Divide and conquer
It's a time honored tradition.
Purplexed?
A polite way of putting it.
I think that the categories of "paleo-con" and "neo-con" are too broad and, therefore, that they are not accurate. Moreover, Wickipedia is not an accurate website. Anyone can come in and edit its content.
I happen to agree with most of the beliefs that Wickipedia attributes to the "paleo-cons," such as traditional values and limited government. But I support the War in Iraq and I oppose protectionism. So what am I?
I think that "neo-con" is just a convenient little label that the Buchananites are using to slap on any Republican who doesn't agree with their isolationist foreign policy.
Finally, if the Buchananites want to form a third party, they will guarantee the election of a Democrat president in 2008. Does anyone at FR honestly think that electing Hillary, Kerry, or any other Democrat in 2008 would be good for our country? Or does punishing "neo-cons" take precedence over doing what is best for America?
Actually, no. Alan Keyes and the Renew America folks were complaining like crazy for the first year of the Bush presidency that he wasn't a "real conservative"....
Not that I agree with Bush on border control and running such a high deficit, but....
.
Piss poor analysis. Conservatives, neo, paleo, or any other stripe, are dismayed by two things. Spending and immigration. Same things conservatives were dismayed about during Reagan's presidency.
This whole Bush is a neo-con crap is phony. He grew up a republican in a old line republican family. I've heard people call Rummy a neo-con. What crap. He's in his 70s and has been a stalwart GOPer all these years, before the stinking term "neo-con" was invented.
If George Bush and Condi and Cheney and Rummy and Bolton and Tony Snow and Richard Perle and Rush and Bill Bennett and Tommy Franks and Brit Hume are all neo-cons, then the term means nothing.
Bonnie is simply trying to redraw the lines of division and clean up the Paleo image a bit. Since most people are totally uninformed about Paleos it might work if Buchanan can keep his racism under control long enough.
Paleos are rabidly anti-Israel and pro-isolationists on trade as well as any foreign intervention. They literally cannot see anything that is more than a mile off the coast of the US. If they were in charge it would be worse than Clinton. We'd be fighting terrorism on the streets of every city in this country.
So yes, they are fossils.
We need to keep the good conservative principles that they share with more logical conservatives and let the bad die with the fossilized Paleos.
Seems to me that "neo-conservative" is an oxymoron, and their beliefs and deeds bear this out.
Neo-conservatives are not conservatives.
"Paleocons" believe in the principles of limited government, limited spending and borrowing, limited intervention into citizens' lives, and states' rights. They also believe in restraint of foreign entanglement, a strong national defense and traditional family values.
"Neocons" believe in an agressive foreign policy, empiric intervention in other nations to spread democracy, and global economic-trade policies. Weak on domestic policies, they lack emphasis on national issues. Their vision includes motivating our nation towards what I believe Pres. Bush's father referred to as the "New World Order." Include growth of government and overspending too.
Here I would add:
Neocons, because many came from the Democrat party, spend on domestic programs like there was no tomorrow.
We welcomed them at the time because they were strong Anti-Communists.
As to the Spending: Apparently this is why GWB finds it so simpatico to deal with Teddy and the rest ot the demz on NCLB, Medicare drugs Part D, $$$ billions for Katrina, tens of millions of new Democrat illegal aliens, etc. etc. etc.
For several years many Traditional, Conservative (Paleo is what the Neocons named us) Republicans believed/prayed that Bush was really a conservative. Now many of us know the truth.
This does not mean that I/we will leave the Republican Party, or that we will not fight for Bush when he is right, or when others attack him.
It means that I, for one, will fight for OUR country, the Republican Party, AND our president with my eyes wide open.
Just remember, I am furious about certain errors being made, and will stand and fight for what I believe is right.
The issue is a non-issue,
First, because it is manifestly insincere, ever since the Administration cozied up to the Lincoln Cabin group and he adopted Xlinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy. And catered to the extremist feminazis in Congress to continue Xlinton's time-table for pushing ahead with women at ground combat positions.
If he wanted to prove sincerity, All he needs to do is simply, publically ditch the above groups agendas and influence, and say that the President hereby issues the following Executive Order:
The IRS and SSA will not recognize any Gay Marriage for tax purposes or benefits, or any other, that any State which purports to adopt same, will not be honored.
He won't do that. "Wouldn't be prudent." But if he did, then based on sticking his scrawny neck out, the voters would have something to actually hang their hat on, and demand of their Congressmen in litmus-test fashion, and oust those who are for accommodating the destruction of traditional marriage.
Second, there are many, many other issues which have finally pegged the meter. Border Security. Amnesty. Port Security. Economic debilitation of the U.S. industrial base. Squandry of the Federal Budget. Constitutional recklessness. Catering relentlessly only to Big Business...ignoring and indeed attacking Small Business. Refusal to admit the inflation they have wreaked. [Inflation FOR THE VOTER, unlike the Feds monetarist delusion, is not wage inflation, it is the price of goods and services]. Refusal to admit the disaster the trade deficit he has incurred poses the nation. Refusal to recapitalize the military infrastructure after 6 long years opportunity to do so. Refusal to deploy a serious, robust NMD, instead playing games with it, only deploying one barely able to counter a North Korean attack alone.
This RINO who snuck in under false pretenses is political road-kill.
We need to make absolutely sure, come heck or high water, that he has ZERO influence in the next round of Republican presidential nominations. Therefore, anybody he supports...or is obviously playing a close game of patsy with such as John McCain...needs to be immediately turned into Road Kill.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
The America envisioned by the Paleocons is unworkable in today's world.
..The Paleocon's America...nostalgia
.The Neocon's plan for America....realistic
A very polite way of putting it. We are furious. If we wanted wild spending and new social programs we'd have elected dems. If we wanted the rule of law to be ignored and the borders to be left wide open we'd have elected dems.
Reagan began his career as a Democrat. He later said: "I din't leave the Democratic Party, it left me." I now feel the same about the Republican Party. There is nothing satisfying in knowing that those who grew government, doubled spending and threw open the border have an R after their names.
"Paleoconservative" isn't the most useful term. I doubt most of those discontented with Bush right now are "Chronicles" readers or former Buchanan voters. It's not the hard and fast ideologues who are discontented -- they've been off the reservation for a long time. Rather, it's people who are more flexible, but have been disappointed by the administration.
Paleos can deny it all they want, but Reagan was a neocon.
All the prominent neocons were and are Reaganites.
If the Palleos believe they are the Republican party they should run Buchanan or a Buchanan clone and see just how much support they get.
If Republicans want to hold their conventions in a minivan, and with some Buchananites, under a rock, dream of a Paleo Republican party.
"Paleocons" believe in the principles of limited government, limited spending and borrowing, limited intervention into citizens' lives, and states' rights. They also believe in restraint of foreign entanglement, a strong national defense and traditional family values"
Then I must be a Paleocon, and Proud of it.
My wake-up call came the morning I woke up to Howard Dean saying, "The first thing we want is tough border control, we have to do a much better job on our borders than George Bush has done." Though I knew this was blatant political rhetoric, it was shocking because I completely agreed with him.
_________________________________________________
What a dummie. In fact, it was Republicans in the House who pushed for the strict anti illegal immigration bill. And yet you still agree with Deaniac and dem rhetoric. Methinks you were never really a conservative...just a nativist at home in the Dem party.
Yeah. Right. They all screamed the same crap about Reagan during the 1980s. The problem is that is all this clique ever does. Squeal and squeal and squeal, then squeal some more. They never actually LEAVE. Just squeal that they are going to. Frankly most of us are sick and tired of hearing the 80,000,000,000 round of the Whine All The Time Choir.
Parting shot then I gotta go. In my mind, the Democrat's challenge is to forge Unity from Diversity and the Republican's challenge is to forge Diversity from Unity. Whoever pulls it off best will win in November. I think the Democrats have a much tougher job trying to organize a barnyard of special interest groups with the only shared value being victimhood. Republicans have got the upper hand since we share many conservative values but we have got to start working with each other to allow some diversity without compromising our integrity and not shooting those who don't agree with us individually. That is what POLITICS is all about. Over time, we can change the party from within and win; if we part ways we won't.
Guess I’m paleo.