So... It's OK If Hillary Clinton Was A Goldwater Girl, Yet Not OK For Warren To Have Been A RePuke ?

[WillyT]

Why is that ?

[brooklynite]

1. I think the difference is one of time...

Goldwater was around in the 60s, while Reagan was around in the 80s.

[WillyT]

2. So What Do You Think The Expiration Date Should Be ???

[yeoman6987]

9. Obviously none. Democratic supporters welcomed

Crist with open arms after a year. Go figure that they won't accept Warren.

[treestar]

83. Each person will decide for themselves

The 60s Rs were not nearly as bad as the 80s Rs - that's the beginning of the Reagan era.

[Hubert Flottz]

134. Are you forgetting Dick Nixon?

He was as bad as any of them all the way back to Grant!

[treestar]

136. He was relatively moderate

compared to the ones we have today and the start of the Reagan years.

[Hubert Flottz]

137. He was still a turdhead!

Drafted my young ass! And I had better shit to do like Dick Cheney, but I went anyway, because I wanted to taste dead burnt babies in the roof of my mouth. I wanted to KILLLLLLLLLLLLLL! So they sent me to West Germany and put me on Kilo Papa and Golf Delta. It was more than a lot of local ladies should have had to bear. A real hardship on the local female population and no, I'm not talkin' about sheep or kinfolk! But I had to move out smartly, when Nixon drew my number out of the big hat. Thank heaven I was able to do my part for the ladies in Europe. I also helped bolster the West German economy in every bar and greasy spoon around the Fulda Gap. But enough of these war stories for tonight. Suffice it to say, that I was never a big fan of Richard M Nixon after that era. I laughed for days because he had to leave town before being fired.

[treestar]

155. Well that's true.

LOL.

Still he wasn't of the Ted Cruz variety, and there weren't congressmen of that era claiming legitimate rape couldn't cause pregnancy, etc.

[Hubert Flottz]

157. The Neocons and the republican Supreme Court Just-Asses...

Make Nixon look like a real patriot! But he was still a lying scumbag.

[Rex]

140. Nixon was relatively moderate? You should read up on Nixon because that is wrong.

Nixon was a radical right wing extremist. Don't know where you get this moderate stuff from.

[treestar]

156. He started the EPA

How can you claim he was radical like we've seen since Reagan? Like Ted Cruz, or Michele Bachmann or Palin or the rest of them? Back in those days, it was no so divisive.

[Adrahil]

65. Who gives a crap?

Was an idiot in the early 80's. I grew up in a conservative household and voted for Ronny Raygun in my very first election. I remained conservative through my early college years. And then. I learned. And it took a while to completely readjust my thinking, but eventually I rejected that position.

We need to welcome converts. At least we know that they have deeply thought about what they believe.

And the 80's was 30 years ago. That's not exactly super recent in this context.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Always consider the source when this kind of...

bullshit pops up.

These sad little groups of fans are constantly looking for things to troll with.

[WillyT]

4. Maybe It's Just Me... But I Find The Argument Ironic...

"MY former Republican is better than YOUR former Republican..."

I believe people can gain new information, evolve, and change.

But picking which year one did it is kind of weird.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. Yeah, people can change...

It's debatable how much, with that nurture or nature thing in play, but we all grow.

But arguing over "My newly minted Democrat is has been one longer than yours" may be worse than ironic and be a complete waste of time.

Probably best to avoid the argument, and people who make it.

[Thinkingabout]

86. When was Hilary a registered republican? You know the answer, she did not vote until 1968,

Goldwater ran in 1964, she was not old enough to vote. She determined before her first election the GOP was not the way to be. You know already.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Hillary was in highschool, her parents were Republicans. That's not my fave rave, but Warren fans

started calling her 'Goldwater Girl' when the simple fact is that Hillary was First Lady when Warren was still voting for Bushes. My primary complaint is the opposite of yours, if you support a Reagan Bush voting, 25 year adult Republican, what the fuck is with calling Hillary a Goldwater Girl? The double standard is appalling. If you are ok with a trickle down advocate who took until the mid 90's to see that Reaganomics was stupid then a person having Republican parents just seems really, really minor.
As a lifelong, 3d generation Democrat I'm not all that crazy about even Hillary's parents being Republican and Warren has really not addressed the fact that her Party was racist, sexist and homophobic as hell, negligent on vast public health issues and she kept voting for that.
I'd rather vote for Bernie, a potted plant, or Wanda Sykes over either one of these rich women with dubious backgrounds.
But one worked on a campaign for a Republican when she was too young to vote and the other was an adult Republican for 25 or 30 years. I mean, if you think that's the same thing you are delusional or just dishonest. Because you know, if a bit of something is bad, more of it is worse. People who play the Goldwater card while supporting Warren are just hypocrites playing a huge double standard.
I don't have to like either of them to think that tactic is petty to the point of being Republican worthy. It's FoxNews style double dealing.

[WillyT]

7. So... It's A Timing/Evolutioning Thingy With You... Check.

<snip>

"I wasn’t born a Democrat," Hillary Rodham Clinton writes on page one of her autobiography, "Living History."

She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., a Republican suburb of Chicago, and describes her father, Hugh Rodham Jr., as a "rock-ribbed, up-by-your-bootstraps, conservative Republican and proud of it" (page 11). Her 9th-grade history teacher was also a very conservative Republican who encouraged her to read Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book, "Conscience of a Conservative," which inspired Clinton to write a term paper on the American conservative movement.

Hillary Clinton ("Living History," page 21): I was also an active Young Republican and, later, a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit and straw cowboy hat emblazoned with the slogan "AuH20." … I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide.

Goldwater is remembered for saying, in his speech accepting the Republican nomination for president in 1964, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice … and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." He lost to President Lyndon Johnson in a landslide, eking out only 38.5 percent of the popular vote.

Clinton writes that she began to have doubts about Goldwater’s politics even before she left high school...

<snip>

More: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

So... they BOTH evolved.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Voting age was 21, Hillary was 17. You failed to address anything I said, which was clear and to the

point. A person who never voted for a Republican and a person who voted for Republicans until she was 45. You say that's the same thing.
I don't care for your candidate or the other, but this tactic is just shitty and stupid. Not as stupid as actually being a Republican for a few decades, but it is stupid.

[WillyT]

13. And Sadly... I Will Continue To Fail To See The Difference...

[Bluenorthwest]

18. That's because you are not respectful enough to pay attention to what I am telling you. Try again.

I don't like either of these potential candidates. I am not talking about them. I am talking about the use of a false double standard by you and others who are promoting Warren. Being a Republican voter for 25 years of hateful Republican policy is obviously different from never having voted for a Republican at all.
My criticism is not of Warren, nor of Clinton, my criticism is of your use of the double standard, the pretense that there is no difference between being a Republican and being a Democrat, which is what you are saying. One of them was a Republican, the other never was. To you, that's the same.
It's just dishonest, not matter who the target is. And it is not Senator Warren who is doing this shit.

[WillyT]

19. Your're Correct...

I don't really care if it's Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders...

Anyone but Hillary.

Does that help?

[Bluenorthwest]

23. No, because I'm not talking about the potential candidates, I'm talking about the double standard

being employed by you and others. I dislike it intently. It is dishonest to say 'I hate Jack because he once drank a beer, but I love John who drank a case a day for decades'. I don't care for it. I don't give a shit how much you hate Hillary, I would not approve of that tactic against a Republican. It's not Liz Warren that is doing this. My feelings about any of the political figures involved are irrelevant to the fact that what you are engaged in is simply dishonest. I think it is a misuse of Warren. I think it is an abuse of Clinton. I think it is dishonest.

If you use that Goldwater shit and you'd still support Warren, clearly the Goldwater crap means nothing to you because of course, Warren was old enough to vote for Nixon a couple of times and she says she was a Republican at that time and that's fine with you. It's not about Warren or Goldwater or truth, it is about wanting to smear Hillary because you don't like her. That's what FoxNews does. It stinks.

[WillyT]

24. Did You Bother To Check Out Post #7 ???

In her own book... she calls herself a Goldwater Girl.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. You are being intentionally obtuse.

I am criticizing you for your dishonesty. If you support Warren, who started being a Republican during Nixon and remained a Republican until she was mid 40's and the year was mid 1990's, clearly Hillary having echoed her parents politics when she was in high school does not really matter to you, you support a Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush voter. It's not about Clinton and Warren, it is about you being full of bullshit that is beneath both of them and beneath this Party.
You come across as believing that supporting a genocidal anti gay AIDS policy is inconsequential compared to having Republican parents. You seem to be saying that years of anti choice voting is nothing to discuss, but what Hillary did in high school is very important.
I reject such double standards and I reject the dismissal of minority rights and other social issues as being of no merit compared to who Hillary danced with at her Sr Prom.

[WillyT]

30. Paragraph Breaks Would Help...

I too would like to vote for the first female President...

I would just like to have that vote involve a PROGRESSIVE female...

And it AIN'T Hillary...

Sorry.

[leftofcool]

59. So, can you get Lizzie elected?

[MineralMan]

91. You ignore the substance and stoop to criticize the post layout?

Really? Try responding to the actual post, instead, please. Your premise in the OP is unsupportable. You know that is true, and yet you continue to try to compare what a 17 year old girl did with what a grown-up adult did. That's simply not good logic. Please rethink what you are attempting to do in your zeal to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected President. You're just flat wrong with this argument.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. The disrespect is I think, an important symptom of the 'social issues don't matter' mindset.

That poster responds to serious business with jocular agenda based nonsense.

[MineralMan]

117. I think you have it.

Warren supporters like her economic positions. Everything else is secondary, to the point that anything that is pointed out about that is treated with obfuscation and ridicule.

It's really, really annoying. In any case, I'm almost certain Warren won't run, so it's all irrelevant anyhow.

[Cali_Democrat]

124. And usually the people who don't care for social issues

Are straight white males who started the game of life on the easy setting.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. More dishonesty and evasion. Show me where I supported Hillary?

I didn't, because I don't. I didn't vote for her last time either. Speaking to me like that is rude, as if I had advocated that which I did not. Your tactics are dishonest. You as a person are being dishonest to and about me as a person. That's really not very nice. I get that you hate Hillary. But I don't really care about your emotional reaction to a candidate I just ignore.
I'm talking about fair dealing and honest accounting of the past. Owning one's actions, as voter and as candidate. People need to take ownership of the things they do or have done. That goes double for anyone who would dare ask the people for power.

[dionysus]

130. people like manny and willy obviously aren't in the business of trying to garner support for their

candidates; it is just to ridicule those that disagree with their choice of hero, or in other cases, just to attract attention to themselves.

reading your exchange with willy was painful, painful.

[MADem]

152. Did you bother to watch This Week when Warren was on?

And we learned that she was a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN up until 1996, in Pennsylvania?

Not "the eighties." 1996.


You need to just STOP with this nonsense. It makes DU suck.

I voted for Warren because I like her stances on the issues. I drove people to the polls by the dozens for her. I donated to her warchest. I called people to GOTV.

I don't need YOU or anyone else playing these BS games trying to pit two outstanding Democrats, who, golly, just happen to be women, against one another.

You're going to really suffer some terrible cognitive dissonance when Warren campaigns for Clinton. After the disgraceful, divide-and-conquer way you've behaved in this and other threads, I wouldn't blame people for feeling some of that Al Gore-style schadenfreude when that day comes.

[Number23]

162. I really wish I could say that this thread and the folks supporting it are a shock to me

But then I'd be lying through my teeth.

Just more bloviating from the "social justice is SECONDARY to the REAL (economic) issues" crowd that really don't give a fuck or know shit about either.

[sabrina 1]

37. Maybe because no one was making the comparison until Hillary supporters

began attacking Warren for her past political history. So naturally, the irony of using that by supporters of someone who themselves was also a Republican, was pointed out.

I imagine if no one had mentioned Warren's background, no one would be pointing out that THEIR favorite candidate was also a Republican. And Hillary still supports a lot of Republican policies, such as our Foreign Policies of waging wars anywhere we can.

[bettyellen]

41. well, that is some very wishful thinking, ignoring the majority of a candidate's adult life, LOL!

when would something like that EVER be overlooked?

[Bluenorthwest]

79. Just so you know, I have always challenged any and all Reagan supporters to explain themselves

starting with Reagan, when he was governor. There is no way I will not challenge them. Some have reformed and when asked express great regret for the homophobia, racism and sexist policies, for AIDS. Others shout 'I cared about the markets, Goldwater Girl!!!!' and rush off to meet with BiBi.
I don't support Warren or Clinton. But I will never support a Reagan/Bush voter who waffles when asked about the policies she advocated for many years, that will not happen. Money is not the center of my universe, and I'm not going to let history be revised to serve some politician when that history is vital to my community and the nation.

You do as you please. So will I.

[bettyellen]

109. exactly this, I am giving the side eye an anyone who was a heartless republican those years

because there was no other kind.
I hope we have better candidates for the primary. Including Bernie.

[Beacool]

143. Hillary was a kid, Warren was in her mid forties.

If you can't see any difference in that, then that's your problem.

[Marr]

113. I'm actually with you on this.

I'm a fan of Warren and no fan of Hillary Clinton, but this same argument can be flipped on it's head and it's actually, harder to defend Warren in the comparison. At least in my mind.

[Cali_Democrat]

120. Nailed it!

Not really a fan of either, but it's obvious Warren has much more explaining to do when it comes to this.

[msanthrope]

6. Hilary was in highschool/ early college. Warren? An adult, by any standard. nt

[yeoman6987]

10. True but Warren was only 50 years old when she became

A Democratic supporter. That isn't exactly terrible. I think it is great! She is with us!

[adirondacker]

15. Goldwater was a moderate democrat by todays standards.

[sabrina 1]

38. And she still supports Republican policies. She's not in high school anymore.

[LeftOfWest]

127. This.

Nailed it.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Let me add that the application of double standards is a Republican trait which I reject.

The damning of others for faults that you yourself have to a greater degree is very Republican. This is how they can work up things like discrimination against minorities by quoting the Bible while being adulterous libertines in reality. The rules are for thee, not for me. Not for me and my millions.....

[sabrina 1]

39. Did you tell that to Hillary supporters who initiated this comparison?

Because unless you did, you would be engaging in the same kind of hypocrisy you are accusing Willy of. He is responding to the hypocrisy of Hillary supporters who launched this attack on Warren.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. See, I don't give a shit about Hillary OR Warren. Get it?

If people want to tout a former Republican, I am going to ask that Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush a few questions no matter who they are standing against. Hillary is irrelevant to the points I am making. Points which so confound you and the OP that you keep pretending I am talking about and supporting Hillary. It is the very dishonesty that I started out criticizing.
The comparison, factually speaking, is between a woman who was a long term adult Republican voter and a woman who never voted for a Republican at all.
So it is not neatly reversed. One of them really was a loyal Republican for most of her adult life, the other had Republican parents.
I could easily reject someone for having Republican parents. Also for being related to someone who has already served. Not crazy about that. Policy wise, Hillary to to my right and she was very slow to support equality.
But I will not pretend it is fair to support an actual former Republican while dinging anyone for having a Republican upbringing. There is no comparison to be made.
So you keep thinking it is about Hillary. That allows you a way to avoid addressing what I am actually saying. Which you are unable to do.

[Marie Marie]

11. I will allow for anyone to evolve and change their thinking on any issue as long as

it is real evolution - not just phony political expediency. IMHO, Elizabeth Warren's passion on financial matters does represent evolutionary thought and she is the real deal when she is out there messaging on how the system is rigged and the fix is in. She has consistently went to bat for the little guy over the banks/corporations. So, I will take her transition to a Democrat as authentic. Same with Hillary - I think she is a Democrat - she is just not liberal enough for me. I think both women have earned their status in the Democratic party - whether or not you agree with everything they stand for. Again, just my humble opinion...

[WillyT]

16. THANK YOU !!!

[Marr]

114. +1

[adirondacker]

14. "Clinton was" ?

Goldwater couldn't be prouder.

[Jesus Malverde]

17. Doesn't Goldwater represent the most reactionary militant right wing values?

Before my time but that's an embarrassing legacy.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. But Hillary was too young to vote for Goldwater, while Elizabeth Warren voted for George Bush.

If one legacy is embarrassing, the other should be more so. The idea that 25 years of Republican voting is ok but having Republican parents is an embarrassing legacy is ludicrous.

Bernie Sanders, never a Republican for a second. Same as me.

[joshcryer]

64. Yes, and a pro-Goldwater post got 157 recs here:

Post by a banned troll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002560884

Note some of the usernames. They're also in this thread, spreading their subterfuge.

[TheBlackAdder]

21. I grew up in GOP home, voted Reagan, Reagan, GHWB, Perot. Then came a political conversion.

Now, I'm completely disgusted with the GOP, their lack of humanity and empathy.

It's nothing but a cash grab for them, what's in it for themselves. The rise of the "ME" generation's worst.

My father, evolved to vote split ticket and stressed that, not to be a party boy--beholden to one party.

But, the GOP has been taken over by anti-American Libertarians who just want to offshore jobs and money.

Unless something freaky happens in the Democrat party, I doubt I could ever vote GOP again.


===

The Perot vote... I worked in one of his companies and he seemed to be a good employer.

===

So, yes. Political conversions can happen and I believe the way Warren was attacked, she'll never side with those parasites again.

[SidDithers]

22. Warren was was a Republican when Reagan was ignoring the AIDS crisis...

Warren was a Republican when Bush was running the Willie Horton ad.

When Warren finally left the GOP, it was because she realized that their economic policies were hurting the middle class.

She didn't seem to have a problem with their social policies.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

25. You are correct on all of that, her Republican Party was also stridenly anti choice.

But all of that is inconsequential compared to Hillary echoing her parents politics when she was in high school apparently. The double standard is itself very Republican in nature.

[WillyT]

32. So... Let Me Get This Straight... Being A Republican, Because Your Parents Were Republican...

Means That Others Being Republican Because They Were Taught To Be Republicans, Means That One... But NOT The Other... Is Still A Secret Republican.

Did I get that right ???



Obtuse... I know.

[sabrina 1]

40. The real question is, do either or both of them still support Republican policies?

Hillary supports neocon Foreign Policies and anyone who supports those policies cannot support women's rights.

I don't know where Warren stands on Foreign Policy yet.

[WillyT]

42. I Know... Sigh...

There's Just A General Stupidity/Disingenouness...

Ya know ???

[Bluenorthwest]

111. Let me explain this 'Straight' style. When I was the age that Hillary was when she was a 'Goldwater

Girl' I was dating girls. A year later, that was over. Teen age years are exploratory and people find out who they are.
People who are, at age 40, still doing 'what they were taught' are not people who should be leaders. You claim that a fully grown, middle aged Warren, worth millions of dollars, was a Republican because that's what her parents taught her? Do you think that's a nice thing to say about her?
Manny once told me that when Warren was a Republican she was 'just a housewife'. Not true, also sort of sexist. She was a hugely accomplished person who had made herself very rich from various sorts of work. Some of them a tad Republican for me, but she did many things and earned lots of money and climbed the career ladder and so to say 'she was just doing as she was taught, she was just a housewife' is insulting to her, dishonest to the core and a generally creepy form of evasion.
Do you really believe she was just doing what her parents taught her when she was a middle aged professor? Do you really think that is a respectful thing to say about her?

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Which killed more people?

Reagan's ignoring AIDS, or the insane wars egged on and enabled by Hillary?

[SidDithers]

56. Now you're minimizing the AIDS crisis, Manny?...

Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/global-statistics/

HIV is the world’s leading infectious killer. According to WHO, an estimated 39 million people have died since the first cases were reported in 1981 and 1.5 million people died of AIDS-related causes in 2013.

35 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS.



ETA a copy of Manny's post

Star Member MannyGoldstein
52. Which killed more people?
Reagan's ignoring AIDS, or the insane wars egged on and enabled by Hillary?

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Disgusting attempt at deflection

I asked a specific question, you attempt to smear me by implying I asked something different.

Vile stuff.

I assume that you refuse to answer my actual question.

[SidDithers]

60. It's a fucking accurate representation...

of what you're trying to do, and it's your comparison that's vile and disgusting.

How many untold millions might be alive today, had Reagan immediately thrown the full weight of the US government into AIDS research, instead of waiting until 20,000 had died before even acknowledging that AIDS was real.

Oh, and don't forget, Warren was still a Republican when Bush 1 was shocking and aweing Bagdhad. But she must have been OK with that because it was Republican economic policies that caused her to switch.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Warren started voting Democratic in 1995

And let me get this straight... then-professor Warren voting for a party that waged a terrible but limited war in Iraq was horrific, but then-senator Clinton voting specifically for a far, far worse war was OK?

wow.

[sabrina 1]

131. How many Democrats opposed the shocking and awe'ing of Baghdad under

Bush 1?

[dionysus]

139. he called you out on a truth, you projecting, self important douchebag. NT

[Beacool]

147. I knew I liked you for more than your bankies!!!

[dionysus]

149. and where have you been young lady? carousing i assume?

[dionysus]

151. oh wait.. i just found something in my sleeve...

[Beacool]

159. Thank you, my friend!!!

I don't come here as often as I used to, but posters like you have always been the highlight of DU for me.

I wish you a happy and healthy holiday season. May the new year bring you lots of health and joy.

Hugs,
Bea

[Number23]

160. !!!

[Beacool]

146. The only disgusting thing is YOUR vile comparison.

Then again, that's nothing unexpected........

[joshcryer]

61. AIDS. Objectively.

Of course, Clinton never "egged on and enabled" Bush's illegal war, since Bush contravened international law and Clinton makes no apologies for Bush's illegal behavior.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. That wasn't the question I asked, of course

and...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/hillary-clinton-apology-iraq-sop-masses

[joshcryer]

67. You asked what killed more people.

AIDS did. Objectively. 50 thousand got AIDS (of that 20 thousand died) before he uttered a damn word about it, it took several more years before the funding was made, only after persistent pressure from the CDC and health officials.

And Clinton won't be apologizing for that vote or for that speech because she won't apologize for Bush's illegal actions. Resolution 1441 required Bush to go back to the UN to invade, he did not do that, therefore violated international law. To ask Clinton to apologize for Bush's actions is to give Bush a pass for being a war criminal.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. You're obfuscating

I asked "Reagan's ignoring AIDS, or the insane wars egged on and enabled by Hillary?"

For the record...

- about 30,000 Americans died of AIDS through 1988, and the first AIDS therapy AZT was approved by FDA in 1987.
- about 200,000 people died from the Iraq War, so far
- about 30,000 people died from the Afghanistan War, so far

Are you claiming that Hillary isn't egging on the Iraq War in the video I linked to? Or that the "intelligence" she cies wasn't abject bullshit, as she surly knew at the time?

Are you claiming that if the Senate had voted against the IWR, Bush would have invaded anyway?

[joshcryer]

74. Yes, Bush was invading anyway.

Your memory may not be very clear but Bush was invading anyway. They justified their position on UN Resolution 678.

Here's a good overview:

http://www.thecasualtruth.com/story/legality-iraq-war

Back in 1989 Iraq invaded Kuwait, the small gulf nation to the south. The world condemned this and the UN Security Council passed resolution 678 that allowed the use of force, starting the Gulf War.

The end of the war in 1991 resulted in a cease-fire and another resolution, 687.

687 stated that Iraq must let UN weapons inspectors roam freely throughout the country to ensure no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were developed.

...

Effectively the US and the UK were going to war with Iraq using permission for a war 13 years earlier.

Regarding Regan, 6 years without doing a damn thing allowed it to get out there and spread, there's an obvious major spike in any statistics. I am assuming that had the US acted pro-actively rather than did nothing, the worldwide cases of HIV wouldn't have been so bad. So all it takes is for you to believe that Regan's inaction resulted in 1% of all known deaths for it to be worse than Bush's illegal wars.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. A million and a half people died of AIDS last year.

nt

[hrmjustin]

85. People make mistakes Manny.

As for your question Reagan's ignoring the Aids crisis had global consequences and killed more people.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. 39 million deaths since 1981, 1.5 million in 2013. 636,000 Americans since 81

It is the leading cause of death in Africa. It is a leading cause of death among some American populations including gay men and African American women.
The fact that you don't know this and think the Iraq war has a similar body count is a good demonstration of the very thing that is unsettling about Warren. When asked about many issues during that time she acts as if she was not aware of them and yaps 'the markets were strong!'.

[MineralMan]

77. Do you actually not have any idea how many people have

died from AIDS? That's hard to believe. Say it ain't so, Manny.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. And that is exactly why it became important to make sure this gets talked about.

Silence = Death
Knowledge = Life

[MineralMan]

84. Yes. Making light of Reagan's inaction and not recognizing

what the effect of that was is truly vile. I can't sit here and not comment when that happens, as it did in this thread. Support of Ronald Reagan was inexcusable, in my opinion. He did so much damage to so many people in so many ways as Governor of California and as President that I have to question the credentials of anyone who supported him politically.

[Bluenorthwest]

104. We were both Californians when he was Governor. My elementary school organized against him

over milk price increases. I spent my 20's demonstrating against him and also taking public stands against Republican policy at a time when I had great income and just a bit of ability to speak to officials in a direct way. I put everything on the line to oppose the horrible things they were doing. I lost so many friends and mentors and people who hired me.
Every day I think about people who died when we were so young and doing great things. The genius lost, the works of art that will never be.
The people who think this is material that can be glossed over or that supporting all of that is similar to having had Republican parents are the reason this has to be addressed. They really do not understand.

[MineralMan]

118. Reagan consistently trashed important social services

as Governor. My primary interest at the time was in his treatment of mental health care. By closing down the state mental health hospitals and just dumping mentally ill people onto county health departments without providing funding, he created a recipe for disaster, and that disaster ensued. Even today, mentally ill people most often end up in California jails, where treatment consists of ignoring them almost completely.

For me, that was symptomatic of his lack of concern for all social issues, which he continued to display as President. Reagan was an ugly executive all around.

Ignoring support for Reagan ignores some really important social issues. Frankly, I'm more concerned about social issues than I am in economic policy. I have many questions for Elizabeth Warren and her supporters, should she choose to run.

[MannyGoldstein]

89. You're intentionally misreading my post

Shame.

[MineralMan]

92. I'm misreading nothing.

I can read your post and understand it, and I do understand it. You're attempting, as did WillyT, to make a comparison that simply makes no logical sense. It's a transparent and ugly logical error, since it ignores the immense harm done by Ronald Reagan.

Fie!

[Bobbie Jo]

99. Well

When everything one posts is couched in spin and posturing, this is the result.

[MineralMan]

119. Indeed.

[dionysus]

141. no he didn't. and it would be nice if *you* had some sense of shame. unfortunately, you don't.

[dionysus]

138. you sure stuck your foot in your mouth that time. you're getting careless and letting yourself slip.

[Number23]

161. "Getting" careless? We crossed that bridge a loooong time ago.

The 'former' (cough) Republicans around here, minimizing Reagan's disastrous, immoral policies in order to shit all over Hillary. As obvious as they can be.

[Beacool]

145. Actually, AIDS killed more people.

Not that your false equivalence makes any sense, but then being an agitator is your only forte, isn't it?

[hrmjustin]

26. Warren is a great senator and it should not be held against her imo.

I am Hillary supporter as most of you know but I don't get why people would hold this against Warren today.

I am glad she is in the senate fighting for us and if she were our nominee I would very happily support her.

[WillyT]

33. + 1,000,000,000 - What You Said !!!

Thank You !!!

[JI7]

27. Depends on How old they were

[madville]

29. They are both against the grain

When most people become multimillionaires they become more Republican, these two have gravitated more towards the Democratic Party the more wealthy they have become.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. That's true of Warren but Hillary was never a Republican, the OP is talking about when she was

too young to vote and her folks were Republicans. Hillary was First Lady when Warren was still voting for Bushco. That's just the facts.
Now go vote for Bernie.

[WillyT]

34. Or..

Hillary Clinton ("Living History," page 21): I was also an active Young Republican and, later, a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit and straw cowboy hat emblazoned with the slogan "AuH20." … I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide.

From her own book.

[sabrina 1]

43. Hillary supports neocon foreign policies. Talk to women and gays in the

countries she calls 'allies'. They are in a better position to judge whether or not she has 'evolved'.

I remember an Egyptian rebel held in our good Friend Mubarak's torture chambers writing her a letter when she came to be wined and dined by the Dictator, begging her not to ignore the tortured and the discriminated against in his country.

As far as I know she ignored him. It was a poignant and beautifully written letter.

I am a Democrat and do not support Neocon Foreign Policies for what should be obvious reasons.

Maybe it's easier to do if you grew up as a Republican.

Kucinich eg, was always a Democrat and could not support Bush/Cheney's wars.

What you are taught when you are a child, leaves a deep impression. Some people can overcome it. I don't see how supporting Bush/Cheney's foreign criminal wars and then boasting about your own invasions, see Libya, demonstrates an evolution.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. I didn't vote for Hillary when I was asked to last time, don't support her. 08 Primary I backed

Dennis, he was not on my ballot by the time of our Primary so I voted for Obama. Against Hillary. Try to understand that.
I do not care for people who support a long term Republican voter criticizing another who never voted for Republicans for being a Republican. I do not give a shit who the two people are. It is a dishonest tactic.
In terms of Warren, I have been greatly disappointed that she has not bothered to seriously address her past in an anti gay, anti choice, Party of racist trickle down economic advocates, a right wing Party that made ignorant choices out of bigotry which killed many people I love. So sorry if I find that to be worth mention.
People who have changed have no problem speaking of their past wrongs and their transformation to a better way. Warren should do exactly that. Her story could tell a great narrative which pointedly rejects all of the specific right wing policies she previously supported. The fact that she does not care to give such a speech is not a good sign, she is fully capable of speaking her mind clearly when she wants to. I wish that she would.

If she had responded when asked the first few times, I might very well be a fierce supporter of hers. I love her turn of phrase at times, her ability to hold people to account for their actions and policies.
But I can't vote for a Reagan/Bush and Nixon voter unless they strongly repudiate the policies of that Party against which thousands of people like me protested as thousands more died.

[sabrina 1]

129. I get your point, and don't disagree with it. I was

simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Hillary supporters for whining when their candidate's background, AND current foreign policies, are pointed out also.

I don't know where Warren stands on many issues, which is why I support her on Wall St but will reserve support until her policies are way more clear.

Bernie is my choice out of those named as possible candidates for now.

Kucinich was my first choice when we had a choice. I did not support Hillary in the last campaign, chose Obama who did not support neocon wars at the time, and won't be supporting this time either, even if she is the nominee.

[MisterP]

35. because Hillary promotes many GOP policies while Warren doesn't? w-what?

[WillyT]

36. LOL !!!

I'm going to bed.

[Hekate]

44. Whoever said that? There's been a lot of sniping at HRC for her high school/college affiliations....

...as though people aren't allowed the chance to grow, learn, and change in college; so perhaps some here are trying a tit-for-tat with the very-popular Elizabeth Warren just to see if anyone notices the hypocrisy of allowing an older person to change her mind when you don't allow a younger person to.

Somehow I can't imagine it's more serious than that.

[Jim Lane]

121. I think the chronology was the other way around.

Some people, especially but not exclusively Hillary Clinton supporters, have made a big deal about Elizabeth Warren's past as a registered Republican. Hillary Clinton's past as a Goldwater Girl had been mentioned occasionally on DU, but the references picked up after Warren-bashers started trying to gin up an issue about Warren's past.

Regardless of who started it, I agree with Willy that it's silly. Elizabeth Warren was a registered Republican past her 40th birthday? Fine, Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat past his 50th birthday. Should I infer that the people who don't trust Warren would welcome a reanimated Ronald Reagan as the Democratic nominee in 2016?

Or might we conclude, alternatively, that people can change their views?

[Hekate]

123. I've always concluded that people can change and grow, and not just the young.

Some, like Ike, affiliate almost absent-mindedly (I think the General was non-partisan before running for President). Others are out for political advantage (Reagan).

Hillary, though, was political early, even in high school. She was a college feminist. She married a Democrat. She's worked hard for women, children, and the poor. She's a Dem. End of story.

Elizabeth W. is one of those who must have felt that her party left her long before she left her party. She strikes me as honorable and intelligent. End of story.

[dionysus]

45. another day, another Manny post stirring shit on DU...

[WillyT]

46. Oh Yes... Another Day, Another It Don't Mattter Post...

Thanks a lot.

[dionysus]

115. sorry willy, i mistook you for manny. FWIW i don't think you post OPs merely to seek attention

like I believe him to.

[RiverLover]

57. Very nice of you, dissing a DUer like that.

I thought this was frowned upon?

[Bluenorthwest]

107. I support Bernie Sanders of the current batch of potentials, when I ask about Warren her supporters

shout at me for supporting Hillary which I do not and keep saying I do not. They do this because they have no respect for people who are not exactly like their white, straight selves.
Look at this thread. People splitting hairs to see if AIDS was really all that bad. For Warren. If you find that to be acceptable, you and I have very different ethics.
People who want my vote who have supported shitty and bigoted policies are required to address that fact or they can fuck off. Simple enough for you? Goes for Hillary, Warren, Biden, any of them, all of them no exceptions ever.
Rewarding bad choices is not a good thing to do. This is why I don't care to reward either Clinton nor Warren. This is why both of them and all of the rest need to be grilled intensely and specifically about their entire political lives.
No special rules for former Republicans just because they are so ashamed and their supporters so uncomfortable about it. If you can not say 'I proudly support a person who stood by Nixon, then Ford, then Reagan and Bush' then you should not support that person. If you answer questions about that support by saying Hillary had Republican parents, you are just being evasive in a petty and insulting way.
Candidates get questioned. The world is round. Learn to live with it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. Because Hillary is a goddess....

....you didn't know that?

[Beacool]

148. As opposed to those who adore Warren?

Pot, the kettle is calling..........



BTW, how RW of you to use that photo. Let's see how good you look after staying up all night trying to pass a bill through the Senate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

150. Hell, I supported Kucinich....

Are you part of the "turncoat" chorus because he went on FOX "News".

BTW (could'a been worse):

[Rowdyboy]

158. Really sad to see that kind of negativity transferred to DU....

But its become a depressing place these days

[pampango]

49. Or vice versa? Neither matters. n/t

[eridani]

50. Irrelevant for both. The only important question is--

--what policies are they advocating right now?

[BeyondGeography]

51. Lame comparison...Hillary managed the McGovern campagn in Texas in 1972

When Warren was that age she was getting ready to vote for Reagan.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. Hell, in 1972 Warren would have been voting for Richard Nixon, that's what Republicans did and

she was very much of voting age.....Nixon. Then Ford. Then Reagan......

[BeyondGeography]

97. I was talking comparable ages

But, point taken.

[wyldwolf]

53. Both are OK in my book, but as topic of conversation...

'Progressives' have tried (in vain) to tie that 'Goldwater Girl when she was in high school' noose around Hillary's neck for years. No one outside the 'progressive' echo chamber gives a rat's ass.

But now here comes Warren who was a Republican as an adult, relatively recently, in the party's darkest time, and 'progressives' just shrug it off.

Do you not think Hillary supporters are going to point out the irony?

[justiceischeap]

54. IMO, all that matters at this point is policy

I couldn't give two shits if Hillary was a Goldwater girl and Warren was a Republican... what are they doing now for the American people... that's all that really matters.

Both are Democrats but with different perspectives and leanings. One may be running for President, the other, not so much.

[RedCappedBandit]

55. I don't want to see Hillary get the nom. and I think Warren is great

but it does blow my mind that she was a repuke for so long. Literally cannot understand it and find it disturbing. She's good though; on our side at this point. Just somewhat baffling.

[baldguy]

62. You have it exactly backwards.

The anti-Democratic Hillary haters think it's OK for Warren to have been a Republican into her 40s, but that Hillary should be persona non grata because she was a Republican when she was a child.

[joshcryer]

63. Hillary Clinton was never a voting Republican.

She supported Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.

She was a "young republican" because her dad was and it influenced her. Before she left high school she had switched.

Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until the 90s.

Now you ask about "timelines" and whatnot. That's fine, anyone can switch at any time, but it shows good judgement for a kid fresh out of high school to realize Republicans are wrong.

[malaise]

68. The better question is why can't Dems find persons who were

genuine authentic liberal Democrats all their lives.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Exactly. I sure as hell can do that.

These people do not even want Warren's Reagan loyalty to be mentioned. Hate to say it but they are all white straight people. That's why they don't remember the AIDS horrors, they were not touched by it and did not mind Reagan letting all the gay and black people die. They, like Liz Warren, supported those vicious policies for the sake of their finances.

[Jim Lane]

125. Do you have any evidence for your repeated attacks on Warren?

You write:

That's why they don't remember the AIDS horrors, they were not touched by it and did not mind Reagan letting all the gay and black people die. They, like Liz Warren, supported those vicious policies for the sake of their finances.

It's a serious charge to say that Warren supported letting AIDS patients die. As far as I can tell from your numerous posts, however, all you have is:
1. Warren was a registered Republican.
2. A Republican President implemented vicious policies that let gay and black people die.
3. Therefore, Warren supported vicious policies that let gay and black people die.

I have the honor to call to your attention that the syllogism fails.

You appear to have an implicit premise 3A: "Every person who is a registered member of a political party supports every policy implemented by elected officials who belong to that party." That premise is manifestly false. If you doubt me, read DU for a day, or take a look at the list of those of us blocked from the Barack Obama Group. (I think it's the longest block list on DU.)

I don't know how Warren voted in the 1980s, but you can't even seriously defend a weaker premise, namely that everyone who voted for a President supports all of that President's policies. Of the Obama critics here, I'm sure that most, like me, voted for him in both elections.

If you decide that you'll insist on ideological purity for all of a candidate's adult life, that's your prerogative, though I think it's foolish. But when you accuse Elizabeth Warren of supporting Reagan policies that killed people, you're crossing over into smear territory unless you can back it up.

[Jim Lane]

122. Why is it necessary that our candidate have demonstrable purity from birth?

We need a Presidential candidate who is willing to run, can win the nomination, can win the election, and will implement progressive policies. Those criteria right there may well be enough to eliminate everyone. Piling on additional criteria makes it even harder to find a suitable candidate.

I personally have never been a Republican but I've changed my mind on some issues. Our candidates are entitled to some leeway, provided the change looks genuine (as it does for both Clinton and Warren) as opposed to an opportunistic political move, like Romney's multiple Etch-A-Sketch moments.

[WinkyDink]

69. IDK. I'm a 65-year-old broad, and going back to JFK, I've been a Democrat.

I admit to being a 6-year-old fan of Ike.

[NCTraveler]

72. I have seen it both ways on du.

Some only see things when one group says it. I have no problem with the past of either. I cannot believe how many people constantly bring up Hillary being a Goldwater Girl, as you have done in your op, as a manner of smearing her. Same goes for Warrens previous support of Republicans.

So..... It's ok if Warren was a Republican, yet not ok for Hillary to have been a Goldwater Girl?

Both can be written and both are blatant fallacies.

[RiverLover]

75. +1 ~nt

[Kelvin Mace]

78. Because the Vichy-Dems/Corporate-Dems

have decided that HRC WILL be the candidate and they do not appreciate are refusal to clap louder.

[closeupready]

112. If HRC is the nominee, the deflation of enthusiasm amongst independents

and mainstream Democratic voters will likely lead to a Jeb Bush presidency next. Sorry, I don't want that to happen, and I've said over and over "I don't want HRC but if she is the nominee, I will vote for her", but that is the reality, particularly in light of this last election in which every single nominee for which she stumped was TROUNCED.

But corporo-dems don't care. And you know why?

Because THEY WILL MAKE $$$ WHETHER IT'S HRC OR JEB. It's all about the $$$.

[Kelvin Mace]

116. As I explain when people

tell me this.

This is like giving me a choice of which cancer to die from. The end result is death, we are just arguing about how nasty the interim is going to be. We have been a de facto police state since 2001. All we have done since then is argue about which party is the better dictator.

[treestar]

82. The 60s vs the 80s

And age at which they were Rs counts.

[MineralMan]

87. Because Hillary was a teenager at the time. Warren was an adult.

And Warren supported Republican for many years, only switching parties in 1995. There is no freaking comparison possible. What people do at 17 often doesn't reflect their beliefs as adults. What people do as adults does reflect their beliefs as adults.

You're making a comparison that makes no sense whatsoever, and all to reinforce your dislike of Hillary Clinton. That's clear. It's also not supportable by logic.

[Thinkingabout]

88. I guess the question will be to Warren "WTH did it take you so long to get smart?"

[dsc]

93. there are many massive differences

Hillary, when she was a Republican was barely an adult and following the flow of her family and community. All of those mean she was far less committed to being one. Coversely, Warren was a tenured professor at a very liberal school who was going against her peers to be a Republican. She also stayed a Republican for a much longer period of time.

[RiverLover]

96. Wrong. She wasn't Republican, she was Independent & voted both ways depending on issues.

But you're right, there are massive differences.

Warren is a true progressive dem & Clinton is a democrat in name only.

Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren: Big Differences, Despite Claims To The Contrary
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-big-differences-despite-claims-contrary-1640810

Why Liberal Democrats Are Skeptical of Hillary Clinton, in One Paragraph
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/

Hillary Clinton’s Continuity Government Versus Elizabeth Warren’s Voice for Change
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/10/hillary-clintons-continuity-government-versus-elizabeth-warrens-voice-for-change/

The differences between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/the_differences_between_hillar.html

[dsc]

101. If you voted for Reagan and Bush, as she did

you can call yourself a socialist but you are a Republican. I, for one, would like an explanation of her votes for those people given their radical anti gay policies.

[RiverLover]

105. 19 years now as a true progressive democrat. Why aren't you proud?

I was an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/27/3431303/warren-left-gop/

[dsc]

106. that answer tells me it is all about economics for her

and while I applaud her change in party and her current positions of policy I do wonder how much commitment she has toward gay rights given her answer there and her record in the 80's.

[Bluenorthwest]

108. No, she says "I was a Republican, because I thought that those were the people who best supported

markets. I think that is not true anymore.” She says, clearly that she was a Republican and she says exactly why she was. All about economics.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/elizabeth-warren-once-a-republican/
And I myself did not and do not think those Republican economic policies were good policies. I think they destroyed America. Did you support trickle down economics as well? I did not. And I was making bank in the 80's. I was a Democrat.

[MADem]

110. Elizabeth Warren was a registered Republican in PA through the mid-nineties.

Unless she's a liar--and I don't think she is. Here's the money quote:

Warren has quickly become a populist hero to liberals. Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s The Week, noted something in her background that “might surprise” her supporters: the fact that she has voted Republican in the past, and was a registered Republican in Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1996. Warren said she left the party after that because she felt it was siding more and more with Wall Street...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/27/3431303/warren-left-gop/


I like Elizabeth Warren. I like Hillary Clinton. I think it's going to completely blow people's world view when EW campaigns for HRC, too.

Those two like each other far better than the partisans here on Team Liz and Team Hill like each other, that's for sure.

[JoePhilly]

102. I hear the reverse ... its Ok for Warren, BAD BAD BAD for Hillary.

Why is that?

[Beacool]

144. The hypocrisy of the Left.

As par for the course as the hypocrisy of the Right. They don't like Hillary, so they'll burn her at the stake at every chance they get. They approve of Warren, so they'll excuse anything she may have done in the past.

[joeybee12]

103. I see someone else posted the idea of age being a factor...

Something you're not willing to accept...Hilary's parents were Repukes, and she figured it out fairly young, while Liz took much longer...there really is a difference, although is anyone saying it's not ok for Liz? Or is this just what we saw with Obama, no criticism whatsoever allowed

[Exultant Democracy]

126. Probably sexism right?

[Maedhros]

128. I think a candidate's past is less important that what policies they embrace RIGHT NOW.

Hillary embraces pro-Wall Street, pro-War and pro-Corporate Dominance policies RIGHT NOW.

Warren embraces accountability and regulation for Wall Street RIGHT NOW, which is good. It is less clear how she stands with regard to war and corporate dominance.

Even if Warren holds some unsavory positions, by the Third Way's own logic she is the "Lesser of Two (Former Republican) Evils" here.

[WillyT]

132. + 1,000,000,000 - What You Said !!!

THANK YOU !!!



The fact that the Wall Street Bankers, and the White House, did NOT want here in charge of the CFPB... is enough for me.

[Maedhros]

135. I like Warren, but before I can support her campaign for the Presidency

I will need to learn more about her stance on issues other than consumer protection and banking regulation.

[bigwillq]

133. I don't have an issue with what either one was in the past.

I am only concerned with what each can offer today.

edited

[Beacool]

142. Simple........

Hillary = 17 years old

Warren = 46 years old



For the record, I don't hold it against either one of them.

[kevinmc]

153. I didn't know that about Warren .... I still like her n/t

[pnwmom]

154. Hillary was a high school student. Elizabeth was decades older. n/t