Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson announced Friday that he is switching parties and will serve as a Republican-affiliated mayor of the blue-leaning city.
While the Dallas mayoral office is nonpartisan, Johnson previously served as a Democrat in the Texas legislature. He slammed his former party in an op-ed for Wall Street Journal published Friday, blaming Democratic policies for “exacerbated crime and homelessness.”
“The future of America’s great urban centers depends on the willingness of the nation’s mayors to champion law and order and practice fiscal conservatism,” Johnson wrote. “Our cities desperately need the genuine commitment to these principles (as opposed to the inconsistent, poll-driven commitment of many Democrats) that has long been a defining characteristic of the GOP.”
He added: “In other words, American cities need Republicans—and Republicans need American cities.”
Johnson’s announcement makes him the only Republican among the mayors of the 10 most populous cities in the US.
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
Wow, that’s complete shit.
deleted by creator
Conservatives are already running as fake conservatives.
Honestly it’s probably not happening because spending that much time with that moronic cult would be torture.
It only works the other way around because the money supports the right wing. Nobody’s gonna fund a secret lefty on the republican ticket.
There’s a standard playbook. Just say the same things as Don or Ron. Talk about woke pineapple slices or something and you’re in. Just commit. Like Chris Rock said, Republicans don’t let “sense” fuck up their argument.
Please tell me more about these woke pineapple slices.
When you the eat the pineapple, it also eats you.
I heard it was slang for stretched out Asian buttholes.
I’ve thought about doing it. For a while, I was in an area so ‘red’ that getting even 10% D votes was horrifying to the population. Trust me, you cannot keep up with the outrage porn and virtue-signaling required. Any critical thought will have you being looked at like an alien that just popped out of the moon.
Plus, remember that the parties are private organizations. The people at ‘the top’ of those organizations, in the local and the state and the federal sense, are the people who decide who will be the next candidate. Unless you have Trump’s money, ‘charisma,’ and luck (read, being able to get free press from media because they’re all, gasp, horrified by what you said), you can’t break into politics as a R candidate without already knowing / rubbing elbows with those people.
-
How is this allowed?
-
Since it’s allowed, why aren’t Dems taking advantage of the old switcheroo and packing every race with temporary conservatives only for switching back once elected? That would be the funniest thing.
I mean if democracy is a joke may as well get some good out of playing it.
Dems don’t play dirty… but should.
This one Dem from the article just did exactly that, though…
Edit: haha, nice downvotes. So you’re saying that the switching dude was a republican in disguise all the time?
I’ve thought about primarying my rep. She’s one of the far left chuckle fucks, and I stand a decent chance of beating her due to the fact that I am 1. Male. 2. A veteran. 3. Tall.
Where as she is a nut job, but blond.
Is there even a blonde “far left” person in congress?
I don’t think so
-
I’m the mayor of this town and there’s too much crime. So I’m switching parties. That’ll fix things.
Know how you prevent that? Run actual progressives with progressive pedigrees.
Democrats that donated to his campaign should sue him for fraud.
Maybe the Democratic party needs to vet their nominees better. Otherwise it’s not going to be a political party anymore, just a name to exploit.
Personal growth.
“If you’re a Republican at 30, you have no heart. If you’re a Democrat at 40, you have no mind.”
Here is the correct quote from Winston Churchill: “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”
Also, conservatism in Churchill’s era is absolutely NOT what conservatism is now.Churchill probably meant the literal meaning of conservative, which is slow to change. Doesn’t make his message much better though, since slow to change shouldn’t mean being slow with obvious social problems.
Eh, I don’t know if that was much better, Churchill has quite the history with India…
