Soros group raises stakes in battle with US neo-cons

FT.com Financial Times ^ | 1/11/02 | By James Harding in Washington

[Bigh4u2]

Soros still thinks he can influence the U.S. enough to change the Constitution so he can run for President.

Ain't gonna happen!

[BlackElk]

G7: The following is NOT an attack on you but on the abuse of language in the posted article and upon the Financial Times.

Isn't the Financial Times (of London) a Euroweenie pantywaist anti-American and antiwar website? Note the telltale use of the leftist invented term "neo-cons" in the headline. The body of the article does reference "conservatives" which is, of course, the proper term and embraces the entire post-Neville Chamberlain conservative movement.

"Movement" is also a word with a meaning. When combined with the word "conservative", we define out the boozy, weepy, anti-war poetry sniffling frauds who call themselves "paleo-cons" when they are actually paleo-wimps. The use of either of the terms "neo-con" or "paleo-con" suggests that poetry-loving sob sister paleowimpery is some alternative form of conservatism when it is actually a form of ideological surrender on the installment plan to the leftist enemies of Western Civilization who live to genuflect before the enemies of the west.

[DixieOklahoma]

What they are doing is finding out how their massive voter fraud campaign didn't work and how to better fund it in 06 and 08. FYI they are planning on moving (voter fraud) investment dollars from already fraud filled states into red states.

[DOGEY]

It's never dark unless your a liberal, in which event it's pitch black.

[Stultis]

have often wondered the same thing?? anyone??

Well, there are a number of potential definitions, and a number of disagreements about them, but the original meaning of the term was literal (new conservatives) and historical. It referred to liberals and liberal-leaning centrists who moved to the right politically, largely during the 70's and early 80's, and largely in reaction to the emergence of the "new left" in the late 60's and it's anti-americanism and the increasingly "soft" positions of liberals generally on issues of national defense. Some neocons were also or alternatively driven by social issues, but again this was largely in reaction to the extremism of late sixties and early seventies radicalism and the influence of such radicalism on more "moderate" liberals and on the 'Rat party.

You have to remember that prior to '68, '72 etc liberals were, in general, with some exceptions, reasonably strong on national defense and reasonably pro-American. Of course the hard left was constantly trying to infiltrate, control or influence the Democrat Party and liberal institutions, but (most) liberals resisted such attempts until the mid to late sixties. About that time they abandoned their vigilance almost entirely, denounced those defending liberalism against the extreme left as guilty of "red baiting" or "McCarthyism," or even openly welcomed a "common front" with communists and other leftist-extremists.

When liberalism began to be associated with appeasement and blame-america-first attitudes, "neocons" were created in reaction. They were basically liberals who became disgusted with what liberalism had become.

Examples of "neocons" in this historical sense could include former Democrats like:

1. Ronald Reagan: Although he made the move from liberalism to conservatism earlier than those generally defined historically as "neocons," he did so for the same reasons. California was of course somewhat ahead of the curve in the rise of 60's-70's radicalism and the reactions to it.
2. Jeane Kirkpatrick: America's U.N. Ambassador under Reagan. She coined the term "Blame America First" in a speech at the '84 Republican convention (think there's a link on my homepage) and worked for Reagan's reelection even though she was still officially a Democrat at the time. (I think she changed her registration in '85.)
3. Elliot Abrams: Along with Kirkpatrick and Reagan himself, Abrams is probably the single individual most responsible for the defeat of communism and the establishment of democracy in Central America. He was (is) a classic neocon -- genuinely concerned with issues of human rights and welfare, but maintaining moral clarity in dealing with thugs and despots.

Well, many others that could be listed, including a few who remained (so far as I know) in the Democrat party such as Ben Wattenberg (of "Think Tank" on PBS) or Kampleman (sp?) the fellow who spent three hard nosed years negotiating the Helsinki accords with the Soviets.

[gidget7]

You are probably right, as far as the website, and the content yes is posted to "allow us to know what the opposition is up to."

[TChris]

At a meeting in San Francisco last month, the left-leaning billionaires agreed to commit an even larger sum over a longer period to building institutions to foster progressive ideas and people.

Far from being disillusioned by the defeat of John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, the billionaires have resolved to invest further in the intellectual future of the left, one person involved said.

They had 95% of the Legacy Media on their side, 80-90% of public schools, colleges and universitiy faculty on their side, 95% of Hollywood on their side, and they still lost! Who's left to buy off?

[Dan from Michigan]

Time for another inside trading investigation of Mr. Soros.

[gidget7]

Thanks! As you probably saw, many here have wondered exactly what that meant!

[Nick Danger]

I think this is hilarious. They are basically admitting that the left has not had a new idea since Franklin Roosevelt died. So they need "think tanks" to come up with some.

They have all those leftist "professors" at all the universities, and it doesn't do 'em a bit of good.

So where are these billionaires going to get the Ph.D.s to staff their think tanks? I'll tell you where — from the same universities where the leftist Ph.D.s are now. These are the same zeroes who are having their clocks cleaned by the guys at Heritage, Cato, and AEI. Does Soros really believe that changing the name on their office doors is going to turn these leftist duds into geniuses? Good. Let him blow his money.

[shrinkermd]

IMHO these two aging liberals are making a big mistake. In the age of egalitarianism they are becoming highly visible as elites of the left.

Machiavelli said quite correctly that society is always ruled by elites and they are either "foxes" or "lions" in their method of rule. These two made their money by being foxes but seem to aspire to rule by being lions. Won't work.

In the meantime, Soros should know better. He studied with Karl Popper and has definite intellectual interests himself. Must have become more narcissistic than usual in his old age.

[Stultis]

Oh, someone you see almost every night if you watch Special Report, and whose columns you may read, Charles Krauthammer, is also a "neo-con" by both the historical definition of an ex- lib/dim, and the lefist defintion of a Republican jew.

[EternalVigilance]

Great informative posts!!

[gidget7]

Or Zill Miller?

[Herakles]

“George Soros, who made his fortune in the hedge fund industry”

Let me explain this babble speak:

Soros made his money by crashing the currency of third world countries, destroying businesses and throwing families out in the street, taking food off the plates of children and cloths off their back and forcing many into crime to support themselves.

This is how GEORGY SOROS made his money – by destroying the economy of countries. This man is the embodiment of evil walking the earth.

When Soros was circumcised, they threw away the better part.

[RicocheT]

Post 63 hit the nail on the head as to Soros & Co.'s plan. The leftist "get out the vote" in 2004 was well financed, but badly run. They will do it better (ie, worse and lawbreaking) next time. Voter fraud that's effective gave them several states (WI and others) and could have delivered Ohio if they tuned it better.

Voter ID at registration and at the polls is the only way to have honest elections. Voter ID to obtain an absentee ballot is also necessary. Ballots need numbers and tracking or dishonest election officials produce votes out of thin air (King County WA).

The Republicans and conservatives better work on election integrity or the left will win yet.

[jdege]

The intention is to provide the left with organisations in Washington that can match the heft of the rightwing think-tanks such as Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

The left already has think-tanks that far outstrip the right in funding, size, and influence.

The top think-tanks:

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research	Right
The Brookings Institution	Center-left
Cato Institute	Libertarian
Economic Policy Institute	Far-left
Electronic Privacy Information Center	Special interest
Freedom Forum	Left
The Heritage Foundation	Conservative
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace	Left
Hudson Institute	Center-right
Institute for Policy Studies	Far-left
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies	Far-left
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research	Center-right
Progressive Policy Institute	Radical-left
The Urban Institute	Center-Left
Worldwatch Institute	Radical-left

[gidget7]

I agree. Here you must produce a license with photo, and be on the registered list, to vote. If you miss the registration date, for new registrations, you don't vote. Period. The left still uses a lot of intimidation, but at least the registration part is in place. I can't understand why it isn't that way in every state.

[gidget7]

I know, I would like to see a whole lot more conservative!

[satchmodog9]

bump