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
I made my comment as well. As far as the smarmy comments, lies, and mockery, its nothing that the Left doesn't do already. It's also symptomatic of why they are losing their grip ( both on their control of information and their sanity ).
" He is the first president not to have to issue a veto since James Garfield."
I think I can safely say some, perhaps many, of us wish he had exercised the veto. CFR comes to mind. We started off with public financing of elections to keep big money out, and that has obviously not worked. It is a liberal trend to say, when a law doesn't work, we just need more of them, or maybe the right ones. I think that is demonstrably erroneous.
To: (use semi-colons to separate multiple recipients)
Your Reply: (HTML auto-detected, see help for more information)
Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):
Spell Preview Post I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.
Word Wrap: ON
Loose lips sink ships.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Ready to rumble? Village Voice Author, Rick Perlstein, Here to Debate the Freeper Horde, Big Otto wrote:
"which was was Kerry's more intellectually honest vote: to authorize war OR his no vote on authorization to fund it? And why? "
Potentially neither ! To properly assess the intellectual honesty, one must first get some insight into Mr. Kerry's intentions. His set of beliefs is not that apparent.
"What was more intellectually dishonest: that vote, or the Bush admnistration's understanding that they're asking for less money than they'll really need for Iraq? "
Ahh, you obviously have tapped a source of knowledge not available to us simple conservatives. Which member(s) of the administration revealed their dishonesty to you? And, did you believe them?
-----
That would be Josh Bolton:
Before the war, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz promised that Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction," USAID Director Andrew Natsios promised Iraq operations would cost just $1.7 billion total, and the White House budget office said "Iraq will not require sustained aid." Those estimates proved far from accurate. Then last year, the White House fired top economic adviser Larry Lindsey after he acknowledged the cost of Iraq would be between $100 and $200 billion (experts now estimate it will cost over $300 billion). Budget Director Josh Bolten said on 7/29/03 that "we don't anticipate requesting anything additional for [Iraq for] the balance of this year." Six weeks later, the president asked for another $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the total to $166 billion. And this year, in an effort to obscure the worsening deficit picture, the White House omitted all costs of ongoing operations in Iraq from its budget, even as military planners said more money would be needed. Now, the White House has requested another $25 billion.
Meanwhile here's a pretty decent source on hidden costs for Iraq:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-16-04bud.htm
I will take some of that.
I have not had the time to read every post - but, I did take some time to read up on Rick's writing. He is a good writer, and a good thinker. Unfortunately, his presuppositions are just wrong. But, that is correctable.
You made a bet.
If he does what you said, I will donate a one time $100 to the board,
If he does not, you pay the $100.
Election Day is collection time.
Sir:
If you had truly watched the discussions here, you would have seen a big rift between those who call themselves Bushbots and those displeased with the president. Perhaps it looks like a greater number now strongly support the president. You have your own side to blame for that.
Knowing that the other presidential candidate is John Kerry makes some of us shudder. Today, he promised free health care for everyone. He is a blatant socialist and that makes conservatives like me grateful to have a better choice.
I have criticized the president at times on education policies and health care plans that are too vague - but those things seem petty when I look at Kerry - a man who seems to be running in a high school popularity contest rather than a presidential election.
He wants America to think he's a good guy. "I don't think abortion is right, guys! I'm normal like you!" But he won't vote for what he values. "Well, politically I won't legislate against it. It's just that I don't like it personally."
Well, fine, Mr. Kerry. But we aren't involved with your personal life and we don't really need to know what you personally believe if you're not going to vote for it.
Why would you even tell us about it? We aren't trying to elect a best friend. We're trying to elect a decent president.
No. I'll pick the serious candidate and support him with all I have. Because there's no way in the world I'm letting my country get stuck with Kerry.
IF the money mainly goes to drug companies, it's not a gift. Obviously, the drug companies are expected to do something in return for the money.
"Couple of points. When will civil war commence? Well, the bombing of four churches yesterday might suggest it already has. And that the presence of 150,000 allied forces are what's keeping the lid on, more ore less. "
Perlstein, have you no shame?
Iraqis are united in condemning this attack by Zarqawi and some baathist allies. It is NOT any kind of civil war, any more than Tim McVeighs OKC bombing was a civil war. It was terrorism, and the vast breadth of Iraqi civil and religious leadership condemned it.
United against the terrorists, Iraqis condemn the lethal bombings of the Christian Churches .
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/international/middleeast/03iraq.html?pagewanted=2&hp
" On Monday, leaders from nearly every major Muslim group, Sunni and Shiite alike, spoke out forcefully against the bombings, in what amounted to a call for national unity against what they said were terrorists aimed at pulling the country apart.
And the culprit? Why the 'local' leader of the cult of death: "The fingerprints of Zarqawi are all over the place," Dr. Rubaie said.
"It's not just because I am a Christian," said Sabbah Slewa, 47, one in a group of Christian men milling Monday morning amid the wreckage in front of the Assyrian church. "We are brothers and sisters in Iraq. They are doing this to delay civilization. They do not want the new government."
Your description of what is going on in Iraq is pathetically wrong, just as is your description of that particular act of murder.
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/
As for Juan Cole ... ROFLMAO.
"My argument was that the administration would pull back on their on-the-record goals for the civil administration--which largely revolved around U.S. privatization and the writing of a formal constiution--which proved to be 100% correct."
Ahem, the country has an interim constitution and a transition administrative law, and a path to elections, to evolve into a fully sovereign, constitutional, democratic body politic by 2006. Faster than we in the US did it. Faster than Japan post WWII, faster than Germany.
Your pessimism is pure bunk.
Sheesh.
Can someone with a stronger stomach than myself check Perlstein's replies on this thread, and assess how many include links or references to 'my articles in the Voice'? This guy posts more pop-ups than Drudge.
Give us a break. Perlstein make a comment about funds being "distributed" and to support this claim he linked to story that does not even contain the word "distributed" - that is faulty logic. The other points were to demonstrate Perlstein was wrong on many levels. This red herring of yours is silly
Only selections from the thread will be published.
Good grief. I started skimming. Rick claimed Wilson as a source?!
With that I'm off to read other threads.
~Shaking my head over holding out the likes of Wilson to buttress a point~
Ignore that, with my apologies. It was from an article I had open and mixed with your opening statement. Your opening statment might have been confrontational, accusatory and full of hypotheticals, but did not contain lies.
Sorry, but the nadir of "caring more about power than principles" came the day that Gloria Steinem wrote her editorial proposing the "one free grope rule" in order to let Clinton off the hook, and Democrats nodded their heads in agreement. Conservatives would have work long, hard, and often in order to ever even approach that level of hypocrisy and whoring of one's principles in an attempt to retain power.
In a close second place in "power over principle" is the attempt by the Democrats to steal the 2000 election through selective recounts and dishonest accusations in Florida. If you think that's overstating the case, or if you think Bush was the one trying to "steal" the election, you *really* need to stop reading the VV and start learning some facts.
And tied for third place are the betryals of principles regarding truth, semantics, honesty, and so on inherent in "oral sex is not sex", "lying under oath is not perjury", "alone doesn't mean alone", "that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", "it's just about sex", "it's just the work of a vast right wing conspiracy", etc. etc.
The list is endless. I left the Democrats (more accurately, they left me) when they abandoned principle for political expediency -- and never regained it. I don't know where the soul of the Democratic party has gone, but it hasn't made much of an appearance in the last twelve years. If it's hiding down in the grassroots, that doesn't matter much when they follow a party leadership that is willing to do anything for political advantage and power.
I hope you jest. even DUmmies can't be THAT vile... can they?
Give me a break. I'm not saying Perlstein's numbers are correct. If you are so critical of him for citing to an article that doesn't support his claim, then you are giving Southack a complete pass for doing exactly the same thing. I guess the only think that really matters is which side of the argument you are on, not the quality of the evidence.
And Perlstein is a good writer. I don't personally think he is a good thinker, as has been evidenced on this thread and in many of the witings I have read.
To: Perlstein
5 - During the Cold War, liberals condemned the United States for coddling dictators in pursuit of an anti-communist agenda. Now that George Bush has taken out one of the most brutal dictators of our time, the liberals could care less. Isn't that hypocritical?
-----
Great that Saddam is gone, but the question is whether it will be worth the cost--the cost, say, of turning Iraq into an Al Q breeding ground.
-----
6 - After Gulf War I, liberals complained that sanctions were killing over 50,000 kids a year (when instead Saddam was diverting oil-for-food revenues for bribes, palaces and military materials). But when Bush wanted to invade Iraq, liberals suddenly wanted to give sanctions all the time necessary to work. Isn't that hypocritical?
-----
You are aware, of course, that the source for the oil-for-food charges is Ahmed Chalabi, the spy for Iran and convicted bank defrauder, that Bush made his point man in Iraq?
You mistake an important part of the liberal argument. Sanctions DIDN'T work. They didn't hurt Saddam. And not because of oil-for-food. Because sanctions are a terrible instrument for changing an enemy's policy. Do you disagree?
------
7 - Using the 50,000/year dead child figure, liberals claim that we've killed 10-12,000 Iraqis during the conflict. However, we also don't have starving kids any longer. By my calculations, we're about 45,000 lives ahead. Do you disagree?
----
Don't have starving kids any more? For the second time I have to refer Freepers to the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index, especially its numbers on food production. The numbers mostly come from the Pentagon.
And it was generally children dying from rotting from diarhhea because of inability to santize water that was the gravest human rights problem with the sanctions--not starvation. Sewage ain't doing so good in Iraq to this point, however, as the Iraq Index indicates.
-----
8 - Do you find contemptable Michael Moore's depiction in Fahrenheit 9/11 of Iraq prior to the invasion as one big happy campground?
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.