Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
Opening Statement
Dear FRiends:
I once suffered two great frustrations in being a freelance political writer. First, the loneliness: you put an article out there, and you might as well have thrown it down a black hole for all the response you get. Second, the ghettoization: when you do get response, it would be from folks you agree with. Not fun for folks like me who reliish--no, crave and need--political argument.
Then came the Internet, the blogs--and: problem solved.
I have especially enjoyed having my articles in the Village Voice posted on Free Republic by "dead," and arguing about them here. The only frustration is that I never have enough time--and sometimes no time--to respond as the threads are going on. That is why I arranged for an entire afternoon--this afternoon--to argue on Free Republic. Check out my articles and have at me.
A little background: I am a proud leftist who specializes in writing about conservatives. 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.)
Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.
I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.
Finally, in what I see as the errors of the Iraq campaign, I recognize the worst aspects of arrogant left-wing utopianism: the idea that you can remake a whole society and region through sheer force of will. I think Iraq is a tragic disaster (though for the time being the country is probably better off than it was when Saddam was around--but only, I fear, for the time being).
I am also, by the way, a pretty strong critic of my own side, as can be seen in my latest Village Voice piece.
So: I'm yours for the day--until 7:10 pm CST, when I'm off to compete in my weekly trivia contest at the University of Chicago Pub. Until then: Are you ready to rumble?
Respectfully,
Rick Perlstein
You gotta it Gramma. How refreshing to be able to talk to my kids about President Bush rather than explaing oral sex to my kids when speaking of President Clinton. LOL
One thing liberals such as Mr. Perlstein don't get is, most conservatives are fairly religious. This is a generalization I know, but I myself am fairly religious and would feel really uncomfortable worshiping another human being. That old Commandment about putting other things ahead of God! Since a lot of those on the left don't have this frame of reference, they have a hard time understanding, plain old respect and admiration for an authority figure. The left has a hard time with authority, because they don't really want to grow up. The Baby-Boom Legacy rears it's ugly head.
I would ask Rick if he feels that religion is more of an influence on conservative thought as opposed to liberal thought.
Thank you! :)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-03-insidethebudget_x.htm
Did you read the article Mr. Perlstein?
First, it says nothing about the money going mainly to drug companies so I guess we are to assume you made that part up.
Second, the article points out Bush promised 15 billion over five years. it says Bush asked for 2 billion in 2004 and 2.8 billion in 2005. So that means Bush has 4.8 billion alloted in the first two years of his pledge. 2% of 15 is 3 billion so you are only off by 1.8 billion. Clearly you did not get that 2% number from the article so I guess we must assume you made that one up too.
As far as whether the second order was an order to "attack", you can rely on a reporter's choice of words all you want. I'll rely on the participants in the conversations.
It is obvious that you have zero interest in the facts.
"...two years after Bush made his pledge, only 2 percent of the AIDS money has been distributed..." - Perlstein
$2 Billion last year (from your source) out of $15 Billion and yet you claim that only 2% has been distributed?!
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Hear, hear! From what I have read, this man is incapable of debate. Even with a typing ability of 100+wpm, Mr. Perlstein is incapable. Why? Because the only true belief that he has is that conservatives are evil. How about some sort of 'stream of conciousness', on the spot debating, Mr. Perlstein? My guess is because you simply cant.
Would you like to know why conservatives are gaining power and the lameass left is powerless to stop it? It is because conservatives not only know what they believe, but can explain why they believe it, and can make the best logical case for why it is right. On the fly. At the drop of a hat. With the majority of the appeal aimed at the INTELLECT of the listener. The left makes whiney pleas to the EMOTIONS of the listener. Which is why anti-conservative bilge is the pro-leftist philosophy of you and yours.
This is turning out just the way that I thought it would, a liberal spinning like a top, refusing to answer any questions directly and acting snotty and superior while doing it...JFK
I am aware that a story was reported in the media saying that and then it was evidently debunked.
Look past the source (I'm not Newsmax fan/booster in particular) and look at the fact they report speaking directly with the chief spokesperson of the Archives.
Archives Denies Report That Berger Is in the Clear
Is there additional information on this subject?
SNEAK??????
If Michael Moore really wasn't wanted in the sky box, why didn't Jimmy Carter throw him out? Oh that's right Carter is a wimp!
Oh please. That's cute. I assume that replaces actually trying to determine what happened for you. Do you even care what happened? Or do you just want to advance a position, whether it is accurate or not?
*Another* link to the Village Voice, instead of a proper reply?
This must be the best laugh of all for you- more Freepers reading your turgidity, than liberals.
He could have showed up at any old time and announced he wanted a debate.
I remain suspicious, since he never answered my questions in the original thread.
Perhaps he has observers. And perhaps although HE has pledged not to write an article, I will not be surprised to say a hit piece from one of his "observers."
Try language along with some facts: "asked for" is not the same as "distributed."
There are times when "popular sentiment" is wrong and laws are clearly unconstitutional. I agree with the Supreme Court when it said:
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."
Loving v. Virginia was based on the Constitution and black letter law. That isn't true of Roe v. Wade, for example, which made up a new "right" out of whole cloth with a fantasy reference to "penumbras". The Supreme Court just made something up to cover up its own lawlessness.
Nope! Math check: 10% of $15 Billion is $1.5 Billion. 2% of $15 Billion is $300 million. Clearly Bush distributed more than that last year, per the source ($2 Billion).
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
I read the above post with interest, especially your idea that conservatism is "verging on becoming an un-American creed," in that you suggest conservatives are not obeying laws. Would you care, then, to defend Sandy Berger's actions to FReepers? Bill and Hillary Clinton and the 2000 felonies under Clinton's watch, along with the selling of die-casting tools, along with 1 mm pages of nuclear secrets, to the PRC?
-----
Once again: the 9/11 commission has just exonerated Berger. What felonies were the Clintons convicted of? And I don't know the facts of the China case. But it coudln't have been worse than the satellites Nixon and Kissinger gave China in exchange for nomalization. And I for one was pretty disgusted when Bush grovelled to the PRC when they shot down our plain, and was surprised more conservatives weren't.
------
To suggest that people who disagree with your political view are un-American simply paves the way for you to cheer on the gulag approach to silencing opposition.
------
You need to read my article more carefully. I don't say my conclusion has anything to do with people disagreeing with my poltiical views. I said it's because they base their judgement on Bush, not on his actions, but their conviction of his fundamental decency, something the Founding Fathers never would have countenanced. That, to take another example beyond the Federalist Papers, is why George Washington insisted on stepping down from the presidency.
------
As for breaking the law, I suggest you read up on how democrats have confessed to stealing elections on the manual recount idea, or look into the Senate Ethics Committees rules on how it is that a Senator can be absent for so much of the time from his job and still get paid, when people who work for a living would be fired.
------
Do you really want to count up the roll calls of previous senators running for president against Kerry's? That's just what people do when they run for president. if the senate doesn't like it--well, they make their own rules, and they can change them. They don't seem inclined to.
Tell me where to read about Democrats confessing to stealing elections and I'll look it up. Right now I'm pretty preoccupied by the St. Peteresburg Times' scoop about Jeb Bush publicly insisting that the computer voting machines are perfectly reliable, while privately advising Florida Democrats to file for absentee ballots because the computer voting machiens aren't reliable.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/29/State/GOP_flier_questions_n.shtml
----
I look forward to you elaborating your point about Life magazine covers. It was lost on me in this go-round.
Sir, twice in the last week, I have both read and heard "un-American" used, both times by Democrats/liberals, and once on video, but later denied, by T Heinz-Kerry. This is projection in my book. The desire to preserve the values of an American Heritage that has been plundered over the last 45 years is a conservative goal, and a liberal's anathema. Go look at old Life covers and trace the change yourself. Furthermore, the vision of a hands-off government is still a hallmark of a conservative. Witness the newest suggestion by Hastert to use a flat-tax, and perhaps do away with the IRS.
As a liberal ideologue, you can no more convince me than I can you. I recognize this. But, I will be interested in your answers, but not before you go read the communist goals that were read into the Congressional Record in the 60s, if you haven't already. Un-American? You called it sir. You.
Let us not forget that North Korea is a crowing acheivement of Clinton foreign policy and the United Nations' committment to non-proliferation. Why, Jimmy Carter engineered the Nuclear Agreed Framework and the UN trotted out Hanz Blix, then head of the IAEA, to enfore it. Yessiree, DPRNK is the UN/Clinton/Carter baby, and we're still waiting for them to clean it up.
Frankly, most libs want to post their rants and run. By having a Freeper with creds introduce him, I was willing to read a little of what he has to say. At least he is not some anonymous DU troll--pretending to be Perlstein.
You have a source that says he "distributed" 300 million? Cool - 'cause that ain't what your earlier post said.
Please see post 290 if you think my prior post was not worthy of a response.
A couple things:
If he's been around FR for any length of time he'd know that this is no rah-rah section for W. Many of us have been angry w/ some of his policies, even his most loyal supporters have raised questions.
-----
Pietro, two things: first of all, check out the live thread on Bush's 4/04 press conference. It was stunningly worshipful. Second, it's my understanding some pretty serious charges have been made (pretty serious if you take the name of the site seriously) that paleocons critical of Bush have been banned from Free Republic.
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.