You have written many vitriolic anti-democratic-candidates-for-president essays in the last few years. Certainly your right. Go free speech!
Yet you identify yourself as Democrat? When was the last time you voted for a Democratic Candidate for President? (I'm guessing 1992, but that's an uninformed guess).
Now, you certainly have the right to identify yourself as anything you so choose (and there are local elections too!), but would it not make more sense for you to identify yourself as Independent, rather than Democrat?
You don't have to defend your self-identification, but I'm honestly and forthrightly asking why you do so. I know in some writings before you've said you don't identify as a Republican because of the racist views in the South. Fine, why not as an Independent?
I will forthrightly admit my own biases - I am a liberal Democrat, and basically disagree with every political position you hold that i've seen
And it drives me crazy to see many right wing blogs and tv shows cite OSC as an example of a "liberal Democrat". Yes, google for it. That drives me nuts as being completely misleading.
I'm pretty sure OSC is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination (though I'm happy to hear you disagree if you do), and Democrat - well, hey dissent is all fine and good, but at a certain point if you haven't found a Democratic candidate for President worth voting for in multiple presidential cycles, it surely doesn't make sense to label yourself as a Democrat?
Respectfully yours,
happy turnip
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you wish to address OSC directly, you should probably use the Contact link at the top of the page.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
OSC is one of those people who believes that he can identify with some of the issues that a party promotes while disagreeing with some of the members of that party.
Kind of like what Obama has said about Reverend Wright; (paraphrased) The faith that his church allows for is very important, but that doesn't mean everyone in that church agrees with Reverend Wright about everything. To OSC, some of the heroes of the Democratic Party are questionable, even un-American. And hence, OSC has taken some steps that leading Democrats don't appreciate
I find OSC very liberal, just not in the sense that "liberal" means "do whatever the Democratic Party says."
Posted by happy turnip (Member # 11812) on :
Of course not everything in the Democratic party can and should be agreed with. But if you consistently VOTE for the other party, umm, er.... that kind of questions your party identification, doesn't it.
Posted by happy turnip (Member # 11812) on :
AS for liberal, from May 2004
" In these sad days, the major network news teams are almost uniformly liberal. CNN, of course, is run even to the left of the "mainstream" media -- has there ever been a rational, balanced story on, say, the environment on CNN?
Meanwhile, Fox News is excoriated for being biased precisely because conservative and liberal views are both presented -- with accurate labeling. "
This makes me assume (perhaps wrongly) that OSC would not identify himself as liberal.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
So you're saying that by definition, liberals can't seek after integrity in reporting?
Like, all liberals should be happy with the bias of the media because it leans their way? They prefer dishonesty and misrepresentation to truth?
Or, maybe you are saying that the definition of being a liberal must include lacking critical thought.
That really isn't a nice thing to say about liberals.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Amka, how did you get that straw man from what was actually said?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by happy turnip: Yet you identify yourself as Democrat? When was the last time you voted for a Democratic Candidate for President? (I'm guessing 1992, but that's an uninformed guess).
I very much doubt he voted for Clinton in 1992. He certainly seems to have liked Bush Sr. much more than he liked Clinton.
If I had to guess the last time OSC voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate I'd guess twenty years further back, in 1972. Either that or "never".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know a lot of people who consider themselves democrats who have never voted for a democratic president. And they have voted for very few republicans who weren't running for president.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Amka, how did you get that straw man from what was actually said?"
It is harvest time.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Tom:
Happy Turnip made the assumption that Card wouldn't consider himself a liberal because Card has spoken about liberal bias in the media.
If there is liberal bias in the media, this means that the full truth is not being reported. A liberal who turns a blind eye to this can no longer claim integrity, and needs to look at why it is more important that their team win than that the truth be reported.
Card is probably not as liberal as many wish he was. At this point, you probably can't say he is liberal, not because he has changed but because of certain positions that have become major ideals of the liberal left. But many of his political stances such as government regulation and gun control put him well outside the realm of being conservative.
He is a democrat who voted for Jimmy Carter. Not exactly sure of the rest of his voting record, but I recall generally that he isn't fond of Reagan as president. If he'd been writing these reviews back then, it would have been the republican candidates he was lambasting.
The man, in short, feels like he should vote according to what he believes, not what what the team decides is right at the moment.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
From OSC's World Watch of 7/22/02:
"And what about me? Am I not doing just what Phil Donahue does, seeing myself as the normal person and all those who disagree with me as clowns?
Well, obviously, if I thought my ideas were crazy, I'd keep them to myself.
But when I describe the center, I don't always see myself standing there. On abortion, for instance, I'm a bit to the right of center; on race, a bit to the left. On sexual politics, I lean to the right of center; on government regulation, a little to the left.
I don't want the Center to prevail because I think the Center is always correct.
I want it to prevail because I think that I -- and the rest of the country, and the rest of the world -- would be much better off if we were governed by centrists than we are right now, pounded by both the media and the politicians with the message that our only choice is between Left and Right, winner take all, compromise be damned."
EDIT: I hope people understand I posted this to show how OSC describes his political leanings, not to illicit lambasting over his line about "crazy ideas".
EDIT2: I'm not sure I used the word "illicit" correctly in that first edit.
Posted by happy turnip (Member # 11812) on :
Amka: Nope. I merely pointed out the quote because I think it shows he doesn't think much about liberals, not to praise bias. One can deplore the bias, but be a liberal, sure. Perhaps a better quote could be found that better separates the two issues.
However you yourself state you believe "you probably can't say he is liberal". Thanks for agreeing.
I'm not saying that it is good or bad to be a liberal. I'm saying that he is being identified constantly as a liberal democrat. Google if you don't believe.... and hold on and read the next para please!
Is he responsible for the labeling as liberal? No that's just right wing bloggers making up one for the team.
He IS however responsible for their citing him as a Democrat. Because that's how he identifies himself.
I merely asked the question WHY he so identifies himself. He doesn't HAVE to justify it. He may happily ignore the post. That is his right and privilege, I'm a guest here.
But I can ASK the question can I not? I'm just curious as to his reasoning, as it seems contradictory. I'm perfectly happy, as I said, for him to either ignore the post, or say "That's just the way it is". Fine
And by the way all of the other posters' opinions (not just amka) are interesting. You have as valid or invalid opinions as mine. But you aren't OSC. You cannot explain his identification and it's frankly somewhat presumptuous for you to do so unless you have a specific quote. Not that I discourage you from doing so, by any means. But its just speculation on your parts. You don't need to defend the man or rally around him. (The assumption that any questions about OSC's politics are an attack on him is a little over defensive IMO) He's a big boy, and I'm asking friendly questions. He can answer them publicly or privately or not.
Posted by happy turnip (Member # 11812) on :
Oh and Amka - there's always a bias in any news. You cannot avoid having a point of view. I do agree that one should try to be openminded and fair in one's presentation of the news. So the full truth (which is an abstract case and subject to POV) can never be fully reported.
Not that I praise liberal bias any more than conservative bias. Of which i see plenty as well. In roughly equal proportions.
Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
quote:Originally posted by happy turnip: Oh and Amka - there's always a bias in any news. You cannot avoid having a point of view. I do agree that one should try to be openminded and fair in one's presentation of the news. So the full truth (which is an abstract case and subject to POV) can never be fully reported.
Not that I praise liberal bias any more than conservative bias. Of which i see plenty as well. In roughly equal proportions.
In many cases, it's not that reporters are being intentionally biased. It's just that - through human nature - they think they naturally exist in the center and everyone is to the left and right of them.
The non-Washington based example I always give is a report I saw on ABC a few years ago. The report was about whether convicts who are wrongly convicted and later released should be compensated. A balanced report of this nature would focus on some level about whether compensation is warranted or not. Instead, the report asked whether the compensation should be a little or a lot. There wasn't even a token mention that some thing compensation is unnecessary or inapprorpriate. The reporter/producer/editor decided the bias would be in favor of paying no matter what.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Being a democrat or republican, in my view, is much more important on the local level. Plus, one really doesn't have to be liberal to be a democrat. If you read more of his columns, you'll get what kind of democrat he is.
I am a registered democrat. I voted democrat for most of the representatives in my state legislature. In Oregon, where I lived for quite a while, I was registered republican.
Frankly, I couldn't give a hoot about the party. They are all corrupt.
Lack of bias is supposed to be one of the ethical pillars of reporting. The editors are supposed to weed out bias. That is, by definition, part of their job.
As a fiction writer, I know that the same exact information can be spun. Take a look at this one: At first glance it appears to be anti-Obama. And yet look how it is soft pedaled. How it is more a warning of what may come than an in depth investigation into the relationships. If it were a statement of what THAT reporter was going to do in the following weeks, I might call it unbiased.
As a fiction writer, I'm very aware of the spin that can be put on the exact same piece of information.
Happy Turnip: If you think the bias is equal, that is probably because most of the bias supports your view. It feels normalized to you, and so you don't pick up on it.
Posted by happy turnip (Member # 11812) on :
Being a democrat or republican, in my view, is much more important on the local level. Plus, one
Yes, of course. You don't need to point out the obvious
really doesn't have to be liberal to be a democrat.
Yes of course, pointing out the obvious.
If you read more of his columns, you'll get what kind of democrat he is.
But I don't. Hence my question.
I am a registered democrat. I voted democrat for most of the representatives in my state legislature. In Oregon, where I lived for quite a while, I was registered republican.
Uh huh. Irrelevant, but fascinating
Frankly, I couldn't give a hoot about the party. They are all corrupt.
Your opinion, and certainly the case can be argued. Power corrupts. NOthing new there.
Lack of bias is supposed to be one of the ethical pillars of reporting. The editors are supposed to weed out bias. That is, by definition, part of their job.
They should do their best, yes. But they are human beings, and hence fallible.
As a fiction writer, I know that the same exact information can be spun. Take a look at this one: At first glance it appears to be anti-Obama. And yet look how it is soft pedaled. How it is more a warning of what may come than an in depth investigation into the relationships. If it were a statement of what THAT reporter was going to do in the following weeks, I might call it unbiased.
I don't know. Seems pretty prescient a piece to me.
As a fiction writer, I'm very aware of the spin that can be put on the exact same piece of information.
Happy Turnip: If you think the bias is equal, that is probably because most of the bias supports your view. It feels normalized to you, and so you don't pick up on it.
Of course that is possible. It's impossible for me to disprove your argument, since it's all subjective.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
My take on it is that Mr. Card labels himself as a Democrat to try and legitimize his arguments to unaffiliated readers. It's much more convincing to say "I'm a Democrat and even I think Obama lacks experience", than "I'm conservative on most social issues and on defense, and I don't think Obama would be a good president".
Having said that, I think Mr. Card did vote in the Democratic primary (for Obama, if i recall corretly), which might make him a registered Democrat for this cycle at least, which is a fairly objective metric for determining one's Democratness.
Incidentally, given Mr. Card's subsequent views, Mr. Cards vote for Obama was breathtakingly irresponsible Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Why should people identify with the party that they happen to find less repugnant at the moment, rather than try to sway their chosen party closer to their own views?
Maybe OSC thinks he's going to help change the D party to one he can vote for, by openly explaining what's keeping him from voting according to the box he checks for party affiliation.
It's not conventional, but what's so great about conventional partisan politics?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I don't think this is his purpose. I could be wrong.
While "conventional partisan politics" has its problems, I don't see how this addresses any of them.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
It seems to me that that is exactly his purpose. The parties ideas have drifted since in Card's time, and while the views that he thinks are most important used to be represented by Democrats, they aren't so much anymore, though he'd like them to be. He stays with the party, perhaps for nostalgias sake, or perhaps because there are many issues he identifies with them with that in other times might take precedence, but at this time Republicans are critically better at what he feels is most important, in his judgement, so they get his vote, despite maybe not even matching a great many of his views.
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: My take on it is that Mr. Card labels himself as a Democrat to try and legitimize his arguments to unaffiliated readers. It's much more convincing to say "I'm a Democrat and even I think Obama lacks experience", than "I'm conservative on most social issues and on defense, and I don't think Obama would be a good president".
I don't see much merit in this take. It is very common for people of both parties to hold differentiated views. In fact, in America today, I would wager complete alignment with a particular party is quite rare. Mr. Card has stated where he stands. He has given us no reason to doubt his sincerity.
I personally am a registered Democrat, but I have developed a number of views that conflict with that party. In this election, I voted for Obama, but it was a difficult choice. It is a little upsetting that if you told hold to the party line your honesty as to your party affiliation can be questioned. It says something about the distressing level of power parties have developed over American politics.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight: It seems to me that that is exactly his purpose. The parties ideas have drifted since in Card's time, and while the views that he thinks are most important used to be represented by Democrats, they aren't so much anymore, though he'd like them to be. He stays with the party, perhaps for nostalgias sake, or perhaps because there are many issues he identifies with them with that in other times might take precedence, but at this time Republicans are critically better at what he feels is most important, in his judgement, so they get his vote, despite maybe not even matching a great many of his views.
A few points/questions: 1)If I were a disappointed Democrat reluctantly voting Republican I might be inclined to mention something about the Democratic platform that I liked; also my criticisms of said platform would be more discerning than merely repeating faux Republican talking points. For example, the article Mr. Card linked to that tried to blame the Democrats for the housing bubble/bust is a remarkably poorly argued piece.
2)When is Mr. Card's time? Assuming 60s/70s (I don't know his age), what about the current Republicans adheres more closely to the latter Democrats than the current Democrats?
3)What issue does he side with (contemporary) Democrats on?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: EDIT2: I'm not sure I used the word "illicit" correctly in that first edit.
Since I didn't see anyone else address it, I think you meant to use "elicit" Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote: 1)If I were a disappointed Democrat reluctantly voting Republican I might be inclined to mention something about the Democratic platform that I liked; also my criticisms of said platform would be more discerning than merely repeating faux Republican talking points. For example, the article Mr. Card linked to that tried to blame the Democrats for the housing bubble/bust is a remarkably poorly argued piece.
You might, unless you were really worried that bad things would happen in the world if they won, in which case you might let it slide for now.
And your example is a rather poor rebuttal considering who it was that fought to force mortgages to be extended to people who could never pay them off.
By the way, what is a "faux" talking point? Wouldn't that be a double negative of sorts? Something purported to be a talking point that wasn't? Your attempt at belittlement doesn't quite work in this case.
quote:2)When is Mr. Card's time? Assuming 60s/70s (I don't know his age), what about the current Republicans adheres more closely to the latter Democrats than the current Democrats?
Who was it again who said, "We must pay any price, bear any burden, to ensure the survival and success of liberty?" Hint: it only sounds like GWB.
quote: 3)What issue does he side with (contemporary) Democrats on?
From earlier in this thread, race (presumably affirmative action) and government regulation (presumably regulation by governemnt, not of government). Also, from the past, he favors what some republicans (though of course not John McCain) would call amnesty for illegals, and often is quite harsh of closed border advocates.
Anything else?
[ November 11, 2008, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Nikisknight ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I will pad my posting totals by addressing the points post by post (as time permits).
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight:
quote: 1)If I were a disappointed Democrat reluctantly voting Republican I might be inclined to mention something about the Democratic platform that I liked; also my criticisms of said platform would be more discerning than merely repeating faux Republican talking points. For example, the article Mr. Card linked to that tried to blame the Democrats for the housing bubble/bust is a remarkably poorly argued piece.
You might, unless you were really worried that bad things would happen in the world if they won, in which case you might let it slide for now.
And your example is a rather poor rebuttal considering who it was that fought to force mortgages to be extended to people who could never pay them off.
By the way, what is a "faux" talking point? Wouldn't that be a double negative of sorts? Something purported to be a talking point that wasn't? Your attempt at belittlement doesn't quite work in this case.
Why would I let it slide - is it more convincing to reasonable people when one writes a clearly biased piece?
It is pretty clear that you have bought completely into the version of events that the Republicans and Mr. Card were pushing. I think there have been threads on Ornery about this, so I'm a bit reluctant to reproduce that here. Suffice to say that Fannie and Freddie became big players in the sub-prime game late, after the bubble was already very inflated. As I said, check those threads. Or, indeed, newspapers.
I used "faux talking points" to mean "manufactured talking points" or "illegitimate talking points". I thought my meaning clear given the context. Obviously this characterization is very much my opinion, so if you want me to I am happy to edit my post and remove it.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote:Why would I let it slide - is it more convincing to reasonable people when one writes a clearly biased piece?
Is it bias to argue only the points that you think are important? To use a very inapt anology because I'm in a hurry, is it bias to avoid mentioning how nice the robber is to his neighbors when sentencing him? Only the points relevant to the issue at hand need be addressed.
But the better answer, now that I think of it, is that OSC HAS written columns critical of republicans. Many times. It just so happens that John McCain is not a very conservative republican, while Obama was a very liberal democrat. So it is very likely that in this case there weren't very many issues of disagreement bewteen OSC & McCain, because McCain holds a number of (more) democratic positions, as well as OSC holding some (more) republican ones. Why is he still called a republican? Well, that's what we've been asking ourselves for awhile. (That's a joke, I respect John McCain, but he is a centrist on most issues as is OSC.)
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight:
quote:2)When is Mr. Card's time? Assuming 60s/70s (I don't know his age), what about the current Republicans adheres more closely to the latter Democrats than the current Democrats?
Who was it again who said, "We must pay any price, bear any burden, to ensure the survival and success of liberty?" Hint: it only sounds like GWB.
Very glib. So your contention is that Mr. Card became a Democrat because a Democratic president shared a trait with the Republican party of the time? Or are you saying Mr. Card was a huge JFK fan and remains a Democrat out of sentimentality?
EDIT: I thought my post a bit unclear. The themes of the quote I think could have been said by members of either party virtually any time since the US became independent. I have assumed that Nikisknight was interpreting this in a pro-Defense manner, and the popular view is that Republicans are stronger on defense (whether or not this is true). Hence I assume Nikisknight was saying that JFK was tougher on defense, and that's why Mr. Card supported him, and now prefers Republican candidates. If someone else can clarify the argument, I'd appreciate it.
[ November 11, 2008, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: natural_mystic ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: EDIT2: I'm not sure I used the word "illicit" correctly in that first edit.
Since I didn't see anyone else address it, I think you meant to use "elicit"
Yes! Thank you.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight:
quote: 3)What issue does he side with (contemporary) Democrats on?
From earlier in this thread, race (presumably affirmative action) and government regulation (presumably regulation by governemnt, not of government). Also, from the past, he favors what some republicans (though of course not John McCain) would call amnesty for illegals, and often is quite harsh of closed border advocates.
If I'm not convinced that he's a Democrat without evidence, am I going to be convinced that he's left of center on race without evidence?
As for immigration, while it IS true that Democrats are less likely to organize raids, being pro- or anti- amnesty cuts across party lines. For example, the labor union wing of the dems is not pro-amnesty, and the business wing of the republicans is pro-amnesty.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Immigration is a tough one. Congressional Democrats favor a more generous immigration solution than congressional Republicans, despite who their supporters are. While unions might be hesitant to support such a measure, and while business might like it, those are single interest groups in very large parties, even if they are vastly powerful. But union workers aren't going to vote Republican over an immigration bill and business leaders aren't going to vote Democrat because of it either. Immigration has seen a lot of blurring of party lines over the last 8 years. There are a lot of weird ad hoc congressional coalitions formed to deal with the issue in a way that makes geography more important than party affiliation.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
I don't know but he doesn't seem like a Democrat... I'm sorry if I'm bumping up an old topic but from the articles I've seen him wrote they all look far right to me. He doesn't seem to hold many liberal views. If he has a liberal view can you please name one rather than just saying he voted for a President a long time ago who just so happened to be Democrat?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
OSC has several times bashed JFK, both in articles and even has refer him mockingly in his novels, so I don't know where the impression comes that he liked JFK. If we're looking for a Democrat that OSC supported ever, I don't remember him ever naming a Democrat he supported other than George Wallace.
Graff -- OSC is in favour of gun control, relatively open borders, and government regulation of the economy, and he's anti-death penalty. In the US political terminology, these are considered "liberal" views.
These issues however haven't been enough for him to have voted for any Democratic presidential candidate in the last 30 years atleast. I still don't know if he has ever voted for any Democrat, EVER.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Mr. Card is a private citizen, who has had more than moderate success in literature, speaking engagements, and teaching at North Carolina University. He is not a pundit, nor has he ever ran for any elected office, he may state himself as he pleases and vote that way as well. I dont see why anyone would be so concerned about a private citizens voting practices; is this to say that anyone who votes outside thier declared position must be scrutinized? I call myself an independant, and yet I did not vote for Ralph Nader. So apparently, I am as confusing as a writer who does not vote as hes told.
And remember, you will always have more than two choices in any and all elections, there for a while, Mickey Mouse was the legal governer of Florida.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I still don't know if he has ever voted for any Democrat, EVER.
I don't know if you're a convicted felon.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Porteiro, let me rephrase it, with bullets and all, since you didn't understand it the way I wrote it.
1) I'm willing to take OSC on his word on this issue. 2) I don't remember a single instance where OSC's word is that he voted for the Democrat, rather than the Republican. Other than his support for George Wallace, that is. 3) If *you* remember such an instance, where OSC claims to have voted for any Democrat, ever, (other than George Wallace) please feel very free to link to it. 4) Rather than going disingenuous on me, which I find a tiny bit rude.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You're right. It was a little rude.
Me commenting on my lack of knowledge about your possible criminal past is about as useful as you commenting on how you don't know what parties he's voted for.
Not only does the our lack of knowledge mean absolutely nothing about the actual situation, but bringing it up as though it does mean something is insinuating and disingenuous.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
Please keep in mind that the Democratic Party as well as the Republican party have both moved away from where they were 20 years ago.
My grandparents were die hard Democrats, but believe that the Democratic party does not stand for what it used to. They voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and in 1980. They voted for Clinton in 1992. After that however they started voting independant or republican after that.
I have asked them why, and my grandfather simply stated that the Democratic party has lost sight of its values and that it has moved away from what it stood for. What was radical and liberal twenty or thirty years ago is mainstream today.
Likewise, I thinkt he Republican party has also moved away from what they stood for. Over the past twelve years they have thrown their ideal of fiscal responsibility out the window. They have been involved in corruption. Some have taken up socialistic views.
So when Mr. Card says he is a Democrat, I believe him. I believe he is a Democrat that holds on to the values the Democratic party had twenty or thirty years ago. He is a Democrat just like my grandparents, who feels their party has moved away from their core ideals.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: Please keep in mind that the Democratic Party as well as the Republican party have both moved away from where they were 20 years ago.
My grandparents were die hard Democrats, but believe that the Democratic party does not stand for what it used to. They voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and in 1980. They voted for Clinton in 1992. After that however they started voting independant or republican after that.
I have asked them why, and my grandfather simply stated that the Democratic party has lost sight of its values and that it has moved away from what it stood for. What was radical and liberal twenty or thirty years ago is mainstream today.
Ask your grandparents specifically of what values the Democratic party has lost sight. Your post indicates a distaste for socialism. Do you think tax rates provide a measure for how socialist a society is (as it was implied in the last election)? You should check out the tax brackets prior to 1980.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: What was radical and liberal twenty or thirty years ago is mainstream today.
Like what? You could probably argue this with regard to views on SSM, but I can't think of much else for which this might be true.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [QB] You're right. It was a little rude.
Me commenting on my lack of knowledge about your possible criminal past is about as useful as you commenting on how you don't know what parties he's voted for.
This is disingenuous to the point of wilful idiocy: We know LOTS of OSC's votes. We know he voted for McCain, for Bush II, for Dole, for Bush Sr., for Ronald Reagan. I don't remember if he was old enough to vote back then, but his statements in his essays indicate he supported Goldwater rather than Johnson as well.
It's *Democrats* (other than Wallace) that I don't remember OSC having voted for.
So it's not exactly my ignorance of the issue in general I'm bringing up. It's a very specific knowledge that all of us share: all of us know lots of Republicans OSC supported and voted for in his lifetime but no Democrats, other than Wallace.
I will no longer discuss this with you. My point is clear and specific, but you are being intentionally obtuse, and this is beneath us both.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We know LOTS of OSC's votes. We know he voted for McCain, for Bush II, for Dole, for Bush Sr., for Ronald Reagan.
If he votes regularly, presidential votes are just a tiny percentage of the votes he's cast.
There's a big difference between saying that he almost never votes Democrat in the presidential races and implying that he almost never votes Democrat. It looks like the first is what you meant, but reading what you wrote, it looked like you were saying the second one, which is what I was replying to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We know LOTS of OSC's votes. We know he voted for McCain, for Bush II, for Dole, for Bush Sr., for Ronald Reagan.
Can you source the last two of those. I couldn't find the evidence he voted for either Reagan or Bush Sr.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"he votes regularly, presidential votes are just a tiny percentage of the votes he's cast."
Oh, that old argument. Pfft.
I don't know of any Democrat congressman he has voted for either. In the last few election cycles atleast he has also advocated in favor of putting Republicans in Congress.
Of course now you'll tell me that even presidential+congressional votes are a tiny percentage of the votes blah blah blah. Perhaps he voted for some Democrat state senator or governor sometime.
Well if not mayor or governor, perhaps he voted for some Democrat sheriff. Or perhaps he voted for a Democrat chairman at his local garbage-collection committee or something.
But you are still going with mere hypotheses, and I'm still going with the solid fact: that we don't know of a single Democrat he ever supported other than Wallace. And we know of many Republicans he supported and voted for.
If I told you that I don't know of OSC ever supporting any Green or Communist or Neonazi candidates, you wouldn't be so disingenuous at me. You would have merely agreed that my statement is plain fact. But suddenly because I said how we don't know of any Democrats he has supported... you're going all disingenuous on me.
quote: Can you source the last two of those
For Reagan: "In election after election, I've had to vote for the least nauseating candidate. And yes, you Reagan lovers, I know you didn't feel that way, but you should have: imagine paying ransom to hostage takers, and in the form of weapons, no less!" http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-02-03-1.html
The disingenuous people will now tell me OSC isn't admitting to voting for Reagan in the above paragraph. To me however the implication that he voted for Reagan is obvious.
As for Bush Sr., I consider it a given since he keeps praising the guy while saying that Clinton was the most horrible president ever.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
OK, so let me get this straight: You cannot be a Democrat unless you are a strict liberal and you are automatically a Republican if you can be labeled a conservative. More importantly, you are a Democrat only if you vote for a Democratic President or at least a majority of Democratic Presidents.
In truth here is the only thing that matters in the U.S. for political affiliation: You claim a party and you register as part of that party. The person can vote all they want for the other party (and maybe never for the registered party) and still legally claim you belong to a particular party.
I find most of the arguments about OSC hand-ringing of Liberal Democratic loyalists. No matter what you say, there isn't anyone who can "excommunicate" OSC from the Democratic party. Trust me, I have at times wanted to do the same to John McCain.
Post script: If anyone can find proof that OSC registered as a Democrat, then the discussion is over. Anyone?
[ December 11, 2008, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't know of any Democrat congressman he has voted for either. In the last few election cycles atleast he has also advocated in favor of putting Republicans in Congress.
Advocating putting Republicans in congress for the last couple of election cycles is not incompatible with sometimes, even most of the time, voting Democrat for congress.
I am not saying that he's done that. I have no idea. But neither do you.
quote:But you are still going with mere hypotheses, and I'm still going with the solid fact: that we don't know of a single Democrat he ever supported other than Wallace. And we know of many Republicans he supported and voted for.
This is true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No matter what you say, there isn't anyone who can "excommunicate" OSC from the Democratic party.
They effectively did that to Leiberman.
quote:If anyone can find proof that OSC registered as a Democrat, then the discussion is over. Anyone?
I'm inclined to take him at his word.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional:
Post script: If anyone can find proof that OSC registered as a Democrat, then the discussion is over. Anyone?
This just translates the issue - instead of why does he call himself a democrat, the question becomes, why did he register as a democrat when virtually all of his written views are in line with republican orthodoxy?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No matter what you say, there isn't anyone who can "excommunicate" OSC from the Democratic party.
They effectively did that to Leiberman.
Yes, but that's rather a different situation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [QB]
quote:No matter what you say, there isn't anyone who can "excommunicate" OSC from the Democratic party.
They effectively did that to Leiberman.
Really? Did he lose his committee chairmanship?
Besides, OSC doesn't hold any office, or serve on any party committee I know of. It's hard to take away responsibility from a man who has no actual authority in the party.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
(Let me refer you to the previous two posts.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So why did you make the point to begin with? Is there nothing to it?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Nothing more than what I said.
I wasn't making a point. I was making conversation.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Mr. Card is as free to associate himself with either party as he is to state his views. But what's being asked is not about his literal ability to be a member of a party; the question being asked amounts to: "Why does he continue to associate himself with a party and its members that he appears to disparage about nine times in every ten he mentions them?"
(Nine in ten is an off-the-cuff guestimate, by the way; if you ask for justifying citations, I'm going to throw a small object at your head.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No matter what you say, there isn't anyone who can "excommunicate" OSC from the Democratic party.
They effectively did that to Leiberman.
Not really. I mean, he might not be a Democrat in name anymore, but he still votes with them, and is part of their caucus, and after openly breaking with the party and slamming their candidate at the RNC, he still kept his coveted and powerful Committee Chairmanship while losing a relatively minor one.
The irony is that they tried to oust him in his home state and failed, but for far less than what he did in 2008, and he was rewarded with a powerful position on the Senate. I wonder how dumb Reid and Dean would have felt back when Lieberman ran as an independent if they could have seen how it all turned out.
Party affiliation is a tricky thing. OSC is a mix of modern conservative and liberal, and calls himself a Democrat in reference to a by gone era. I'm extremely liberal with the exception of a few specific areas, but I don't call myself a Democrat becuase I think modern Democrats are inept fools (Congressional Dems anyway). I think what should be noted is that he doesn't refer to himself usually as just a Democrat, but as a specific Democrat from a specific time. What's more egregious is when Republicans today call Lincoln the hero of their party, cause Lincoln today would be a Democrat. I'd proudly call myself a Lincoln Republican, but in doing so, I'd have to vote Democrat.
So I don't have a problem with him calling himself a Democrat, because I know what he's talking about when he says he is one. To someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, it can be confusing, but he readily clarifies whenever its brought up.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: [QB] OK, so let me get this straight: You cannot be a Democrat unless you are a strict liberal and you are automatically a Republican if you can be labeled a conservative. More importantly, you are a Democrat only if you vote for a Democratic President or at least a majority of Democratic Presidents.
In case you're by any chance talking to me, or concerning me - I don't remember ever claiming or even implying any of the above.
And I don't appreciate the intentional misrepresentation of my words.
As for OSC, I'd be satisfied with him voting or otherwise supporting any Democrat ever. Other than Wallace (which he regretted), I have no reason to believe he ever did.
That part of the voting record he has revealed so far shows him to consistently support the Republican Party.
quote:and still legally claim you belong to a particular party.
Yes, I'm sure OSC isn't violating the law. I didn't claim he was violating it.
quote:I find most of the arguments about OSC hand-ringing of Liberal Democratic loyalists.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not even an American. But I like words having some meaning, and when someone claims a political party as their own, I'd like them to have supported it, atleast occasionally.
The same way if I claim myself to be a Boston Celtics fan, it'd be appropriate for me to have occasionally wanted them to win a game, not merely be registered at the Celtics fan club.
quote:Post script: If anyone can find proof that OSC registered as a Democrat, then the discussion is over.
No, it won't be. Nobody is challenging that OSC is registered as a Democrat. I'm challenging the idea that his registration has any correspondence to language's usual meaning.
"Yes, I'm a Boston Celtics fan, but I never ever ever want them to actually win a game."
Posted by Mankind (Member # 2672) on :
Seriously, guys, is this really that big a stretch of the imagination? Do you really sit there pounding your brains, imagining the possibilities, and just not get it?
Try this excersize: Swap it around. Imagine a good Republican who voted for Reagan being fed up with the current administration, the Republican scandals in the Senate these last few years, and be very vocal in his displeasure with the way guantanamo was handled. He still likes the things the Republican party stands for, he still considers himself part of the party, but he thinks they've drifted away from him. He just wants the party to get back on course. He doesn't talk about the agreements when he voices his displeasure--he doesn't have to bring up how well he thinks Bush handled this veto or that decision when he's writing about Gitmo--he's just pointing out the problems.
This doesn't sound like a crazy person, right? It just sounds like a guy who thinks for himself. A guy who looks at what his party is doing and decides if it fits with his own values rather than trying to automatically make whatever the current party leaders out to be the right thing at any moment.
Flip it around and you have Card. If you don't believe he's liberal, you haven't heard him talk about capitalism, communism, Microsoft, Jimmy Carter, immigration, or any number of issues.
Card is a fiscal liberal and a social conservative. Think of him as an anti-libertarian. If he was a Republican, it would be for social policy reasons (although then it would be Republicans pointing to his abortion views, immigration views, etc and crying foul), but he's a Democrat for fiscal policy reasons.
Your own personal displeasure with his "Democratness" will probably be proportional to the degree to which your own "Democratness" is identified with the social aspects of the Democratic agenda.
Personally, though, as a conservative, I say carry on. The more unwelcome social conservatives feel in the Democratic pary four years from now, the better things will go for us.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mankind:
Flip it around and you have Card. If you don't believe he's liberal, you haven't heard him talk about capitalism, communism, Microsoft, Jimmy Carter, immigration, or any number of issues.
Could you please give sources, or give a quick summary about Mr. Card's position on these issues?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mankind: Seriously, guys, is this really that big a stretch of the imagination?
Given his commentary on Democrats, both as a party and as a body of the populace, he does strain credulity.
He in the past has essentially said 'speaking as a democrat, the democratic party cannot be in power or they will ruin the country' and it easily comes off as classic dino. not a stretch.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was not aware that there was a standard body of positions that every single card carrying Democrat must adhere to. I always assumed that when you agreed with more positions than you disagreed with in a party, you typically identify with that party.
You can believe the Democratic Party would have seriously mucked up the country by pulling out of Iraq prematurely in 2004 and still agree with the vast majority of positions the party espouses.
TBH this topic wearies me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was not aware that there was a standard body of positions that every single card carrying Democrat must adhere to.
Clearly, you missed the memo.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The more unwelcome social conservatives feel in the Democratic pary four years from now, the better things will go for us.
You think pandering to social conservatives is a long-term winning strategy, given that social conservatives are known for being old?
Posted by Mankind (Member # 2672) on :
I remember a discussion on the news a few years ago where they were talking about the two movies that were popular at the time--the Passion of the Christ and Farenheit 9/11. They were talking about how almost no one who liked one liked the other.
I was suprised. I knew a TON of people who liked both.
You point to the old folks home and say social conservatives aren't worth the trouble and I'll nod, agree, tell you how smart and insighful you are, and then go wait quietly outside any of the black congregations or latino Catholic churches in my town, ready to welcome them when they feel their party's made them choose which allegiance means more to them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So, actually, what you'd do is *say* that you would say the idea was smart and insightful, and in fact you'd actually come on Hatrack and talk about recruiting blacks and latinos because liberals, of course, make you choose between God and country, whereas conservatives would never do such a thing. And of course that isn't racist, or narrow minded, or anything like that. I love when people talk about how gracious they are.
Go wait outside some black churches. Have fun.
Posted by Mankind (Member # 2672) on :
:Sigh:
I'm racist? Really? You're going to jump straight to that?
What I'm trying to do is warn Democrats that before they pounce on guys like Card and throw him out of the party, they should keep in mind that there's more nuance and sub divisions amoung minority groups than their general tendency towards monolithic voting suggests.
It's a criticism of the attitude displayed in this thread, not an attitude of the Democratic party itself right now.
Obama certainly didn't run an anti-social conservative campaign. Obama actually made his religious faith a big part of his campaign in many swing states.
And I didn't bring up the conservative side, so anything you want to say about what I think about conservatives is purely conjecture.
I'm hardly portraying the conservatives as welcoming right now. You have no idea the craziness out there about how it's the Rinos that are killing the party and costing us the election. Quite frankly, I have the same gripe with my own party right now that I'm warning Democrats about in this thread. No party in history has ever expanded its base by narrowing groups of mainstream Americans out of its ranks. Dissassociating itself from fringe groups that turn off the mainstream--sure, that helps. But not regular Americans. So the conservatives who are trying to dissavow people who think bailing out car companies might help the economy or who have given up on supporting the Iraq war aren't doing themselves any favors, either.
As for trying to "recruit" religous blacks and latinos--conservatives have tried to be the party of God and apple pie for years, but I don't think that's won them many religous democrat voters, of any ethnicity. I think they wish it would persuade people, but it doesn't.
I don't think its possible for the conservatives, no matter how appealing they try to make the party seem, to bring religious democrats over using God as a tool. Religous Democrats will only be lost to the Democratic party when the social liberals make them feel unwelcome.
My point wasn't "Republicans are gracious and democrats aren't." If you read the post again, my point was "You've forgotten about the large number of socially conservative minorites and I haven't."
But hey, no, you know what? You're probably right. I'm racist and narrow minded and you folks are doing great just doing what you're doing.
Carry on.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hey, don't blame all of us when it was just Orincoro who stuck his tongue out at you.
For myself-- welcome to Hatrack. You're wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Seconded!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Scott, this is for you. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: My point wasn't "Republicans are gracious and democrats aren't." If you read the post again, my point was "You've forgotten about the large number of socially conservative minorites and I haven't."
mmhmm, that's what you wish you'd said. What you said was in fact something else. One wonders why you didn't say what you wanted to say before. What you said had to do with recruiting discouraged members of the democratic party who are not white. I'd start believing the old chestnut about black and latino families being "more conservative than you think" matters when the Republican party decides to be about some of the things that really matter to minority groups- things that matter enough to get them votes on a consistent basis. So far the only thing that the black community and the republican party have seemed to agree on recently is discrimination against gays (at least according to polls) but then, it's hard to really appeal to a minority group on a broad range of issues when a central point in your platform is intolerance of another minority.
[ December 18, 2008, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Actually, there was an interesting bit on Fresh Air in which a evangelical leader (pardon me, don't recall the name, too lazy to look it up right now) noted that about a third of evangelical voters- mostly the young- voted for Obama. And that many younger evangelicals, while still holding certain socially conservative positions (the pro-life position, in particular) were becoming much more liberal on others (gay rights, the environment.)
I don't pretend to know what the electorate is going to look like in twenty years. Some Latino Catholics may veer right on abortion and gay rights, but there's a not insubstantial number of American Catholics who veer from the Church on such issues. Likewise some African-American Christians. A lot may come down to the parties' and their figureheads' abilities to appeal to their voting blocks and explain their positions in real-world terms. At this particular moment in time, the G.O.P. has better reason to focus on that, but then, Obama is a powerful figure in his own right and a lot of his campaign strength was in explaining things in a way that seemed forthright and honest.
Who knows? Maybe India and Pakistan will end up at war, we'll get a huge influx of Hindu and Muslim refugees, and things will go completely catywampus. Talk to me in twenty years.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)