This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« Democrats Pick Up Major Endorsement | Main | Election Roundup »
November 06, 2006
The Only Issue
Orson Scott Card, Mormon and well-known science fiction writer and (former) Democrat voter, has a (rather lengthy) column as to why he'll be voting Republican tomorrow. He calls it "The Only Issue This Election Day".
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.
But at least there will be a chance.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.
To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.
Personally, I have a number of other issues that I agree with the Republicans on, and hence my predilections to vote for them anyway. But this is worth noting, coming from someone of the religious Left (and while I and others may have some doctrinal and theological differences, we're not going to debate the LDS religion in the comment thread; violations will be cheerfully deleted).
Card hits many topics--nation building, the hope of democracy, the Sunni/Shi'ite dynamic, historical blunders that Democrats are willing to repeat, the anti-American media, the questions of Iran and North Korea, Bush's conduct of the War on Terror--to make the point that Bush is indeed playing his cards quite right in the Middle East and the world, and that, in spite of obvious problems in the short term, the long term strategy should continue, and America shouldn't bail out on people whom we've helped liberate until they are ready to pick up the mantle themselves.
Card knows who he's going to vote for, and he makes quite the case for his decision. This is one article really worth reading before you step into the voting booth.
Posted by Doug at November 6, 2006 01:17 PM
Trackback Pings
Comments
I too agree with your viewpoint. Terrorists wherever they exist in world should be destroyed. Terrorist does not know your country , race, gender, age, geography. Strict laws with faster implementation is important to stop any terrorist activities. We should unite against this to root out terrorists from this country and world as a whole.
My name is Mark Johnson, and I've been visiting your site for past few months
I’m a recent UC Berkeley Political science grad and I along with some fellow Princeton alums have been working hard to launch our own internet startup called Rizzleweb.com.
Rizzleweb is basically an online political community where people can log on and write performance reviews\comments for congressmen, senators, the president, and various other local and state officials across the country. I was hoping that if it would not be too much trouble you could place a link of our site on your blog. If this is not possible (which we completely understand), we still hope you will check out our site, and post some reviews.
Your contribution will encourage us to put more effort in improving our website.
Mark Johnson
www.Rizzleweb.com
markjohnson2020@hotmail.com
Posted by: Mark Johnson at November 8, 2006 04:04 AM
So, you reckon the American people have risen up and cast a vote in favor of terrorism?
That seems odd...
Posted by: Dan Trabue at November 8, 2006 09:12 AM
If I may answer, I don't think that's what the American people voted for, but it may be closer to what they get. Heard a guest on Bill Bennett this morning talk about how, while the NY Times poll said that people didn't like how Iraq was going, it also said that they wanted more troops in Baghdad by a 15% margin. Guess which part of this the Times didn't report.
I think the American people are rightly upset over the Iraq situation, but I also think it's likely the Democrats will misinterpret the outcome of last night's election (if those Democrats are getting their news from the Times). The victory for Democrats was more a typical 6-year-itch midterm result mixed with some "throw the bums out" mentality with some hope by Republican voters that this may wake up the Republican lawmakers. However, if Democrats use the results as a mandate for pulling out of Iraq, they'll be playing into the hands of terrorists who have openly said that if and when America pulls out, they'll see that as a victory for themselves and will be ready to foment chaos to get rid of the fledgling democracy.
So no, I don't think that's what the American people have voted for. I'm concerned, however, that it is what they'll get. I'll have more in an election reaction post later today.
Posted by: Doug Payton at November 8, 2006 10:06 AM
"However, if Democrats use the results as a mandate for pulling out of Iraq"
By Democrats, do you mean, "the American People" - we who voted them in who overwhelmingly and increasingly disagree with this invasion?
Posted by: Dan Trabue at November 8, 2006 01:33 PM
As I said, the disagreement, according to the NY Times, is not over the decision to invade. It's over how to win it. These polls that just say people are dissatisfied often don't say why. At least the Times' did, though, as I noted, they chose not to report on that portion. Didn't fit their narrative.
Posted by: Doug Payton at November 8, 2006 06:59 PM