?? for older Dems: What old issue would you rather not admit supporting?

Think back to the day .....

Is there any issue that was formerly a core Democratic value - or even a not so core Democratic value - that you once embraced but now see as misguided or just plain silly .... or boneheaded?

Admit it .... you supported at least one clunker issue in your life. What was it?

legalize marijuana---nah, still think that's a good idea in spite of over a decade of sobriety

Equal Rights Amendment?--- nah, that's still a goodie and wish we could get those last few states

Peace?--nah, that's still a biggy

Unions? -- nah, I still think Unions are a great idea

Environment??--Nope, that one is higher than ever on the list

Universal Health Care?--nope, still think that's one that needs to be enacted

I've always be in favor of Gay rights, voting rights, equal opportunity and fair taxes.

can't think of one there H2S, but I'll see what everyone else comes up with.

I am now far more nuanced about it and would like to see it stay out of the federal arena and make it a state issue - or even a local issue. What's right in, say, NYC is not so right in, say, Montana.

while I haven't owned a gun in 20 years, I understand the allure.

You can't just kick it back to the states. Either the federal has the right to regulate, or there can be no gun laws at all. That's the debate right now and those who believe it's their right to own any firearm they want aren't going to back off their belief that it's their Constitutional right.

I'm not arguing the gun point, just saying why it isn't an easy issue.

The gun issue isn't about "owning any firearm we want," and no one, including the NRA, is pushing for "no gun laws at all." That is a straw man.

From a pragmatic standpoint, leaving Federal gun law pretty much where it's at (tight controls on automatic weapons and other NFA Title 2 restricted items, no new bans on NFA Title 1 civilian guns, criteria to own (clean record, not adjudicated mentally incompetent, verified by background check at point of sale) as they are at the Federal level and leaving the rest of the gun issue to the states IS the best option.

That way, if New Jersey wants to ban rifle handgrips that stick out (for example), they can--and have--but you don't expend political capital in a quixotic attempt to mandate protruding handgrip bans nationally.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there just a ruling on San Francisco's gun laws, that they violated the Constitutional 2nd Amendment? I don't think states can make any gun law they want, they can't violate individual rights outlined in the Constitution and I wouldn't want them to. Seems to me that's why we are going to have to strike some kind of national balance.

I don't know what the NRA position on every single gun law is. However, I do know there are at least individuals who believe the 2nd Amendment means there should be absolutely no gun laws. They are the kind who muddy the gun issue at election time by claiming the entire Democratic Party wants to confiscate all the guns just like the people who say Democrats want to burn all the Bibles. And the NRA encourages that kind of talk, it's how they keep their lobbyist influence.

No, the San Fran ban was found to contradict California state law, and was slapped down by the California supreme court. The California legislature passed a law many years ago that prohibits localities from banning guns. The advocates of the San Fran ban knew their statute was illegal under CA law, but passed it anyway. FWIW, one of the people behind the ban at that time was then-mayor Dianne Feinstein.


The NRA supports heavy restrictions on all automatic weapons, burst-mode weapons, firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), cut-down rifles and shotguns, disguised firearms (cell phone guns, cane guns), explosives, and ordnance. Plus armor-piercing handgun ammunition prohibited, hypothetical X-ray-transparent guns prohibited, etc. Background checks for purchase, possession by criminals absolutely prohibited, strict controls on the use of lethal force (i.e., only in justified self-defense), and license required to carry as determined at the state level.

What we gunnies have a problem with is the fixation with piling additional, pointless restrictions on the law-abiding, when gun violence is the purview of the NON-law-abiding who violate EXISTING law with impunity. Most of the perpetrators of gun violence are people who cannot legally so much as touch a single round of ammunition. Making it a felony for me to own a rifle with the stock shaped a certain way doesn't do anything about the 20-year-old who shoots the convenience-store clerk with a .38 revolver.

The prohibitionists really crossed the line in the early '90s when they tried to ban all firearms holding over 10 rounds, or rifles with the stock shaped a certain way. Leave the line where it is, as it pertains to the law-abiding, and we gun owners will be pretty happy.


There are also individuals who want to ban all guns, but they are a fringe just like the people you describe, and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the gun issue as it stands in 2006.


Any fringe perception that "the entire Democratic party wants to confiscate all the guns" is absolutely irrelevant to the gun issue as it affects elections. What hurt the party so badly 1994-2004 wasn't what a few fringe people might have claimed about the party, but rather what the party leadership was saying--that they would fight hard to ban all civilian firearms holding over 10 rounds, civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, and anything else the gun-prohibition lobby tagged with a sufficiently scary name. THAT is what is hurting the party among gun owners, not some imaginary perception that Dems want to take away traditional-looking duck guns from the tiny percentage of gun owners who hunt ducks.

there is nothing I can think of that I used to support, that I still don't support. Okay...I recall being an avid proponent of zero population growth for the health of the planet...and I now have four kids( one's a step) but all are devout left wingers.

My memory isn't as good as it used to be, but I'm with you. I can't think of an issue that belongs to core Dem. beliefs that I am ashamed of.

I do, however believe that many of our dem. leaders need to be replaced with true democrats.

Yeah, maybe they can. Maybe they should be given ONE chance. But generally, I hate that I ever supported that notion, too many kids are dead because we didn't keep violent offenders off the streets.

Any good liberal wants to try to help everyone.

Some people may simply not be helpable.

I went from wanting molesters to get all the treatment they wanted to kill them on first conviction to kill them on second conviction.

Also I once opposed the the death penalty. Now I don't. See above.

with. I am against mandatory union membership. I think that union membership should be a choice.

A person makes the decision to join the union when they agree to take a job at a union shop. It is wrong for others to fight and sacrifice to bring a union in, only for others to enjoy the rewards without even paying monetary dues. If you don't want to join a union, don't work for a union shop. Simple.

...like any low wage southern and middle western state.

are more than happy to take the benefits fought for by the union while not paying the dues that keep the union going. Result; union loses influence, workers lose everything (just look around).

Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. Clinton made me change my ways. My Republican Father had too much influence and I wasn't very interested in politics. I ended up converting both parents!
However...I haven't answered your question...can't think or remember any clunker issues. I guess because I didn't pay attention and was young and stupid.

Should have listened to my Union reps.

:evilgrin:

As you others have phrased it so well in the above, I think it is much more nuanced (seems to me now.) During earlier presidencies (since '76) I never dreamed of a scenario where my 2nd Amendment rights could actually protect me from my own government.

Sadly, now I have different reasons for seeking to preserve these and other rights---for us all---than I have had before. Elsewise, though, I'm happy to say that I enjoy the same positive wishes (and revolutionary ideals) I always had, and have luckily not latched onto "clunker issues" beyond the earlier categoric stances against firearms.

Great idea for a question, H2S!

Guess I'm just not quite old enough yet.

Incap's gonna smack you silly :D

:blush:

:pals:

you already live with the shame, why not confess your sins.

For myself, had I been old enough, I would've voted for Anderson in the 80 election. I was totally suckered by the corporate misrepresentations.

:kick: :patriot:

Carter was screwing me over as a family farmer. Reagan made promises he didn't keep and screwed us more, it's easy know to look back and see it coming but not then.
One thing Reagan did do for me, I've never voted Republican again.

I feel I've been on the side of the angels with the issues I've supported: Anti-War, Civil Rights, Anti-Nuke, ERA, Roe v. Wade (Choice), Childrens' Rights, Anti-Gun, Anti-Death Penalty... I would, however, rethink my support for a couple of Democratic candidates, and one attitude.

I won't name the candidates here because it would be devisive, and if you've been paying attention, you know who they are anyway, but the one attitude is BI-PARTISANSHIP. I used to be a huge proponent of it, and now feel that was an enormous mistake. I grew up in the era of "Good" Republicans, and let the attitude that even Republicans had souls extend in my thinking too long, and therefore, did not fight the Neo-Con Revolution hard enough. I now believe to be a Republican is to be completely devoid of conscience, ethics, soul, and all human decency. Period.

TC

resurfacing to any degree until the reign of King George. I've always voted, but not paid much attention in between . . . until recent years.

It would be easier for me to pick issues that I have supported that I now regretted if we had won on the original fights. Kind of hard to regret supporting something that I never got to see how it would have worked out if we won.
Sh*t, I still support Cuba as a social experiment and we will never even get to see how that would have worked out without Uncle Sam's big thumb always on the scale.
I suppose if I had to pick one great big clunker that I personaly objected strongly to, it would have been the turnover of the Panama Canal. That wasnt a democratic issue per se, more personal, but I was fairly convinced at the time that we would have wound up begging to use a canal that we built. Guess not .. at least so far.

I wised up and am amazed at how many haven't. Especiall Liberals when they know the money they spend on tobacco goes directly into GOP coffers. :shrug: we all have made some dumb decisions.