'Conservative' Democrats: Why didn't you join the Republican party?

[Q]

- Sincere question: Why not join the Republican party instead of trying to push the Democratic party ever farther to the right? Many of your positions seem to be closer to that of the GOP than the Democratic party. Yet...you're asking Democrats to find a 'middle ground' or compromise on issues that literally define the party and differentiates it from the right.

- You should know: there can be NO compromise on many of the issues that we've fought for over decades. From 'choice' to civil rights to unions to public education to regulation of corporations and the environment...there's simply no room to 'bargain'. Conservative Democrats refuse to understand why we don't want to change a party that took over 200 years to build.

- Conservative Dems call us 'extremists' when we demand that government represent The People instead of the interests of corporations. We're called 'radicals' when we oppose illegal wars and 'soft' on national security when we want government to use diplomacy instead of violence to solve problems. We're called 'out of touch' when we bring up the lessons of the past...like election fraud, 9-11, Vietnam and a rogue CIA.

- Some of you complain about 'Dem-Bashing'...yet can't recognize the hypocrisy of your own 'bashing' when you refer to other Democrats as 'extremists' and worse. We're called 'Dem-Bashers' when we hold conservatives within the party accountable to Democratic values and principles.

- Conservative Democrats point at the 2000/02 elections as 'proof' that we need to be more like Republicans in order to attract 'swing' (conservative) voters. In defending this position...they gloss over the fact that Gore won the 2000 election with a 'populist' campaign (and more votes than any Dem in history) and that Dems lost ground in 2002 because of their appeasement of the Bush* government.

- We don't need to become more like Republicans. We need to stay true to our convictions and defend those who are counting on us to be the loyal opposition. Unlike the so-called 'conservatives' in the party...WE don't want to 'work with' Bush* or cooperate in order to 'get along'. WE think he's a criminal who should be charged with high crimes and impeached.

- Either come home and help the Democratic party fight the hostile takeover of our government or join the other side. At the very least...stop insisting that conservatives are taking the party in the 'right' direction and liberals are living in the past.

- Thanks for your kind attention.

[Padraig18]

1. By all means

Condemn us to perpetual minority status, so that we may remain pure and unsullied in our defeat. :eyes:

[Q]

4. My post won't 'condemn' anyone to anything...

...but it should be clear by now that the Dem party has been watered down to the point of ineffectivenss against the Bush* junta.

- We're supposed to be the 'party of the people'. Remember?

[Padraig18]

18. Your suggestion

Your suggestion will so shrink the party that it will reduce itself to electoral irrelevancy. Government 101 wasn't your best course in school, I take it, or were you absent that day they discussed electoral majorities and those who have them getting to pull the levers of power? Hmmm....? :eyes:

[Warpy]

24. Those conservatives

...are pretty much all southern. Those southern Democrats have always been a drag on the party, since they became staunchly Democrat during Reconstruction, and were there only to oppose the party of Lincoln. Few are motivated to quit, because they feel it's "their" party, and should conform to whatever "they" want, since they're the longest members (mah great-great granddaddy Col. Culpepper and all that), with a much better pedigree than all that immigrant riffraff in the North. This is why the DLC exists, and their power grab to counter the Nixonian "southern strategy" has certainly outlived whatever usefulness it had. The only electoral success they ever really had was Carter, and we know what that poor man got stuck with.

I have no idea what to do about these folks. Nothing short of dynamite and a strong shift to the left by everyone else in the party is likely to dislodge them, and the latter is about as likely as the Pope on a pogo stick. All we can do now is continue to educate folks on who the DLC bums really are, while voting for progressive candidates at the local level whenever and however we find them: Green, Socialist, Labor, Progressive, New, or any other progressive party. Get the local pipelines full of progressives, and the DLC will find themselves short of viable candidates. This will take years, of course, but this is what the rabid right did starting in the 1970s, and we all have to admit it's been a howling success.

A party purge may sound like an attractive idea, but do we really want to create a larger GOP? It's far better to take the long view and ultimately render these conservatives toothless in party power fights. We can only do that if we start getting progressives into office at the local and state levels.

[PDittie]

21. Well spoken

I'm sorry, good people, I love the guy, I really, really do, but Dennis Kucinich is simply unelectable.
(dons flame-retardant suit)

The whole freaking USA, and especially the South, is conservative. And monolithic. Push a few simple buttons and you get the desired result. Grover Norquist and Karl Rove get it.

Is it really necessary to wander the wilderness for forty years like the Congressional Republicans did before they smelled the coffee?

All that matters is winning. Republicans understand this.

Let's win first and bite each others' backs later. 'K?

[Padraig18]

Thank you!

YOU 'get it', but the "purity now!" folks don't, pretty obviously...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. The whole freaking USA...is conservative?

I would agree that the South is culturally conservative, and that the Repiggies appeal to "white flight" suburbanites because of their cleverly concealed racism. (I don't think that it's a coincidence that the Twin Cities suburbs turned Republican at about the same time that large numbers of immigrants from Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America began moving into the urban areas.)

But can you really say that the whole country is economically conservative? Do they really want their jobs shipped overseas, their benefits cut, their small businesses and small farms wiped out by multinational conglomerates, their children to attend substandard schools, their community's infrastructure to crumble, their streets to be inhabited by homeless people, their young people to be unable to find a good job or afford to buy or even rent housing, their families to have trouble finding affordable high-quality daycare, their air and water to be hazardous to health, their health care to be unaffordable, or their eighteen-year-olds to be sent to die for the enrichment of Haliburton?

For twenty years, the Repiggies have told us that the economic ideas of people like Dennis Kucinich are "pie in the sky," despite the fact that they have been implemented in countries throughout the world.

It's sickening when alleged Democrats tell us that we have to continue screwing the poor and middle class so that we can afford to build more military toys and act like the Mafia-enforcer of the world.

[bearfartinthewoods]

52. All that matters is winning...........winning what????

the title? is this a game now and all that matters is who sits in the WH? there has to be more than that.

[bloom]

58. winning isn't winning if we elect a conservative

no matter what party he calls himself.

[Terwilliger]

44. keep talking like that

and fully justify Q's point

[piece sine]

55. What's a conservative Democrat?

At work, at home, at play, in life I am perceived as a very liberal person. Practical, judicious, balanced and focussed except when I'm high. Come to DU, I'm suddenly perceived by some as a winger so I remain perplexed at the cyber-fliter that obscures how cool piece sine really is.

I wish people here wouldn't mis-identify honest and candid contrarians for "conservative democrats."

BOTH parties have factions; wings; contradictions. Since we can't escape it, should we value strength in numbers? Hello...it's an election.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of groups with far-ranging interests and we glad to have a large number on-board.

But if there are any genuine conservative Democrats reading this, please don't change your party affilation for any reason what-so-ever. You are welcome to belong to -- and vote for -- the Democratic Party. As true progressives, we welcome a wide range of Democrats. (And please note, dear conDems, that DU is about as left wing as it gets without meeting in an AdamsMorgan basement. They bristle when they should brush, but we're all human.

[roughsatori]

2. Thank you for the thoughtful post

I've heard the axiom that rich Republicans would become Democrats if they ever became poverty stricken. But I think the reverse may hold true too: conservative Democrats would become Republicans if they became rich and were sure they and their family would not need the social safety net.

[PDittie]

28. I live in a family full of them

conservative Democrats turned Republican, who, like thousands across the country, are turning around again.

Don't fight the Reagan Democrats; switch 'em.

(Why else do you think Clark soared to the top of the heap?)

[roughsatori]

50. I refuse to "switch" them by becoming one of them

and that is what so many newer Clark supporters here are recommending.

[Cocoa]

3. Al Gore is a conservative democrat

You have indicated that you prefer him to any of the announced candidates.

My own opinion is that Al Gore and other conservative democrats are an important part of the party, though I lean toward the more progressive ones.

[Q]

6. If Gore was as 'conservative' as you suggest...

...the DLC wouldn't have dumped him like a hot potato. Or haven't you been keeping up with the 'news'? The DLC made it clear that Gore was too 'liberal' for their needs and really got pissed at him for stating that corporations were being too 'greedy'.

- I prefer Gore because he's the President of the United States.

- Conservo Dems just can't admit that Gore won against all the odds...because that would put a dent in their theory that we need to swing right because he 'lost' the 2000 election.

[Cocoa]

20. so it's ok to be DLC

as long as you make rhetorical gestures against the DLC right before the election?

I'm surprised you're so forgiving, Q. You sound like someone who would be bothered by Gore's being the quintessential New Democrat his whole career.

And I'm surprised you're forgiving to the extent that you would support Gore over someone like Kucinch, who has a long progressive history.

[Pepperbelly]

5. Q ...

who put you in charge of deciding what direction the party should take? Do you have a problem with the party actually voting about who they want to represent their interests or should we just go by Q-fiat?

[sujan]

7. hence nader is right

no difference between the two parties in National Level.

[Pepperbelly]

11. so ...

the Party should let Q decide its future. No need to let the rank and file vote. Just let Q and maybe Ralph decide?

Do you realize that position is as elitest and autocratic as anything in history? Does it not bother you to be supporting such a system?

[sujan]

13. both parties stand for something else

and that is not 'the people'. The only difference I observe is that one is open about it and the other one is not.

So Q and Nader are correct.

[Pepperbelly]

15. I note that you ...

sidestepped my point: should we just let Q decide who is pure enough for the Party or do elections count?

I just LOVE these Party purge threads. Fucking A! Off with their heads! They are not pure enough for us.

[CWebster]

10. Q suggests that those who want the party to change directions

aren't comfortable being Democrats since they want to be more like Republicans.

[Pepperbelly]

12. do you also ...

avocate not letting those silly elections take place?

"I mean ... CWebster and Q and maybe Ralph can just kind of decide for the rest of us. Q-fiat.

Whatever.

on edit: Purges! Fucking A!!!! Now, THAT'S democracy.

[CWebster]

16. "the rest of us"

are more likely to be the rest of us as opposed to what you advocate with your baiting and bashing of progressives.

This was, until very recently, a primarily progressive site in indentity and focus. Not all, but fundamentally.

[Pepperbelly]

23. also sidestepping ...

the question of elections.

I will not call you anti-Democratic and authoritarian. I will not sink to your level of name-calling. I will simply ask again: should party policy be set through elections or through fiat by the "progressives"?

Are you not advocating a purge?

And when did any of the moderate members do anything remotely like Q and tell you guys to just go join the Greens?

Never that I can recall. So perhaps it is not the moderates who are not big-tent and accepting of other POVs. Perhaps it is the Purge wing of the party.

[CWebster]

31. Republicans always project.

Supporters for other candidates other than Clark have not been framed as "bullies" so I would suggest that the authoratarian shoe fits well on your foot. In fact Clarks troop's do alot to make me suspicious of Clark.

I came to this board because I was interested in discussion and debate with like-minded folks who shared a progressive agenda and wanted a place where they could interact on the issues of common concern. But you know, it is like I never left the other mixed site I used to frequent lately. When debating conservatives and other Right-wing zealots the ship never leaves the dock since you are forced to always be at square one all the time.

[Pepperbelly]

38. "Supporters for other candidates other than Clark have not been framed "

Anytime someone goes to the passive voice, grab your wallet because they are up to no good. And the no good you are up to is trying to again sidestep the legitimate questions I put to you that you again failed to answer. I realize that you may find it authoritative when someone won't let you just say anything you like, true or flse, without question and when they stick to your own logical fallacies like a burr, it probably does feel as though they are bullying you but in the real world of politics, that is debate.

You make remarks. They are questioned and refuted and you defend them. Rather, what I see you do is make bold assertions, they are questioned and refuted and then you whine.

So ... once again ... do you believe that elections are the appropriate venue for deciding the party's positions and future or do you favor some sort of "progressive" fiat?

Do you want to purge moderates from the party?

Have you seen evidence that moderates want to purge progressives? IOW, can you direct me to a source in which moderate Democrats have told you or others of your views to simply go join the Greens?

Will you sidestep again?

[F.Gordon]

36. Actually........

And when did any of the moderate members do anything remotely like Q and tell you guys to just go join the Greens?

It wasn't so long ago that Q suggested this very thing, that the Greens and Dem Bashers should leave DU. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned here regarding Clark......

I would propose that all the "liberal" Republicans should join the Democrats when the "conservative" Democrats switch. That way things will be all "fair and balanced".

:silly:

[Pepperbelly]

40. ok but ...

what i asked was if you or anyone else had some statement by MODERATES telling the "progressives" to go join the Greens?

[F.Gordon]

48. I'm fairly sure that someone did

(other than Q) back during the last DU meltdown back in October-November 2002. I distinctly remember Q suggesting this, but can't remember the others......

[Pepperbelly]

51. I know I have certainly ...

never said that. My recollection is that it is the "progressives" who constantly THREATEN that they will go Green if X or Y happens or doesn't happen. I have heard no moderates express that at all.

[F.Gordon]

63. Recently? No

I distinctly remember a thread that Q started in Comments and Suggestions that ended up in GD on that very subject. But maybe it was just a very old acid flashback.....

:silly:

[Pepperbelly]

65. not to worry ...

i have those, too and have learned the best response to them is to put on some Pink Floyd and dig it.

[bearfartinthewoods]

37. the line between dem and pub isn't fixed. how could it be?

fifty years ago, segregation ruled. now a color neutral society is a tennant with most of the members of both parties. we did that...we shifted the mark. the mark gets shifted at every election. sometimes left and sometimes right. within the parties the mark is shifted during each prez primary. we'll see which way it moves in a couple months.

[Q]

17. I'm expressing an opinion...unless YOU want to put me in charge?

...and what are the odds of that happening?

- I've voted Democratic for 30 years now. I believe in the Dem party I grew up with...the one that (at least tried) to defend the rights of the people over that of the corporations. The one that EARNED the votes of the Blacks, unions, women and teachers because we WORKED for them and their causes.

- My main complaint is that the New Conservative Dems are behind the effort to cooperate with the Bushies instead of putting them in prison.

[Pepperbelly]

25. sounded like a ...

sugestion to purge the party of those with whom you disagree.

I have been active in the party since the 1968 election. I have never wanted to purge those who disagree with me.

[Cocoa]

29. when did you start liking Al Gore?

and why do you support him over the eight or so more liberal democratic candidates?

[Cappurr]

8. Democrats are open to all ideas

Which makes it a difficult party to control. But "Conservative" Democrats (whatever the hell that means) are just as welcome as progressives or socialsts for that matter. And what do you mean by conservative? Conservative how? Spending? Taxes? Social Issues? Hawks?

Democrats encourage people to think for themselves and don't demand that everyone agree with them on every damn issue.

[CWebster]

14. Although the party is inclusive

the Democratic identity is not arbitrary and runs counter, not in sync, to the Republican frame of reference.

[CWebster]

9. My guess is Bush failed in their expectations

So they are turning to the Dem party to fill the promise of a Republican agenda in some respects - and the DLC is only too pleased to accomodate since it just happens to be the direction they were reaching for anyway--and they get to maintain control of the driver's seat while they continue to ignore their constituency, to boot.

I wonder if the Republicans adopted a candidate that attracted more moderate, liberal leaning support, would the Free Republic have problems redefining their identity and their banning policy?

Good post, Q.

[papau]

19. A "conservative Dem that should leave party" holds what position

or wants what compromise on issues that makes it imposible to be a Dem?

In some ways I agree with you. Every person I have ever met is "right to life" - but the vast majority of Dems want choice also. I do not see how a life begins at ejaculation person would fit as a Dem - but folks do vary in where the State should step in (a 5 month fetus has perhaps a 1% chance of non-mental or physical limited life - is that enough to negate choice?)

While civil rights, unions, public education, and regulation of corporations/environment, diplomacy instead of violence with discusion and truth and votes before war (no "illegal wars"), past election fraud and media bias not forgotten until certain that it likely to not occur in the future are bedrock poitions - can there be variation in approach?

Can government represent The People AND still not be anti-corporations except when required for public safety/health/civility.

If a Democratic party member points out that US voters vote on image - on marketing - is that to become more like Republicans?

Is it wrong to work with those that do not totally agree with your position in order to achieve the possible, or should one not "work with" or cooperate in order to make a point that your are pure in your belief and desire to help the non-rich?

I am a fiscal conservative/liberal social issues Dem - who is it that is saying being more "conservative" is the right direction for the party - and indeed what is "being more conservative" in terms of actual positions?

[Mandate My Ass]

22. No compromise

NO compromise on many of the issues that we've fought for over decades. From 'choice' to civil rights to unions to public education to regulation of corporations and the environment...there's simply no room to 'bargain'.

Yet our elected dem officials are compromising on these issues daily. If being outraged about this makes me a far-left fringe radical, so be it. Having a (D) after one's name is not enough. I'm not going to dig my own grave and the graves of the working and middle class which is what I'd be doing by buying into argumentum ad populum theory of the "center."

[Cappurr]

34. No Compromise

Gets you no power. You need to learn what is worth compromising and what isn't. If you can't work together, then nothing will happen. One of the tenants of progressives is to work with others....both here in the US and globally.

The world is not your living room and the human beings in it are not your children. You can't just do it your way and say "because I said so" (Altho Bush is sure trying....and look where it is getting him)

[Mandate My Ass]

42. Compromise

Has given us partial birth abortion bans, PATRIOT ACT, privatization, vouchers, Enron and illegal war in Iraq among other outrages. What I understood Q to say is there is a point when compromise becomes bending over and AFAIC we're there.


BTW, I didn't say, and I don't believe, the world is my living room. I said I was outraged and I am. People bled for the rights we enjoyed up until recently. I'm not about to sit back and watch the republicans strip away basic human rights and protections.

[Cappurr]

49. No Compromise didn't do that at all...

A bunch of wimpy Democratic representatives afraid to challange the bush Junta did that.

And the patriot Act is set to run out. I'm not sure the partial birth abortion ban has actually passed.....but I'm for that AS LONG AS THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER is allowed as an exception. You know how many late-term abortions there are in the US? I heard less than a hundred. Its just a big political bull shit show.

[Mandate My Ass]

57. wimpy Democratic representatives

afraid of Bush are a problem that is not going away any time soon. They're not about to say they're afraid of Bush so they vote for his outrages and say that it's the right thing to do and apparently lots of people agree with them. I call it putting lipstick on a pig.

PATRIOT ACT II, which will be passed by wimpy democratic representatives afraid of Bush, does away with the sunset provision.

[Cappurr]

67. Well.....Write you wimpy representatives

And then tell them you won't vote for them if they vote for that. Write them and tell them how you feel about Bush. Send them articles that show how bad he is perceived. When they get the idea that they are going down with him....then they won't vote with him.

You see, the real problem isn't conservative Dems. Its the system. Its lobbyists. Its money in elections. Its Corporate power. And its the mad desire of those in office to stay in office.

THOSE are the things we have to change. Regulate Lobbyists. Get public elections. Regulate these fucking corporations. And if people have to take to the streets to demand it then it will just have to be done. We got rid of the Vietnam war that way. We got civil rights rules imposed that way. And we can get fairness between government and its citizens that way. But first the citizens have to realize how much trouble they are really in. They don't yet. They need to be educated. And that is a long, difficult, grass=roots struggle. Hell, most people don't even vote because they are so disgusted by the present system.

[fedupwithbush]

26. Shades of gray

Bush is black and white. Nader is black and white. Us people in the middle are shades of gray. Do you really think everyone should be lock-stock and barrel for one way? Get real. Not gonna happen. That's why Bush is such a disaster. I'm extremely liberal on a few issues moderate on most, and conservative on a few. I've never said anyone should be like the Republicans, but there are a few moderate Republicans I like. Without them, we'd be even worse off than we are in the Senate.There are also a few Dem's I dislike. Just because a person identifies theirself as a Democrat, doesn't mean I'm gonna lay down at their feet.

How could any diplomat ever get anything done if they would only accept the solution they came up with? (Insert Bush and Co here.)

Everyone has to compromise on some things, if not most. I resent anyone saying I have to agree totally with the far right or left! The Democratic party is the party of inclusion. When it stops being so, I guess, after many generations, I'll have to call myself an Independent! And incidently, if you had it your way, that would be the end of the Democratic party. This is one of the first post that has ever made me mad. It's not about winning 100% of the time. It's about doing what is right, as well as doing what you can. I'd like universal health care, college educations for everyone, etc. But I don't live in lala land, although I have been called an optimist a lot. It's going to take small steps for a long time, maybe forever, to get there. But it won't happen by saying stuff like "This is the only way of thinking I will accept."

[Kamika]

27. lol

Who died and put you in charge?

Go cry to Nader or something. Democratic party is not "left". it never was left. The only thing "left" is that it's to the left of the republican party.

I love that you dont even give a definition of a "conservative democrat" im a liberal and im pretty conservative in alot of questions.

And yeah i think ppl talking about that the democratic party should have marx, socialism etc are extremists. The democratic party is a liberal party, liberalism has nothing at all to do with socialism.

[Q]

35. What's all this 'in charge' stuff?

- I'm expressing an opinion...that hardly puts me 'in charge'.

- How much are we wlling to 'water down' the party before we notice that we're no longer the Democratic party...but a mere reflection of what we used to be?

- Maybe you haven't heard...but it I was really disappointed when the Dems didn't get behind the CBC and their fight to investigate the 2000 election fraud. And again when the Dems decided not to pursue Bush's* lies about Iraq...and again when they gave up on investigating 9-11...all because Bush* was 'too popular' to oppose.

- Bush* was never qualified to be president...and because of his criminal actions...shouldn't be allowed to even compete in the 2004 election. But he will because our party is full of enablers and compromisers.

- How many Dems have supported Kennedy in his call to action against the Bush* Iraqi fraud and using war to prop up the Republican party?

- Dems don't need to rally around a candidate...they need to rally around a CAUSE. That cause should be The People.

[Kamika]

43. Nah

You're writing like your definition of the democratic party is the only correct one. Which i find rather insulting.. furthermore im wondering just who are "we"

[Democrats unite]

30. Seroius answer.

This is America. I am a conservative Democrat, instead of trying to make me move to the Republcan Party, why don't you go start your own party?

The truth be told within the Democratic party it's the Liberals & Conservatives that give us the balance the party needs. To be honest if the Democratic party was as left as some people here we wouldn't win any elections.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. That's only your opinion

Economic conditions are worse than at any time since the Great Depression.

Half the population doesn't even vote anymore. Not all of them are ignorant or lazy. There are some intelligent people of my acquaintance who refuse to vote because they're heartbroken liberals. They know that voting third party is useless, they hate the Republicans, but they are desperately disappointed in the Democrats. They feel that there is no point in voting when the Democrat in the race is pro-corporation, pro-war, and pro-welfare reform, just like the Republican. I've had a lot of arguments about this subject in the past, including before the 2000 election.

Nader's candidacy should have been a wake-up call. But instead conservaitve Democrats acted like the wronged party in an adulterous relationship. Instead of asking, "What's wrong with our relationship that my partner wasn't able to withstand temptation," it's easy to call the outside lover the devil's own spawn and be done with it.

See my post #46 and try to tell me that voters would reject someone who offered real, easily explainable solutions for the pressing economic and social problems that I list. I've raised this challenge many times over the past two years, and no conservative Democrat has ever responded.

[gully]

32. Define the principals of a conservative Democrat please.

Thanks for your kind attention. ;)

The Democratic Party is a 'big tent' party Q.

[Kamika]

33. I second that

id love to hear the definition

[Padraig18]

39. So would I

[jumptheshadow]

41. Tell me

If I am:

* Pro union
* Pro civil rights for all minorities
* Pro choice
* Pro environment
* Anti war

And I support Wesley Clark, do you consider me a conservative Democrat?

[annak110]

45. Excellent Q

I wish people could see that "electing a Democrat" does not mean "our side won" as in a football game and after that then "business as usual" which means going right back to helping the rightwing destroy what we have in the way of Democracy and converting the United States into a country ruled by dictators and not by law.

[Deja Q]

47. Well said!

That's why I'm afraid of "centralist democrats". They propose regulation for globalization, et al, but they still want globalization. Repukes, when elected in the future, will eliminate such regulations.

It's better to avoid the situation in the first place and bring jobs back home.

[GOPBasher]

53. What do you consider conservative?

If you think anyone to the right of Lenin should join the Republicans, then maybe you should join the communist party. I'm liberal compared to 90% of America, so I want to remain in the liberal party, thanks.

[Padraig18]

60. As do I.

I'm quite liberal, socially, but I have this annoying habit of asking how people intend to PAY for the various things they propose. Their faces light up when I say I think their idea/progam is lovely, and they then pick up and throw verbal brickbats at me for having the unmitigated gall to suggest that we might want to consider how we'll finance same.

Just because I know how to balance a checkbook, I'm a 'conservative'? HUH? How's that again? :P

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. How to pay for it?

How about rescinding the tax cuts on the top income brackets?

How about cutting the Pentagon budget down to a size that reflects the actual defense needs of the country instead of the wet dreams of the military contractors and the fantasies of would be world conquerors?

Did you watch NOW with Bill Moyers last night? If so, you saw that the $87 billion requested for Haliburton (I mean,Iraq) is enough to solve the budget problems of all the financially troubled states.

Is it "far-left pinko commie Leninist pipedream nonsense" to say that we shouldn't treat whatever the militarists and PNACers want as God's command from on high?

[Rowdyboy]

54. Take your own advice...

If you're not happy in the Democratic party as it currently exists, take your worthless green ass home and vote Nader/McKinney. Its what your gonna do anyway, you're just trying to stir trouble in the Democratic party while you're waiting.

[leftofthedial]

56. Your premise is flawed

Many of your positions seem to be closer to that of the GOP than the Democratic party.

- You should know: there can be NO compromise on many of the issues that we've fought for over decades. From 'choice' to civil rights to unions to public education to regulation of corporations and the environment

On every issue you list above, there are profound differences between the GOP record and even the most conservative positions of the DLC.

Also, it is untrue that there can be "NO compromise" on these issues. On the environment, for example, there is a wide range of views even among the most extreme pro-environment groups. Compromise will be a key component of any solutions society reaches on these issues and would be even if the Greens won 100% of national elected offices.

I believe the leadership of the Democratic party has moved much too far to the right. Clinton was a moderate-conservative and abandoned me on many issues, but he was infinitely better than any Repug president of my adult life.

With all due respect, I believe your characterization of conservative Democrats is a caricature that ignores important and very real differences between the parties. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I also do not support AT ALL your tactic of suggesting that any Democrat should switch parties. That is a self-defeating and lazy tactic. We should be putting our energy into aligning the party and its members with our views instead of fragmenting the party, especially at a time when we need every vote.

[Jack Rabbit]

59. I have a better suggestion

Why don't conservative Republicans join the Deomocratic Party?

By conservative, I don't mean the yuppie fascists who would exclude whole groups of people who are deemed to be out of favor with God or would cut taxes because it is the ideologically pure thing to do.

A conservative believes in the rule of law, individual freedom, small government and fiscal responsibility. The Bushies don't believe in any of that. There is no law on which they will not trample to gain power; the PNAC agenda requires a large government apparatus; they cut taxes and finance wasteful wars on barrowed money that will have to repaid by our children. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

The Bushies are a threat to the rule of law and to the future prosperity of Americans. They must be defeated. I ask sober conservatives to join us in that cause.

We can go back to disputing where to draw the line on taxes after 2004.

[poskonig]

61. As a centrist, here is why I linger with you guys.

1) The Gary Bauer-style religious fanatics of the GOP scare the shit out of me. While I do not support affirmative action, do oppose gun control, and am more supportive of Republican educational ideas, Freepers would be grossly intolerant about my pro-choice and pro-gay views. I'm also enthusiastic about science and the arts, cornerstones of civilization Republicans seem to hate.

2) I support trimming government spending and balanced budgets, since as a younger voter, I don't want to be the one paying off babyboomer debt in 20 years. Republicans actually increase spending AND loot the treasury, both designed to help their wealthy and corporate contributors. A jobless recovery is like a foodless dinner.

3) I'm more interventionist than most Democrats, but I find the Republican foreign policy extremely incoherent. (Iran actually has international terrorists and is giving the UN the finger about nukes, for instance.) Moving into Iraq was extremely stupid and again, probably has more to do with the GOP's corporate contributors than national security, given the lack of WMD, international terrorists, etc. etc.

[Cocoa]

64. a wise man once asked "what is causing the division in the dem party?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=171836#top

[Skinner]

68. This is flame bait.

I'm locking.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Q]

69. Have to go finish some bookcases...

...but 'I'll be back' to answer questions later. Until then...

 
Conservative Democrats Unite.

 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/8/prweb77672.htm

The Conservative Democratic Caucus Gives Voice to the Growing Number of Conservatives in the Democratic Party

Las Vegas, Nevada (PRWEB) August 2003 –- A growing number of democrats have been voicing their concern over the image and perception of the Democratic Party. Perceived by the public as left leaning and liberal the Democratic Party moderate and conservative factions have become disenfranchised. The Republican Party has made tremendous inroads to traditionally Democratic groups, and the Democratic Party's reaction has been to retreat to the far left. Recently a pollster for President Bill Clinton warned that The Democratic Party is "currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal." In response to these ongoing concerns, the Conservative Democratic Caucus (CDC) was formed.

With more and more Americans identifying themselves as conservatives, and a declining percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Democrats, the CDC offers an alternative. The CDC agenda is to support and protect the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as they exist, to win back disenfranchised democrats and act as a Conservative voice in the Democratic Party.

Conservative Democrats?
Traditionally associated with the Republican Party political conservatism is by no means a strictly Republican ideology. Conservatism is an ideology, which emphasizes progress guided by reason, pragmatism, and tradition as a source of wisdom. Tracing it’s roots to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Caucus the Democratic party has a wealth of traditions to call upon, has well as a long history of political conservatism dating back to Andrew Jackson. Today the Party once touted as the party of the people is now portrayed in the media as a group of extreme left-wingers. This is simply not the case, in yearly voting polls more than half of Democrats identified themselves as moderate, conservative, or strongly conservative. This is not currently reflected in the Party’s image or the public's perception.

The Conservative Democratic Caucus (CDC) is a conservative democratic organization. Its mission is to change public perception of the Democratic Party from a party of radical liberals back to its roots as a party of the people. Accomplishing this by working with a city, state and federal elected officials as well as community leaders to put forth public policy that represents the conservative and moderate majority of democrats.

Support the CDC by becoming a member, and you will be playing an important role in supporting the conservative Democrat movement -- and in the process you will be plugged into the policy debates shaping the future of Democratic Party. CDC members receive on-going analysis of key policy developments, and opportunities to participate in CDC ’s events and political activities. Our efforts are entirely funded by our members and contributors from the business community so join now and make a difference.

About the Conservative Democratic Caucus
The CDC was founded in 2002 by a group of conservative and moderate democrats who were concerned over the direction and public perception of the Democratic Party. The CDC's goal is to be the voice of the people, the conservative and moderate "silent majority" of Democrats, to win back the disenfranchised "Reagan" Democrats, and to change the public perception that the Democratic Party is composed entirely of extreme left-wing liberals, and you can help.

- Hmm.