Okay maybe someone can explain this to me

[Catholic Sensation]

But why the fuck is it "unforgivable" for someone to have voted for either Reagan or Nixon? A lot of people vote for who they think will do the best job. Caring about how he voted 20-30 years ago is retarded. Also Nixon destroyed McGovern, so it would appear that MANY DEMOCRATS voted for him. Let Wesley Clark's voting record be his own fucking business, God almighty give it a rest.

I'm sure the hardcore anti-anyonebuttheirfavorite will bitch that this is some kind of "freeper" post, but then again if they can't see past their own "man" to see the potential in another candidate then their opinions are worthless.

[soleft]

1. Hillary Clinton worked for Goldwater didn't she, IIRC?

Are people still going to hold that against her?

[Nashyra]

2. Yes she did

I don't hold it against her.

[OrdinaryTa]

17. Hillary Voted for the War

Hillary voted for the war, and I certainly do hold it against her. New Yorkers were astounded that she did that, especially the hundreds of thousands who'd marched on a bitter cold day against the war.

She never explained that vote. I'll never vote for her again.

[morningtheft]

3. I can't explain it.

But Being a Kerry supporter, I definitely understand your sentiment.

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Voting for Reagan 23 years ago is one thing....

Speaking at a Repug meeting in 2001, endorsing war in foreign countries is something else entirely.

I like what Clark's been saying on TV in recent months, but these 2001 accounts make him sound like a PNAC'er. And I have a definite problem with that.

[Catholic Sensation]

6. The republican thing is bad

But that's not what the issue is, the issue is the influx of dumbasses who care how and who he voted for 20-35 years ago.

[BJ]

5. I see that your head is clearly where Michael Moore's is.

And clearly Mike's forgotten, or never knew, who NATO's Supreme Commander was during the bombing of Kosovo.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=1999-04-15

[kang]

7. You were against stopping the ethnic cleansing Serb forces?

I'm a little confused by some people's position on the Serbian campaign. Are liberals for stopping (in a multi-lateral fashion) regimes that engage in atrocities, mass murder, mass rape, and forced relocation? I think Michael Moore knows exactly who Clark is: He's a guy that could potentially kick Bush out of office.

[dfong63]

9. the NATO forces committed their own atrocities,

and left behind a radioactive battlefield. i think that's what he was referring to.

[kalash477]

13. Clark was for sending in

US troops to stop the genocide. He wasn content to sit back and bomb the Serbs from 15000 feet.

[dfong63]

8. all right, i forgive him. but i'm not gonna vote for him.

it was very bad judgment, at the very least. millions of other dems may have made the same mistake, but they're not running for the top spot on the dem ticket.

sheesh, the guy only declared himself as a dem two weeks ago. and already there is so much that we are supposed to "forgive" because, supposedly, "only" Wes Clark can beat Bush. i say baloney. the dems had a great field without Clark, any of the top tier candidates could beat Bush. Clark jumped in because he scented an opportunity for himself. he clearly has no party loyalty.

think ahead, if Clark wins. do you think he's going to use the office to help the dem party, the way a real dem would, the way Bush has used it to help the repubs?

two years ago (AFTER his supposed conversion to the dem party by Clinton), he was raising money for the repubs. do we WANT a dem president who raises money for the repubs? i say that's taking bi-partisanship waaay too far.

no, let's nominate and win with a real dem, who's proud to be a dem, a partisan dem (gasp), someone who's got a track record as a dem, will fight for the dem party. and who didn't just switch sides as a matter of expediency.

[pansypoo53219]

10. do the best job? fine

BUT R REAGAN?!? and his views were plain on what the hell he wanted.

[mkregel]

12. Depends....

I really can't fault anyone for voting for Reagan in 1980. The economy was in the toilet (tho it wasn't Carter's fault), the US was humiliated in Iran (tho we didn't know that was Bush's fault at the time) and Reagan came along, saying all the right things and yet commiting to nothing.

Americans wanted to feel good again - who knew how bad it was going to get? The last Repub that held the presidency was Ford, and he wasn't all that bad, and Nixon before him at least brought in jobs.

Now in 1984...that's a different story...

[leftofthedial]

11. because we are lefty Puritan fundie progressive green poseurs

and we have our standards dammit.

[quilp]

14. Actually Nixon wanted to introduce a national health care system.

He was the last of the "populist" Republicans. But, like many major politicians, on both sides, he had a deep character flaw that the power of the presidency exposes all too well.

As for Reagan. I thought he was a charlatan all his life.

[MnFats]

19. Nixon a 'populist?' Uh-huh...

Part of Nixon's problem was that he disliked, feard and distrusted the American people.


And as many have pointed out, he started out poor, managed to get rich and after he did wanted to put as much distance between himself and poor people as he possibly could.

were you around then? No offense but it doesn't seem like you could have been.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. It isn't; being casual about it and not explaining or repudiating it IS

The blythe statement of "oh, I may have voted for..." would be better if it was coupled with a statement to the effect of: "but I was misguided" or "but I've changed" or something to that effect.

Some statement of the importance of politics needs to be made as well, to the effect of: "well, I was busy defending the country and my focus was elsewhere..." or something like that, or it's just a blase hobby. Hell, the guy didn't even have a party affiliation. Do we want the most important person in the country to not really have ever had much of an interest in the damn profession? That also makes one think that he knows very little about politics and doesn't really care.

He SHOULD say why he would have voted for these defecates or would have, and what's changed in his mind. He SHOULD stand up and renounce his feckless, casual attitude toward the whole thing; that reeks of privilege and diffidence.

[Iverson]

18. bingo - you've got it

This is one of the most obnoxious things about the late Strom Thurmond. The R by his name was irrelevant, especially compared with his lifelong embrace of segregation, which he never repudiated. Bastard.

It's always a welcome thing when people wise up.

[JVS]

16. Reagan is an important figure in the history of the Republican party

Some would even say the father of the modern republican party. Having supported him is a dark spot on someone's record, because Reagan represents that hard swing right of the Republican party that has become so dangerous to our democracy today.