Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/18/2008 12:17:19 PM EDT
I think this November we will see the so-called 'Neo-Conservative' movement utterly repudiated by the American people.

You have a president who went from a 90+% approval rating to becoming one of the most despised, least-liked presidents in modern history. His party had control of the House, Senate, and the Executive branch, but managed to not only lose control of the majority, but, most likely, will have paved the way to give the liberal, Democratic party a super-majority in congress.

His involvement in an unpopular war and his attempts at and support for statist/socialist domestic policies at home were, without question, the death knell for the so-called neo-cons and their 'movement'.

In less than 8 years, we voluntarily handed everything back to the Democrats and then some...
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:19:01 PM EDT
There is no such thing as a neo-conservative.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:19:30 PM EDT
And in eight years they will hand it back to us. Prepare for the suck.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:19:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
There is no such thing as a neo-conservative.


And the mafia only exists in the Sopranos..

Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:20:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
There is no such thing as a neo-conservative.


And the mafia only exists in the Sopranos..



Fine.  Define "neo-conservative."
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:21:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
There is no such thing as a neo-conservative.


I guess all the self described neo-conservatives are mistaken.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:21:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 12:21:42 PM EDT by poink]

Originally Posted By Jrock82:
And in eight years they will hand it back to us. Prepare for the suck.


I would rather a longer, more painful handover to a third party than simply a throw-back to the Republican party. This current crop of clowns does not deserve to be dog-catchers, let alone run anything on the national level.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:22:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:23:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I smell Ronbot's.


We have a winner
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:24:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By poink:
I think this November we will see the so-called 'Neo-Conservative' movement utterly repudiated by the American people.


We can only hope.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:24:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
There is no such thing as a neo-conservative.


And the mafia only exists in the Sopranos..



Fine.  Define "neo-conservative."


The Pittsburgh Tribune did a good story on this a few years ago.

Link
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:25:32 PM EDT
Only idiot children use the term neo-con any more the term has been so misused it has no meaning now.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:26:57 PM EDT
Not really.  Neo-conservatives are liberals who have an authoritarian bent, but otherwise liberals.  It looks like we will be replacing a liberal Republican with a liberal Democrat.  I am not seeing any "repudiation" of anything here.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:28:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I smell Ronbot's.


Yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I fail to see how that changes the fact of anything I have said and/or anything we have seen or are currently experiencing.

This administration and its affiliates became the poison pill for the Republican party. Do you think all of the support Democrats are currently receiving is simply because people agree with their asinine ideas and policies? No, it's because people are *DONE* with the 'neo-cons' and anything they have to say and/or offer.

McCain would probably be winning if Bush had not made being affiliated with his party so utterly nauseating in the minds of most people.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:29:54 PM EDT
neo-con is a term that has so many conflicting meanings that it has no meaning.  Just like the mythical "Bush doctrine."  Neither term represents any significant variation from traditional conservatism or realpolitik foreign policy.  Despite the hysterics of the left, the Bush administration was nothing more than a moderately conservative administration, albeit one that was ineptly managed.  
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:33:13 PM EDT
huh?
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:33:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Only idiot children use the term neo-con any more the term has been so misused it has no meaning now.


What has happened is that anti-Semites have used it as a code word for "Jews" because a lot of the movements founders were secular Jewish liberals and this has resulted in those same folks insisting that it is a slur against their religion (which they observe about as much as I do).  There is a neo-conservative movement, is has had a large impact on the Bush Administration because their hostility towards actual conservatives has left them high and dry when it comes to friendly intellectuals and the neo-cons filled the gap.

The people described as "neo-cons" have been around for years.  During the Reagan years they were seen as liberals who had seen the light, in many cases because they were Jewish and the reality of the potential extermination of the Jewish state actually kick-started their brains.  THIS WAS NOT SEEN AS A PROBLEM!  The plight of Israel was the "mugging" that a lot of liberal secular Jews needed to take the Cold War seriously.

The problem was that the Bush people chose to listen to some of the weirder ones and to predicate things like foreign policy based on a startling lack of facts.  That speaks more to Bush's judgement or lack thereof than any evil Jewish conspiracy.

For my money it's nice to see some of the American Jewish community wake up because a staggering amount of the policies of the people they elect are seriously damaging to the American Jewish community, but that's a whole other discussion.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:34:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 12:36:59 PM EDT by vaughn4380]

Originally Posted By poink:
I think this November we will see the so-called 'Neo-Conservative' movement utterly repudiated by the American people.

You have a president who went from a 90+% approval rating to becoming one of the most despised, least-liked presidents in modern history. His party had control of the House, Senate, and the Executive branch, but managed to not only lose control of the majority, but, most likely, will have paved the way to give the liberal, Democratic party a super-majority in congress.

His involvement in an unpopular war and his attempts at and support for statist/socialist domestic policies at home were, without question, the death knell for the so-called neo-cons and their 'movement'.

In less than 8 years, we voluntarily handed everything back to the Democrats and then some...

You are correct, the GOP did it to themselves.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:34:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
neo-con is a term that has so many conflicting meanings that it has no meaning.  Just like the mythical "Bush doctrine."  Neither term represents any significant variation from traditional conservatism


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.  Seriously, you need to go and look up the definition of every word you used that has more than two syllables.

You should change your avatar to this:

Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:36:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
There is no such thing as a neo-conservative.


And the mafia only exists in the Sopranos..



Fine.  Define "neo-conservative."


The Pittsburgh Tribune did a good story on this a few years ago.

Link


That is a perjorative label.  There isn't a SINGLE person calling themselves "neo-conservative".

This election is more of  a rise in neo-communism with B. Hussein Obama as its main benefactor.

THAT is an insult to the founders of this country.  
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:36:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
neo-con is a term that has so many conflicting meanings that it has no meaning. Just like the mythical "Bush doctrine."  Neither term represents any significant variation from traditional conservatism or realpolitik foreign policy.  Despite the hysterics of the left, the Bush administration was nothing more than a moderately conservative administration, albeit one that was ineptly managed.  


Not really.  It is an actual conservative movement, with a clear origin, people of note, publications, organizations, and so on.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:37:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By trwoprod:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Only idiot children use the term neo-con any more the term has been so misused it has no meaning now.


What has happened is that anti-Semites have used it as a code word for "Jews" because a lot of the movements founders were secular Jewish liberals and this has resulted in those same folks insisting that it is a slur against their religion (which they observe about as much as I do).  There is a neo-conservative movement, is has had a large impact on the Bush Administration because their hostility towards actual conservatives has left them high and dry when it comes to friendly intellectuals and the neo-cons filled the gap.

The people described as "neo-cons" have been around for years.  During the Reagan years they were seen as liberals who had seen the light, in many cases because they were Jewish and the reality of the potential extermination of the Jewish state actually kick-started their brains.  THIS WAS NOT SEEN AS A PROBLEM!  The plight of Israel was the "mugging" that a lot of liberal secular Jews needed to take the Cold War seriously.

The problem was that the Bush people chose to listen to some of the weirder ones and to predicate things like foreign policy based on a startling lack of facts.  That speaks more to Bush's judgement or lack thereof than any evil Jewish conspiracy.

For my money it's nice to see some of the American Jewish community wake up because a staggering amount of the policies of the people they elect are seriously damaging to the American Jewish community, but that's a whole other discussion.


What lack of facts?  The only real foreign policy mistake I fault Bush for is that he was too slow to fire Rumsfeld and the generals when it was apparent that their anti-insurgency strategy sucked.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:39:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By trwoprod:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
neo-con is a term that has so many conflicting meanings that it has no meaning. Just like the mythical "Bush doctrine."  Neither term represents any significant variation from traditional conservatism or realpolitik foreign policy.  Despite the hysterics of the left, the Bush administration was nothing more than a moderately conservative administration, albeit one that was ineptly managed.  


Not really.  It is an actual conservative movement, with a clear origin, people of note, publications, organizations, and so on.


There is no real philosophical difference from other conservative principles such as limited government and realpolitik foreign policy.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:43:47 PM EDT
Neo-Con is a euphemism  for Jewish conservatives.  Are you anti-Semitic?
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:45:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By trwoprod:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Only idiot children use the term neo-con any more the term has been so misused it has no meaning now.


What has happened is that anti-Semites have used it as a code word for "Jews" because a lot of the movements founders were secular Jewish liberals and this has resulted in those same folks insisting that it is a slur against their religion (which they observe about as much as I do).  There is a neo-conservative movement, is has had a large impact on the Bush Administration because their hostility towards actual conservatives has left them high and dry when it comes to friendly intellectuals and the neo-cons filled the gap.

The people described as "neo-cons" have been around for years.  During the Reagan years they were seen as liberals who had seen the light, in many cases because they were Jewish and the reality of the potential extermination of the Jewish state actually kick-started their brains.  THIS WAS NOT SEEN AS A PROBLEM!  The plight of Israel was the "mugging" that a lot of liberal secular Jews needed to take the Cold War seriously.

The problem was that the Bush people chose to listen to some of the weirder ones and to predicate things like foreign policy based on a startling lack of facts.  That speaks more to Bush's judgement or lack thereof than any evil Jewish conspiracy.

For my money it's nice to see some of the American Jewish community wake up because a staggering amount of the policies of the people they elect are seriously damaging to the American Jewish community, but that's a whole other discussion.


What lack of facts?  The only real foreign policy mistake I fault Bush for is that he was too slow to fire Rumsfeld and the generals when it was apparent that their anti-insurgency strategy sucked.


Oh dear, where to start ... Iraq would probably be a fair stab, since you brought it up.  Neo-conservatives that Rumsfeld was using as an echo chamber when the Pentagon gave him data that he didn't like deliberately chose to downplay the major sectarian differences in Iraq and the number of troops that would be needed to sit on these people until they developed something close to self-control and to keep Iran from doing everything that they could to derail the process.  Remember $87 billion dollars?  Remember greeting the troops with flowers?  Remember the insurgency being in its final throes (over and over and over again)?  Remember Iraq posing a serious threat to Israel (to the surprise of many Israeli defense analysis who had no idea where these people were getting that)?  Remember "there is no such thing as a Kurd" (I think that was Kristol, but I need to look it up)?  And so forth.

There are lots of sharp neo-conservatives and they were a big part of making Reagan's vision accessible to academic audiences (and before you scoff -- kids in school were hearing about how the USSR was a worker's paradise, no kidding, no fooling around until the fall of the Soviet Union, and ten years later, in part thanks to the neo-cons pointing out the failures of Communism in academic settings, Clinton was making a stronger free market case than most Republicans other than Reagan were in 1988).  Bush just picked some of the odder ones to listen to.  That and his Nixon/Ford retreads caused him massive problems.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:45:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OKC03Cobra:
Neo-Con is a euphemism  for Jewish conservatives.  Are you anti-Semitic?


I believe Rush Limbaugh said the EXACT same thing. Nice.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:47:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 12:49:06 PM EDT by trwoprod]

Originally Posted By OKC03Cobra:
Neo-Con is a euphemism  for Jewish conservatives.  Are you anti-Semitic?


No, it really isn't.  It is a conservative movement that came largely out of Jewish academic circles.  There were lots of Jewish conservatives who were prominent before the neo-cons.  They were also often ostracised because they were conservative by their co-ethnics.  To a large degree, neo-conservatives made it "OK" to be Jewish and conservative.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:48:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By trwoprod:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
neo-con is a term that has so many conflicting meanings that it has no meaning. Just like the mythical "Bush doctrine."  Neither term represents any significant variation from traditional conservatism or realpolitik foreign policy.  Despite the hysterics of the left, the Bush administration was nothing more than a moderately conservative administration, albeit one that was ineptly managed.  


Not really.  It is an actual conservative movement, with a clear origin, people of note, publications, organizations, and so on.


There is no real philosophical difference from other conservative principles such as limited government and realpolitik foreign policy.


Yeah, well, you say neo-conservative and I bring up Nixon (who hated Jews).  The interventionist strain that both shared is not classically American conservative, it is Wilsonian.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 12:48:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 12:49:18 PM EDT by emgr3]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
There is no such thing as a neo-conservative.


And the mafia only exists in the Sopranos..



Fine.  Define "neo-conservative."


The Pittsburgh Tribune did a good story on this a few years ago.

Link


That is a perjorative label.  There isn't a SINGLE person calling themselves "neo-conservative".
 


Yeah, not anymore.  Since they've become unpopular the label has become a perjorative but they gave it to themselves.  I will concede that it's frequently misused but there most certainly are neo-conservatives.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 1:06:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By emgr3:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
There is no such thing as a neo-conservative.


And the mafia only exists in the Sopranos..



Fine.  Define "neo-conservative."


The Pittsburgh Tribune did a good story on this a few years ago.

Link


That is a perjorative label.  There isn't a SINGLE person calling themselves "neo-conservative".
 


Yeah, not anymore.  Since they've become unpopular the label has become a perjorative but they gave it to themselves.  I will concede that it's frequently misused but there most certainly are neo-conservatives.


Who are "they"?  It was and always has been a perjorative.  "They" would as soon call themselves "neo-cons" as B. Hussein Obama calling himself a "neo-communist".
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 1:06:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I smell Ronbot's.


We have a winner


+1
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 1:07:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By trwoprod:

Oh dear, where to start ... Iraq would probably be a fair stab, since you brought it up.  Neo-conservatives that Rumsfeld was using as an echo chamber when the Pentagon gave him data that he didn't like deliberately chose to downplay the major sectarian differences in Iraq and the number of troops that would be needed to sit on these people until they developed something close to self-control and to keep Iran from doing everything that they could to derail the process.  Remember $87 billion dollars?  Remember greeting the troops with flowers?  Remember the insurgency being in its final throes (over and over and over again)?  Remember Iraq posing a serious threat to Israel (to the surprise of many Israeli defense analysis who had no idea where these people were getting that)?  Remember "there is no such thing as a Kurd" (I think that was Kristol, but I need to look it up)?  And so forth.


The idea that airpower alone could win wars with minimal ground support was a bad idea that has been floating around the DoD in various forms since Hiroshima.  The lastest incarnation began with Gulf War I and really gained steam in the Afghanistan war.  I thought it was a bad idea from day one for Iraq, but I cannot really fault Bush for adopting a strategy that seemed to have just worked in Afghanistan.  What I do fault him for is not giving up on the strategy when it demonstrated its inability to pacify the insurgency.  The best wartime Presidents, such as Lincoln, had no problem firing a host of generals until they found one who could win.  Bush didn't have that skill because he was a poor manager.

As for the rest of your examples, these are garbage statements which floated around during the public debate running up to and during the war.  No one can seriously think that we went to Iraq to defend Israel, but saying that Iraq was a threat to them was one additional reason provided to support the war in the court of public opinion.  As for the Kurds, regardless of what some pundit says, our policy has definitely recognized that the Kurds were distinct from Sunni and Shia.  

I don't see any core set of philosophical beliefs that distinguish a "neo-conservative" from other philosophies.  The term can alternatively mean:

(1) Conservatives who are not isolationist.  Which means that it has not distinction from a regular conservative since WWII.
(2) Conservatives who were once liberals.  We need a new term for this?  People change political allegiance all the time.
(3) Conservatives who are more in favor of big government.  How is this different from a moderate conservative?
(4) Conservatives who believe in Realpolitik foreign policy.  Realpolitik has existed since ancient Greece, and every Republican administration since Lincoln has engaged in it (and most Democrat ones as well).  Again, where's the difference from conservatism?
(5) Evil (usually Jewish) officials of the Bush Administration.  This is the current definition, and is merely a slur by which the left attempts to paint the current administration as some malevolent ideology which is completely un-American (like fascism).  This is nothing more than a slur.  
Top Top