Do you consider yourself a "conservative Democrat"?

If you do, what does that mean? What politicians nowdays can be considered "conservative Democrats"?

I consider myself an extremely pissed off American citizen who almost always votes for the Democratic candidate.

Conservative democrat is just another oxymoron.

There is no case, absolutely no case, that can be made that Democrats pre 1968 or so were NOT conservative on social issues. During the height of the Democrat's congressional power, abortion was illegal in all 50 states, gun laws were virtually unheard of, and Democrats were social conservatives. There are many of those still around, as are their children - mostly in the South and West.

I consider DLCers to represent themselves as "conservative Dem"s

but it's a good time for our side, if we fly right.

You should learn the difference.

Unless you think Obama is a conservative Dem.

.....and Clinton and Obama are one in the same when it comes to pandering to the Democratic ......right.

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

Jim Jeffords was able to fit in real well with the DLC dems in the Senate. Holy Joe is real close to Snowe and Collins politically. The DLC, like the Rockefeller Republicans, is very, very pro-big business.

Blue dogs are closer to old time dems on abortion, gun control and affirmative action but lack the New Deal dems commitment to labor.

It's really silly to fight this same battle on DU over and over and over again. The facts simply do not favor the wiki argument.

the DLC was founded by Southern and Western traditional pre-new left movement Democrats - Sam Nunn, Al Gore, etc. Gary Hart even made appearances at early planning meetings. :shrug:

Regardless of who founded the DLC, it doesn't change the fact that Republican Senators Snowe, Collins, quasi-Republican Lieberman, and former Republican Senators Chafee and Jeffords all fit in very well with the DLC crowd. Like the DLC they are not friends of labor, but are good friends of big business and corporate America.

Hart was looking to take the party in a new direction without selling out its traditional values. Hart was always a maverick who isn't easily labeled, but he isn't in the DLC. I know he is appalled at the amount of corporate money in campaigns, which he calls "massively corrupt". The DLC took the party in different direction than Hart wanted, which explains why he didn't hang around after the planning meetings.

You don't care what DEMOCRATS think..............got it.

More evidence that the DLC represents the interests of the GOP more than the DNC.

More evidence that "progressives" are generally clueless.

......many in the Democratic party.

Yawn. The DLC is the GOP. Period.

But that's ok. You and the rest of the 2% have a blissful existence most of the time that only crashes down in election years.

Pick up a newspaper even with their con biases.

It's a new world out there.

Not one Democratic candidate.......that's right........NOT ONE...........showed up at the DLC convention this year.

Meanwhile, a liberal bogger gets almost ALL of them to show up at his.

But heh......you keep thinking we represent 2% of the party.

good, strong military (as a DETERRENT), I'm a middle-of-the-roader on social issues, I personally believe life begins at conception but I recognize that not everybody does and thus I believe abortion should remain legal, and I am a bit squishy on trade issues and labor--not opposed to NAFTA, but can recognize the problems it's causing to our jobs and economy.

Am I in the same party as you?

Being 'indifferent' and a 'middle of the roader' on social issues like equality, social justice, poverty, education and well gosh....everything that once made our party great suggests you have more in common with Red states than blue states.

related to them, there's plenty of them in public office. I'm just more to the center of the political spectrum, but I still affiliate myself with Democrats. I've flirted with becoming independent, but can't break the Dem habit. And as a side note--"middle-of-the-road" on social issues does not mean intolerant. Just means I don't feel as strongly about about them.

agrees with you, just look at the Blue Dog coalition, mostly southern and western Conservative Democrats and I am proud to be on their side.................Ask yourself this question wienerdoggie, if our brethren on the progressive side are so tolerant and we Conservative Democrats are so intolerant, why are they the ones always calling for a purge or a replacement of Democrats that are independent thinkers, that represent their Red districts as well as they can, or vote the way their think they should........When was the last time the blue dog Democrats screamed about replacing people that voted differently than the group? I guess "realizing diversity" only matters if you vote the way the faux progressives tell you to............ :eyes:

I agree with both of you and I also don't give a damn how many guns you have. That amendment is to protect us from the government and I don't understand how, with this administration, everyone on this board has not gotten armed.

Equality and social justice are values, outcomes that we desire from policy, whereas issues are the substantive matters that make up the policy domain. Labels such as "middle of the road" usually signify more of a moderate orientation towards the way policies are implemented, rather than being a matter of values per se, which are most often shared in a given party. For example, we may both value equality, but you might think that a progressive system of taxation is the best means to accomplish it, whereas I might hold that the confiscation of the means of production by a revolutionary vanguard in the service of a democratically governing proletariat might be the way to accomplish this. Both of us would value economic equality, but your position would be much more moderate than mine. As for which of us would value economic equality more, however, it is an open question: simply because I am willing to embrace more radical means to achieve the same end does not mean I place a higher value on equality than you. It may be that I am blind to some of the other tradeoffs--in this case, the human cost of violent revolution.

with intellectual discussion. ;)

You write: ' Both of us would value economic equality, but your position would be much more moderate than mine."

Maybe and maybe not.

I'm being taxed without representation as a citizen living in DC. Don't be so sure about my position on if and when an American revolution is required.

Thanks for the clarfication however.

The example was purely illustrative, and not intended to represent anyone's actual views, but merely to show that oftentimes labels such as "moderate" and "conservative" may relate to means rather than ends. I was referring to the position I attributed to you, hypothetically, in the example, rather than to any actual position you may hold. (Actually, though, I pretty much assume that all DUer's will be there on the barricades, if it ever comes to that.)

I could have sworn he was a Republic...but he admitted today that he is a Dem - from down east North Carolina....very religious. He and I really butt heads on things...he is one of those who falls hook line and sinker for those who didn't like Sicko, claims he is devoutly religious yet his things are very important to him - probably a Dem by tradition rather than current alignment - yet, he has come around to hate Bush. Go figure - not a hypocrite exactly, but certainly a contradiction.

I have a feeling that if Hillary wins the nomination then she will name Bayh as her VP. The only thing worse than having a Republican president is having your party being taken over by Republican in Democrats clothing.

Mark Warner is a more likely possibility unless he decides to run for Senate.

here you have to be a Chavez-loving nutbag in order to be in the swing of things.

I consider myself a liberal democrat right down to my bleeding heart. I really couldnt' care less how others label me.

I'm pro-RKBA and social issues play no role in determining how I vote, so by DU standards, you could say so.

Edit: I'm also anti-Chavez and anti-Putin and against tyranny in general regardless of whether it's right-wing or left-wing.

Sounds a lot like decaffeinated coffee to me. Or non-alcoholic beer. Or..... oh never mind.

It's cool I guess. I'm not a conservative Dem, not sure actually how you would define one. I have had conversations on this board with people who labeled themselves that way, and I never could understand how they could take some of the positions they did. I would like to think however that we can find some common ground. We are all Dems after all, right?

I'm conservative on certain social issues (mainly abortion and gun rights), but am pretty much a traditional New Deal/Great Society economic liberal (pro-labor, fair trade, Keynesian economics, favor government investment in society/infrastructure, etc).

you would have been called a Populist.

Populists are social conservatives who are very liberal on economics. They were quite popular during the late 1800's are are largely responsible for the defeat of the Robber Barons.

I am a HUGE proponent of the Democratic party replacing DLC Democrats with populist Democrats, whom I argue are more in line with midwestern/southern values than the DLC.

I lean pro-life and am in favor of the death penalty but only want to use the military when it's necessary.

Where the word "Liberal" is considered a bad word.

I would describe myself as left of center. Somewhere between Third Way and Socialist. Actually I'm probably fairly close to European Third Way but definitely to the left of American Third Way.

On some issues, I'm way left. On other issues, I'm more conservative. There is no way to label myself one way or another. If someone is just lock step with a group on the hundreds of issues out there, then they probably aren't thinking about them. They are letting a group to their thinking for them.

I bet most people labeled "conservative democrats" have extremely "progressive views on some topics and vice versa. If not, I would question their ability to think for themselves. There are just too many issues for a large group to agree on everything.

Although I occasionally lean slightly left on economic issues, I'm very conservative about most social issues. Of course, conservative to me means something entirely different than it means to our current administration.

Outside of my home, I'm a mainstream left-of-center Democrat. But compared to all the Chavez worshippers here at DU, I'd say I'm pretty conservative.

Well, the active Dems in my town are pretty far left too. But generally, I'm the liberal in the crowd until I get to DU.

:shrug:

When people wake up and realize that there really is no difference in a two party system, then we'll start getting somewhere.

Obviously, I am standing behind the Democratic Party because we have no other choice for the moment, but I see little representation of my views from the Democratic Leadership, after I busted and donated my ass off for them for three straight elections.

So, let us just say, my connection to the Democratic Party is dwindling with every craven act and cowardly surrender.

I consider myself to be an independent Democrat. That's a registered Democrat who thinks for herself and bases political support and votes on issues, not party.

I consider all but 2 of the current crop of Democratic candidates to be conservative democrats. I consider Kucinich to be a centrist, and I don't know what to make of Gravel.

I am to the left of Kucinich, but not as far left as many other true leftists.

I mean, if you look at lifestyle, probably. Still happily
married to my first wife, two normal kids, no drugs (not even
tobacco or alcohol), no purchases of stuff I can't afford.

If I examine my political views, I find myself agreeing with
Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt (but also FDR,
Al Gore, and Howard Dean).

I'm told that's mostly conservative. I also oppose any liberalization
of existing gun laws, and wish the ones now on the books were far
more rigidly enforced. Conservation of the environment is also something
I consider vital to the point that I think the EPA should be given policing
powers to pursue violators and toss serious ones in jail and confiscate
their holdings.

I also am for unrestricted choice, complete rights for gays that
straights enjoy, massive environmental protection, and keeping religion
out of our schools and our government, and believe that education and
health care should be available to all, and that taxes should be adjusted
so that this becomes affordable. I would take the unprecedented step of
seizing Halliburton's assets before they complete their move to Dubai
until they have made restitution to the USA for theft incurred since
Cheney became (Vice-) President. Abolish the death penalty immediately,
with a possible exception of prosecutors who got people executed when
they held evidence that clearly pointed to innocence. This would fade
anyway, as the further use of the death penalty faded.

Let's see, what else? Oh, yeah, Iraq. Get Wes Clark to oversee an orderly
withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, starting immediately, and completed
within a year, sooner if possible.

I know there's a bunch of other stuff, but I still work for a living.

So, anyway: Liberal? Conservative? Who the hell cares? I don't find
any figure of prominence in the Republican party whose views jive with
mine. I find plenty of people in the Democratic Party whose views jive
with mine. So, I'm a Democrat. Libative or Conserveral, take yer pick.
If you gotta put a label on me, it's your problem, not mine.

I would call myself a Blue Dog, but to me that speaks more to fiscal discipline and sound economic stewardship than any kind of conservatism, even fiscal conservatism. If you can balance a budget and maintain or increase economic growth by cutting the military budget and increasing, say, education spending, then to me that's a fine idea. Yes I believe the capitalist competitive, private enterprise economic model based on the personal profit motive and including global trade is the best mechanism for improving the quality of life for all, but that doesn't mean some of the tactics in the pursuit of profit should not be carefully regulated, or that externalities should not be part of the cost structure of private enterprise.

Of social conservatism the only vestige I have is the apolitical sense, in that I'm generally going to dress, act, and make choices that are socially orthodox for the most part (atheism perhaps being the big exception). I have not the slightest concern about who someone else sleeps with, marries, or whether they choose to have progeny or not and how. Nor do I give a rat's ass what they want to smoke or sniff as long as it harms nobody else. I suppose in today's society and with this audience the fact that I own guns and have no problem if others do so in a safe nad responsible manner would be considered conservative, but I think many would be surpised by how disconnected from politics gun ownership is. It would be even more irrelevant if the Dems finally have learned not to push for substantive restrictions on private civilian 2A rights, since that alone turned a huge swathe of gun owners against them.

So to DU am I a conservative Dem? Probably yes because I have no problem if people make a legal and responsible profit while sourcing from India or selling to China. I don't particularly feel offended by such labeling, but I think it makes far more difference what's at the end of the label than what's at the beginning.

I believe that gov't should be OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people..wb

This country cannot afford to stagnate or regress.

no more.


Progressive lefty here and proud of it.:hi:

DR

I have no strong feelings on abortion or gay rights (I see both sides). I feel like Dems (not elected officials so much) go overboard on throwing money at the poor and fail to address the root causes like lack of affordable child care and jobs. I also think some fail to see the danger posed by radical Islam although invading Iraq was the stupidest possible way to combat the threat.

Dems that I identify with are Conrad and Dorgan from ND, Jim Webb and Schweitzer from MT. Anybody that will focus on high paying jobs for Americans, energy independence and a balanced budget can have my vote.

You see both sides of gay rights? Lucky for you.

Gosh....let's look at those sides:

ANTI-GAY RIGHTS
-eliminating violence based on who someone loves is a special right.
-eliminating housing discrimination based on who someone loves is a special right.
-eliminating employment discrimination based on who someone loves is a special right.
-protecting the institution of marriage is dependent on our ability to protect heterosexuals from divorce caused by homosexuals.

PRO-GAY RIGHTS
-eliminating violence based on who someone loves is the responsibility of government.
-eliminating housing discrimination based on who someone loves is the responsibility of government.
-eliminating employment discrimination based on who someone loves is the responsibility of government.
-there is a social good in encouraging responsible, monogamous same sex marriages.

You are either with us or against us. Ignoring violence and discrimination doesn't make someone 'neutral'.

Hence, my screen name. But I think of myself as a constitutionalist and a Jeffersonian. Isn't our country built on the ideal of EQUALITY for all??? Aren't we supposed to play on a level field, regardless of our colour, gender, religion (or lack of it) et al? So why, in the 21st century, are so many of us still fringe-dwellers, still marginalised, still judged and reviled by bloated and clueless hypocrites who are far worse than those they scorn?

That is the basis of all my "liberal" sensibilities. It's why MLK junior's speeches are so compelling, because they address the individual pain of marginalisation. Anyone who's ever seen the tears in a child's eyes, the hurt and confusion when they are denied what others take for granted simply because of the way they were born can't possibly not want to take up arms in that fight for equality.

It boils down to this: if being compassionate and empathetic, if screaming bloody murder against hypocricy, if wanting those in power to work for us instead of their own corrupt agenda is COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, LEFTIST, PINK-O, LIBERAL, BLEEDING-HEART, then God forbid! I never wanna change!

But I have hard conservative leanings on certain issues. I'm well rounded.

I consider myself a Moderate Democrat. The conservatives are too far right, and the liberals are too far left to suit me.

I'm definitely not a centrist, but I do not have the same vitrol that many members of this site share for certain hot button topics.