Too late “blue dogs” you’ve already blown it and the future is bleak. Remember how long it took to get rid of Stalin and the East Block communist regime leaders?

rplat on November 8, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Stalin was never gotten rid of. He died in his bed. Which is just as well as he was planning the mass extermination of Soviet Jews in his final years.

What makes you think there is any fair elections in the near future?

ACORN is still active and under dem control, there will be no further looking into them with Obama at the helm.

DING DING

Dems have nothing to fear anymore. Look at the senate theft in Minnesota for a preview of “elections” to come. Obama could go on national TV and say “GOD DAMN AMERICA” the day before the next election and he’s still win Ohio 51-49.

Democracy died in this country on Tuesday night. Better get used to that idea.

CaptFlood, Y-Not – that Americana Party sounds like it’s a pretty good idea. The thing is, I’d say we ought to use it to try and reclaim the GOP first (and eventually the Democrat Party too, but that’d be quite a ways off). We’re still supposedly a center-right nation. And I think we’re pretty much all in agreement on HA that the GOP has leadership issues, not great fundamental flaws. People like us need to go to party meetings, and clearly tell those who’ve been more active with the GOP in the past (and run it into the dirt) exactly what we the voters think the GOP ought to be doing. If they still decide to continue as they are now, that is the time to strike out on our own. Until then, why give up the “free” organization inherent with fixing the party?

eh, a lttle humor there ….

Angry Dumbo on November 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Thanks. Those are great points, but I don’t think those fundamental principles sufficiently describe the conservative wing of the Republican party. “Limited government” can be used to justify all sorts of positions that I think conservative Republicans (as opposed to Libertarians) would find objectionable… I think there are certain defining issues that need to addressed in the party platform and probably other ones that need to come out of it.

At the end of the day, we do all need to just address things on a case by case basis, I guess… but I think there is a tug of war developing between social conservatives and other types of conservatives, but everyone seems to have a different definition of what “social conservatism” (or the “religious right”) embodies.

So, black Obama voters are considered mainstream conservatives? Thats the logical takeaway from your statement.

jim_collins on November 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Yeah, sorry about that —

What I mean is that being opposed to gay marriage (and wanting government to step in to legislate that position) is not an issue solely advocated/promoted by the religious right, since people on the (political) left are also opposed to gay marriage.

So I guess what I’m searching for are the issues that are really ones that are particularly identified with the “religious right,” as opposed to ones that members of the religious right concern themselves with but that other groups also rally around (like abortion).

“I do not have a strong feel about gay marriage, but because the vast majority of black Obama supporters voted against it here in CA, my tendency would be to say that traditional marriage is also basically a mainstream conservative position.”

So, black Obama voters are considered mainstream conservatives? Thats the logical takeaway from your statement.

At the risk of offending people, I’ll go first and say that I think some social issues, like being against abortion and opposed to physician-assisted suicide, are mainstream conservative Republican (not Libertarian) issues. I do not have a strong feel about gay marriage, but because the vast majority of black Obama supporters voted against it here in CA, my tendency would be to say that traditional marriage is also basically a mainstream conservative position.

The things that seem to me to be more “religious right” issues are prayer in schools and teaching intelligent design in science classes in public schools.

I’m curious what you and others here think.

Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Y-not your request for clarification is spot on. Discussion of specific issues is necessary if social conservatives and conservatives not comfortable with talk of religion in the public square are to find common ground. Ultimately, I see the fundamental basis of all conservatives as:

- faithfulness to the Constitution as a contract not a living document,

- limited government – limited by the enumerated powers,

- and Federalism.

Certainly there is overlap here, still, social conservatives (myself included), often look to these bases to frame issues with which we are concerned. Whether the issue that concerns you is eminent domain or embryonic stem cell research, I feel that if you utilize these basic principles you are a conservative worth knowing. Small government is small government. Example, cutting head start or other discretionary funding. Is this a social conservative or fiscal conservative position? My view is the label is unimportant and the distinction is meaningless.

Thus the process of thinking as an enumerated powers conservative is at least equally important as the issues to which they are applied.

Thank you for letting me offer you my .02. : ))

Where’d you get that picture? If I was a Blue Dog Democrat, that pic would make me become an Independent.

phreshone on November 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Yes to the Left that one can get. Extreme. We live to close to San Fran Nan. Our County, Republicans rule. I think that some didn’t go vote. Is a pretty populated Town.

I don’t know what to say on this subject. Knowing that the Dems. Have done nothing for us. Then they use the money for other Interests Groups.

Pelosi looks good with Blue hair too……….:)

Could you define which issues you consider to be the purview of the religious right? I’ve seen various folks make different assumptions about that. Some of our trolls lump anyone who is against abortion (and happens to belong to an organized religion) as being a member of the religious right. I would not consider abortion to an issue that arose from or is promoted solely by the “religious right.”

At the risk of offending people, I’ll go first and say that I think some social issues, like being against abortion and opposed to physician-assisted suicide, are mainstream conservative Republican (not Libertarian) issues. I do not have a strong feel about gay marriage, but because the vast majority of black Obama supporters voted against it here in CA, my tendency would be to say that traditional marriage is also basically a mainstream conservative position.

The things that seem to me to be more “religious right” issues are prayer in schools and teaching intelligent design in science classes in public schools.

I’m curious what you and others here think.

San Fran Nan and her ilk are not liberals, they’re LEFTISTS. As Goldstein suggests, the first fight is to take back language.

phreshone on November 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Thanks for that correction. You’re absolutely correct, of course. I started to write leftists in my initial post but in deference to the tremendous hands across the aisle approach that the 52 percenters have shown us, I was trying to be nice. My mistake!

For those of you who want to throw out the so-called far right evangelical extremists what is it that you don’t agree with?

Dear MRSMWP: If you are alluding to my ‘Americana’ post, and forgive me if I assume you are, please allow me to clarify. The point I was trying to make is that there are legions of decent people out there who have strong conservative values, and a burning love of country, but for a myriad of personal reasons, believe differently than you or I do.

The ‘Americana Party’ simply considers one’s non-political beliefs, be they secular or non-secular — and no matter how fervent — of equal standing with the beliefs of everyone else’s within the party. The goal of the party is to bring an overwhelming majority of politically like-minded conservatives together under a common platform. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Agnostics, Atheists and all others are welcome in equal measure.

Conservatism — of one form or another — is the glue that binds us together on ‘Hot Air’ regardless of our individual religious and/or secular beliefs, and the ‘Americana Party’ simply recognizes and acknowledges that fact by not linking itself (or even allowing the perception that it does) with any one particular theology.

Right or wrong, and for good or ill, the GOP is now inextricably linked with far right Christian theology. And this isn’t just me talking; ask the average man or woman on the street which religious affiliation they most closely associate with Republicanism and it’s Evangelical Christianity all the way. This might be considered an admirable thing if one happens to be of the Evangelical persuasion, but I would hope we can all see the bigger picture that this is probably not a ‘good’ thing for us if it means that others who love our country and value conservative beliefs just as much as we do do not feel sufficiently welcome at the Republican table.

And please trust me when I say that this is anything but a knee-jerk reaction to the events of last Tuesday. Like most of us it was hard not to see the way this election was going to play out months ago. I’ve considered long and hard on what we can do to stem the tide of liberalism and entitlement, and I grow more convinced each day that a true ‘sea-change’ in direction is our best overall gambit.

Thanks for the time… It really is a privilege to be able to post here.

Wouldn’t help kick the yellows out of congress but it would make the Reps look like they’re willing to work with the majority party while dividing the Dems against themselves.

Just an idea.

Blue Dogs want a seat at the leadership table
Democratic moderates in the House have begun to assert themselves
in their caucus, two years after giving Nancy Pelosi the majority.
Blue Dogs issued a call to see moderates in key leadership……