Would You Trust a Democrat Who Voted Republican During the Civil Rights and Nixon Era?

[McCamy Taylor]

This is a serious question. A whole lot of folks here are hyping a current Democrat who is on the record as having voted Republican up until the last two decades, because she favored GOP "economic" policies.

For all those quaking on the right at the sight of an ascendant Warren, rest easy. Warren’s no lefty. In fact, Warren was a registered Republican into her 40s. When it comes to ideology, Warren makes for a rotten heir to Kennedy.

“I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore,” Warren says. “I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.”

Did she vote for Ronald Reagan, who ushered in much of the financial deregulation which Warren has devoted her life to stopping? “I’m not going to talk about who I voted for,” she says.

It wasn’t until later in life, when Warren was 46, that she had her political awakening. At the time, she was serving on a committee recommending changes to the nation’s bankruptcy laws. Until then, Warren says, “I said, ‘No, no, no, not for me on the politics.' ”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/elizabeth-warren-i-created-occupy-wall-street.html

Which GOP economic policies did the young Warren think were best for America? The ones that wanted to deny Medicare to the elderly? The ones that wanted to deny Blacks the vote? Or equal access to public accommodations? The ones that wanted to fund right wing coups in other countries (Nixon/Kissinger)? How about wars for oil (Vietnam)? The ones that tried to destroy labor unions? The ones that painted union leaders as "red"? We are are talking about "voting for Republican economic policies" during the LBJ administration and Nixon's administration and (more than likely) Jimmy Carter's and Ronald Reagan's. This is someone who thought that Dick Nixon was good for the well-being of the country. This is someone who could not see what was wrong with Reagan/Bush until the 1990's. That is a very slow learning curve. I don't know about you, but I want someone a little bit quicker on the uptake than that in charge of things. I want someone who understood in her youth that if equal justice is denied to others of different race, religion and ethnicity that a economic injustice is also being done.

Anyone who thinks that you can separate "social" from "economic" is kidding himself. Or herself. Years ago, in 1978 to be precise, a college history teacher announced that he was now an economic conservative though he was still a social liberal. I almost gagged. What he was really saying was "Some of my best friends are Black, but I want all that straight white male privilege that my father and my grandfather had. So, I'll just pretend not to notice that I get more than my fair share, because some other white guy has his boot heel square on the neck of some not so white guy." That kind of crazy "I'm a good person, really I am, but I don't want to waste my money helping other (Black) people's kids" is the kind of messed up thinking that got us Reagan/Bush.

You can not have social justice without economic justice. And you can not have economic justice without social justice. While I admire Sen. Warren's clear sightedness when it comes to the dangers of Wall Street's sleight of hand, there are plenty of right leaning capitalists out there who share her concerns. And they employ women for a fraction of what they pay men and they exploit migrant labor and they try to keep out unions in order to keep wages low and their profits high. That is old style Republican economic values.

Here is my litmus test for president. It's 1972. Who did you vote for? Who did you campaign for? If you say "Nixon, because I liked his economic policies" then there is no way I want you representing me in the White House. Anyone who knew the least little thing about politics knew that Dick Nixon was trouble. Anyone who voted for him anyway has got serious moral flaws---the kind that would allow him or her to say "Hey, the illegal incursion into Cambodia is not so bad. As long as the Stock Market stays solid."

Sen. Warren, will you please tell us what you thought when you watched Dick Nixon tell us about Cambodia? Did you gnash your teeth? Did you swear aloud? Did your heart break? Did you get out there and do something about it? If not, then do not attempt to run as a Democrat for president. Democrats need heart.

Seriously guys, if you really hate Hillary that much, why not attempt to draft Julian Castro? Now there is a Democrat that I could support at the top or the bottom of the ticket---a real Democrat.

[True Blue Door]

1. If the only viable alternative is someone who has "merely" behaved like a Republican

her entire political career, then I'm going with the one who had puzzling "youthful indiscretions" and is now a solid citizen.

Of course, Warren and Clinton are not the only two viable possibilities.

I will wait to see who steps up and delivers before backing anyone.

[BlueJazz]

2. Most likely. People change. Thoughts change. Attitudes change. I've even grown softer...

...and (I think) wiser. I've always despised that "Flip-flop" stuff. It's a human fault to change your feelings and mind?? Bullshit.

[tk2kewl]

93. It's a sign of intelligence to change one's mind in the face of evidence

Last edited Mon Dec 22, 2014, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[Brother Buzz]

3. If I could roll the odometer back, I'd vote for a Pete McClosky in a New York minute

Here's what McCloskey wrote in an e-mail announcement about his decision to leave the republican party:

McCloskeys have been Republicans in California since 1859, the year before Lincoln's election. 'y great grandfather, John Henry McCloskey, orphaned in the great Irish potato famine of 1843, came to California in 1853 as a boy of 16, and joined the party just before the Civil War.

By 1890 he and my grandfather, both farmers, made up two of the twelve members of the Republican Central Committee of Merced County. My father's most memorable expletive came when I was a boy of 10 or 11: "That damn Roosevelt is trying to pack the Supreme Court!"

I registered Republican in 1948 after reaching the age of 21. We were the party of civil rights, of free choice for women and fiscal responsibility. Since Teddy Roosevelt, we had favored environmental protection, and most of all we stood for fiscal responsibility, honesty, ethics and limited government intrusion into our personal lives and choices. We accepted that one the duties of wealth was to pay a higher rate of income tax, and that the estates of the wealthy should contribute to the national treasury in reasonable measure.

I was proud to serve with Republicans like Gerry Ford, the first George Bush and Bob Dole.

In 1994, however, Newt Gingrich brought a new kind of Republicanism to power, and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 has led to wholly new concept of governance. The bureaucracy has mushroomed in size and power. The budget deficits have become astronomical. Our historical separation of church and state has been blurred. We have seen a succession of ethical scandals, congressmen taking bribes, and abuse of power by both the Republican House leadership and the highest appointees of the White House.

The single cardinal principle of political science, that power corrupts, has come to apply not only to Republican leaders like Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and John Doolittle, but to a succession of White House officials and appointees. The stench of Jack Abramoff has permeated much of the Washington Republican establishment.

The Justice Department, guardian of of our rule of law, has been compromised. It's third ranking official, a graduate of Pat Robertson's dubious law school, has taken the 5th Amendment.

Men who have never felt the fear of combat, and who largely dodged military service in their youth, have led us into grievous wars in far off places with no thought of the diplomacy, grace and respect for other peoples and their cultures which has been an American trademark for at least the last two thirds of a century. We have lost the respect and affection of most of the world outside our borders. My son, Peter, one of the U.S. prosecutors at The Hague of the war crimes in Serbia and elsewhere, tells me that people of other countries no longer look at the country which countenances torture as a beacon for the world and the rule of law.

Earth Day, that bi-partisan concept of Gaylord Nelson in 1970, has become the focus of almost hatred by today's Republican leadership. Many still argue that global warming is a hoax, and that Bush has been right to demean and suppress the arguments of scientists at the E.P.A., Fish & Wildlife and U.S.Geological Survey.

I say a pox on them and their values.

Until the past few weeks, I had hoped that the party could right itself, returning to the values of the Eisenhowers, Fords and George H. W. Bush.

What finally turned me to despair, however, was listening to the reports, or watching on C-Span, a whole series of congressional oversight hearings on C-Span, held by old friends and colleagues like Pat Leahy, Henry Waxman, Norm Dicks, Nick Rahall, Danny Akaka and others, trying to learn the truth on the misdeeds and incompetence of the Bush Administration. Time after time I saw Republican Members of the House and Senate. speak out in scorn or derision about these exercises of Congress oversight responsibility being "witch-hunts" or partisan attempts to distort the actions of people like the head of the General Service Administration and the top political appointees in the Justice and Interior Departments. Disagreement turned into disgust.

I finally concluded that it was a fraud for me to rema'n a member of this modern Republican Party, that there were only a few like Chuck Hegel, Jack Warner, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins I could respect.

Two of the best, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Jim Leach of Iowa, after years of battling for balance and sanity, were defeated last November, and it seems that every Republican presidential candidate is now vying for the support of the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells rather than talking about a return to the values of the party I joined nearly 59 years ago. My favorite spokesmen have beome Senators Jim Webb and Barack Obama.

And so it was, that while at the Woodland courthouse the other day, passing by the registrar's office, I filled out the form to re-register as a Democrat.

The issues Helen (McCloskey) and I care about most, public financing of elections, a reliable paper ballot trail, independent re-districting to replace gerrymandering, the right of a woman to choose not to bring a child into the world, a reversal of the old Proposition 13 and term limits which have so hurt California's once superb education system and the competence of our Legislature, are now almost universally opposed by California's elected Republicans, and the occasional attempts at reform by our Governor are looked on with grim disdain by most of them.

From Helen's and my standpoint, being farmers in Yolo County gives us the opportunity to work for purposes which were once Republican, but can no longer be found at Republican conventions and discussions.

I hope this answers your questions about the party and a government I have served in either civil or military service under ten presidents, five Republican and five Democrat ... I doubt it will be of much interest other than to our friends, but it has been a decision not easily taken.

Respectfully, Pete McCloskey

[Jim Beard]

25. It took him that long even after Reagan?

Go to the back of the line

[seveneyes]

4. One would have to be there at the time

Life is a function of time. Experience is a function of life plus time. Let us never forget that which we can never remember.

[Warpy]

5. Do you not think people can grow up and wake up?

Kids often vote the way their parents want them to in that first election or two. If they go on to higher education and develop critical thinking schools, that is very likely to change.

My dad always voted GOP because he loved those largely fictional tax cuts. It took Stupid's first term to wake him up at last and his last vote before he died was for Kerry. He was a gent and you could trust him with your life, he just bought the bullshit. Warren was likely in the same boat, especially since everyone in finance is under pressure to conform and be Republican.

I really do hope someone comes along to knock both Clinton and another Bush out of the running, I don't think we can trust one or survive the other and I'm sick of political dynasties, even when their name is Kennedy.

I will vote for the party's nominee in 2016 if I'm still alive. I just won't be at all happy about it if it is Clinton.

[DonCoquixote]

6. Hillary was a self described "Goldwater Girl."

Granted, I could dualt both of them for being former GOP, but the key is, how are they NOW. I have known people that were agressive, argumentative smokers, who thought everything that was said was bullshit, until they had a cancer scare.

[DURHAM D]

13. When Hillary registered to vote for the first time she

registered as a Democrat. She was a Goldwater Girl before she was old enough to vote.

[DirkGently]

63. And yet she still described herself

... as having the "mind of a conservative and the heart of a liberal." Hillary was no momentary Republican, nor is she today clearly any kind of lefty on economic issues.

So let's not bullshit each other about that.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Goldwater ran in 1964, Hillary registered to vote in 1968, she voted for Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Her work is deeply rooted on the DNC, this one needs to go to bed. It is interesting how so many can remember Hillary as a Goldwater girl but can't remember she changed before her first time to vote.

[ieoeja]

64. Hillary worked for the Rockefeller campaign at the Repulican National Convention in 1968.

Her self described reason for changing parties was that the Nixon supporters treated her and the other Rockefeller staff rudely at that convention.

Working at the RNC to elect a Republican while voting for a Democrat? She must have been very confused as a young woman.

[Thinkingabout]

72. When did she change, check it out.

[Jim Beard]

26. She still leans to the right.

She hasn't changed much. She will probably win the nomination but I am not excited about it.

[William769]

39. Hillary goes as far back as the Nixon impeachment.

Call her want you want, but people that call her Republican or Republican lite only look foolish. And to my delight, I am ok with that.

[randome]

7. Does she come across as authentic now?

If yes, there's no need to spread doubt.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[BlueCaliDem]

35. A thousand times YES! She's the real deal to me.

And yes, there's no need to spread doubt about her credentials because of long, long ago.

[4139]

8. You don't know the history...

... It was southern democrats that fought against civil right. Ugly but true.

[csziggy]

15. There were plenty of Southern Democrats who supported Civil Rights and were liberal

There were even Democrats who were not terribly liberal who supported Civil Rights and led on Democratic causes - Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham come to mind.

I have lived in Florida all my life and have been a Democrat since I was old enough to register. I detested Nixon - voted against in in 1972 - and have supported liberal causes all my life. My older sister is even more liberal and activist than I am and has been all her life.

I never liked the Dixiecrats and voted against a good number of them in primaries. Even in Florida it used to be possible to have a choice between a conservative Democrat and a liberal Democrat. Now we're lucky to have a conservative Democrat to vote for - something I blame on the Florida Democratic Party.

Elizabeth Warren is three years older than I am and a year younger than my sister. She had plenty of chances to become a Democrat before 1995 and the excuses I have read don't really explain why she voted Republican so long and why she's changed to the Democratic Party.

While I admire a lot of what she has said, I'm not convinced she is the liberal savior some seem to think she could be. It reminds me a lot of the people who admired Charlie Crist and thought he would "save" Florida in this past election.

[Jim Beard]

27. It was a Southern President that got it done

not to mention the countless other things he and a Democratic House and Senate did. Medicare, Medicade and the doctors fought it as much as Obama Care.

Want to see the good a Democratic government can do....Lyndon Johnson

[link:http://www.presidentialtimeline.org/html/timeline.php?ojBmP7Sx2zXEKGLAFkoD9PJKS4H65KsU1DdO+zWy54Y=|

[markpkessinger]

65. Yes it was -- but when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law . . .

. . .he turned to one of his young speechwriters, named Bill Moyers, and said, "I've just handed the South to the Republicans for at least a generation."

[Turbineguy]

9. That would be somebody

who voted against George Wallace?

[treestar]

10. I might

That was an awfully long time ago. If we don't give people credit for changing their minds, they have no motive to ever do so.

[gort]

11. There was a time when there were liberal republicans...

who fought for civil rights while southern democrats, argued for States Rights and some were even Klan members.
FDR unsuccessfully tried to purge his party of Dixiecrats in the 1930s because they were made up of racists. Even into the 1950's powerful Southern Democrats like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond did their worst to stall Civil Rights legislation. LBJ was responsible for making those racists become Republicans when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was finally passed.

Yes, I will vote for Elizabeth Warren if she decides to run. I will also gladly vote for Hillary Clinton, who campaigned for Goldwater, if she wins the nomination.

[markpkessinger]

68. Absolutely correct . . .

. . . and even throughout the '60s and '70s, BOTH parties had conservative, moderate and liberal factions. And there were some very good, progressive politicians in those days who were liberal Republicans. The most progressive mayor in New York's history, John V. Lindsay, was a Republican until 1971, when he switched to Democrat to run for President. There was New York Senator Jacob Javits, another liberal Republican and a strong supporter of many of Johnson's legislative initiatives, including civil rights legislation. There was also Bill Scranton (senior, not Bill Scranton III), who, as a PA Congressman, was a strong supporter of Kennedy's legislative programs and civil rights legislation. There were others as well, some of whom one might not agree with politically on everything, but who were nevertheless decent human beings who tried to serve their country in a manner they believed was right.

The point is, neither party, and most especially the Republican Party, was nearly as monolithic 30 or 40 years ago as both are today. And rarely did either party, back then, vote as a solid block. Alliances formed more around specifoc pieces of legislation, and shifted from one issue to the next. And remember, many who later became prominent conservative Republicans -- people like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, among dozens of others, who had been staunch southern Democrats.

Judging the politics of 30, 40 or 50 years ago through today's lens is an inherently dicey business. It is, at best, anachronistic to do so. And as for Elizabeth Warren, there is a track record of her views going back over 10 years that should leave little doubt as to the authenticity of the views she today articulates. And unlike a certain "Goldwater Girl," she hasn't been playing both sides of the corporatist fence since she got to Washington.

[Boreal]

12. You know what they say about opinions.

Pretty good attempt at a hit piece, though!

Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagall and passed NAFTA. Libya and Syria have been destroyed under THIS administration. VERY reminiscent of the RW attacks on central and south America.

There are bankster supporting, "free trade" (British empire style) loving imperialists in both parties. Elizabeth Warren is not one of them.

[Jim Beard]

28. Sad to say you are right

and it was a fight to get the republican brainchild of the Affordable Care Act.

You have to take what you can get. We need to change the way too many people think and get them to vote. Give them a reason and they will come.

[SidDithers]

14. DU rec...

Warren was voting for Reagan when Reagan was ignoring the AIDS crisis. Warren became a Democrat only when she had decided that she no longer agreed with the Republican economic policies.

Sid

[Jim Beard]

29. You can't continue voting Republican

after Ronald Reagan and not get much support from me. But, we take what we get.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5990424

[moondust]

16. It's kind of troubling.

Did she not know the attitudes of the "economic royalists" toward the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, etc? Are those the things she didn't like? Did she not understand the McCarthy era, Red Scares, and their anti-labor attitudes?

Of course Vietnam belonged to LBJ so it wasn't like Democrats were beyond reproach.

I'm guessing she probably voted for Reagan at least once but she won't admit it. Ugh. I was largely apolitical by choice in 1980 and even I knew that Reagan the union buster meant rich people getting richer and poor getting poorer.

I think it's possible for someone to do a 180 on economic policy as things like globalization and financialization play out over time and their harmful effects become known. What about all the other stuff besides economics?



(I voted for McGovern in '72.)

[Jim Beard]

31. I also voted for McGovern

[AtomicKitten]

17. Hell yes I do if that Dem is Elizabeth Warren.

She's a better Democrat than both Clintons put together.

[Thinkingabout]

20. If Bill is bad for signing bills which was veto proof then Warren does not get a pass on being

A Republican and voting for Reagan who started the downfall of the middle class.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

44. If they were 'veto proof', then why the Hell did he need to sign them?

He could have stood on principle and not altered the outcome, but instead he had to give his seal of approval to bad bills? Ugh.

[Thinkingabout]

51. Maybe he did not have to sign the bills, now back to Warren still supporting the

Republicans and Reagan got elected and started the destruction of the middle class.

The bills still passed by a large majority.

[AtomicKitten]

52. Do not presume to speak for me.

[Thinkingabout]

53. Hum, did you speak for Bill and Hillary?

[gwheezie]

19. I don't know enough about warren

But her past as GOP would not stop me from voting for her. I actually plan on voting for hillary if she runs. I think Warren has several positive things going for her. I'm not real clear on her position on some issues but as she developes a voting record it will be clearer. I did not play on the obama vs hillary game in 08 and I wont play hillary vs Warren. I hope I get a chance to vote for Hillary again but if Warren runs and can convince me to vote for her I would change my mind.

[Jim Beard]

32. "g" like you

I will vote Democratic, not sure which one but I will vote Democratic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Would you trust a Democrat who voted for a Republican ignited war?

[markpkessinger]

71. Bingo! n/t

[DCBob]

22. Its a bit hard to understand.

Im about her age and would have never considered voting republican during that era. She must have had a 'damascus road' type conversion. She seems authentic now but it does make one wonder.

[Rex]

23. And some people hate HRC for supporting Barry Goldwater when she was young.

But good luck saying one former republican supporter is better than the other.

[delrem]

62. Some people are down on HRC for hearting Kissinger with BFF status *NOW*.

They are down on HRC for being bought by Goldman Sachs *NOW*.

How politicians stand *NOW* gives a good indication of how they'll govern *NOW*, regardless of their past.
In the case of Elizabeth Warren, how she is *acting* in the senate *NOW* shows huge promise!

In all fairness to politicians (and people in general), whether more progressive as a youth and becoming a jaded bought-out warmongering cynic in their later years, or a selfish, greedy, callous warmongering monster in their youth and becoming progressive in their later years, it is what they say and do *NOW* that matters most.

I don't agree with the OP, which in effect smears Elizabeth Warren with the worst of the past, with the US's genocidal war in Vietnam and Cambodia, etc. etc., with all of it. I believe people should take responsibility for their politics in a democracy, yes -- but I also believe in the possibility for redemption. And I take that into account when passing judgement, when musing about what I should expect.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. She voted for Reagan/Bush the second time with 5,000 Americans dead from AIDS and not a word

from her choice to lead this nation. She says she did this because she like Reagan's economic policies which of course destroyed the middle class, busted unions and abandoned the sick and the poor. So she was an economist who took 25 years to object to Supply Side Economics during which time she supported racist, anti gay, anti choice policies along with toxic economic policies which she specifically says she endorsed. How is any of that suggestive of excellence, wisdom, discernment or even basic intelligence, much less empathy, compassion and a sense of community?

I personally prefer Bernie Sanders, and I have a long list of questions for Senator Warren.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Interesting that you never mention Hillary or Kerry who voted

for wars that killed hundreds of thousands. Or Bill Clinton's sanctions on Iraq that killed 5,000 children per month.

5,000 children per month.

Interesting.

Nor have you either apologized for calling me dishonest, or alternatively fessed up to your own dishonesty.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5987922

[Jim Lane]

85. You continue to smear Warren without facts to back it up

We know she was registered Republican. You assume she voted for Reagan -- I thought she'd kept her vote private, but I haven't really followed this totally trumped-up "issue" that virtually no one outside DU cares about, so let's assume that it's known that that's how she voted.

Your conclusion is that "she supported racist, anti gay, anti choice policies...." Unless you have some additional facts, the only way you can get to that conclusion is by adding the premise: "Someone who votes for a candidate supports all that candidate's policies." That premise is ludicrous. I voted for Bill Clinton twice while not supporting NAFTA, Glass-Steagall repeal, DOMA, welfare "reform", or a lot of other things.

Did you vote for Obama? Do you support all of his policies?

If all you have is voter registration, plus evidence that I haven't noticed about votes that she cast, then you're free to choose to distrust her on that flimsy basis, but you are not free to lie about her by saying she supported every Republican policy of that era.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. Show me her record of oppposing the policies of her Party, Nixon through Bush.

She says she was a Republican because she favored their economic policies. Economic policies that were not wise policies. To support bad economic policy, she also voted for really horrible social policy. Anti Choice. Anti gay. Racist.

If her boosters were honest about things, that would help a lot. If she needs a revision of Reagan era history to serve her campaign agenda, let me clearly say that is not acceptable and there is not a politician alive who would be worth such a bargain.
This is not a small thing. You can't shout it away. Can't bully it away.

[Jim Lane]

91. In other words, you got nothin'

Your modified premise is: If someone was a registered member of a political party, then he or she is automatically deemed to have supported all policies of that party unless he or she can produce documentation of having opposed a particular policy.

That's still ludicrous.

During the Clinton years, I spoke at a forum in opposition to NAFTA. I might, with a whole lot of digging, be able to document that fact -- but probably not. As to all the other Clinton policies I opposed (while voting for him twice), no, I couldn't document my opposition. It would still be a smear for someone to claim that I supported DOMA or whatever.

You didn't answer me whether you voted for Obama and whether you support all his policies. Now I'll give you an out -- you're held to your own logic of having supported all Democrats' policies at any time you were a registered Democrat, but we'll make an exception if you can document your opposition to that particular policy.

My general take on this whole tempest in a teapot is that people can change. I don't trust Romneyesque flip-floppers, but there's no indication that Warren abruptly changed her public position (let alone her voter registration) for reasons of political convenience.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. The parties were not as polarized during the Civil Rights and Nixon eras.

The South was dominated by Conservative Democrats. New England was the home of socially liberal Republicans. Starting with the Reagan era, the Republican Party began to purify itself. Reagan's own record would keep him from even being considered a Republican today.

Republicans were needed to pass the Civil Rights act because Southern Democrats would never allow any such bill to pass. Those former socially liberal Republicans, or their heirs, are Democrats today because of the Republican purge.

So the problem wit your question is that it leads the reader to believe that the 60's and early 70's had a Republican and Democratic Party just like it is today.

That simply is not so.

[RiverLover]

33. Yes. In my lifetime, I've never seen anyone be more of a Democrat than this~

(other than Bernie, who isn't calling himself a Democrat yet.)

I wouldn't want to be judged on my past, that's for sure. It's who we are today that matters.

[99Forever]

34. Nice try....

... but no cigar. Tell Hillary I still won't ever fucking vote for her, ever.

Have a nice evening.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. How old was Reagan when he stopped voting for Democrats?

[mathematic]

60. 41-ish, 5 years younger than Warren

He endorsed Eisenhower in '52 and '56 and Nixon in '60. He officially switched to the Republican party in '62. This is all according to the internet.

[StevieM]

78. In 1948 he campaigned for Harry Truman, and also for Hubert Humphrey in his first senate race.

By 1952 he had married Nancy and she seemed to be moving him to the right.

[Jim Lane]

86. Reagan was a registered Democrat until past his 50th birthday.

Reagan was born on February 6, 1911. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan/

He changed his voter registration from Democrat to Republican in 1962. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20061003061647/http://www.reagansheritage.org/html/reagan_career_busch.shtml

[StevieM]

80. I like Warren. I also like Hillary. And I like Obama. I think the party has some great leaders.

I am curious as to whether Warren voted for Phil Graham in 1984 (when she was living in Texas and he first ran for the senate) or Rick Santorum in 1994 (when she was living in Pennsylvania and he first ran for the senate).

Either way, I think she is a terrific senator.

[Union Scribe]

37. None of this swiftboating of Warren

makes Clinton look better. Merry Christmas though.

[reddread]

58. disruptive tactics are the only kind that matter

pathetic behavior, but if this the tact being taken by conflicted interests,
holy shit, they are gonna need some better help to get anywhere.
amusing, to see how much nothing they have.

[BrotherIvan]

75. +1

[w8liftinglady]

38. No more than I'd trust my dad.

A military lifer who voted Republican all of his adult life,my dad voted for Barack Obama a month before he died.He said his party deserted him in 1984...he just c ouldn't leave them until Bush took power...and his grandson fought in Iraq.

[krawhitham]

40. Did she help to suppress unions when she worked at Walmart?

[closeupready]

98. I'd like the OP to answer that question, as well.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. I don't 'trust' any politician.

But yes, I might well vote for a Dem who used to be a Repub. Certainly more readily than a 'Dem' who simply wants to offer up Repub ideas now while still pretending to be a Dem.

Here's my litmus test for President. Are they named 'Clinton' or 'Bush'? If so, they won't be getting my vote, ever.

[CreekDog]

43. Think about the standard you're setting here, Obama has said nicer things about Republicans

including Reagan, more often and more recently than Warren has (if she even has ever...).

Now I'm not suggesting people not trust Obama, I do trust him mostly.

I'm just saying be careful what standard you set for a candidate. I know Warren has been particularly adept at playing on the national stage, but I don't discount Hillary's abilities or Julian Castro's either.

[ecstatic]

47. his voting record, however, is clear.

As are his views, going all the way back to college. The only thing that holds him back is not having the votes or the authority to enact full change.

[CreekDog]

48. that's a pretty foolish way to choose a nominee

I coudn't have voted for Obama in the 2008 primaries if I had done as you're suggesting, voting for the Democrat who has claimed to be a liberal for the longest period of time. Obama wouldn't have been close on that score.

Like I said, that's a foolish basis.

[ecstatic]

57. that's not what I was suggesting and

that's not what made me vote for him. On the other hand, learning that a candidate supported and voted for multiple bigots is a different story...

[DCBob]

49. Compliments and voting are two very very different things.

As far as I know Obama never voted for a Republican or ever declared himself a Republican or would even consider it.

[ecstatic]

46. interesting points that must be addressed

If others want to sweep that under the rug, that's fine but don't expect me to.

[Iggo]

50. Yup.

[Scootaloo]

54. I like how you cast preferring someone over clinton is "hating" clinton

I've got nothing against Clinton, really, I'd just prefer someone who's more to the left than her.

Her fanclub, on the other hand, worry the fuck out of me.

[TheKentuckian]

55. Far less vexing than a candidate that supports corporate dominance, "free trade", and

too big to fail and too big to jail to this very heartbeat.

As far as Castro goes, I see no impetus to Draft him. I'm not hearing him going after the banks, I'm not hearing about reining in the surveillance state, I'm not hearing demands to put the brakes on military interventions, I'm not hearing about reversing education deform or supporting public education, I'm not hearing him wanting to kill these job and wage destroying "free trade" deals, not hearing a call to end the stupid and failed drug war.

Is he pushing a plan for universal health care, is he the green energy guru, is he leading the charge on regulation?

Not to say because I haven't heard doesn't mean it isn't being said but why is he a real Democrat that you can get behind on the issues?

[KinMd]

56. Ofcourse back then you had Republicans like..

Mark Hatfield, Edward Brooke, Jacob Javits, William Cohen, George Aiken, Margaret Chase Smith to name a few. And they wouldn't recognize the Republican party of today

[JEFF9K]

59. What matters is current beliefs.

Why make a small pool of candidates even smaller?

[marmar]

61. As opposed to someone who's a hawkish corporatist now?

You betcha.

[madokie]

66. If that person is Senator Warren I will

damn right I do.

[Doctor_J]

67. But Hillary talks and acts like a republican NOW. Do you see the difference?

[markpkessinger]

69. Please see my post at #68

Here.

[Maedhros]

70. Do I trust a Democrat who voted for the Iraq War Resolution,

sat on Wal-Mart's Board of Directors, is a member of The Family and helped draft the TPP?

Hell no.

[SwampG8r]

73. that very thing has been demanded already

Charlie crist was its name and third way "democrats" here demanded he be supported as he sentenced Florida to another term of rick Scott
They previously demanded his support as a 3rd party senate candidate over Florida's primary winning democratic party candidate cursing us with rubio.
So I say no to anything that smells of the right wing enabling 3rd way including Hillary clinton.

[ucrdem]

74. I think Sen. Warren needs to prove herself

because at the moment we know very little about her beyond the narrow limits of her consumer advocacy, which is essentially non-partisan. I think she can make an important contribution to the 2016 election effort but not at the top of ticket.

[elleng]

76. Would you trust a 50 year old who had never changed her/his mind?

[riversedge]

82. Good question. Rigidity in thinking is just as dangerous

[oldandhappy]

77. I was a republican before I was in independent before I was a Democrat

and am now on my way to being a progressive!! As we grow we change. I hope anyway. You gotta live your truth. I want to live my truth.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. And if I ask you about how and why you changed, do you get insulted and defensive?

Most people who have made great changes are happy to talk about their process and progress. This is what I would like to hear from Senator Warren. The fact that all questions about her are met with bullying and resentment indicates that her supporters do not know if she has progressed on social issues and that they don't care if she has or has not.
So I will continue to ask her until she addresses these things. I'd like to support her. I don't care for Hillary. Warren supporters tend to answer all questions about Warren with 'But Hillary' and I did not vote for Hillary in 08 for the same reasons I don't want to vote for her now. So 'But Hillary' offers me nothing. I'm asking about Elizabeth.
Unlike Warren, I'm a lifelong Democrat. I will vote for either if they are the nominee, or whoever is the nominee. Bernie would please me.
But primary races exist for the grilling of those who would dare seek the office. No kid gloves for anyone, ever.
Warren can talk like mad, when and if she decides to speak about her life's changes, she can do so well. If she did it would be a hell of a speech. I hope to hear it.

[Ykcutnek]

79. Yes, because just a few short years ago I was a libertarian

who believed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went too far.

I had an epiphany and did a 180. It happens and people shouldn't be punished for it.

[Wella]

81. The GOP was a lot more liberal back in the 60s and 70s

Nixon would be considered a liberal by the Tea Party now. Back then--and I remember it well--you could be Republican and pro-choice, pro-civil rights, and even support the idea that the government should be out of the bedroom. Mainstream Republicans actually carried the Civil Rights legislation in 1964 while Southern Democrats rejected it.

The Republican party changed DRASTICALLY in the late 70s and 80s with the Reagan presidential run and the deliberate courting of the evangelical vote. I also personally trace the change in GOP abortion attitudes with inroads made by the Catholic Church after 1973--in seven years, "prolife" had been written into the party platform, something that would have not happened earlier, when Barbara Bush was connected with Planned Parenthood. In fact, during the late 80s, I remember going to a lot of marches where we held up signs saying, "Free Barbara Bush!" since we felt she was muzzled by the pro-life plank of the platform. If you remember, even Nancy Reagan was pro-choice, and said so during the 90s, once safely out of politics.

The free (free!) market Ayn Rand people hadn't made their dent in the GOP in the 60s or 70s either. It was Reagan (not Nixon or Ford) that brought radical deregulation and challenges to the unions.

So my answer is I could see voting for Elizabeth Warren even though she was a Republican during those years. It was a different world and being a Republican was different then. When being Republican meant being "conservative", she left the party. If Gloria Steinem is right, and women get more radical as they get older, then Warren's move in her 40s makes sense too.

[Skittles]

83. love love LOVE your assessment of a "economic conservative"

DEAD ON

as far as Ms. Warren goes, I too believe she voted repuke long after she should have known how disgusting they are, but I do believe people can evolve

[Katashi_itto]

84. If Hillary is the presidential candidate I will vote for Julian Castro then.

I didn't know he was running.

Thanks!

[One_Life_To_Give]

87. We trusted a former Klansman

So what, former members of the KKK are OK but anyone who voted for Regan must be purged?

Seriously people grow and change over time.

[StevieM]

94. What former president are you talking about? I can't think of one who was in the Klan, unless you

are referring to Woodrow Wilson, who endorsed Birth of a Nation.

[KamaAina]

97. I believe the reference is to Sen. Robert Byrd (KKK-WV).

[Jim Lane]

88. Yes, I would. Now I have a question for you...

What's your estimate of the percentage of Democrats who, in 2016, will give a rat's ass about this question? I'll make a wild guess of one percent.

When we come to the general election, if Warren is by some miracle our nominee, then this little factoid that so fascinates a few DUers will actually be an advantage. She'll be well positioned to peel off some of the lifelong Republicans who've become uneasy with the way their party has been going lately. She can urge them to follow her in leaving the Republican Party.

For millions of Americans (in each major party), ideology is a less important factor than party-loyalty inertia, often acquired from family. Warren's past would be an asset to her in helping her overcome that inertia among at least some of the people who still vote Republican despite their growing misgivings about the GOP.

[yellowcanine]

89. It is a question she will have to answer more fully, imo.

I don't think we should have political litmus tests based on the past (after all, Hillary was a Goldwater girl) but Warren's seeming transformation from a conservative Republican stance to a liberal Democratic stance on economic issues does call for some explanation - which she has not articulated very well as yet.

[KamaAina]

95. A whole lot of other folks here are hyping a current Democrat who is on the record as

having been a Goldwater Girl.

[KamaAina]

96. And remember, as hard as it seems to believe today,

the repukes were pretty much on the right side of the civil rights debate, right up until Nixon's "Southern strategy" (i.e. pander to the bedsheet racists )