General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The hypocrisy of the latest round of Bernie-bashing [View all]Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)are at least as interested, if not more so, in attacking a member of the U.S. Senate Democratic Forum leadership team (and the winner of 45% of the votes nationwide in the last Democratic presidential primaries) than they are in opposing Trump. The example should be set here.
I am on record, on numerous threads, saying I agree it is both important and productive for us to have a wide ranging debate about what degree of adherence to an absolute pro-choice set of policies moving forward should be expected of any Democratic politician (but especially of those who hold personal "prolife" beliefs). Further, that to fully explore that issue we should look to our current attitudes toward current leading Democrats who hold personal "prolife" beliefs while promoting public "prochoice" policies. That can seem rather straight forward if they have been totally consistent about that throughout their entire political careers. But what about the cases where those Democrats have "evolved" over time toward reaching a 100% (or in some cases near 100%) embrace of those policies?
It has been my personal experience that some Democrats have adhered to supporting polices that I find at least highly objectionable while they are coming up in politics from the "local" level in Republican leaning districts - where voters hold hot button beliefs that tend to sink the campaigns of even highly respected Democratic candidates. One experience I had in that realm concerned Kirsten Gillebrand when she first ran for Congress to represent New York's 20th congressional district in 2006. I live just over the border from that district so I personally did door knocking for Kirsten that year. I was motivated by the urgent need for Democrats to retake the House of Representatives and to send a strong message to the world that America did not support "our President" regarding Iraq.
Kirsten was a good candidate for that clearly Republican supporting upstate district. Traditionally conservative, the district and its electoral offices had been in Republican hands for all but four years since 1913, and as of November 2006, 197,473 voters in the district were registered Republicans while 82,737 were registered Democrats - (those facts courtesy of Wiki) But Kirsten had star qualities, she is extremely bright and has strong leadership skills. She had also been a prosecutor. My problem was that she campaigned as a strong supporter of many NRA positions on Guns, among other issues. Again, from Wiki; "The American Conservative stated after her eventual victory, "Gillibrand won her upstate New York district by running to the right: she campaigned against amnesty for illegal immigrants, promised to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, and pledged to protect gun rights"
When Kirsten entered Congress she joined the conservative leaning Blue Dog faction in the House. But she also voted to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. I was pleased that Democrats had picked up Kirsten's seat though I wasn't thrilled by her then political leanings relative to other Democrats. I strongly opposed her on gun policies among other issues. And then, surprise, NY's Democratic Governor decided to appoint Kirsten to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. I gotta say I was pretty concerned about that move. It was one thing to support Kirsten for a up to then safe Republican House seat, it was another to elevate her to fill a safe Democratic Senate seat.
Well the rest is history. Kirsten's voting record in the U.S. Senate, representing all of NY, has been remarkably different than her voting history representing NY's 20th CD. Now I am really proud to have her as my Senator (and pleased that I played some small roll in launching her political career.) Gun issues are not the same as one's stand on Reproductive Rights - which strike to the root of the concept of equality for all. But when I reflected back on my involvement in support of Gillibrand on a local level, I began to suspect that there can be a correlation to how Democratic politicians "evolve" as they rise from representing conservative constituencies at the State level to the positions they take on the national level as Democratic U.S. Senators. And Tim Kaine came to mind. He's a good man overall, always has been, but Tim Kaine the U.S. Senator comes a damn lot closer to well representing my views on Women's Reproductive Rights than he did as Virginia's Governor, or before that as Mayor of Richmond.
Finally let me note that the irony that I initially thought the author of this OP was referring to was the fact that Sanders (who so many claim is constantly attacking the Democratic Party) has come under continual attack here for supporting the candidate selected and supported by Nebraska's Democratic Party - campaigning for that person in response to their request that he do so.