Looks like Oliver has another Democrat to excommunicate. This time, Orson Scott Card has dared to wander off the plantation. Some excerpts:
In one of Patrick O’Brian’s novels about the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was “death to the Whigs.” Watching the primary campaigns among this year’s pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can’t help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of “Death to the Republicans.”
Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean’s “Bush is the devil” to everybody else’s “I’ll make you rich, and Bush is quite similar to the devil.” Since President Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public.
There are Democrats, like me, who think it will not play, and should not play, and who are waiting in the wings until after the coming electoral debacle in order to try to remake the party into something more resembling America…
…Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there’s still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn’t mean that the others aren’t still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam’s forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.
In other words, the Iraq campaign isn’t over–and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn’t a “failure” or a “quagmire,” it’s a “war.” And during a war, patriotic Americans don’t blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.
He’s a witch! Burn him! Run him out of the party! Maybe if Orson had read Howard Dean’s collected works on national defense. It may not be to late, Mr. Card- I hear he is still giving lessons.
ChrisL
Orson’s been off the plantation for quite a while.
Oliver
If this guy’s a Democrat, I’m a Republican.
DaveL
“If this guy’s a Democrat, I’m a Republican”
[whistle blowing]
No True Sctosman foul, 15 yard penalty, loss of down.
John Cole
Umm- Jesse is saying that Orson Scott Card is not a Democrat because he is wrong- mainstream Democrats do think Bush is evil.
Interesting argument, Oliver. I have to admit, you caught me off guard with that one.
Norbizness
I think I understood Ender’s Game, but I’m not sure I understand this paragraph omitted by your ellipses:
“And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him–WHICH MEANS THAT IF MR. BUSH DOES NOT WIN, WE WILL CERTAINLY LOSE THE WAR (emphasis mine). Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us.”
Seeing as I can’t plausibly envision a Democratic candidate running not to win or being just a slightly bit anti-Bush, I am officially on board with Bush-Cheney 2004!
Jay
Obviously, if you don’t hate President Bush or think he stole the election in 2000, you cannot in any way be a Democrat.
If you’re a member of the Democratic party and you praise President Bush and criticize your own party, then you’re nothing but a DINO.
I see a beating like 1984 coming on.
John Cole
So do Orson Scott Card, Zell Miller, John Breaux, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, and John Edwards.
Remember two years ago when Jeffords bolted to the Dems- it was used to show the ‘extremism’ of the GOP. Now, fully 1/3 of the Democratic party is warning the fringe- who si in charge- and their reward is to be castigated.
Amusing stuff.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Seriously, someone who thinks George Bush is doing a great job and who thinks that the Democratic Congress was responsible for losing the Vietnam War probably OUGHT to be a Republican.
I’m tired of Democrats who think we should nominate George W. Bush. Not, mind you, Bush Lite. Bush. Card’s column sounds like that is literally his hope.
Oliver
There’s a big difference between Gephardt & Edwards versus Lieberman/Miller (and I guess, Card).
On one hand, you have Democrats who know how bad Bush is, they just disagree on how he should be called on it. On the other, you have Democrats who think the best way for Democrats to get anywhere is to act like Republicans.
Gephardt/Edwards and Kerry at least have the interests of America and the party at heart.
Lieberman will say anything to be elected.
Miller (and I guess Card) are DINOs, honestly.
I was in the Gephardt, etc. camp up until last years election when I realized saying “we take the standard American stance of presenting a united front on foreign policy” was a setup for a Karl Rove smear job. Now, I just want my party to stand up for what it believes in. Considering the ’90s were filled with “Angry White Men” who were able to push an extremist agenda with impunity, I figure if the Dems exhibit 1/10th the passion within the realm of sanity – we can stand for something without having to triangulate things.
At this point, Madonna’s endorsement of Wesley Clark means more to me than an editorial slamming Dems printed in (surprise, surprise) the Wall Street Journal. Which is to say: not at all.
John Cole
Gephardt/Edwards and Kerry at least have the interests of America and the party at heart.
If you disagree with Oliver on policy, you don;t have the countries best interests at hear…. Pretty tedious stuff, Oliver.
At this point, Madonna’s endorsement of Wesley Clark means more to me than an editorial slamming Dems printed in (surprise, surprise) the Wall Street Journal.
Does this mean you’ll stop expecting Republicans to take anything in the NY Times seriously?
Oliver
If you disagree with Oliver on policy, you don;t have the countries best interests at hear…. Pretty tedious stuff, Oliver.
If you stopped jerking your knee for a second, John, you’d realize that on many issues I disagree with Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards. Same with Dean. But at the end of the day, I think they want what’s best for America and not a select few. That’s what seperates them from the President. I find these kind of things funny coming from the camp of thought that insists if you don’t march in lockstep to their wardrums you must hate America.
Does this mean you’ll stop expecting Republicans to take anything in the NY Times seriously?
So you’ll disregard those constant Safire/Brooks columns in the “liberal” New York Times? I think the WSJ is the best business paper in the world, and one of the top 3 newspapers in the country. I just believe their editorial pages are an idealogically deranged sewer. (and yes, I’m aware prominent Democrats like Dean have been published there, but that’s the exception to the rule)
Andrew J. Lazarus
Oliver’s right except about Lieberman (even though he’s my last choice of the major candidates). Lieberman has many, many differences with Bush (including foreign policy), and for some reason he’s been minimizing them in his campaign.
People like Card are another matter. Reading his article, including his accusation about how we lost Vietnam (something which few blogosphere Vietnam Vets of any political persuasion seem to support), I can’t imagine he has been a member of the Democratic Party for any reason other than spite or whim. He’s not a social liberal either: very weak on gay rights.
In trying to assess realistically the Democrats’ chances of winning in 2004, I keep running across people who purport to be Democrats who really do believe that George Bush is much the best candidate running. Well, fine, but it’s not worth working up much of a sweat to find a Democratic Bush who’ll work. [I discount Lieberman’s chances against Bush even before reaching the political issues because we know how poorly he campaigned last time.]
Thomas
Oliver, forget it.
Hobbes (1651) was right: Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. We’re wrong to assume those days are behind us. People today are equally selfish, competitive, individualistic, and nasty.
History is the story of individuals struggling mightily against those basest of instincts.
These fokkers will continue to win, and quality of life will continue to depreciate.
Interestingly, “conservatives” today have very little interest in actually conserving anything of natural value, save their own lifestyles.
Are Christians OK with the permanent eradication of God’s creation?
Save for obvious short-term economic reasons, I cannot figure the Republican Party’s indifference to public safety, health, and environmental concerns.
No rational self-interest?
…or only until their own kids are stillborn?
Jettison
“He’s not a social liberal either: very weak on gay rights.”
You are aware that there is like hardly anyone in the Democratic primaries who support gay marriage, right? You act as if his lack of support for gay marriage makes him a DINO. I suppose 90% of the democrats running for President are DINO’s. If that’s true, your party has a serious problem.
Gary Farber
I’ve known known OSC for over twenty-five years, and while I generally move heaven and Earth to believe anyone who calls themselve a Democrat, OSC failed any possible test back twenty-five years ago.
If he can name three Democrats he’s voted for in the past twenty years, I’d be interested. By all means, also look into his support for, say, gay rights or abortion rights. Or anything the Mormon Church opposes. Cough.
This has to be new stuff to you. I don’t suppose you were dealing with Orson Scott Card’s politics back in the early Eighties, right?
I didn’t think so.
Card has written some good sf, but he’s about as much a Democrat as Jerry Falwell is.
Gary Farber
In other words, John: jeez, drop this like a hot potato, because, migod, have you grasped a losing argument on this one.
I will, would, and have, back any dissident Democrat. Orson Scott Card’s case to claim to be one is ludicrous, and there a lot of people active in the sf community for the past thirty years to back this up. You have neither the background or knowledge, and you’ve gone for this in innocence, but the idea of claiming that OSC is any sort of Democrat is… well, I’m going to go now, as that sort of laughing isn’t dignified.
Kimmitt
Card’s not a Dem; he’s being disingenuous. I don’t know him personally, but I’ve read a lot of his writings, both fiction and personal.
cameron
So let me get this straight…..
If I don’t vote for Bush I am an america-hating traitor and I wish for the terrorists to win?
It is this logic that makes this country truly amazing.
And it also tells me who are and are not the true americans.
Ken Hahn
Does anyone here see the begining of the end for the two existing major parties. Both Republicans and Democrats seem dedicated to ejecting heretics. This will certainly give us ideologically pure parties, Republicans on the right, Democrats on the left. Each at about 30% of the electorate. The 40% in the middle are not independents, they will find a party to represent them.
I certainly urge my Democratic friends to excommunicate Mr. Card and everyone else they want. If the Dem’s get exclusive enough, my Republicans may survive. Hmmmm, big tent,,,,, , where did I hear that?
John Cole
Oliver- my problem with your statement is your assertion that the candidates you agree with ‘want the best for America’ while the others don’t That is the attiotude of the fringe left, whether your politics are ‘moderate’ or not.
Also, I find it amusing that because you disagree with Lieberman now, he will ‘say anytrhing.’ When he changed his positions on virtually everything in 2000, and the GOP noted his flip flops, were you similarly as harsh?
Gary- No, I don;t know his politics- but he says he is a Democrat and wants some in the party to come to their senses. Let’s just pretend he isn’t a Deocrat, but an Independent at heart. Does that invalidate his arguments?
greg
Exactly, John.
Where was all the bitching from those on the left about Lieberman’s flip flops back in 2000 when he totally changed his (very reasonable) position on affirmative action in order to appease a bigoted race-hustler like Maxine Waters?
Oliver
I’ve never been a fan of Lieberman. But my strong belief in Gore combined triumphed over what now appears to have been the super miscalculation of his campaign (picking Lieberman).
John, you say “my problem with your statement is your assertion that the candidates you agree with ‘want the best for America’ while the others don’t That is the attiotude of the fringe left, whether your politics are ‘moderate’ or not.”
It’s fringe to believe that the people your allied with have similarly positive aspirations for your country? That’s news to me. I’m not saying the other Dems want to reduce the USA to Thunderdome. I’ve even said, I don’t think Bush himself believes he’s doing evil – he honestly thinks that his moves are whats best for America. He’s wrong of course, but at least he’s optimistic.
The people who back him, however…
Jay
Oliver, how is it that Dean, et al have America’s best interest at heart when they’re all pretty much saying they’d adhere to whatever the UN tells them?
I mean, did you see what Dean said in his speech the other day? “I’d have gone into Iraq if we had permission from the UN.” I cannot believe that line isn’t getting more attention because it reveals what a truly weak person he is.
What’s in the best interests of America shouldn’t be decided upon by France, Germany, Syria, China, etc.
John Cole
Oliver- no amount of explanation makes your statement palatable. The simple fact is that I run under the asssumption that even low-lifes like McDermott, McKinney, etc., all really want what is best for America and have the people’s best interest at heart. I just disagree radically with their vision and how to get there.
To do otherwise, as you do, is to make political opponents into enemies. It makes sense now that you find nothing wrong with the Bush is evil crowd. At any rate, that is the politics and mindset of the fringe- I didn’t think the Clintons were unadulterated evil (I may have said so jokingly), but Jerry Falwell sure does.
I have no problem whatsoever if you were to say Joe Lieberman’s policies are wrong for America. That is perfectly acceptable, as you discuss the policy. When you state that ‘Joe Lieberman does not have America’s best interests at heart,’ you have made the focus of the debate Joe’s motivations, his honesty, his sincerity, and his intentions, and are attempting to villify him. No good.
Ralph Gizzip
Let’s see what my choices are for 2004
There GW Bush who’s strong on combatting terrorism for the benefit of Americans (that it benfits the rest of the world is just a side effect) but he’s expanded government like never before.
Or we have the Democrat, Howard Dean (front-runner to this point), who’s more interested in appeasing terrorists (Can you say Neville Chamberlain? I knew you could.) and proposes even BIGGER government.
My choice is clear. I’ll fight Bush on bigger government but since he’s the only one proposing (and implementing) ACTION against terrorists and the states that support them he’ll get my vote for 4 more years.
Michelle
Saying Card is a Democrat is like saying that Falwell is a Christian.
They can call themselves whatever they please, but their actions speak louder than their words.
Andrew Lazarus
Isn’t it telling, Jay, that against the Taliban we had the whole world behind us, and against Iraq we have Britain, Spain, and no one else of much consequence. In case of a GENUINE threat to the United States, the permission of the world was easily obtained. Whether or not we should (or Dean is suggesting, which I doubt) that we put our security permanently in France’s hands, what does it signify that our attempt to rally UN support behind our Iraq program consisted of feeding them nothing but falsehoods? (AFAIK, not one claim Colin Powell made in his slide show has been verified post-invasion, and many are completely refuted.) To me it says that one of the points of the Iraq War was simply to demonstrate to the world that we didn’t really care about their cooperation or approval. That this is worth $200Bn+ and countless lives is very unclear.
Dean
Andrew,
When did foreign policy become a matter of international referenda?
Since much of the world has ended its sanctions on China from Tiananmen, does that mean that leaving them in-place (yes, they’re still there) is the wrong thing to do?
Most of the world has ended its relations with Taiwan entirely—should we, too, agree not to provide them with ANY arms?
I’ve asked this before—if the UN had not sanctioned the Korean War (a fluke, as you yourself know), would that have made that war one iota less legitimate?
And if the rest of the world decided that Yassir Arafat and Fatah and Hamas have the right idea, that the problem is with the “shitty little country,” should we, too, turn our back on the Israelis, and leave them to the tender mercies of their Arab neighbors? I take it, then, that we should have agreed that Zionism=racism, since so much of the UN went along with it?
Who was it that said that one righteous person IS a majority? You may not agree that the war was right or righteous, but whether the rest of the world agrees or not is hardly a harbinger.
Moe Lane
“Isn’t it telling, Jay, that against the Taliban we had the whole world behind us, and against Iraq we have Britain, Spain, and no one else of much consequence.”
Hardly surprising: Afghanistan did not represent a radical change in the status quo, broadcast a fundamental shift in American foreign policy, or highlight the essential worthlessness of the UN absent American resolve and American resources. Iraq did all three… which is why all the reactionaries seemed to freak out over it so.
Such is life.
Kimmitt
I believe, in my heart of hearts, that George W. Bush wants what’s best for America. However, I also believe that he is a venal and sloppy thinker, and that he easily mixes up what is best for him and his friends — or what makes him feel personally satisfied — with the country’s interest.
Dean
Kimmitt:
Can you honestly say that MOST Presidents of the last thirty years DON’T fit that description?
Heck, I’ll go further and suggest that MOST POLITICIANS, regardless of stripe, are this way, be they mayors or Senators, City Councilmen or Vice Presidents.
Kimmitt
It is, of course, a question of degree — we are all human. It is my belief that President Bush’s relatively low level of introspection (and, it must be acknowledged, mediocre intelligence), combined with the fact that he apparently believes that he was selected by God to be President right now at this very moment creates a level of hubris and foolishness which approaches Biblical levels.
Brian
Oliver is good for comedy and nonsense. He banned me from posting on his blog because he got tired of me “fisking” him every day. What upset me about him was that, since I told him I was against gays in the military, he started with the “Oh, I guess you don’t want the black man either.” You know, the typical Jesse-Al comeback when they know their argument is bankrupt. Forget about Oliver. Just laugh at him like I do and ignore him.
Lunacy
Who was it that said that one righteous person IS a majority?
Thoreau in his essay on civil disobedience.
And very well put, btw, Dean.
Lunacy
Charlie
No, Cameron, you didn’t follow Card’s logic; in fact, you inverted it and asserted a contrapositive. Card didn’t say “anyone who doesn’t vote for Bush wants the country to fail”, he said “among the viable candidates, the only one who doesn’t want Marica to fail is Bush, therefore I think people should vote for him.”
Not that subtle a difference, at that.
Jay Random
Quoth Michelle:
‘Saying Card is a Democrat is like saying that Falwell is a Christian.’
Card has been voting pretty much the straight Donkey ticket for over 30 years. What else would you call him, pray tell?
Try this one on for size: Saying Card is NOT a Democrat is like saying that Zell Miller isn’t one either.
Kimmitt
I’m honestly baffled; Card’s politics simply are not the same as Democratic politics, and they have not been for quite some time. Card is, to my understanding, a fairly devout Mormon who is generally suspicious of the Church/State divide; this is not the belief set of a Democratic Party supporter.
Dean
Kimmitt:
Card is not REALLY a Democrat.
DU does not represent the average Democrat.
Zell Miller doesn’t even deserve to be called a Democrat.
Barbara Lee isn’t really typical of Democrats, either.
Nor is Al Sharpton really a Democrat.
Howard Dean, when he says he wants to re-regulate any industry that uses stock options, as well as the utilities, telecoms, and airlines, isn’t really enunciating a Democratic policy.
At some point, I will be shocked and awed by someone pointing to someone who DOES espouse Democratic ideas….
Robin Roberts
Don’t hold your breath, Dean.
Kimmitt
Well, that is the ongoing problem — in a Party which does not define itself based on slavish devotion to the policies of a single leader, the unifying principles are somewhat difficult to discern.
Usually I don’t do the “so-and-so is not a Democrat” game; I’m just baffled that Card seems to have voted for people who really seem to disagree with him until recently. Card is welcome to his opinion and I’m thrilled if he votes in favor of things that I like that he doesn’t. I’m just a bit shocked.
Tatterdemalian
If Lieberman was willing to say anything to get elected, he wouldn’t be pissing off so many people by speaking the truth.
Or is it that people really believe he’s so moronic that he thinks he’ll win the Democratic primary by saying Bush really isn’t such a bad guy after all?
Whatever. Bush in 04, Lieberman in 08. After eight years of such “morons,” we’ll have won the war on terror, turned the entire Middle East into a bunch of democratic economic powerhouses to rival Japan, and be well on our way to restoring both Old Europe and Africa to their former glory.
Kimmitt
Man, that’s a lot of Kool-Aid.