dead,
Please pass this to your leftist buddy and tell him his world view is based on myths.
The source is the following from the non-partisan Annenberg Center.
The next thing I hear is the last refuge of the cornered conservative: a non sequitur fulmination against the hippie Democrats.
This coming from a guy who is in the process of writing the boilerplate liberal screed about racist dumb hick Republicans.
Conservatives see something angelic in George Bush. That's why they excuse, repress, and rationalize away so much. And that is why conservatism is verging on becoming an un-American creed.
Of course, the liberals who excused, repressed, and rationalized away about a thousand more offenses committed by Bill Clinton did so in a pro-American way.
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. Or at least they don’t get an article.
Posted at the author's request. His freeper name is Perlstein if you wish to address him directly.
One would have thought the Viking Kittens would have had their sport. Never mind. The fellow's condescension towards "flyover country" speaks volumes.
Regards, Ivan
Yawn.
The left is against the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Constitution in general, against American sovereignty, against private property and against the family.
But that's not anti-American.
It's the hero worship that some conservatives have for W that's "un-American."
I wonder what Mr. Perlstein would have said to the Democrats that viewed and view FDR and JFK as gods come to earth? Is that "pro-American" by his standard?
You're quoted in The Village Voice. Congratulations, I guess.
Why would any FReeper cooperate with this jerk? Why would they provide quotes, their names, or an invitation to their house party?
Where did THIS crap come from ?
I've never heard that claim.
Ever notice that when leftists cannot understand something, they drip condescension for those who do understand? Sneering seems to take the place of being informed with this crowd every time. The author would be more credible if the left actually still had a sense of humor, and could "get" a joke. As it is, he's really not worth bothering about.
My advice to the author: Stupid and arrogant is no way to go through life. Take your prejudices and examine them honestly. Come on, just do it!
"...The right-wing website Free Republic is infamous for galvanizing harassment campaigns against ideological enemies..."ping
Let's see what other religion is it that classifies people as infidels? Help me out here I can't seem to remember right now.
This statement would be true if Kerry were president because he voted not to provide the troops in the field with approximately $90 billion in funding. So, I am left wondering if the author just made this up?
I would ask Perlstein, what kind of a Jew supports the party that would be soft on Islamic terrorism?? The party that welcomes Cynthia McKinney, the shuck-and-jive artist Al Sharpton, and the vile Jewhater Michael Moore...
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.
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
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.
This stuff ain't worth sticking down my pants.
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.
dead,
Please pass this to your leftist buddy and tell him his world view is based on myths.
The source is the following from the non-partisan Annenberg Center.