Northam would not be the governor without African American votes.

Northam voted for Bush in 2004 when he was 44 years old. We don't need this asshole.

you are literally saying they should just move out instead of making an obviously racist governor resign.

Move out of your state if you don't like the governor with a questionable past. That should definitely be the party's message to black voters.

I feel like those things are becoming intertwined when they shouldn't be. I'm assuming most people understood that when they voted for him in 2017

and unless you can show me him doing this since he became a dem, I think this is a ruse.

Get the AA community to get rid of Northam...use the "Me Too" movement to get rid of Fairfax.

That's their game.

Watch.

a.) objective evidence, leading directly to that premise (trend: a prevailing tendency or inclination)?

b.) an unsupported opinion predicated on less than a handful of incidences over the course of the past ten years?

Do you want to force VA AA's to live under republickans?

But who would be "forcing" them to do anything and why do you assume that they don't have a say in the matter?

You seem to have a real problem with the fact that he voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

This is about him in black face while in medical school and his nickname at VMI...quit making this about who he voted for and stick to the problem at hand!

Barack Obama

He tried cocaine when he was young. BUT he then publicly owned up to it and used it as a teachable moment BEFORE he ran for high office. He made that admission in his book published all the way back in 1995. And when he later ran for office, there was no “gotcha” moment to be had, because he’d already fessed up to it years ago.

He could have kept that story under wraps and hoped that it never came out, thus recklessly exposing himself to a potential political disaster later on in his career. Instead he chose to run for office with that information on the table, and let the voters decide whether it was disqualifying or not.

He trusted the voters, and they rewarded his transparency.

Ever since I had heard of it. I remember thinking he was unusually smart. So no having to claim he didn't inhale (though that didn't stop Clinton from being elected).

committed, we know they've suffered consequences, we know they've done the work of rehabilitation. That's what a second chance is.

The casualness with which people on this site are dismissing the experiences of black people who are coming to terms with the racist actions of someone they may have considered an ally is breathtaking.

abhor that stuff.
That's why I fled the South at age 20 to NYC and some base line of sanity.

So when you DON'T commit a crime, you have no chance at redemption?
What CRIME did Al Franken commit?

issue.

conducted by a Republican firm, to avoid any Democratic bias

Meanwhile some of the most heinous people on earth, Republicans, are merrily screwing the country on the their 3rd, 4th, and 5th chances.

1. Restoring voting rights has to be understood in terms of the War on Drugs, which was racist and convicted minorities disproportionately, i.e. many never would have been convicted and lost their rights in the first place without it. You can add in other crimes which whites would not have been prosecuted for, or been given probation and had their records expunged.

2. Wearing blackface or KKK gear is not some minor youthful indiscretion, or Something as you put it. It is awful, especially so in 1984 at age 25.

What CRIME did Al Franken commit?
He just did "Something" and he's gone.

No one said anything about Franken committing a crime, or Northam for that matter. Being an elected official is not a right. You have to look at each case and determine whether that elected official deserves to remain in office. I don't think Northam does deserve to, and after that press conference, think he seems pretty clueless generally, making it more likely he was in that picture.

bounce a LOT of good people, for all manner of "somethings".

Oppo research is gonna be at a fever pitch and it's not just some 400 pound guy on his bed, it's also highly trained Russian hacks with military grade super computers that are gonna dig up all kinds of stuff.


We're going to have to require an understudy for every candidate

I made two points: one about why comparing restoring voting rights isn't comparable, and two, the photo is something, it is racist and it is a big deal worthy of removal. You could try responding to those points.

There should be no reason for people to lose their voting rights for criminal convictions unless that conviction is directly related to engaging in voter or elections fraud, and even then, when you serve your sentence, your rights should be returned automaticaly. Stripping people of their right to vote is a left over from the prevailing attitudes of the Civil War era. The slaves were freed, but people still wanted a way to keep Black people and other minorities and poor people from voting. They also wanted to be able to exploit people for cheap labor which is why "disenfranchisement for crime" and convict leasing was put into the 13th Amendment.

Once you "Do your time", you should be free to rejoin society, otherwise, if you aren't ready to be back out, then they shouldn't let people back out.

Northam may get a second chance. He is rich and powerful. A Second Chance however, doesn't mean he still gets to be a governor. Northam could have faced problems but survived this situation as well, if he hadn't messed up the response so horribly. He did himself in by admitting to the situation, then denying it, then being all over the place.

Secondly. We can recognize that people are human and make mistakes. It really depends what the situation is. Biden was guilty of plagiarism. That may not have gone well for his presidential aspirations, but he had a long career in the Senate, and was the Vice President of the US. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson had some difficulties but went on to careers leading people and fighting for civil rights. Second chance doesn't mean NO Consequences. It depends on what you did and how you handle the information once it comes out.

Did Lyndon Johnson help anybody with the Civil Rights Act?
But shouldn't he have been booted out for multiple reasons?

I'm glad he wasn't, even though I have no love lost for him, and that he did what he did, warts and all.

You know why? Because Johnson, while being a foul mouthed bigot, was actually instrumental in pushing through the legislation that helped MANY people in the era BEFORE Civil Rights and the aftermath in which we have ALL been exposed to the problems with overt racism and not recognizing privilege.


You cannot compare Johnson and Northam. If Johnson was a politician today and he walked around saying the N word and holding his bigoted views AFTER the exposure that race and civil rights have had over the last 40 plus years, then YES he should be booted out.

Johnson's legacy on social justice is a great one, but he will always be seen as a mixed bag because of Vietnam, not because he was personally bigoted.

It is great that you were so politically aware at that time. There were quite a few people who were, hence the Civil Rights movement and co-occurring student movements that dove tailed. However, there was a very large segment of the population that was not aware, who accepted certain norms. Or, are you telling me that the social and political climate of the 1960's was the same as it is now? Black People, women, and minorities are treated exactly as they were in the 1960's?

I grew up in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's and I can tell you that from what I have read, my social upbringing was VERY different from people in the 40's, 50's and 60's.

Holy false equivalency.

There’s a world of difference between the right to vote, and the privilege of serving as Governor.

Northam can have all the second chances he needs. Just not as Governor.

Sid

people to hide their pasts rather than to own them...the way Northam did. I aint defending him. there's nothing brave about hiding, nor do I know whether or not he's thought much about it at all. I have a big problem with him not being up front about his past, for whatever reasons. He should have left it to the voters to either forgive him or not, based upon whatever efforts he took to make restorative amends.

Its just that I'm torn on taking things entirely off the table of possibility for actions done in one's youth(which is yes, also early adulthood). For instance, too many types of jobs are barred from felons...etc. I agree we aren't talking about exactly the same thing here, but I think some people reading these posts are sometimes confusing not forgiving Northam(for good reason) with having no room for forgiveness and growth for anybody, particularly when it comes to past racism or bigotry. And to be fair, sometimes that does seem like the tone that is struck here on DU.

Gabbard(I'm not voting for her over Warren or Sanders, or Harris because of dumbass thinking regarding bipartisanship and some other weird decisions) does seem to have effectively done work to make amends for her past anti-lgbtq thinking and rhetoric. She works on committees and cosponsors legislation, etc. It very well may be that she still harbors some antiquated notions here(worthy of hesitation I grant) , but she is using her office to do right by people she's previously wronged. That said, there was little room for forgiveness here for her, when her old videos were hung around her neck like an albatross.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-conservative-media-and-the-far-right-love-tulsi-gabbard-for-president

Rather than admitting to being a part of the white supremacy that existed when he wore black face and persists today, he defended and denied. Both function to preserve and protect systemic racism. He obviously doesn't have a consciousness about the state of racial relations to effectively serve as governor.

away from uglier parts of your past as if they never happened. Maybe that is as good as we can hope for in some people who have outwardly changed, thus, possibly, hopefully, have changed their outlook. Now, that does no corrective work. Its not itself restorative, but I want to make it easy for people to evolve, rather than to force them to jump through hoops before we are willing to see them in any light other than the one cast by their past sins. Because I don't want it to be easier for them to simply go back to their bubbles of ignorant acceptance that become soundproof bunkers against reason.


Also, it should be obvious, that abandoning dogmas you were raised in is far harder than simply being raised in a family and culture that teaches more empathy via a more evolved perspective and/or via proximity to diversity in everyday interactions.

But to be a politician can mean to take on a persona to some degree. The outer package doesn't necessarily represent what you're getting inside. That Northam has a past that could be fairly steeped in his own racism or tacit approval of racism around him kind of requires that he should have gotten out in front of it and owned it as a matter of integrity and healing. As it is, I totally understand why his constituents of color feel betrayed by him.

What part of covering up his racist background until some RW outlet could use it as a "gotcha" don't people who make your sort of argument not understand?

If he'd been upfront about it from the beginning and told us how he's changed, everyone here who are demanding his resignation would have embraced him and would defend him now. He would have turned something ugly into something good.

If I'd grown up in a part of the country where racism was rampant, I probably would have done some stupid stuff, too. However, I would have recognized that my past racism was a disqualifier for public office unless I publicly and loudly disowned it. Instead, he's doing some really stupid song and dance now that only makes him, and the Democratic party, look awful.

He needs to go, and people on DU need to develop more respect for our AA members, who for sure don't want to read this sort of claptrap.

1. Restoration of voting rights is for people who have been CONVICTED of a crime AND SERVED THEIR TIME. It is not the same as giving a pass to a politician for his past racist behavior three hours after the information first came to light.

2. I doubt that a BIG percentage of our candidates will be exposed for wearing blackface or engaging in blatantly racist behavior.

Just as we need to be ultra cautious about who gets tossed out, we need to be ultra cautious about embracing and protecting racists in our midst.