The Democratic Party needs conservatives.

[gulliver]

Why don't we openly welcome conservatives into the Democratic party? Compassionate conservatives should be Democrats.

We chide Republicans for not being true conservatives. We wish they were true conservatives, don't we? Well, if we want true conservatives to thrive, we should give them a home, a Democratic home.

Give up on the notion of driving these people away from Bush and his great swindle. The "true" conservatives have to be attracted to us, not driven from "them." I think many good-hearted conservatives are ready to jump ship on Bush, but they need somewhere to land.

Let's not talk coyly about "values" or "Reagan Democrats." Let's just explicitly reach out to conservatives by label. We like fiscal conservatism; we value hard work and freedom; we value manners and civic-mindedness; we want to minimize abortions; we dislike government waste... We have a lot in common with conservatives if we aren't knee jerk about things. Our candidates should say "If you are conservative, I want your vote."

I remember a look on Bush's face in debate when Kerry, I think, pointed out how far Bush had strayed from true conservative values. Bush said something like "My opponent seems to think he is more conservative than me." Then he sort of quailed at the idea. Conservatives finding a home in the Democratic party is the abyss for the Republican con artists.

Governing should not be done without both voices anyway. We need the yin and yang, the soft and hard, the mommy and the daddy. We work best when we work together. The current near-explicit reduction of the Democratic/Republican and liberal/conservative dimensions into one Democratic-liberal/Republican-conservative dimension is not working. It's unstable and distortion prone.

The idea of reaching out to conservatives is nothing new. Dean has talked about it. Clinton actually did it. Liebermann discredited it by alienating liberals. The DLC does the same.

No, I am not talking about welcoming Freepers, so stop saying that. No, I am not talking about supporting the war, giving up on a woman's right to choose, or disavowing affirmative action. Nothing radical. The Bushian neo-confidence people can stay where they are, or (better yet) go straight to Hell. I'm talking about the sensible, compassionate conservatives Bush has proven himself to not be among.

[Liberty Belle]

1. Giving up on a woman's right to choose or affirmative action IS radical.

We should not do that.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Who said anything about that?

[Finder]

2. Dems need some Straussians...

at least some Straussian strategists.

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. We have "Straussians". The DLC is full of them.

...and we need them like the Jews needed Hitler.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Agree .... we don't need DLC crap

We need to be honest ..... and we need to look for common ground. There is much of it. We just need to be clear and emphasize what those commonly held values are. We do not - and emphatically SHOULD NOT - change our broader values. Or even try to distrot them for political gain. But by being honest and clear we can allow republicans of reasonable mind to join us comfortably.

[bluedawg12]

13. Who are Straussians? The neocon U of C guy? n/t

[bigbrother05]

19. Not really

The underlying strategy Strauss espoused to sell his ideas was the 'noble' lie. Didn't make any difference what kind or how big the lie was as long as it served to move your cause forward. Clearly Strauss' ideas about a world gov't have been co-opted and twisted by the Neo-con notion that the US must rule the world and its resources. This was probably best summed up by GW himself, "I don't mind a dictatorship as long as I'm the dictator.'

It is no longer a 'noble' lie when it is used to forward corrupt and contemptible goals; it has been perverted by their big lies (liberal media, Dems=libs=reds=baby killers=..., a rising tide lifts all boats, etc). Clearly the Neo-con dream of their people (you know, the 'right' people) ruling/controlling the world would be just as bad if they told the truth about their intentions. The misuse of this strategy has poisoned the well of public debate to extent that anyone seeking to tell what are sometimes painful truths is immediately dismissed.

After all, if you think that everyone is lying, why not listen to the ones telling you that you are the best, everyone envies you, and we'll protect you, instead of the ones warning you to about poisoned air, corporate thievery, and to protect yourself. While it's true that the Dems must learn to provide a clear narrative focused on the progressive thought at the heart of the party, to resort to Straussian parsing would be to truly lose our way in the world.

[bluedawg12]

22. He favored prepetual war and using religion to control masses?

Said to be father of neocons?

[Finder]

48. That was my point....

It has worked so well for the repubs/neocons. Sometimes you do have to fight fire with fire.

[bigbrother05]

87. Can understand the desire

to fight fire with fire, but you can't stop an arsonist by setting fire to the rest of the town. The Dems have been unable to make the truth of the party's platform as popular as the hypnotic mantra of the Neo-cons, but that's partly messenger and partly the difficulty of creating a coherent platform out of true compassion and caring for all citizens.

Yes, we need to work on talking points, a reinforcing (think echo chamber) media strategy, and a message to reach across our country in order to turn this around. That can be done. Think Dean, Clark, and others get it, but there are some insiders who are reluctant to buy in. We should not lower ourselves to their standards where a 'noble/big' lie is used to hide a corrupt core, we don't need to hide anything.

To go their way is to accept that there really is no difference. That's how the misAdministration came to think that destroying innocent lives, preemptive war, and torture would teach the world freedom and make us safe at home.

[Finder]

94. As far as Dean and Clark....

I think they get it. What is happening the last few years is not merely republican vs dems or conservative vs liberal. This administration has its own ideology and policies.

Talking points, framing the debate,media strategy, etc...are frankly part of using a noble lie to "convince" the 40 percent that we call independents or swing voters.

Politics is a science and the current administration is made up of brilliant political hacks who learned effective methodology during the Nixon years, Reagan years and even when not in power worked non-stop in local districts. They have targeted the base of the dems effectively--albeit covertly. The Dems have lost many catholics and libertarians from their base and have less than two years to get them back or we will have another neocon administration in 2008.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Chickens need Colonel Sanders

Conservatives have their bloody party already!

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Its called 'common ground' ... and there is much of it when we look below

the rhetoric.

No, I am in NO way suggesting we change a damn thing with respect to our stated positions, let alone our personally held views.

Who, just as an example, on our side is not fiscally conservative? I know I want the government to operate much like I do in my personal life. I spend a bit less than I make. I borrow for really important stuff, but take on no more debt than I am able to handle, but always with the notion that debt is bad. I am CERTAIN this is common ground with the rational republicans.

Where we differ on this is how we spend money. That is to say that we, for example, perhaps want to spend money on social programs. Or not. The point is, we might differ on priorities, but that's a debate worth having. The core values would be in sync; only the strategy would be different.

Medical and privacy issues also likely have a good deal of common ground. We all KNOW most of America (which obviously includes many republicans) supports a woman's right to privacy and medical freedom.

So yeah ... we **should** be welcoming and indeed courting disaffected republicans. Based on common ground and their clear disappointment with the republicans in power, we have much to gain. And so do they.

Many months ago I started a thread on this. It was titled something like "I am a Conservative". The point of that thread was kinda like this one. The thread died after I was flamed for using the word 'conservative'. But the logic remains operative. This thread shows that.

And I agree with you. Good thread and recommended.

[Telly Savalas]

73. Fiscal responsiblity has jackshit to do with conservatism.

It has been nearly 50 years since a GOP president signed a balanced budget. Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of all that is conservative, run up huge defecits.

Based on the actual track record, "fiscal conservatism" should mean "let's fuck up the economy by lowering taxes a bunch while squandering resources on a bloated military, inflating the national debt in the process."

Advocates of fiscal responsibility abandoned Bush in 2004. (Or to perhaps be more precise, anybody that voted for Bush in 2004 is completely undeserving of being described as "fiscally responsible".)

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

4. Mathematically, more votes on your side = WINNING

And, I would agree that fiscal conservatives are hacking up a lung right now over the current spending, let alone the Katrina spending. However, I would caution that abandoning any core Democratic group to gain votes, not only alienates the base but doesn't win any new voters. Issues like civil rights, women's rights, the right to privacy should not be bargained away.

[Rainscents]

6. What Dem's need is... BACK BONE!!!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

71. Backbone yes, narrow ideological puritanism no thank you.

[Double T]

7. THE VERY LAST THING WE DEMOCRATS NEED ARE CONSERVATIVES....

of any degree or persuasion. Have you ever met a compassionate conservative??? I have never met a conservative who doesn't support the war, is pro-choice, is for affirmative action, gives a damn about the environment and cares about the poor and less fortunate. Conservative contains the word 'CON'; that says it all.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. That's an awfully broad bush you're using

I know many 'conservatives' who don't support this war, who see a lot of the 'terror' stuff as so much crap, and who hate the way the 'conservatives' in power are spending us into oblivion as a third world country.

I had the interestiing privelege on Labor Day weekend to be at a fnction with many I know to be conservative and spent the day listening to **them** bitch about idiot son's performance in the katrina thing and then they expanded and talked about fiscal irresponsibility of the cabal.

They have as much inertial resistance to changing party as we would. But they **can** be reached.

[Double T]

14. When it comes time to pull the levers in the voting machine.....

I would bet those same conservatives you refer to would abandon their rhetoric and conscience and STILL vote for bush or his replacement. It is an unshakable conservative 'thing'.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. That would be the 'inertial resistance'

But it can be overcome as there is no logic underlying it

[Double T]

16. Conservatives don't deal in logic, ONLY BELIEFS!!!

[Stinky The Clown]

17. That's simply not true

It IS true of non-thinking single issue voters. It IS true of ideologues.

It is not true of rational conservatives.

They are no more a monolithic bloc than we are.

[Double T]

21. Conservatives want EVERYONE to live their lives the way conservatives....

believe and nothing else is acceptable. 'rational' and 'conservative' are unrelated and in opposition to one another

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Whatever ...... and as you rail at the sterotype, you lose any chance for

common ground with the millions of conservatives who may well be disenchanted with idiot son and his ilk.

Try this on for size ..... bush isn't a conservative.

[Telly Savalas]

74. In what ways does Bush differ from conservatives like

Reagan or Joseph McCarthy?

[RoyGBiv]

80. One lesson I learned ...

At an early age, one very important lesson I learned about being a liberal is that liberals, to maintain consistency with their philosophy, must forego generalizations and stereotypes.

The mantra of a liberal is, or should be, that no one is hopeless, and we all have value.

[RoyGBiv]

78. Compassionate Conservative

Have I ever seen one? Yes. I know several, and one of them happens to be my mother.

And I say she is a conservative because she is "conservative," little "c." She resists change. She's religious. She appreciates a slow pace to life. She is suspicious of government in general but particularly when it comes to fixing problems. This comes from a career in social service work. She believes very much in the need for those social services; she just knows from experience that when politicians become involved, as opposed to competent workers employed by the government based on their talents to achieve a task, that the effort goes straight to hell, and no one who needs help actually gets that help.

She also wants to be able to feel good about being an American, about being patriotic without people sneering at her for thinking pledging allegiance or uttering the national anthem are okay things to do. (She and I got into an argument about this one recently actually, which resulted in me checking myself and realizing I had taken my own position too far.) She wants to go to her church and not be subjected to assertions that she's stupid for believing in a god. She wants to be able to voice her own right to choose by saying abortion is morally wrong, even if, as she believes, it should not be illegal, without having her position denounced because it doesn't fit the so-called "party line."

My mother is a lifelong Democrat who has always voted for Democrats. But, she really dislikes a lot of what she believes the party represents and is sometimes tempted, in her weaker moments, to listen to the appeals from socially conservative Republicans who don't openly denounce her as less of a human because she has her opinions about what a moral life is and doesn't feel shy about expressing them.

[Lefergus70]

89. I'm a Democrat and would never push your mother on her beliefs.

I can understand that the victimization-paranoia of conservatives can touch some Democrats when it comes to abortion and separation of church and state. A lot of Democrats share your mother's qualms. But if she's horrified about the bloody Bush doctrine, the removal of environmental protection, the cuts in social programs...- my God, a list of this government's sins is endless- she might want to check her priorities; then decide which side she is on.

[RoyGBiv]

100. She knows ...

My mother is fully aware of which side she is on. This isn't about Bush. This is about conservatives and their place in the Democratic party. As noted, she is a Democrat and has always voted for Democrats.

I was making a point about the appeal of some Republicans to conservative people.

[sandnsea]

10. Liberal Republicans

That's what we need to call them and make them choose between the fundies and corporatists or the rational Democratic Party. And yes, we do need them, at least in the country if not directly in the party.

[bowens43]

11. Fuck conservatives.

I have no desire to win if winning means that we have to cooperate with conservatives. Seems to me that that would be a losing proposition for everyone. Kind of like burning the village to save it.

No thanks.

[gulliver]

18. It's not just about winning.

I want both to win and to have a government and country that works. If we win with a "fuck conservatives" approach, then we won't really have won. If we find the win-win solutions, calm ourselves down (us and them), regain a realistic view and respect between liberal and conservative, then we all win.

The division and fighting only serves the sharks and lunatics, the Bushian corporatists and the neo-confidence people.

[bushisfufkt]

20. Opening arms for conservatives????!!!!

Jeeeezus, why do we on the left always feel the need to be so nice to these people. Don't you folks get it? We need to be as ruthless and tough as they are (and just as nasty) but doing so knowing that our values, ideas, ideals are correct and are the true and honorable positions. Fuck Repubs and conservatives in general, we DO NOT need them or their fucked values!

[bigbrother05]

23. Dems & Liberals think they can save the world

The Neo-cons think they can own it. We have been painted as bleeding-hearts and frankly, I am proud of that. Yes we want to include them, generally we want everyone to get ahead, it's not a zero sum game. You see, instead of bragging about how Christian (or Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindi/Wiccan/Rasta/Secular Humanist/...) we are, we seek to live our commitment by reaching out to all our fellow human beings. It's that broad, open faith in humanity that makes us vulnerable to the types that would dictate/preach to the world, but it is also our greatest strength.

[applegrove]

24. Yes - Seems Part II) of Strauss' plan was for neocons to make a

sharp left turn as soon as the people couldn't be fed kool-aid anymore. And drive up Liberal's flank like a car up the drive-way home.

You really have to wonder with these nuts.

Was Ann Coulter & the like sent out to make wingnuts more radical - will Nader did the same on the left. Leaving a 4 car garage & 30 year reign for Rove & neos? Sometimes I clean out the garage.

Who knows.

But the references to Bush being a liberal - are making me puke.

[SeaNap05]

25. What about the Blue Dog Democrats in the House?

Can anyone name them all?

[applegrove]

31. I don't know what a blue dog democrat is. What is it?

[I Have A Dream]

85. The attached link explains them.

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

[Zhade]

26. With all due respect, FUCK THAT.

This is a LIBERAL party.

Conservatives need to take back the Republican party, not turn the Democratic party into what the Republicans used to be.

[Dr Fate]

27. We already have them: Hillary, Biden, Liberman...

Anyone who voted for Rice, the Bankruptcy bill or will vote for roberts

...60% of any state of local Democrats in the South.

I am sure there are plenty more...

[tsuki]

28. Conservatives=Kool-Aid. Moderates are what we are looking for. eom

[chaska]

29. Clark isn't a conservative. Please stop making him appear to be one.

[gulliver]

32. I think you are making too much of my avatar ...

... an also misunderstanding me. I am not a conservative. Clark is not one, but he has characteristics conservatives admire.

These labels are very stupid and destructive. They collapse understanding. They are tools of Bush/Rove.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. I'm glad for anyone who wants to vote Dem -- but let's make sure that

we keep transforming the Democratic Party into a genuinely progressive party. If they want to vote Democratic, well good. There are plenty of independents and third-party voters and lots and lots of non-voters to create a progressive majority.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

33. Moderate independents along with an energized base will win it all.

[Q]

34. The Democratic party needs its base...

...which the DLC drove away with their corporate-friendly, anti-worker politics.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. You're right ... and the DLC is not a part of this common ground calculus

There is common ground with 'conservatives' in progressive policy.

I see what's been discussed here is the antithesis of the old 'move to the center' crap that the DLC stood for. We have now a chance to reach out from the ***progressive*** base of the party and make common ground connection with disenchanted conservatives.

The DLC should not be invited to that table - at least not as representatives of our side.

[Doctor_J]

38. Because "true conservatives"

mostly believe in regressive taxes (AKA supply-side economics), huge military spending w/ no oversight and no way to pay for it, and social Darwinism.

[Pepperbelly]

39. So IOW, a liberal republican = a conservative Democrat.

That makes sense on some level yet, they are not a very substantial part of the gop. They control nothing gop outside of the NE. IMO, of course.

And all of their elected "liberal" gops support Bonehead and his band of pirates. Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Specter, etc.

[KG]

40. LOL! funniest post i've read all week!!!

that's a good one!!! that's like the one about having mccain on the ticket in '04!!!

:rofl:



















oh, wait, you're serious aren't you? :eyes:

[melody]

41. We need everyone with a heart who is not certifiable n/t

[struggle4progress]

42. I prefer independently-minded straight-talkers with backbone ..

.. to the two-faced thuggish pack-animals that currently inhabit the Republican party.

We don't need to attract Republicans into our party -- the problem is that many Americans have given up on the political process and aren't going to vote again until they feel they have a choice between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Cocoa]

45. we don't have to use the word as a label

but we can admit that some of our values can be described as conservative, such as fiscal responsibility and attention to civil liberties.

[ulysses]

58. the GOP doesn't have to use "liberal" as a label either.

But they do.

[Cocoa]

59. so?

I don't get your point (and it's possible you missed mine)

[ulysses]

60. I probably did miss yours.

What's the problem with using "conservative" as a label?

[Cocoa]

63. not a problem

just a different approach.

Instead of putting people into these flawed categories, how about pointing out how some of the democratic party's priorities could arguably be called "conservative" and how some of the republicans' priorites aren't conservative at all.

I don't think it's any accident that republican pundits LOVE talking about red/blue, I think it's a deliberate strategy to divide people. If the dems could make some people that currently think they could NEVER vote for a dem realize that in fact they CAN, then the GOP is in big trouble.

[ulysses]

65. I can deal with that

but I have to look at it with a jaded eye after 20 years of concerted Dem effort to attract conservatives by actually *becoming* conservative. If I understand your point, it's a "framing" issue, and I can get behind that.

[bigbrother05]

88. Nothing they like better than making contrasts

If they can drag us in on the Red/Blue, Con/Lib, Rep/Dem game then they can trot out the split screen. They show Billy Graham beside Jane Fonda, Soccer Mom beside a drag queen, etc. We have to refuse to play their game and play our own. We have to show that there are consequences for choosing an opportunist hack over qualified, thoughtful leaders. This FEMA fiasco is only the most recent and obvious example of the rampant ineptitude/corruption of this misAdministration. We must drive this home like a stake through the heart of this unholy beast.

[bluedawg12]

46. They have been brain washed beyond return.

"No, I am not talking about supporting the war, giving up on a woman's right to choose, or disavowing affirmative action. Nothing radical"-gulliver

They could never live with the above, nor could they accept fairness for gay Americans, and they cannot give up their right to life positon from right to chose down to stem cells.

I thnk our generation will remain largely polarized.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. "Those People"

This isn't a response to the OP. It is a reaction to many of the posts here, however.

How can anyone call himself a progressive or a liberal and at the same time use an incredibly broad brush to paint half the population of the United States?

How can anyone who thinks for himself and applies reason and common sense say that that half of the United States' population all hold the same views?

I am as upset by the blind intractability of some on our side as I am at people who refer to a class of minority citizens as "Those People" Racial prejudice is, aside from being hate and hateful, a broad and irrational classification of a defined group. Those who paint all who are not Democrats (or liberals, or progessives, or enlighteneds, or wickywackies, or any other fucking label you wanna put on yourself) as not worthy of wiping the sweat from their brow is using the same thinking.

What ever happened to inclusion?

Those People, indeed.

[brindis_desala]

54. Democrats will continue to lose until they understand the

central issue which is tax policy. Americans resent paying taxes but the
reality is that the Republicans have sold them a bill of goods and liberals have failed to expose the fallacy. What has happened since Reagan (and its a strategy as old as vassals and serfdom) is that the tax burden has been shifted from the upper ten percent who gobble 50% of
productivity to the middle class and working class which naturally makes them resent paying taxes even more. The paltry savings from the repukes' touted cuts in federal taxes has simply been eaten up by the states to cover the shortfall. They in turn are forced to cut services which only further contracts the local economies. What Democrats should be telling conservatives is that fine you want to go back to fifties? Then tax income over $400,000 at 78 cents on the dollar and reduce the interest on this soaring deficit. The notion that reducing taxes spurs the economy is voodoo economics- just ask Stump's dad. Tell them even Reagan had the sense to know even the rich can benefit paying more taxes.

[bluedawg12]

75. It's true but they vote against their own wallets.

They have been swayed by emotional issues: the wedge issues.

[brindis_desala]

91. That's a corporate media lie. It's the wallet. Just look at

Proposition 13 in California, or the anti-tax populism in Mississippi and Alabama where they won't even pay to fund their own public schools and have practically zero growth despite having the most regressive taxes in the country. It is tax revolt and the Republicans have managed to pretend that Democrats are to blame for shifting the burden.

[Telly Savalas]

77. Hang on.

It wasn't half of the country that voted for Bush. Half of the electorate, yes, but less than 20% of the U.S. population showed up at a polling station and voted for the guy last November. Of this small percentage, only a small percentage are what one could truly call conservative. Many are just folks who don't pay too much attention to politics, and just vote based on the vibe they get off the candidates. Personality trumps ideology for them.

And of the small percentage of folks who actually are conservatives, most DUers don't necessarily hold them in disdain as human beings. For example I have an uncle who's a regular Rush Limbaugh listener. He's a great guy and funny as hell, but totally out to lunch when it comes to political matters. I'll break bread with him any day of the week, but I sure as hell don't want to be forming a political coalition with him.

[gordianot]

49. My dog also needs fleas.

It is good exersize when he has to stay inside the house.

[Inspired]

50. My repup/conservative husband

will vote Democrat if the right person runs for President. For him that person would be John Edwards.

[ulysses]

51. Newcastle needs coal?

:shrug:

[fishnfla]

52. Diversity of opinion helps a group as a whole

I'm reading and interesting book "The Wisdom of Crowds" which argues for diversity in decision making is beneficial.

Think of all the fuck -ups the chimp has made by surrounding himself with yes-men and firing anyone who disagrees with him?

[KingFlorez]

53. Tom Bevill and Sonny Montgomery

These are the types of Conservative Democrats we need, not way out the mainstream ones. Some people might not like this, but we need a resurgence of Southern Democrats. We held our majorities in Congress together by having a coalition of ideologies.

[unless]

55. I am a conservative person, a Democrat, and a Christian.

I've come a long way in 15 years (I was a freeper like you wouldn't believe).

While I now am all about taxing the rich and setting up great public programs (I'm waiting for an FDR clone myself), I can't call myself a Liberal. I think fiscally, I'm Socialist, governmental structure-wise, an Authoritarian)...and regarding "moral" issues, I still lean pretty conservative.

As long as the conservatives continue to win the tug of war with abortion and gay rights (and frankly, they are going to continue to win until y'all let go) - they are going to continue to sway people to vote against these issues - and people are likely to vote straight ticket & we'll lose other votes as well.

Again, I'm not saying compromise your values, just strategize - think about it - if you let them win, Roe v. Wade will be overturned and all of the struggles for gay rights will be reversed. If you soften the attack on these two issues you will be able to convert conservative Christians (who are more likely to be fiscally liberal).

The other issue: Try not to insult your potential teammates. "We don't need any fucking conservatives" isn't in my perception a particularly brilliant statement. Passionate, yes, but not logical. You do need conservatives, because (election fraud aside) YOU NEED THEIR VOTE. But bitching about how fucking stupid they are and then in the same breath griping that you don't have enough votes is self-fulfilling doom. And no, this isn't directed at anyone in this thread, this is a behavior I've seen quite often as I've been lurking on DU (2 years).

May the deity of your choice smile upon you.

[ulysses]

56. I'm a liberal person, a Democrat, and an agnostic.

and frankly, they are going to continue to win until y'all let go

I guess we're wise to prepare for a long fight, then. :)

Again, I'm not saying compromise your values, just strategize

In other words, compromise your values.

The other issue: Try not to insult your potential teammates.

Again, this usually means "compromise what you stand for". Conservatives want to wake the fuck up and vote for a Dem, fine. I'm not going to sell gays or minorities up the river to gain that.

[unless]

69. Great!

See -

Neither one of us called the other one "fucking stupid" because we don't happen to agree on the deity of choice. We are on the same side, you and I. I believe in separation of church and state. I'm educated, open-minded, the mother of a biracial child, I have two sisters in law who are gay, and friend of several women who have chosen to have abortions.

Yet I feel powerless to win against Republicans without dragging a few Christians over to our side. It's a little difficult to say, "Red Rover, Red Rover, let Connie come over" when the guy next to you is yelling about what a fucking idiot Connie is.

I'm not suggesting selling gays or minorities up the river - what I'm suggesting is designing the platform to sell, then to dissasemble and FUNCTION once it is in place. Again, all of the "integrity" in the world is lost if we are powerless to employ our values.

[jillan]

57. What the dems need is leadership for all of those lost republicans

to latch on to.

Notice I said REPUBLICANS, not repugs, repukes, rethugs...whatever else we call the sheeple people.

And when I say leadership, I mean a clear message from our party.

We have too many leaders, and not one stands out. We all have our favorite. And we all feel that our favorite is doing a great job.
But maybe it's time to rally around one.

We need to give hope to all of the disillusioned citizens out there.

[Autonomy]

61. I think some of you are missing the point

of course everyone thinks that, but here's my POV:

linear-constructed politics is about coalitions. "conservatives" are just a group that shares a critical amount of common ideals and form a symbiotic relationship for common advantage. If the Democrats could undermine or co-opt a few keystone issues, not by becoming "more like repubs" but by strategically neutralizing those issues, we could break the conservative coalition. The 2006 midterm elections will be the perfect timing to undo "the reagan revolution", the last vestiges of the "contract on America", the neocons (perhaps already dead, but drive that last nail deeper), and the limbaugh kool-aiddicts of America.

My suggestion: get religion. That's the linchpin. I'll write a post on it tonight.

[ulysses]

62. 'get religion.'

Reagan called secular humanism a religion, didn't he? :D

[Autonomy]

64. That's the perfect example of what 'conservatives' hate!

and it's not the issues liberalism or humanism supports, but rather its post-modern relativistic worldview. We need a philosophy that repudiates relativism while maintaining the perspective crucial to liberal causes.

[ulysses]

66. conservatives hate Reagan's postmodernism?

:boggle:

[Autonomy]

67. Except in his 'real politik' foreign policy

Reagan and almost all modern conservatives adhere to a pre-modern, Manichaean, good vs. evil, black & white worldview. Or did you mean something else?

[ulysses]

68. I'm just trying to grasp your meaning.

Help me out. It's late, and it's been a long week.

[Autonomy]

72. I'm trying to grasp it too. I was hoping you'd help me.

It's hard to grasp a nebulous concept that would turn the dominant paradigm on its head, but I sense it's there. Lemme see if I can get it written out coherently.

edit: I may understand the miscommunication: I was saying conservatives hate postmodern relativism more than anything. You can see it in the coalitions they have been willing to form.

[bluedawg12]

76. Do you think NASCAR dads, and soccer moms would get this:

"It's hard to grasp a nebulous concept that would turn the dominant paradigm on its head, but I sense it's there. Lemme see if I can get it written out coherently.-autonomy"

You gotta talk plain English to them, they want security, a sense of continuity in society. That's why all the core values, family values, god and country flags and parades and cops and firemen and soldiers worked for them.

On some level the cons want the by gone days of the late 1950's and Ozzie and Harriet life- but not as it was but as they imagine it from TV. They sold George and Laura as Ozzie and Harriet...(!)

Uh oh...I feel a thread coming on me.. :)

[Autonomy]

79. LOL I got your thread righ'ere!

No, but they intuitively understand the "values" label that conservatives keep throwing at them. They don't share all the same values, except that they all value concrete-ness. They wouldn't understand Leo Strauss either, but they've voted for him for president for the last couple decades.

[bluedawg12]

81. They voted Strauss cause the neo's drapped him in the

flag and hung a cross on him.

They eat up perpetual war--as long as there is no draft.

They voted for a neoconnie but expected the Marlboro man. sheesh.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

70. True Conservative are Conservationists

True conservatives believe in conserving our natural heritage and can find no place for that in the Republican party.

[bvar22]

82. Big Tent!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[TheStates]

83. True conservatives conserve. That is not the republican party.

There is a rule of ethics about conserving....conservation of resources and spending. They are much more accepted in the democratic party or the green party, as the role of conservation is something most agree on.....most progressives agree on.

[Clarkie1]

84. Labels are not real.

Values are.

[TheFarseer]

86. OK, OK but don't lie to yourself what conservatives are

Of course we need re-enforcements. A large contingent of conservatives believe in an end to illegal immigration and a balanced budget. They probably won't stand for higher taxes but could live with cuts to bush's and repukes pet projects as well as some democrat pet projects. If you can live with that (I think I could, you'd have to give me specific cuts) then we can welcome them in. Don't kid yourself that they will like abortion of gay marriage or universal health care but they will definitely like more jobs for real Americans (no more unfair trade, no more outsourcing) and such things.

[Festivito]

90. Yes, and we have them. We need more. We could get the rest.

We conserve fiscally, better than the large-C CONs.
We conserve the environment, better...
We conserve freedom, better...
and in that freedom, the individual chooses their own religion and the lifestyle that religion expresses.
We conserve peace, better...
We conserve troops when warring, better...
and, on and on.

The large-C Conservatives are a brand-name. A brand-name that no longer represents that product. Smart conservatives are already here.

[rman]

92. Traditional republicans might feel more at home in the Dem party,

now that the far-right has taken over the GOP.
From various DU stories i gather that quite a few repubs are converting to democrat, it goes without saying those are welcome.

[Zynx]

93. We do need some of the conservative vote.

At least more than we are getting right now. A big enough number of people describe themselves as conservatives that we can't be shut out of that group.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Said1]

99. LOL, freeper

Vilification and submission do not equate equality.....perhaps there is some underlying misdirected anger you need to address instead of vilifying and entire gender and promoting the destruction of family units.

[mtnsnake]

98. Your post is one of the most important ones I've read recently

I have a few family members & relatives who are perfect examples of what you're talking about. Some of these people are so incredibly conservative in some ways, but oh so liberal in others. None of them would EVER vote for a Republican, let alone a Republican like Bush.

It's not that we need to reach out to any of the asshole conservatives in this country. It's that we need to reach out and nurture the many good people who are fine people but just happen to have SOME conservative values.

Nominated!

[election_2004]

101. As long as they're not cultural conservatives....

I don't mind if someone is conservative in their positions based on a more "classical conservative" model.

But if a politician has the audacity to tell me that I can't have ANY form of legal recognition because my relationship with someone of the same sex is "immoral," then he/she can forget about ever getting my vote.