General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOne thing I can't get past when it comes to Elizabeth Warren
How is it possible that someone can be a Republican well into their 40's? She voted for Reagan even as he made clear he would do his best to begin the long term process of dismantling progressive legislation from the New Deal era.
Reagan was also the ultimate race baiter. He gave a racist dog whistling speech in Philadelphia Mississippi which launched his presidential campaign. The same place where 3 civil rights workers were murdered because they wanted blacks to vote. Reagan constantly railed against "welfare queens". His goal was to convince white Americans that blacks are lazy welfare moochers who are taking white people's money. The Southern strategy was his main tactic.
He also had tremendous disdain for the LGBT community and he even chose to ignore the AIDS epidemic. He even made jokes about it as people were dying.
How can Warren or anybody vote Republican even when all those things were crystal fucking clear?
Today she was praising the New Deal, yet she voted for people who desperately wanted to dismantle it.
Color me unimpressed by her. Does this mean I'm supporting Hillary?
Nope.
I'll be looking at a candidate other than those two.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,627 posts)You might want to change the word passed in your thread title. It should be past.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Thanks for understanding
unblock
(52,243 posts)people change, or they realize things later in life.
my guess is that warren believed some of the academic myths about capitalism and economic justice, and only came to her present positions after studying the facts and realizing that good government regulation is very necessary in the present environment.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)him all my support!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Hillary is not my first or even second choice, but if she turns out to be my only choice I will vote for her.
Is that what you need to know?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Thank you...
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)The only registered democrat at this time who's another alternative is Martin O'Malley. But Bernie comes first.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am not afraid of Left Leaning Libertarians....
Hillary Clinton...
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)
is obviously ^^^ a Progressive...no matter what Left-Leaning Independents say....
irisblue
(32,980 posts)where is that from ? thx
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)she is a 3rd-Way Corporatist that loves wall-street and wars ... DU told me!
Logical
(22,457 posts)JI7
(89,251 posts)but the fact that she has not explained it is one reason i don't think she has plans for higher office.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)That a supposed Democrat could serve on the board of WalMart.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Do you know that Walmart once had a Buy American plan? That ended when Sam died...which is also about the time Hillary left....
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Some indicate if one ever talks to a corporation then they are marked for life, quiet the opposite, new fresh ideas, probably give input on being making a better workplace for the employees. There is a need to discuss ideas and you can't do this while refusing to sit down and listen to each other.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the board of the largest employer in the state your spouse is Governor of?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Thank you.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Which companies they work, etc. Often times some serves on several boards. Hillary worked as a corporate attorney, good experience when trying to get some regulations reformed on corporations.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In the case of when Hillary was serving on Walmarts board she was promoting women getting promotions and increase in wages. This is exactly the type of person workers would like to see on boards. She promoted "Buy America" while she was there also. American made by Americans, more work for the American worker. Putting Democrats on boards promoting Democrat issues, it is a good thing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ETA: Oh ... you're talking about HRC's term while her husband was the Governor of Walmart's home state and Sam was still running things. BTW ... walmart wasn't always considered the big evil.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)But with that being said, the amount of fanboydom/fangirldom over her by some here is humorous.
Again, that's less an observation against her and more about people who have trotted her out as the next Great Liberal Hope.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...he became president for eight years in two landslide victories.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)There were quite a few Reagan Democrats, people liked what they heard. 20/20 hindsight is a great thing. In 1980 most people had never heard of Aid's much less had any clue about a candidates position on the subject. I don't recall it becoming an issue until into his second term.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Aids was nit met with open hands. Reagan also cut funds to research Alzheimers.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)And for the mass population in the US it was still years before they ever heard the term or knew much about it. How it was transmitted wasn't understood and the virus wasn't isolated till 83. Unless you knew someone in the LGBT community it was not something a person was going to hear or know much about.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)With the LGBT but was aware.
tblue37
(65,393 posts)It's an easy typo to make.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)She is neither the most liberal (left) or most conservative (right) in the Democratic caucus. She voted with the party 96% of the time.
Her economic message has resonated with the left, and she has, until now, refused to use her star status to aim at the top spot. Her appeal to progressives and the liberal left has netted her a place in the leadership. Lets see what she does with it.
I lived through the 80's, and Reagan was a lot closer to how the public felt about the LGBT community than most people today like to think. That is one of the issues that has changed remarkably for the better.
As controversial as Don't Ask Don't Tell was in 2008, when Clinton initiated a very heavy majority of Americans were against gays in the military. It remained the policy for way to long.
If the millennial's have done one good thing, thy have championed the LGBT cause and pushed America into changing. If they would now vote regularly, I would have no complaints with their Demographic group.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)Now I'm a Democratic Socialist.
Cha
(297,275 posts)journey takes them and how smart they are. And, how Lucky they are!
Looking back at some of the stupid stuff I've done.. I have to say.. What was I thinking?!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I think most of us have evolved in one area or another that leads us to think, believe and act how we currently do.
Cha
(297,275 posts)calimary
(81,304 posts)Anyone who has emerged from the reagan drug haze and hangover, and dried out, and now sees the light - should be APPLAUDED. And ENCOURAGED.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)People change, and do so dramatically. It took Vietnam & the peace movement to wake me up, and I have seen others--including good-hearted, intelligent, educated university instructors have the light dawn when they are 50.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)But to hold a general philosophical political association well into middle age invites questioning.
We've accepted many politicians' evolving on specific issues: say, Al Gore on abortion rights, Senator Byrd's rejection of his racist past. But two things obtain in these kinds of evolutions: (1) these were people deeply involved in government and public service for many years, whose views on these particular issues came as a result of both philosophical and electoral changes; and (2) these were people who despite holding some formerly aberrant views, remained supportive of the agenda of the Democratic Party.
Neither of those things apply to Sen. Warren: she has no lifelong involvement in public service or government (having come to it only in 2008 when Harry Reid appointed her chairperson of a congressional oversight panel regarding bailouts, etc.). And she does not have a career-long commitment to Democratic Party politics (she was a Republican).
So while she may have finally changed her general orientation, I have to question her judgment. To have stayed with the Republican Party all that time is unsettling. Not just one position that was out of sync, but throwing her support (however individual) to a party that had some pretty negative positions. Her explanation is that she thought the Rs "supported the marketplace" better. Did she not give a hoot about anything other than the marketplace? She lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam, Iran-Contra, and all the rest, and all that mattered were markets? That's poor judgment to me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)completely disagree.
In the case of political orientation, I tend to believe that people are who they say they are, especially when they are doing more than talking.
I am not cynical to the point that people would invest the time, energy and resources just to pull a political scheme.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)Democratic union boss/supporter.
People change.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Candidate and has remained a Democrat since 1968.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)changed later in life but they also changed.
Is it really so hard to believe that many people change their political affiliation over time?
You also know that changing one's political affiliation is not, in and of itself, a bad thing, right?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)It is a bad thing. I wonder how long it took Warren to realize Reagan Trickle Down economics was bad?
dsc
(52,162 posts)Hillary was raised a Republican, it is very common for kids to vote, or in her case work for, candidates that their parents support. Warren was at one of the most liberal universities in the country and despite that, and at age 30 plus, voted for the GOP. Frankly I would like to know what her explanation for her behavior is.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Still, EW is talking about things that matter - but we all know that politicians can talk a good game, so imo the verdict is still out.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)They do nothing today but game the system for their own self serving reasons. They say anything to a crowd because they look at people today as nothing more than a following to exploit. Their stated beliefs are hollow shells and a ruse to gain fame and power. It doesn't matter if they appear liberal or conservative.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)My parents both voted for Reagan. My mom is a Dem now, who listens to economic populist ideas. (She also likes Hillary.)
Most people in the US don't obsess the way we do over these people. Your average voter can't remember what Senator so-and-so did last year, let alone 30 years ago. Otherwise they would have voted these present fuckers out for shutting down the government last year.
JI7
(89,251 posts)when running for President. and then finally switched back to his original support.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)JI7
(89,251 posts)he actually supported anti gay legislation and had not supported gay rights as he did do as president.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)So far, the only thing that I've seen that's bad (to me) about EW is she voted against GMO labeling. I wouldn't mind knowing why she made that decision.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Let me take your comment and put it into historical perspective. If supporting Warren is wrong because she once supported and voted for Reagan then no one should have supported Carter for president. Carter supported democrats who were Jim Crow supporting, state rights loving, segregation demanding _racists_. Let's look at the difference in time between Warren supporting Reagan and Carter supporting southern racist democrats. Warren - Regan - 30 years. Carter - Racists - between 15 and 20. Nixon should have won in 1960 because Kennedy was a democrat and supported a party that was defending Jim Crow.
Don't get me wrong, I am _NOT_ defending the republican party. I do however find your analysis to be rather odd. People CAN change. Haven't democrats been telling manipulating puke republicans this whenever Senator Byrd's KKK history was mentioned? Were you a Ted Kennedy fan? I won't go there but you get my point.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)was their superior ideas about 'the markets'. But not about choice or AIDS or all that racist shit Reagan was always saying? And of course those ideas about 'the markets' were horrible mistakes, not good choices she was making although they were for her, she got really rich during all that.
I'm younger than Warren and I was already a decided Democrat and strong opponent of Reagan, Bush and all that they stood for. If she has really changed on social issues, she could, would and should speak about it clearly, for hers would be a great story of reasoned progress from a conservative mindset to a more informed and liberal way of thinking.
The fact that she just says 'the markets' when asked how she could have been a right wing, long term member of a racist, homophobic anti choice Party is what rankles me. When the question is 'why were you an anti choice Republican in a bigoted Party?' I don't think 'I did it for money' is all that great an answer. But that's her answer. She needs a better and more specific answer to get my respect.
I wonder how many people here would, in a few years, vote for someone who voted for McCain/Palin in 2008 at age 42? How many years would it take? Also voted for W. Twice. What would such a person have to say to you to get you to want them as President? 'Yes I voted for W and Palin because I liked their ideas about the markets'?
polichick
(37,152 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)She acts as if she's always been right when she's always been wrong and on the right. It's the furtive treatment she gives to her past that pisses me off. If she told some great narrative of rejecting those policies one by one, specific and personal and using her own life story to educate others that would be one thing. But instead she refuses to address the elephant in the room.
DuckBurp
(302 posts)I converted while in my 30's, so I can understand her conversion. I was raised a staunch Republican in Texas. It was Ronald Reagan who showed me the error of my ways. I came to realize that if he is a Republican, then I could not be one. As I recall, EW was raised in Oklahoma as a Republican. When you are raised in a Republican household, under the strong influence of your parents, sometimes it takes a while to really do your own thinking. The important thing is what her positions are now.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)How is it possible that he supported the New Deal policies for so long, that he later came to oppose and started the process of dismantling?
Different side of the same coin. People change.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)So no, I don't understand someone who converted well into their 40's.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)plus wisdom comes with age.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It should be easier to forgive a former Reagan supporter than a former Klan officer.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i never had the luxury of drinking that koolaid, but some did.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)I've been telling people on DU for some time now Warren won't be immune from this.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Happening now, not years ago.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)that Martin Luther was not only a staunch catholic but a monk.
Wow, his changed mind is still lived today.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I care about what they are advocating now.
delrem
(9,688 posts)I like what she's DOING now!
I like what she's doing NOW!
I like that what she's SAYING NOW matches what she's DOING NOW!
That's the best that I can ever hope for from politics, from a politician.
She isn't a weasel. She isn't owned. She scares the crap out of Republicans, and the Third Way apparatchiks.
She sets a good example of political courage and for that alone I applaud her no end. The Democratic Party needs more like Elizabeth Warren, not less.
It says something that the anti-Warren smear machine has to go back to the '90's and to pretend that she hasn't clearly and unambiguously repudiated the GOP.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)She should be doing that as part of her narrative. All I hear her talk about is money. It's great if she's changed, but that needs to be communicated. I lived through those times. I simply will not vote for a Republican from that time without hearing the entire story. Never going to happen. This was about life and death. I don't expect it to be important to straight white people. But they'd best not expect others to feel the same way.
delrem
(9,688 posts)But then again, it isn't like she's running for president.
If she were, she'd be forced to give a more well rounded accounting of her positions.
Well, a *somewhat* more well rounded accounting, given the incredibly restricted parameters for political debate allowed in the USA.
Her support for Israel during the recent slaughter in Gaza was quite off-putting for me. But then, she's a US politician and there seems to be 100% across the board bipartisan support for everything Israel in US politics, to the exclusion of even a basic recognition of the humanity of the Palestinians, so I didn't expect much else (even reading DU on the topic makes me queasy, the overt anti-arabic anti-muslim racism that passes as "OK" . My expectations aren't the same as my hopes and wishes...
In fact I don't see *any* Dem calling for a rational rollback and ending of the endless slaughter of (and technological ramping up of) the US WoT, and that too is an across the board 100% bipartisan movement. I'm frightened for the future, given the US's incredible military power and ability to do what it wants, when it wants, with total impunity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely... Awful as it is, I don't expect much, or *anything* of a change for the better in US foreign/military policy in my lifetime. I think US military culture is way too far gone for that and it'll have to play out to the end. Elizabeth Warren seems to avoid the subject.
It appears to me from my reading of DU that all (or "99%" of DUers are more or less on the same page wrt LGBT and racial and sexist and religionist issues, at least as distinct from the extremes of the Republicans and to the extent that few if any dare to be openly bigoted. But then, I *am* a straight white Canadian who grew up in an incredibly racist culture/environment, and didn't even know the 1/10 of what I was and am part of until I was ... what? ... 40 or so I started to catch on? At least I'm somewhat aware of my ignorance and I do small bits to upgrade my understanding. e.g. after reading
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/26889-theodore-roosevelt-walt-whitman-and-andrew-jackson-were-proponents-of-native-american-genocide
I ordered the book. Unfortunately, I ordered it from the truth-out site Oct. 22, a month ago, and have yet to receive it. I'm looking forward to reading it. In the meantime I've begun reading Edward Said, _Orientalism_, so I can get a better/bigger perspective on ME issues.
OK, so maybe my response to you is lame. I like her forceful message, I like that she seems capable of getting good things done (albeit yes, just in her focus category of economics), even given the incredible push back of concentrated wealth and its hirelings.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)with her parents. She is often called that by supporters of Warren, who was a full grown, full blown Republican until she was in her 40's. The double standard being employed is fairly extreme.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)thanks.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)HRC was also a republican, though perhaps her republicanism can be justified as a familial or a "youthful" thing. I really have no problem with that. Lots of people here were once republicans, including warren.
tblue37
(65,393 posts)well-meaning people might take a while to shake off the effects of conditioning they have experienced all their lives. Most people never do, despite being smacked repeatedly in the face by reality.
I am just glad that she did finally wake up and that she has become a voice for the people against the banks and oligarchs.
napi21
(45,806 posts)very upset by that. Then there was Mondale. IF I remember right he told everyone he was going to raise their taxes. "The Republicans will raise your taxes but won't tell you that, I WILL!" I'm sure not going to hold a vote someone made 30+ years ago against them. Plus, Carter was mostly gloom & doom, while Reagan was all shipper, smiles, and optimistic on the future. The American people really don't want to hear the truth if it's bad.
Autumn
(45,098 posts)You should learn about his history. Color me unimpressed by your silly OP.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)to constantly attack her. You know how someone is actually inconsequential? No one talks about them.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Being a republican never used to mean being an asshole.... but now it does
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)I was exposed to a lot of bigotry and all that rot when growing up. I coasted with that for a while because I just didn't know better but I learned on my own and with some help from others. I am not the same person at all in my world views.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)And yet he was the President who integrated the Armed Forces.
You have to distinguish faulty awareness in a private situation from the merits of a political leader. Some people make better judgments when they're responsible for others than when they can behave stupidly with few consequences to anyone.
By comparison, Hillary's outrages all occurred from high public office, in such morally stark and urgent situations that there is no coming back from her choices - even if she regretted them, which she vehemently does not.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I became a Republican because I actually read the party platform and agreed with it. It was quite simple: the government should not interfere with people's private lives, it should basically just collect taxes, provide for our common defense and protect the borders. I have always been a private person, and I found the idea of the government staying out of my life very attractive. But the party drastically changed over the years, and when I was in my 40s, I left in disgust because I could not allow my name to be associated with the moves the Republicans were making. Once I came over to the left, I realized that was where I always belonged.
So I totally understand how Warren made the change.
But most importantly, I would like to state I did not vote for Reagan. I could not believe the Country was actually thinking of voting for a movie star for President. And of course, that is exactly what his two terms turned out to be, nothing but a starring role in the Oval Office.
Sam