Ready to rumble? Village Voice Author, Rick Perlstein, Here to Debate the Freeper Horde

Darn I missed it. I miss locking horns with liberals.

"I have always admired conservatives for their political idealism, acumen, stalwartness, and devotion. I have also admired some of their ideas--especially the commitment to distrusting grand social schemes, and the deep sense of the inherent flaws in human nature. (To my mind the best minds in the liberal tradition have encompassed these ideals, while still maintaining that robust social reform is still possible and desirable. My favorite example is the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, author of the Serenity Prayer and a great liberal Democrat.)"

Idealism can be confused with dogma, which is why conservatives prefer the term, 'realist'.

Stalwartness and devotion, that sounds to me to be party loyalty, based on his assumption that liberals are better in his opinion. Conservatives believe in placing country above party. The party's sole purpose is to serve the country. That's the only reason to even take a party seriously. The 'long-term view' of helping your party destroy the other through short term harm to the nation is placing party above country. I call that a quick fix for short term power. Their 'long-term view' is my short term view. FReegards....

I don't consider Richard Goldstein to be of the "left." Rather, I think that he belongs to that peculiar substratum of society that has no clear identity and therefore, cling to bizarre ideological constructs invented by the types of people who founded the Frankfort School.

Tell me exactly, how does one go about being a militant, homosexual fascist, while simultaneously espousing a philosophy that embraces with open arms the very people who hope to wipe gay men and lesbians from the face of the Earth?

Don't rush to your keyboard, I'm not actually expecting a satisfactory answer to my query. I was just curious if you found this paradox to be as baffling as I do.

What's left largely unmentioned in this discussion is the reason behind John Kerry's nomination in the first place. Namely, that he did serve on a swift boat during the Vietnam War.

That-and the fact that his extremely liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate was given a patina of moderation when it was compared with Howard "give me a Zoloft" Dean's sprint to embrace every boneheaded, left wing idea conceived of over the past four decades-is the sole reason that he is now the Democratic nominee.

And you expect us not to scrutinize Mr. Kerry's military service record?(!)

Fat chance of that happening anytime soon!

I don't think Perlstein did very well, even considering how badly he was outnumbered.

It's hard to do well without facts. However, I'd like to see a bigger contest. One between DU and FR. On some kind of neutral ground.

I like the fact that posts are generally restricted in FR so that all manner of pests and insects don't come flying in the window.

But I'd also like to see some kind of organized online debate between the lunatics on the left and ourselves.

Maybe on a single thread, something like was done here?

Thank you for taking the time to more fully express your opinion and thank you for your service to our country and the Republican Party.
I don't think that I accept the Democratic Party view of things but I do believe blacks were aware Nixon felt this way about them while at the same time he presided over the greatest transfer of wealth from earners to idlers by signing every welfare bill Carl Albert put in front of him:
From a May 13, 1971, conversation among President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman. On October 5, 1999, the National Archives made available to the public 445 hours of previously unreleased Oval Office tapes. The following dialogue was transcribed by Chicago Tribune reporter James Warren.

RICHARD NIXON: We're going to [put] more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family--let people like Pat Moynihan and [special consultant] Leonard Garment and others believe in all that crap. But I don't believe in it. Work, work--throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key.

JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN: The key is Reagan's neutrality. If Reagan blasts this thing and says it's not strong enough on the work-requirement end, that will be very bad.

NIXON: I have the greatest affection for them [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.

At another point on the tapes, Nixon tells Rumsfeld that blacks are recently "out of the trees."

Blacks gave Goldwater only 5 percent of the vote because EVERYBODY voted against Goldwater. It was a landslide and don't think he lost because of conservative principles. The primary reason was fear of the (now forgotten) right-wing John Birch Society which seemed at the time a combination of Klanners, Nazis and McCarthyites. The second reason was the embrace of what seemed like a kooky idea at the time: conservative opposition to flouridating drinking supplies. Better dental health was a national goal and cancer warnings weren't given much attention.
The third-biggest reason was that the election followed the Kennedy assassination by less than a year and the nation sought stability over a clarion call for change.
I think we should go back and look at water flouridation, given evidence of decreased human and other animal sterility. What other problems has it caused? Off on a tangent again, I guess. Nice talking to you and I did learn a few things. Thanks.

Oh, Good Christ, every white politician in America thought that way about black folks back in those days. Don't kid yourself. LBJ's comments about having the "n-----s" in the Democratic Party's back pocket for 200 years is the stuff of legend.

What I'm saying is that most of it is myth, propounded by Democrats to imply that the Republican Party is an instrument of racism. I simply reject that, given my own experience with other Republicans and my knowledge of history.

Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Bill killed him, and our party, among black voters. Goldwater was a victim of his atypical conservatism and of association with kooky sections of the right, you are correct there. OTOH, Goldwater did better against Lyndon than McGovern did against Nixon, if only because people felt he was leveling with them about Vietnam.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

You would be correct in your guess. But I never said I was a conservative, either.

You choose the latter definition/classification of "liberal," which today equates to a Socialist.

I, on the other hand, have a distinct Libertarian streak. I don't want government telling me how to live my life and making value judgements for me. Nor do I want government taking my money that I earn and re-distributing it to someone who doesn't.

That's more of a Lockean Liberal than a conservative.

At least you are honest about your leanings.

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.