You assume that they are some monolithic group acting in concert. That alone makes your analysis nonsense.
Who're the "they" in your response? I drew a distinction between what is claimed to be neoconservatism in the WH admin and the present vapid, dreary twerps who have claimed literati status. It is a rare conservative who can endure Kristol's continued haughtiness--and he is the premier neo "intellectual".
The children (and neighborhood children) of Irving the Wise and Midge the Judge and Gertrude the Unintelligible dominate the FEW conservative outlets that exist--Weekly Standard, NR--
What "acting" they do in concert is to bore and keep on boring with perfect immunity to a market that is tired of them--and writers like Ann Coulter send these little princelings of publishing running for Mumsey and the inhaler...
Are two neoconservative houses, both alike in dignity, feuding over the fate of Secretary Rumsfeld?
The conflict in question has been fought not with swords, as in Shakespeare, but with columns in the newspapers.
In the Washington Post on December 15, William Kristol, editor and founder of the Weekly Standard, raised eyebrows when he wrote that American troops "deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have."
In the New York Post on Tuesday, under the headline "Beltway Blunder: Why 'fire Rummy' crew failed," the columnist John Podhoretz responded with a spirited defense of Mr. Rumsfeld, which criticized "in-the-know" journalists who "say things in op-eds" and others who seek the defense secretary's ouster. dissention That sort of puts the kabosh on The Neoconservatives and the point of the article about escaping blame.