Just curious - for those who say vote for ANY democrat

[placton]

Would you have voted for these folks, when they were Democrats?

Ronald Reagan
Strom Thurmond
Jesse Helms
Trent Lott
Elizabeth Dole
Condoleezza Rice
Phil Gramm
Jeane Kirkpatrick
William Bennett
David Duke
Rick Perry
Lauch Faircloth
Richard Shelby
Billy Tauzin
Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Norm Coleman
Parker Griffith

If your answer is no to one or more of these, then please shut your pie hole, rather than moralizing about how we "must" support Dems because they wear the "label"?

[placton]

1. hmmm?

no unreccs! This must be my lucky day!

[NoPasaran]

2. Unreced

C'mon, you were begging for it!

[inna]

9. come on, that was lame.

[inna]

3. Wow, are you serious? I knew about Reagan of course, but...

...Thurmond, Lott, Duke, Gramm, Rice??..... :wow:


Very, very good point and some food for thought.


KR

[salguine]

6. Oh come on, they're all southerners, and you surely know about the old-school

Southern Democrats—once called "Dixiecrats"—they were the ones whose chief concern in the world was keeping "nigras" out of schools. That sort.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. Strom Thurmond actually wanted the Democratic nomination for President in 1948!

He didn't get it, thank God! Remember the infamous Trent Lott quote from that old bastard's 100th birthday?

I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either.

Strom Thurmond's platform? "Segregation now, segregation forever!!"

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Excellent way to make the point!

[invictus]

5. K&R

[BeFree]

7. Heh

That's like asking if you would support slavery 100 years ago when the dems did.

Times change. This is today, those people are all proven losers.

Grow up.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. So we're supposed to support Norm Coleman right up to the moment

he switches parties?

the only thing that he changed was the letter behind his name - he didn't change ANY of his positions. He was no mid-20th century Dixiecrat, any more than LIEberman is - another one who we need to support as long as he caucuses with the Dems.

Grow up?

[drm604]

10. In the first place

when you talk about people like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms you're talking about a different Democratic Party (and a very specific faction of that party) in a different time, so those are straw men.

In the second place, who here has advocated voting for ANY Dem under ANY circumstances?

Some people, including myself, have questioned the wisdom of not supporting a Democrat simply for the purpose of sending a "message". That is not the same as saying that we should always vote for ANY Dem.

I can certainly imagine a situation where there is a liberal RINO running against a conservative DINO, and where electing the RINO wouldn't give up parliamentary control. In that case an argument could be made for voting for the RINO (although I suppose that the argument couldn't and shouldn't be made on DU), but that is much different from rejecting a moderate Dem in favor of a conservative Repub in order to "send a message".

[hfojvt]

11. it depends on who they are running against

and why don't you put another notorious racist on the list? - Robert Byrd

[StarfarerBill]

13. Good point. It's the deeds, not the D, that count.

[MisterP]

14. but Dems are the only ones that can bring reform, so they must be forgiven and kept in Congress even

if they don't bring any reform--

wait, can some conservadem explain it to me again?

[johan helge]

15. Vote for the best candidate who can win.

If all these people were the best candidates who could win at the time, I would happily have voted for them.

Why? Because if the best candidate who can win, wins, then:

1 The worst candidate loses.
2 To put it this way: If the best candidates (among those who can win) win all elections, the candidates will get better over time - because the losing party this time must get better to win the next time.