Conservative Democrats Unite!

[Terwilliger]

Conservative Democrats Unite.

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

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

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

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

Conservative Democrats?

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

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

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

About the Conservative Democratic Caucus

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

posted by Q in a now locked thread...Q's words:

- Hmm.

OnEdit: html marker

[eileen_d]

1. I am not a conservative democrat

It's OK with me if you are though. Good luck to you.

[Terwilliger]

4. hahah

not me...

I hope you see why this is a serious problem, and better be dealt with.

[eileen_d]

8. well, good luck to you too

I don't have time to attack other Democrats.

[gully]

2. I still dont' see any concrete principals defined.

what do they mean by conservative Democrat exactly?

[Terwilliger]

5. I dunno, gully

maybe you could read the press release that I just posted above

[gully]

7. Gosh, T I DID!

It's very vague wouldn't you agree? It sounds totally ridiculous to me.

[Terwilliger]

so, what...you think this PR isn't valid?

you think there aren't large chunks of Democrats who think this way?

Vague or not, it represents a mindset that desires to alienate the left of the party by acceding to the right-wing sentiments, all the while contending that they are in "opposition" to Republican goals.

[gully]

24. Well...

you said~"you think there aren't large chunks of Democrats who think this way?"

I hope there aren't large numbers of Democrats who think this way. I know a lot of Dems, and none who think like this.

[Cocoa]

20. here's their crappy website

If anyone can find the name of a single real person behind this, let me know. I tried, I couldn't find any.


edit: http://www.demsforamerica.com/

[mhr]

3. DLC In New Clothes

eom

[carpetbagger]

19. DLC was about tactics, this seems about goals.

The DLC position would be not to let our dreams get ahead of what we can win elections on, and what we can get passed into legislation. Right or wrong (and I think it's a little of both), their argument is in part that we can accomplish the more by shooting for less.

This seems a bit beyond that goal. I think it does the party no good to talk about how we've deserted our historical roots. In terms of economics, we're no more to the left than we were in the 1930's, less so than we were in the 1960's and 1970's. in many ways, we've divorced ourselves from the mentality that we're all in it together. Our foreign policy reflects what's worked for the last 60 years. So that leaves social policy. I'm looking at a mockingbird and a live oak right now. If you can see those two things, you're in an area where "conservative democrats" had a very nasty social policy historically. I don't think these guys mean to advocate that, but I think they're believing what they hear on the radio and in their churches a bit too much about "historical America".

[stimbox]

6. Huh?

Conservative Democrats? What an oxymoron.
We are truly living in strange times.
When did we get transported to Bizarro world?

[jonnyblitz]

9. how many friggen Republican parties do we need?!?!

:puke:

[prolesunited]

10. Hey!

No need to give them ammunition and ideas. ;-)

So, will this be the new mantra:

I'm from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. :eyes:

[gully]

11. "I'm from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party"...???

LOLOLOLOLOLOLO :evilgrin: Most funny!

[Terwilliger]

12. LOL

That's what it's come to!

[Iverson]

13. Haven't there always been conservative Democrats?

Was Scoop Jackson just a figment of my imagination? How about George Wallace?

Remember, we're not talking neocons here.

[Cocoa]

21. also the Blue Dog dems

an actual congressional caucus, with actual people belonging to it.

[Terwilliger]

26. no...worse

Democrats who WANT to be neocons

[Blue_Chill]

14. A green attacking democrats. What a surprise.

:D

[CMT]

15. MAYBE the Democratic party is at its lowest ebb since the New Deal

because too many national Democrats don't emphasize its liberal roots. We are supposed to be a opposition party and not a "me-too" party or Bush-lite party. Yes there are some differences such as most of us are pro-choice and such, but too many of our members of congress have let Bush and company literally get away with murder--such as the invasion of Iraq. We have caved on tax cuts. We don't attack him on "Leave No Child Behind" which is nothing but a stunt with no steel behind it. I want a candidate who:

1) Opposed the War on Iraq and voted against the Resolutions--no maybe about it.

2) I want a Democrat who will tell the American people that the entire Bush Tax Cut is a fraud and should be repealed--100%.

3) I want a Democrat who will call "Leave No Child Behind" what it is and not try and sugur coat it because lots of Democrats voted for it.

4) I want a Democrat who will take Bush on on a whole slew of National Security questions including the Patriot Act and the 9/11 report.

5) I want a Democrat who is a Democrat and will stand up for its historic roots.

If the Democratic party began acting like a true opposition party and told these factions such as the Conservative Democratic Caucus to go join the party they feel most comfortable with maybe the Democratic party would begin getting some respect from the country and maybe if we stood up for Liberalism which has accomplished much more than Conservatism ever did then maybe we would have a larger liberal base in this country. Too many Democrats are afraid to utter the word "liberal" it is deplorable.

[jfxgillis]

16. I kinda like the idea!! And if they'd reverse the DLC stance--

--I might even join them.

The problem is this. The term "conservatism" has been hijacked radical-individualist Classical Liberals who worship at the altar of economic efficiency. Remarkably, they've done so while simultanteously demonizing the term "liberal."

The DLC started out years ago as a haven for cultural conservatives with progressive/left position on political economy. The fact that the DLC has almost completely reversed that position over the years (corporatist/private enterptiise on political economy, modernist on culture) has no real bearing on the THEORY that it's possible to be a "conservative Democrat." The DLC is a BOGUS institution of "conservative" Democrats.

Because George W. Bush has done such disgusting things on political ecomony, though, gives the political-economy Left an opportunity to re-capture GENUINE conservative Democrats, by appealing to one single overriding issue that has shown itself capable of unifying the Democrat party for 125 years:

JOBS JOBS JOBS.

[FauxNewsBlues]

17. Labels are (mostly) pointless

Pat Buchanan was against Iraq, does that make him a liberal?
Often it comes down to motive rather than idea. Many of us, as "Al Franken" put it, find ourselves in the mushy middle.

I am pro choice, but am very unthrilled about abortion. What does that make me? I believe in marriage as an institution, including for gays and lesbians, and I find it preferable to single parenting. Where does that put me?

I was for Afghanistan, opposed to Iraq. Again, where am I? I believe that minorities have gotten a raw deal in this country, and I believe in affirmative action for distressed minorities, yet I also believe that distressed rural poor white are getting screwed as well. I think a kid from rural Kentucky who has 3 shirts, a pair of pants, and an old pair of sneakers to his name deserves a shot at a college scholarship as much as Eddie Murphy's kids do. Again, where does that place me?

I distrust labels, only because I find that those who label themselves and others tend to see the world in too much of a black & white way. I am more intersted in what works, rather than what feels right. I find it better to find treatment for a crack addict than A. Ignoring him (radical conservative), B. Handing him money which he will use as a fix (radical liberal).

I do consider myself a liberal though. I want equality, justice, compassion, tolerance, but do not tie myself down to ineffectual ideas just to "feel good". Those of us who don't have all the answers in black & white just muddle along, trying to do our best, and even though on just about every issue I am a main stream democrat, I would ask for tolerance for those who are more conservative than others here.

I was driving a neighbor's 9 year old female child to soccer practice this past week, and I passed a billboard for a strip club that was extremely graphic. Was my revulsion because of public decency (conservative), objectification of women (liberal), or did I want to just allow this child some innocence before being exposed to things like this? Perhaps we all should learn to learn from one another, and forgo labels. Goals and objectives are what is key. If somebody wants a society to be formed in the way you want, different solutions are healthy. To use a tortured football analogy, if ya want to pass, run, or go for a field goal instead, you aren't the enemy, you are just trying to get to that end line the best way you think possible.

[jfxgillis]

28. Um. No. You're wrong.

Even though I pretty much I agree with EVERY premise in your post! It's only your conclusion I disagree with.

Labels aren't "pointless" because in such a huge, infinitely complex society as ours, we need them. We simply can't organize an advanced continental nation-state by deciding every single conceivable issue on a case-by-case basis.

Here's my take, grossly over-simplified. Let's say there are two sets of issues facing the nation, cultural and political-economic. And let's say there are two approaches to those two sets, conservative and liberal. That leaves four fundamental ideological stances:

Cultural Conservative

Cultural Liberal

Political-Economic Conservative

Political-Economic Liberal.

You have to decide first which set of issues you think is most important, then which approach you think more effective; everyone on this board is "liberal" in some way. Then you GROUND your label there and make appropriate exceptions as you go (vote conservative for school board because the "liberal" stole money), or appropriate concessions (vote for a pro-life candidate because they are also pro-trades union).

[Liberator_Rev]

18. We Liberals are all FOR "Conserving", if ...

what people want to CONSERVE are the Liberal principles established by the founders of our Country and powerfully annunciated by the great prophets of both the Old and New Testaments, and especially by Jesus Christ!

But that is the OPPOSITE of what most "Conservatives" represent. What they want to "Conserve" are the reputations, the power and the privilege of those who have gotten rich by exploiting and oppressing those less clever and/or less powerful than themselves.

See the powerful insights on these matters at

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Liberals & http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Christlike.


See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.

[roughsatori]

22. Hey we're a "Big Tent" so big we are becoming more Republican

everyday. Damn you purists who think we should have a different agenda then the Republicans. Our tent is so big we need no differences from the Republicans. Hell, maybe we should get Ashcroft to run on our ticket. ABB all the way.

[JVS]

27. Our tent is so large that we are exiled to a corner of it and ignored

[JVS]

23. I am so bummed terwilleger! My thread got locked.

And all I was trying to do was helo the democrats clean up their image problem.

[Skinner]

25. I'm locking this too.

The timing of this post is... well... interesting.

Imagine, a month-old press release gets posted just after I lock a thread of divisive flame bait. :eyes:

I have no problem with people discussing these issues. But you all have to figure out a way to do it with a little more respect.

These arguments about who who needs to leave the party are nothing but divisive crap.

Skinner
DU Admin