There is too much discussion at DU about what happened years ago...

[milkyway]

shrub's presidency has changed America and Americans. Many people have become radicalized. What a candidate thought twenty years ago has little relevance today. What is important is the evolution of their beliefs and their response to the damn crooks that seized our country. Some candidates responded by moving to the right, some candidates responded by moving to the left (or were already there and stood strong), and some candidates hardly responded at all. You can decide where each of the candidates belong.

[Bonobo]

1. Agree and disagree.

What they thought 20 years ago is highly relevant when viewed in the proper context.

It is only irrelevant when viewed through the prism of our current situation, with reflection and foreknowledge of what was to come as a result of those actions. Context IS everything.

[MuseRider]

2. Yes, I agree with you.

I look for trends and the evolution. That tells you the difference between a waffle and true, reliable change.

[bread_and_roses]

3. I cannot agree

These candidates do not spring like new chicks from the shell. They have records, histories, that it is imperitive to scrutinize. By what else are we to judge their rhetoric? Which is not to say that no one can ever learn, grow, or change mind on an issue. But if what a candidate SAYS is at odds with a long history of acts or opinion, it should take some real powerfull evidence to convince us that they now think or will act differently. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of what a politician chooses to say today.

We Americans are infamously a-historical, often to our detriment. No one, for instance, who looked at Rumsfeld's record could possibly believe his rhetoric now. Our candidates should be accountable for their acts in public life.

[KoKo]

5. Agree! those "chicks" didn't hatch from sterile nests!

Stay here...learn from many DU'ers who have a perspective......stay with "HISTORY!" In the end....if you read and listen...you will make an "informed" choice. :-)'s to you!

[milkyway]

7. These are unusual times. I understand your point and would normally agree

with you, but it's not as important as it normally would be. Our democracy is under attack. All that really matters is what you are doing about it now. I really don't care if Wes Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan.

I think of the great Paul Krugman, who said that when he first began writing his column for the Times a few years ago, he expected to write mundane columns about the global economy. But what he found, instead, was the most extreme and dangerous policies he had ever seen. He changed, and stood strong against Bush. I don't know and don't care what he believed or what he wrote twenty years ago.

[mopinko]

4. disagree

especially cuz i think the whole battle now is really the scars of the 60's popping through. things have changed, but some things have stayed the same.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. This reminds me of a thread from a couple years ago

about a usenet discussion several years before that.

[Rowdyboy]

8. Philosopher/historian George Santayana said it best

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"...