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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
