Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Republicans who were once Democrats

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:56 PM
Original message
Republicans who were once Democrats
Ronald Reagan
Jesse Helms
Phil Graham
Strom Thurmond ( he was once alive too)
Richard Perle claims he is still a registered Democrat.
Samuel Huntington (author of the Clash of Civilizations, still reportedly a Democrat)

I will continue to keep an open mind about Clarke and all of the candidates...and simply wish to underscore the fact that several high profile Republicans were once Democrats.

That is NOT necessarily the litmus test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jenk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Eisenhower
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Your point?
you forgot to mention it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. My point is the political party one USED to belong to is not a litmus test
for their ability to serve in the Democratic Party. Their platform IS. I thought it was made without saying based on the opposite being true about the Repubs who were Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. She made it pretty clear to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Maybe it wasn't served up with enough flambe for some folks taste
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. the Racist Wing of the Democratic party?
whats up with that whole slavery thing anyway? Were Democrats Democrats back then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Sure.....name a decade ( since Strom covered so many)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. ...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. I hear some Greens were actually Dems once too!
Shocking, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. whats your point, Burt?
is there one?

Strom Thurmond? You want to claim him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. What's your point, Terwilliger?
I thought we were making the same point, that some people change. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
25. Change into what? From what?
I would think NSMA's point is that there is no real partisan separation between Republicans and Democrats. They're all homogeneous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. That wasn't the point at all
Ideologically when the party changed, they changed. I am saying it is POSSIBLE that that was what was so for Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Interesting
would you rather have someone who is Democrat or Green, or someone who is Democrat or Republican?

Are you saying someone Democrat or Green couldn't win an election?

If Bush is considered centrist by many standards, how does another centrist separate him/her self?

So, the party accepts that the people are afraid and only a general will calm them. I'm almost ready to say Dean should be president...and that's saying a LOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Interesting that you could assume all that out of what I did say
Edited on Tue Sep-23-03 02:56 AM by nothingshocksmeanymo
would you rather have someone who is Democrat or Green, or someone who is Democrat or Republican?

On that point I would say I don't give a shit as long as their votes generally followed the party platform re:

environmental issues (on which I CONCEDE the point we could do better)
Women's rights
sound foreign policy
labor rights AND
add living wage, which I believe the Dems actually DO work towards.

If Bush is considered centrist by many standards, how does another centrist separate him/her self?

Is he centrist by yours? He certainly isn't by mine.

So, the party accepts that the people are afraid and only a general will calm them.

Last time I checked, I wasn't a party spokesperson. I don't think it is a question of ONLY A GENERAL can beat Bush or we are afraid and need a general, but certainly with the current unrest and unworkability a general (RETIRED BTW) is not a bad option. He certainly has a broader understanding of the REAL WORLD than Bush.


I'm almost ready to say Dean should be president...and that's saying a LOT!

Yeah it is...considering I'm not ready to say that yet either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. on centrism
Is he centrist by yours? He certainly isn't by mine.

He sure as hell is to the people Democrats supposedly wish to attract. You cant call Bush the bogeyman and then say you're just a little bit further to the left than he is. If those voters won't even accept the utter injustice of disenfranchisement, then they'll see Dems as partisan hacks who scream and yell their hatred. They'll never vote that way, especially with people who keep pandering.

SO then...if that's what Clark supposedly solves...how will they show him as significantly different than Bush? Most of the sheeple won't even pay attention to the fact that Bush was AWOL. The media will key into any "liberal" values Clark has as some sort of inconsistency in ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Remains to be seen...you have a point but I don't think it is
all quite as linear as you lay it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. Unbelievable!
People who voted for Nader, and thus by fallacious logic indirectly for Bush, are deemed the lowest of the low, worse that people who smother babies in excrement!

But people who actually directly voted for Reagan are considered appropriate candidates for the Democratic nomination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. that doesnt matter JVS
Clark says he's a Democrat now

and more importantly, he's electable :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Not my point and while I am no fan of Ronald Reagan
Edited on Tue Sep-23-03 02:15 AM by nothingshocksmeanymo
I can understand WHY people voted for him. I personally would NOT have and I don't automatically ASSUME ANYTHING about Clark which is why I haven't made up my mind.

When I have, I will submit my decision to you to make sure it is completely pure and void of any contradiction as is yours....only some would argue that it isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. hell, I've never claimed purity
but DAYUM! I don't see how we're still defending the values if we must resort to commercialism to ensure our candidate. I don't care that he's a general...I'd support a cop running for president...but how can we claim any kind of difference when we're just trying to be smarter, friendlier, lefter Republicans?

Personally (even given my supposed contradiction of voting for Nader knowing I would elect Bush - a la our lil' buddy green-eyes) I would rather not agree with anyone who would have voted for George Bush in the first place. If they'd vote for him again...they can keep it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. Who is asking you to agree with anyone?
What are you on about anyway, if not ideological purity? I really don't get what the hell you are on about. Please be clearer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. I thought he didn't vote for George the chickenhearted
but for his father.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
39. How did you get all that out of my little bitty post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. I didn't. It was just that you mentioned Greens in the topic, and it was
a good place to mention the massive double standard. The post was not directed at you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Okay.
Thanks.

I will give you my opinion on the subject. I think people do change their minds, pretty rapidly, and can talk themselves into voting for anybody. Usually they vote for someone they agree with on most issues, but very often, they're given a choice between people they disagree with a lot and people they disagree with a little.

As for myself, I have one major litmus test: I can't vote for an anti-choice candidate. I have had to vote for pro-death penalty candidates, though, because we're not given much of a choice in that regard, at least on the national level.

So my point is that elections frequently require people to make decisions that are not perfect. My twin brother decided to vote for Nader in a split second in the voting booth. It was mostly a lark. He lived in a safe state for Gore. He voted for Nader just because he could without consequence, and it was his personal fuck you to the whole system. People have all sorts of reasons to vote the way they do. It's very difficult to take a single vote and make a case about the person based on it.

As for Clark, we have the evidence of several votes for Republican candidates. But we also have evidence of votes for Democrats since 1992 at least. So does it make sense to conclude that Clark became a Democrat in 1992, or that he has been voting Democratic but believing Republican?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. Strom Thurmond doesn't count...
And Jesse Helms probably doesn't either. Thurmond had absolutely no ideals even resembling something liberal, plus he then became the leader of that Dixiecrat party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brucey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
10. Right, not necessarily.
But there is nothing wrong with looking at a person's past decisions to help assess who they are and where they are going. If a person was a repug because of circumstances, then saw the light using facts and logic, good for them. But if the change is out of expediency, or power grabbing, then bad for them. The most benign explanation is that Clark is a slow learner. I don't want a slow learner for prez. But it certainly would be better than chimpy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. All good points
I'm pretty well keeping an open mind but evaluating all of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avatar13 Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
12. Resident turncoats in the house and senate
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)

Zell Miller - Oh, wait. He's still a Dem, you say?

I'm sure there's more, especially among the neocons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
16. Billy Tauzin (R) of LA
Richard Shelyb (R) of AL
Virgil Goode (R) of VA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DieboldMustDie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Arlen Specter (R) PA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. When was he a Republican?
To my knowledge he has never been a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
17. I agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
19. I was a registered Republican until 1995, at age 39
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
21. You can add "Rick, the putried, Perry"
Edited on Tue Sep-23-03 01:14 AM by efhmc
I wanted to add that I sure am glad he's not ours any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unfrigginreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
23. The only significant change over the last few years was Jim Jeffords.
And he hardly changed for a move to the right! Yeah, it wouldn't be too hard to see Zell Miller or Breaux going GOP but it would be even easier to see Chaffey, Snowe, Spector, McCain, or Hagel going Democrat.

But I'm off subject...if you want a real Democrat, that will fight for our beliefs, and will not kowtow to the special interests, then support Howard Dean!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
24. Every single person in our city and county government, except for 2
women have changed parties. It really hurts us. I love this statement that they use. "I didn't leave the party. They party left me." GAG big time. They were afraid they would lose unless they changed and that is the entire truth. You would not believe the tactics that our small town rove uses to get people to become repukes. These are jobs that people have had for years, county clerk, treasury, etc and are really needing to get a few more years so they can retire. I am too tired but some day I'll tell you the tale that one of our faithful related. She refused to change and was almost taken down by an imcompetent, totally unreliable person simply becase that novice had an r by her name. Too often people go where the power is. I really don't think that is the case with Clark. He seems like a middle of the road Dem to me. JMO (Just my opinion.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
27. interesting list
so, how many of the people on that list would you vote for?

bear in mind also, Clark raised funds for the repubs in 2001... long AFTER he supposedly "switched" parties. imho if Clark or anyone else wants to be leader of the dems, after having just switched sides, then he has to do something to build cred as a dem. Clark hasn't done that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Did he actually raise funds for them?
My recollection of what I read was that he appeared at an annual luncheon in Arkansas. Is that incorrect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. yes
My recollection of what I read was that he appeared at an annual luncheon in Arkansas.

according to this source, it was a dinner, not a luncheon, and it was a fundraiser.

``...
JUST WHEN -- AND WHY -- DID CLARK BECOME A DEMOCRAT, ANYWAY?
Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who today announced his candidacy for President, joined the field of contenders competing for the Democratic nomination. But as recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office -- as a Republican.

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."
...''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. It sounds like if Clark gets the nomination...
that in 2004 we will have the choice of voting for a Republican or a Republican.


:(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Is the basis for that his past?
That would be like saying one elected a Democrat when they elected Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Wasn't Reagun a Republican Governor for a number of years?
and ran as a Republican for President a number of times?


Clark participating in a fundraiser for Republicans in 2001 is way too recent for me. I would rather see him serve in some other elected (or even appointed) capacity for a couple terms as Democrat and have a record that can be examined - than have him jump in to the Democratic fray out of the blue.

I am amazed that he is taken as seriously as he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
35. i will never understand why *anyone* voted for reagan
Edited on Tue Sep-23-03 04:28 AM by noiretblu
and i hope a more committed democrat gets the nomination. that being said, people do change...and it's clear that a lot of former republican voters are have awakened. on edit: i'm not certain clark is one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
40. Ben "Nightmare" Campbell. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
42. No question why they Left
The question is why do they arrive? Is there really a hair's breath of difference between the two when it comes to the insiders game?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. You won't get any argument from me on that
but until EVERY state passes clean elections laws, that is unlikely to alter. People's federal reps largely pop out of their state pool of politicians but for celebrity candidates (and we can't control that in national elections.

If clean election laws were passed in the 50 states, the POOL of politicians would almost IMMEDIATELY clean up...NO?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. most likely
but in the meantime we don't have to help them along....especially when the likes of Pelosi and Daschle are gutting campaign finance behind the scenes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec 17th 2014, 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC