Can you really feel good about a candidate who supported Bush over Kerry in 2004?

[thesquanderer]

We're not talking about someone who was a Republican in their youth, or was not politically very plugged in at the time. Iraq was already a very divisive issue (with plenty of deserved skepticism about WMD). The most GENEROUS reading of this you could ascribe to Bloomberg is political opportunism.

Yeah, yeah, of course I'd vote for him over Trump. But he is absolutely last in my list of current candidates. I have voted in Dem primaries since Carter. I have been unenthusiastic about many of our choices. But as far as I can remember, there has never been a candidate I wanted less than Bloomberg.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. How about Jill Stein over Clinton?

Or constantly bashing the Democratic party? Oh, and Warren used to be a Republican.

[thesquanderer]

13. None of those were nearly as bad.

Jill Stein over Clinton? None of our candidates supported Stein over Clinton. Bernie campaigned hafrd for Hillary, and he is not Susan Sarandon's keeper, she's not on the ballot.

Bashing the Dem party? Doesn't matter. That's not the same as supporting a Republican over a Dem, and nowhere NEAR as bad as supporting the SPECIFIC Republican Bush over the Specific Dem Kerry in 2004, with soldiers and innocent Iraqis dying. And people of good will can disagree... arguably there ARE sometimes things we could be deservedly bashed for. Our party isn't perfect. You still don't endorse a GWB over a Kerry.

Warren? Come on. Did you read my post? "We're not talking about someone who was a Republican in their youth, or was not politically very plugged in at the time." This is not about having been registered as a Republican at some point. This isn't even about supporting a Republican on occasion. This isn't even about GOVERNING as a Republican, which Bloomberg did and Warren did not. Or even about putting millions into Republican candidacies. This goes beyond any of that, and I can't imagine you could possibly be equating them.

[at140]

54. +1000

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. I don't know of any Democratic Candidate, past or present, who supported Stein over Clinton

Do you? On second thought, perhaps Dennis Kucinich did, I can't say either way.

[uponit7771]

2. No!!! Bloomberg was defending his racist policies just last year too. How are we supposed to trust

[RandySF]

3. Warren was once a Republican, herself.

I don’t hold it against her.

[Bradshaw3]

11. 25 years ago while Bloomie waa giving millions to repubs three years ago

He helped to elect repub senators who voted to acquit drumpf. I hold it against him but hey I don't like rpeub policies or drumpf. But that's me.

[honest.abe]

35. Do we reject someone who joins our side just because the decision to convert wasn't long enough ago?

[thesquanderer]

49. Maybe, if the change is out of political opportunism rather than principle...

...which I think is evidenced in Bloomberg by the fact that he has switched in BOTH directions.

But I'm not even rejecting him for that. It's specifically about 2004. And he HAD been a Dem before then, and he WAS a major political player, so don't tell me he didn't know better.

[honest.abe]

59. Well that is a judgment call that many will have to make.

Personally I think he is disgusted by what Trump and the GOP are doing to this country and simply wants to do what he can to take them down and using his vast wealth to do it.

[thesquanderer]

63. Yes. And I'm glad he'll be using that wealth that way no matter who our nominee is. n/t

[thesquanderer]

14. As I said above...

Warren? Come on. Did you read my post? "We're not talking about someone who was a Republican in their youth, or was not politically very plugged in at the time." This is not about having been registered as a Republican at some point. This isn't even about supporting a Republican on occasion. This isn't even about GOVERNING as a Republican, which Bloomberg did and Warren did not. Or even about putting millions into Republican candidacies. This goes beyond any of that, and I can't imagine you could possibly be equating them.

[Demsrule86]

4. I can feel good about any candidate who can beat Trump...Bloomberg believes in choice, climate

and gun regulation...he will be fine. If Joe fails and I love Joe, I will throw my support to Bloomberg as we must beat Trump to save our Republica. And Sanders will lose a general badly.

[at140]

55. That may not attract many centrists

or moderate republicans. The candidate who can attract those voters are those who are enumerating the policies and agenda which those category of voters will find worthwhile to vote crossover.

[Demsrule86]

66. I don't know where the left gets the idea that only super lefties believe in gun control,

climate change etc...and choice to is important. In any case I believe this election is not policy driven...those in the middle the ones who gave us the house will vote for Biden or Bloomberg to get rid of Trump...they don't want a super lefty and definitely not a socialist.

[apcalc]

5. I feel like you do. Near the bottom of my choices...

But I want to know more.

[wyldwolf]

6. Warren likely voted for Reagan over Carter and Mondale...

... and Bush Sr. over Dukakis and Clinton. Possibly even Dole over Clinton.

Can we trust her?

[thesquanderer]

16. As I said above...

Warren? Come on. Did you read my post? "We're not talking about someone who was a Republican in their youth, or was not politically very plugged in at the time." This is not about having been registered as a Republican at some point. This isn't even about supporting a Republican on occasion. This isn't even about GOVERNING as a Republican, which Bloomberg did and Warren did not. Or even about putting millions into Republican candidacies. This goes beyond any of that, and I can't imagine you could possibly be equating them.

[wyldwolf]

25. Warren wasn't just a Republican in "her youth." She was one at middle age...

She supported the Republican party for purely economic reasons during the time the GOP was pushing the Trickle Down Economic theory.

... records from the time Warren spent living in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts make clear that she was a registered Republican for at least several years of her midcareer adult life. It was not until 1996—when Warren was 47 years old and a newly minted Harvard law professor—that she changed her registration from Republican to Democrat.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613

[thesquanderer]

36. I was not meaning youth as Warren's excuse.

Youth could be someone's excuse, like Hillary Clinton's, or Tulsi Gabbard's for that matter. It was the other part I thought might applicable to Warren, not being very politically active or plugged in at the time. Though that was also the era where many people--in both parties, or neither--might identify themselves as "socially liberal, economically conservative."

But I'm not saying there is anything terrible about having once been a Republican, or having positions evolve over time, particularly if they evolve in a single, consistent direction.

I'm not even talking about merely campaigning and governing as a Republican (as Bloomberg did and Warren did not). I'm talking specifically in terms of knowing what we knew in 2004 especially about the Iraq war, how someone who WAS politically plugged in could choose to support Bush over Kerry. This was not a person uninvolved or still evolving from uninformed views, this was the 62 year old accomplished and established mayor of NYC... who had less reasonable judgment when it comes to the costs of war than most of us here, who were probably younger and less immersed in world affairs than he was, but we already knew it was wrong.

[wyldwolf]

41. you're still flailing in the wind

It was the other part I thought might applicable to Warren, not being very politically active or plugged in at the time.

Warren was very active and plugged in at the time, as the article I posted indicated.

Though that was also the era where many people--in both parties, or neither--might identify themselves as "socially liberal, economically conservative."

I wasn't. This is your excuse for Warren.

I'm talking specifically in terms of knowing what we knew in 2004 especially about the Iraq war, how someone who WAS politically plugged in could choose to support Bush over Kerry.

What we knew? LOL. No one on our side really "knew" anything. John Kerry voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Even Bernie Sanders' position wasn't as cut and dry as he and his would have you believe.

Despite what you're postulating, the Iraq war wasn't, and isn't, a test for Democrats.

[thesquanderer]

48. Your post addresses things you think I'm saying, but am not.

re: "Warren was very active and plugged in at the time, as the article I posted indicated."

It depends how far you go back, because the article also says:

“I was just never very political,” is how Warren explains her Republican years. “I just never thought much about the political end.”

Friends and colleagues agree that Warren wasn’t much of a political activist in her youth or the early part of her career.

But yes, she changed. And as I've said, I have no problem with people changing, especially when the changes move consistently in the same direction. People learn, they get exposed to other stuff, they adapt.

re: "This is your excuse for Warren."

No, I have no idea whether Warren had that perspective or not. It was just an example of how lines were not always as sharply drawn as they have become.

re: "What we knew? LOL. No one on our side really "knew" anything.

Your profile says you've been here since 2002, but you're not remembering 2004 very well. There were TONS of articles about how the support for the WMD rationale was flimsy, and what was going on with Abu Ghraib and that the administration had pursued legal justifications for torture.

re: "John Kerry voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Even Bernie Sanders' position wasn't as cut and dry as he and his would have you believe. Despite what you're postulating, the Iraq war wasn't, and isn't, a test for Democrats."

Please re-read what I said. This has nothing to do with 2002. I have already (reluctantly) given everyone a pass on the IWR vote. This is about 2004, when we knew a whole lot more than we knew in 2002.

[rzemanfl]

7. Better on the inside of the tent pissing out than on the outside pissing in, as they say.

I made my decision to support Bloomberg after this thought experiment-

"What if an obscenely rich German Jew had gone after Hitler in the early 1930's like Bloomberg is going after Drumpf?"

We are in an existential crisis as a nation.

That said, I would like to see every Dem candidate over seventy vow to resign before the end of their first term in time to let their VP pick a new one and run as incumbents. That might be ageist, but I am 72 and feel entitled.

[thesquanderer]

17. Luckily, Bloomberg has committed to throwing his financial muscle behind beating Trump,

regardless of who the nominee is. So we don't have to settle for "he's better than Hitler" just to get his resources on our side.

[rzemanfl]

28. "Better than Hitler" is not what I meant. My thought experiment involved opposition to. n/t

[thesquanderer]

32. I was trying to indicate that I was using it figuratively by putting it in quotes.

I know that's not literally the comparison between the people that you were trying to draw!

[Squinch]

33. Holy crap! That's it! That's my feelings exactly. That's what I think the stakes are, but

I've never been able to verbalize it like you did!

[rzemanfl]

38. GMTA. n/t

[Squinch]

40. But your pen works better!

[Squinch]

42. PS Guess what I'm doing today? Buying socks! Need something to wash when things get

crazy around here.

Plus, I'm on vacation, and what could be more exciting?

[Devil Child]

8. Hell no! n/t

[Renew Deal]

9. This post a is a bit hypocritical.

[thesquanderer]

19. What, because Warren was once a registered Republican? No comparison there.

As I said... Did you read my post? "We're not talking about someone who was a Republican in their youth, or was not politically very plugged in at the time." This is not about having been registered as a Republican at some point. This isn't even about supporting a Republican on occasion. This isn't even about GOVERNING as a Republican, which Bloomberg did and Warren did not. Or even about putting millions into Republican candidacies. This goes beyond any of that, and I can't imagine you could possibly be equating them.

[jcmaine72]

10. No. I cannot and will not.

That (D) in Democrat means something special to me, and Dumbya, along with all those who supported his eight-year reign of evil and incompetence, was/is the antithesis of that.

If all that (D) now stands for is dollars, then I'm not just homeless, I'm roadkill.

[CalFione]

24. If that (D) meant something special

... then Bernie wouldn’t be at the top of your list, since he is only a (D) once every 4 years for a few months.

[jcmaine72]

46. Bernie represents that (D) and what it stands for far better than someone who

presided over and defended countless civil rights violations committed against POC and endorsed Dumbya Bush for Prez. Bernie is for economic, social and racial justice. He represents the best that (D) stands for.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. I am going to have so much fun tonight watching Elizabeth Warren using

his history to showcase her strength.

[Zambero]

15. And could you feel bad about a candidate who supported Kerry over Bush in 2004?

That candidate is none other than Donald Trump. Go back another 10 years and Elizabeth Warren is a registered Republican. Past allegiances and/or party affiliations should factor into decisions on which candidate we might support, although for obvious reasons there are other factors to consider. 15 years ago a political centrist along the lines of Bloomberg could pick and choose which partisan banner to run with, since there was still some overlap between the two major parties. Good or bad, that is no longer the case today, and the likes of a Rudy Giuliani is welcome in the GOP while Bloomberg is not. He is not my first choice either, but if he were the nominee I would have no qualms about supporting him, or any of the current field for that matter.

[thesquanderer]

20. Of course I could feel bad about someone who preferred Kerry.

Voting for Kerry would not make the unibomber a good candidate. Common logical fallacy, to flip the sides of an equation. Saying anyone that voted for Bush is a bad choice is in no way the same as saying that everyone who voted against Bush is a good choice, whether Trump or anyone else

It's not about past party allegiances. It's about a very specific choice of Bush over Kerry in 2004.

Of course I'll support Bloomberg against Trump, but there's no way I'm choosing him on primary day.

[left-of-center2012]

18. 16 years ago?

[thesquanderer]

23. Wrong is wrong. He can't claim youth, inexperience, or being indifferent or ill-informed.

He was 62 and mayor of New York.

I don't care if it's been 16 years since Hannibal Lecter ate anyone, I'm not going to his place for dinner.

And BTW, it's not like he hasn't said/done objectionable things more recently than that. But this is the one that most sticks in my craw, as someone who was adamantly anti-war in 2004.

Yeah, I know, Biden, Hillary, and other Dems were still defending their support of the IWR back then. Not so thrilled about that either. And even Kerry voted for the IWR.

But that's still not the same as actively campaigning for Bush. Heck, by the time of the Republican National Convention, we already knew about Abu Ghraib and John Yoo's torture memo!

Just... no.

[wyldwolf]

30. Neither can Warren who was a Republican until she was in her 40s.

[thesquanderer]

37. She does claim to have not been highly political at the time.

But as I said in my other response to you, that's not even really the point.

To me, 2004 was a turning point... it was the first time since Vietnam that we were essentially voting on a war that so many of us knew we should not have been involved in. I see this completely differently from having voted for Bush in 2000, or Dole, or Bush 41, all of which I find more forgivable than voting for Bush/Cheney in 2004.

[wyldwolf]

43. you keep moving the goal posts of your point

Despite what you're postulating, the Iraq war wasn't, and isn't, a test for Democrats, as our electoral history has shone in the 16 years since.

[thesquanderer]

52. No goal post moving. I keep coming back to 2004 in particular.

Not party switching.
Not support for the Iraq War Resolution.
Not changing philosophies over time.
Not all the things everyone else brings up to deflect.
Just the 2004 election, and what we knew in 2004.

[wyldwolf]

56. it's silly to push the point but make excuses for Warren

The Democratic party will never list "2004" as any kind of pivotal year.

[thesquanderer]

58. Two things...

1. The Warren situation is NOTHING like the Bloomberg situation. I never complained about Hillary for Goldwater either. Just having been a Republican at some point means nothing, as I've repeatedly try to make clear.

2. I don't expect the entire Democratic party's support to turn on 2004. I was asking what the people here on DU thought, which is not representative of the party as a whole... and using that to explain my own, personal decision.

Though it will be interesting to see if any of the other candidates bring up 2004 in a debate. I there there is some portion of the party that could connect with this.

[wyldwolf]

60. ok, have fun with that.

Your entire point has such a DU circa 2003 vibe to it. Most have moved on. Even here.

[thesquanderer]

65. I have a hard time moving on from torture.

I was very disappointed to hear Obama manage to say both "we tortured some folks" and "we need to look forward rather than backwards." Ummm... no.

[USALiberal]

39. Wow, silly! Nt

[lunasun]

21. Hereally has hurt Biden's numbers the most not sure why he thinks he can win but I see online

and in polls there are plenty willing to switch to him but primary will tell . I do not understand his gains myself

[CrispyQ]

22. If he can beat the Con, then yeah, I feel just fine.

For all the hand wringing about our democracy being bought, wake up, people! The Russians already bought it!

[Zolorp]

26. Above Sanders?

Any day of the week. Absolutely!

[redstateblues]

27. Beating Trump beats any of that stuff

Sanders can't beat Trump. Warren could but she is fading in the nomination. Bernie took care of that

[BusyBeingBest]

29. Is this all about feeling good? Because kicking Donnie Dump's fat dumper

would feel pretty good too.

[brooklynite]

34. Yes. Was there another question?

Because I think he can win the Election against Trump, with greater likelihood than a self-identified Socialist.

[nobuddy]

44. Bloomberg is a winner and knows winners

All aboard the Bloomtrain. Choo-Choo.

[JustAnotherGen]

45. If he's the nominee

I'll have to. I reserve my ultimate distrust for Ms. Gabbard.

[Frances]

47. Agree

[RandiFan1290]

50. N O

[apcalc]

51. Hardly. Over Trump? Yes.

I am having a hard time getting past his support of Toomey and Fitzpatrick here in PA.

Trying to get info, will watch debate.

[tblue37]

53. I'd take him over Tulsi, but that's it. nt

[lapucelle]

57. Bloomberg never voted with Republicans over and over to stop The Brady Bill.

Bloomberg was leading a grassroots movement for sane gun laws while one of the candidates was still busy defending his vote (with Republicans) to carve out special immunity for gun manufacturers.

From our 2016 Democratic Platform.

Preventing Gun Violence

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe.

To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws;

repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy;

[thesquanderer]

61. No one is perfect. You and I may simply disagree about which of these two things is worse...

...and you may notice, Sanders is not my first choice either.

But the Brady Bill ultimately passed, while Kerry ultimately lost. And I can at least say that Sanders was arguably fairly representing his state as it was in 1993... what comparable rationale is there for Bloomberg supporting Bush in 2004?

But I can certainly understand someone preferring Bloomberg over Sanders because of guns (or vice versa... not every Dem is as anti-gun as Bloomberg is).

But it's not an either/or. One can certainly dislike both Bloomberg and Sanders. How you feel about Sanders and guns, though, is really not relevant to what one thinks about Bloomberg supporting Bush, in what--at the time--seemed to some of us like the most important presidential election of our lifetimes. (Little did we know how bad things could still get...)

[Kaleva]

64. We'll all feel good when he beats Trump. Assuming he's the nominee.