posted
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?
posted
If you wish to address OSC directly, you should probably use the Contact link at the top of the page.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
" 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.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
"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.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 50 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
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?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
