This may be unpopular, but I'm ok with running segregationist Dems if it will win elections.

[LexVegas]

I mean, there are some districts that are full on racist, and do we just give on those seats? That's surrendering to the other side.





That shit sounds crazy, huh? So let's stop with the anti-choice candidate talk.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. Ugh. nt

[sarisataka]

2. .

[boston bean]

3. People who anti choice, are usually racists, and bigots.

Truth be told.

This bullshit to get our party to accept this shit, is grotesque.

[LexVegas]

5. ....

[TexasBushwhacker]

39. And definitely anti-LGBT n/t

[geek tragedy]

4. That's how we got the New Deal, Social Security, and Medicare.

[MoonRiver]

6. Point taken. Thanks

[elleng]

7. No analogy.

'Sorry,' NOT.

[yardwork]

11. Racism not analogous to destroying women's' health rights?

Care to elaborate on why one issue is essential to the Democratic platform but the other is negotiable?

[Lunabell]

45. It's ok as long S it isn't me.

Who are we going to rhrow out of the tent to get elected? Minorities?LGBTQ? Women? The disabled? Who's next?

[irisblue]

8. You forgot the sarcasm emoji right?

[niyad]

14. this was a direct reference to getting behind anti-choice dems in certain districts.

women's rights, after all, are not important.

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. well played (and many will miss the sarcasm)

[niyad]

15. and, indeed, they have, and will.

[pangaia]

44. How is it POSSIBLE to miss the sarcasm?

Easy. I have learned that here all to often, even with a few of my own posts.

[NastyRiffraff]

46. And those who don't miss the sarcasm

will just continue to insist that women's rights aren't really that important. Oh, they won't SAY that, of course. They'll say that we need to win elections and women's rights can come "later." And by "later" they mean "we don't give a shit about uppity women."

[yardwork]

10. I think you make a good point.

[DoodAbides]

12. True that. The only difference I see within the Democratic Party, is one is more likely

to happen, or be excused or dismissed. Actually, the way some are trying to develop the Democratic Party, I would not be surprised if we do not hear a more softened version of this. As we insist on the strong voting block of AA, AA women, and women, while their rights are being dismissed.

We already have some suggesting we put these wedge issues to the side because they are just too challenging for the Republican bigoted vote we work so hard for.

[mercuryblues]

13. Bingo

I think if women are expected to hand over their rights in the name of winning, everyone should.

The elderly need to give up the Age discrimination act.

Immigrants can give up the fair housing act

AfAms can give up equal employment

those in wheelchairs can give up the disability act


If women's rights are on the table, everyone's rights should be on the table. You know what we call those people? Republicans

[niyad]

16. I have a few more names for them, but I will not subject posters here to such language.

[still_one]

17. I understand the sarcasm, but lets discuss this with actual events. The Civil Rights Act

and the Voting Rights Act happened because of Northern Democrats and Republicans. The Southern Democrats fought it tooth and nail, and did everything in their power to prevent it. Robert Byrd was the leading Democrat who led the filibuster effort against it.

In fact, this is what gave birth to Nixon's "southern strategy". It was then that most of those Southern Democrats changed their party affiliation to republican, and this is what we essentially have today.

Make no mistake about it, the republican party has unabashedly embraced racism, and this was the watershed event in the 20th century, where the Democratic party said, no more compromising on civil rights.

[oberliner]

18. What percentage of Democrats consider themselves segregationist?

Do you think it's anywhere close to 20 percent?

[DLevine]

20. The question is, if there are Democratic segregationists,

should the party support them?

[leftstreet]

22. But anti-choice candidates aren't wooing Democrats

This thing started with statements by Democratic party officials that they'd not dissuade anti-choice candidates - on the theory they could draw in GOPer voters

I'm assuming this OP is in that same spirit. As in why stop there?

[oberliner]

24. About 1 in 5 Democrats think abortion should be illegal

So that is an actual phenomenon that exists in our party. I am not sure that there are similar numbers of segregationists (though, I could be wrong - not sure if such a poll question has been asked recently).

[MoonRiver]

25. If they declare themselves to be Democrats,

I'm assuming they vote Democratic, regardless of our pro-choice platform.

[oberliner]

26. Agreed

But do you think they should not be allowed to run for office as Democrats (assuming they agree to uphold the platform, even if they don't support that)?

[MoonRiver]

33. I think if they make it VERY clear

that they will do nothing to overturn Roe v Wade, and are completely pro-choice, I am ok with them running. I believe this is Tim Kaine's position.

[wryter2000]

49. I'm fine with that

You can feel you'd never have an abortion as long as you don't foist your choice on others. That's why I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

[MoonRiver]

54. Exactly!

If a woman CHOOSES not to have an abortion, more power to her. Just don't tell me what to do with my body.

[Voltaire2]

59. So your argument is that iif enough democrats

considered themselves segregationists then it would be ok?

Is your moral compass broken?

[leftstreet]

19. DURec

!!

[Tiggeroshii]

21. Actually it was partly due to those segregationists that we got the civil

Rights act passed in the first place. Democrats wouldn't have even been in power to pass the law if it wasn't for those Democrats existing and contributing to the majority caucus.

[wryter2000]

50. Those people filibustered the civil rights acts

And became Republicans.

[KitSileya]

23. No anti-choice dems who don't also support mandatory blood, bone marrow and kidney donations for men

If they take away our right to health care under the guise of "saving lives (fetuses)", men should have to donate blood, bone marrow, and kidney and liver transplants regardless of their health and living situation - it saves lives, after all.

[Ms. Toad]

27. This may be unpopular, but I'm ok running with Obama if it will win the presidency

I mean, there are a lot of people who believe gay marriage is wrong. Do we just give up on the presidency? That's surrendering to the other side.

-Dems on DU (and more broadly) circa 2008. How short our memories are.

[NurseJackie]

28. Nicely done.

and

[johnp3907]

29. Long live the Dixicrats!

[stonecutter357]

30. K&R

[frazzled]

31. Maybe like Jimmy Carter?

Let's recall that at the time he was running for president, he belonged to a "whites only" Southern Baptist church, and he didn't leave the Southern Baptists until 2000, citing its views on women. As president, he had a less than stellar record on racial issues and policy, and incurred the wrath of key black leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Vernon Jordan.

His time as governor was pretty much worse:

During the heat of the campaign Carter chose to pay a visit to one of the segregated academies in a move heavy with symbolism. At the school Carter pledged to work on behalf of the all-white private schools. Unveiling his strategy spurning the African American vote, Carter boasted that he could win the election “without a single black vote.” During the campaign, Carter praised Lester Maddox became close to George Wallace, and defended white resistance to integration. Carter disingenuously maintained that blacks too were against integration. Carter went further, however, to the point of using morally questionable tactics based on an appeal to the racial prejudice of his Georgia white constituency. Most notably, a photo of Carter’s opponent, Carl Sanders, with black members of the Atlanta Hawks basketball team celebrating a playoff victory, was widely distributed in an effort to link him to blacks in the minds of white voters. While Carter did no additional campaigning in black communities, he won enjoying the support of the most notorious racists in the state obtaining over 49 percent of the vote.

As Governor of Georgia, Carter seemed to feel that symbolism would be sufficient to satisfy the political needs of the state’s African Americans. Carter is credited with making Martin Luther King’s birthday a state holiday on January 15, 1973, and later unveiling a portrait of the slain black leader in the state’s capital building. Yet, at a more meaningful level of policy, Governor Carter pushed for an anti-busing amendment to the Constitution. This had the advantage of taking the issue out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/jimmycarter.php

Now, do I think Jimmy Carter is or was a racist? No. But I think that at times he either condoned it or played on it for political expediency.

I think there's a difference between the issues being discussed here. Is it at all common, or even possible, for a person to hold segregationist views but vote for integrationist policies? I'm not sure that has happened very often. But it is entirely possible for a person to hold personal views that are against abortion but vote easily to extend choice to others. We've seen a slew of (often Catholic) politicians do exactly that. Joe Biden and John Kerry are two who come to mind. Here's Kerry explaining the difference between his personal beliefs on abortion and his view about imposing his personal beliefs on others. I can't imagine the same explanation working for a segregationist:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4540345/john-kerry-abortion-2004

[Quanta]

32. I agree.

Anyone who wants to lobby for reducing human rights should not be welcome. Call it a Litmus test, call it whatever, but If the degradation of women's rights, lgbtq rights, and the rights of brown people are being advocated by a candidate, they should go away and find another party. I won't be voting for them or supporting them. I will actively speak out and campaign against those people. Sorry bout it. No, I'm not really sorry about it.

[DanTex]

34. Then you're in the same company as FDR and Truman.

The thing is, running segregationists won't actually win any elections, so it's a moot point. But during FDR's days it wasn't a moot point, and he needed Dixiecrat support to pass the New Deal.

[loyalsister]

35. What do you mean by segregation?

Do you mean supporting candidate who would like to legislate full and unconditional segregation? Or do you mean candidates who have support from suburban constituencies who don't want to be required to have sec. 8 housing or public transist near their neighborhoods.?

Constituencies who align on every single other point have been okay with policy makers not challenging modern segregation for a long time. They get elected quite often when they tow the line on the platform. But, what of financial institutions, developers, and white constituencies that have participated or enabled redlining and zoning processes and policies that favor white people?

I don't have an inventory, but I know the ones in my city. I know that it is segregated and that white people run the show. Where are the policy makers who are committed to changing that? Are there any who carelessly support it?

You cannot claim that there are no Democrats who support segregation influenced by outside forces or desire to self segregate based on the kind of subtle racism few fight.

[barbtries]

37. thank you.

had to read all the way through your post!

but, yeah - there are already democrats, or like the WV governor, people who won as democrats, who are not really democrats. Someone saying they're a democrat then saying let's outlaw abortion tells me that's not a democrat.

[aikoaiko]

38. Well, that is, in part, how we held congress from the 1930s to 1990s.

Dixiecrats were around a long time and helped the Democratic party maintain power.

[joe_stampingbull]

40. a yellow dog yes...a segregationist never

[HopeAgain]

41. Progressives sometimes have to play a long game.

Giving in on key parts of our identity will not help the march towards an enlightened electorate. It will only turn us into "Republican lights."

The next generation is already lining up with a majority that hold more progressive views. I think we resist until the unenlightened die or become outvoted.

The lack of a hard-line no compromise position on race relations has only made segregation a de facto, rather than a de jure reality. It is going to be the same for women.

[Moral Compass]

42. Really puts it in perspective

Great post.

This kind of cynical triangulating is what leaves so many unable to see much difference between Republicans and Democrats.

We need to be a party that is completely unlike the opposition.

Being against reproductive choice tells me that you are not on board with the party platform.

[Lunabell]

43. Yep.

My body is my own and Democrats should respect that.

[pangaia]

47. Also it should be ok to support people

who will not allow voting privileges for anyone who is from or is descendant from anyone from below 30 degrees south latitude
OR
between 35 and 165 degrees east longitude, except Australia, of course.

[aeromanKC]

48. Trump Death Care passes without West Virginia (D) Manchin no vote

And without handful of DINO's, Dems would not have 60 filibuster proof Senate and ACA Obamacare would not have passed.

[samnsara]

51. maybe thats what the GOP thought as well and look what happened to them ( and us!)

[Not Ruth]

52. I raise you Lincoln's ghost

Try and beat that!

[lapucelle]

53. Now that 2016 is in the rear view mirror

we can drop the pretense of caring about whether we're running "flawed candidates", even if this time the flaws are genuine.

(Unless, of course, some white dude is suspicious of the motives of Harris, Booker, or Patrick. That's different.)

[JCanete]

55. It does sound crazy. Why have we been okay with running anything that is bad for our country and our

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

people? Why is corporatism okay when it has continued to feed this fucked up machinery that uses culture wars to divide and distract us?

Of course we shouldn't be ceding ground on these things, but we let the money dictate the battle ground, and now here the fuck we are, because its been okay to court large contributors and as a result, we offer weak-sauce liberally leaning legislation in response. It doesn't matter whether the chicken or the egg came first. It doesn't matter if Corporate Dems have tailored their message to receive the money, or if the money has tailored the politicians we get to vote for by virtue of who rises to the top, because the result is the same.

You want to not compromise on this stuff? I'm on board. But if you don't care about having a litmus test on how our candidates raise money, then I assure you, we are going to continue to be in positions where these sorts of compromises keep being proposed. Because we are going to continue to cede the messaging to the money and speak no evil of their corporate machinery that sells hate and divisiveness, and dumbs down the public, whether we're talking CNN or Fox or even a lot of the print media.

Because of that, while I'm not in agreement with Sanders or other Democrats when it comes to not making pro-choice a litmus test, I sympathize, because if we want to rewrite the rules as set out by our corporate masters, we have to reach people and get them energized along the lines of their own immediate economic wellbeing. We already let the resurgence of stupid happen. We already let monopolization of the media go far too far. We let checks on the news go out the window with feint if any protest. We already let the police state and draconian laws continue to destroy and oppress communities. We passed No Child Left Behind on bipartisan lines.

We are reaping the shit now. I believe that the inexhaustible fuel that these regressive wedge issues have is by virtue of the concentration of the money which benefits from stoking them, so in Sanders case(though I can't speak for the Democratic party's rationale) I sympathize, though don't agree, with his decision to campaign for people with shitty records on women's rights who at least were strongly advocating for campaign finance reform. I think he sees that at cracking the shell that keeps reality out on all of these cultural issues as well. If we wrest some control(most notably in the form of money) back from those who are hoarding and abusing it, well that goes back into education and quality of life, and reduction of stress, and it puts the poor and the middle class on the same side of the fight. But that said, it is probably the wrong move. I don't personally like my politicians appealing to some morality that isn't informed by science, and I see this leniency as fairly divisive amongst our own liberal base.

[ck4829]

56. Fight It, not each other

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029417391

[liquid diamond]

57. Yeah. Those two issues equate.

[Voltaire2]

58. I hear ol Strom Thurmond is rising from his grave.

Gonna run as a democrat now that we like us some segregation again.

[KG]

60. word.

jeez, stop blaming an actress and shit for the fact the dems are out of power. that running anti-choice candidates is even up for discussion shows how weak the dem party is.