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

08/03/2004 | Rick Perlstein

[Uncle Miltie]

"Kerry repeated his charge that Bush under-funded veterans programs by $1.8 billion. Bush has in fact increased the department's budget, though not nearly as much as Kerry and veterans groups have sought. Over the course of his administration, Bush, along with Congress, has increased the agency's discretionary spending -- programs not mandated by law -- by about $7 billion, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs."

Per Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64376-2004May28.html

[BSunday]

Hey, all the other second and third tier columnists find their stuff here too. Don't feel bad.

Now there's a lady with some class /sarcasm

Please ignore her, since the kids left for college 20 years ago she no longer knows how to treat guests

[VRWC_minion]

Should SS be means tested ?

[Semi Civil Servant]

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.

How exactly do conservatives enact and enforce laws when black letter laws are routinely overturned and subverted by liberal courts?

Liberalism is no longer advanced through law; it is advanced through court edict. Time after time the clear meanings of laws and the Constitution itself are swept aside by judges with a liberal agenda. I cite the gay "marriage" movment going on right now. Judges are running rough-shod over the wishes of a large percentage of the people and their legislators.

Judges are increasingly MAKING law, not interpreting it. It seems to me it is the liberals who couldn't care less about the law.

[danneskjold]

Reposted to Perlstein

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.

Mr Perlstein:

Two part question:

1. What examples can you site of conservatives doing what you claim above?
2. Is it your claim that liberals do not engage in this behavior?

Thank you...

[Taliesan]

when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles.

This is true, of course, and your anger at it says good things about you. I assume you were FURIOUS for the previous 8 years.

Specifically, when Robert Byrd said that if Clinton perjured himself that would be an impeachable offense, then he voted to acquit Clinton -- wasn't that an egregious example of putting power over principle?

[MarMema]

I'm mostly curious why someone who appears so intelligent would vote for a leader like Kerry.

[BSunday]

Ooops. Sorry mr I thought it said mrs. My 40 yo eyes, dontcha know. ;)

[cake_crumb]

"In Perlstein's article on people who love Bush, I wondered why he painted conservatives/Republicans as people who change the subject if they don't have a good answer, when that's exactly what liberals/Democrats do."

Because by projecting their own tactics onto conservatives, Dems hope to put us on the defensive. Keeping your opponent on the defensive is the way to prevent them from launching a counter attack. When that doesn't work, they scream bloody murder at about 110 decibles, until the opposition is silenced. That's why I don't watch shows like Hannity and Colmes anymore (though I do listen to his radio show)

[Bahbah]

Hi, Mr. Perlstein: I am at work right now so I will only take the time to welcome you and applaud your willingness to debate your ideas. Good for you.

[Mudboy Slim]

"...when you ask whether a nice guy would invade a country at the cost of untold innocent lives on the shakiest of pretenses?"

So, is this what you really believe about the Liberation of Iraq?! Tens of millions of Iraqis FReed from Totalitarian Despotism and Mass Graves, and you see it as an "invasion"!! Mr. Perlstein, was the Liberation of Kuwait an "invasion"? How 'bout when America LIBERATED Germany, Japan, Italy, much of South America, and eastern Europe?! What is it about LIBERTY that Lib'rals so loathe?

FReegards...MUD

[section9]

Actually, Perlstein tends to be one of the few people from DUllsville who will actually come on here and debate.

His problem, and it is one he shares with Michael Moore and other left partisans, is that he hates Bush. Hatred never won an election. His reasoning in above article, that Bush has led Republicans to a land of power-mongering for power-mongering's sake, is mere rationalization for his dislike of Bush and the Republican Party.

It does no good to wrap up one's dislike of Republicans because they are trying to win elections. That's what political parties are supposed to do, Rick. Citing Madison's Federalist 51 against Republicans does no good if you don't cite it against those who supported Roosevelt, Truman, or Lincoln.

People compete for power in democracies. It's what they do. Rick, you don't like what Republicans are doing because they are becoming very good at it. Back in the old days, when the Party was run by a bunch of Country Club types, we actually rolled over when people like Rick said we were a bunch of racists who should support Democrats to prove how virtuous we were. Thankfully, the country club set is dying out and being replaced by fighters like Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum (and Arnold, who uses different means to achieve the same end-victory).

In short, there was a time when Democrats could sieze the moral high ground and insist that Republicans jump through hoops to be as virtuous as they were. Of course, it was bullcrap. Hell, in 1964, it was Republicans in the Senate and the House who gave LBJ the margin of victory in the Civil Rights debate. Unfortunately, that idiot Goldwater had to "stand on principle" (as Perlstein would prefer, of course) and killed us with the black community for the next fifty years.

In the intervening decades, the internet has arisen and power has swept out of the editorial rooms of the great House Organs of the Democratic Party, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the news divisions of the three Alphabet Networks. In short, the Ministry of Truth the peddled the Conventional Wisdom of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Georgetown, and Bel Air is collapsing of its own weight.

People aren't listening anymore. They are assuming that the liberal media is lying to them. There is a reason the FOX News Channel is as popular as it is.

Strategically, this is bad for Democrats. You'll notice they got a dead cat bounce out of their convention? There was no optimism there; rather there was an undercurrent of palpable loathing of Bush, his family, and his dog Barney. The media tried to spin this the best they could for their chosen favorite, John Kerry. It didn't work.

Common Tator long ago made a convincing argument on these boards that the media doesn't have the power to move elections that they think they do. It will take a while for that to sink in. When Bush wins this November, media folk will be very confused. After all, everyone they know will have voted for Kerry.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Dutchgirl]

I glanced breifly at your writings and find the same sort of moral vacuum that I ran up against last night, an avid pro abortionist who had "feelings" about all the "good" our federal government should be doing in terms of social programs, while at the same time decrying the "evil" of conservatives who foist their religious beliefs on women who "only" want a federally protected right to kill their unborn children, children that they chose through their own actions to conceive.

So, as I leave the office for home, I ask for a reasoned liberal explanation of the place of concepts such as "good" and "evil" in a government that cannot admit to a concept of God. I'll respond when I get home.

[Southack]

You wrote "When we think of Bush's character, we're likely to focus on the administration's proposed budget cuts for veterans, the children indefinitely detained at Abu Ghraib, maybe the story of how the young lad Bush loaded up live frogs with firecrackers in order to watch them explode."

Could you please post a source or somehow support a factcheck on those above-mentioned claims?

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Uncle Miltie]

"Say, when you ask whether a nice guy would invade a country at the cost of untold innocent lives on the shakiest of pretenses?"

Supported by John Kerry, John Edwards, most of the Senate, and the intelligences estimates of which were agreed by every country on record.

Your argument is shakier than the evidence believed by your liberal betters at the time.

[Perlstein]

To: dead

"when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles

1.) Obviously, the author has not listened to a great amount of conservative talk radio hosts who rail against Bush's immigration and spending policies (just to name a few).

2.) Isn't it intellectualy dishonest to paint a group of people with a broad brush? I thought the left was more open minded than that.

----
1) I have--and haven't heard much about it lately. But my concern is with grassroots conservatives, as I relate in my recent article.

2) I said "many" because I meant "many," not all.

As a Freeper wrote to me recently:

You
From [NAME OMITTED] | 07/24/2004 6:51:30 AM PDT replied



I'm a conservative, and will vote for Bush because everything that is wrong with him is a defining characteristic of Kerry, but you are 100% right on the Federalist papers and the undue adolation of Bush. It's one thing for kids and teenagers to revere the President in such a manner, but grown adults should know better.

[Phsstpok]

OK, when I started my post there were no replies in here. By the time I hit POST there were about 80. Do you tink that maybe a few folks had stuff sitting in an edit window just waiting to dump it into a post to you?

I think we've found an untapped source of very valuable text generation! This could be hugh! I'm series!

Going to take a shower now.

[True Capitalist]

Question: Do you honestly believe National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is just a misunderstood careless slob who inadvertently stuffed top secrete highly classified documents in his pants and socks and he really only has the country's best interest's at heart?

Should the laws designed to protect highly classified documents for our national security be enforced against Berger, especially given that he admits to having "inadvertently" destroyed some of these documents?

[WOSG]

"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."

HUH? This sounds like a perfect argument against the Massachusetts Supreme Court and their over-ruling of the will of the people of that state. The Judicial tyrants place the will of the Judge above the Rule Of Law, separateion of powers, judicial restraint and democratic principles, and it has seriously gotten out of hand.

The Title of Federalist #51 is: "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments"

Because we dont have an explicit veto of the over-reaching of judicial branch, it is important for the Judges themselves to undertand and respect those boundaries, even if it collides with their political philosophy.

Madison said: "In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." But Madison seems to have been forgotten by modern Judges, who treated the legislative branch like man-servants, snapping their fingers: "fetch me a law, pronto! ... and make sure you make it a *real* gay marriage law, none of this 'equivalent rights' nonsense!"

It was wrong for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to impose their political philosophy into the legal decision in the way they did; it had no just basis in law, no basis in precedent; no basis in the text. they usurped legislative branch and trampled on the original intent and text of their own state's constitution.

Conservative opposition to this judicial over-reach is consistent with Federalist 51. So your concern is misplaced.

And even if you disagree, as Al Gore would say, there is no need to get snippy about it.

If disobeying federalist 51 is 'unAmerican', then, go ahead, declare the 9th Circuit Judges and the other Judicial Activists trampling down the rule of law and rights of the people as 'unAmerican'. But dont pick on conservatives on that basis.

[Phantom Lord]

Ah, I think you wrote to the wrong person. I think you want Mr. Perlstein. You pinged me instead.