Since it's impossible to know what this woman thought about dems before the campaign, it's a little hard to take this seriously.

As a NE pub I wanted to vote republican, but I found myself disagreeing with Bush and finding a lot of his supporters to be questioning my values. Bush lost my vote. So what?

If getting this woman's vote means doing what she wants, she should stick with the republicans. Cause there's no point in dems becoming pubs just so they can satisfy pubs who don't know they aren't dems.

"Conservatives seek converts, liberals drive out apostates."

Don't know who said it, but there's your demonstration folks.

Oh, puh-lease.

A conservative who supports abortion, gun control, secularism, progressive taxation, and regulation of business would be welcomed at the dem party. But if you think he's going to be welcome in Tom Delay's house, you're out of your mind. And how often do you think Frist consults with Snowe and Chafee?

There are differences between pub views and dems views. This woman clearly favors Bush's views on a lot of issues, both foreign and domestic (her references about other countries and attacking the rich are tipoffs). Fine. Good for her. However, what she's saying is that if dems offered someone like Bush, she would have voted for him. That's the logic of that old joke that the best cure for insomnia is to get lots of sleep. It's just plain silly.

A conservative who supports abortion, gun control, secularism, progressive taxation, and regulation of business would be...

Something other than a conservative, presumably.

I see her complaint as being mostly about style, not substance: fine, push for secular government, but don't mock and demean people who are sincerely religious. Oppose the President, but give clear positions, not mere oppositionalism. Etc. Not "be just like Bush" but "be more tolerant and respectful of my intelligence."

A conservative who supports abortion, gun control, secularism, progressive taxation, and regulation of business would be...

Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Arnold Schwartzenegger or Arlen Specter. While I don't know that each supports each and every of those positions, they support enough that one can ask how many Democrats can be named off the top of one's head who support a similar number of the opposite opinions. Zell Miller...there's got to be another...

What's your point? Each of those people would probably be accepted by the dems. Given where they were elected, a lot of dems DID accept their leadership. Probably each of them could even earn their way into leadership positions with the dems if they did switch, since each of them has a lot in common with Joe Lieberman and Bill Clinton and others like them.

None of them would be acceptable to the pub's right wing for a leadership position, and the right wing is in control of the party. Guys like Delay and Frist aren't going to alter their policies to address their concerns.

But they aren't Democrats. They are Republicans. It's now a bigger tent than the Democrat tent. The Democrats have driven out any ideological diversity at all with unsurprising results at the polls. Both parties do themselves ill as well as the public by demanding adherence to too many litmus tests. The Democrats have shown where it leads, the Republicans would be fools to follow.

A conservative who supports abortion, gun control, secularism, progressive taxation, and regulation of business would be welcomed at the dem party.

The late Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey wasn't allowed to speak at the 1992 (and reportedly the 1996 though I can't verify that one) Democratic National Convention because of his anti-abortion stance.

Richard:

The issues I listed initially are really core dem principles. Being a dem and being against them is like being a catholic while questioning whether you need the Pope. Dems don't want to lose voters, but if they have to compromise principles they deem critically important, what's the point of winning?

The 'big tent' republican party is being run by conservatives, but there's a point very soon at which people like Chafee and Snow are either going to have to pull an Arlen Spectre and bow to the right wing or side with the dems. My guess is that we'll see a whole lot of elephants stomping around that big tent of yours if that happens.

As for Guiliani and Patake, last I checked, Guiliani hasn't been elected to any office higher than mayer. And Pataki is a guy whose survival has always depended on a truly dysfunctional NY democratic party. Neither one is likely to move any higher, despite their desire to be national players, simply because of their positions on abortion and gay rights.

Alan H:

Okay. I don't see the relevance of that, however. Why would you invite a guy to speak who didn't support a critical plank in the platform?

She makes some valid points, but goes off the rails on healthcare.

Okay. I don't see the relevance of that, however. Why would you invite a guy to speak who didn't support a critical plank in the platform?

So that you don't alienate the person, especially if he has the potential of causing political damage. Governor Casey had taken steps to challenge Clinton in the '96 primaries until health problems sidelined him. I don't know if he would have been ineffective or perhaps as damaging as Ted Kennedy was in 1980. Of course, Clinton had the advantage of eventually facing a much weaker opponent in the general election.

So that you don't alienate the person

Not just that: so that you don't alienate people who share that position. Giuliani is, I believe, pro-choice, and I know Ahnuld is. The Republican party platform is pro-life. Yet both these politicians were featured speakers at the RNC, and both are frequently mentioned by conservatives as up-and-coming politicians suitable for prominent national office. Their showcasing highlights the idea that, while the party has a position on abortion, it's possible to disagree with that position and still be welcome. Pro-choice moderates, who are attracted to other Republican policies, note this.

It's difficult for me to imagine prominent pro-life Democrats being invited to speak in prime time at the DNC. Pro-life moderates, who might be attracted to other Democratic policies, also note this.

Hanging out a big "Dissenters Not Welcome" sign doesn't make for a healthy party - particularly when the signs concern specific policies (like abortion, gun control, affirmative action, or gay marriage) rather than general principles (such as church-state separation, freedom of speech, or wealth equalization). It's perfectly possible to agree on principles while disagreeing about which policies are best suited to forward them - but the Dem tendency to require allegiance on the policy level doesn't allow this.

"A conservative who supports abortion, gun control, secularism, progressive taxation, and regulation of business would be welcomed at the dem party."

Because he isnt a conservative.

"abortion" Margeret Sangers Eugenics solition to reduce the population of blacks, killing babies in general, isnt conservative.

"gun control" Gun control is freedom control, its the tool of leftist tyranny to disarm the population so that leftist terror is possible, its also a violation of an enumerated right, not conservative.

"progressive taxation" Plank out of the communist manifesto. not conservative

"regulation of business" Like Clintons "Thisrd way", Hitlers nationa Socialism, and Mousulinies facism" this intermarrage of Business and government, (thats what the result is) isnt conservative.

The man is a marxist or a facist, just what about this man could possibly called "conservative" unless he was a "conservative" living in Kim Jong Ils leftist paradise of family death camps ?

This asshole would not fit, only a marxist could support him, we dont welcome known killers of 14 year old schoolgirls either .. hey we can be selective too ..

Not that the hard left had any problems with the butchery of 14 year old girls, the Hussien boys used em for sex toys then used em for tiger food, and filled up mass graves of those too small for sex... found mass graves of them with bullets in the head and toys in the hands ... the reaction of the left ? "No Blood For Oil!, "Bush Lied People Died!"

"Both parties do themselves ill as well as the public by demanding adherence to too many litmus tests."

No we dont have litmus tests. we do call some of them with a leftist taint RINOs tho.

Republicans in name only. they tend to be leetists with no connection to the common man, chek pants golfer republicans, those that basically give away the country allowing more marxist poison and loss of freedom, yet they are tolerated, but are a source of much angst and discord.