What is the Progressive policy on Republicans?

[Toucano]

Is conversion of Republicans through logic and reason a Progressive goal?

Or is it our view that they are so tainted, that recovery is not possible?

In the case of substance abusers, we provide treatment and help them recover from their mistakes.

In the case of the mentally ill, we provide support and treatment to help them make the most of their lives.

In the case of criminals, we forgive them and rehabilitate them or we confine them with dignity.

If you were sitting at a bus stop and someone said to you, "I voted for Bush/Cheney, and I sure do regret it. They have made a mess of things!" what would you say?

I would say, "It will be okay. Don't beat yourself up about it. Just don't do it again."

There appears to be a stong feeling around here that I should recoil in disgust and proceed to crucify the individual.

I offer a GUARANTEE that Republicans are not shunning people who voted for Carter or Clinton. Look at the way they welcomed Rob Lowe.

On MTP this morning, Dean put it well when he was questioned about flip-floping. He said when you're presented with a fact that changes your theory, you change the theory. He is proud of flip-flopping, and I think he should be. It seems like he should extend this logic to party affiliation.

Obviously, I am a Clark support, but I would like to address the issue in general (no pun intended) terms because the "Find the Republican" game is being applied to other candidates as well. Do Progressives contend that Who Someone Has Been and What They Have Done is more important than who they want to be and what they want to do?

[lcordero]

1. That really depends on who it is and the circumstances

As far as Jeffords goes, I'll be happy to accept him on account of that he took a stand on which he would stand to lose a lot.
As far as other circumstances go, I am very leary as to why somebody changes from Republican to Democrat depending on which way the wind is blowing.
One of the "rules" in the book, "The 48 Laws of Power", is to "reinvent yourself". "The 48 Laws of Power" is the contemporary version of "The Prince" and both versions of "The Art of War".

[Toucano]

4. Thank you.

Those are very good points.

Would you agree that the Clintons reinvented themselves well, and Gore's attempt was less than successfull?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. The Only Difference

between a sinner (R)

and a saint (D)

is that one man's saved


and the other ain't

[bloom]

3. I would be happy to have all of the Republicans become Democrats

But when you are thinking about who to elect for a major office, (ie. president), they should have a record that clearly gives an indication of where they stand on issues (so it isn't just what issues are likely to win the election).

Hillary Clinton comes to mind. (Not that I'm saying she should run right now.) She has years of experience working for liberal causes that I support. I don't have to agree with everything she has ever done in her life.

Al Gore is another. He wrote a book about the environment years before he ran. That speaks more to me than things people do (write) a year or so before the big race is on.

To me - it is what they have been doing for 20 or so years that matters.

That is why I have a problem with Clark and why I don't buy peoples arguments that we should only look at what he says NOW. That what he said 6 months ago, 2 years ago, 5 years ago don't matter. It matters to me.

[Toucano]

5. I understand

and respect your view. Knowing the candidate better through their public life is a beneficial thing. Does your personal experince with the candidate also count for something? I mean, when I met Bill Clinton I felt much better about losing Paul Tsongas. Does that make sense?

I, however, view the Constitution as being greater than either party. As a result, my only requirements for Presidential eligibility are those contained in the Constitution. Holding a lower elected office isn't important for me.

I guess it's like that mutual fund disclaimer, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." :)

In regard to the other candidates, I really think "Find the Republican" is completely destructive. No only does it not accomplish anything of value, but it will alienate independent and Republican voters who would otherwise not support Bush. Lieberman voted to confirm Rumsfeld, Kerry voted for IWR, and Dean once held a view that was remarkably similar to Gingrich's. BIG DEAL! It's how are we going to fix the broken system that matters most to me.

Clark is the only candidate I have heard say he wants votes from Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. He values the consensus. That's evident from his public life. If that makes him the political equivalent of a bisexual, I can live with that.