Bogus argument. There is no solid definition of a neocon. Sometimes its the joooooos (Kristol, Pearl) who promoted war against the arabs, sometimes it’s Bush his blueblood old republican lineage. Sometimes its Cheney and Rummy, who have been center-right republicans since time began, sometimes its the young whipper-snappers like Rich Lowery and Laura Ingraham who grew up as Reagan brats. It’s whatever fits the author’s attempt to demonize who they don’t like.
CITE SPECIFIC ERRORS IN THE SPEECH!
As I explained in my previous posting NeoCon is no longer a little side movement of Conservatism, it's the main stream. The old-school Conservatives are the odd remnant, and not taken seriously.
No one except you brought up "the Jews". It is a silly attempt to attach a bogus charge of anti-semitism to those of us who are critical of aspects of neo-conservatism. Many prominant critics of Neo-Conservatism are also Jews.
Stop stirring the pot to create confusion and address the article, please.
Then there are the PaleoCons - Libertarians who vote for the Third Party wackOs which elects Liberal Democrats
1992
Clinton 43%
G.HW Bush 37%
Perot 19%
Third Party also gave us Carter.
The PaleoCons - Paulites, etc are stocking horses for the Left as that is who wins when they divide voters.