Posted on 07/21/2004 6:42:20 AM PDT by dead
I don’t know why he doesn’t post his articles himself, but I don’t mind doing it. He amuses me.
Huh?
You choose to characterize the stated reasons, and the implied ones, as "shaky". No one can stop you from thinking so; the will to believe is enough to overcome facts most of the time, for most of us. That is why it is silly to take anyone's objectivity on faith - yours or mine. "Trust but verify."Or, closer to home, whether he would (as Bush did in late 2000) go on a fishing trip while his daughter was undergoing surgery, and use the world's media to mockingly order her to clean her room while he was away?"I wonder why you characterize the number of innocent lives as "untold." Is that because anyone is preventing an accounting, or is it because you wouldn't be happy with a conservative's definition of "innocent"? Probably it is not because you recognize that Saddam's henchmen were raping and murdering "innocent" Iraqis - and their children - at such a rate as to make the "untold cost in innocent life" of stopping that horror null or negative.
It seems that most of the children of presidents find that status to be limiting, and have some tendency to break the mold just as preachers children tend to do. For example, R. Prescott Reagan has never gone out of his way for political "Reaganites," and is expected to speak at the Democratic convention. But it is reported that the Bush twins have decided to campaign for their father's reelection. Notwithstanding the obvious opportunity which would beckon to either of them to profit from opposing their father's politics.One is left to wonder whether his daughter's surgery was life-threatening or quite otherwise - and whether his daughter took the order to clean her room not as "mocking" but as a loving, self-depracatory jest.
I think he must have been banned.FReeper Perlstein (since August 16, 2003) posted here as recently as 5/18/04
For your benefit, Rick.......
The goodness of George W. Bush, through his faith in God, and redemption through His Son, Jesus Christ, shines a light into the dark world of the left.
The fact that they are offended, and write articles such as this one, reveals much more about their own weakness than it accuses President Bush and those who have a deep respect for him.
I haven't come across Perlstein before, but IMO this hatchet-job article is far beneath the standard of the Village Voice, which also employs some truly great journalists such as Sydney Schanberg. Yes, it is a liberal paper with a point of view, but it has also run a lot of stories that poked some big holes in the liberal establishment (some very unflattering stories about Andrew Cuomo and even Hillary Clinton come to mind.) So I hope people reading this will not dismiss the paper, just this writer. He is hopeless.
HAH!! 'Tis Lib'ralism that is anti-American and un-Constitutional and in the process of being rejected by more and more good Americans...and the writer appears to be somewhat of a Village idiot...MUD
"...People who support Bush and also believe that Bill Clinton is "lazy" and Teresa Heinz Kerry is an "African colonialist" are obvious retards. Yet the myriad leftists who believe that George Bush coordinated 911 with the help of Mossad are nothing less than enlightened Kerry supporters." ~ dead
Cognitive Dissonance is the number one hallmark of a relativist. And a relativist, by definition, makes up his own *truth* as he goes along ; basing his *changable ideas of right and wrong* on *the situation*. Relativists are the biggest danger to the undermining of our Constitution because the Constitution was only put into place to guard ABSOLUTE (UNchangeable) TRUTH. It is a meaningless document otherwise.
Below is an example of Cognitive Dissonance - (the mental confusion that results from holding polar opposite ideas, beliefs, and attitudes simultaneously) - in action.
It mirrors Perlstein's confusion perfectly.
Now the confused, but intellectually honest person, who actually does sincerely hold the polar opposite beliefs that are depicted below - is seriously in need of taking some classes to develop critical thinking skills (his/her emotional maturity being the criteria that will determine the degree of success).
There is only one other catagory of mentality that would promote the polar opposite ideas depicted below. They are the intellectually DIShonest -- the liars - those who *deliberately set out to mislead* those who are incapable of critical thought.
Perlstein falls into one of those two catagories above. The intellectionally honest reader capable of critical thought will know which catagory that is. The opinions of the others are meaningless in the real world.
The double binds of George W. Bush - by Rich Lowry
July 19, 2004
Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies.
President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status.
His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters.
For them, Bush is the double-bind president.
If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.
If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.
If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.
If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.
If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.
If he adopts a doctrine of pre-emption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have pre-empted it. If he signs a far-reaching anti-terror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.
Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.
If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.
If he opposes campaign-finance reform, he's a tool of corporate interests. If he signs campaign-finance reform, he's abridging the First Amendment rights of Michael Moore (whose ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11" might run afoul of the law).
If he accuses John Kerry of flip-flopping, he is merely highlighting one of the Massachusetts senator's strengths -- his nuance and thoughtfulness. If he flip-flops on nation-building or testifying before the 9/11 commission, he proves his own ill-intentions, cluelessness, or both.
If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion.
If he sticks with Dick Cheney, he is saddling himself with an unpopular vice president, giving Democrats who can't wait to run against Cheney a political advantage. If he drops Cheney, he is admitting that the Democratic attacks against his vice president have hit home, thus giving Democrats who have made those charges a political advantage.
If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20040719.shtml
George Bush is selling out Iraq. Gone are his hard-liners' dreams of setting up a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic republic, a light unto the Middle Eastern nations. The decision makers in the administration now realize these goals are unreachable. So they've set a new goal: to end the occupation by July 1, whether that occupation has accomplished anything valuable and lasting or not. Just declare victory and go home. The tyranny of Saddam Hussein will be over. But a new tyranny will likely take its place: the tyranny of civil war, as rival factions rush into the void. Such is the mess this president seems willing to leave behind in order to save his campaign.
Correct me if I am wrong, but do we not still have troops in Iraq? And did we not turn over the government to the Iraqi people? And are not elections slated for January? And is Iraq not now conducting its own foreign policy, has free speech, children in schools, and a functioning, democratic government? We have not abandoned the people, and as far as I know the administration is still aiming for a democracy in Iraq as a way to make the Middle East safer.
Now I am wondering who is stupider...Freepers who like President Bush or someone who was completely wrong about the course of affairs in Iraq?
See #28 above. BTTT!
Dick Cheney gored my personal ox quite thoroughly when he was SecDef under Bush41. I still believe that that decision which damaged me personally, was as matter of technology imprudent. And military history has confirmed my opinion on the merits of his decision. I was afterwards quite confident that I would never vote for him for anything, ever.By styling himself a "compassionate conservative," Bush43 insinuated that, in contrast to my own opinion as expressed in my screen name, there was some reason to doubt the compassion of a person if you learned that they were conservative.
I don't see Bush as "angelic" except in comparison with an administration which perpetrated two thousand felonies in the WH basement - and is noted for having been impeached for something else.
I don't see Bush as "angelic" - but at least if he were found morally wanting no one would suggest that he could not be impeached because his vice president would be a disater for the country.
I don't see Bush as "angelic" - but I don't see anyone in his administration who would have trouble getting a better-paying job outside of government. I don't, that is, see anyone who has to be grateful for his/her position and is unable to resign in protest if Bush were to do anything they did not wish to be associated with.
I don't see Bush as "angelic" - but at least he wasn't forced to hire someone of the other party as SecDef to have any chance of being taken seriously on military issues.
Ronald Reagan, of blessed memory, will be recognized as a historically great president because the problems which most bore on the fate of the Republic were history so quickly after he addressed them. And also because those problems - inflation, unemployment, the energy crisis, Soviet expansionism - seemed so intractable and debilitating until he took office. No predecessor of a great president ever looks good to history. Any president with a sense of decency would look good after the one George W. Bush succeeded.
"he retreats into a retort I'll hear again and again tonight: Nobody's perfect. "I don't think we're going to find a situation in which we find a person with which we're 100 percent comfortable."
Then he reels off a litany of complaints about Bush. "Horrible underemployment situation . . . the big-business aspect of the Republican Party I have some issues with."
The next thing I hear is the last refuge of the cornered conservative: a non sequitur fulmination against the hippie Democrats.
"Having said that, what's your option? To have more bike trails?"
How has he 'cornered' this guy? Here is someone open-minded enough to not just blindly agree with everything the president does, and he is mocked for it. Elsewhere in the article, people are mocked for enthusiastically supporting everything the president does.
Coming to the conclusion "I may not agree with the president 100% of the time, but on balance I'd rather he be in office than a Democrat" is not a non-sequitur from a cornered nutjob. Did Pearlstein support everything Clinton ever did as President? Did he vote for him twice because, even with all the baggage, he would still rather see him in office than the Republican? So does that make him a dimwitted lunatic forced to resort to non-sequiturs as well?
Folks, I can't hack through all the misreprepresentations and fantasies about what I believe above, but I do want to call attention to what OhioWfan says:
"Perlstein, as does the rest of the left, has a problem that is fundamentally spiritual.
George W. Bush's goodness shines a light into their dark world, and they are offended."
This is what my article is about. The founders of our republic CLEARLY intended--read Federalist 51, which one conservative friend of mine wisely called "Genesis codified" for its brilliant application of the religious doctrine of man's inherent sinfulnes to politics--not to rely on the inherent goodness of leaders, because no man is inherently good. Again and again, I see conservatives defending Bush based on a sense of his inherent goodness. This dismays me, because I think the most profound thing conservatism has to offer America is its grasp of man's inherent sinfulness. But I see this patrimony slipping away in the worship of George Bush, and it dismays me.
Rick Perlstein
This stuff ain't worth sticking down my pants.
Forgive me if I don't believe your concern about conservatives, since I have never seen evidence of that before.
Would you care to explain your complete and total misreading of the Bush administration in the January article (which Ron Dog graciously linked us with)?
How about your inconsistency in the article, where those who believe in Bush 100% are mocked, while those critical but still supportive are mocked as well?
I maintain that you think that Bush supporters are a bunch of ignorant rubes, and that you think that if you can simply show us how stupid we are we will change our minds.
Care to comment on the Clinton groupies who follow him from book-signing to book-signing? How about the Deaniacs? I am waiting for your dissection of liberal hero-worshippers.
But it is clearly your intent to tar the intellectual and thoughtful people who support Bush with the rantings of the fawning.
Believe me, most Bush supporters know he has flaws and disagree with him strongly on various topics. But given the choices before us, many of us have weighed the positions and the character of the two men in this coming election and have reached the rather obvious conclusion that Bush offers the more decisive leadership and a vision that is more closely aligned with our own.
But you can't debate the election without trying to smear your opposition as a drooling bunch of knuckledraggers. The Democratic Party is bereft of ideas and has a serious disconnect with a growing number of people in this nation. And they have no leader now or on the horizon who is going to reverse that trend.
That is the source of your hatred and rage.
And the problem is.......??????
Gee the author must be smart, witty, and oh so much better than other people...for instance he says: "They certainly love them some George Bush." ha ha, when I read that I can feel so damn superior... ha,ha.
Gang, I would love nothing more than to stick around and argue. Really, it's my greatest joy in life, going toe to toe with people I disagree with (in Portland I had the pleasure of debating gay marriage with their smart talk radio host Lars Larsona0.
But I REALLY have to finish another article this week. Then I'm off to Boston for the Democratic convention. What I'd love to do is set aside an entire day after that to take on all comers: just set up a thread where people have at me, and I type away in defense, all alone, like one of those, kung fu movies.
For now I'll only respond to one point, Miss Marple's: "Forgive me if I don't believe your concern about conservatives, since I have never seen evidence of that before." I spent three years contributing to the history of the conservative movement, my book BEFORE THE STORM, on Barry Goldwater, which received glowing reviews in National Review, Weekly Standard, LewRockwell, Human Events, Buckley's column, and many other conservative outlets, grateful for my contribution to the their understanding of the movement. If that's not evidence for concern about conservatives--three years of toil, over which I lost a lot of money--I don't know what is.
So: when shall we have our throwdown thread? Tuesday, August 3 is perfect for me.
Rick Perlstein
rperlstein@villagevoice.com
What I'd love to do is set aside an entire day after that to take on all comers: just set up a thread where people have at me, and I type away in defense, all alone, like one of those, kung fu movies.
So: when shall we have our throwdown thread? Tuesday, August 3 is perfect for me.
Your Kung Fu is no match for Master Wu's Kung Fu!
I'll be there, Rick. I'll even post the thread when you're ready to get started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.