A question and olive branch to conservative democrats.

[mmonk]

I open my paper this morning and start reading interviews of various democrats. I keep reading comments of some of the new democrats and I keep getting the same thing. Liberal democrats, whatever that means, aren't going to "run" their "agenda", whatever that means, and the democratic party is going to be the party of bipartisanship because the reason the country is in the shape its in is due in part because of "liberal democrats". We will work with the president.

I think we all need to pull together to produce a better America. What I don't understand is this rhetoric. What does it mean? How is the current shape of the country the fault of "liberal democrats"? Why should people that went out and voted and worked campaigns not have a stake in this party or country and how it's governed based on this "liberal democrat" label, whatever that means?

Explain all these terms and how it will affect the party now that it has control of Congress. Is it really a "ploy" as has been suggested here? Why are some in our party, instead of talking about the victory and what it means, keep repeating this and why is it so important to say right now? My olive branch is given to not have a damaging riff in the party. But I don't know if people in Congress that have served this nation and party well are going to be shut out of any process or opposed due to any labels.

Anyone want to quieten my fears? When I look at the letters to the editor, the people are writing in saying how happy they are that democrats have subpoena power right now. That seems to be their theme. Not any talk about "liberal democrats", whatever that means.

[HereSince1628]

1. I think Conyers and Waxman are planning to use their olive branch

against the RW's backside in the woodshed.

[Mandate My Ass]

2. LOL. Best. Post. Ever

Love it. :rofl:

[xultar]

8. Brilliant! Buhwawawa! That is the best one posted so far today.

[Generic Other]

12. That's what I voted for!!

I don't know where they are getting this mandate to govern from the center. 'Taint what I voted for.

[SmokingJacket]

3. I think the idea is that moderate Americans were driven right-ward

by the craziness of gay-loving, sandal-wearing liberals, and it took the moderates to woo them back. It's nonsense of course, of the Limbaugh brand. Some people are afraid if we start trying to impeach the president (and putting lefty policies on the agenda) we're going to frighten people into running back to the right.

However, I'm personally happy the country has taken a tiny step leftward, and if we spend a couple years successfully in this middle ground before inching leftward again, I think it's all right. Huge swings of the pendulum -- as when we swung violently rightward -- are destabilizing anyway.

It has been my belief that Americans are basically liberal -- they just don't realize it. It may take a few years of getting used to the idea before we can fully implement our agenda, which for me includes strong environmental legislation, full marriage rights for gays, etc. I for one am NOT going to give up and just let the Democratic party become Republicans V.2.

[Ilsa]

11. Quoting you...

"It has been my belief that Americans are basically liberal -- they just don't realize it." I think you are very right on this.

When you ask people about individual issues, they move left. One of my acquaintances thought I was a hard-right conservative because she thought my social status dictated it: SAHM. She was shocked at how liberal my opinions are, and even shared some of hers with me, including being a pro-choice, birth control-okay Catholic, among other things. I think she began to see herself in a different light (more left-leaning) after discussing just a couple of issues with me.

[Vorta]

15. My experience with the internet conservatives

This rarely happens in FTF because we don't have long drawn out conversations with strangers answering point by point and with time to research and compose our positions. However, in these long drawn out conversations with conservatives I have often felt that they were moving more "left" because they were beginning to see me as a real person. This was deliberate on my part, I always mention little goings on in my family and familial relationships, often quoting my grandfather who was a good hearted and hilariously cranky old man.

Then the record skips. I don't know if it's because they went to some regeneration thread at Free Republic, or because they got a pantload of peer pressure in PM's, but the record skips and they are right back to their original position. Of course I wouldn't expect anything else in real life, because in FTF I would be able to see the glassy eyes and bumper stickers.

[sandnsea]

4. It's the Clintons

They are fighting for control of the party for Hillary in 2008. They need to run out Dean and marginalize any of those Democrats that do things like support the Feingold-Kerry Iraq war amendment. That's what this is and why we have to fight it, even as we celebrate the work everybody did to win.

I get annoyed as hell at the far left, but I hate these attacks from people in the leadership too. It's crap to give more consideration and respect to Republicans than to our own party.

[bryant69]

5. Could you provide some sources

Who is saying this?

As for the question - who is going to set the agenda, it's the people who are actually in congress - and despite Republicans carictature of them, they are a pretty moderate bunch. We will get better government than we have had, but it won't be as good as we would like - specifically we aren't going to get impeachment soon, if ever.

I will say that there are obviously some tensions between monderates (or conservatives) and liberals - and the bad blood flows both ways.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

14. Sorry, but I don't see anyone out there giving interviews

that "conservative dems and their agenda aren't going to control our agenda". This is all one way. It's a "we're in charge and you'll have no say" threat.

[bryant69]

18. That's today - I am talking about recent history.

But of course you've seen moderate liberals castigated as DINOs or Sell outs.

Also please provide a source for your earlier claims.

Bryant

[mmonk]

19. The News & Observer (McClatchy)..

However, you don't have to just source that paper. I don't consider a police state that conflicts with the constitution a moderate position. I don't consider "pre-emptive" war a moderate position. I don't consider denying American citizens equal protection under the law a moderate position. Maybe I don't understand the word moderate. Moderate must mean strong or hard lean conservative.

[bryant69]

20. See of course you are doing it right here

Equating Moderate Democrat with Lieberman or the DLC i.e. pro Bush. If that's what you think Moderate is - and you characterize them that way - well, you shouldn't be surprised if they take a little offense.

Bryant

[mmonk]

21. I'm not doing anything.

What does "liberal democrats will not control the agenda" mean? What does "working with the president" entail? What does "impeachment is off the table" mean? Don't say there will be oversight. Investigations into what? Whether Hastert did not handle the Foley situation properly? An investigation into why Halliburton gets no bid contracts? But most of all, why is this the most important thing to say after a sweep of both chambers? What is a "liberal democrat" to people making these statements and what is their "agenda"?

[originalpckelly]

6. There is nothing wrong with conservative Democrats...

there is something wrong with most of the DLC, but nothing wrong with the Blue Dog coalition.

The DLC is a bunch of corporate shills masquerading as "conservative Democrats."

Unfortunately, we did not gain a majority in Congress. Most of the new Democrats are conservatives or moderates, and they can't vote for legislation which is liberal, or they'll lose the next election, and we lose our party's control of Congress.

I know this is discouraging to many out there, but it is a lot better than having the President in control. He was basically running the whole show in this nation, because his Congressional party rolled over and played nice.

Democrats who are conservatives will not want to totally play nice with the President. I think we need to create a strong conservative base in our party, so that we can de-legitimize the corporatist side of the Republicans.

If their neo-cons come up and say something is a conservative principle, our real conservatives can say it is a bunch of bullshit, and they will have credibility with the conservative parts of America.

You see they'll still vote with us on issues which aren't conservative or liberal, and that will moderate our position. Most of America is really moderate. That means we'll gain even more power.

If you are going to have a minimum wage, raising it isn't that anti-conservative, and is something most Americans can agree on.

We should never let our freedoms be taken away, and that should be the one exception to the rights of Republicans to bring legislation to the floor. If it allows the President or anyone else in our government, to do things which are against the basic rights of Americans, then we cannot allow that to come to the floor.

Anything else is a-OK because we are Democrats, not Republicans. We believe in diversity, whether that is in ideological perspective, race, creed, sexual-orientation, or sex, we are a diverse party. We represent all of America.

That is why we had Congress for so many years, because we want to encourage debate and the free exchange of ideas.

Sometimes it is difficult to respect and listen to people with completely different opinions, but doing so makes us better people.

[mmonk]

13. It's just they're the strangest "victory" speeches and interviews I

have heard. If one's major meassage after the public gave you a sweep of both houses in Congress sounds like it came from the people you swept out of office, then something doesn't seem quite right. And to suggest there will be bi-partisanship with republicans and a shut out of some of your own party in the governing process seems counterproductive. Despite dems running a generally conservative tone in the general election in conservative areas, I still don't think the public decided to sweep out the republicans because they were looking for something very similar. I think they were swept out due in large part to the war and in large part due to chrony capitalism and in large part due to constitutional issues. I hope it's mainly rhetoric. There comes a time however, when that rhetoric doesn't need to be all you (politician) are about. I would like to know specifics since some dems voted for the MCA, allowed or voted for people on our high courts with extreme views, voted for the war in Iraq that is unpopular right now, etc.. Are they going to form a voting bloc on these issues with the republicans?

[Greeby]

7. Some right-winger offers an olive branch to me

I'll shove it up his ass and snap off the protruding end. But that's just me :evilgrin:

[xultar]

16. Well you wouldn't want him to hurt himself.

[riona]

9. Possibly the political spectrum

has become so distorted that things are merely drifting back to the proper range. Over the past few years, "conservative" Dems seem to have morphed into Republican lites, and Dems who were once called "moderate" are now considered liberal. "Liberal" is certainly defined differently now - practically any average Dem is considered one.

[Raiden]

10. Yeah, I'm pissed at Rahm now...

Yesterday I was euphoric and proud of our victory, which was due to the "Big Tent"; conservative and liberal Dems working side by side to restore our Democracy. The DNC beside the DLC beside the PDA; all facets of left-wing ideology united to throw the crooks out of Washington, and we succeeded.

Then Rahm Emmanuel, who I praised alongside Schumer and Dean for our electoral landslide, talks about keeping liberals away from the agenda. Sorry Rahm, you're not the "decider." Liberals are the base of the party and without us it's back to square one. I don't want to lock conservative Democrats out of the party dialogue and he shouldn't be trying to keep liberal Dems away from the agenda. That type of fracturing and party in-fighting is what just cost the Republicans Congress, and possibly may destroy their Party for a long, long time (fingers crossed). Let's try to get along and keep the Democratic Coalition strong, for the sake of the nation.

We now have a liberal Speaker, but that's not the point. I want Democrats from all philosophies to be given a chance at leadership positions, that way we can actually have a constructive dialogue about which is the best direction for the party and ultimately the nation. I would like to see the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders, and even Joe Lieberman coming together and rationally discussing issues to come up with the best solutions. That is how constructive democracies work. If Rahm Emmanuel thinks the DLC is going to run things unilaterally again, he's badly mistaken. "Big Tent" means eveyone's voice is heard!

So Rahm had better extend the olive branch (as it appears the party's liberal-wing is doing to the conservative-wing), or else he's gonna be political history. This is not the time for a circular firing squad.

[Q]

17. What many rank and file Democrats...

...don't seem to understand is that the 'new' Democrats 'hate' liberals/progressives as much as the Right. Just take a look at the writings at the DLC/New Democrat web sites and you'll get the message real fast.

The 'liberal' element of the Democratic party is the only remaining resistance to the gutting and elimination of those social programs still left standing. What they don't 'privatize'...they'll gut it to the point of being useless.

This is class warfare...waged by the Right and New Democrats against anyone that still believes in the ideals of the 'new deal' and 'great society'.

[seabeyond]

22. my father says i am an extreme liberal, brother says liberal from hell

my kids and nieces and nephews say i am a hippie. i am christian, conservative and live a traditional role and stay out of others choices they make in life, confident they are able to run their life better than i. knowing i do me better than you do me. i have voted different parties, per person running and how i thought they would effect the country per what i felt the countries needs were at the time

who am i

am i one to extend olive branch, or receive

[mmonk]

23. Good question.

It's what I'm trying to find out when confronted with Rahm's statements and other newly minted dems fron the south that say "liberal" democrats. If I am one I need to know and likewise. Members in Congress need to know if they are one also. The implication is those that are labeled will have little or no say or stake in where we go from here.