice to vote for Hillary Clinton in November.
Donald Trump is dangerous for America and is surrounding himself with a team that will empower him to leave a lasting mark on the political discourse in this country. Whether he wins this election or not, he is building an organization that ensures that this personal brand of nihilism continues to have a platform.
I have disagreed with and criticized Hillary Clinton’s positions, but I have come to the conclusion that she would be a far better president than the Republican candidate could ever be. She understands that words spoken from the White House have consequences, that sarcasm is not a strategy when dealing with delicate world situations, that our friends and foes listen to every word spoken by our president and react accordingly.
There is too much at stake both domestically and abroad to have a thoughtless individual at the helm of the most important economy in the world.
Daniel Akerson, former GM CEO:
My party and its standard bearer leave me no choice; On November 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton.
When I worked at General Motors, our global operations comprised more than 100 plants and roughly a quarter-million employees. Supply-chain management and the orchestration of commodities, parts and components around the globe required a multinational, interdisciplinary effort. In every chief executive job I have had, my team and I spent countless hours analyzing global trends, listening to experts, learning from others and making informed, reasoned decisions. Trump does none of that. While running a successful hotel business is honorable and hard work, there is no comparison to running a sophisticated global operation such as the U.S. government. Trump is simply not up to a job of this complexity.
David Nierenberg, president of Nierenberg Investment Management:
By contrast, Clinton has been tested. She has demonstrated balance, calm and an even temperament. She has an unparalleled knowledge of foreign and economic policy; she has run complex organizations such as the State Department. Over the years, she has demonstrated that she can take criticism and work with even her most strident political opponents. Like other leaders, including myself, she has made mistakes. I believe she has learned from those mistakes. In my opinion, she is ready to be commander in chief on Day One.
Trump is the most dangerous major party presidential candidate in my lifetime, maybe in American history. His character, temperament, and behavior definitely are not presidential. I don't think he's fit to be our president. He speaks positively about foreign dictators and acts like one himself.
For decades, candidates, including successful business people, have released their tax returns; why does Trump think he shouldn't follow the rules of the game? Defeating him has to be our national priority.
For these reasons, I have decided to endorse and support Hillary Clinton for president, even though everybody else I will vote for this November will be a real Republican. Hillary Clinton knows her stuff. She is emotionally mature and centered. She respects and enjoys working with people from all backgrounds. She has the diplomatic skills needed to break the gridlock in Washington and lead our country well. America needs a steady hand on the tiller.
We cannot afford the risk of a man whose temperament and behavior are erratic.
Speechwriter Richard J. Cross III:
In fact, I personally drafted the speech of the "Benghazi mom," Patricia Smith. In that speech, I concluded with the following line: "If Hillary Clinton can't give us the truth, why should we give her the presidency?" As a political speechwriter, that was something of a home run moment for me. The New Yorker called the speech "the weaponization of grief."
But weeks after the end of the 2016 GOP convention, I am confronted by an inconvenient fact: Despite what I wrote in that nationally televised speech about Hillary Clinton, I may yet have to vote for her because of the epic deficiencies of my own party's nominee.
President Eisenhower would have never proposed banning Muslims from America. Nor would President Nixon. Nor would President Reagan. Donald Trump has betrayed and perverted their legacies. Consequently, I no longer recognize my party.