11 Comments:

This isn't very impressive.

We "get the same message" from liberals, as well - from "impeach Bush!" to "Haliburton!" to "Valerie Plame" to blah blah blah.

Of course people who believe the same thing will often have similar reasons for doing so, and come to the same conclusions.

But you guys seem to be so paranoid that any strong agreement on OUR side must instantly be some boogie-man Rovian plot of "Vertical integration"!

And I don't think you guys would be very happy to bring Thomas Jefferson back, either. He was ideaologically completely opposed to what is now modern day liberalism. Jefferson slashed the Federal Budget IN HALF when he became President(imagine a President doing that today!), he didn't even believe the government should levy taxes on the people... at all... and he was very secretive during his negotiations for the Lousiana Purchase, which he did under his own Executive power.

Jefferson was not a big government guy, and the idea of pell grants, welfare, rampant taxation, spending on everything, big government, and even year-round sessions of Congress, are exactly the opposite of the Jeffersonian philosophy, and indeed, the original fouding ideals of this country.

You better hope Jefferson never comes back. He certainly wouldn't be on your side...

By  Anonymous, at 3:36 PM  

It's always a bit foolish to predict how an 18th century man will think about 21st century topics but with TJ I'm willing to take a risk. A man who said he would prefer a country with newspapers and no government to one with government and no newspapers, who believed members of the clergy should be barred from public office, felt that businessmen were unpatriotic ("the merchant has no nation"), abhorred the thought of an inherited aristocracy, essentially invented American public education, strongly favored the separation of church and state, and actually believed in more rights than just the 2nd Amendment, is hardly going to be a friend of the modern Republican party.

By  Jambo, at 5:07 PM  

But on second thought, he did believe in keeping black people in slavery and his VP was a violent nutjob who shot a man while in office so maybe he might end up a Republican today after all.

By  Jambo, at 9:20 PM  

But would he like Red Dawn? Isn't that the key to the conservative kingdom these days?

By  Hammer, at 1:17 PM  

I bet Jefferson would be opposed to lieing also, mr republican douchebag

By  Anonymous, at 4:12 PM  

Wow. Mere disagreement with leftist orthodoxy seems to be met swiftly be personal invective and namecalling.

Because I disagree, I'm apparently "Mr. Republican Douchebag", eh? And you wonder why the left is being taken less and less seriously these days? Notice I didn't call anybody a name, but was called one when I dared to present and alternate point of view.

Let me also take the "Douchebag" writer's point head-on - about "Lieing", as he says.

I often hear this from the left - "Bush lied!", but when I ask them exactly what his lie was, I never get a straight answer.

So I'm asking you now. How did "Bush lie", exactly?

As for Hammer, he resorted to personal invective, citing Red Dawn as the "keys to the Conservative Kingdom these days". Anybody that is reading this blog and this exchange must be confused by this reference. Let me shed light on where it no doubt came from.

It's a ham-handed attempt at insulting me, the poster who dares to write an opposing point of view. How it connects to me is that I found this blog by searching for "Red Dawn" on Google. And I looked at a Red Dawn post on this blog, which was my gateway to the main blog. I later returned the same way, because I couldn't remember the name of the blog, hadn't bookmarked it, and wanted to navigate back here. So I repeated the search.

For the record, I have never seen Red Dawn in my life until the night before I found this blog. I watched the movie, and as I often did, looked up information about it the next day.

So no, I am no "Red Dawn" Conservative. I thought the movie had some interesting Second Amendment ideas in the beginning, but on the whole it was a pretty cheesy eighties flick, and actually kinda boring. I love cheesy eighties flicks generally, like The Last Dragon and others of that ilk, but this just was "okay".

It was refreshing to see Hollywood do something other than the standard liberal tropes and storylines we're always used to seeing though, even if it was in a lackluster overall product.

And as for a point-by-point on the Jefferson comments:

1. Jefferson and Newspapers - how does that relate to the Republican party? Bush has not made any moves to restrict the press. Bush has had more mud hurled at him and lies told about him than any other sitting President, but he has been very tame about his treatment in the press. When Farehnheit 911 came out, full of distortions and outright misinformation, Bush didn't do anything to try and stop it, or even mention it.

Contrast that with the Left - When a documentary about critical of John Kerry was going to air on Sinclair broadcasting, a massive effort from mainstream leftists was mounted to stop it. When the Swiftboat Vets wrote a book about Kerry, he said "the book should be banned", and had his lawyers try to intervene with booksellers to get them to stop selling the book.

Bush says nothing, Kerry tries to get books banned. Who is the one trying to inhibit the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment? Who is actually using "Nazi" tactics here?

2. "Merchant has no nation" - Fine, but how does that relate to modern liberalism? Did Jefferson ever propose doing anything to restrict those merchants in their businesses in any way? Absolutely not. He didn't even want the power to tax people, let alone regulate their businesses. He may not have found them "patriotic", but he didn't want to use the government to "stick it to 'em" like liberals want to do, and he'd be absolutely abhorred by things like liberal-proposed "windfall profits taxes" and other such nonsense.

3. Who doesn't abhorr the thought of inherited aristocracy? It's the Republicans who advocate term limits, afterall. And Jefferson, again, didn't want the government to have power to break up family dynasties. In fact, he would be completely against the "estate tax", and said as much so in his first Inaugural address -

"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

This does not sound like somebody who would agree with a liberal's view of government... in any substantial respect.

4. Who doesn't support Separation of Church and State? I know that's a popular thing to say about Republicans, but it certainly isn't true.

Republicans today act no differently than did Jefferson on matters such as these.

Again from his first Inaugural Address:

"enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter -- with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? "

The Framers did not have the complete abolishment of religion in mind for this "separation". The Establishment clause's intent is quite obvious - no state religion. But they had days of prayer, chaplains, advocated religious attendence, etc. No different than today. Jefferson would certainly not have been oposed to praying over the loudspeaker at a football game, for instance.

5. Republicans believe in more rights than the Second Amendment, too, but at least they ALSO believe in that right, which most liberals cannot simply claim. What rights do you think Republicans not agree with? Free Speech? Like the Democrat-inspired(and unfortunately George Bush signed) Campaign Finance Reform? Which is a clear violation of the First Amendment? But I guess it's okay as long as it protects liberal incumbents, right?

Or what about college campus speech codes, and all other forms of liberal-inspired political correctness than seems to try and supress the "wrong" speech?

6. Then we have your second post, which I hope is an attempt at humor and nothing else, because as argument it is pretty wafer thin.

"Republicans are racist!" is the old playbook, and has simply never been accurate. More Republicans than Democrats, as a percentage of their representation, voted for the Civil Rights act, for instance. George Bush has had more black people in positions of actual major power than any other President.

Being against affirmative action does not make one "racist". In fact, defying any kind of racial preferences is by definition the opposite of racism.

And Jefferson did not "advocate" black people being enslaved anyway. Some of our country's most passionate eviscerations of slavery came from his pen, including the famous line here:

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!

2


The Almighty has no attributes which can take side with us in such a contest. But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way, I hope, preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation; and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation."

Wow - he sure mentions God alot there, doesn't he? Fascist Republican!!!

But yes, Jefferson did own slaves and never freed them. A massive contradiction and personal failure. But to say he ADVOCATED slavery is just plain wrong. Even though he didn't personally free his own slaves, he said many words AGAINST slavery over his lifetime.

And lastly, you go so far as equating a run-of-the-mill hunting accident, the kind which happens in this country thousands of times per year, with the intentional murder(perhaps) of another man in a purposeful duel.

Classy bit of argument...

Mmm hmmm.

By  Anonymous, at 6:17 PM  

When did this become David's blog? Jesus, man, I'd rather slog through a Pynchon novel then try to read a David comment from beginning to end.

Any red-blooded American conservative, even those who hold a dim view of Patrick Swayze's acting "talent," knows a Red Dawn reference. Ben Domenech

I don't know where David comes from, or where he came up with the idea that anyone cares enough about his novella-length comments to monitor his web browsing, but it's a telling. I've seen your world, David, and it scares the hell out of me. Bush has not made any moves to restrict the press? This administration revels in its record on secrecy. The examples are legion, but here's a good one for you: the Cheney energy task force. That's still secret after all these years.

By  Hammer, at 7:41 PM  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/01/BL2006060100995.html

there is your lie, I can dig and find a lot more of them.

btw, I dont see the right winning at all right now. conservatives are coming out of the woodwork bashing this administration, mr douchebag.

a true patriotic american would be rooting for the whole of america to win, not just a faction if it. you sir, are also an unpatriotic douchebag.

dont you also think, mr republican douchebag, that T.J. (thats what I like to call him) was a liberal. I mean he was part of a revolution, for christ sake.

and regarding the press
watch that from last night

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=71136


you can look at your pin ups of ann coutler for some inspiration for your next post.

By  Anonymous, at 9:02 PM  

Okay guys,

In terms of the length of my posts here, they are long out of respect for debate. Unlike some people (the "douchebag" guy) on this blog, I don't dip to the level of name-calling or personal invective, and I try to give you the respect of answering your posts in a point by point fashion.

When arguing like this, most people simply ignore most of the points made by others while only cherrypicking a couple to pick on. I say, either concede a point, or argue it - ignoring it is just disrespectful.

I'm not disrespectful to you. I don't call you names or ignore the points you bring up. I choose to engage them.

Another thing that takes up space is the fact that I try to provide supporting information to back up my points when possible. Just saying "Bush sux" ain't to great of an argument. Or even "Bush lied" - you must tell me why. So I choose to not only type what I believe, but why I believe so.

As to your points in these last posts, I don't think "secrecy" is a very strong argument for the idea that Bush is somehow sabatoging the press. It's always been a pretty lame-duck charge. Many things are "secrets" in any administration. Bush's is no different.

And for the "douchebag" name-calling guy - I am actually NOT arguing that Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In fact, I am very unhappy with Bush right now, and have refused to donate any money to the Republican party because of it. I've also written several articles denouncing some of Bush's actions - from immigration, to campaign finance reform, to the Medicare Prescription Drug Entitlement, to Ted Kennedy's Farm Bill, to Tom Daschle's Education Bill, to steel tariffs, to rampant government spending, and on and on and on.

In fact, if you take away tax policy and national security, Bush has been a pretty moderate to liberal President, getting programs Bill Clinton only dreamed of passing through Congress.

And I'm a libertarian conservative. I don't like this big government "Conservatism" nonsense that these bureacrats are so happily practicing today.

Just because I defend Bush against spurious charges, doesn't mean I agree with him on everything. For Conservatives, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing, you know. Just look at National Review - they attack Republicans almost as much as Democrats. Liberals are always much more in lock-step with each other than Conservatives.

And that's your example of Bush's "lie" that you thought Jefferson would be so appalled at? About a political appointment? Jefferson himself told little white lies of that nature too - such as his refutation of the guy smearing John Adams to Adam's face, but then his tacit support of him later in secret.

And Bill Clinton told much bigger whoppers. How about him running a campaign on a "Middle Class Tax Cut" - which was a centerpiece to his 1992 campaign? He never even tried to get it passed. There's much more, but that's an actual "lie" like the ones I thought you were referring to - not a white lie about an appointment to keep the markets happy.

And Helen Thomas? The most anti-Bush demagogue in the press corps says Bush is bad to the press!!! And that's big news? That's not evidence. She's an anti-Bush partisan. If I told you Bill Clinton was bad, and you asked "why?", and my supporting evidence was "Rush Limbaugh says he's bad", would you find that compelling?

Didn't think so.

By  Anonymous, at 10:14 PM  

The original post here was less than 100 words. So far, you've posted 2,242 words in your comments. It would be helpful if you did what you claimed, but you don't. You accused me of calling you names with a comment about Red Dawn. You don't answer your mistake at all. Instead, you start talking about being a libertarian conservative.

This post isn't about the lies of Bush, your political philosophy, Helen Thomas's credibility, affirmative action, whether someone hurt your feelings by calling you a name, what quotes you'd like to make up for John Kerry, or how many articles you've written about what. It was about how rapidly and utterly the right wing political machine develops and propagates a consistent message. It's uncanny. I'd wager that Karl Rove is very proud of the message apparatus he has perfected. Why you would object to noticing that fact is beyond me.

By  Hammer, at 8:11 AM  

I did not know you wanted blog comments to be restricted to the original post and the original post only, and that one shouldn't answer other commenters who argue back with a comment.

The other points you mention were in response to other posts, in response to mine. It's the natural flow of a conversation.

As for the Red Dawn thing, I didn't pursue that because it's inarguable. I can say nothing more about your motivations for putting that up here. It stuck out like a sore thumb in the middle of this conversation, so I assumed it was a reference to my entry to this site. You say it's not. I accept that, as I have no way of proving otherwise.

As for the "Republican machine", that's just more overblown stuff like the "secrecy of the administration" crap.

Like-minded people will often come to like-minded conclusions on an issue, and Conservatives feel strongly about what the New York Times did.

The question is not one about a "free press" like so many liberal bloggers have said. Or "put it out in the open so we can decide it Democractically." That's some pretty heavy spin for what happened here. This was a classified national security program.

The question is really this:

Who has the right to decide which National Security programs are classified, to hide them from our enemies? Is it the ELECTED representatives of our country? Or a bunch of newspaper guys in a private enerprise? Is it the President? Or the New York Times who gets to decide such things?

And what they did very clearly violates the espionage act. They took it upon themselves to usurp the elected branches of government, and clearly violated the espionage laws in doing so.

And in the process they have compromised a program that had already helped us catch lots of people otherwise trying to kill us. And now, because of the New York Times, some of the international partners in this program have pulled out of it, because we can't keep it a secret.

And so a very effective anti-terror tool - of the EXACT kind the New York Times itself called for in a paper editorial after 9/11 - has been effectively ruined by the unelected private enterprise newspaper guys. All in the name of winning a Pulitzer and hurting Bush.

And remember, this was despite the fact that they admitted the program is legal, safeguards are in place, and the appropriate members of Congress had been briefed.

Of course Conservatives would come out against such a thing strongly. Any sane person would. It is so clearly wrong.

And it's not to say the Democrats don't have a talking-point "machine", either. Any major issue of the day - within a day, you'll have the entire media and Democrat establishment parroting the exact same line, with even the same phrases. Conservative radio shows like Rush Limbaugh often run clips of media outlets from everywhere saying exactly the same phrase on an issue, as if it's come straight from a Democrat talking-point.

There is no differnce in the "vertical integration" you describe from one party to another. It's not a "Rove" thing, it's a politics thing. Thinking otherwise is just more paranoid "boogie-man Rove" stuff. Which is just silly.

And finally, I'm not sure if you're aware, but the first thread I commented in below now has eight comments - but they won't load up for me. The page only partially loads, no matter which browswer I try. So I haven't been able to read your response there.

By  Anonymous, at 8:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home