Posted on 11/10/2006 1:08:07 AM PST by paudio
The conservative Democrats, or new Democrats as they are sometimes called, were disproportionately represented in the most highly contested races against Republicans, and are likely to form a substantial bloc within the new members.
Heath Shuler, a former American football celebrity who now holds a House of Representatives' seat for North Carolina, is representative of the group. He has an evangelical Christian background and is on the right of the argument on many social issues such as abortion.
Democratic party leaders deny that they had an official strategy to plant right-wing candidates in vulnerable Republican seats as a way of winning over voters. But Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the campaign to win back the House of Representatives, has said that when they searched for candidates with the best hopes of winning, they ended up with several with a moderate approach. "As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit," he said.
That is not the experience of Mr Shuler, who told local newspapers that he had been reluctant to stand for election but was strong-armed into it by Mr Emanuel. "Rahm was tougher than any of the college coaches who were calling me when I was in high school. None of [the coaches] could hold a candle to Rahm Emanuel as a recruiter," he said.
The number of conservative Democrats among the 28 who wrestled house seats from Republican incumbents has yet to emerge, but with 27 of the 40 candidates in the most contested seats falling into this category, the figure could be substantial. They will join an already sizeable caucus within the Democrats in Congress who are on the right of the party and will be encouraged to line up formally with the two existing sub-groups: the New Democrats and the Blue Dog Coalition.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Economic issues. We are screwed in this country with the two party system. Because you believe in life, doesn't mean you believe in free trade with China. In fact, it might mean you are opposed to dealing with the thugs. Because you like to hunt doesn't mean that you like trickle down tax cuts, and might want broader middle class tax cuts instead. But, the theory in this country is that you must support one party or the other Dane, as you know. Most of us actually hold different views than the party platforms. We decide our party on which has more of what we agree with overall. I have chosen Republican. There are pro-abortion Republicans, and pro-life democrats. There are gun nanny Republicans, and pro 2nd amendment democrats. There are southern democrats who are conservative, northern republicans who are liberals.
The vast majority of democrats(socially liberal, anti-gun, pro-tax hikes), while the vast majority of Republicans are socially conservative, pro-gun, pro-tax cuts.
And that is why the so-called new conservative dems is such a sham. When the time comes they will vote for the people who brought and paid their way to the party, nancy pelosi.
Just like Lincoln Chafee was actually a conservative, because the parties are miles apart.
It is getting rarer true Dane. But, I actually find it a bad thing about the parties getting less blurred ideologically. Like I said, being against abortion has nothing to do with tax policy, foreign policy, your view on trade issues. Being pro gun has nothing to do with your views on lobbying reform. Anybody who genuinely thinks that 50% of people all agree with everything the GOP does, and another 50% believe in everythign the dims do is deluding themselves.
Agreed. Good example is that dims have pro minority factions, pro illegals. However, the union faction doesn't like the illegals taking jobs and depressing wages. They are all democrats.
In the GOP, you have the social conservative wing, and the libertarian wing on social issues. You have the isolationist and interventionist wing on foreign policy. You have the flat taxers, the supply siders, the rockefellers on tax policy.
On guns, you have the strict constructionists, and then you have the big city Guiliani types. There isn't one position on anything in either party.
I'm guessing that the GOP would split up inot social conservatives and economic conservatives/libertarians.
What would be the three dem wings. I know one would be social liberals.
Also in the GOP, you have the anti illegal faction, and then you have the corporate faction who hires the illegals.
It's not hippies who are hiring illegals after all. It's big agriculture, big construction.
In the democrat party, you have the Pelosi liberals on foreign policy, and you have the Lieberman wing. Lieberman is hugely liberal, just is hawkish on foreign policy. What party should he join?
Bingo!
There are two factions of the social conservatives in the GOP too. You have the Pat Buchanan, isolationist, pro tarriff wing. You also have the pro business, pro tax cut, pro trade group.
There are alot of former FDR style democrats who are very socially conservative, but like the nanny state. They want big government. Just big government also setting social policy as well as economic.
You have the pure libertarians who are open borders, you have closed border mostly libertarians.
That's a very small wing, but basically IMO and overall the two parties are making their differences starker.
These guys will be sent to the wood shed if they think they will be allowed to buck the party. They were put there to win at all costs. The people that voted for them aren't going to matter now that the election is over.
The blue dogs are place holders to give the far left the control it has coveted for 12 years.
Again though, that is why the middle is getting fluid.
The parties are getting starker. If you are pro-abortion, but pro second amendment. If you are anti free trade, but you are for tax cuts. If you are anti gay marriage, but you are against the patriot act, who do you vote for?
I'll cut these guys some slack until we see how they vote. Don't forget, the last time the dems pushed gun control for example, a sufficient number of dems voted against it to kill the bill.
Here in North Alabama, we have a 'blue dog' (Bud Cramer). Bud will not vote for gun control. He learned his lesson in -94. Bud voted for all the Clinton gun control stuff in 92/93. We had a very weak republican run against him in -94. Bud only won by 100 or so votes. You could still find a few "Gun Ban Bud' billboards 10 years later. Bud has voted the straight NRA line since and wins by very large margins.
Even Bill Clinton said gun control cost the dems the house. I just don't see the dems forcing these guys to repeat this same mistake.
House democrat bigwig, Charlie Rangel, said in an interview that gun control will be brought up.
If they were recruited by Rahm Emmanuel, they are NOT "solid Dem conservatives"--they are simply wolves wearing sheepskins.
Pro-gun, anti-abortion and fiscally conservative: meet the neo-Dems
And they will remain so until about mid January.
PULEEEEEEEEEEZE!!!!!!!!!!
How dumb can these Englishmen be to believe this crap?
I heard Newt Gingrich outline a solid strategy for the Republicans during the next term: introduce and support legislation that supports the conservative issues the Blue Dogs campaigned on. If the Blue Dogs support it, it will split them from the leftists. If they don't, they'll have to answer to the voters in 2 years.
Lets see if they band together and take on the comies in the dem party
They could do it if they stick together
Hell I would vote for a conservative democrat If I thought he wouldn't toe the party line and vote with the dems for Speaker--chair heads etc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.