A message to conservative Democrats

[mudesi]

While the Democratic party is happy to be a big tent, happy to compromise on certain things, and happy to have any support it can get, even from people who call themselves "conservative", there is one thing I think that needs to be made abundantly clear.

You are not the ones who ought to be controlling the Democratic party.

There already exists a party controlled by conservatives. They're called the Republicans. If America is to have any semblance of a Democracy whatsoever, then there needs to be an opposition party run by liberals. Does that mean conservatives are kicked out of the Democratic party? That they have no say whatsoever? Of course not.

It does mean, however, that the onus is on you to be more flexible when it comes to certain issues. Because if you're not, then you're not really a Democrat. Not really. You're a Republican operative working inside the Democratic party. (Think Joe Lieberman, before he became an independent).

The occupation in Iraq, for example. If you support it, what are you doing in the Democratic party? We liberals were against the war before it even began. Even if you were for it in the beginning, it's clear now that there are no options left but to get out. You made a mistake, and that's okay. Time to bite the bullet, admit you were wrong, and join us in our efforts to end this war. Or get out.

Torture, spying, and all the other high crimes Mr. Bush has committed against the Constitution. If you support torture, if you support spying without warrants, I can't in good conscience call you a Democrat. You must be a Republican in disguise. On these issues Democrats will not bend. The president is not a king. If you support him using signing statements, if you think he ought to be able to keep people at Guantanamo without due process, if you think he doesn't deserve impeachment for what he has done, get out.

Separation of church and state. There it is again, that pesky little Constitution thing getting in your way. It's right there, in black and white. No state sponsored religion. You're free to practice your religion, you're free to be adamant and passionate about your faith and your beliefs, to shout them from the roof tops, to vehemently disagree with others regarding matters of morality.

But you must recognize that the purpose of the government is to represent all the people, and pass laws for the people, including those who do not believe as you do. This includes people who do not believe life begins at conception, people who do not believe in prayer and don't want their children practicing it in schools, people who do not believe God created humans, but rather, that we evolved over millions of years (and that such facts are the only ones allowed in science (not religion) class), people who don't believe homosexuality is a sin, and people who will define their personal relationships with whatever word they choose, and if that includes the word "marriage", then so be it, and so shall the government represent them as well.

This list can go on, but I think I've made my point. We welcome you into the Democratic party. Give us some of your conservative viewpoints and we promise to consider them carefully and thoroughly. We may even agree with some of them and implement them into the law. But the price you must pay for your membership is to submit to certain ground rules. Certain core Democratic values that will not be compromised. Sit back and enjoy your freedoms and the prosperity that always comes with strong Democratic leadership.

[Mojambo]

1. I think I've got a recommendation in here for you somewhere...

Ah! There it is.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I'm a pretty conservative Dem, and I agree with all your points.

So what does that mean? Maybe you just hit on the issues that all Dems, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum, agree on--I don't know.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Except some of those in Congress.

[TwilightGardener]

19. True--but the Blue Dogs aren't representative of my beliefs when

they vote against the Dems on the specific issues the poster brought up. It's necessary to make that distinction.

[Bitwit1234]

32. The internet is exploding with complaints about the blue dog democrats

And most of the complaints say what I have said. They are not democrats they are republicans who masqueraded as democrats to get elected. WHY just after the election did bush call them and them only to the white house. How did he know before the voting even started they were on his side. rove did a damn good job sneaking all these republicans into our party. They should be shunned and set up committees to shovel crap and put them on it.

[TwilightGardener]

35. I agree--they are too cozy with BushCo by too many degrees.

I'm pretty much sick of them.

[coco77]

134. These are the so called Dems that should be hit ...

with calls,letters, and emails over and over again as they vote for everything that asshole wants they should be called out and protested. If we show them we are on to them and their every move they will begin to show who they really are just as Zell Miller and Lieberman have.

[cascadiance]

40. That IS the distinction between being "corporatist" and being "conservative"!

It's too bad that these DLC Democrats can't really be honest about who they represent, which isn't moderate or conservative Democrats, but those that want to warp our system of government away from Democracy and into the hands of the powerful few.

To me that's not a conservative or liberal stance. It is about being pro-constitution, and as you said for ALL Americans to be heard based on their numbers, not how much money they have.

[lame54]

111. conservatives dems are

wolves in wolves clothing

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hr8k8WHTzN0

[ProudDad]

136. Great Video

Thanks :hi:

[MrCoffee]

3. this is gonna be goooood...

:popcorn:

i totally agree with you, but i'm gonna hang out and watch the fun.

kicked and recommended (i regret that i have but one recommendation for this post)

[corkhead]

4. make it 5

[porphyrian]

5. They'll just call you naive or foolish and go back to ignoring you. - n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. There Aren't Many Conservative Democrats Left

And I suspect there are precious few at DU....

[jgraz]

9. Wha?? The New Democrat caucus still has 63 members

All of whom desperately need a primary opponent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Here's A Link To The Americans For Democratic Action Website

http://www.adaction.org/2006vrstats.htm

The Democratic House has a 83.4% ADA voting record and the Democratic Senate has a 89.1% ADA voting record as opposed to 10.1% and 9.4% for the Republicans....

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

7. Hah...

I would have heartily endorsed that message around 30 years ago.

Now it seems like it's closing the barn door after the horses are long gone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Don't Get It...

Would it be fair to define a conservative Democratic congressperson as a person who votes with the Republicans more than fifty percent of the time?


I think that's a fair definition and by that definition there are probably less than a dozen in both houses of Congress...

[redqueen]

13. No, because the political landscape in this country has shifted SO far.

We liberals are out in the cold.

[jgraz]

14. No, that would not be fair

They only have to vote with the Rethugs a few times, but if those times are on The Iraq Supplemental, the Bankruptcy Bill and the New FISA Law, they're conservative. Also, you have to think about the people who simply hide behind procedure while allowing conservative bills to pass or liberal bills to fail.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Then How Did The Democratic House And Senate Get 90% ADA Ratings?

http://www.adaction.org/2006vrstats.htm

[jgraz]

20. Look at the methodology

They only count individual votes on 20 key pieces of legislation. They don't consider the Iraq supplemental or the latest FISA atrocity. More importantly, they don't count actual results, i.e., which bills were passed or defeated. As you well know, the Democrats can easily allow conservative bills to pass with a minimum of Democratic votes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. No Rating System Is Perfect...

But it's better than selecting a vote here and a vote there and saying this or that vote is determinative...

I wouldn't in a million years have voted for any of those bills but I'm not going to crucify someone who disagreed with me...

You said if you voted for the Iraq Supplemental , the bankruptcy bill, and the FISA law you're a conservative but Jim Webb voted against the Iraq Supplemental and for the FISA law what does that make him...

And I don't think you think Barbara Milkulsi is a conservative...

[jgraz]

26. Yes, but this rating system is almost worthless

I don't understand what's going through the minds of some of these Democrats, but I know what the result is. Bush is still in office, the war is continuing apace and we've just handed him even more power to violate our rights.

Not exactly what I expected when I was spending hours on the phone banks last fall.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Bush Sucks... FISA Sucks... The War Sucks....

I just recoil at the vanity that suggests that anybody to the right of the generic "me" is a conservative...

[jgraz]

30. Why? Conservative has always been a subjective label

It's a truism that anyone to the right of me is more conservative than I am. However, these labels are becoming less and less useful. I tend to look much more at populism vs corporatism (guess which one I favor).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Barbara Milkulsi Voted For The New FISA Law

She's also rated as a Senate Hero by Americans For Democratic Action

Senate Heroes (100% LQ) 10

Biden (D-DE) * Durbin (D-IL) * Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD) * Kennedy (D-MA) * Levin, C. (D-MI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ) * Schumer (D-NY) * Reed, J. (D-RI)
Feingold (D-WI)

http://www.adaction.org/2006vrstats.htm

[Virginia Dare]

21. There are only two Democrats left according to many posters here..

Dennis Kucinich and Al Gore..:eyes:

[jgraz]

23. Now just wait one damn minute!

I'm not so sure about Gore.


:P

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Al Gore Voted For Gulf War One, Was Anti-Choice , And Anti-Gay

I give him credit...His views evolved... We are all allowed to change... Plus he was no longer representing a conservative Tennessee congressional district...

Oh- Kucinich was anti-choice also...

Maybe there are moderate Democrats but there are few conservative Democrats save Gene Taylor and Heath Shuler...

[Virginia Dare]

31. Yes, in DU world some are given a pass to evolve..

others are not..figure it out, because I can't.

[MADem]

164. How about a progun, prolife type? Is THAT conservative?

Someone who favors teaching "family values" in schools???


OOOOPS...Jack Murtha, stand by for the wrath of DU!!!

[jgraz]

8. Excellent, gutsy post

You are so right and you are gonna get so flamed

We've got your back.

[AuntPatsy]

18. Great post, one I must highly recommend.

[sandnsea]

24. I think I missed something

Lerkfish's post, now this.

Okay. whahappen.

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

25. you cannot rule the Democratic Party by fiat

"You are not the ones who ought to be controlling the Democratic party."

Who controls the Democratic Party is determined by who votes in Democratic primaries. I happen to be an elected official in the Kansas Democratic Party, so that definitely makes me a Democrat even if I commit 'heresy' by disagreeing with something you think is a liberal dogma.

True, you could say the same thing about Lieberman and Zell Miller, but unlike them I do not write in the papers or speak on TV (or even write on DU) bashing the Democratic party, or its Presidential Candidate. Lieberman was defeated and he voluntarily left, although he still made Reid majority leader instead of Lott. I could be defeated in the next election (and that would not bother me a bit) and somebody else could take my job in the local party, but I still would be doing what I can to defeat Republicans.

I really don't need you, or anybody else, telling me what I HAVE to believe in order to be a 'real' Democrat. This country is not ruled by fiat and neither is the party. If Gravel can be a real Democrat with his 'fair' tax bullsh*t, or DK with his endorsement of abstinence education, then I certainly can be too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I Think We Can All Agree Zell Was A Conservative Dem...

But he was always to the right of the party and now he's a Democrat In Name Only...

My problem isn't with the OP calling out conservative Democrats ... My problem is it's a strawman... Most of them left the party long , long ago...

If his contention is that only a DU Democrat is a Democrat then we would have about one dozen senators and about seventy five congresspersons...

The implicit suggestion is that anything to the right of DU is conservative is illogical...

[hfojvt]

33. It's not even 'to the right of DU'

it is 'to the right of the Democratic Wing of the DU'. I think of Bill Clinton as a Conservative Dem though. I voted 3rd party in 1992 and 1996 because I thought he was too right wing. Because of "Earth in the Balance" though, I was looking forward to President Gore.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I Just Think It's Vanity To Play The "I'm More Progressive With You Card"

For instance to me when you use violence defines how liberal you are... I once started a corporal punishment poll here and some 60% of DUers approved of spanking... I would no more spank a child than I would hit a dog...

But I will admit that's a "vanity" of mine...

[redqueen]

58. How is that vanity?

IMO that's common sense.

[Limelight]

70. Here, here...

If the original poster gave as much a damn about DEMOCRACY as he did the democratic party he wouldn't have even opened his mouth.

If you care for democracy then everyone gets their say and their influence when they turn out to the polls. I think, act and vote as I choose and if it doesn't fall in lock step with party (funny how it's a bad thing when the Reps do it, but all good when the Dems do it) tough sh*t. You have to vote your conscience, are compelled to do it? Good, don't blame you. So I'm sure you'll show me the same respect when I vote my conscience as well.

If my conscience disagrees with yours? Hey, welcome to democracy.

[mudesi]

137. Then vote for the Republican

If your conservative leanings are so important, you are free to vote for the conservative party.

The Democrats? They're run by liberals. Welcome to a real democracy.

[question everything]

143. Applauds, applauds

This was my gut reaction: who is the OP to determine who is a Democrat and who is not?

In general, we, Democrats, believe in the power and obligation of a government to do good by the people. As opposed to the conservatives, including Ron Paul who is lauded on the pages of DU, who wants a small government. You lost your job? your business? you got sick? Tough. Pull yourself by your boot straps or just disappear from the face of the earth.

I supported the original invasion of Iraq because I wanted us to help the Iraqi people rid of Saddam, just as I was glad that we helped Europe rid itself of Hitler, just as we helped Kuwait and Kosovo in the 90s. Because we are the only super power in the world that can still do this. And maybe, someday, we will remember the victims of Darfur - if anyone is still there.

My problem with Iraq is that it had lasted now four years too long. Once we toppled the regime we should have transferred power to a multi national force, preferably from neighboring Arab nations who share culture, language and religion.

Instead we sent an incompetent Paul Bremer who just botched everything. Declaring that no former baatist should be part of the reconstruction was a mistake. They were the civil servants who could have put Iraq back on its feet - if this is what the goal was.

And, yes, I am concerned about what will happen to the Innocent civilians if we just pulled our troops an swiftly. This is where I appreciate Biden's thoughts.

The OP may have additional points but, really, such arrogance had no place in any democratic society.

[cynatnite]

187. Well said! n/t

[nashville_brook]

36. oh, snap!

[maui9002]

37. Whom do you consider a conservative Democrat?

Generally speaking, I agreed with most of the positions in your post, but I often differ with other Democrats on how to achieve what is admittedly a common goal. For instance, I was very much opposed to our invasion of Iraq, and predicted many of the problems we're now encountering there. I also support the notion that we ought to withdraw. But I don't think cutting off all funding is the best way to accomplish this goal.

I also think we need to be careful in our criticisms of Democratic congressmen and women, particularly those who recently became members of Congress by defeating a Republican in what had previously been considered a conservative district. For example, I was disappointed in my own Harry Mitchell's vote on the recent domestic surveillance bill, where to my surprise and dismay, he voted with the Republicans and the President. But as Democrats, we're much better off with Harry Mitchell in Congress than JD Hayworth, the Republican he defeated. If liberal Democrats fail to support Mr. Mitchell in the next election, the alternative, given the makeup of the district, is not a more liberal Democrat, but a more conservative Republican. I don't like it, but that's a reality in many Congressional districts.

Finally, while I would be identified as a liberal on most social issues (pro choice, against excessive involvment of religion in the public square, tolerance for gays and lesbians, pro gay marriage/civil unions, anti death penalty, pro gun control, just to name a few), I am fairly conservative (and arguably more Republican on many fiscal issues). For example, I support international trade and NAFTA, I don't think the minimum wage is the best way to improve the lives of lower paid workers, and I don't think all corporations and lobbyists are evil.

That being said, am I a Democrat or a Republican?

[RandomKoolzip]

43. You don't think the minimum wage helps low-paid workers?

What, do you expect us to get paid in shiny buttons and shells? Pats on the head?

Fuck that shit. I work in food service. Give me a LIVING WAGE and maybe then I'll begin to take some right-wing economic talking points into consideration. Until then, the "free" market can go suck a fuck - I'm tired of rich assholes "trickling down" on my head while I sweat in the kitchen.

And until you've actually LIVED a working class existence and tried to make a living on less than ten bucks an hour, I suggest you not imply that wage slavery "improves" our lives, thank you.

Oh, and welcome to DU. :hi:

[divinecommands]

53. A living wage?

Maui said he didn't think the minimum wage was the _best_ way to help low-paid workers.

I might be a bit more specific: I don't think the minimum wage is the best way to help _low-skilled_ workers. There's economic theory to back that up, but also anecdotal evidence. My mother, who works in food service, was overjoyed when the new Liberal government raised the minimum wage in Ontario.

Shortly thereafter, her hours were cut so she was making basically no more than before the minimum wage hike. In order to keep profits constant, her store (Tim Hortons) tried to do more with fewer people. This probably lowered the quality of service, but since just about every Tim Hortons was doing the same thing, sales didn't really go down.

Sure, my mom was working less, but each shift was more miserable because she was expected to do more in less time.

As someone with an interest in economics, I could have told my mom this sort of thing was going to happen when the minimum wage was raised. Unintended consequences, you know. There are always tradeoffs. Maybe raising the minimum wage helped my mom a little, overall, but low cost training and education would have helped her a lot more.

...
By the way, in dollars/hour and given a 40 hour work week, just how much is a "living wage", anyway? My old prof used to say that when studentsuse the term "living wage", they mean it to mean how much they imagine a graduate student gets paid. Now that I am a graduate student, I hope it's more than that. But how much more? 10 dollars/hour? 12 dollars/hour?

A "living wage" might very well have us all working for huge corporations, since those are the only entities that can afford to pay their workers that much and not go broke.

[RandomKoolzip]

54. .

:rofl:

[redqueen]

61. BS.

I notice that in your lengthy apology for the idea that employers shouldn't be forced to compensate workers with enough to actually live on, that you managed to jump straight to the "hours will have to be cut, blah blah blah" defense.

That's utter and complete BS.

Do you really not even consider that we could regulate how employees at the top are compensated? That we could mandate that the greedy fatcat bastards treat those who actually labor to earn the wealth these parasites would rather suck up for themselves as human beings instead of livestock?

[divinecommands]

68. Hours WERE cut

I'm just reporting the facts in my mom's admittedly anecdotal case. It's not hypothetical. It happened -- almost immediately after the minimum wage hike went into effect. Since that happened back in February of this year, I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence for its impact on low-skilled workers.

Morley Gunderson, an expert in labor economics at the University of Toronto, observes that,"From the point of view of curbing poverty, minimum wage is an exceedingly blunt instrument." And it is. Blunt instruments often produce unintended effects.

And sure, we could regulate anything we want. We just won't always get the results we want in doing so. For example, I say we should just outlaw "greedy fatcats." No one should make more than 150,000/year. That should be more than enough for a "living wage", right? We'll confiscate any earnings above that mark, and distribute them to people earning less.

Whamo! No more greedy fat cats! I wonder what the unintended effect of THAT legislation would be?

I thought this was "Democratic Underground," not "Forum for Unreconstructed Marxists (who think more laws are the solution to every problem.)"

[redqueen]

81. Did I dispute that it happened? No.

What I disputed was that hours being cut was necessarily the ONLY forseeable result of paying workers enough to live on. That's tired propoganda used to support the elite's case in the class war.

A maximum wage law would be great. I'd support that wholeheartedly. Do you really wonder what the result would be?

I don't consider "Marxist" a dig.

And yes, it's pretty obvious that laws are solutions. Not the only solution, of course... but tell me... what was required for us to rid ourselves of these problems:

- product safety / consumer protection
- workplace safety
- overtime pay for excessive hours
- unequal treatment of minority workers
- etc., etc., etc.

If you can't get the powerful to treat the people they take advantage of fairly without laws, then it stands to reason that laws will HELP.

[divinecommands]

92. Never said necessary, nor only forseeable...

I never said that the minimum wage will always, inevitably produce cuts in worker hours. Many factors can come into play: there's very little that's always or inevitable in policy analysis. But its an effect that needs to be considered.

Marxist wasn't the dig. Unreconstructed Marxist was the dig. There are plenty of Marxists I have respect for, including G.A. Cohen, David Miller, and others. But you're no G.A. Cohen or David Miller.

"If you can't get the powerful to treat the people they take advantage of fairly without laws, then it stands to reason that laws will HELP."

I'm sorry, but that's a laughably bad bit of reasoning. If you can't get/achieve X without laws, then laws will help us get/achieve X. Substitute for X anything from "turning lead into gold" to "squaring the circle."

But aside from the prima facie conceptual invalidity of your claim, it's also false in a more mundane way: government can make a bad problem even worse. Well-intended laws and government programs can and almost always will be misused. Current health insurance mandates have worked a little like that. So has ethanol legislation that has turned into a huge cash giveaway to big agribusiness.

[redqueen]

98. So... you chose to ignore the examples from history in my post.

You can use all the flowery language you want, but a pig wearin lipstick is still a pig.

The government didn't make life worse for workers when it established OSHA, or overtime pay, or the 40-hour workweek. We've tried YOUR way... the way of not raising the minimum wage for a decade, and that hasn't worked out too well. So go on and think it's not the best way if you like... but propose *other* feasible solutions while you're at it, instead of just helping the elites to spread their talking points. Otherwise people might get ideas!

Your bringing up insurance mandates and OBVIOUS giveaways like ethanol is meaningless. What's your logic... that because some laws are bad, we shouldn't try any others to help solve problems.

Pff... "you're no so and so". Tired.

[divinecommands]

117. I'm not an anarchist

... and I didn't say government can't improve people's lives sometimes. Likely, raising the minimum wage would improve the lives of some dramatically. But we must examine the hidden costs as well as the obvious good. The hidden costs includes jobs not created because people looking to start small businesses can't afford to do.

You might say, "Well, someone else will just create those jobs." Possibly true. And, most likely, it will be a huge corporation like Wal-Mart that can cope with higher labor costs.

The point of my more recent examples, like ethanol subsidization and insurance mandates, is that they're indicative of the kind of people we have in charge right now. If laws are going to be passed, they're going to be passed by THESE people, not the phantom legislators the left wishes were in power instead. The current crop of politicians likes giving away money to corporations and then hiding that they are doing so. They often do this by using gilded rhetoric (talk of the "common good") to mask their true purpose.
***
"What's your logic... that because some laws are bad, we shouldn't try any others to help solve problems."

I might just as easily turn this back to you. What's YOUR logic? That, because some laws have been good, we should always welcome more of them? I would say we should engage in policy analysis: first, figure out what problem the law is supposed to solve, and how we'll be able to tell when the problem has been solved.

That's what I'll ask you: what's the problem raising the minimum wage is supposed to solve? How would we know when we'd raised it enough to give people a living wage? Supposing your proposed policy were successful in solving the problem, how would that be reflected in various measurements (unemployment, poverty rates, small business ownership, etc)?
***
My definition of the problem is something like this: the problem is that many workers are employed in low-skilled, low-paying jobs, and not enough of them are moving out of those jobs. My solution to that problem is to make it easier for these workers to train and educate themselves and upgrade their skills. There are various ways to do this, and I haven't settled on one yet. I know Ontario has government funded apprenticeships that seem to work very well.

[redqueen]

121. So then leave an 'out' for small businesses.

Simple as that.

"You might say, "Well, someone else will just create those jobs." Possibly true. And, most likely, it will be a huge corporation like Wal-Mart that can cope with higher labor costs."

No, I wouldn't say that, because empirical evidence tells me jobs will go overseas if they can find a way to to do that. This is war. Corporations vs. the rest of us.

"The point of my more recent examples, like ethanol subsidization and insurance mandates, is that they're indicative of the kind of people we have in charge right now."

Sure, right now... barely. We have the House. We will soon have more. Will it matter? Not if we elect more conservative dems, IMO.

"I might just as easily turn this back to you. What's YOUR logic? That, because some laws have been good, we should always welcome more of them?"

No, as I said before... we tried not raising it for 10 years... didn't work so well. So... I'll go with the time-tested alternative.

"I would say we should engage in policy analysis: first, figure out what problem the law is supposed to solve, and how we'll be able to tell when the problem has been solved.

That's what I'll ask you: what's the problem raising the minimum wage is supposed to solve? How would we know when we'd raised it enough to give people a living wage? Supposing your proposed policy were successful in solving the problem, how would that be reflected in various measurements (unemployment, poverty rates, small business ownership, etc)?"

What the law is supposed to solve? Are you kidding? Have you heard of Barbara Ehrenreich? The fastest growing job right now is janitor. Do you believe in bubble up, or trickle down? The problem it's intended to solve is multifaceted. People having to hold two jobs to get by, for one thing. Also too many people depending on government help, de-facto subsidies to corporations who make nice tidy profits. I could go on, if you really need me to.

As far as how it would be reflected... well the consumer dollar is the driving force behind this economy. So companies make more money cause people buy more things, so they can expand their businesses, and the economy expands as a result. That's what happened under Clinton. Yes, the tech boom helped. Was it the sole source of growth, definitely not.

"My definition of the problem is something like this: the problem is that many workers are employed in low-skilled, low-paying jobs, and not enough of them are moving out of those jobs. My solution to that problem is to make it easier for these workers to train and educate themselves and upgrade their skills. There are various ways to do this, and I haven't settled on one yet. I know Ontario has government funded apprenticeships that seem to work very well."

I'm against the 'they should get a better job' line. No, everyone who works full time deserves to get paid enough to live on, not just barely enough to get by, and expected to 'trade up'. I find it abhorrent that the poor are expected to jump through hoops to get decent living standards, while the rich are given carte blanche to do whatever they damn well please.

[divinecommands]

131. Why not $10,000 an hour!

"No, I wouldn't say that, because empirical evidence tells me jobs will go overseas if they can find a way to to do that. This is war. Corporations vs. the rest of us."

Well, one way to ensure jobs go overseas is to raise labor costs without raising the productivity of the workers, which is what hiking the minimum wage will do. In the end, it's productivity that matters.

Jobs would stay here if the American worker could produce much more, per unit of time, than, say, the Chinese worker. There are ways to increase productivity. Raising the minimum wage is not one of them, at least not directly (it's a blunt instrument, remember?) Education, training, R&D... these are areas in which Americans have traditionally excelled, and they should do so again.

As for war with corporations... err, yeah. You go with that. You really should check out G.A. Cohen's work, because he understands (in a way you do not) that corporations and workers have interests that cut across each other. Take workers in a competing business. I have some interests in common with them, but not really. What I want is for my employer to do well, even if that means those who work for competing employers will not do as well as I will.

The class warfare bullshit is not based on how people really think, but on how people who've read a smattering of Karl Marx think they think (or should think.)

"Sure, right now... barely. We have the House. We will soon have more. Will it matter? Not if we elect more conservative dems, IMO."

Oh, please. It's not like Republicans are the only ones willing to give money away to corporations. For anyone with more than a butterfly's memory, this kind of stuff was happening years ago. Consider farm subsidies: billions of dollars have gone, not to Farmer Tucker Proletariat and his little plot of land, but to agricultural giants. This has been happening for a long time. Why? Because politicians found out they could enrich and be enriched by big business and spread the costs out in such a way that the people don't realize they're being bilked.

And so what if the fastest growing job is janitor? Christ, do you have a problem with janitors? What kind of attitude is that for a Marxist to take?

"So companies make more money cause people buy more things, so they can expand their businesses, and the economy expands as a result."

Well, why not raise the minimum wage to 10,000 dollars an hour, then! That will put LOTS of money in peoples' hands.

What you're treading on is the broken windows fallacy, as richly described by Bastiat. If we compel a business owner to pay his worker more, that worker will have more money to spend, he'll buy more things, and the economy will improve.

Maybe. But let's take a hint from Bastiat. Let's go around and break a window on the buildings of every business. Just one window. Then business owners will replace those windows, which will provide work for glass-makers, which will give those people more money to spend, which will improve the economy.

Sound good to you? What we've done is raise the owners' cost of doing business without creating any improvement in productivity. The result is this: fewer workers are hired, prices go up, quality degrades, etc. Are you going to pass more laws to fix all these problems?

Hey, why not? Now let's take a hint from ol' Karl Marx and put the government in charge of these businesses, so it can set prices and employee wages however it wants to. Surely, the government would NEVER use that power against us, or against some of us.

Nah.

[Limelight]

99. Point, set and match...

Winner, DivineCommands!

I think it should be a crime that CEO's of failing companies bail out with hundereds of millions in their pockets and then try to skip out on workers who made the product or provided the service that made the CEO rich to begin with. I think it should be law that before a company can even consider weaseling out of their obligations to the people who worked their asses off to make the money for them the CEO and other top executives must give up/back 90% of any bonuses and the value of their "golden parachutes" which is to be put back to subsidize the pension fund. That being said, divine is right... This is a capitalist country, not a socialist society.

People are rewarded for individual effort and hard work (in theory about as much as in practice). You start telling people how much money they're allowed to make and you've stopped America from being a land where you can achieve great things. Moreover, as (it would seem) the only small business owner around I can honestly say this. If I have to make the choice between providing for you and yours and me and mine, me and mine come first.

Now my company is so small I'm the only employee at this point, but that being said if I had people working for me I'd want to pay them a good wage as that's how you draw in the best, most qualified people and keep them working for you instead of your competition. I would want to help with health care and that sort of thing if I could cuz again thats why people stick with you. Thing is it might not be possible. Truth is I'm going to do the best I can giving wages and benefits based on the income I need for me and the cash the business needs to maintain if not grow larger.

Am I looking after my income first? You damn right. I stuck my neck on the line to start something on my own, took on the financial and legal risks to establishing an entity in my name. I have a right to decide the income I deserve to make for my risk of being enterprising before I worry about anyone else. Sorry. I agree workers have a right to properly compensated for their time, it's only right, but I got a right to make a profit of the company I built. None of them took the risk to build it, I did and at this point the only reason they're making any money as it is because I did.

[redqueen]

105. Are there any other small-business owners around?

"This is a capitalist country, not a socialist society."

Don't like libraries then? Or public education?

My point is that it's a mix, and the mix is unbalanced. We need more socialism, not less.


"People are rewarded for individual effort and hard work (in theory about as much as in practice)."

:rofl:


"You start telling people how much money they're allowed to make and you've stopped America from being a land where you can achieve great things."

Hogwash. That's another tired line of propoganda. You'd think there'd be some new oens raised every so often... but then I guess having the media prop up the tired stuff is a big help.


"Moreover, as (it would seem) the only small business owner around I can honestly say this. If I have to make the choice between providing for you and yours and me and mine, me and mine come first. "

Ahem... the only small business owner around? Do you seriously think that?

[Limelight]

112. Nope, just seems that way...

"Moreover, as (it would seem) the only small business owner around I can honestly say this. If I have to make the choice between providing for you and yours and me and mine, me and mine come first. "

Ahem... the only small business owner around? Do you seriously think that?

No in fact, but it certainly sounds like it sometimes listening to these conversations. I hear alot of people speaking for workers, which is a good thing, but no one seems to recognize there's another side to the story.

"This is a capitalist country, not a socialist society."

Don't like libraries then? Or public education?

Are there socialized parts of our country. Sure are, as there should be... schools, police, fire dept, even some medical care. We all pay into the system we should all be able to draw benefits out. I wholeheartedly endorse socialized medicine. We should all be provided for, why is it the government meant to represent us all shouldn't be the ones to make that happen?

"You start telling people how much money they're allowed to make and you've stopped America from being a land where you can achieve great things."

Hogwash. That's another tired line of propoganda. You'd think there'd be some new oens raised every so often... but then I guess having the media prop up the tired stuff is a big help.

No, BS that it's not the truth. One of the main reasons Communism, which in its concept is actually a good thing, can't achieve good things in practice is because it takes away the individual desire to achieve. Saying you can only make this much money is exactly the same thing. Just like I surely can't be the only business owner here I surely can't be the only one that sees a federally mandated glass ceiling as being a bad thing.

I don't think it's the making of money that's the issue, it's making sure you pay the proper amount back into the system. Properly allocated taxes are how it should be done. You can make all the money you can make, just know for the opportunity of being prosperous you have to pay out a decent bit. Nothing that's going to leave you a pauper, but enough to be a reasonable percentage of how much you made.

Don't see the problem.

[redqueen]

113. Or maybe not all small business owners agree with you.

"No in fact, but it certainly sounds like it sometimes listening to these conversations. I hear alot of people speaking for workers, which is a good thing, but no one seems to recognize there's another side to the story."

I think we all recognize that... I also think we all recognize that it's not *small* business that's the problem.

"I wholeheartedly endorse socialized medicine. We should all be provided for, why is it the government meant to represent us all shouldn't be the ones to make that happen?"

What are you asking here?

"No, BS that it's not the truth. One of the main reasons Communism, which in its concept is actually a good thing, can't achieve good things in practice is because it takes away the individual desire to achieve."

Real communism has never even been tried, so that's not a logical conclusion. As for profit being the only motivator for anyone to do anything... that's just BS. It's been done to death. Inventors, volunteers, etc.... I'd wager many (if not most) people aren't only after money. They do what they do because they love IT, not the money they might get from it.

"Saying you can only make this much money is exactly the same thing. Just like I surely can't be the only business owner here I surely can't be the only one that sees a federally mandated glass ceiling as being a bad thing."

Why is it a bad thing?

"I don't think it's the making of money that's the issue, it's making sure you pay the proper amount back into the system. Properly allocated taxes are how it should be done. You can make all the money you can make, just know for the opportunity of being prosperous you have to pay out a decent bit. Nothing that's going to leave you a pauper, but enough to be a reasonable percentage of how much you made.

Don't see the problem."

The problem is that when you let people make all the money they can make, they tend to start bribing legislators to let them screw more people so they can make even more. Randian philosophy is as bankrupt as trickle-down theroy.

[divinecommands]

120. "Real communism"

"Real communism has never even been tried, so that's not a logical conclusion."
Depends on what you mean by "real communism." If you mean "communism that has a happy outcome I like," then no, communism has never been tried. But that would be a rather self-serving definition, wouldn't it?

If it's true that real communism has never been tried, that might be because as soon as any state takes a few steps toward communism, it descends into a totalitarian nightmare. One might almost think that was the fault of communist doctrines themselves... nah, couldn't be. Abolishing private property could NEVER have negative consequences. It's inconceivable!

"The problem is that when you let people make all the money they can make, they tend to start bribing legislators to let them screw more people so they can make even more. Randian philosophy is as bankrupt as trickle-down theroy."

It's true: people are always trying to bribe politicians. But this isn't much of a problem for a Randian/more libertarian philosophy that drastically limits the power of government. Surely you can see that the more stuff government can do (such as confiscating private property) the more vested interests can and will use that power for their own gain.

Can't you?

[redqueen]

123. "If it's true that real communism has never been tried"

Yeah... after that remark, I'm really done.

Thanks for the convo. Good luck.

[divinecommands]

132. Heh

Communism is silly and liberalism isn't communism. Liberals like the idea of private property (with some restraints.)

[redqueen]

133. Enjoy your stay.

:hi:

[Limelight]

125. "All" people will never agree...

I think we all recognize that... I also think we all recognize that it's not *small* business that's the problem.

So large business don't have their own perspectives? It's all the same concept just on a different scale. I see it like this if a large company or factory can show that, adding up the costs of all that workers ask for, will not allow them to turn a profit they have legitimate cause to say no. I can give you and others that, after thinking about it, it would also be wrong of the company to say they can't turn a profit based on demands cuz then they wouldn't be able to pay the executives what would equal an inordinate amount of money that's hundreds of times what their average worker makes.

I could go with saying your base salary can't be more than say 100x what the average guy makes (before you ask, yes, I do think that's fair). After than any extra you make has to be based on the performance of the company and it's stock in the market. That way no one is saying you can only make X amount of dollars, but you're entitled this percentage of they business the company does and you can make more if the companies performance warrants it. And yes, if it does well the workers should get a bonus too. Profit sharing has been proven to be good for business.

Also, the "question" of socialized medicine was rhetorical. :)

Real communism has never even been tried, so that's not a logical conclusion. As for profit being the only motivator for anyone to do anything... that's just BS. It's been done to death. Inventors, volunteers, etc.... I'd wager many (if not most) people aren't only after money. They do what they do because they love IT, not the money they might get from it.

Real communism is based on the loving, kind nature of man to want to care for his fellow man. That's the major reason why communism has never and will never work. Now, is money the only motivator? No, but if you think those who do something for the "betterment of man kind" don't want to see a betterment of their own lives for them and their families you're out of your mind. It's always there, it's just a question of the percentage it takes up.

"Saying you can only make this much money is exactly the same thing. Just like I surely can't be the only business owner here I surely can't be the only one that sees a federally mandated glass ceiling as being a bad thing."

Why is it a bad thing?

Look, if you don't have a problem with having people say you can only go this far and achieve this much and don't see it as being completely antithetical to the concept of democracy and freedom that's your problem. That's cool, you're allowed to have that problem if you so choose. Feel free. I'm just not gonna stand for anyone making it mine.

The problem is that when you let people make all the money they can make, they tend to start bribing legislators to let them screw more people so they can make even more. Randian philosophy is as bankrupt as trickle-down theroy.

Yeah, I don't care if everyone in America was only allowed to make $200 a year. If most folks made $80 the guy making $200 could still by influence, he'd just get to do it for less. I mean $20 would go a long way then, right?

This has nothing to do with the economy, that's question of human nature and it's unfortunate tendency to allow itself to be corrupted. It's not a question of making sure people make less or more it's about law enforcement and the people themselves keeping their eyes open and not allowing it. That's a question of law and order. And, if they government won't enforce that or allow the people to do it through voting out those who are corrupt then that's why the founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment and told us to use it if we had to.

[redqueen]

128. So your solution is armed revolt?

Yeah, it's a question of law and order.

The issue is whether one thinks we need laws to curb the greedy or not. I say yay. You say nay.

Agree to disagree.

[Limelight]

150. It was a question of corruption

And I pointed out if ever this government did get so corrupt that forcibly tried to take people's rights, kinda like all these posts here and there that there won't be a 2008 election cuz Bush will declare martial law and crown himself king (which frankly I wouldn't put past him), then we'd have to do what the founding fathers said was our duties as citizens and get rid of them. We ain't there just yet.

My point was simply that corruption has always and will always exist. The only way to stop it is to remain vigilant against, standing up to those who use the system. Taking away money or the right to make it won't accomplish anything.

[redqueen]

153. We've been standing up against them for decades.

Unfortunately, money talks louder (e.g. the Clinton administration).

[AnotherGreenWorld]

108. The idea that if corporations pass out a few more crums

to workers they will need to cut jobs/hours is ridiculous. If we had higher standards in the beginning, standards such that corporate CEOs couldn't make 500x what their employees make, then they wouldn't feel the need to cut jobs when their profits decrease from $12 billion to $11.5 billion.

[divinecommands]

119. Maybe you're right...

"If we had higher standards in the beginning, standards such that corporate CEOs couldn't make 500x what their employees make, then they wouldn't feel the need to cut jobs when their profits decrease from $12 billion to $11.5 billion."

You might be right about this: if things had been completely different "in the beginning," then the current circumstances would also be different.

But the circumstances are what they are. Like I said, if you don't want CEOs that make 500x what their employees make to exist, then outlaw them. Mandate that CEOs can only make 10 or 20 times as much as their lowest paid employee. Laws never have unintended effects, do they?

[cui bono]

44. To me that sounds like you are against the working class/working people.

How do you feel about unions? Organizing? Union busting?

[maui9002]

165. I think your question illustrates my original point

I very much believe in helping the working class/working people. I believe in unions, but also believe that you should have the right to work without joining the union (I live in Arizona which is a right to work state). I was very much opposed to the new bankruptcy legislation, which I believe was very unfair to working class/working people. I believe the current income tax, particularly with respect to capital gains, is now unfairly geared toward the interests of the wealthy (if you haven't had a chance, read "Perfectly Legal" by David Johnston, a book that demonstrates how the tax code has been gamed to favor the wealthy). I also believe there should be some form of national health care that protects all of us from financial ruin due to catastrophic illness, although I'm still not certain what form of solution would be best. But because I indicated I favored international trade and NAFTA, and because I expressed my view that the minimum wage was not the best way to help low skilled workers (I actually said low paid workers, but a poster who responded pointed out that it was probably more accurate to use low skilled, and I agree), a number of posters have concluded that I'm an anti working class conservative Republican and I suspect not welcome in the Democratic Party. If that's the case, you're going to end up with a very small party because there are lots of Democrats who share the same views as I do. What the Democratic Party should do is agree on a set of common principles that define the party, and accept anyone who agrees with those principles, while welcoming healthy debate on the best way to achieve those principles.

[cui bono]

179. Well the party is open to anyone who wants to join.

Nothing wrong with disagreements. However, I think it's a pretty common belief that NAFTA and other trade agreements have deeply hurt our labor force to benefit big business. The people didn't see anything good come from it. And now we have a country that doesn't produce anything, that has exported almost all the manufacturing and imports products that have been made with slave labor and poor safety standards. So now those trade agreements have also become a national security risk. It seems that if it all broke down and those countries refused to do business with us anymore we'd have little means to provide for ourselves.

[maui9002]

180. It may be a common belief

but I don't think it's accurate. NAFTA, while admittedly having an adverse effect on some manufacturing jobs, also has created lots of new jobs. I live in Arizona and the amount of exports to Mexico has grown significantly since NAFTA; I recognize that other areas of the country don't view NAFTA as positively, those in Ohio for instance where many manufacturing jobs have been lost to Mexico and Canada. But I'm not convinced those jobs would have stayed in the U.S. if NAFTA had been defeated. We have a much more fundamental problem; and that's with better, cheaper transportation and communications infrastructure, not to mention better educated and much cheaper labor in other countries, companies are able to produce goods more cost effectively overseas than in the U.S. Part of the problem is that other countries have done more to subsidize their manufacturing capability than has the U.S., but the fundamental problem remains the same. And I still believe through our leadership in technology and innovation, better education and training, and more effective trade policy are better weapons to combat this trend than placing more restrictions on international trade. In addition, whenever this subject comes up, the focus is usually on those whose jobs have been impacted, which I understand. But a fair analysis also needs to consider not just the jobs that have been created, but the benefits to consumers of cheaper goods. For instance, would you favor more or less restrictive trade policy regarding prescription drugs? I, for one, would very much be in favor of allowing the importation of prescription drugs by companies overseas (with appropriate and competent regulatory oversight); while it might decrease jobs in the U.S. (because big pharma companies might scale back their sales force for instance), I believe the cost of the drugs would be reduced. It's not easy to determine the net effect of such a move, but in the end, I think the average American worker/consumer will be better off in the long run with a less restrictive policy.

[HughBeaumont]

49. "For example, I support international trade and NAFTA"

Both are predatory and Republican in theory and action.

"Free trade" = race to the bottom. Offshoring jobs only benefits the wealthy.

" I don't think the minimum wage is the best way to improve the lives of lower paid workers,"

I don't think anyone should be in business who thinks the current minimum wage is too much to pay people.

" and I don't think all corporations and lobbyists are evil. "

Oh JESUS. Colonel Mustard called. He said to get a clue . . .

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[orleans]

116. LOL n/t

[GMFORD]

60. Neither

You are probably a libertarian. That said, can you explain why you hold that position on free trade? It seems so obvious to me that unrestricted trade is harmful to this country.

As to the minimum wage not being the best way, what do you think is the best way to improve the lives of the working poor? Are there jobs that you feel are worth less than a living wage? Over time, what do you think the impact is on crime?

And as to corporations and lobbyists, I think you misunderstand the democrats position -- we don't think they are evil. Corporations are money-making entities - they have no other function and any attempt by officers of corporations to take action which negatively impacts the bottom line will be quashed by the board of directors. It's up to people (collectively termed government in a democracy) to place restrictions on what corporations may and may not do in pursuit of profits and what contribution they must make to the common good.
Lobbyists are (generally) employees of corporations whose job it is to push back against government (people). On their best behavior, lobbyists will explain a corporation's position on an issue to members of congress, showing why a certain action (or non-action) on behalf of corporations would benefit the common good. But lobbyists are not restricted by the corporations to that type of activity -- if government does not restrict their activities they will (and have) expand(ed) them to include bribing members of our government to take action (or inaction) that benefits ONLY the corporation with no regard for the common good.

At its best, government is the entire country's union (collective bargainer). At it's worst, it bargains only for the few privileged individuals in the inner circle.

[redqueen]

62. Hi GMFORD... welcome to DU!

Nice response to that post... I hope they read it.

:hi:

[liberaldemocrat7]

66. I view you as a Libertarian, somewhat like Aaron Russo.

I strongly disagree with fiscal conservatism. Those people want to take America back to the days before Herbert Hoover.

If I want a pizza let the private sector make pizza.

If I want to insure people against unemployment financial problems, define a livable wage, insure health care by single payer and make it for everyone, make sure products appear safe, make sure working conditions appear safe, take care of the poor, the disabled, the retired, the elderly I want the government to do it.

I don't consider corporations evil.

I consider corporations in some ways like automobiles. You need to regulate drving automobiles and you need to regulate running corporations.

In my view most Republicans and conservatives do not operate corporations ethically, nor morally, and some of those operate illegally.

I don't want an America where you have Bushism where people die in the Sago mines because Bush and Republicans do not enforce mine safety before the disaster occurs.

I don't want an America where people die from Prescription drugs because a Republican conservative FDA looks the other way and doesn't regulate prescription drugs and we get thousands of dead people from Celebrex and Vioxx , etc.


I don't want an America where people die in the Ford Explorers with Firestone tires because a conservative Republican congress does not want to regulate companies for auto safety.

I don't want an America which drug companies can price drugs such that pharmacies charge $150 a month but for the very drug that pharmacies charge $150 a month, an Austrialian pharmacy charges $20 a month for that drug and greedy US drug company executives pocket an extra $130 a month in profit.

I don't want an America where middle class people die because they cannot afford prescription drugs.

I don't want an America where people lose their homes because they got very ill and the medical bills continue but cost such that these people cannot afford to live in their home that they paid for any longer.

Telling the people to trust corporations, might look like telling people to trust burglars, robbers and murderers that police should not get tough with them but rather negotiate with them in order to lessen their criminal activity.

How many times have I heard or read about conservatives who want government to cooperate with corporations in order to recall a deadly product or to clean up a deadly environmental spill, or to stop greed instead of regulating and prosecuting them toughly?


Who appears the ones soft on crime? The Republican conservatives and the libertarians who make every excuse for not getting tough with corporate executives and other management.


If you trust such executives, so much perhaps you should move to the Republican party or the libertarian party.


Sure you night act liberal on social issues, but you only have one arm, while liberals have two good arms so we can make sure corporate executives do not get out of line.

I believe in capitalism, but not the Republican conservative version of capitalism.








Send this letter to the Republican party today!

Copy and paste the letter below and email it directly to [e-mail] the Republican Party and get 2 friends to send this letter and have those 2 friends get 2 friends to send it and so on. Thank you. Drop me a message to [e-mail] with the subject Done after you have sent the email.

Hello

Get your Republican party to end the war in Iraq, with Bush and Cheney resigning, and until you do we stop buying televisions, refrigerators, stoves, ovens, dishwashers, dvd players, stereo equipment, light bulbs from one of your party's major contributors and War contractors General Electric Corporation ( 203 373 2211 ) who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.

Get your Republican party to remove the FICA taxable income cap and tax all of a person's income for social security purposes and enact HR 676 Single payer universal health care into law and repeal Medicare Part D and place the prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80 percent of all medication with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and completely remove the means test to Medicare Part B and until you do, we will not buy consumer products and prescription drugs from the biggest pharmacy chains and GOP contributors in the country Eckerd, CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens and we will not buy health insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, the 2 biggest health insurance companies that give money to the GOP as well, who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.

Get your Republican party to enact a $10 an hour minimum wage, and until you do, we will not go to the following restaurants and GOP contributors Wendy's, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and Dominos Pizza who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.

Get your Republican party to enact into law Universal vote by mail with paper ballots counted by civil servants with civil servants registering voters and keeping track of registrations, and until you do, we will not buy any GOP contributor Dell computers or monitors or go to the following restaurants and GOP contributors Wendy's, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and Dominos Pizza who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.

Get your Republican party to get congress to pass and enact a law legalizing abortions from conception to six months, and to nine months when the life of the mother appears threatened, and until you do we stop doing business with two of your biggest contributors Dominos Pizza and Curves for Women Health Clubs.

Signed,

[ConservativeDemocrat]

71. Welcome to the D.U.

You'll find that this site is dominated by the fringe left, people who 1] think they speak for the entire Democratic party, and 2] respond with profanity if their worldview is challenged even in the slightest manner (especially with facts).

But there are also moderates here as well. In fact, the D.U. can be quite a pleasant place if you simply ignore everybody who says they're not a Democrat. (I don't, but I'm a masochist.)

As for a real answer to your question, "am I a Democrat or a Republican?", the answer is simple: who do you vote for?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based COmmunity

[jgraz]

75. "You'll find that this site is dominated by the fringe left"

:eyes:

[PassingFair]

79. Like all those "wild-eyed" anti-war "liberals" n/t

[redqueen]

84. Boy those talking points sure sound stale!

:rofl:

[jgraz]

91. You think that's stale??

Wait until he calls you a "Maoist, Stalinist, Pol Potist, Chavezitist or any other kind of Communist". Seriously.

And, hey -- why do you hate America? (yeah, I got that one too)

[redqueen]

94. I already got Marxist today!

:rofl:

[jgraz]

97. Welcome to the club, Comrade!

:patriot:

[redqueen]

100. Dirty Commie UN-REFORMED Marxist Pinko reporting for duty!

:patriot:

[maui9002]

171. The answer to your question

The only time I've voted for a Republican was in my own state legislative district, where the choices sometimes are a Democrat who can't win, a moderate Republican, and a conservative right wing Republican. I've occasionally gone for the moderate Republican in an effort to block the conservative right wing Republican from getting into office and doing something stupid like insisting that creationism ought to be taught in public schools and be given equal weight with evolution. Otherwise, my votes are always for Democrats. And thanks for the welcome.

[PassingFair]

73. You are DLC!

Go directly to NEW DEMOCRATS.

Do not pass GO.

Do NOT help working people.
Do NOT stop the war from broadening in scope.
Do NOT work to keep church/state separate.

[mudesi]

77. That's not really my point

It's not about defining the label. It's about who gets to control the majority of the party, and who ought to be the one to bend for the good of the whole party.

You state that you are fairly conservative on some issues. You support international trade and NAFTA, you don't think a minimum wage is best, and you don't mind corporations lobbying the government. That's fine. You can bring those issues up and maybe the liberals in the party will concede to some specifics of those issues.

But it is you who must be willing to bend more than them on those issues. The core values and priorities of the Democratic party must be decided by liberals, otherwise, why not just declare the Republicans the only party and officially become a dictatorship?

[maui9002]

173. Goal should be how best to achieve common set of core values

I think we'd probably agree for the most part on what core values and principles ought to define the Democratic Party; and I'm fairly certain the core values and principles I ascribe to would never fly in the Republican Party. The debate, whoever, is how best to achieve those goals. And I simply reject the notion that the more liberal wing of the party, whatever that means, ought to be the "decider". You have every right to advocate your views, as do I; but it's the marketplace of ideas that will decide who's "right".

[Laelth]

38. Hear, hear!

n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[H2O Man]

39. Nominated.

Well said.

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. K & R!!!

EXCELLENT post!

[Madspirit]

42. k&r...n/t

[cui bono]

45. The party has shifted too much to the right. Time to make Liberal a good word again

and get us back into our rightful place on the spectrum.

[piedmont]

46. Neither Democrats nor Republicans would ever get within a sniff of winning without moderates...

and all the whining and stamping of feet by "the base" will ever change that. The "I'm more liberal than thou" types don't and shouldn't have any more of a voice on the direction of the party than any other Dem. Democracy works for governing parties as well as nations.

[mudesi]

48. Really?

Because the Republicans have been doing just fine, thank-you-very-much, without the "moderates". (Whatever that means.)

There is no choice in America. Right wing versus more right wing. Enough.

[Lee_n_Tenn]

56. Moderate is a nice term for ..

People who sit on the fence and stand for what ever they feel is a safe stance on a popular issue. More importantly though Moderate is the term to nicely name a person who will just go along or stand by while horrible atrocities are happening in our country and others.

hmmm.. starting to sound like a dirtier name than liberal huh

[redqueen]

115. I really don't see how anyone can be "moderate"

in today's political climate... knowing what we all should know by now.

free trade = screwed the environment & workers
free market = myth
strong defense = racket

I could go on and on...

[Johnny Noshoes]

156. Old saying

There ain't nothin in the middle of the road but white lines and dead armadillos.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lee_n_Tenn]

55. Abolutely 100% Correct! N/T

[Lilith Velkor]

114. Anthrax and EMPing small planes

That's the recipe.

[annabanana]

50. k&r. . . . . n/t

[stimbox]

51. K&R

Thanks for saying what many of us are feeling lynyrd_skynyrd!

:yourock:

:kick:

[tomp]

57. for me it's simple.

if the democratic PARTY wants my vote, then the democratic party, AS A WHOLE must move markedly to the left. i'm tired of all the bullshit excuses. i want a left-oriented party to combat a right-oriented party. come and get my vote.

[IndianaJones]

59. what are the core beliefs of a conservative Democrat?

I may be one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I'll Give It A Shot

If you oppose choice, gay marriage or at least some arrangement that gives gay couples equitable treatment , affirmative action, and national health care you are probably a conservative Democrat...

I am fervently pro-chice, pro gay marriage, pro affirmative action, and national health care but I also believe a market oriented economy despite its flaws offers the best opportunity for economic growth and human fulfillment..But the market economy produces losers and winners and it's the responsibility of society to help the former... The winners can take care of themselves...

[IndianaJones]

65. There are Democrats that believe all those things?

I find that hard to believe. Does it make you a conservative Democrat if you only believe one?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Yeah

I think most Democrats are nominally pro choice, pro gay rights, and pro affirmative action... I also think they favor some kind of national health insurance though the devil is in the details...

I think where you start getting divergence is in foreign and economic policy...


I do think, as I pointed out several times in this thread, we are defining conservative Democrats so broadly as to be illogical... Barbara Milkulski voted for the FISA laws... She is not a conservative Democrat...

[Maddy McCall]

87. Whoo! Well at least I get to keep my gun.

:eyes:

[IndianaJones]

95. Does that make one conservative? Guns? nt.

[Maddy McCall]

104. Does it prohibit one from being liberal?

Since the purists are making lists, I just thought I'd go ahead and eliminate myself.

[IndianaJones]

106. I am a gun owner and a gun enthusiast....

does this one issue make me a conservative? I don't think I agree with that.

[Maddy McCall]

107. I'm a gun owner and self-preservationist.

:)

I agree that it SHOULDN'T cause exclusion, but, see, some people would tell you that it does.

We all have our pet issues. Some of us have more than others. Some of us have dozens of pet issues, and others who don't stack up just aren't liberal enough.

[IndianaJones]

109. I don't necessarily like this attempt to classify and divide everyone. nt.

[question everything]

145. And this is your answer

There are too many people on the extremes right and left who want to classify other people. And here, on DU, name callings fly quickly, often by people who do not even bother to read a whole message, to understand it. Everything is black and white with no shades of gray.

The irony is that this is how we often define the right wingers but too many on DU are the mirror image of them.

As for guns, well Kerry does, too. Wonder whether he would fall under the definition of "conservative democrat." And, frankly, I don't know why such a term should be derided and attacked. I do not consider myself as such, but sometimes, when I read some posts here I do feel like one.

Mostly, not everyone who hates Bush and the war is necessarily a nice person; not everyone who agrees with Bush and who supports the war is necessarily evil. But this is how, sadly too many DUers divide the world.

[jgraz]

74. Staying in office

If these guys ran for Congress in Berkeley, they'd be the biggest flaming liberals on the block. If they had just happened to be born in a hard-core Rethug district, they'd be lining up to kiss Georgie's ass.

OK, they're doing that anyway, but you get my point.

[IndianaJones]

76. that doesn't help. nt.

[jgraz]

78. Sorry, but it's true

See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1550461&mesg_id=1550461

These guys will say anything, lie about whatever they have to to keep their jobs. That's the only belief they have.

[IndianaJones]

80. How about the voters...surely there are actual conservative Democrats. nt.

[jgraz]

85. Again, you have the problem of what that actually means

Conservative used to be an almost respectable term 30 or 40 years ago. Now it's been turned into a synonym for the worst wing-nuttery this country has ever experienced.

I have no stats to back this up, but most of the people (i.e. non-politicians) who call themselves "conservative democrats" are really populists. They don't buy the corporate line any more than the rest of us do, but they like to shoot things. ;)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. You Are Referring To Socialization

If you grow up in a conservative culture you are not going to have the same values as someone who grew up in a more progressive culture... Of course, there are folks who reject the culture they were raised in but that's not argument you're making ...

Take Heath Shuler... He represents a rural North Carolina congressional district... I am sure the values of his constituents and the values of the culture he grew up in are different than the values of someone living in San Francisco or Manhattan..

[jgraz]

88. No, I'm referring to a complete lack of core principles

If you took Harold Ford or Evan Bayh and dropped them into a liberal district, they'd be the most anti-war, pro-gun-control, pro-gay people you could imagine. They just happen to be running in a conservative area, so they adopt conservative beliefs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. I Am Not Denying There Are Opportunists...

But you are way , way too intelligent of a person to deny that our culture informs our beliefs...

[jgraz]

96. Of course culture informs our beliefs

But that's not what I was referring to. For many of these pols, I think the lust for power is the driving factor.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. I Tend To Agree...

Most successful politicians are "trimmers"...

I think most want to do the right thing as they understand it but to be in a position to do the right thing you have to get elected...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

82. There are two different styles of Democratic conservatism:

The Democratic Leadership Council style, which leans libertarian: pro choice, anti gun-control, pro balanced budget, anti waste in government (including, especially, military waste), internationalist, anti corruption (especially boardroom corruption that kills shareholder value), and pro-education in lieu of economy-killing protectionism.

The Blue Dog Democrat style, which is nearly the opposite: pro-protectionism, pro-entitlement spending (farm bills), anti-balanced budget, pro-life, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, pro-theocracy/anti-science (wants creationism taught in schools), anti-environment, pro "strong" military.


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. You Did A Nice Job Of Delineating The Difference Between The Two Groups...

I just reject how broadly conservative Democrat was defined...

Here... What am I?

I am pro choice

pro gay marriage

pro affirmative action

pro immigrant

pro free markets

pro strong defense

pro free trade

pro union

pro universal access to health care

anti-capital punishment

anti-Iraq war

anti-Bush

[IndianaJones]

90. interesting take. thanks. nt.

[benEzra]

135. I'd quibble with the characterization of the DLC as "anti gun-control."

The Democratic Leadership Council style, which leans libertarian: pro choice, anti gun-control, pro balanced budget, anti waste in government (including, especially, military waste), internationalist, anti corruption (especially boardroom corruption that kills shareholder value), and pro-education in lieu of economy-killing protectionism.

The Blue Dog Democrat style, which is nearly the opposite: pro-protectionism, pro-entitlement spending (farm bills), anti-balanced budget, pro-life, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, pro-theocracy/anti-science (wants creationism taught in schools), anti-environment, pro "strong" military.

I'd quibble with the characterization of the DLC as "anti gun-control." It was the DLC, not the party's liberal wing, that made new gun bans Priority One in the '90s, presumably under the hypothesis that it would appeal to right-leaning "law and order" types. Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, Biden, etc. were the driving force behind the disastrous 1994 gun ban that helped cement the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme in the popular consciousness.

Were it not for the DLC pushing the issue, I don't think gun bans would have been made such a priority in the '90s.

[PassingFair]

142. I think it must have been a typo.

DLC= Pro-Gun Control.

Good delineation otherwise.

BOTH factions are PRO-Iraq War
and PRO Oil Company Profits.

Their votes are called in when needed,
in numbers that are calculated.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

147. Not true

Blue Dogs will take swipes at what they see as excessive profiteering, the DLC is far more laze-faire, taking the position that we shouldn't be subsidizing oil prices.

Saying either is "pro Iraq war" is a bit of a stretch too. About half of both movements are, or were, outright "pro Iraq war". But the other half held the mainstream Democratic position of being in favor of, in Senator Clinton's turn of phrase, "coercive diplomacy".

(A prime example of coercive diplomacy was the method by which Bill Clinton restored Aristide to power in Haiti, having planes in the air to invade the country, before Baby Doc Duvalier suddenly decided to adhere to U.N. resolutions.)

Now of course, both the hard left and right wing Republicans refuse to see the difference between threatening to go to war if something isn't done (say - letting weapons inspectors have free reign over all of Iraq/not shooting at our aircraft), and going to war simply because you can. (The hard left and the hard right agree with each other, and gang up against centrists much more often than they admit.) But the distinction is real and obvious to anyone whose I.Q. isn't lowered by 50 points by blind emotional partisanship. I have no doubt that given the same exact power granted by Congress, a President Gore in 2002, would have used the threat of war to bring Saddam to heel, instead of launching such a foreign policy disaster.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[PassingFair]

149. Except when they all voted to authorize the IWR,

it was BUSH that sat in the oval office,
not GORE, so what's your point, really?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

157. Exactly. IWR was a bill for coercive diplomacy

That was how it was sold to the U.S. Senate and the American public.
George Bush explicitly promised that he would go to war ONLY as a last resort, and the law was written that he had to certify that he'd tried everything else before committing U.S. troops to a conflict in which some of them would obviously die.

Now while it may sound rather quaint these days, there was a time in American politics where the statements of the President of the United States, even one not of your own party, was considered more reliable than a dictatorial tyrant such as Saddam. Further, the vast majority of Americans want that to be true, so voting for the IWR was not a hard vote at all to make. Many conservative Democrats still feel that was the correct vote to make, even if George Bush profoundly abused the power he was given.

And in case you're interested, even Howard Dean stated that while he was against the I.W.R. he would have voted for one with a similar sounding amendment (which - through lies - Bush could have still found a way to get his war).

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[PassingFair]

160. "Many conservative Democrats still feel that was the correct vote to make"

THIS is the problem with conservative democrats.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

169. You're entitled to your opinion

...but let me remind you: all the toothless United Nations resolutions in the world have not stopped the genocide in Darfur. Only the application of coercive diplomacy, along with a President wise enough to use it properly, would (or maybe will).

And that will only happen if we get a Sudan War Resolution rather similar in text to your hated I.W.R. (and a President wise enough to use it properly).

I hate Bush, not only for his lies, but for hollowing out the military so much that it'll be a decade before we can do good in the world again.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[PassingFair]

177. "all the toothless United Nations resolutions in the world have not stopped the genocide in Darfur"

Whatever.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

146. You're probably right about that...

Organizations have a tendency to change over time, and in addition to that, are composed of many people who sometimes have opposing views. So it was a mistake for me to characterize the DLC as anti-gun-control, because they haven't always been, and never 100%.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Nikia]

166. I don't think that it is always so simplistic

I live in rural Wisconsin and there are many more variations of conservative government than that. For example, many of them are not as progressive on social issues as most Duers but do care deeply for the enviroment, vary on their feelings about labor and business (depending whether they are small business owners or sympathize with them or if they are stuck in a low wage job or sympathize with that), are pro gun, and are now mostly against the war.

[slackmaster]

63. Please define your terms and explain who you are referring to

:shrug:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

89. Die in a fire?

Nice.

[Robson]

172. DIAF - Doesn't sound too tolerant to me

The Party won't win elections based upon pushing only the views of the far left. Only with an agenda that will include support from Independents and even some Republicans will the Democratic Party prevail.

I consider Sen Webb as one of the best representatives that the Democratic Party currently offers.

[Me.]

72. It Is My Contention

Though few believe it at this point, that the progressive point of view is on the rise and rather than leaning right or veering towards the middle, the country is headed left. And the longer those like this admin and those like the 57 continue to push their agenda down our throats the more pronounced this trend will be. The irony is that in a totally unintended way they ultimately will have helped us get to where we wanted to go. The fun part is once we get there, they're not going to be happy campers for a long time to come and considering the misery they've caused, that's just fine with me.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1543116

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1532702

[Gregorian]

101. I would agree with one major concern.

We have some huge brick walls to move. One of them being the media. And Murdoch has just made another step forward in his agenda.

I am concerned that ignorance has an alignment problem. It steers to the right. Idiocy and trust are not too far removed.

We have a country that needs schooling. That sounds pretty simplistic and patronizing, but I think there's truth to it. There are many facets to education that aren't being taught in schools. Until then, the almighty alter at the tv shrine shines bright and beautiful.


But I think you're right.

* And I love the original post. Just great.

[Me.]

110. I Don't Think It Will Be A Breeze

But here's something to consider, despite the rah, rah, rah for the war a good majority think it was a mistake and we should get out. They also know they're 'not better off' than they were 6-7 years ago, in fact they are seeing their lives diminish right before their eyes. I have friends who lament over the stupidity and ignorance of the American public. I've been there too but when I bottom line it, I have faith that the good people of this country will come to their senses. After all, you can't fool all the people all of the time.

[Gregorian]

127. Yes.

Pain is a very quick teacher. I think you're right about this. But it's the tough way to learn. I think the Depression made a lot of liberals out of conservatives. Just a guess.

Preemptive intelligence. That's more like what I was posting about.

[Me.]

161. Preemptive Intelligence

Would be a blessing and a relief

[proud2BlibKansan]

103. K&R!!

[orleans]

118. democrats have a social conscience. republiks have no conscience. nt/

[aikoaiko]

122. A good example of "if you don't like it, then leave" rhetoric.

Where would you be without moderate or so called conservative Democrats?

[redqueen]

124. Where would we be? Maybe not so far to the right.

Which is a GOOD thing.

[aikoaiko]

129. And not have either the Senate or House of Reps.

I'm just saying....

[redqueen]

130. I'd bet that's more due to DRE's & other vote fraud actually.

Oh, and also the media that the moderate clinton failed to reign in, and in fact helped to become more corporatized thanks to the Telecom Act.

[PassingFair]

178. Not in Iraq, THAT'S for sure. n/t

[PurgedVoter]

126. K&R

[Totally Committed]

138. F*ckin'-A, my man!

Right on.

Awesome post. Just awesome.

:yourock:

TC

[ProudDad]

139. There is already a 100% big business party

It's called the republican party (GOP - Greedy Old Pricks).

There should be a People and Worker's party.

There used to be one, briefly, with great flaws (Dixiecrats, etc. - - "conservatives") and for a few years the Democratic Party filled that role.

Then, about 40 years ago, the Prince of the Greedy Old Pricks had his ass handed to him on a platter. The other rich Greedy Old Pricks banded together to change our country from a Society to a Greedy Pirate World more to their liking.

Then, a few Greedy Old Pricks who couldn't entirely stand the other Greedy Old Pricks said, "let's get our own party, get more of the graft and largesse being handed out by the federal government" and the DLC was born. The DLC would be the "kinder and gentler seeming" bunch of Greedy Old Pricks and make a killing while doing it...

So that mean old worker oriented, People oriented, Community oriented Democratic Party was deformed and mutated into a triangulating, republican-lite, pro-business wing, B-Team of Greedy Old Pricks...same old wine in a different bottle.

So...

what's "conservative" today would have been called totalitarian Fascist in the 30s-60s and would NOT be in power.

what's "moderate" today would have been called far-right-wing-fringe in the 30s-60s and would NOT be in power.

what's "looney left liberal" today was the MAINSTREAM in the 30s-60s and were in power...

Core Democratic Values have been so WARPED as to be rendered unrecognizable in today's Democratic Party. I recently posted the 1936 Democratic Platform and a link to the 2004 Dem platform. The differences were startling but not surprising to me.

We used to be the Party of the People, for a few bright shining decades the attempt was made, the feeling was there. I was brought up in that era -- the era of "We're all in this together and should help one another out".

That era's dead. We're now in the "I've got mine, Jack. Now Fuck You!" era of Robber Baron "individualism" and the corporate state.

Anyone who supports that corporate capitalist Greedy Old Prick shit ain't no friend or ally of mine...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

140. Maybe You Are Correct On Economic Issues But Not Social Ones..

For instance there wasn't a pro-choice plank in the Democratic platform until 1972...

[ProudDad]

141. I'm talking about the corporate fascist state we have become

You're right, I'm not talking about social issues.

Those "social issues" should have NO bearing on government. They should not be legislated or even discussed in the halls of government because they are basically RELIGIOUS (read stupid fucking myths') issues and as such should be banished from the public sphere according to the Constitution.


I know, I know, they ARE being injected into public discourse but they DON'T BELONG THERE!


I don't care if "conservative Democrats" don't like abortions or gay marriage or <whatever> as long as they pass NO laws against what other people do or grant benefits to one group of people (the "married") over another (the single or "not allowed to marry").


Bye the bye, until the Comstockery of the late 1880s -- there would have been no need for a "pro-choice" plank anywhere. That issue was irrelevant -- as it should be now...


These "social issues" are the smoke-screen that is shielding the corporate state from scrutiny while they take away our Civil Liberties and ROB US FUCKING BLIND!!!!


I'm sick and tired of the two right-wings of the Big Business Party...

I know, I'm talking about a vision of what should be...but someone must or no-one will...

[Robson]

184. Fascism vs. social issues

I agree 100%.

The Democratic Party needs to become the party with undisputed ethics and the pro-labor, pro-justice, anti-corporate, anti-fascism party. It needs to concern itself with protecting the rights and maintaining the economic interests of those 90% of Americans that haven't seen their economic status jump by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years, otherwise we are going to lose our country.

Contrary to what some in the far left and most in the far right believe believe, the sun doesn't rise and fall based upon their social issues du jour. I agree that the government should keep their nose out of the social issues.

[ProudDad]

186. Unfortunately

"the sun doesn't rise and fall based upon their social issues du jour. I agree that the government should keep their nose out of the social issues."

In the case of most repukes and some Dems -- the sun DOES rise and fall based on their social issues du jour...

So we are currently forced to defend ourselves against those who would send the storm troopers into our private lives to force their own particular deviant theologies on those of us who would rather "live and let live"...

[Johnny Noshoes]

158. AMEN !

nt

[SteveM]

144. Whew! Glad I didn't get picked up on Lynyrd's radar; but then I support 2A.

[Sherman A1]

148. Gee Thanks

I have been a Democrat for all of my 50+ years. A Union Grocery Worker for 34+ years. I do happen to be conservative on some issues and perhaps more liberal on others, however when you state "We welcome you into the Democratic party. Give us some of your conservative viewpoints and we promise to consider them carefully and thoroughly. We may even agree with some of them and implement them into the law. But the price you must pay for your membership is to submit to certain ground rules". I would ask just exactly appointed you as Czar of the Party? :grr:

[mudesi]

151. Recognize the fact

Recognize the fact that there is no party that represents liberals in America. The Republicans represent the conservatives, and the Democrats represent....who? Why should the Democrats be Republican-Lite? It ought to be run by liberals, with the leadership being composed of liberals. Conservatives already run one party, why do they get to run the only other party as well? That's all I'm saying. What kind of a democracy is there, otherwise?

[Sherman A1]

174. Historically views shift along the way

and the terms conservative and or liberal can be subjective in the eye of the beholder. You might consider my viewpoints on a topic to be conservative, yet someone else might consider them more liberal or moderate. Change topics and viewpoints along with labels change.


I am just very happy that you don't get to pick who is included in the party.


You can proclaim all you wish, but I am still a Democrat and will remain one unless and until I find a better representation of my overall views.

[DFW]

152. This is adopting the radical right's definition of "conservative" and I won't play

I totally reject that.

I'm still happily on my first marriage with an intact family, do no drugs (not even tobacco or alcohol), prefer fiscal responsibility, have views on religion that pretty much are identical with those of Thomas Jefferson (i.e. believe what you want, but don't even think of trying to impose your beliefs on anyone else, much less try to institutionalize them in my country), views of freedom to criticize the President that are those of Teddy Roosevelt, and believe in prudence when getting involved in foreign conflicts that jive with those of George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, and think that the personal and press freedoms of the US Constitution should be absolutely inviolate, including the fourth amendment meaning that no governmental restriction or intrusion on a woman's right to choose is permitted. I disagree with liberalization of laws restricting the ownership and use of firearms--indeed I am for their strict enforcement. I agree with Teddy Roosevelt that our wildernesses should be preserved as they are for eternity.

All old fashioned stuff. Conservative, even. Horrors.

Of course, THESE days, all that stuff is called "libbrul" on National Hate Radio, Fox, and other right-wing propaganda outlets.

I totally agree that core Democratic values are not up for compromise, but I reject that THAT makes me more "liberal" or less "conservative." Both terms have been hijacked by the radical right, and I, for one, will not play their game. My best friend in the Democratic party is a guy named Howard Dean, and I hold great admiration as well for Al Gore and Bobby Kennedy, Jr. Don't go pinning labels on me. I am perfectly capable of making up my own if I need some.

[KneelBeforeZod]

154. You are CLEARLY wrong on who controls the Democratic Party ...

>> if you support spying without warrants, I can't in good conscience call you a Democrat. You must be a Republican in disguise. On these issues Democrats will not bend.

Clearly, that is not the case. The Democrats HAVE bent, and WILL bend on such issues.

>> But the price you must pay for your membership is to submit to certain ground rules. Certain core Democratic values that will not be compromised.

Recent congressional activity would tend to suggest otherwise - there are FEW values, if any, in the Democratic Party that will not be compromised.

>> You are not the ones who ought to be controlling the Democratic party.

Perhaps not, but "ought" is the operative word there. The Democratic party is, at this point, NOT controlled by us ... otherwise, we'd be in the midst of impeachment hearings, pulling out of Iraq, raising taxes on the rich, repealing the PATRIOT Act, and Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards would be leading in the polls.

>> If America is to have any semblance of a Democracy whatsoever, then there needs to be an opposition party run by liberals.

"Needs to be" ... yes. But, right now, there isn't one.

And - if you think its bad now, just wait until the primary is over. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will forget we exist, and run back to the right. They'll again start being hawks and tax-cutters, and promoting FISA expansion and the PATRIOT Act ... all so they can compete with macho Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani with conservatives and independents.

This is the point at which our control in the party is at its peak ... and even now we're being downtrodden ... as we get closer to the general election, it will only get worse.

Z

[OzarkDem]

167. Welcome to DU

So many new posters.

[Yukari Yakumo]

182. Old saying...

And - if you think its bad now, just wait until the primary is over. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will forget we exist, and run back to the right.

Doesn't the old saying about Presidential runs go "start on the left, then race back to the center"? I fully expect the candidate to race back to the center to win over the swing voters. Otherwise we'd get demolished in the general election.

[Xithras]

155. You would hand districts to the Republicans? Give them back the House?

I live in a fairly conservative area, and sadly my Rep is a 'Thug (Radanodick). Where I live, however, is sometimes referred to as the "hole in the 18th", because we're surrounded on three sides by the California 18th district, which is represented by Dennis Cardoza...a Blue Dog Dem. This is a Republican majority area, where Republicans vote regularly and vote CONSERVATIVELY. Should I mention that Bush carried both elections around here? Despite that, we have a Democrat representing the 18th...a conservative, mildly obstructionist one, but still a Democrat.

I would love it if a liberal Democrat could win the district, but it will never happen. The last time a liberal Democrat tried to run, when Condit left office, he took about 6% of the vote. We had a 'Thug, a liberal Dem, and a conservative Dem...and we barely won it with the conservative Dem (still lots of old school conservative farmer Democrats around here). If Cardoza were shown the door, if voters in this district were forced to choose between a liberal Democrat and a moderate Republican (which is what a conservative Democrat really is), the 18th would go red and we'd lose it for decades. One less seat for us, one more for them.

This same story is echoed in many blue-dog districts around the country. There are some areas where conservative Democrats are the only kind that can win. Are you really comfortable handing those seats to the Republicans just to satisfy your desire for ideological purity?

[OnionPatch]

159. See post 101.

I agree that we have a media problem. I live in a very red area of California. The newspapers here are so right you have to tilt your head to read them. The radio is filled with Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved and conservative Christian Programming. So many people here don't have the slightest clue about what liberals really believe and are surprisingly misinformed about history and government! But they aren't bad people, most of them. I believe they would lean a lot more to the left if they weren't constantly barraged with right-wing media.

We can't even get the most crooked Republican replaced with a Dem here in this district. Not even a Blue Dog. :( But then again, what good is having a Democratic Representative if he/she votes with the Republicans on the most important issues?

[Norrin Radd]

162. k+r

If they will always vote as a bloc in this slim majority, then they, the blue dogs, are holding the rest of the party hostage.

[MADem]

163. What a sanctimonious load of....

whatever.

You know who should be controlling the Democratic party? The group that reaches the most of us. That speaks to the greater bunch of us. That reflects our values most accurately.


I'd frankly love it if the liberal wing of the GOP ran their party. But it ain't for me to say. That's their call, based on their membership.

Dictating is never attractive, even if the stated goal is.

[Sherman A1]

175. Well Said!

:toast:

[19jet54]

168. "conservative viewpoints "?

Actually I'm a moderate, which means I have half-conservative viewpoints, but OK here are a couple:

1) How about being fiscally conservative and not spending money you don't have on a war we don't need?
2) How about being loyal to your WWII allies and friends by not threating Russia, China & France when they disagree with your plans to invade a sovereign nation like Iraq? They want to help with the Taliban, but this Iraq idea is just too extreme.
3) How about, lets make some good money by rebuilding our nations infrastructure & put people to work so they can spend more and boost our economy?
4) How about doing the responsible business thing with Mine, factory & industrial safety so we do not loose huge sums of money in lawsuits? Oh yea, the people will be happy and vote for us too!
5) While promoting family values, jobs, the economy, business, and the great american farm life, we can also make money on taxing legal drug, sex & sin trades?

I think you are confusing "conservative" with GOP & Bush demented behaviors, and some warped twisted views of a few religious fanatics (like the taliban) who have somehow hijacked the word? Or maybe you are just manipulated by folks like Karl Rove (Marx) who want to redefine the word into their image? In any case, when I read the word conservative, I see it to be responsible, adult & not living beyond your means: but that's just me. I also think you are acting too conservative by trying to redefine the word "democrat" into your image, and in that case am a little put off!

Conservative is not bad, but they label association with the Bush folks sure makes it sound bad! Nor is Liberal bad, but associations with certain bad behavior their can also make it sound bad too. I guess it all depends on how you are trying to manipulate people into thinking? Me, I know bullshit when I hear it from both sides!

[spoony]

183. Well put!

[Scooter24]

170. Things aren't always so black and white.

I'm quite liberal on many social issues but am very conservative when it comes to fiscal policy. I support a capitalist system, support school vouchers (though not at the expense of public education), am very pro-small business, am pro-globalization, but also support increasing minimum-wage minimums, etc.

I walk through a grey area when it comes to who I support for political office, but I usually lean left and vote Dem.

You say the onus is on Conservative Democrats to be flexible? Well, I highly suggest you evaluate that stance because the Democratic Party will lose a lot of votes with that type of attitude.

[philosophie_en_rose]

176. What an inspirational post!

A heaping pile of santimonious judgment will certainly inspire people to be as progressive as you think you are.

:sarcasm:

[Sherman A1]

188. Well Said!

This was a large pile of doo-doo and I refuse to accept the esteemed original poster as the Czar of The Party.

[Yukari Yakumo]

181. One problem with your analogy.

You say "the purpose of the government is to represent all the people". which is true. However, the Representative or the Senator represent their constituents, not the country as you imply. This is where your argument falls apart. Not every district is as blue as you think it is.

[Robson]

185. Conservatism - Cultural, Fiscal, Religious

Most of us have a combination of liberal and conservative values. One size doesn't fit all.

These are good reads on both conservatism and liberalism that might provide enlightenment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Cultural_conservatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal