Perlstain, "So I says, evens ifs ya win da rat race youz still a rat... LIKE ME!"
Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
Rick you strike me as being what I call an honest Leftist, so allow me to give an honest Rightist's assessment of Bush, of the Western Right, and other related topics.
Ever since the reputed end of the Cold War there has been much confusion among Rightists regarding our role and regarding just which ones SHOULD be our core principles. Particularly in vogue have been two popular threads - one of which is sort of a rabidly idealistic and individualistic libertarianism, and the other of which is a variety of center-right 3rd wayism, commonly mislabled as "neoconservatism."
The second thread has clearly taken center stage.
While I personally agree with certain aspects of so called "neoconservatism" where I differ is on the topic of national sovereignty and how it really needs to, in certain cases, trump purely economic or commercial concerns. I also differ with so called "neoconservatives" whereby I believe that good old fashioned geopolitics and nation-state to nation-state conflict is still the main deal, whereas many of them somehow now believe that there is a new deal, whereby "non state actors" and "rogue states" come up against an overwhelming majority of countries, around 85% of them, who are considered "civilized."
As I see it there are a couple of misconceptions that have fueled the so called "neoconservative" view. The first is that we "won" the Cold War. In many ways, we did. But it was not the "clean" sort of win where we occupied the enemy's cities, hung their leaders, and unlocked their concentration camps. It was more like the end of WW1, but even more watered down than the Treaty of Versailles. When so called "neoconservatives" beat their chests about "winning the Cold War" I personally find such claims to be quite unimpressive and such claims have zero currency for me. The second misconception is that the commercialistic, globalist, center-right construction currently in vogue is "in the process of winning the world." [To those who might think that I am coming at this via a LEFTIST critique, I'd like to remind you that the construction I've illuminated here is in and of itself essentially a liberal, elitist, intellectual one, much popularized by folks like Francis Fukuyma and Thomas L. Friedman. It is more a relic of the Clinton era than it is somehow truly current.]
All of that said, what I admire about Bush is that he took action quickly after 9/11. He also showed a sense of national identity, and perhaps even a much needed small dose of nationalism, when he gave a series of two speeches, a few months apart, rallying the USA to the fight in our War on Terror. So, at the end of the day, even though Bush has largely staked his own electoral bet with overtly identifying with the center-right globalist, economistic, 3rd Way, he still strikes me as someone with whom I and my cohorts further to the right can work with. Therefore, come November, my vote shall be for George W. Bush.
FReegards!
SO true, and worth repeating.
It's not slow at all. I think you should see the error of your ways and vote for W and all Republicans. Then you can use the tax rebate to upgrade your computer and get a cable connection from your ISP.
My pleasure. And I understand. :^)
Maybe he's just waiting for a stuned beeber to yell "Cheese" and bite his sister's moose while she's in the shower?
Seriesly.
Rick Perlstein
I was there the same time Hanoi Kerry was.
I was there Oct'68-Apr'69 as a GMG 3
I served on the destroyer USS Corry DD-817
which supplied PCF's and PBR's
and gave gunfire support in North AND South Viet Nam.
My ship may have even supplied Hanoi Kerry's boat.
I VOW to the 58,229 + names on The Wall who never came home
"I will do everything I LEGALLY can
to keep this traitor from being elected."
To: whereasandsoforth
I have the same problem- there's a disconnect in perception so vast that I won't even bother to point out the error in such thinking. I read over "Ready to rumble? Village Voice Author, Rick Perlstein, Here to Debate the Freeper Horde" and while Perlstein seems a lot more rational and generally decent than the average Avatar from the left side, there is an unbreachable gulf fixed between us.
Leave it to veronica to make your point for you. Either you are a neo-con, or you are a Palestinian homicide bomber.
Hey, Rick: here is a quote from Reinnhold Niebuhr:
Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Reinhold Niebuhr
I think that sums up exactly the situation in Iraq. I have faith in God and America.
Why do you believe that Iraq must become true and make complete sense in the immediate context of history?
----
I'm really glad Chookter said this. It's what I mean by "un-American"--I will argue again and again, and gladly, that to base our politics in the faith that everything will somehow just work out well in the end because of WHO WE ARE instead of WHAT WE DO. It is an absolute abrogation of the republic (small-r) principle of self-government.
Who's with Chookter?
RP
This is true of all politicians, even the one's without charisma. It's also why the Government is set up with checks and balances.
Yes, I think conservatives do this more egregiously.
You think, which is your right, but that doesn't mean it is so.
Tip O'Neill once kept a congressional vote open for 15 minutes to twist arms, and that was not kosher. By contrast, Tom DeLay and Hastert kept the medicare vote open for THREE HOURS, and threatened a congressman that they would destroy his son's congressional campaign if he did not vote that way.
I'm unaware of the DeLay example you state, but even if it is as you say, that's one example. And I would argue that it was equally wrong of Tip O'Neill. Wrong behavior is wrong behavior. You seem to think that some wrong behavior can be excused by applying degrees.
Yes, politics is a tough game. But Republicans have recently been stretching their indecency beyond bounds.
I would state that it is the Democrats who are stretching the bounds. Claiming on the Senate floor that "Bush Knew" about 9/11? Please...
Why would that make us nuts? Pakistan was able to develop nuclear weapons, construct test sites, and detonate a nuclear explosive without a single intelligence agency on the planet seeing it happen.
NOT A SINGLE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY on the planet saw it coming. None. The entire world was taken by surprise. In fact, even after they detonated the bomb the world was unsure what had happened until Pakistan made a public announcement to the world that they had "joined the club."
From one interview you extrapolate it to describe "Many". nice piece of work.
Yes...a measure of your sincerity will be your ability to resist the temptation to base your demeanor and responses on inflammatory rhetoric. Here on FreeRepublic we have our share of hotheads and youngsters and those who post before they think. Do not use any of this as an excuse to avoid answering questions.
I'm mainly watching, but this jumped out at me:
"Shallow: the rise of Ann Coulter."
Fellow FReepers, don't fall for it - he's trying to make you angry. Silly debate tactics.
Please show me where I said that. You put words in my mouth.
2. y'all is nuts if you STILL BELIEVE Iraq managed to ship tons of RADIOACTIVE ORE halfway across the Eastern hemisphere without anyone noticing
Bush didn't say that - he claimed that Iraq attempted to acquire the yellowcake, not that he actually did. You put words in Bush's mouth.
So far, you're 0-2 in the honest answer department. Not the greatest start on the world.
Perlstain, "So I says, evens ifs ya win da rat race youz still a rat... LIKE ME!"
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.